↓ Skip to main content

Restrained Eating and Food Cues: Recent Findings and Conclusions

Overview of attention for article published in Current Obesity Reports, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Restrained Eating and Food Cues: Recent Findings and Conclusions
Published in
Current Obesity Reports, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13679-017-0243-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet Polivy, C. Peter Herman

Abstract

The purposes of the present review are to organize the recent literature on the effects of food cues on restrained and unrestrained eaters and to determine current directions in such work. Research over the last several years involves both replicating the work showing that restrained eaters respond to attractive food cues by eating more but unrestrained eaters show less responsiveness and extending this work to examine the mechanisms that might underlie this differential responsiveness. Labeling a food as healthy encourages more eating by restrained eaters, while diet-priming cues seem to curtail their consumption even in the face of attractive food cues. Work on cognitive responses indicates that restrained (but not unrestrained) eaters have both attention and memory biases toward food cues. Restrained eaters attend more strongly to food- and diet-related cues than do unrestrained eaters, as evidenced in both their eating behavior and their attention and memory responses to such cues. These effects interact with expectations and manner of presentation of such cues. What remains to be understood is the meaning and mechanism of the attention bias toward food cues in restrained eaters and the implications of such bias for overeating and overweight more broadly speaking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 19%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Other 6 5%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 34 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#6,299,735
of 23,996,277 outputs
Outputs from Current Obesity Reports
#218
of 401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,949
of 460,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Obesity Reports
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,996,277 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 460,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.