title: Communicating eating-related rules. Suggestions are more effective than restrictions.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A common social influence technique for curbing unhealthy eating behavior is to communicate eating-related rules (e.g. 'you should not eat unhealthy food'). Previous research has shown that such restrictive rules sometimes backfire and actually increase unhealthy consumption. In the current studies, we aimed to investigate if a milder form of social influence, a suggested rule, is more successful in curbing intake of unhealthy food. We also investigated how both types of rules affected psychological reactance.
  
  
  METHODS
  Students (N = 88 in Study 1, N = 51 in Study 2) completed a creativity task while a bowl of M&M's was within reach. Consumption was either explicitly forbidden (restrictive rule) or mildly discouraged (suggested rule). In the control condition, consumption was either explicitly allowed (Study 1) or M&M's were not provided (Study 2). Measures of reactance were assessed after the creativity task. Subsequently, a taste test was administered where all participants were allowed to consume M&M's.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Across both studies, consumption during the creativity task did not differ between the restrictive- and suggested-rule-conditions, indicating that both are equally successful in preventing initial consumption. Restrictive-rule-condition participants reported higher reactance and consumed more in the free-eating taste-test phase than suggested-rule-condition participants and control-group participants, indicating a negative after-effect of restriction.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  RESULTS show that there are more and less effective ways to communicate eating-related rules. A restrictive rule, as compared to a suggested rule, induced psychological reactance and led to greater unhealthy consumption when participants were allowed to eat freely. It is important to pay attention to the way in which eating-related rules are communicated.
authors.affiliation: Psychological Assessment and Health Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany; Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Marijn.Stok@uni-konstanz.de.
authors.forename: F Marijn
authors.initials: FM
authors.lastname: Stok
authors.affiliation: Communication, Philosophy and Technology: Centre for Integrative Development, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Emely
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: de Vet
authors.affiliation: National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, Australia.
authors.forename: John B F
authors.initials: JB
authors.lastname: de Wit
authors.affiliation: Psychological Assessment and Health Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany.
authors.forename: Britta
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Renner
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Denise T D
authors.initials: DT
authors.lastname: de Ridder
mesh_terms: D001290:Attitude; D015992:Body Mass Index; D002099:Cacao; D003405:Creativity; D004435:Eating / Q000523:psychology; D005247:Feeding Behavior / Q000523:psychology*; D005260:Female; D005518:Food Preferences; D015438:Health Behavior; D006293:Health Promotion / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D006815:Hunger; D009426:Netherlands; D050177:Overweight / Q000517:prevention & control; D010565:Persuasive Communication; D066262:Social Norms; D013404:Suggestion; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Eating-related rules; Health communication; Restriction; Social influence; Suggestion