BOREDOM AND EATING IN OBESE NON-OBESE INDIVIDUALS* EDWARD
E. ABRAMSON California
and SHAWN
State University,
G.
AND
STINSON
Chico
Abstract-Psychosomatic theorizing about obesity holds that obese individuals eat to cope with anxiety and other emotional St&S. On the basis of the demonstrated unpleasantness of boredom. it was hypothesized that obese would eat more food when confronted with a boring task than with an interesting task. Food consumption of normals would not be influenced by the task. Sixty female subjects were pre-loaded with food until they reported being full. Each subject then engaged in either a boring or an interesting task. Consumption of available food while performing the task was measured. Self-report questionnaires indicate that the respective tasks produced boredom and interest as desired. The results indicate that the obese consumed significantly more food than normals, and that boredom markedly increases food consumption for both obese and normals. The predicted interaction between weight and task was not found.
Schachter (1971) has proposed that external cues such as food taste (Decke, 1971), time of day (Schachter & Gross, 1968), visual prominence of food (Ross, 1969), and food palatability (Nisbett, 1968) are significant determinants of the eating behavior of obese individuals. Normal-weight individuals, on the other hand, tend to regulate food consumption on the basis of internal cues such as stomach contractions and blood sugar concentration (Schachter, Goldman & Gordon, 1968; Stunkard & Koch. 1964). An alternative view, the psychosomatic concept of obesity (Kaplan & Kaplan. 1957), holds that the overeating of obese individuals represents an attempt to cope with anxiety and other unpleasant emotional states. Experimental studies of the effects of anxiety on eating have been contradictory (Schachter, Goldman & Gordon, 1968; Abramson & Wunderlich, 1972; McKenna, 1972). Leon & Chamberlain (1973), in a questionnaire study. found little difference between obese and normals in reported frequency of eating associated with boredom. More than 25% of both weight groups reported eating when “lonely and bored”. In an experimental study which manipulated boredom-interest, Rodin (1975) concluded that the obese may not eat more when bored: they just eat more frequently. A direct comparison of eating by the obese under conditions of boredom vs interest was not made, however. This was the purpose of the present study. Specifically, on the basis of the psychosomatic concept of obesity, it was predicted that obese subjects would eat significantly more when placed in an experimental situation designed to elicit feelings of boredom than when confronted with an interesting task. The food consumption of normals, on the other hand. would not be influenced by the experimental task.
METHOD
Sixty female students attending California State University, Chico, were selected on the basis of their response to a disguised selection questionnaire. Obesity was defined as a 159,; or greater positive deviation from the normal standard (Reeve. 1942). while subjects in the normal weight group were required to be less than IO’:,, above this
*This article is based on a thesis submitted by the second author nia State Llniversity. Chico in partial fulfillment of the requirements 181
to the Department of Psychology. for the M.A. degree.
Califor-
EIIL~~ARI) E. ABRAUSON
18’
Table
Weight Obese Obese Normal Normal
I.
Experimental task Boredom Interest Boredom Interest
Physical
and
SHAWN
characteristics
G.
STINSON
of the subjccta
N
Meall age
Mean height (in.)
IS 1s 15 I5
20.3 19.5 19.x 19.7
66.2 65.1 64. I 64.9
Weight (lb) 159.1 151.2 124.3 127.1
Mean weight deviation (“,J 23.2 ‘0.X 2.7 I .h
standard. Height and age norms for weight published by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1959) were used to make this determination. The relevant physical characteristics of the subjects are presented in Table 1. Procedure
When a subject arrived for the experiment she was met by the experimenter and ushered into a small room that was adjacent to the experimental task room. To minimize self-consciousness about eating, the study was conducted under the guise of an experiment on mood states. The experimenter played the following tape recorded passage to the subject: “The experiment that you are about to participate in is a study on mood states. Prior research has indicated that mood may be related to deprivation state. In an attempt to control for this possible relationship we are requiring that each participant begin the experiment on a full stomach. On the table before you are a plate of roast beef sandwiches and a glass of water. Just help yourself to the food and water. Eat as much as you want--until you’re full”. The experimenter then asked the subject if she liked roast beef sandwiches. If the subject indicated any dislike for the sandwiches she was disqualified from the experiment. Three subjects were disqualified for this reason. The experimenter left the room and allowed the subject 8 min to eat. When the experimenter returned the following tape-recorded passage was played to the subject: “This study requires that you feel as relaxed and unencumbered as possible. For this reason we require that you remove any rings and watches from your person. You may deposit them in this envelope and pick them up after the experiment”. This request was made because the subject was later required to estimate how fast or slow time passed during the experimental task. Prior research has suggested that time passes more slowly for those involved in boring tasks than for those performing interesting tasks (Geiwitz, 1964; Loehlin. 1959: London, Schubert & Washburn, 1972). The subject was then led into the experimental task room and seated at a table. Borrdom. The boredom task consisted of writing the letters “cd” over and over again (London rt trl.. 1972). The following tape recorded passage was played to the subject: “This is an experiment on mood states. It has been demonstrated that certain tasks and activities evoke various moods in people. I will be interested in the moods that this task will evoke in you. This task involves writing the letters “cd” over and over again. Write the letters at a moderate pace and in a relaxed and comfortable manner. Remember, this is not a test and I will not be evaluating you on the number of “cd’s” that you will write. I am just interested in the moods that this task will evoke in you.” A bowl containing ten Wheat Thin crackers was on the table within the subject’s reach. Just before leaving the room, the experimenter stated (in a casual manner) the following: “Feel free to help yourself to some crackers if you would like.” As he made this statement, he poured the remaining crackers of an open Wheat Thin box (75
qnuI~1s
~euo~lou~a
u!a~syut~la luasald
aql
01 a+uodsal
‘78 IaLaN ‘alaIs ~J!M
‘-Tauqd
lwogoura me~~~u8~s
a.taM sacwalau!p
kl_n?[!ux~s
01 $Dadsal u!
Buged!yt?d
slDa[qns
pue
aJOuI aJaM slZa[qns (~~61)
lut?st?aldun
sdno&i ou
lL@aM
‘sisal
aq$ leql
-Dadsal
ssal
sleaddE
alow
a.rc
pue
sBu~puy
(10’0
r_upoa
+adxa
aql ihy-tp
uuql ‘ywi
aql 01 sasuodsal
lt?ql
lo!Avqaq
‘[Ru.IOu
30 slnoq
pua
[Moq
s@a[qns
OILI! palnod s!ql
E?ugcnjt?Aa k?ugaaJ
aql
lvql
u!
asaqo
aq$ pa$Xgt? 2Iu!sn asaqo
‘saypnls asoql
asayl qi!~
%I!J!IM
JO qioq
UI ‘(~~61)
alaw
aql
ysel
01 pasn
aql
aqL sysel
‘zl!m!al;))
aizg
qD.n?asaJ
uvql
leql aql
:puno3
8uIloq
a_yvuuo!lsanb pa3npold
ip961
aql
J!aq$ ,,pg,,
(10.0
> d)
pallodal
pur!
u! 8u!ledp!lJ~d
> d) ~C]MOIS alotu
(10’0
%I!I!JM
sllnsal
31 wopa.Ioq
%I!~!.IM ,,p3,,
sasuodsal uropaloq LIOJS
SBM ysel 2~11 8u~lnp
slDa[qns
1sr?.rluo3
ST uropaloq
ysel
.pa.wdruoD
30
pue
: 6561 ‘uqqao7 8uy.1~
sfaI $[a3 ysvl %+loq
paw
LOIS
ueql
(10’0
%I~!_IM ,,p3,, aql pa1v.I slDa[qnc; aJaM sisal
> 6) .salI?!3s
1 papal-au0
SL-IrlS3H
01 ldr_uallv slDa[qnS
LIB UT (TW
urd
luads
aql .1al3y sluE?d!~,!lJt?d
pau!eIdxa
‘pafqns aqJ
30
aql ‘luaus
.ysel
pals!suo~
lsalalu!
aql
(~~61)
JO tuopaloq
lay
pa1 SCM aql iuauIaws
aql
u!
1 ‘al!.tM
laizo
se
ayt?L
s! 1BqM
aXII?lsu~
sp.1~3
sv
11!M noiC
ye%? q3nw
lr? Buyaddgq [Ial
‘IaAo
10~ ‘Jqfi@I
aql
ayoAa
u.InL
.salnl
30 y3Eq
II’M
ayoAa
YSEl
w
pul?
s! s’ql,, pap.Io3a.I
CyeuIaq~ aqJ_
aqi
JO
‘lsa~w4~
‘LUO0.I aql
‘IMoq
s!ql
sa!l!AgX?
luauqladxa SBM a%ssed
uogdaDladdv $sa.Ialu!
aql
‘1uaLu
$Da[qns q%g us Byureural
lDa[qns
r? pau@
aql
au!u
u!
olu!
Jaluau+adxa sv~
uIopa.Ioq wv
‘JaquIawaa
aql
lI?qM
auo
sp.n?3 asaql
u!
uo
1saL
iCIdura
00: 6 put?
SEM iCpn]s aqL
pur! IMoq aql
luawalvls
01 Lpnls
aql
wq
e le
ale
.noL
snol.wA
poour
01 paLeId
(J,VL)
uoypuo3
xoq
lal3y
OSI’? al!euuo!lsanb lu!od
.ysvl
.Iaqlow u! apwu
‘uoypuo~ lsnf
s! s!ql
luaurour
pai
‘aurg
.sa.uwrd ug
u! spoour
11 .salels
aql
spn?3
pals!suo3
%I!$!.IM 30
OSI’? SBM Ja$I?M %I!yU!l(J
SBM
uaql
u1o0.1
01 p.nGal
palsalalu! B lou
put!
0~ dn
pur!
s!ql aql
1 .aldoad svq
SI! p.n23 I? 103 awg
no,4
laqkt
aql
111~ ysl?l no/( aIqv$
I[!M uaaq
alayti
u! isal
pInoM
aql
luaAa
aas
aq
pawwqns
aql ‘LLIOO.Iaql 13aI pcq
aqL
aqs
pur? U!LLI gz u! pau.uI1a.I Buya
s.IayX?.ID aql
II!M 1 pur!
s.IapE.n?q~ UMoqs
%I!~!.IM aAIoAu! amos
paisa.Ialu! palsqsuourap
“1~ la uopuo~)
sarlo$s paddoJp
aql 30 uogaIduro3
papn[Du!
%I~SS~SSI? salws pa@j
alaM
spoour
aq lou
noiC 31 ‘ayg
an?
.LIO~S I? al!JM
lnoqc
aq]
sa~.Iois
aXn2l
u!
leql
*‘(zL~[ u!
I? olu!
aJaM
B .IaAo pa$XIpuocI
81~02! _‘q 1 LIalvur!xolddt? s!ql
pur? ‘lay
‘aI!euuo!lsanb
sural!
aql
a.ywuo!lsanb E lno
01 lDa[qns aql payse
aq$
II’M ysEl
aql
~lr! qs!uy
pur!
‘aJnlDyd
.alnlD!d
lnoqa
al!qM
aql
u!allaD
%_I!MO[IOJ aqL IL? 01 asuodsal 1ayseqaiseM
az!uropuel
UI? u! unl
yaarn-c
Jaqwnu
.taluaur!ladxa
01 IOU Zu!aa.&
icut? palamsw aql
q$!M Suy?ap
s8ugaa3
UIO_I~ paldcpe
ilur:
8u!leu.Ial]e
po!lad
aql q8nolql
paJuno
aqi ssnwp
suogsanb
aql az@u’?
aNV
u! saccwag!p
uo~qsv3
UaaMlaq
sno!.reA aqi
luau+adxa
lvql
8u!lva
pue
a.yeuuoysanb
%_I!~!IM dols
ysel
alow ywl
l!aql
a.Iour se ysel
‘slDa[qns
Zu!ll?a
.a.!)
aql
aqi 30 sasEqd 30 Iaqwnu
sJayX?:13
aJaM
pu?? paq%?!aM Jaluauytadxa
aq$ %pnp
suoyal
‘1~ ~a uopuo7
01 pau2!sap
aql
aunts
ayoi\a
sa!lols
leql
aql
‘8ugu!ql noA
asaql
-aid
5p.1R3
spoour
Lq pallodal
UC SR pazqenldaDuo3
pue
asay
> d) Bu!qJosqc
> d) Ada+
‘(gyo
%~lsa.Blu!
spa[qnc;
> d) %+IOq
ssaj put? (ro()g
lu!od-au!u
se lsalralu!
11 ‘(7.7.761 “10 la uopuo7 u!
pal!nbal
> d) pa.g yei
awl1 lr?ql pallodal
%I~LI
0~1
I pa[y-auo
lq?Qam-[t?urlou .pal!sap
qlL.44 iuawaa.&
laqn2a uoguailr! (10’0
SlDafqnS passvd
%!lSaJalU!
NOISSrl3SIa
alzl?q iq@u
‘aSaq0
~pXII.IOu
‘UIT ()():6
‘gg woq
E alo3aq
payDads .pas!sJ
pa_uw?aur -padxa 01
SsassB
]Dafqns aqL
.uIaql
u!
._noL
sp_w
i~els
aq!lDsap
uo
aql lvql syssl
:pa[qns adel sarlas
aLj$ 01 a1qEI+?:“E
‘Sl3a[qtlS
ivy1
olu!
U! SCM
(sJayX2.I~
IX3
EDLVNII
E.
AHRAhlSc~N
and
SHAWV
Boredom
I.
Mean
STIWN
Interest Task
Fig.
G.
number
condition
of crackcrs
consumed.
than their normal-weight peers. The failure to find differences in the present study may be due to the relatively weak emotional arousal produced by the “cd” task. Although unpleasant. it was not likely to produce the same intensity of reaction as the manipulations used in the earlier studies (e.g. a vivid description of one’s own death from leukemia).
The groups did not differ significantly in the number of roast beef sandwiches consumed. An analysis of variance was computed on the cracker consumption data. The Hartley F max Statistic (Kirk, 1968) however, showed a lack of homogeneity of variance and indicated that a transformation of the raw data would be required before the analysis could be carried out. Because the raw data were positively skewed and the square root ratio test was more constant than the log ratio test (Lathrop. 1971). the square root transformation was used. The analysis of variance yielded two significant main effects with no significant interaction. Obese subjects ate more than normal-.weight subjects. F (1,56) = 10.96, 11< 0.01 : bored subjects ate more than interested subjects, F (1,56) = 7.48, p < 0.01 (see Fig. 1). An analysis of subjects’ self-reported desire to eat yielded similar results. Obese subjects reported a greater desire to eat than normal subjects. F (1,56) = 18.49. p < 0.01; bored subjects indicated greater desire than interested subjects, F (1.56) = 9.84, p < 0.01. The finding that obese subjects consumed more crackers than normal-weight subjects is consistent with Schacterian theory. Normals had few. if any internal cues due to their pre-loading with roast beef sandwiches. Therefore they ate less than the obese who were confronted with the bowl of crackers, a potent external cue. However. the predicted interaction between weight and task did not appear. Although contrary to psychosomatic theorizing, the finding that boredom did not differentially affect weight groups is consistent with the results of Leon & Chamberlain’s (1973) study. Alternatively. the failure to find the hypothesized interaction could be attributed to the use of the story writing task. It is possible that this task was not sufficiently interesting even though it was less boring than letter writing. Future research using different interest manipulations should clarify this issue. The present findings relating to normal-weight subjects are inconsistent with Schachter’s theory. Normal-weight subjects ate more under the boring conditions. despite the equivalence of internal cues resulting from the pre-loading.
Boredom
and eating
185
Although the results do not support the role of boredom as a causal factor in obesity. they appear to have direct implications for treatment. It may be helpful for dieters, regardless of their weight to remove food from areas where boredom regularly occurs. REFERENCES Abramson. E. E. 6i Wunderlich. R. A.. Anxiety. fear and eating: A test of the psychosomatic concept of obesity. Jounzul (?I Ah,~or~,zul Psychology. 1972, 79, 3 17-311. Deckc, E.. Effects of taste on the eating behavior of obese and normal persons. Cited in S. Schachter, Enlotion. Ohesiry cr/~d Crinw. New York: Academic Press. 197 I. Geiwitr, P. J., Hypnoticall) indiced boredom and time estimation. P.s~;chonornic Science. 1964, 1, 177-278. Kaplan, H. I., & Kaplan. H. S.. The psychosomatic concept of obesity. Jour!zu/ of 3Yc~rvous urld Mr!ltu/ Di.scu.sc. 1957. 125, I8 I -I X9. Kirk, R., E.\-pcrimwtul fkwqrr : Procc&ws for the> Bhoioral Scirrms. Belmont. Calif.: BrooksiCole Publishing, 196X. Lathrop. R. G., Selected techniques of data analysis: The analysis of variance. Unpublished manuscript. California State L!niversity Chico, 1971. Leon. G. R.. & Chamberlain. K.. Emotional arousal, eating patterns. and body image as differential factors associated with varying success in maintaining a weight loas. JOLII.M~/of’Cot~su/lity untl Cfinictrf Ps~cl~ofoqy. 1973. 40. 474 480. Loehlin. J. C.. The intluence of difl’ercnt activities on the apparent length of time. Ps!&~/oyic~~I Monoqrtrphs, 19.59. 73 (474). London. H.. Schubert. D. S.. & Washburn. D.. Increase of autonomic arousal by boredom. Jo~~rnul of Ahnorrnr~l P.sldw/o~~y. 1972. 80, 29 36. McKcnna. R. J.. Some ell’ects of anxiety level and food cues on the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects. Jowmrl of Pcr.wntr/it~~ td Social Psyh/og~~. 1972, 22, 3 I I-3 19. Metropohtan Life Insurance Company. New weight standards for men and women. Srnti\tictrl Bullrtin, 1959. 40. l-4. Nisbctt. R. E.. Taste. demlvation. and weight determinants of eating behavior. Jour/d of Pc~rsou/~tv md Sociul P.s~ch/o~~~~, 1468. 107 -I 16. Plincr. P.. Mever. P., & Blankstan. K.. ResDonslveness to affective stimuli bv obese and normal individuals. .Iorrnztrl 0;’ 4hmrrwrl P.s~~c~/KJ/o~~~. 1974. 83. 74-80. Reeve, G. H.. Psychological factors in obesity. Anwric~trn dourntd of arr/lopsJ,~hiclrr~. 1947, 12, 674-678. Rodin. J., Effects of distraction on performance of obese and normal subjects. Journtrl of Compurufiw rrd P/~~\ioloyici,l P.\wl~oloy~~. 1973. 83, 6X 75. Rodin, J., Causes and consequences of time perception differences in overweight and normal weight people. Journcr/ c!f Prr.w~tr/it~~ rrd Social Ps~~c~l~olo~q~~, 1975, 31. 898 904. Ross. L. D., Cue and cognition-controlled eating among obese and normal subjects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. 1969. Schachter, S.. Some extraordinary facts about obese humans and rats. Anwricm P,\~~c~holoyi.st,1971. 26, l39- 144. Schachter. S.. & Gross, L., Eating and the manipulation of time. Journtrl of Prrsorrtrlirj, rrntl So&r/ P.~LYM~~~~~. 196X. IO. 9s 106. Schachter. S.. Goldman. R.. Kr (Gordon. A.. Effects of food deprivation and fear on eating behavtor. Jowntrl of’ Pcr,\o,l~r/itl~ r,nr/ St~c,~tr/P\I c/I~I/CI~I. 196X. 10, 9 I 97. Stunkard. A. J.. & Koch. C.. The Interpretation of gastric motility. Archiws of’ Gcwcrtrl P.5vd~idtry. 1964. 2, 74 82.
E. ABRAMSON California
and SHAWN
State University,
G.
AND
STINSON
Chico
Abstract-Psychosomatic theorizing about obesity holds that obese individuals eat to cope with anxiety and other emotional St&S. On the basis of the demonstrated unpleasantness of boredom. it was hypothesized that obese would eat more food when confronted with a boring task than with an interesting task. Food consumption of normals would not be influenced by the task. Sixty female subjects were pre-loaded with food until they reported being full. Each subject then engaged in either a boring or an interesting task. Consumption of available food while performing the task was measured. Self-report questionnaires indicate that the respective tasks produced boredom and interest as desired. The results indicate that the obese consumed significantly more food than normals, and that boredom markedly increases food consumption for both obese and normals. The predicted interaction between weight and task was not found.
Schachter (1971) has proposed that external cues such as food taste (Decke, 1971), time of day (Schachter & Gross, 1968), visual prominence of food (Ross, 1969), and food palatability (Nisbett, 1968) are significant determinants of the eating behavior of obese individuals. Normal-weight individuals, on the other hand, tend to regulate food consumption on the basis of internal cues such as stomach contractions and blood sugar concentration (Schachter, Goldman & Gordon, 1968; Stunkard & Koch. 1964). An alternative view, the psychosomatic concept of obesity (Kaplan & Kaplan. 1957), holds that the overeating of obese individuals represents an attempt to cope with anxiety and other unpleasant emotional states. Experimental studies of the effects of anxiety on eating have been contradictory (Schachter, Goldman & Gordon, 1968; Abramson & Wunderlich, 1972; McKenna, 1972). Leon & Chamberlain (1973), in a questionnaire study. found little difference between obese and normals in reported frequency of eating associated with boredom. More than 25% of both weight groups reported eating when “lonely and bored”. In an experimental study which manipulated boredom-interest, Rodin (1975) concluded that the obese may not eat more when bored: they just eat more frequently. A direct comparison of eating by the obese under conditions of boredom vs interest was not made, however. This was the purpose of the present study. Specifically, on the basis of the psychosomatic concept of obesity, it was predicted that obese subjects would eat significantly more when placed in an experimental situation designed to elicit feelings of boredom than when confronted with an interesting task. The food consumption of normals, on the other hand. would not be influenced by the experimental task.
METHOD
Sixty female students attending California State University, Chico, were selected on the basis of their response to a disguised selection questionnaire. Obesity was defined as a 159,; or greater positive deviation from the normal standard (Reeve. 1942). while subjects in the normal weight group were required to be less than IO’:,, above this
*This article is based on a thesis submitted by the second author nia State Llniversity. Chico in partial fulfillment of the requirements 181
to the Department of Psychology. for the M.A. degree.
Califor-
EIIL~~ARI) E. ABRAUSON
18’
Table
Weight Obese Obese Normal Normal
I.
Experimental task Boredom Interest Boredom Interest
Physical
and
SHAWN
characteristics
G.
STINSON
of the subjccta
N
Meall age
Mean height (in.)
IS 1s 15 I5
20.3 19.5 19.x 19.7
66.2 65.1 64. I 64.9
Weight (lb) 159.1 151.2 124.3 127.1
Mean weight deviation (“,J 23.2 ‘0.X 2.7 I .h
standard. Height and age norms for weight published by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1959) were used to make this determination. The relevant physical characteristics of the subjects are presented in Table 1. Procedure
When a subject arrived for the experiment she was met by the experimenter and ushered into a small room that was adjacent to the experimental task room. To minimize self-consciousness about eating, the study was conducted under the guise of an experiment on mood states. The experimenter played the following tape recorded passage to the subject: “The experiment that you are about to participate in is a study on mood states. Prior research has indicated that mood may be related to deprivation state. In an attempt to control for this possible relationship we are requiring that each participant begin the experiment on a full stomach. On the table before you are a plate of roast beef sandwiches and a glass of water. Just help yourself to the food and water. Eat as much as you want--until you’re full”. The experimenter then asked the subject if she liked roast beef sandwiches. If the subject indicated any dislike for the sandwiches she was disqualified from the experiment. Three subjects were disqualified for this reason. The experimenter left the room and allowed the subject 8 min to eat. When the experimenter returned the following tape-recorded passage was played to the subject: “This study requires that you feel as relaxed and unencumbered as possible. For this reason we require that you remove any rings and watches from your person. You may deposit them in this envelope and pick them up after the experiment”. This request was made because the subject was later required to estimate how fast or slow time passed during the experimental task. Prior research has suggested that time passes more slowly for those involved in boring tasks than for those performing interesting tasks (Geiwitz, 1964; Loehlin. 1959: London, Schubert & Washburn, 1972). The subject was then led into the experimental task room and seated at a table. Borrdom. The boredom task consisted of writing the letters “cd” over and over again (London rt trl.. 1972). The following tape recorded passage was played to the subject: “This is an experiment on mood states. It has been demonstrated that certain tasks and activities evoke various moods in people. I will be interested in the moods that this task will evoke in you. This task involves writing the letters “cd” over and over again. Write the letters at a moderate pace and in a relaxed and comfortable manner. Remember, this is not a test and I will not be evaluating you on the number of “cd’s” that you will write. I am just interested in the moods that this task will evoke in you.” A bowl containing ten Wheat Thin crackers was on the table within the subject’s reach. Just before leaving the room, the experimenter stated (in a casual manner) the following: “Feel free to help yourself to some crackers if you would like.” As he made this statement, he poured the remaining crackers of an open Wheat Thin box (75
qnuI~1s
~euo~lou~a
u!a~syut~la luasald
aql
01 a+uodsal
‘78 IaLaN ‘alaIs ~J!M
‘-Tauqd
lwogoura me~~~u8~s
a.taM sacwalau!p
kl_n?[!ux~s
01 $Dadsal u!
Buged!yt?d
slDa[qns
pue
aJOuI aJaM slZa[qns (~~61)
lut?st?aldun
sdno&i ou
lL@aM
‘sisal
aq$ leql
-Dadsal
ssal
sleaddE
alow
a.rc
pue
sBu~puy
(10’0
r_upoa
+adxa
aql ihy-tp
uuql ‘ywi
aql 01 sasuodsal
lt?ql
lo!Avqaq
‘[Ru.IOu
30 slnoq
pua
[Moq
s@a[qns
OILI! palnod s!ql
E?ugcnjt?Aa k?ugaaJ
aql
lvql
u!
asaqo
aq$ pa$Xgt? 2Iu!sn asaqo
‘saypnls asoql
asayl qi!~
%I!J!IM
JO qioq
UI ‘(~~61)
alaw
aql
ysel
01 pasn
aql
aqL sysel
‘zl!m!al;))
aizg
qD.n?asaJ
uvql
leql aql
:puno3
8uIloq
a_yvuuo!lsanb pa3npold
ip961
aql
J!aq$ ,,pg,,
(10.0
> d)
pallodal
pur!
u! 8u!ledp!lJ~d
> d) ~C]MOIS alotu
(10’0
%I!I!JM
sllnsal
31 wopa.Ioq
%I!~!.IM ,,p3,,
sasuodsal uropaloq LIOJS
SBM ysel 2~11 8u~lnp
slDa[qns
1sr?.rluo3
ST uropaloq
ysel
.pa.wdruoD
30
pue
: 6561 ‘uqqao7 8uy.1~
sfaI $[a3 ysvl %+loq
paw
LOIS
ueql
(10’0
%I~!_IM ,,p3,, aql pa1v.I slDa[qnc; aJaM sisal
> 6) .salI?!3s
1 papal-au0
SL-IrlS3H
01 ldr_uallv slDa[qnS
LIB UT (TW
urd
luads
aql .1al3y sluE?d!~,!lJt?d
pau!eIdxa
‘pafqns aqJ
30
aql ‘luaus
.ysel
pals!suo~
lsalalu!
aql
(~~61)
JO tuopaloq
lay
pa1 SCM aql iuauIaws
aql
u!
1 ‘al!.tM
laizo
se
ayt?L
s! 1BqM
aXII?lsu~
sp.1~3
sv
11!M noiC
ye%? q3nw
lr? Buyaddgq [Ial
‘IaAo
10~ ‘Jqfi@I
aql
ayoAa
u.InL
.salnl
30 y3Eq
II’M
ayoAa
YSEl
w
pul?
s! s’ql,, pap.Io3a.I
CyeuIaq~ aqJ_
aqi
JO
‘lsa~w4~
‘LUO0.I aql
‘IMoq
s!ql
sa!l!AgX?
luauqladxa SBM a%ssed
uogdaDladdv $sa.Ialu!
aql
‘1uaLu
$Da[qns q%g us Byureural
lDa[qns
r? pau@
aql
au!u
u!
olu!
Jaluau+adxa sv~
uIopa.Ioq wv
‘JaquIawaa
aql
lI?qM
auo
sp.n?3 asaql
u!
uo
1saL
iCIdura
00: 6 put?
SEM iCpn]s aqL
pur! IMoq aql
luawalvls
01 Lpnls
aql
wq
e le
ale
.noL
snol.wA
poour
01 paLeId
(J,VL)
uoypuo3
xoq
lal3y
OSI’? al!euuo!lsanb lu!od
.ysvl
.Iaqlow u! apwu
‘uoypuo~ lsnf
s! s!ql
luaurour
pai
‘aurg
.sa.uwrd ug
u! spoour
11 .salels
aql
spn?3
pals!suo3
%I!$!.IM 30
OSI’? SBM Ja$I?M %I!yU!l(J
SBM
uaql
u1o0.1
01 p.nGal
palsalalu! B lou
put!
0~ dn
pur!
s!ql aql
1 .aldoad svq
SI! p.n23 I? 103 awg
no,4
laqkt
aql
111~ ysl?l no/( aIqv$
I[!M uaaq
alayti
u! isal
pInoM
aql
luaAa
aas
aq
pawwqns
aql ‘LLIOO.Iaql 13aI pcq
aqL
aqs
pur? U!LLI gz u! pau.uI1a.I Buya
s.IayX?.ID aql
II!M 1 pur!
s.IapE.n?q~ UMoqs
%I!~!.IM aAIoAu! amos
paisa.Ialu! palsqsuourap
“1~ la uopuo~)
sarlo$s paddoJp
aql 30 uogaIduro3
papn[Du!
%I~SS~SSI? salws pa@j
alaM
spoour
aq lou
noiC 31 ‘ayg
an?
.LIO~S I? al!JM
lnoqc
aq]
sa~.Iois
aXn2l
u!
leql
*‘(zL~[ u!
I? olu!
aJaM
B .IaAo pa$XIpuocI
81~02! _‘q 1 LIalvur!xolddt? s!ql
pur? ‘lay
‘aI!euuo!lsanb
sural!
aql
a.ywuo!lsanb E lno
01 lDa[qns aql payse
aq$
II’M ysEl
aql
~lr! qs!uy
pur!
‘aJnlDyd
.alnlD!d
lnoqa
al!qM
aql
u!allaD
%_I!MO[IOJ aqL IL? 01 asuodsal 1ayseqaiseM
az!uropuel
UI? u! unl
yaarn-c
Jaqwnu
.taluaur!ladxa
01 IOU Zu!aa.&
icut? palamsw aql
q$!M Suy?ap
s8ugaa3
UIO_I~ paldcpe
ilur:
8u!leu.Ial]e
po!lad
aql q8nolql
paJuno
aqi ssnwp
suogsanb
aql az@u’?
aNV
u! saccwag!p
uo~qsv3
UaaMlaq
sno!.reA aqi
luau+adxa
lvql
8u!lva
pue
a.yeuuoysanb
%_I!~!IM dols
ysel
alow ywl
l!aql
a.Iour se ysel
‘slDa[qns
Zu!ll?a
.a.!)
aql
aqi 30 sasEqd 30 Iaqwnu
sJayX?:13
aJaM
pu?? paq%?!aM Jaluauytadxa
aq$ %pnp
suoyal
‘1~ ~a uopuo7
01 pau2!sap
aql
aunts
ayoi\a
sa!lols
leql
aql
‘8ugu!ql noA
asaql
-aid
5p.1R3
spoour
Lq pallodal
UC SR pazqenldaDuo3
pue
asay
> d) Bu!qJosqc
> d) Ada+
‘(gyo
%~lsa.Blu!
spa[qnc;
> d) %+IOq
ssaj put? (ro()g
lu!od-au!u
se lsalralu!
11 ‘(7.7.761 “10 la uopuo7 u!
pal!nbal
> d) pa.g yei
awl1 lr?ql pallodal
%I~LI
0~1
I pa[y-auo
lq?Qam-[t?urlou .pal!sap
qlL.44 iuawaa.&
laqn2a uoguailr! (10’0
SlDafqnS passvd
%!lSaJalU!
NOISSrl3SIa
alzl?q iq@u
‘aSaq0
~pXII.IOu
‘UIT ()():6
‘gg woq
E alo3aq
payDads .pas!sJ
pa_uw?aur -padxa 01
SsassB
]Dafqns aqL
.uIaql
u!
._noL
sp_w
i~els
aq!lDsap
uo
aql lvql syssl
:pa[qns adel sarlas
aLj$ 01 a1qEI+?:“E
‘Sl3a[qtlS
ivy1
olu!
U! SCM
(sJayX2.I~
IX3
EDLVNII
E.
AHRAhlSc~N
and
SHAWV
Boredom
I.
Mean
STIWN
Interest Task
Fig.
G.
number
condition
of crackcrs
consumed.
than their normal-weight peers. The failure to find differences in the present study may be due to the relatively weak emotional arousal produced by the “cd” task. Although unpleasant. it was not likely to produce the same intensity of reaction as the manipulations used in the earlier studies (e.g. a vivid description of one’s own death from leukemia).
The groups did not differ significantly in the number of roast beef sandwiches consumed. An analysis of variance was computed on the cracker consumption data. The Hartley F max Statistic (Kirk, 1968) however, showed a lack of homogeneity of variance and indicated that a transformation of the raw data would be required before the analysis could be carried out. Because the raw data were positively skewed and the square root ratio test was more constant than the log ratio test (Lathrop. 1971). the square root transformation was used. The analysis of variance yielded two significant main effects with no significant interaction. Obese subjects ate more than normal-.weight subjects. F (1,56) = 10.96, 11< 0.01 : bored subjects ate more than interested subjects, F (1,56) = 7.48, p < 0.01 (see Fig. 1). An analysis of subjects’ self-reported desire to eat yielded similar results. Obese subjects reported a greater desire to eat than normal subjects. F (1,56) = 18.49. p < 0.01; bored subjects indicated greater desire than interested subjects, F (1.56) = 9.84, p < 0.01. The finding that obese subjects consumed more crackers than normal-weight subjects is consistent with Schacterian theory. Normals had few. if any internal cues due to their pre-loading with roast beef sandwiches. Therefore they ate less than the obese who were confronted with the bowl of crackers, a potent external cue. However. the predicted interaction between weight and task did not appear. Although contrary to psychosomatic theorizing, the finding that boredom did not differentially affect weight groups is consistent with the results of Leon & Chamberlain’s (1973) study. Alternatively. the failure to find the hypothesized interaction could be attributed to the use of the story writing task. It is possible that this task was not sufficiently interesting even though it was less boring than letter writing. Future research using different interest manipulations should clarify this issue. The present findings relating to normal-weight subjects are inconsistent with Schachter’s theory. Normal-weight subjects ate more under the boring conditions. despite the equivalence of internal cues resulting from the pre-loading.
Boredom
and eating
185
Although the results do not support the role of boredom as a causal factor in obesity. they appear to have direct implications for treatment. It may be helpful for dieters, regardless of their weight to remove food from areas where boredom regularly occurs. REFERENCES Abramson. E. E. 6i Wunderlich. R. A.. Anxiety. fear and eating: A test of the psychosomatic concept of obesity. Jounzul (?I Ah,~or~,zul Psychology. 1972, 79, 3 17-311. Deckc, E.. Effects of taste on the eating behavior of obese and normal persons. Cited in S. Schachter, Enlotion. Ohesiry cr/~d Crinw. New York: Academic Press. 197 I. Geiwitr, P. J., Hypnoticall) indiced boredom and time estimation. P.s~;chonornic Science. 1964, 1, 177-278. Kaplan, H. I., & Kaplan. H. S.. The psychosomatic concept of obesity. Jour!zu/ of 3Yc~rvous urld Mr!ltu/ Di.scu.sc. 1957. 125, I8 I -I X9. Kirk, R., E.\-pcrimwtul fkwqrr : Procc&ws for the> Bhoioral Scirrms. Belmont. Calif.: BrooksiCole Publishing, 196X. Lathrop. R. G., Selected techniques of data analysis: The analysis of variance. Unpublished manuscript. California State L!niversity Chico, 1971. Leon. G. R.. & Chamberlain. K.. Emotional arousal, eating patterns. and body image as differential factors associated with varying success in maintaining a weight loas. JOLII.M~/of’Cot~su/lity untl Cfinictrf Ps~cl~ofoqy. 1973. 40. 474 480. Loehlin. J. C.. The intluence of difl’ercnt activities on the apparent length of time. Ps!&~/oyic~~I Monoqrtrphs, 19.59. 73 (474). London. H.. Schubert. D. S.. & Washburn. D.. Increase of autonomic arousal by boredom. Jo~~rnul of Ahnorrnr~l P.sldw/o~~y. 1972. 80, 29 36. McKcnna. R. J.. Some ell’ects of anxiety level and food cues on the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects. Jowmrl of Pcr.wntr/it~~ td Social Psyh/og~~. 1972, 22, 3 I I-3 19. Metropohtan Life Insurance Company. New weight standards for men and women. Srnti\tictrl Bullrtin, 1959. 40. l-4. Nisbctt. R. E.. Taste. demlvation. and weight determinants of eating behavior. Jour/d of Pc~rsou/~tv md Sociul P.s~ch/o~~~~, 1468. 107 -I 16. Plincr. P.. Mever. P., & Blankstan. K.. ResDonslveness to affective stimuli bv obese and normal individuals. .Iorrnztrl 0;’ 4hmrrwrl P.s~~c~/KJ/o~~~. 1974. 83. 74-80. Reeve, G. H.. Psychological factors in obesity. Anwric~trn dourntd of arr/lopsJ,~hiclrr~. 1947, 12, 674-678. Rodin. J., Effects of distraction on performance of obese and normal subjects. Journtrl of Compurufiw rrd P/~~\ioloyici,l P.\wl~oloy~~. 1973. 83, 6X 75. Rodin, J., Causes and consequences of time perception differences in overweight and normal weight people. Journcr/ c!f Prr.w~tr/it~~ rrd Social Ps~~c~l~olo~q~~, 1975, 31. 898 904. Ross. L. D., Cue and cognition-controlled eating among obese and normal subjects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. 1969. Schachter, S.. Some extraordinary facts about obese humans and rats. Anwricm P,\~~c~holoyi.st,1971. 26, l39- 144. Schachter. S.. & Gross, L., Eating and the manipulation of time. Journtrl of Prrsorrtrlirj, rrntl So&r/ P.~LYM~~~~~. 196X. IO. 9s 106. Schachter. S.. Goldman. R.. Kr (Gordon. A.. Effects of food deprivation and fear on eating behavtor. Jowntrl of’ Pcr,\o,l~r/itl~ r,nr/ St~c,~tr/P\I c/I~I/CI~I. 196X. 10, 9 I 97. Stunkard. A. J.. & Koch. C.. The Interpretation of gastric motility. Archiws of’ Gcwcrtrl P.5vd~idtry. 1964. 2, 74 82.
