The road to dietary sins is paved with the whisper of justifying self-talk

Examining dietary self-talk content and context for discretionary snacking behaviour: a qualitative interview study. Jordan Rose, Rebecca Pedrazzi & Stephan U. Dombrowski. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, Volume 10, 2022 - Issue 1, Pages 399-414, Apr 7 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2022.2053686

Abstract

Background: Consuming discretionary snack foods high in calories, salt, sugar or fat in between regular meals can have a negative impact on weight management and health. Despite the intention to refrain from discretionary snacking, individuals often report feeling tempted by snack foods. A cognitive process to resolve food choice related tension may be dietary self-talk which is one’s inner speech around dietary choice. This study aimed to understand the content and context of dietary self-talk before consuming discretionary snack foods.

Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews based on Think-Aloud methods were conducted remotely. Participants answered open-ended questions and were presented with a list of 37 dietary self-talk items. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically.

Results: Interviews (n = 18, age: 19–54 years, 9 men, 9 women) confirmed the frequent use of dietary self-talk with all 37 content items endorsed. Reported use was highest for the self-talk items: ‘It is a special occasion’; ‘I did physical activity/exercise today’; and ‘I am hungry’. Three new items were developed, eight items were refined. Identified key contextual themes were: ‘reward’, ‘social’, ‘convenience’, ‘automaticity’, and ‘hunger’.

Conclusions: This study lists 40 reasons people use to allow themselves to consume discretionary snack foods and identifies contextual factors of dietary-self talk. All participants reported using dietary self-talk, with variation in content, frequency and degree of automaticity. Recognising and changing dietary self-talk may be a promising intervention target for changing discretionary snacking behaviour.

Keywords: Dietary self-talkdiscretionary snackeating behavioursnackingthink-aloud methods

4. Discussion

4.1. Principal findings

Dietary self-talk in the context of discretionary snacking behaviour was a commonly reported phenomenon. Individuals seem to regularly use self-talk to resolve conflicts between intentions to eat healthily and to consume a snack high in fat, sugar or salt. This study verified and extended a list of 40 self-talk content items, which highlight the universal thoughts which were recognised as being used to justify discretionary snacking. When participants reflected on dietary self-talk, recurrent contextual themes were the justification of snacks as rewards, social influences of snacking, convenience-based considerations, thoughts on and the evidence of automaticity in relation to dietary self-talk and snacking behaviour and hunger. Although most participants reported intentions to avoid discretionary snacking, dietary self-talk could change these priorities suggesting that self-talk prior to snack choice situations might be a potential target for eating behaviour change interventions.

4.2. Strengths and weaknesses of the study

Little research to date has specifically explored the uses and content of dietary self-talk before eating snacks that are high in calories, salt, sugar or fat. This study revised and extended a previously developed list of dietary self-talk items, systematically capturing self-reported thought content (see Table 2). The self-talk items were formulated at a general level, rather than a specific level (e.g. ‘I did physical activity/exercise’ rather than ‘I went for a run’), allowing participants to project their own personal situations onto the item. The high level of recognition of all self-talk items suggests that the level of formulation might have been appropriate.

Several weaknesses should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of this research. Although the self-talk items were developed with input from the Italian, UK and Canadian participants, their content relevance in different cultural contexts is unknown. Moreover, the current list is the first attempt to catalogue a general dietary self-talk content around snacking and will require further refinement and extension. Individuals may also use idiosyncratic self-talk items which are specific to them and do not generalise to others; these will not have been included in the list. The groupings of the self-talk items were undertaken by the authors and different categorisations might exist (De Witt Huberts, Evers, & De Ridder, 2014; Verhoeven, Adriaanse, de Vet, Fennis, & de Ridder, 2015). Finally, the self-reported recognition of the self-talk content was high in participants, but it is not clear whether the self-talk content are thoughts that are experienced in the moment of the snacking choice context, or whether these are used as post-hoc justifications for behaviour that has already occurred.

4.3. Relation to other studies

The current study complements other research which has examined cognitions around food-based temptations. These cognitions are often referred to by different labels, such as justifications (De Witt Huberts et al., 2014; Verhoeven et al., 2015), reasons (De Witt Huberts et al., 2014; Verhoeven et al., 2015) or compensatory health beliefs (Knäuper, Rabiau, Cohen, & Patriciu, 2004).

The current study suggests dietary self-talk as one potential explanation for eating behaviour that conflicts with previous intentions. Dietary self-talk might be added to existing mechanisms of giving into temptations such as ‘attentional bias’ and ‘temporal discounting’ (Appelhans et al., 2016). In line with the goal conflict model of eating (Stroebe et al., 2013), most participants reported intentions to make healthy decisions; however, at the opportunity of eating a discretionary snack food, they reported often justifying snacking with the use of dietary self-talk. Figure 2 applies the goal conflict model of eating behaviour to a snacking context and integrates dietary self-talk as a possible mechanism, which leads to the consumption of discretionary snacks.

Figure 2. Dietary self-talk integrated into the goal conflict model of eating (Stroebe et al., 2013) applied to the discretionary snacking context.

In this model, the presence of discretionary snacks leads to the activation of the discretionary snacking goal. Dietary self-talk facilitates the activation of the discretionary snacking goal, while simultaneously inhibiting the healthy eating goal, leading to the increased likelihood of snack consumption.

Some of the content of the 40 dietary self-talk items has been captured previously in the concept of compensatory health beliefs (Knäuper et al., 2004). Compensatory health beliefs are a cognitive mechanism used in the presence of failing to resist temptations and have been defined ‘as beliefs that certain unhealthy (but pleasurable) behaviours can be compensated for by engaging in healthy behaviours’, p. 608 (Knäuper et al., 2004). Evidence suggests that compensation-based beliefs are formed during the moments of dietary conflict, and can lead to the consumption of discretionary snack foods (Kronick & Knäuper, 2010). There is some overlap between compensatory health beliefs such as ‘Breaking a diet today may be compensated for by starting a new diet tomorrow’ and the dietary self-talk items such as ‘I will start being healthier later’. However, the current list of dietary self-talk items differs from compensatory health beliefs in at least three ways. First, the dietary self-talk items go beyond compensation-based cognitions, covering additional cognitions, such as momentary based justifications including social occasions (‘It would be rude to refuse the snack’), emotions (‘I don’t care anymore/Whatever’) or rationalisations (‘This snack is cheap/on offer’). Second, the current list of dietary self-talk items is specific to the behaviour of consuming snack foods that are tempting, compared to the application of general compensatory health beliefs across several different health behaviour contexts. Third, the dietary self-talk items are thought content specific. Even when compensatory health beliefs are assessed as behaviour specific items (e.g. ‘To what extent did you think that you would compensate your snack, for example, by a subsequent sport session or with eating less the next time?’) (Amrein, Scholz, & Inauen, 2021), this differs from compensatory-related items in the dietary self-talk list, which attempt to provide a closer capture of the precise thought content (e.g. ‘Just this snack. I won’t have a snack later’).

The findings of the current study are similar to Verhoeven et al.’s (2015) study examining reasons for unhealthy snacking, which developed the 35 item reasons to snack inventory. (Verhoeven et al., 2015) The inventory asks individuals to rate the frequency of various reasons for consuming an unhealthy snack (e.g. ‘because it is a party or a birthday’, or ‘because you are watching a movie’). These reasons were grouped into six categories using factor analysis: opportunity induced eating, coping with negative emotions, enjoying a special occasion, rewarding oneself, social pressure, and gaining energy. There are several similarities between the reasons to snack inventory and thedietary self-talk list including both individual items and broad categories. Several individual items are similar in content (e.g. ‘Because you deserve it’ vs. ‘I accomplished something. I deserve it’). Moreover, several categories are similar in nature (e.g. ‘Social pressure’ vs. ‘Social Occasions/Social Rituals’) further validating the potentially broad nature of many of the cognitions and identified categories. However, there are some differences in some of the content, categories and focus. For example, the ‘functional/rationalisations’ category (e.g. ‘You only live once’, or ‘This snack is just small’) did not feature in the reasons to snack inventory (Verhoeven et al., 2015). Moreover, dietary self-talk items are phrased as ‘in the moment’ statements which are intended to represent individual thoughts in snack temptation contexts, whereas the reasons to snack inventory list general snack motives that are not specifically tied to a temptation context.

Several studies have systematically developed lists of behaviour change concepts, including theoretical domains (Michie et al., 2005), behaviour change techniques, methods and strategies (Hartmann-Boyce, Aveyard, Koshiaris, & Jebb, 2016; Knittle et al., 2020; Kok et al., 2016; Michie et al., 2013) environment changing targets (Hollands et al., 2017), modes and forms of intervention delivery (Dombrowski, O’Carroll, & Williams, 2016; Marques et al., 2020) and decision making processes such as heuristics and biases (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). These lists inform research to systematically understand and change behaviour relevant processes. The current dietary self-talk list adds to this literature providing a more specialised list, by focusing on one particular phenomenon (i.e. self-talk) for one specific behaviour (i.e. discretionary snacking), in a specific situation (i.e. temptation resulting from conflicting intentions). Moreover, the themes identified around – accounts of and reflects on – dietary self-talk provide additional contextual information surrounding the phenomenon, enriching the ability to interpret individual items and groupings.

4.4. Implications and future research

There are several areas of future research. The current 40 items dietary self-talk list requires confirmation, extension and quantification. Future research might examine dietary self-talk when it occurs ‘in the moment’ during snacking temptation contexts. Moreover, understanding the quantity and variability of dietary self-talk and its relation to behaviour and behaviour-related outcomes would be useful.

It is likely that the self-talk items are used in combination and future research might examine the clustering of some of the self-talk content items. This might be specifically relevant in certain contexts. For example, the feeling of hunger was a key theme identified in reflections on self-talk and seemed to give rise to the use of a variety of self-talk. The themes identified in this study might present a starting point for examining contextual factors triggering the combinations of self-talk items.

Given the seemingly general nature of some of the self-talk content, research focusing on the origin and function of general self-talk items might reveal how individuals come to embrace and use certain cognitions to overcome situations of temptation in favour of the health impairing behaviour.

Self-talk is an everyday occurrence and other behavioural domains where intention conflicts occur might be a target for future study. Potential areas for identifying the content of temptation related behavioural self-talk might, for example, be physical activity, alcohol consumption or sleep.

There are some areas of potential application of the current list of dietary self-talk items. The list could be used to inform the use of behaviour change interventions, such as coping planning based techniques like the volitional help sheet (Armitage, 2015), which aims to help to overcome situations of temptations by linking these to goal-directed responses in line with health-relevant intention.

In addition, interventions might focus on changing the style of the self-talk items that people typically use. An experiential study, for example, found that when participants are asked to engage in ‘distance self-talk’ (i.e. referring to themselves in the third person and by name) enhanced the pursuit of eating healthier compared to ‘immersed self-talk’ (i.e. referring to themselves in the first person).

Finally, participants’ contextual accounts and reflections largely suggested a lack of an ongoing internal dialogue when using dietary self-talk, with self-talk leading to a swift enactment of the snacking behaviour. Interventions might promote both the recognition of dietary self-talk when it occurs and the introduction of self-talk using counter arguments which could bolster health enhancing intentions.