4.5 Article

Eating to live or living to eat? Exploring the causal attributions of self-perceived food addiction

期刊

APPETITE
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 262-268

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.018

关键词

Food addiction; Beliefs; Causal attributions; Thematic analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies indicate that many people perceive themselves to be addicted to food. However, little is known about how the concept of 'food addiction' is defined amongst members of the lay public. The current study examined beliefs about the cognitive and behavioural manifestations of food addiction. Participants (N = 210) completed an intemet-delivered questionnaire in which they indicated whether or not they perceived themselves to be a food addict and provided a brief explanation for their response. Over a quarter of participants (28%) perceived themselves to be food addicts and self-diagnosis was predicted by increased BMI and younger age, but not by gender. Thematic analysis was conducted to explore the causal attributions provided by self-perceived food addicts and non-addicts. Six characteristics were identified: 1) Reward-driven eating (i.e. eating for psychological rather than physiological reasons), 2) A functional or psychological preoccupation with food, 3) A perceived lack of self-control around food, 4) Frequent food cravings, 5) Increased weight or an unhealthy diet, and 6) A problem with a specific type of food. The emergent themes, and their frequency, did not differ between self-perceived food addicts and non-addicts. However, self-perceived food addicts and non-addicts reported divergent cognitions, behaviours and attitudes within each common theme. This study is the first to provide qualitative insight into beliefs about food addiction in both self-perceived food addicts and non-addicts. The findings appear to reflect a view of food addiction that is identifiable through several core behaviours. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据