A new study has found that when you imagine eating a certain food, it reduces your actual consumption of that food.
"These findings suggest that trying to suppress one's thoughts of desired foods in order to curb cravings for those foods is a fundamentally flawed strategy," said Carey Morewedge, lead author of this study. "Our studies found that instead, people who repeatedly imagined the consumption of a morsel of food -- such as an M&M or cube of cheese -- subsequently consumed less of that food than did people who imagined consuming the food a few times or performed a different but similarly engaging task. We think these findings will help develop future interventions to reduce cravings for things such as unhealthy food, drugs and cigarettes, and hope they will help us learn how to help people make healthier food choices."
In the first experiment, participants imagined performing 33 repetitive actions, one at a time.
A second group imagined inserting 30 quarters into a laundry machine and then imagined eating 3 M&M'S.
A third group imagined inserting three quarters into a laundry machine and then imagined eating 30 M&M'S.
All the while, a control group imagined inserting 33 quarters into a laundry machine.
Next, all participants ate freely from a bowl filled with M&M'S. Participants who imagined eating 30 M&M'S actually ate significantly fewer M&M'S than did participants in the other groups.
To ensure that the results were due to imagined consumption of M&M'S rather than the control task, the next experiment manipulated the experience imagined (inserting quarters or eating M&M'S) and the number of times it was imagined. Again, the participants who imagined eating 30 M&M'S subsequently consumed fewer M&M'S than did the participants in the other groups.
"Habituation is one of the fundamental processes that determine how much we consume of a food or a product, when to stop consuming it, and when to switch to consuming another food or product," Vosgerau said. "Our findings show that habituation is not only governed by the sensory inputs of sight, smell, sound and touch, but also by how the consumption experience is mentally represented. To some extent, merely imagining an experience is a substitute for actual experience. The difference between imagining and experiencing may be smaller than previously assumed."
So if you want to stop craving that tasty christmas food come January, just think about eating it a little more often and watch your cravings melt away!
Link to Paper
Showing posts with label habits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label habits. Show all posts
Monday, 13 December 2010
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Smoking-Mind Over Smoking-Matter: Surprising New Study Shows Cigarette Cravings Result from Habit, Not Addiction
A new study from Tel Aviv University shows why patches and nicotine gum are ineffective.
In the new study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Dr. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychology found that the intensity of cravings for cigarettes had more to do with the psychosocial element of smoking than with the physiological effects of nicotine as an addictive chemical.
"These findings might not be popular with advocates of the nicotine addiction theory, because they undermine the physiological role of nicotine and emphasize mind over matter when it comes to smoking," Dr. Dar says. He hopes this research will help clinicians and health authorities develop more successful smoking cessation programs than those utilizing expensive nicotine patches or gum.
Dr. Dar's studies conclude that nicotine is not addictive as physiological addictions are usually defined. While nicotine does have a physiological role in increasing cognitive abilities such as attention and memory, it's not an addictive substance like heroin, which creates true systemic and biologically-based withdrawal symptoms in the body of the user, he says.
Dr. Dar believes that people who smoke do so for short-term benefits like oral gratification, sensory pleasure and social camaraderie. Once the habit is established, people continue to smoke in response to cues and in situations that become associated with smoking. Dr. Dar believes that understanding smoking as a habit, not an addiction, will facilitate treatment. Smoking cessation techniques should emphasize the psychological and behavioral aspects of the habit and not the biological aspects, he suggests.
More information on this study can be found by clicking HERE
In the new study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Dr. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychology found that the intensity of cravings for cigarettes had more to do with the psychosocial element of smoking than with the physiological effects of nicotine as an addictive chemical.
"These findings might not be popular with advocates of the nicotine addiction theory, because they undermine the physiological role of nicotine and emphasize mind over matter when it comes to smoking," Dr. Dar says. He hopes this research will help clinicians and health authorities develop more successful smoking cessation programs than those utilizing expensive nicotine patches or gum.
Dr. Dar's studies conclude that nicotine is not addictive as physiological addictions are usually defined. While nicotine does have a physiological role in increasing cognitive abilities such as attention and memory, it's not an addictive substance like heroin, which creates true systemic and biologically-based withdrawal symptoms in the body of the user, he says.
Dr. Dar believes that people who smoke do so for short-term benefits like oral gratification, sensory pleasure and social camaraderie. Once the habit is established, people continue to smoke in response to cues and in situations that become associated with smoking. Dr. Dar believes that understanding smoking as a habit, not an addiction, will facilitate treatment. Smoking cessation techniques should emphasize the psychological and behavioral aspects of the habit and not the biological aspects, he suggests.
More information on this study can be found by clicking HERE
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Research suggests that 'people are selfish'
New research has found that in economic decision making, humans are no more altruistic than bacteria. Dr Max Burton-Chellew of Oxford University explains the findings:
BBC4 audio file - http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8691000/8691801.stm
Positive Psychology claims that only altruistic behaviour leads to true happiness. Could this newly-proven selfishness lead to wide-spread unhappiness amongst us?
Would you agree with this research?
Do you know examples of selfless and altruistic behaviour that didn't lead to personal gain?
Please share your views with us.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
SDS Debate: Award Winning Neurologist Challenges Our Therapy Practice
Here's a question for you: What do your clients spend most of their time talking about when they are with you?
• About how worthless they feel?
• About their negative core beliefs and how to challenge them?
• About their damaged histories and how these might be overcome?
• Or what they have been doing over the last week, month?
Marc Jeannerod may not be a name you're familiar with, but he is an internationally recognised expert in cognitive neuroscience and experimental psychology. His research has highlighted a significant process that is both theoretically interesting and contains very challenging implications for our practice.
Firstly, he has found that at a neurological level, the brain operates in exactly the same way when “simulating an action or behaviour as it does when actually doing it." In other words the same areas of the brain are used in exactly the same way when we talk about or visualise an activity or action as those that are used when we actually do that action.
Secondly, we have known elsewhere for a while that repeatedly using the same areas of our brain reinforces such connections and makes them MORE LIKELY to be used in the future.
Putting the two together suggests that what our clients spend their time visualising or thinking about increases the likelihood of them doing those things in the future. Basically, if our clients spend their time with us talking about their inactivity or inability (even when thinking about how to overcome it) INCREASES the likelihood of them continuing with their inactivity or inability.
The implications for us are more than just trying to make our clients "more positive". Firstly and most importantly, it has major implications for the agendas and protocols that both we and our clients use. Any time spent NOT talking about "successful" activity (as defined by the client) is at best a wasted opportunity and at worst – reinforcing the problem. Even if we only spend 50% of our time with clients talking about the problem, this is 50% of time spent on reinforcing the problem. Secondly, talking about "overcoming the problem" is little better – unless it focuses on what the client wants to be doing instead. Focusing on how to overcome a problem is not the same as focusing (e.g. visualising) on actually overcoming the problem.
For those of you who are wondering where ‘listening to the client's worries in order to engage them’ comes in, the answer is in the question. Attending to the client’s inaction, confusion, or distress is a necessary activity to engage the client initially, but should never be a central tenet of helping because despite best intentions it ultimately leads the client back to the place where they do not want to be.
If this issue interests you and you'd like to explore it further, or even if you fundamentally disagree with it, I'd love to discuss it with you.
You can do this in a number of ways:
• You can reply to this email directly
• You can post your reply on the SDS Blog (http://sdsmedia.blogspot.com)
• Or even better – come along to one of the SDS Seminars "All New Brief Solution Focused Therapy" (http://www.skillsdevelopment.co.uk/seminars.php?courseid=70). Anyone who has worked us with before will know I love lively, honest, and considered debate.
Looking forward to hearing from you and working with you again.
Take care
Paul
Paul Grantham
Consultant Clinical Psychologist
• About how worthless they feel?
• About their negative core beliefs and how to challenge them?
• About their damaged histories and how these might be overcome?
• Or what they have been doing over the last week, month?
Marc Jeannerod may not be a name you're familiar with, but he is an internationally recognised expert in cognitive neuroscience and experimental psychology. His research has highlighted a significant process that is both theoretically interesting and contains very challenging implications for our practice.
Firstly, he has found that at a neurological level, the brain operates in exactly the same way when “simulating an action or behaviour as it does when actually doing it." In other words the same areas of the brain are used in exactly the same way when we talk about or visualise an activity or action as those that are used when we actually do that action.
Secondly, we have known elsewhere for a while that repeatedly using the same areas of our brain reinforces such connections and makes them MORE LIKELY to be used in the future.
Putting the two together suggests that what our clients spend their time visualising or thinking about increases the likelihood of them doing those things in the future. Basically, if our clients spend their time with us talking about their inactivity or inability (even when thinking about how to overcome it) INCREASES the likelihood of them continuing with their inactivity or inability.
The implications for us are more than just trying to make our clients "more positive". Firstly and most importantly, it has major implications for the agendas and protocols that both we and our clients use. Any time spent NOT talking about "successful" activity (as defined by the client) is at best a wasted opportunity and at worst – reinforcing the problem. Even if we only spend 50% of our time with clients talking about the problem, this is 50% of time spent on reinforcing the problem. Secondly, talking about "overcoming the problem" is little better – unless it focuses on what the client wants to be doing instead. Focusing on how to overcome a problem is not the same as focusing (e.g. visualising) on actually overcoming the problem.
For those of you who are wondering where ‘listening to the client's worries in order to engage them’ comes in, the answer is in the question. Attending to the client’s inaction, confusion, or distress is a necessary activity to engage the client initially, but should never be a central tenet of helping because despite best intentions it ultimately leads the client back to the place where they do not want to be.
If this issue interests you and you'd like to explore it further, or even if you fundamentally disagree with it, I'd love to discuss it with you.
You can do this in a number of ways:
• You can reply to this email directly
• You can post your reply on the SDS Blog (http://sdsmedia.blogspot.com)
• Or even better – come along to one of the SDS Seminars "All New Brief Solution Focused Therapy" (http://www.skillsdevelopment.co.uk/seminars.php?courseid=70). Anyone who has worked us with before will know I love lively, honest, and considered debate.
Looking forward to hearing from you and working with you again.
Take care
Paul
Paul Grantham
Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Change your life in 66 days ?
Phillippa Lally and her colleagues at UCL (Lally et al (2009) How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world European Journal of Social Psychology) has been involved in addressing a fascinating question that is pressing for any practitioner who is trying to help their client change - namely how long does it take - not only to make a change but to ensure it is well established...in other words has become a new "habit" in their lives which they do automatically without thinking.
The average time taken was 66 days, although the spread ranged between 18 and 254 days. Not surprisingly, establishing new behavioural health habits (like doing sit ups every morning) took longer.
The good news from this study is that missing a single day's practice isn't of crucial importance. However, the bad news is that if a typical period for establishing a change is over two months (AFTER the change is learnt) brief interventions that are withdrawn as soon as a change is initiated are likely to lead to high relapse levels.
Our services (and ourselves as professionals) are forever overly preoccupied with clients at a Action Stage (in the Cycle of Change) and pay insufficient attention to Maintenance. Interventions for weight loss for example are well evidenced, but the containing failure at the maintenance stage continues to create problems. The issue is even more pronounced within mental health, where the preoccupation with acute problems remain just that - acute. Even when the issue of relapse is examined (as in depression) and its prevention through the use of mindfulness skills, there is little that looks at how long it takes a client to regularly and automatically use such new skills.
Whatever field we work in, if we were to keep the figure of 66 days in mind more frequently, it might substantially increase our long term effectiveness with our client and avoid the "hit and run" mentality that is currently so common.
The average time taken was 66 days, although the spread ranged between 18 and 254 days. Not surprisingly, establishing new behavioural health habits (like doing sit ups every morning) took longer.
The good news from this study is that missing a single day's practice isn't of crucial importance. However, the bad news is that if a typical period for establishing a change is over two months (AFTER the change is learnt) brief interventions that are withdrawn as soon as a change is initiated are likely to lead to high relapse levels.
Our services (and ourselves as professionals) are forever overly preoccupied with clients at a Action Stage (in the Cycle of Change) and pay insufficient attention to Maintenance. Interventions for weight loss for example are well evidenced, but the containing failure at the maintenance stage continues to create problems. The issue is even more pronounced within mental health, where the preoccupation with acute problems remain just that - acute. Even when the issue of relapse is examined (as in depression) and its prevention through the use of mindfulness skills, there is little that looks at how long it takes a client to regularly and automatically use such new skills.
Whatever field we work in, if we were to keep the figure of 66 days in mind more frequently, it might substantially increase our long term effectiveness with our client and avoid the "hit and run" mentality that is currently so common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
