Projects

Previous research suggests that approximately 40% to 50% of the population increase food consumption under stressful conditions. The prevailing view is that eating in response to stress is a type of maladaptive self-regulation. Past research has concentrated mainly on the negative effects of social stress on eating. We propose that positive social experiences may also modulate eating behavior. In the present study, participants were assigned to social-exclusion, neutral, and social-inclusion conditions. In a subsequent bogus taste test, the amount of ice cream eaten and habitual stress-related eating were measured. After being socially excluded, people who habitually eat more in response to stress (stress hyperphagics) ate significantly more than people who habitually eat less in response to stress (stress hypophagics). Conversely, after being socially included, stress hyperphagics ate significantly less than stress hypophagics. The present findings provide the first evidence for complementary adjustments of food consumption across positive and negative situations. Implications of these findings for the relationship of stress and body weight are discussed.

Background:
The family environment is important for explaining individual health behaviour. While previous
research mostly focused on influences among family members and dyadic interactions (parent-child), the purpose
of this study was to develop a new measure, the Family Health Climate Scale (FHC-Scale), using a family-based
approach. The FHC is an attribute of the whole family and describes an aspect of the family environment that is
related to health and health behaviour. Specifically, a questionnaire measuring the FHC (a) for nutrition (FHC-NU)
and (b) for activity behaviour (FHC-PA) was developed and validated.


Methods:
In Study 1 (N = 787) the FHC scales were refined and validated. The sample was randomly divided into
two subsamples. With random sample I exploratory factor analyses were conducted and items were selected
according to their psychometric quality. In a second step, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using the
random sample II. In Study 2 (N = 210 parental couples) the construct validity was tested by correlating the FHC
to self-determined motivation of healthy eating and physical activity as well as the families’ food environment and
joint physical activities.


Results:
Exploratory factor analyses with random sample I (Study 1) revealed a four (FHC-NU) and a three (FHC-PA)
factor model. These models were cross-validated with random sample II and demonstrated an acceptable fit
[FHC-PA: χ2 = 222.69, df = 74, p < .01; χ2/df = 3.01; CFI = .96; SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .07, CI .06/.08; FHC-NU: χ2 = 278.30, df = 113, p < .01, χ2/df = 2.46, CFI = .96; SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .06, CI .05/.07]. The perception of FHC correlated (p < .01) with the intrinsic motivation of healthy eating (r = .42) and physical activity (r = .56). Moreover, parental perceptions of FHC-NU correlated with household soft drink availability (r = −.31) and perceptions of FHC-PA with the frequency of joint physical activities with the child (r = .51). These patterns were found on the intraindividual and interindividual level.


Conclusions:
Two valid instruments measuring the FHC within families were developed. The use of different
informants’ ratings demonstrated that the FHC is a family level variable. The results confirm the high relevance of
the FHC for individuals’ health behaviour. The FHC and the measurement instruments are useful for examining
health-related aspects of the family environment.

dc.title:

dc.contributor.author: Renner, Britta; Sproesser, Gudrun; Klusmann-Weißkopf, Verena; Schupp, Harald T.