Psychology of Addictive Behavior
1990, Vol. 4, No. 2, 100-106
ISSN 0893-1 MX, Society of
Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors
Dietary Restraint: Some Current
Findings and Speculations
Todd F. Heatherton
Harvard University
Janet Poliyy and C. Peter Herman
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
In this paper we review recent findings on the disinhibition of dietary restraint
Disinhibition induced by preloading depends more upon the perception that the diet
has been broken than on actual calorie content of the preload. Disinhibition can also
result from emotional distress, with ego-threats more likely than physical fear to
disinhibit eating. Low self-esteem dieters are more likely to become disinhibited than
are high self-esteem dieters in response to both preloading and distress manipulations.
Recent theoretical perspectives on disinhibition are examined and the possible role
of self-awareness is highlighted.
The construct of dietary restraint has been used this paper is to highlight some of the current
to explain a variety of abnormal eating behav- research on restrained eating and indicate areas
iors, especially overeating in obese and normal where additional research is needed.
weight dieters (Herman & Polivy, 1980; Ruderman, 1986). In many cases, overeating may be
Disinhibited Eating
a paradoxical consequence of attempts at caloric
In 1975, Herman and Mack introduced the
restriction (Polivy & Herman, 1985, 1987; Ruderman, 1986). The difficulty of maintaining paradoxical effect called "counterregulation." In
weight loss over the long-term is well recognized their study, dieters (later called restrained' eaters)
(Heatherton, Polivy, & Herman, in press; Polivy and nondieters (called unrestrained eaters) were
& Herman, 1983; Stunkard & Pennick, 1979; preloaded with 0, 1, or 2 milkshakes and then
Wilson & Brownell, 1980). Although many fac- given ad lib access to test food (ice cream) under
tors (including metabolic shifts) contribute to the the guise they they were participating in a "taste
intransigence of weight, it appears that many di- test." Unrestrained eaters ate a lot of ice cream
etary failures occur because occasional bouts of in the absence of a preload (which makes sense
disinhibited eating cancel out successes at caloric since the ice cream was delicious) and ate the
least ice cream after two milkshakes (which makes
restriction.
This article examines some of the environ- sense because they were full). Dieters, however,
mental factors and individual difference vari- did not display such compensatory eating. Inables that trigger disinhibited eating; in addition, stead, they ate very little when they had not had
we examine what is known about the chain of a milkshake preload but ate considerably more
events involved in disinhibition. The purpose of ice cream after consuming two milkshakes. Herman and Mack (1975) explained this "what the
hell" effect by proposing that dieters abandon
This article is an expanded version of a presentation
to the American Psychological Association, August
1
Dietary restraint is measured by the Restraint Scale
1989, New Orleans.
Correspondence concerning this article should be (Herman & Polivy, 1980). For a discussion on the
addressed to Todd F. Heatherton, Department of Psy- psychometric properties of the Restraint Scale see Pochology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland St., Cam- livy, Herman, and Howard (1988) or Heatherton, Herman, Polivy, King, and McGree (1988).
bridge, MA 02138.
100
DIETARY RESTRAINT
their diets as soon as they believe that they have
exceeded some magic caloric quota.
The key to disinhibition, apparently, is the perception of whether the diet has been broken or
not, since the actual caloric content of the preload
is largely irrelevant. If dieters believe that they
have violated their diet (whether they have or
not), eating becomes disinhibited (Polivy, 1976;
Spencer & Fremouw, 1979; Woody, Costanzo,
Leifer, & Conger, 1981). For example, Spencer
and Fremouw (1979) found that dieters (unlike
nondieters) ate more ice cream following a preload that they had been told was high in calories
than after an allegedly low-calorie preload, even
though the preloads were actually equal in calories. Knight and Boland (1989) have recently
shown that dieters also view different types of
foods as more or less threatening to one's diet,
regardless of actual caloric density. Dieters were
more easily disinhibited by food that they believed to be fattening (such as a milkshake) than
by a food that they believed was inherently lower
in calories (such as cottage cheese), even if the
servings were actually equal in calories.
The Role of Self-Esteem
Although the individual difference variable of
restraint has consistently predicted betweengroup differences in eating behavior, experimental samples of dieters have nevertheless displayed considerable variability in their reactions
to disinhibiting triggers. Some dieters are more
easily disinhibited than others. This variability
prompted us to look for some additional variable
that might explain why some restrained eaters
are especially susceptible to disinhibitors. Dieters, it turns out, have lower self-esteem than do
nondieters (Polivy, Heatherton, & Herman, 1988;
Ruderman & Grace, 1988). Furthermore, we
know that low self-esteem subjects have lower
overall expectations for their performance
(Brockner, 1983; Coopersmith, 1967). Because
the maintenance of dietary restraint in the face
of disinhibitory pressures probably requires confidence in one's ability to withstand such pressures, we speculated that dieters with high selfesteem (a decided minority of dieters) would be
relatively invulnerable to disinhibitors. We
therefore conducted a study using the standard
milkshake preload paradigm, but in addition to
measuring restraint we also measured trait self-
101
esteem (using a modified version of the Janis and
Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale; Pliner, 1986).
We found that self-esteem was unrelated to eating for unrestrained eaters, but was quite important in predicting which restrained subjects
would show disinhibited eating following a preload. Only those dieters with low self-esteem
showed the classic counterregulatory response.
High self-esteem dieters ate the same amount
whether preloaded or not (Polivy, Heatherton,
& Herman, 1988).
Distress-Induced Eating
In addition to the effects of preloading, there
has also been considerable interest in eating triggered by emotional distress. Emotional distress
has long been viewed as an appetite suppressant
(Cannon, 1915; Schachter, Goldman, & Gordon,
1968), allegedly because the autonomic consequences of stress (e.g., increased stomach motility and increased circulating levels of free fatty
acids and glucose) are similar to those sensations
associated with postprandial satiety. For some
individuals, however, emotional upset has the
opposite effect on eating, and actually increases
consumption relative to the amount eaten when
calm. This divergent reaction was originally
thought to depend on body weight; normal weight
individuals seemed to eat less when stressed,
whereas obese individuals appeared to eat more
(Bruch, 1961; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1957; Schachter
et al., 1968). Herman and Polivy (1980) later
argued that dieting (which, of course, is common
among the obese) was the critical predictor of
one's reaction to distress: dieters (obese or normal weight) eat more when distressed and normal weight nondieters eat less. like caloric overindulgence, distress must be counted among the
major precursors ofdisinhibited eating in dieters.
A recent review of the eating and emotionality
literature (Herman, Polivy, & Heatherton, 1989)
found that in addition to the type of person (dieter/obese vs. nondieter/normal weight), the type
of distress is an important determinant of eating
behavior, at least in the laboratory. Experimental
manipulations of physical fear (such as the threat
of electrical shock) have been found to reduce
significantly the eating of nondieting normal
weight individuals without increasing significantly the eating of obese or dieting individuals.
On the other hand, experimental manipulations
102
T. F. HEATHERTON, J. POLIVY, AND C. P. HERMAN
that threaten subjects' egos or emotional tranquility (i.e., failure or general dysphoria manipulations) have been found to increase eating significantly by obese or dieting individuals without
suppressing normal weight nondieters' eating significantly. Note that the pattern of statistical significance is important here. In each of the studies
where eating was significantly reduced for unrestrained subjects (i.e., physical fear studies),
there was a nonsignificant change for dieting or
obese subjects; in each instance in which dieters
or obese subjects ate significantly more following
distress (ego-threat studies), nondieters ate nonsignificantly less.
On the basis of this review, we (Herman et al.,
1989) proposed that physical fear differs from
more general dysphoria in its effects on eating.
Physical fear manipulations suppress hunger
sensations, probably because of their effects on
the autonomic nervous system. Ego-disruptive
manipulations, however, lead to increased eating
by obese and dieting individuals mainly because
of their powerful disinhibiting properties and because dieters are relatively insensitive to internal
state (Heatherton, Polivy, & Herman, 1989).
Although this pattern was consistent in the
literature, it seemed desirable to demonstrate
these effects in one study. Thus, we gave restrained and unrestrained subjects one of three
distress manipulations prior to an ad-lib taste
task (Heatherton, Herman, & Polivy, in press).
Our physical fear threat (which was threat of
painful electric shock) significantly decreased the
eating of unrestrained subjects while only slightly
(nonsignificantly) increasing the eating of restrained subjects. Our ego-threats (either failure
at an easy task or having to give a speech in front
of an evaluative audience) significantly increased
the eating of restrained subjects while not significantly suppressing the eating of unrestrained
subjects (Heatherton, Herman, & Polivy, in
press).
This pattern appears to implicate the role of
self in the disinhibition of eating. Only those
experiences that threaten the self produce significant increases in eating for obese or dieting
subjects. Although it is hard to imagine how
overeating might bolster the battered self-esteem
of the dieter, it might be that their overeating is
not a compensation for distress but rather the
result of a generalized negative expectancy: low
self-esteem leaves people unable to cope ade-
quately with actual or expected failure. Brockner
and Hulton (1978) showed that low self-esteem
subjects are likely to become negatively preoccupied with themselves and their shortcomings
following failure. It is therefore probable that low
self-esteem dieters are particularly likely to evaluate themselves negatively following failure or
emotional upset. This negative view of self may
generalize to other abilities, such as the ability
to resist tempting and forbidden foods (such as
ice cream). Thus, the failure experience might
lower restrained individuals' level of expectations for performance, leaving them unable to
sustain their diets.
Because we found that self-esteem was important in predicting eating following preloads
(Polivy, Heatherton, & Herman, 1988), we
thought that self-esteem might be important in
predicting eating in response to distress. In the
study just described (Heatherton, Herman, & Polivy, in press), we had obtained self-esteem scores
in addition to restraint scores. Self-esteem had a
dramatic effect on eating for restrained subjects.
Low self-esteem restrained subjects were strongly affected by the ego-threats (i.e., they ate more
following ego-threats), whereas high self-esteem
restrained subjects ate the same amount in all
conditions. Note that this pattern of greater susceptibility to disinhibitors by low self-esteem dieters exactly parallels the earlier preload findings.
Considering the results from these behavioral
studies together with past findings, it is reasonable to conclude that self-esteem is important in
the prediction of disinhibited eating. Low selfesteem dieters (i.e., the majority of dieters) are
more likely than high self-esteem dieters to overeat in response to emotional distress and preloading. However, it remains unclear how selfesteem level explains such eating; at present,
self-esteem has more descriptive than explanatory value. As with dieting status, self-esteem
level simply identifies types of persons who will
be most responsive to ego-threatening or preloading manipulations. Although it make sense
that ego-threats may be more relevant to the low
self-esteem individual (who also may be more
attentive to possible threats to self-esteem), it
does not necessarily follow that ego-threats should
lead to increased eating. Thus, although self-esteem is important for predicting who will experience disinhibited eating, it falls short of providing a full explanation of the phenomenon.
DIETARY RESTRAINT
Current Explanations for
Disinhibited Eating
Although we have identified some environmental and individual difference factors that predict disinhibition, it is still not clear how such
factors (e.g., preloads and distress) disinhibit eating. Herman and Polivy (1975) originally proposed that distress undermines dieters' restraint
because there is only so much that they can worry
about at any one time—a salient situational threat
(e.g., electric shock, task failure) should preempt
worrying about weight gain. Physical fear, as we
have seen, does not reliably serve to disinhibit
eating, however, even though it ought to rank
fairly high on any worry hierarchy. And if physical fear does not replace concern about weight,
it seems unlikely that ego-threats will. Therefore,
it does not appear that ego-threats disinhibit eating through direct competition for attentional
resources.
Herman and Polivy (1988) have recently suggested that overeating might serve a masking
function for the dieter. That is, the distress (guilt)
resulting from overeating per se may occupy the
dieter's attention to the exclusion of the more
long-term and possible more diffuse ego-threat.
Concentrating on the distress that results from
overeating may help the dieter avoid focusing on
the potentially more damaging implications of
the ego-threat. This proposal has yet to be tested
explicitly.
Heatherton and Baumeister (1989) have proposed an "escape theory" in which disinhibited
eating results from a motivated shift to low levels
of self-awareness. Dieters are particularly sensitive to their public image; for example, there
is a positive correlation between restraint scores
and public self-consciousness (Blanchard & Frost,
1983). When dieters (inevitably) fall short of their
high standards and expectations for themselves,
their self-awareness becomes acutely aversive.
To escape from this unpleasant state, dieters adopt
the tactic of narrowing attention to the immediate perceptual environment and avoiding
broadly meaningful thought. Such a strategy reduces self-focus and attenuates negative affect
(Baumeister, in press). To use Vallacher and
Wegner's (1987) terminology, dieters attempt to
switch from high to low levels of action identification; that is, they attempt to think in terms
of movements and sensations (the mechanics of
103
behavior) rather than in terms of future concerns
and meaningful actions (the purpose of behavior).
One consequence of cognitive narrowing is that
all inhibitions—including those associated with
eating—tend to be abandoned. Inhibitions involve resisting salient and immediate temptations (e.g., tasty food) in the service of delayed
and often more abstract objectives (e.g., weight
loss). Accordingly, when dieters switch from high
to low levels of action identification, their diets
are (temporarily) jettisoned, and eating becomes
disinhibited.
The escape hypothesis links disinhibited eating to a drop in level of self-awareness. We have
recently demonstrated that dieters are normally
intensely self-focused (Heatherton, 1990), as indexed by their completing more sentence stems
with self-focused statements than did nondieters
on the Exner Sentence Completion Task (Exner,
1973). Dieters were also more likely to be negative in these self-statements. Consistent with
escape theory predictions, the self-focus of restrained subjects is related more to their public
than to their private image since we found that
there was a significant relation between restraint
scores and a measure of public self-consciousness, but not between restraint scores and private
self-consciousness (Heatherton, 1990). It thus
appears that dieters are likely to find themselves
in a situation where (public) ego-threats will make
an escape to mindless, stimulus-bound behavior
(including eating) quite attractive.
Does Self-Awareness Affect Eating?
Experimental manipulations that affect selfawareness have indeed been shown to influence
eating behavior in a manner consistent with escape theory. One study found that dieters ate
three times as much while watching an intensely
absorbing film as when engaged in activities that
permitted more awareness of self (Wardle &
Beales, 1988). Some have argued that alcohol
reduces self-focus, and individuals consume more
alcohol after failure than success, presumably to
avoid self-awareness (Hull & Young, 1983). Polivy and Herman (1976a, 1976b) found that alcohol, when labelled as such, resulted in disinhibited eating by restrained eaters. Thus, reducing
104
T. F. HEATHERTON, J. POLIVY, AND C. P. HERMAN
self-awareness either by distraction or by intoxication may lead to disinhibited eating.
Conversely, focused attention on one's eating
appears to prevent disinhibition and maintain
eating restraints, both among dieters (Herman,
Polivy, & Silver, 1979; Polivy, Herman, Hackett,
& Kuleshnyk, 1986) and among obese subjects
(Pliner & Iuppa, 1974). For example, being observed while eating results in behavior that conforms to societal standards and norms of selfrestraint (Herman et al., 1979). Further, forcing
subjects to attend to the amount of food they are
consuming (either through implied public attention or private attention) apparently prevents
disinhibited eating (Polivy et al., 1986). In another
recent study examining the role of self-awareness
in disinhibited eating (Heatherton, Baumeister,
Polivy, & Herman, 1990), restrained and unrestrained eaters performed a problem-solving task
and received either failure or neutral performance feedback. This failure manipulation would
ordinarily be expected to distress and disinhibit
dieters. Failure subjects were then assigned to
one of three conditions: one group watched a
videoclip of themselves failing on the problemsolving task (high self-awareness); one group
watched a fairly interesting videotape on bighorn
sheep (low self-awareness); the final group sat
quietly for 10 min. Only in those conditions that
allowed or promoted escape from self-awareness
(the latter two conditions) did restrained subjects
show disinhibited eating. In the video condition,
which enforced high levels of self-awareness, eating in restrained subjects remained inhibited. It
therefore appears that failure sets the stage for
binge eating, but that disinhibition will not occur
unless the situation allows the dieter to reduce
self-awareness.
Thus, the escape hypothesis (Heatherton &
Baumeister, 1989) posits that self-awareness acts
in a manner similar to self-attention or public
attention to inhibit eating (Polivy et al., 1986).
Such awareness not only forces dieters to remain
cognizant of their long-term projects (including
weight loss), but also accentuates feelings of unattractiveness and incompetence, further motivating dieting. This aversive self-awareness is
unpleasant and dieters try to avoid thinking about
themselves if at all possible. Whether or not such
avoidance is possible depends on situational constraints on escape. When conditions favor or at
least permit escape, individuals can shift levels
of awareness and momentarily feel better. For
dieters, such escape will ordinarily mean dietbreaking if attractive food is available. Although
the escape theory has yet to be tested directly, it
may provide a useful framework for examining
the cognitive processes responsible for disinhibition.
Conclusion
Dieters are likely to show disinhibited eating
wnen they are preloaded with food described as
high in calories or when they are confronted with
threats to their self-esteem or emotional tranquility. Restrained eaters with low self-esteem
are especially vulnerable to disinhibitors, although exactly how self-esteem moderates the
effects of disinhibitors on eating is as yet unclear
(see, also, Polivy et al., 1988). There are also
situational constraints on disinhibited eating. For
instance, a disinhibitor should be able to disinhibit eating only if eating has not already been
disinhibited. Herman, Polivy, Lank, and Heatherton (1987) demonstrated that distress-induced
eating will occur only when the dieter has not
previously been preloaded (disinhibited), and,
conversely, that preload-induced eating will occur only when the dieter is not distressed (disinhibited). Furthermore, our recent examinations of self-focus and eating make it clear that
disinhibited eating will occur only when circumstances promote an abandonment of self-awareness. Conditions that promote self-focus inhibit
eating in dieters. Thus, we are now confident that
self-awareness plays an important role in disinhibited eating.
Our future research will be designed to examine more fully how shifts in levels of thinking
or levels of self-awareness are linked to eating in
dieters and to examine whether dieters follow
the general pattern of escaping from aversive selfawareness by shifting to low levels of actionidentification. We are also interested in how dieters might use eating to distract themselves from
other concerns. Theresultsof these studies should
have implications for the treatment of eating disorders and aid in our understanding of disinhibition as a more general phenomenon, with potential benefits for those who are concerned with
disinhibition in other realms, such as smoking
cessation or alcohol-abuse treatment.
DIETARY RESTRAINT
References
105
and eating behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 666-672.
Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1980). Restrained eating.
Baumeister, R. F. (in press). Anxiety and deconstrucIn A. J. Stunkard (Ed.), Obesity. Philadelphia: Sauntion: On escaping the self. In J. Olson (Ed.), Ontario
ders.
Symposium on Personality 1988. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1988). Restraint and
baum.
excess in dieters and bulimics. In K. M. Pirke, D.
Blanchard, F. A., & Frost, R. O. (1983). Two factors
Ploog, & W. Vandereycken (Eds.), Thepsychobiology
of restraint: Concern for dieting and weight fluctuaof anorexia nervosa (pp. 33-41). Heidelberg: Springtions. Behavior Research and Therapy, 21, 259-267. er.
Brockner, J. (1983). Low self-esteem and behavioral Herman, C. P., Polivy, J., & Heatherton, T. F. (1989).
plasticity: Some implications. In L. Wheeler & P.
The effects of distress on eating: A review of the exShaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psyperimental literature. Manuscript submitted for pubchology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
lication.
Brockner, J., & Hulton, A. J. (1978). How to reverse Herman, C. P., Polivy, J., Lank, C. L., & Heatherton,
the vicious cycle of low self-esteem: The importance
T. F. (1987). Anxiety, hunger and eating. Journal
of attitudinal focus. Journal of Experimental Social
of Abnormal Psychology, 96. 264-269.
Psychology, 14, 564-578.
Herman, C. P., Polivy, J., & Silver, R. (1979). The
Bruch, H. (1961). Transformation of oral impulses
effects of an observer on eating behavior The inin eating disorders: A conceptual approach. Psychiduction of sensible eating. Journal ofPersonality, 47,
atric Quarterly, 35, 458-481.
85-99.
Cannon, W. B. (1915). Bodily changes in pain, hunHull, J. G., & Young, R. D. (1983). The self-awareger, fear and rage. New York: Appleton.
ness-reducmg effects of alcohol: Evidence and imCoopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esplications. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.),
teem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2) (pp.
Exner, J. E. (1973). The self-focus sentence comple159-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tion: A study of egocentricity. Journal ofPersonality
Kaplan, H. I., & Kaplan, H. S. (1957). The psychoAssessment, 37, 437-455.
somatic concept of obesity. Journal of Nervous and
Heatherton, T. F. (1990). Aspects of dissatisfaction
Mental Disease, 125. 181-201.
among dieters. Manuscript submitted for publicaKnight, L., & Boland, F. (1989). Restrained eating:
tion.
An experimental disentanglement of the disinhibitHeatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1989). Binge
ing variables of calories and food type. Journal of
eating as escape from self-awareness. Manuscript
Abnormal Psychology, 98, 412-420.
submitted for publication.
Heatherton, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Polivy, J., & Pliner, P. (1986). Self-esteem and obesity. Unpublished manuscript.
Herman, C. P. (1990). Self-awareness, task failure,
and disinhibition. Manuscript submitted for publi- Pliner, P., & Iuppa, G. (1978). Effects of increasing
awareness on food intake consumption in obese and
cation.
normal weight subjects. Addictive Behaviors, 3, 19Heatherton, T. F., Herman, C. P., Polivy, J., King, G.
24.
A., & McGree, S. T. (1988). The (mis)measurement
of restraint: An analysis of conceptual and psycho- Polivy, J. (1976). Perception of calories and regulation ofintake in restrained and unrestrained subjects.
metric issues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97,
Addictive Behaviors, 1, 211-243.
19-26.
Heatherton, T. F., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (in Polivy, J., Heatherton, T. F., & Herman, C. P. (1988).
Self-esteem, restraint, and eating behavior. Journal
press). Restraint, distress and eating. Journal of Perof Abnormal Psychology, 97, 354-356.
sonality and Social Psychology.
Heatherton, T. F., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (in Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1976a). The effects of
alcohol on eating behavior Disinhibition or sedapress). Restraint, weight loss and variability of body
weight. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
tion? Addictive Behaviors. 1, 121-125.
Heatherton, T. F., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1989). Polivy,J.,& Herman, C. P. (1976b). Effects of alcohol
Restraint and internal responsiveness: Effects of
on eating behavior: Influence of mood and perceived
placebo manipulations of hunger state on eating.
intoxication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85,
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 89-92.
601-606.
Herman, C. P., & Mack, D. (1975). Restrained and Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1983). Breaking the diet
habit: The natural weight alternative. New York: Baunrestrained eating. Journal ofPersonality, 43, 647sic Books.
660.
Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1975). Anxiety, restraint Polivy, J., &. Herman, C. P. (1985). Dieting and
106
T. F. HEATHERTON, J. POLIVY, AND C. P. HERMAN
bingeing: A causal analysis. American Psychologist,
40. 193-201.
Pohvy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1987). Diagnosis and
treatment of normal eating. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 55, 635-644.
Polivy, J., Herman, C. P., Hackett, R., & Kuleshnyk,
I. (1986). The effects of self-attention and public
attention on eating in restrained and unrestrained
subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50. 1253-1260.
Polivy, J., Herman, C. P., & Howard, K. (1988). The
Restraint Scale: Assessment of dieting. In M. Hersen
& A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques (pp. 377-380). New York: Pergamon.
Ruderman, A. J. (1986). Dietary restraint: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin,
99, 247-262.
Ruderman,A.J.,&Gracc,P.S. (1988). Bulimicsand
restrained eaters: A personality comparison. Addictive Behaviors, 13, 359-368.
Schachter, S., Goldman, R., & Gordon, A. (1968).
Effects of fear, food deprivation, and obesity on eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
10, 91-97.
Spencer, J. A., & Fremouw, W. J. (1979). Binge eating
as a function of restraint and weight classification.
Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 88, 262-267.
Stunkard, A. J., & Pennick, S. B. (1979). Behavior
modification in the treatment of obesity: The problem of maintaining weight loss. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 36. 801-806.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do
people think they are doing? Action identification
and human behavior. Psychological Review, Volume
94, pp. 3-15.
Wardle, J., & Beales, S. (1988). Control and loss of
control over eating: An experimental investigation.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 35-40.
Wilson, G. T., & Brownell, K_ D. (1980). Behavior
therapy for obesity: An evaluation of treatment outcome. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy,
3. 49-86.
Woody, E. Z., Costanzo, P. R., Leifer, H., & Conger,
J. (1981). The effects of taste and caloric perceptions on the eating of restrained and unrestrained
subjects. Cognitive Research and Therapy, 5, 381—
390.