Psychological Pathways Through Which Social Norms and Social Identity Influence Eating Behavior: Testing a Conceptual Model.

BACKGROUND: Although interventions frequently promote healthy eating, failing to consider psychosocial factors, such as social norms, may limit the effectiveness of these efforts. Perceived social norms are a well-documented determinant of eating behavior; however, there is limited understanding of the processes through which, and for whom, this relationship emerges. Using identity-based motivation as a theoretical framework, we present a conceptual model identifying one route through which descriptive social norms-beliefs about how others behave-predict eating behavior, and test whether this process varies across social identities (e.g., self-perceived weight status). METHOD: Structured telephone interviews were conducted for a national sample of non-diabetic adults who identified as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, or Mexican American (n = 990). RESULTS: Multigroup SEM analysis comparing individuals who self-identified as overweight (versus "about the right weight" and underweight) demonstrated that perceiving descriptive social norms that people do not eat healthy foods predicted greater perceived barriers to eating healthy foods. Perceived barriers, in turn, predicted stronger beliefs that body weight is uncontrollable, and this relationship was stronger for participants who self-identified as overweight (relative to participants who did not identify as overweight). These beliefs subsequently predicted greater self-reported consumption of unhealthy foods (e.g., sweets), but did not predict consumption of fruits or vegetables. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends our understanding of a psychosocial process that predicts consumption of unhealthy foods and underscores the importance of social identities for shaping responses to perceived norms.

Real and Perceived Discordance in Physicians and U.S. Adults' Beliefs Regarding the Causes and Controllability of Type 2 Diabetes.

Discordance between physicians and patients' health beliefs can impede health communication efforts. However, little research considers physicians' perceptions of patient beliefs, despite the importance of perceptions in shaping communication. In the current work, we examine instances of actual and perceived discordance between physicians and U.S. adults' beliefs regarding the causes and controllability of type 2 diabetes. 229 family physicians completed an online survey measuring their health beliefs and perceptions of their patients' beliefs. Physicians' responses were contrasted against beliefs from a national survey sample of 1,168 U.S. adults. T-tests assessed whether (a) physicians' beliefs diverged from the national sample's beliefs (actual discordance), (b) physicians perceived that their health beliefs diverged from their patients' beliefs (perceived discordance), and (c) physicians' perceptions of patient beliefs diverged from the national sample's beliefs (accuracy of perceived discordance). Findings revealed evidence of actual discordance; compared to the national sample, physicians were more likely to attribute type 2 diabetes to genes (versus lifestyle factors) and perceived greater control over developing diabetes. Moreover, although physicians perceived discordance between their own and their patients' beliefs, data from the national sample suggested that these gaps were less substantial than physicians expected. In particular, findings showed that physicians generally overestimated discordance, expecting that people would be less likely to (1) attribute the development of diabetes to lifestyle factors (versus genes), and (2) perceive control over developing diabetes, than was actually reported. Implications of actual and perceived discordance for effective health communication and patient education are discussed.

Children's beliefs about causes of human characteristics: Genes, environment, or choice?

To what extent do our genes make us nice, smart, or athletic? The explanatory frameworks we employ have broad consequences for how we evaluate and interact with others. Yet to date, little is known regarding when and how young children appeal to genetic explanations to understand human difference. The current study examined children's (aged 7-13 years) and adults' explanations for a set of human characteristics, contrasting genetic attributions with environmental and choice-based attributions. Whereas most adults and older children offered an unprompted genetic explanation at least once on an open-ended task, such explanations were not seen from younger children. However, even younger children, once trained on the mechanism of genes, endorsed genetic explanations for a range of characteristics-often in combination with environment and choice. Moreover, only adults favored genetic explanations for intelligence and athleticism; children, in contrast, favored environment and choice explanations for these characteristics. These findings suggest that children can employ genetic explanations in principled ways as early as 7 years of age but also that such explanations are used to account for a wider range of features by adults. Our study provides some of the first evidence regarding the ways in which genetic attributions emerge and change starting in early childhood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).