1. Regulatory focus and health eating behavior: olive oil case study
Safa Garbout, PhD student
03/02/2017

2. Factors influencing eating behavior
Food choice
Characteristics of the individual
• Age
• Sex
• Level of study
•Returned
• Nutritional knowledge
• Competence and culinary creativity
• Attitudes about the role of food on health
Charactersitics of food
taste
• Appearance
•Texture
• Prices
•Type of product
• Method of preparation
• Shape
• Seasonality
• Food combinations
Charachtristics of Environment
Season
• Employment status
•Geographical location
• Hearth size
• Familiar life cycle
Taste, texture, price, types of food, shape
Characteristics of Food
Season, familiar size
Employment status, communication
Characteristics of enviroment
Characteristics of the individual
Age , sex, nutritional knowledge, attitudes ,

3. Regulatory focus Promotion Prevention
Nurturance needs
Self regulation in relation to the ideal self
Desired end-states characterized by aspirations and accomplishments
Security needs
Self-regulation in relation to the
ought self
Desired end-states characterized by responsibilities and safety
The same desired end-state might be reached by different
means depending on motivational orientation. For example, if a
healthy diet is important, a promotion-focused individual may
emphasize matches and aim to consume nutritious food while a
prevention-focused individual may emphasize mismatches and
aim to avoid sweets and fatty foods. Furthermore, promotion- and
prevention-focused individuals may be motivated to engage in
the same behavior but for different reasons. For example,
promotion-focused individuals may be motivated to consume
fruits and vegetables because of the benefits associated with
these foods while prevention-focused individuals may be motivated
to consume fruits and vegetables because of the costs associated
with not consuming these foods
Promotion-oriented
individuals are particularly attuned to the presence and absence of
positive outcomes and tend to adopt approach strategies to ensure
outcomes that match their desired end-states. Preventionoriented
individuals are particularly attuned to the presence and
absence of negative outcomes and tend to adopt avoidance strategies
to steer clear of outcomes that mismatch their desired
end-states
Thus, a promotion focus emphasizes the presence of positive outcomes and minimizing “errors of omission” (e.g., missing opportunities for making progress), whereas a prevention focus favors the absence of negative outcomes and minimizing “errors of commission” (e.g., by doing something which turns out to be a mistake; Higgins 1997; Higgins and Spiegel 2004).
Presence and absence of
positive outcomes
tend to adopt approach strategies
Presence and absence of negative
outcomes
tend to adopt avoidance
strategies
Higgins (1997)

4. Types of regulatory focus
Chronic regulatory focus
Drives from a person ‘s developmental history (Trait-wise) ( Higgins and Silberman,1998)
Temporary regulatory focus
Contextual or situational
the other orientations can be chronically (trait-wise) or temporarily (situationally) more accessible to the individual
(Avnet and Higgins 2006; Higgins 1997, 1998, 2000)

5. Composite chronic regulatory focus scale
items
Type of orientation
When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don’t perform as well as I would ideally like to do
Promotion focus
I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life
When I see an opportunity for something I like, I get excited right away
I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations
I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my “ideal self”—to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations
(Haws and al.2010)
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,680

6. Scale chronic regulatory focus
items
Types
I usually obeyed rules and regulations that were established by my parents
Prevention focus
Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times
I worry about making mistakes
I frequently think about how I can prevent failures in my life
I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I “ought” to be—fulfill my duties, responsibilities and obligations
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,705
Total Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,801

7. Regulatory focus ‘s e- message
350 Millions users of Facebook/month in2009 and One biliion in 2012
89% use social media in 2012
Promotion
Prevention
Negative consequences of not adopting eating behavior
Positive consequences of adopting healthy eating behavior
Argument ‘s e- message
(Werle et al.2012).
Given the importance of the spread of information on social networks and the growth in the number of users of websites (Facebook, twitter, Instagram, Pinterst ...), Like the mass media, new technologies influence the behavior of individuals through social media. Young people are even more receptive to technologies to change their way of life and more specifically their eating habits
It is important to choose an effective argument that can educate the consumer
The message can thus use a promotion orientation and stress the positive consequences of adopting healthy eating behavior, or it can adopt a prevention orientation and emphasize the negative consequences of not adopting this behavior
A social argument can generate emotions among consumers, whereas the health argument can lead to cognitive treatment and a rational approach
Health
Based on preventive information related to health and the consequences of diseases
Social
Based on Social risks or the negative social consequences of eating habits
Raise awareness of risks and negative consequences of their eating habits on health

8. Online experimentation
Pre-experimental designs
Static group comparison: 2 types of groups of test subjects
Control group (CG)
Experimental group ( EG)
Orientation focus* type ‘s argument
promotion* health
Prevention* health
Promotion* social
Prevention* social
EG is exposed to the independent treatment and the control group is not given the treatment the dependent variable is measured in both groups after the treatment
Message on the environment

9. Group 1: Promotion* health

10. Group 1: Promotion* health

11. Group 2: Prevention* health

12. Group 3: Promotion* Social

13. Group 4: Prevention* Social

14. Control Group 5: message on the environment

15. Verification of manipulations “American sample n=1036”
Messages
Positive consequences of balanced diet
risks of obesity
consequences of food habit on health
consequences of food habit on social relationship friendship ,job…
Condition 1
M= 5,46
M=3,16
M=4,49
M=3,62
Condition 2
M=4,37
M=3,87
M=4,78
M= 3,44
Condition 3
M=4,62
M=3,93
M= 4,30
M=4,56
Condition 4
M=3,76
M=4,66
M= 4,50
M= 4,81
Condition 5
M=3,72
M=3,38
M= 3,77
M=3,66
Maheswaran and
Meyers-Levy (1990 ; 2004)
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,692

16. Verification of manipulations “French sample n= 1051”
Messages
Positive consequences of balanced diet
risks of obesity
consequences of food habit on health
consequences of food habit on social relationship friendship ,job…
Condition 1
M= 5,90
M=3,28
M=5,33
M=4,50
Condition 2
M=4,53
M=4,61
M=5,15
M= 4,02
Condition 3
M=4,79
M=4,37
M= 4,86
M=5,02
Condition 4
M=4,40
M=5,42
M= 5,18
M= 5,58
Condition 5
M=4,44
M=4,09
M= 4,46
M=4,35
Maheswaran and
Meyers-Levy (1990 ; 2004)
Alpha de Cronbach = 0,692

17. Verification of manipulations “Danish sample n= 1200”
Messages
Positive consequences of balanced diet
risks of obesity
consequences of food habit on health
consequences of food habit on social relationship friendship ,job…
Condition 1
M= 4,35
M=2,30
M=3,28
M=2,84
Condition 2
M=3,66
M=3,72
M= 4,02
Condition 3
M=3,43
M=3,32
M= 3,27
M=3,52
Condition 4
M=2,73
M=4,35
M= 3,79
M= 4,15
Condition 5
M=2,59
M=2,25
M= 2,50
M=2,50
Maheswaran and
Meyers-Levy (1990 ; 2004)
Alpha de Cronbach = 0,692

18. Group 1=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample)
65,7%
75,8%
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

19. Group 2=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample)
74,5%
82,4%
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

20. Group 3=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample)
72,5%
80,7%
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

21. Group 4=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample)
74,8%
83,8%
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

22. Group 5=Intention to eat healthy ( American sample)
66,%
79%
Alpha ‘s Cronbach = 0,916

23. Healthy choice “ dressing on salads
Balsamic vinaigrette sauce
Olive oil+ vinegar balsamic + salt+ pepper
Mayonnaise sauce
Mayonnaise + mustard +oil+ salt+ pepper
Ketchup sauce
Ketchup + mustard+ mayonnaise + vinegar+ salt + pepper
Yogurt sauce
Yogurt 0% + lemon juice+ Persil+ oil+ salt + pepper

24. Healthy choice ( English sample)
80,8 %
77,1 %
83,8%
79,2%
79,2%
Group 5
Group 1
Group 4
Group 3
Group 2

25. Healthy choice (cross cultural)
Country
Proportion
Danish consumer
68,76%
American consumer
79,84%
Frensh consumer
82,61%

26. Thank you for your attention