Research report “Food addiction is real”. The effects of exposure to this message on self-diagnosed food addiction and eating behaviour ☆ Charlotte A. Hardman a, *, Peter J. Rogers b , Rebecca Dallas a , Jade Scott a , Helen K. Ruddock a , Eric Robinson a a Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK b School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, UK ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 8 January 2015 Received in revised form 18 March 2015 Accepted 14 April 2015 Available online 16 April 2015 Keywords: Addiction Attribution Beliefs Food intake Self-control A B ST R AC T Food addiction is widely discussed in popular media in many Westernised societies. However, a poten- tial concern is that endorsement of the food addiction model may cause people to perceive a lack of personal control over eating which could promote unhealthy dietary behaviours. To address this possibility, the current study investigated whether exposure to food addiction messages would, firstly, increase the number of participants who self-diagnosed as food addicts and, secondly, increase intake of indulgent foods. In a between-subjects design, participants (N = 60) read an article which either claimed that food addic- tion is real (“Real” condition) or that food addiction is a myth (“Myth” condition). Intake of indulgent and non-indulgent foods was then assessed in a disguised taste test and participants also completed a measure of self-diagnosed food addiction. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the Real condition self-diagnosed as food addicts relative to participants in the Myth condition (57% and 27% of participants, respectively; p = .018). Variability in intake, but not mean intake, of indulgent food was higher in the Real condition than in the Myth condition. These findings suggest that endorsement of the concept of food addiction may encourage people to self-diagnose as food addicts and thus explain their eating behaviour in terms of addiction (an external attribution). The extent to which self-diagnosis of food ad- diction influences actual food intake and how this might vary with individual differences and eating context remains to be determined. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction The notion of “food addiction” implies that certain foods have addictive properties, similar to drugs of abuse, and that people can become addicted to these foods. There is currently considerable con- troversy in the scientific community surrounding the veracity of the food addiction model and the extent to which it can account for obesity (Avena, Gearhardt, Gold, Wang, & Potenza, 2012; Volkow, Wang, Tomasi, & Baler, 2013; Ziauddeen, Farooqi, & Fletcher, 2012; Ziauddeen & Fletcher, 2013). Contrastingly, food addiction is widely discussed in the popular media and public support for its exis- tence appears to be very strong. Indeed, 86% of Australians and Americans believed that certain foods have addictive potential, and 72% believed that food addiction accounts for some cases of obesity (Lee et al., 2013). Furthermore, 52% of participants in a UK sample classified themselves as food addicts (Meadows & Higgs, 2013). Given the limited scientific understanding of food addiction, the origin of these beliefs and reasons for their popularity remain unclear. To date, there has been little consideration of the role that psy- chological processes may play in determining and shaping beliefs about food addiction. An exception is the perspective of Rogers and Smit (2000) who argue that the majority of cases of self-reported food addiction should not be viewed as addictive behaviour. Instead, a prominent role is given to the processes of ambivalence and at- tribution. It is proposed that ambivalence (e.g., “nice but naughty”) about certain foods, such as chocolate, arises from the attitude that they are highly palatable but should be eaten with restraint. However, attempts to restrict intake cause the desire for the food to become stronger, which is then labelled as a “craving”. This, together with the need to provide a reason for why resisting the food is difficult and often fails, can, in turn, lead the individual to an explanation (attribution) in terms of addiction (e.g., “I’m a chocoholic” or “I’m addicted to this food” or “I’m a food addict”). In line with theoret- ical models of attribution (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), these causal explanations for past events influence expectations about controlling future events and thus affect subsequent behaviour. ☆ Acknowledgements: This study was funded by University of Liverpool School of Psychology summer studentships awarded to Rebecca Dallas and Jade Scott. PJR’s research is supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Pro- gramme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement 607310 (Nudge-it). * Corresponding author. E-mail address: Charlotte.Hardman@liverpool.ac.uk (C.A. Hardman). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.052 0195-6663/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Appetite 91 (2015) 179–184 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Appetite journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet