Features of automaticity in eating behavior Adela R. Moldovan a, ⁎, Daniel David a, b a Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babeş-Bolyai University, 37 Gheorghe Bilascu street, Cluj-Napoca, Romania b Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA abstract article info Article history: Received 3 October 2010 Received in revised form 20 September 2011 Accepted 29 September 2011 Available online 7 October 2011 Keywords: Eating behavior Automaticity Control Cognitive restraint Obesity Objective: Some authors (e.g. Cohen & Farley, 2008) have argued that control of eating behavior is difficult because this behavior could be an automatic one. Our objective was to test this claim in an experimental design. Method: Automaticity can be diagnosed by looking for the presence of its features in performance or processes. We designed an experiment to test the features of uncontrollability and unconsciousness. Results: Results showed that individuals' success in controlling their behavior does not depend on their goal or the instruction received (uncontrollability), although individuals believe their goals justify their behavior (uncon- sciousness). High scores on cognitive restraint were predictive for the success in control of eating behavior. Conclusion: Eating has features of automatic behavior, thus can be diagnosed as such. Our results bear important implications for the research and practice concerning eating behavior, especially obesity. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Where obesity is concerned, what is extremely frustrating for both researchers and clinicians is that, although we have a good understand- ing of weight gain and obesity, results in reducing the proportions of the obesity epidemics are slim. One assumption in the approach to obesity is that, given the right information and motivation, people can successfully reduce their food intake to match their caloric expenditure over the long term (Cohen & Farley, 2008). This assumption implies eating to be a con- scious act, yet there are some authors that, taking into account research into eating, its environmental influences and research into automatic be- havior (e.g. Jones & Rogers, 2003; Painter, Wansink, & Hieggelke, 2002; Wansink & Kim, 2005; Wansink, Painter, & Lee, 2006), suggest this as- sumption is a false one and eating should be viewed as an automatic be- havior (Cohen & Farley, 2008). This has serious implications for the treatment of eating related disorders and problems such as obesity. The therapeutic approach to an automatic behavior is significantly differ- ent to that of a voluntary behavior. Our main objective for this study is to investigate eating behavior in an experimental design and see if it meets the characteristics of automaticity. We chose a design that allowed us to test two features of automaticity described by Moors and De Houwer (2006): (1) Uncontrollability. There are more situations where we can con- sider a behavior to be uncontrollable in terms of goal: (a) the goal is absent, and the effect may be absent; (b) the goal is pre- sent, but the effect is absent; (c) the effect is present, but the goal is not the cause of the effect. We expect the two latter situations can be found in relation to eating behavior. (2) Unconsciousness. Consciousness or unconsciousness may apply to: (a) the stimulus input that evokes the response; (b) the output of a process; (c) the process itself; (d) the consequences of a pro- cess. It is important to make explicit what one considers to be un- conscious when one uses the term (Moors & De Houwer, 2006). We believe that eating is an unconscious process in terms of stim- ulus that evokes the response (people generally do not realize that certain environmental cues influence them and will justify their behavior in terms of conscious goals and intentions) and also the process itself (once started, eating continues efficiently without conscious control). If eating behavior is to fulfill the characteristic of uncontrollability in terms of goal independence then we have to find a set of conditions that is sufficient for the occurrence of the process (eating) and that the goal of engaging in it is absent from the set, or, if the goal is pre- sent it is not necessary. 1. Consumption of food will be prompted by the behavior of an accomplice. 2. Consumption of food will be predicted by individuals' self-control. Eating Behaviors 13 (2012) 46–48 ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 40 740 136838; fax: + 40 264 434141. E-mail addresses: adelamoldovan@psychology.ro (A.R. Moldovan), danieldavid@psychology.ro, daniel.david@mssm.edu (D. David). URL: http://www.clinicalpsychology.ro (A.R. Moldovan). 1471-0153/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2011.09.006 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Eating Behaviors