Apple or Chocolate – Intentional and Social-Reactive Processes in Eating Behavior Among Adolescents

Abstract

Abstract. Two studies examined the main assumption of the Prototype/Willingness Model for eating behavior. Accordingly, health-behavior in adolescents results from intentional and social-reactive processes, namely behavioral intentions and behavioral willingness. The hypothesis was that willingness explains eating behavior over and above intentions with respect to eating behavior in general and in the peer context. This was tested in a cross-sectional (N = 286) and a longitudinal (N = 335) study. Intentions and willingness were assessed for healthy and unhealthy eating, eating behavior using an eating pattern index, and observed food consumption in the peer context. Willingness explained variance in eating behavior over and above intentions. Intentional as well as social-reactive processes contribute to adolescents’ eating behavior. Implications for practice are discussed.

Adolescent Turkish migrants’ eating behavior in Germany: A comparison to nonmigrants in the home and host countries based on the prototype-willingness model.

“…Finally, the entire PWM with its two pathways was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) and found to explain 21.2% to 51.6% of the behavior variance (Dohnke, Steinhilber, & Fuchs, 2015; Steinhilber & Dohnke, 2014). In sum, these studies demonstrate the PWM with its social–cognitive factors to be relevant for the explanation of eating behavior in different cultures such as in the Netherlands (Gerrits et al, 2009), in Germany (Steinhilber et al, 2013; Fuchs et al, in press; Dohnke et al, 2015; Steinhilber & Dohnke, 2014), in the United States, in Hungary (Gerrits et al, 2010), in Japan (Ohtomo et al, 2011), and in Turkey (Steinhilber & Dohnke, 2014). To our knowledge, however, only one cross-cultural study tested differences between cultural groups: It revealed comparable prediction patterns of the social–cognitive factors among samples of adolescent nonmigrants in Turkey and in Germany (Steinhilber & Dohnke, 2014).…”

“…In addition, the perception of the healthy eater was found to be associated with the consumption of fruit and vegetables (Gerrits et al, 2010) and general eating behavior (Steinhilber et al, 2013). Furthermore, willingness predicted eating behavior over and above intentions (Fuchs, Steinhilber, & Dohnke, in press) and the consumption of unhealthy foods 3 (Ohtomo, Hirose, & Midden, 2011). Finally, the entire PWM with its two pathways was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) and found to explain 21.2% to 51.6% of the behavior variance (Dohnke, Steinhilber, & Fuchs, 2015; Steinhilber & Dohnke, 2014).…”

A prototype-targeting intervention for the promotion of healthy eating in adolescents

“…It was measured by behavioural observation in the peer context at T2 and T3 and a 24-h recall at T3, baseline values at T1 (Table III). The observation took place in two situations in which ready-to-eat food was offered, either fruit or sweets (for details see Dohnke et al , 2018; Fuchs et al , 2015). The amounts taken were recorded inconspicuously and aggregated across fruit and sweets by taking the mean.…”

“…Second, the study groups differed in age and order of food offered, so that any effects on the outcomes were statistically controlled for. Third, behavioural effects were mixed: they were not consistent across the two follow-up times, but across two indicators (T3) which reflect different facets of food consumption and were assessed by different methods: in the peer context by observation and in general by self-report (Dohnke et al , 2015; Fuchs et al , 2015). The results may nevertheless be considered promising, as the present study is one of few that tested effects of a prototype-targeting intervention on behaviour (Teunissen et al , 2012), not only on willingness (Blanton et al , 2001) or other cognitions.…”

The Effects of Implicit Theories on Body Weight Information Avoidance

“…They also completed a measure of self-reported body composition avoidance (8 items, α = .899; range = 1-6; Howell & Shepperd, 2016; e.g., "I would rather not know my body composition."). The survey then assessed their healthy eating intentions (i.e., intentions to eat fruit, green salad, and nonfried vegetables; three items; α = .723; Fuchs et al, 2015) and their unhealthy eating intentions (i.e., intentions to eat sweets, fast food, salty snacks, and sugary drinks; four items; α = .640; Fuchs et al, 2015) in the next month on a scale from 1 (=not at all) to 6 (=3 or more times per day). Exercise intentions were measured through two items assessing their intentions and likelihood for engaging in physical activity in the next month (r = .817).…”