RESEARCH

Commentary

Means Yield to Ends in Weight Loss: Focusing on

How vs Why Aspects of Losing Weight Can
Lead to Poorer Regulation of Dietary Practices
Yevvon Yi-Chi Chang, PhD; Wen-Bin Chiou, PhD
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Article history:
Submitted 6 May 2014
Accepted 24 February 2015
Available online 21 April 2015

Keywords:
Construal levels
Impulse control
Self-control
The Stroop task
Weight loss
2212-2672/Copyright 2015 by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.02.032

ILLIONS OF TIPS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF

impulse-related behaviors such as weight control are available through books, the media, or
online resources. However, it appears that the
high availability of weight-loss tips is not correlated with
improved weight reduction among obese patients and the
public. The weak link between highly available tips and better
weight control raises an intriguing question: Is adopting a
means-focused approach toward weight reduction the best
strategy? Recent advances in research on the connection
between construal levels and self-control suggest that, relative to high-level construals (highlighting central goals),
low-level construals (highlighting means and resources)
can impair self-control.1 In this article, the primary purpose
is to discuss how construing weight reduction at low levels
(ie, a means-focused approach) can induce decreased
self-control, thereby leading to poor regulation of dietary behaviors. An experimental study is also reported to show that a
low-level construal (means-focused) mindset vs a high-level
construal (goal-focused) mindset regarding weight loss
would lead to poorer control over dietary practice.

CONSTRUAL LEVELS AND SELF-CONTROL

Construal level theory posits that the same event or object
can be represented at multiple levels.2-4 When high-level
construals are activated, an individuals preferences and
actions are based primarily on high-level factors, such as
central and superordinate goals. When low-level construals
are activated, preferences and actions are based increasingly
on low-level factors, such as subordinate means and resources.5 For example, construing an event (eg, maintaining

2015 by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

good physical health) at lower levels emphasizes the means

by which one maintains good health (eg, by eating more
vegetables) rather than the broader goals related to health
(eg, living a long life). In addition, a growing body of
empirical research has shown that focusing on means, or the
how aspects of an event, can induce a low-level construal
mindset, leading to self-control failure.5-7 For instance,
Fujita and Han7 recruited female undergraduate students,
who are often concerned with weight loss, for a construallevel manipulation. Relative to the high-level construal
condition, participants in the low-level construal condition
were 50% more likely to prefer a candy bar to an apple,
suggesting lower self-control. Research by Fujita and Sasota8
suggests that a low-level construal may reduce the cognitive
accessibility of distal goals at the expense of proximal
temptations, which, in turn, may promote self-control. Extant
evidence has also linked self-control failures to a broad range of
behavioral and impulse-control problems, including drug and
alcohol abuse, criminality, eating disorders, and smoking.9
Control of food intake is crucial to the maintenance of a
healthy weight.10 Poor regulation can lead to weight gain
and obesity. Considering individuals with an intention to
lose weight, a prototypical self-control dilemma may
involve distant concerns of health (the abstract, distal
motivation) and the immediate indulgence in culinary
pleasures (the concrete, proximal motivation).11 Lower selfcontrol may lead dieters to sacrice the distal concerns of
health (or physical appearance) in favor of enjoying the
immediate and direct culinary pleasures.12 Drawing from
the notions that low-level construals (means-focus) may
undermine self-control1,5 and a self-control failure has been
conceptualized as a preference for an individuals concrete,
proximal motivations over abstract, distal motivations,11-13
adopting a means-focused approach toward weight loss
(ie, considering how questions), as compared to a goalfocused approach (ie, considering why questions),
should lead to lower self-control and thereby loosen subsequent regulation of dietary practices.
In an experimental study of 102 daily smokers, Chiou and
colleagues14 examined whether participants primed with a
high-level (vs low-level) construal mindset would show reductions in smoking that might be mediated by improved
self-control. They used a widely employed why/how paradigm to induce high/low construal levels, whereby participants were asked to respond to questions about why or how
they would maintain good physical health. Participants in a
low-level construal mindset subsequently smoked more

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

1387

RESEARCH
cigarettes (mean2.6; 95% CI 2.2 to 3.0; P<0.01) than did
those in a high-level construal mindset (mean1.3; 95% CI
0.9 to 1.7). A mediation analysis supported the role of selfcontrol (B1.14; 95% CI 1.65 to 0.74; P<0.01) as a mechanism underlying this effect. These ndings indicate that
smokers primed with a low-level construal mindset (ie, a
means-focused approach) may induce lower self-control that
leads to loosened regulation of cigarette smoking.

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE REGARDING THE

MEANS-FOCUSED FALLACY IN WEIGHT LOSS
Recently, the authors conducted an experimental study to
test the effect of a means-focused mindset on the amount of
food consumed in a taste test among college students having
the intention to lose weight. The present research examined
whether means-focus would lower self-control more than
goal-focus via the Stroop color-naming task, which is one of
the most commonly used measures of self-control.14-16 In
addition, this experiment included a measure of the amount
of sugar preferred in a gift beverage because the consumption
of sugary beverages has been associated with obesity and
overweight status.17,18

Participants
Potential subjects (n86) were recruited by campus posters
at a national university in southern Taiwan. During recruitment, these participants reported demographic Information
and indicated the intention to lose weight. The intention to
lose weight was assessed using a dichotomous item (I intend
to lose weight) with which the respondent could either
agree or disagree. Fourteen participants who had no intentions to lose weight were excluded. The formal sample
consisted of 72 undergraduates (48 females, 24 males; mean
age21.4 years) who had an intention to lose weight. The
study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of
National Sun Yat-sen University. All participants provided
informed consent.

Procedure
Upon the arrival at the laboratory, participants were
informed that they were going to engage in several unrelated
tasks for use in future studies. They then answered demographic questions and reported on the time since their last
meal (hours). Participants weight was measured on a digital
scale, and a stadiometer was used to measure height. Body
mass index was also calculated as weight divided by height
squared (ie, kg/m2). Every two same-sex participants were
randomly assigned to one of two between-subjects conditions (construal mindset: means vs goal). Under the means
condition, participants were asked to complete a four-step
ladder questionnaire.6,14 They started at the top of the ladder and moved down, generating progressively subordinate
answers to the question of how they would lose weight (eg,
reducing caloric intake; reducing consumption of sugary
drinks). Under the goal condition, participants started at the
bottom of the ladder and moved up, generating increasingly
superordinate answers to the question of why they would
lose weight (eg, concerns of health or physical appearance;
improvement in self-esteem). Previous studies have demonstrated that considering questions of how is effective in
priming a low-level construal mindset, whereas considering
1388

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

questions of why is effective in priming a high-level construal mindset.1,5,7

After the construal-mindset manipulation, participants
were asked to help researchers with an attention task. Selfcontrol was assessed using a computerized Stroop task that
took about 5 minutes and required the use of self-control
resources to inhibit reading behavior on incompatible trials
(eg, the word red printed in green font). A temporary
reduction in peoples capacity for self-control has been linked
with impaired performance on incompatible (difcult) but
not compatible (easy) trials of the color-naming task.15,19,20
After four practice trials (all congruent, eg, the word green
in green font), participants reported the font color of each
word as quickly as possible for 24 compatible trials and 24
incompatible trials in randomized order. The mean difference
in the reaction time taken to identify the color between
incompatible and compatible trials was used as a measure of
self-control.13,14,19 A greater mean difference indicated lower
self-control.
After the Stroop task, actual food consumption was
assessed by a taste test,21,22 which might avoid the bias of
self-reports or retrospective memories of eating
behavior.23,24 Participants were provided with two different
kinds of ice cream (each approximately 200 g, equivalent to
400 kcal) and were asked to evaluate the avor, texture, and
sweetness of the ice cream. The quantity consumed was
measured covertly on a digital scale after the experiment.
After the taste test, participants completed an ostensibly
unrelated questionnaire (a 10-item version of the Big Five
Inventory25). The experimenter offered a medium-sized
bubble tea (a very popular beverage in Taiwan and overseas
Chinese communities) as a reward drink during the survey.
Participants indicated the amount of sugar and ice for their
reward drinks on the order sheet. The dependent variable
was the amount of sugar chosen for the reward drink
(0sugar free; 1a little; 2half of the norm; 3slightly less
than the norm; 4the norm). During the probing of suspicion, none of the participants guessed the real purposes of
this experiment (ie, associations among the construal mindset manipulation, the amount of ice cream eaten in the taste
test, and the amount of sugar chosen for the reward drink).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

With respect to the manipulation check, two judges who
were unaware of each participants mindset coded responses
based on the abstractness of responses: 1a subordinate
means to lose weight (eg, reduce consumption of sugary
drinks, exercise); 1a superordinate end or goal (eg, feel
good about myself, health improvement); and 0a response
ts neither criterion.6,14,26 Ratings of each participants four
responses were then summed to create an index of construal
level ranging from 4 to 4; higher scores indicated higherlevel construal. The ratings by the two judges, which were
highly correlated (r0.91; P<0.001), were averaged. As expected, participants exposed to how questions generated
responses that reected lower levels of construal mindset
(mean3.14; standard deviation [SD]0.94) compared with
those exposed to why questions (mean3.04, SD0.80;
t[70]30.137; P<0.001).
In terms of the self-control measure, it was indexed by the
mean difference in the reaction time taken to identify the
September 2015 Volume 115 Number 9

RESEARCH
Table. Means (standard deviations) of the time since last meal, body mass index, self-control measure, amount of ice cream
eaten in a taste test, and amount of sugar for the reward drink among undergraduates at National Sun Yat-sen University (n72)
Means condition
(n [ 36)

Measures

Goal condition
(n [ 36)

t-Value

P value

0.403

meanSDa !
2.750.50

2.860.61

0.841

25.222.10

25.002.17

0.442

0.66

Self-control measure (ms)

130.3632.54

106.2529.78

3.279

0.002**

Amount of ice cream eaten (g)

125.2823.24

111.2818.36

2.836

0.006**

1.921.39

1.131.31

2.556

0.013*

Time since last meal (h)

Body mass index
b

Amount of sugar for the reward drink (0e4)

a

SDstandard deviation.
Self-control measure was the mean difference in reaction times for naming the color between incompatible and compatible trials in the Stroop task. Greater difference indicates less
self-control.
c
The meaning of the amount of sugar chosen for the reward drink: 0sugar free; 1a little; 2half of the norm; 3slightly less than the norm; and 4the norm.
*P<0.05.
**P<0.01.
b

color between incompatible and compatible trials in the

Stroop task. This measure was associated with the mindset
manipulation (see the Table), showing that participants in the
means group showed less self-control than did participants
in the goal group (t[70]3.279; P0.002, Cohens d0.77).
As to the dependent measure for this study, the amount of
ice cream eaten (mean118.28 g; SD21.96) in a taste test
was not associated with participant body mass index
(mean25.11; SD2.12; r0.06; P0.602). As shown in the
Table, on average, participants receiving the means-focused
mindset manipulation ate more ice cream than did those
receiving a goal-focused manipulation (F[1,69]7.842;
P0.007, hp20.102) when controlling for time since the last
meal (mean2.81 hours; SD0.56). To examine whether selfcontrol mediated the link between the construal mindset
manipulation and subsequent amount of ice cream eaten, one
dummy variable (0the goal condition, 1the means condition) was created for the two-group categorical independent
variable, treating the time since last meal as a control variable. As expected, the direct effect was no longer signicant
(from b13.99; standard error [SE]5.00; t2.80; P0.007 to
b4.94; SE4.43; t1.12; P0.268) when the self-control
measure was included in the equation. The self-control
measure was a signicant predictor of the amount of ice
cream eaten (b0.39; SE0.07; t5.73; P<0.001). Furthermore, a bootstrap analysis27 showed that the 95% biascorrected CI (3.84 to 15.63) for the indirect effect (b9.01;
SE2.96; bootstrap resamples1,000) excluded 0, suggesting
a signicant indirect effect (see Figure).
In terms of amount of sugar chosen for the reward drink,
participants under the means condition chose larger amounts
of sugar for the reward drink (ie, the bubble tea) than did
those under the goal condition when controlling for time
since the last meal (see the Table; F[1,69]8.363; P0.005;
hp20.108). In addition, self-control measure was positively
associated with amount of sugar chosen for the reward drink
(r0.41; P<0.001), indicating that lower self-control led
participants to choose larger amounts of sugar for the reward
drink. Furthermore, a logistic regression was employed to
examine whether the sugar-free choice was associated with
September 2015 Volume 115 Number 9

the mindset manipulation, while treating the time since last

meal as a covariate. Participants under the means condition
were less likely to choose sugar-free bubble tea (19.4% [7 of
36]) than were those under the goal condition (50.0% [18 of
36]; b1.64, SE0.57; Wald8.181; P0.004; odds
ratio0.19; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.60). The covariate variable (ie, the
time since last meal) was related to the sugar-free choice
(b1.15; SE0.52; Wald4.703; P0.03; odds ratio0.33;
95% CI 0.12 to 0.90).
The present ndings contribute to the literature regarding
the connection between construal levels and self-control in
several important ways. First, this research provides the rst
experimental evidence showing the unintended effects of a
means-focused mindset on the regulation of dietary practices. Second, the measure of impulse-related behavior (ie,
food consumption) was actual consumption rather than selfreported records, as in prior studies.28,29 Finally, the present
ndings are thought-provoking because although participants had the intention to lose weight, they were still subject
to the deteriorating effect of a means-focused mindset on
control over dietary practices.

The Self-Control Account

Building on recent advances in research on construal level
theory associating low-level construals (means-focused)
with diminished self-control and high-level construals

Figure. Self-control mediated the effect of a means-focused

mindset on amount of ice cream eaten in a taste test. Selfcontrol was manifested by the mean difference in reaction
time (ms) between incompatible and compatible trials in the
Stroop task. Greater difference represents smaller self-control.
Numbers are standardized regression coefcients. *P<0.05.
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

1389

RESEARCH
(goal-focused) with increased self-control,1,5 it was reasoned that thinking about how to lose weight would
induce a low-level construal mindset that would impair
self-control, thereby decreasing control over dietary practice. This prediction was supported by an experimental
study showing that, relative to those receiving a high-level
construal (goal-focused) mindset manipulation, participants
receiving a low-level construal (means-focused) mindset
manipulation regarding weight loss ate more ice cream in a
taste test and preferred larger amounts of sugar in their
reward drink.
Construal level theory proposes that a low-level construal
mindset may enhance the cognitive accessibility of proximal
temptations at the expense of distant goals, which, in turn,
may undermine self-control.1,5 Considered in this vein, prior
research has shown that an act that depletes self-control
resources impairs subsequent impulse-control behaviors.9,13,30 For example, resisting an impulse leads to subsequent excessive alcohol consumption.31 Likewise, Erskine and
colleagues28 demonstrated a behavioral rebound for effects of
thought suppression on smoking behavior. They showed that
the suppression group smoked signicantly more in the week
after 1 week of thought suppression than did the thoughtexpression or control group. The present ndings indicated
that lower self-control as indexed by greater Stroop interference in naming the color of words between incompatible
and compatible trials mediated the relation of a low-level
construal (means-focused) mindset to subsequent loosened
regulation of dietary choices. Research has demonstrated that
although low-level construal promotes more positive attitudes toward temptations, high-level construal promotes
more negative attitudes.5,7 In comparison with answering
why questions about weight loss, answering how questions may cause dieters to stay in a conict between their
current weight and the temptation of culinary pleasure,
which creates a greater depletion of self-control resources. In
principle, an individual possess a limited amount of selfcontrol.30 The Stroop color-naming task requires self-control
resources to override the semantic meaning of a color word.
Participants in a low-level construal (means-focused) mindset consumed more self-control resources during the process
of answering how questions, and subsequently showed
greater Stroop interference as more self-control resources
were depleted, as a result, leading to poorer dietary choices.
The notion of self-control may account for the rebound effect28,31,32 and for the present mediation ndings as well.

CONCLUSIONS
Weight-loss interventions in clinic practice have been widely
investigated. Weight-reduction programs are broadly available to the general public. However, ndings from the current
research demonstrate the ip side of a means-focused
approach to impulse-control behaviors (which is termed the
means-focused fallacy): focusing on the means of losing
weight may induce a low-level construal mindset that undermines self-control, thereby resulting in greater consumption of food. Thus, dieters may diligently monitor
whether increased consumption follows a means-focused
mindset and decreased consumption follows a goal-focused
mindset. The link between a means-focused approach toward weight reduction and poor self-control over dietary
1390

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

practices suggests that focusing on how to lose weight may

lead to unintended consequences. Therefore, writing down
the purpose of losing weight may be a better path toward
weight control than searching the Internet for weight-loss
tips. In principle, weight loss requires continuous
self-control efforts on dietary practices across diverse contexts and over time.10,22 The present experimental study
indicated that a high-level construal (goal-focused) mindset
induced participants to consume less food through greater
self-control. As argued from the perspective of construal level
theory, people construing events in higher-level (and, thus,
more goal-relevant) terms may act to help themselves resist
expected temptations to neglect those salient goals because
high-level representations place greater weight on valued
goals. The counteracting effect of a high-level construal (goalfocused) mindset on depleted self-control resources also
suggests several avenues for future research. These include
whether the effect of a goal-focused strategy on healthy
eating would be observed in naturalistic settings. A deeper
examination of the role of construal level in self-control may
help researchers and practitioners to better understand who
is likely to succeed or fail in their self-control efforts
regarding impulse-controlrelated phenomena such as
obesity and addiction, as well as when and why these successes and failures happen. Future investigation and application of this topic are highly encouraged.

References
1.

Fujita K, Carnevale JJ. Transcending temptation through abstraction:

The role of construal level in self-control. Curr Dir Psychol Sci.
2012;21(4):248-252.

2.

Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychol Rev. 2003;110(3):

403-421.

3.

Liberman N, Trope Y. The psychology of transcending the here and

now. Science. 2008;322(5905):1201-1205.

4.

Trope Y, Liberman N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev. 2010;117(2):440-463.

5.

Fujita K, Trope Y, Liberman N, Levin-Sagi M. Construal levels and

self-control. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90(3):351-367.

6.

Freitas A, Trope Y, Gollwitzer P. The inuence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others self-regulatory
efforts. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2004;40(6):739-752.

7.

Fujita K, Han HA. The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conicts. Psychol Sci. 2009;20(7):799-804.

8.

Fujita K, Sasota JA. The effects of construal levels on asymmetric

temptation-goal associations. Soc Cogn. 2011;29(3):125-146.

9.

Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Tice DM. The strength model of self-control.
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007;16(6):351-355.

10.

Blundell JE, Gillett A. Control of food intake in the obese. Obes Res.
2001;9(suppl 11):263S-270S.

11.

Fujita K. On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful

inhibition of impulses. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011;15(4):352-366.

12.

Ainslie G. Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness

and impulse control. Psychol Bull. 1975;82(4):463-496.

13.

Mischel W, Shoda Y, Rodriguez ML. Delay of gratication in children.

Science. 1989;244(4907):933-938.

14.

Chiou WB, Wu WH, Chang MH. Think abstractly, smoke less: A brief
construal-level intervention can promote self-control, leading to
reduced cigarette consumption among current smokers. Addiction.
2013;108(5):985-992.

15.

von Hippel W, Gonsalkorale K. That is bloody revolting! Inhibitory

control of thoughts better left unsaid. Psychol Sci. 2005;16(7):497500.

16.

Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, et al. Self-control relies on

glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92(2):325-336.

September 2015 Volume 115 Number 9

RESEARCH
25.

Rammstedt B, John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less:

A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and
German. J Res Pers. 2007;41(1):203-212.

26.

Liberman N, Trope Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal
construal theory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75(1):5-18.

Richeson JA, Shelton JN. When prejudice does not pay: Effects of
interracial contact on executive function. Psychol Sci. 2003;14(3):
287-290.

27.

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behav Res Meth. 2008;40(3):879-891.

20.

Carr PB, Steele CM. Stereotype threat affects nancial decision

making. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(10):1411-1416.

28.

21.

Briers B, Pandelaere M, Dewitte S, Warlop L. Hungry for money: The

desire for caloric resources increases the desire for nancial resources and vice versa. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(11):939-943.

Erskine JAK, Georgiou GJ, Kvavilashvili L. I suppress, therefore I

smoke: Effects of thought suppression on smoking behavior. Psychol
Sci. 2010;21(9):1225-1230.

29.

Chang YY, Chiou WB. Taking weight-loss supplements may elicit

liberation from dietary control: A laboratory experiment. Appetite.
2014;72(1):8-12.

Logel C, Cohen GL. The role of the self in physical health: Testing the
effect of a values-afrmation intervention on weight loss. Psychol Sci.
2012;23(1):53-55.

30.

Evers C, de Ridder DTD, Adriaanse MA. Assessing yourself as an

emotional eater: Mission impossible? Heal Psychol. 2009;28(6):717725.

Muraven M, Tice DM, Baumeister RF. Self-control as limited

resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. J Pers Soc Psychol.
1998;74(3):774-789.

31.

Sproesser G, Schupp HT, Renner B. The bright side of stress-induced

eating: Eating more when stressed but less when pleased. Psychol
Sci. 2014;25(1):58-65.

Muraven M, Collins RL, Nienhaus K. Self-control and alcohol restraint: Test of the self-control strength model. Psychol Addict Behav.
2002;16(2):113-120.

32.

Wenzlaff RM, Wegner DM. Thought suppression. Annu Rev Psychol.

2000;51:59-91.

17.

Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Osganian SK, Chomitz VR, Ellenbogen SJ,
Ludwig DS. Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight in adolescents: A randomized, controlled
pilot study. Pediatrics. 2006;117(3):673-680.

18.

Huffman L, West DS. Readiness to change sugar sweetened beverage

intake among college students. Eat Behav. 2007;8(1):10-14.

19.

22.

23.

24.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Y. Y.-C. Chang is an assistant professor, Department of Hospitality Management, Tunghai University, Taichung Taiwan. W.-B. Chiou is a professor,
Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Address correspondence to: Wen-Bin Chiou, PhD, Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lien-Hai Rd, Kaohsiung 80424,
Taiwan. E-mail: wbchiou@mail.nsysu.edu.tw

STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.

FUNDING/SUPPORT
This study was partially supported by grant no. NSC 100-2628-S-110-005-MY3 from the National Science Council, Taiwan, Republic of China.

September 2015 Volume 115 Number 9

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

1391