EFFECTS OF RESTRAINT, MONITORING, AND

STIMULUS SALIENCE ON EATING BEHAVIOR

JEAN E. COLLINS*+
Northwestern University

Abstract-This experiment investigated the effects of Monitoring and Stimulus Salience on the
eating behavior of restrained and unrestrained Subjects (5’s). During a rating task, Ss were
exposed to pictures of either food or scenery. Subsequently. they were asked to record their
consumption immediately before or after eating or not at all. Subjects in the No Monitoring
group ate twice as much and less accurately recalled how much they had eaten than Ss in
either the Monitoring Before or Monitoring After groups. Unrestrained eaters ate significantly
more than restrained eaters. However. within the No Monitoring group. Restraint and Stimulus
Salience interacted such that restrained Ss were particularly influenced by the Food Cues condi-
tion. Clinical implications are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of self-monitoring and stimulus
salience on the eating behavior of dieters and non-dieters (or restrained and unrestrained
eaters). It differs from much related research in that it was conducted in a laboratory
setting as opposed to the field. In an effort to explain the rationale behind this experi-
ment, comments follow concerning the association of self-monitoring, stimulus salience,
and weight control.
Self-monitoring of food intake appears to have several potential functions in weight
control: (1) to provide feedback on eating patterns, (2) to increase consciousness of
eating habits, and (3) to decrease amount eaten. The fact that self-monitoring can provide
useful information on when, how, and why an individual is likely to lose control over
his consumption is widely recognized and utilized by clinicians in their weight reduction
programs (e.g. Mahoney & Mahoney, 1976; Paulsen et al., 1976; Stuart, 1971). This
issue is not being disputed or investigated in the present study. It is the latter two
functions that are under examination. The theory that individuals are frequently unaware
of the quantity they are consuming is supported by Wooley (1972) and Polivy (1976).
They report that, in the absence of self-monitoring, Ss tended to inaccurately recall
their consumption. Furthermore, Wooley found that her Ss, as a group, underestimated
their consumption by approximately 25x, while Polivy reported an almost identical
statistic, but only with restrained eaters. One of the primary objectives of the present
experiment was to provide additional data concerning the impact of self-monitoring
on recall accuracy and quantity consumed.
The relevance of timing to self-monitoring efficacy was also investigated in this experi-
ment. Bellack et al. (1974) speculated that recording the amount of food an individual
intended to eat immediately before consuming the food would be more efficient in
producing weight losses than recording the amount of food eaten after the act. In the
former case, monitoring was expected to disrupt the eating sequence; in the latter case,
it was expected merely to increase awareness of eating habits. Bellack, et d’s results
were somewhat ambiguous, only loosely supporting their hypotheses, and warranting
further study.
Research on differential reactions to external and cognitive food cues among over-
weight and normal weight individuals indicates that the salience of external food cues
may influence consumption (Nisbett, 1968; Ross, 1969; Tom & Rucker, 1975). According
to studies conducted by Schachter and his colleagues (see Schachter & Rodin, 1974),
the obese may be especially motivated to eat by prominent, but not remote, external

* Requests for reprints should be sent to Jean E. Collins, Whitfield School. 175 South Mason Road. P.O.
Box 12850. St. Louis. MO 63141. U.S.A.
t All correspondence concerning the publication of this article should be sent to: Jean E. Collins, 2104
Woodlet Park Drive. Chesterfield. MO 63017. U.S.A.
198 JLAN E. COLLINS

food cues. The cognitive aspect of food cues has been studied separately by Tom &
Rucker (1975) and as it interacts with the strength of external food cues by Ross (1969).
Tom and Rucker’s data implies that thinking about food increases obese people’s tend-
ency to eat. Ross’s study demonstrates that when food cues are remote, distraction
that interferes with food thoughts may decrease eating, but that when food cues are
highly salient, distraction is likely to increase consumption.
Stimulus salience was studied in this experiment not only because of its relationship
to eating behavior per SC>,but also because of its implications for stimulus control
techniques in the treatment of obesity. Stimulus control seeks to minimize the number
of situations or external cues that signify eating to the obese, and thereby to reduce
the tendency to think about food. A sample of weight reduction studies that have incor-
porated stimulus control techniques into their treatment program have reported good
results (Harris. 1969; Penick et al.. 1971; Stuart, 1971). However, it is difficult to evaluate
the effects of stimulus control on eating behavior as it is typically part of a treatment
package rather than a treatment in and of itself. The present study sought to isolate
the action of stimulus salience.
This experiment studied monitoring and stimulus salience within the context of re-
straint. Essentially, the theory of restraint classifies individuals who are below their
biological set point for weight as restrained eaters (dieters) and those who are at or
near their biological set point as unrestrained eaters (non-dieters). A good deal of
research has been devoted to determining the physiological basis of restraint and the
conditions necessary to break down restraint (e.g. Herman & Mack. 1975: Hibscher
& Herman. 1977). But as Herman tar 01. (1978) note. ‘*.. in none of the previous research
has there been an explicit attempt to establish the situational conditions which would
actually iucrevsr the probability of the dieter’s successfully exerting restraint over his
consumption” (p. 2). The present study is further justified by its focus on methods
of maintaining restraint.
A main effect for Monitoring and several interactions between Restraint, Monitoring
and Stimulus Salience were hypothesized: (1) Monitoring should increase Ss’ awareness
of their consumption. Consequently, Ss in the Monitoring conditions should consume
less than Ss in the No Monitoring condition. Furthermore, monitoring before eating
may also interrupt the eating chain such that Ss in this condition should eat the least
of all; (2) Monitoring should increase the accuracy with which Ss recall the amount
of their consumption. This should be particularly true with M & MS since No Monitor-
ing Ss are more likely to lose track of how many M & MS they have eaten than
chocolate chip cookies; (3) A Restraint by Stimulus Salience interaction was expected
such that restrained, but not unrestrained. eaters would eat more in the presence of
external food cues than in their absence; and (4) An interaction between Monitoring
and Stimulus Salience was expected to occur, but only with restrained eaters. Restrained
eaters should eat the most when they are exposed to external food cues and not required
to monitor their intake. Alternately, they should eat the least when they are distracted
by non-food external cues and asked to monitor their consumption.

METHOD

One hundred and twenty-one female undergraduates at Northwestern University

volunteered to serve as Ss in order to partially fulfill an introductory psychology course
requirement. One S had to be eliminated because she was a diabetic. The statistical
analyses were thus based on data collected from 120 individually run Ss.

Subjects were randomly assigned to the six conditions created by crossing the three
monitoring conditions (Monitoring Before. Monitoring After. No Monitoring) and two
external cue conditions (Food Cues, Scenery Cues) such that twenty Ss were run in
 Effects on eating behavior 199

each of the six conditions. The experimenter (E) was blind to the restraint factor since
Ss were not classified as restrained and unrestrained eaters until after all Ss had been
run.

Procedure
Subjects were instructed to refrain from eating or drinking anything but water for
three hours prior to their experimental time. Experimental sessions were scheduled at
45 min intervals between 11 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Subjects began by completing the Energy Questionnaire in which the question, “How
hungry do you feel” was embedded. In an effort to disguise the fact that the E was
interested in eating behavior, Ss were then told that they would be participating in
an experiment designed to study the correlations between exercise and various physio-
logical measures such as pulse, heartbeat, and galvanic skin response. The E justified
the 3 hr fast to Ss as essential to help equalize 8s’ initial energy level.
To increase the credibility of the cover story, Ss were asked to run in place for
30 set and then permit the E to take their pulse. The E remarked that she was interested
in both short and long term effects of exercise on body functions, and in order to
obtain the latter measures the S would be required to sit and relax for 20 min.
The E then excused herself and returned with a platter containing 30 homemade
chocolate chip cookies, a bowl filled with 400 M & MS, and the appropriate external
cue pictures, rating and monitoring forms. The amount of cookies and candy was in-
tended to be suficiently large such that Ss would not be self-conscious about their
consumption. Subjects were told that the food was provided as a means of thanking
them for fasting before the experiment. All Ss could eat freely during the 20 min waiting
period when they were left alone.
Depending upon the monitoring condition, the E supplied the S with a record sheet.
In the No Monitoring condition a record sheet was not provided and no further instruc-
tions were given in reference to the food. In the Monitoring Before group, Ss were
asked to record how many cookies and M & MS they intended to eat. Thus each
time they wanted to eat something they were asked to record how much they planned
to eat before actually eating it. This was in contrast to the Monitoring After group
in which Ss were instructed to record the number of cookies and M & MS they ate
immediately after eating them. Monitoring was justified to Ss on the grounds that
although the E did not believe Ss’ consumption would affect the measures to be taken
in 20 min the E preferred having the data. The importance of recording either immedi-
ately before or after eating, in accordance with the condition, was stressed to Ss by
explaining the E was going to compare the convenience of recording before and after
eating.
The E proceeded to describe the s’s task as a favor to another graduate student
who was trying to pretest her dissertation design. The E commented that since all
her Ss had to wait 20 min before she could continue with her experiment, she did
not think they would mind helping her friend out. Subjects in the Food Cues condition
were asked to rate 8 recipes and colored pictures of the recipes on 5 rating scales.
Similarly, Ss in the Scenery Cues condition were asked to rate 10 descriptions and
colored pictures of scenes on 5 analogous rating scales. (Pre-tests indicated that 10
scenery pictures and descriptions could be rated in approximately the same length of
time as 8 food pictures and recipes; t( 10) = 0.13, n.s.)
Twenty minutes later the E re-entered the experimental room and interviewed the
S about the number of M & MS and cookies she had eaten, the length of time she
had fasted before the experiment and any suspicions she had concerning the experiment.
Lastly, the E administered the Restraint Scale, weighed and measured the S, advised
her not to discuss the experiment with anyone, and debriefed her if she desired.

Dependent variables
The dependent variables considered in the analyses of this study included the number
200 JUAN E. COLLINS

of M & MS and cookies consumed (number M & MS, number cookies), the total
numbers of grams consumed (total grams), and the discrepancy between the number
of M & MS and cookies Ss thought they had eaten and the amount they had actually
eaten (M & M discrepancy, cookie discrepancy).

RESULTS

CIassjficatiot7 of subjects
Restraint scores ranged from 3 to 30 with the median occurring between 16 and
17. The 58 Ss who accumulated 17 or more points on the Restraint Scale were considered
to be restrained eaters while the 62 Ss who scored 16 or less were considered to be
unrestrained eaters.

Analyses of variance demonstrated a strong main effect for Monitoring on the number
of M & MS (F(2, 108) = 5.73. P < 0.004) and total grams consumed (F(2, 108) = 3.69,
P < 0.03). but not on the number of cookies consumed. Newman-Keuls tests indicated
that the No Monitoring group ate significantly more M & MS than the Monitoring
Before (P < 0.01) and After (P < 0.05) groups. while the latter two groups did not
differ. This same pattern was repeated with total consumption (P < 0.05).
As predicted, analyses of variance revealed a main effect of Monitoring for M & M
discrepancy (F(2, 108) = 6.39, P < 0.002) but not for cookie discrepancy. Again,
timing of monitoring appeared to be unimportant as Newman-Keuls tests showed that
only the No Monitoring and two monitoring groups differed significantly (P < 0.01
for No Monitoring and Monitoring Before, P < 0.05 for No Monitoring and Monitoring
After).

Table I. Means for the effect of monitoring

Dependent variable Monitoring

Before After None

Number M & MS 13.62 13.57 30.58
Number cookies 3.08 2.85 3.63
Total number grams 53.04 48.1 I 73.56
M & M discrepancy 2.08 5.50 16.75
Cookie discrepancy 0.05 0.18 0.44

A main effect for Restraint occurred when the dependent variable was the number
of cookies consumed (Ql, 108) = 6.19, P < 0.01) such that unrestrained Ss ate more
cookies than restrained Ss (X = 3.66, x = 2.71, respectively).
The hypothesized Restraint by Stimulus Salience interaction as measured by consump-
tion across all Ss did not occur. The possibility that monitoring may have confounded
the interactional effects of Restraint and Stimulus Salience justified a separate analysis
of the No Monitoring group. Within this group. the specified interaction occurred at
a marginal level of significance (F(l. 36) = 3.19, P < 0.08). The means were in the pre-
dicted order such that restrained Ss in the Food Cues condition ate much more than
unrestrained Ss in the Food Cues condition, and substantially more than restrained
Ss in the Scenery Cues condition.

Stimulus salience efjrects

Aside from the Restraint by Stimulus Salience interaction noted above, the only effect
of Stimulus Salience was a Restraint by Monitoring by Stimulus Salience interaction
when the dependent variable was the number of M & MS consumed (F(2, 108) = 3.93,
P < 0.02). Attempts to logically interpret this three way interaction failed.
 Effects on eating behavior 201

Table 2. Means for the effect of restraint and stimulus

salience of the number of M & MS consumed by sub-
jects in the no monitoring group

Stimulus salience
Food cues Scenery cues

Restrained (10) 40.80 (9) 29.00

Unrestrained (10) 13.90 (llb38.64

Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to number of

subjects in that cell.

Correlations within food cues group

The Food Cues group was asked to rate 8 pictures of food and corresponding recipes
on the following 5 scales: (1) How attractively photographed is the food?, (2) How
tempting does the recipe sound?, (3) How likely would you be to try this recipe?, (4)
How much do you think you would enjoy eating this dish?, and (5) How much do
you think you’d eat of this dish? For each S, scores were summed across the 8 pictures
on each of the scales, and then summed together for a total sum. This total sum was
used in all analyses since the 5 scales correlated significantly with the total sum:
r(57) = 0.70, 0.90, 0.80, 0.80, 0.66 for questions l-5, respectively, (P < 0.001). One S
had to be eliminated from Le following analyses as she inadvertently skipped a picture.
There was a significant within group correlation between the total sum and the
number of M & MS consumed by the Food Cues group (r(57) = 0.29, P < 0.05). This
could suggest that the more appealing Ss found the food pictures, the more M &
MS they ate. When the Food Cues group was sub-divided into restrained and unres-
trained Ss, this correlation was significant for restrained (r(26) = 0.38, P < 0.05) but
not for unrestrained Ss (r(29) = 0.11, n.s.). It must be noted that the 0.38 and 0.1 I
correlations for restrained and unrestrained Ss are not significantly different from each
other (z = 1.04, n.s.).
Similarly, whereas hunger did not correlate with any other measure in restrained
Ss, it did correlate with the number of M & MS unrestrained Ss ate such that the
hungrier unrestrained Ss felt, the more they ate (r(29) = -0.39, P < 0.05). But the corre-
lation between hunger and number of M & MS consumed by unrestrained Ss did not
differ significantly from the same correlation for restrained Ss (z = 0.60, ns.).
Under no conditions was the total sum of the picture ratings correlated with either
Ss’ initial hunger rating or the total number of hours they had fasted.

Manipulation check
The relationship between the independent variables and both Ss’ initial hunger rating
and the length of their fast was assessed as a manipulation check. An analysis of variance
with hours fasted as the dependent variable showed only an interaction between Moni-
toring and Stimulus Salience (F(2, 108) = 4.95, P < 0.009). However, an analysis of vari-
ance with hunger ratings as the dependent variable revealed main effects for Restraint
(F(1, 108) = 4.66, P < 0.03) and Monitoring (F(2, 108) = 4.07, P < 0.02) and a triple
interaction (F(2, 108) = 4.26, P < 0.02). Although subsequent analyses showed that re-
strained and unrestrained Ss did not differ in the actual number of hours they had
fasted, unrestrained Ss rated themselves as hungrier than restrained Ss. Comparisons
among the mean hunger ratings in each of the monitoring conditions indicated that
Ss were significantly hungrier in the No Monitoring condition than in either the Moni-
toring Before (P < 0.05) or Monitoring After (P < 0.05) conditions. These results raised
the possibility of alternative interpretations for the Restraint and Monitoring effects
previously discussed.
Several analyses of covariance with hunger ratings as the covariate were consequently
performed. The only effect discussed earlier that disappeared when Ss were equalized
in terms of their self-reported hunger state was the main effect for Monitoring when
202 JOAN E. COLLINS

Table 3. Mean hunger ratings within restraint, monitoring, and stimulus salience
conditions

Stimulus salience
Food cues Scenery cues
Monitoring Restrained Unrestrained Restrained Unrestrained Mean

Before (10) 6.20* (IO) 3.60 (I 1) 4.21 (9) 4.67 4.68

After (8) 5.50 (12j4.17 (10) 4.60 (IO)4.30 4.64
None (IO)3.40 ( IO) 4.00 (9j4.11 (11)3.36 3.72

Mean for restrained = 4.68.

Mean for unrestrained = 4.02.
*Subjects rated their hunger on a scale of l-9 with 1 being “starved” and
9 being “full.”
Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to number of subjects in that cell.

total grams was the dependent variable. All other significant effects for Monitoring,
Restraint. and Stimulus Salience which were obtained in the analyses of variance were
preserved when hunger ratings were used as a covariate. In addition. the patterns of
the adjusted cell means were the same as the original cell means.

Table 4. Adjusted cell means for the effects of

monitoring

Dependent variable Monitoring

Before After None

Number of M & MS 15.36 15.10 27.71
Number of cookies 3.44 2.94 3.46
Total number grams 55.96 50.58 68.83
M & M discrepancy 2.96 6.28 15.32
Cookie discrepancy 0.08 0.2 I 0.40

DISCUSSION

Monitorittg hypotheses
Monitoring was expected to increase consciousness of amount eaten and decrease
consumption. Monitoring intake either before or after eating, as compared to not moni-
toring at all, was found to significantly decrease the discrepancy between the number
of M & MS, but not the number of cookies, that Ss actually ate and remembered
having eaten. Two variables appear to be especially important in determining if monitor-
ing will increase recall accuracy: (1) unit size of food, and (2) quantity consumed. It
is easier to lose track of consumption when the unit size is small and the quantity
consumed is large. This conclusion is supported by the mean consumption of 3.28
cookies and 19.35 M & MS as well as the positive correlation between the number
of M & MS Ss ate and M & M discrepancy.
In relation to recall inaccuracy. it is important to observe that it was directional-
there was an overwhelming tendency for Ss to underestimate their consumption. Out
of 120 Ss, only 4 Ss overestimated their M & M consumption by a mean of 1.5 M & MS
and only 3 Ss overestimated their cookie consumption by a mean of 2.33 cookies.
The other 50 instances of M & M discrepancy and 19 instances of cookie discrepancy
were underestimations with means of 19.92 and 1.84, respectively.
Judging by the effects of monitoring on M & M and cookie consumption, monitoring
may decrease the amount eaten most actively when it increases the awareness of how
much is being eaten. Subjects in the No Monitoring group ate more than twice as
many M & MS as either Ss in the Monitoring Before or After groups. Monitoring
had no effect on cookie consumption. Whereas Ss knew how many cookies they were
 Effects on eating behavior 203

eating regardless of whether they were monitoring, they did not know how many
M & MS they were eating in the absence of monitoring. Of course, the less Ss ate
without monitoring, the less opportunity monitoring had to decrease the amount eaten
(Ss in the No Monitoring group ate an average of 30.58 M & MS, but only 3.63 cookies).
Since dieters are generally characterized as eating too much of too many foods, monitor-
ing should have good potential for decreasing consumption.
The hypothesis concerning timing of monitoring was not confirmed as no differential
effects were found for monitoring before or after eating as measured by either M & M
or cookie consumption.

Restraint hypotheses
Restrained Ss ate significantly less cookies, but not M & MS, than unrestrained Ss
across all conditions. These results could imply that restrained eaters can exert differen-
tial restraint depending upon characteristics of the food. A combination of several condi-
tions may have aided restrained Ss in maintaining their restraint over chocolate chip
cookies. First, the absence of a monitoring effect on cookie consumption indicates that
Ss were aware of how many cookies they were eating with or without monitoring.
And, second, there was no forced preload, as in earlier studies, to assist in releasing
restraint (e.g. Herman & Mack, 1975; Herman rt al., 1978; Polivy, 1976).
The Restraint by Stimulus Salience interaction that occurred in the No Monitoring
condition is particularly important because it illustrates restrained eaters vulnerability
to external cues. Since dieters are probably more likely not to be monitoring their
intake on a regular basis, these results suggest that external food cues may encourage
dieters to overeat.

Stimulus salience hypotheses

Although the main stimulus salience hypotheses were not strongly supported by the
data, some indirect support for the external cues theory may be derived from the food
picture ratings. The correlation between the total sum of the food picture ratings and
number of M & MS consumed was found to be significant for restrained, but not
unrestrained Ss. Since the total sum was not correlated with restrained or unrestrained
Ss’ hunger ratings or the number of hours they had fasted, the possibility that Ss rated
pictures higher because they were hungrier or had fasted longer was eliminated. Whether
restrained eaters ate more because they found the food pictures more appealing or
rated the pictures higher because they ate more, the correlation may be evidence of
a relationship between external cues and eating behavior in restrained Ss.

Hunger rating implications

Restrained eaters should be hungrier than unrestrained eaters since by definition they
are below their biological set point. However, unrestrained Ss reported themselves as
hungrier than restrained Ss even though there was no difference in the length of time
unrestrained and restrained Ss fasted prior to the experiment. All Ss were required
to fast 3 or more hours so they should have been in a state of hunger. One explanation
is that restrained eaters are so used to fasting that they have learned to ignore internal
hunger cues while unrestrained eaters are more sensitive to hunger cues and able to
report their internal state more accurately. This interpretation is reinforced by the signifi-
cant correlation between hunger and number of M & MS consumed by unrestrained
eaters.
Across all Ss, there was a significant correlation between hunger and number of
M & MS consumed, and hunger and M & M discrepancy. As a group, the hungrier
Ss were, the more they ate, and the more they ate, the more inaccurate they were
in recalling how much they had eaten.

Summary and conclusions

One of the most valuable recommendations that may be inferred from the results
204 JEAN E. COLLINS

of this study is that self-monitoring may be an aid to dieters. Without monitoring

nibbling may be a dangerous pastime for dieters since nibbles are small and can accumu-
late unknowingly. Monitoring seems to be especially helpful in curtailing eating when
the food unit size is small and the food is being consumed in large quantities. Further
investigations are needed to clarify any impact of timing on monitoring efficacy.
The results obtained relevant to restraint are quite reasonable and compatible with
previous research. Dieters may be less perceptive of internal cues (i.e. hunger) and more
susceptible to external cues (i.e. food picture ratings). The possibility that dieters are
capable of exercising differential restraint is logical. Some foods can be more tempting
than others or possess qualities (i.e. taste, size) that influence eating.
Whether or not stimulus salience affects eating was not established in this study.
The results in the No Monitoring group suggest that external cues may be most powerful
when the dieter is not taking precautions to maintain restraint.

.4~krto~/rtl~c,r,1c,rtf,s---This research was performed as part of the author’s doctoral dissertation submitted to
the Graduate School of Psychology at Northwestern University. The author wishes to thank Dr Richard
R. Bootzin. Dr Sharon B. Gurwitz. Dr Winfred Hill. Dr C. Peter Herman and Dr Janet Polivy for their
suggestions concerning this study.

REFERENCES
Bellack. A. S., Rozensky. R.. & Swarlz. J. A comparison of two forms of self-monitoring in a behavioral
weight reduction program. Behatior Therapy. 1974. 5, 523-530.
Harris. M. B. Self-directed program for weight control: A pilot study. Journul of Abnormal Ps~choloy~. 1969.
14, 263-210.
Herman. C. P.. & Mack. D. Restrained and unrestrained eating. Journal of’ Personuliry. 1975, 43, 6477660.
Herman. C. P., Polivy. J.. & Silver. R. Eftects of an observer on eating behavior: The inductton of “sensible”
eating. Jorrrrlal of Pcr.\orltrlrr~~ 1978. In press.
Hibschcr. J. A.. & Herman. C. P. Obesity. dieting. and the expression of “obese” characteristics. ./orrrnu/
of‘ Compurarirrj urld Ph~sioloqicul P~~choloq~. 1977. 91, 374 380.
Mahoney. M. J.. 8~ Mahoney. K. Prrmanenr Weiyht Conrrol. New York: Norton 1976.
Nisbett, R E. Determinants of food intake in human obesity. ScirJlcc, 1968. 159. 1254-1255.
Paulsen. B. K.. Lutz. R. N.. McReynolds. W. T.. & Kohrs. M. B. Behavior therapy for weight control:
Long term results of two programs with nutritionists as therapists. The .~~nrrican Jourm~l qf C/in&t/
Nurririon. 1976. 29. X8&8X8.
Penick. S. B.. Filion. R., Fox, S., & Stunkard. A. J. Behavior modification in the treatment of obesity. Ps~cho~o-
matic Mrdicine. 1971. 33, 49-55.
Polivy. J. Perception of calories and regulation of intake in restrained and unrestrained subjects. Addicrrvr
Behuviors. 1976. 1. 237-244.
ROSS. L. D. Cue- and cognitive-controlled eating among obese and normal subjects. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation Columbia University, 1969.
Schachter. S.. & Rodin. J. Obese H~murn utld Ruts. New York: Wiley. 1974.
Stuart. R. B. A three-dimensional program for the treatment of obesity. Bhztior Research und Therup~.
1971. 9. 1777186.
Tom. G. & Rucker. M. Fat, full. and happy: Effects of food deprivation. external cues. and obesity on
preference ratings. consumption. and buying intentions. Jourrtul yf Prrsonulit~~ ujrd Social Ps&oloq~.
1975. 32. 761-766.
Winer. B. J. Stutisricul Prirxiplrs it1 Evprrimrnrul Desiyrl. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1961.
Wooley. S. C. Physiologic versus cognitive factors in short term food regulation in the obese and nonobese.
P.\vchosomaric Mcdicihr. 1972. 34. 62-68.