Problems with a cognitive model of eating behaviour

Page 145
Black blue
EATING BEHAVIOUR 145
contradictory attitudes towards foods in terms of ‘tasty’, ‘healthy’, ‘fattening’ and ‘a
treat’. Sparks et al. (2001) incorporated the concept of ambivalence into the Theory of
Planned Behaviour and assessed whether it predicted meat or chocolate consumption.
Participants were 325 volunteers who completed a questionnaire including a measure of
ambivalence assessed in terms of the mean of both positive and negative evaluations
(e.g. ‘how positive is chocolate’ and ‘how negative is chocolate’) and then subtracting
this mean from the absolute difference between the two evaluations (i.e. ‘total positive
minus total negative’). This computation provides a score which reflects the balance
between positive and negative feelings. In line with previous TPB studies, the results
showed that attitudes per se were the best predictor of the intention to consume both
meat and chocolate. The results also showed that the relationship between attitude and
intention was weaker in those participants with higher ambivalence. This implies that
holding both positive and negative attitudes to a food makes it less likely that the overall
attitude will be translated into an intention to eat it.
A cognitive approach to eating behaviour, however, has been criticized for its focus on
individual level variables only and for the assumption that the same set of cognitions
are relevant to all individuals. For example Resnicow et al. (1997) carried out a large
scale study involving 1398 school children as a means to predict their fruit and vegetable
intake. The study measured social cognitive variables including self-efficacy, social
norms and added additional cognitive variables including preferences and outcome
expectations. The results showed that only preferences and outcome expectations predicted actual eating behaviour but that 90 per cent of the variance in eating behaviour
remained unaccounted for. The authors concluded from this study that ‘SCT (social
cognition theory) may not be a robust framework for explaining dietary behaviour
in children’ (Resnicow et al. 1997: 275) and suggested that a broader model which
included factors such as self esteem, parental and family dietary habits and the availability for fruit and vegetables may be more effective.
Problems with a cognitive model of eating behaviour
A cognitive model of eating behaviour highlights the role of cognitions and makes
explicit the cognitions which remain only implicit within a developmental perspective.
It provides a useful framework for studying these cognitions and highlights their
impact upon behaviour. However, there are some problems with this approach as
follows:
I Most research carried out within a cognitive perspective uses quantitative methods
and devises questionnaires based upon existing models. This approach means that
the cognitions being examined are chosen by the researcher rather than offered by
the person being researched. It is possible that many important cognitions are missed
which are central to understanding eating behaviour.
I Although focusing on cognitions those incorporated by the models are limited and
ignore the wealth of meanings associated with food and body size.
I Research from a cognitive perspective assumes that behaviour is a consequence of
rational thought and ignores the role of affect. Emotions such as fear (of weight
Page 145
Black blue