RESUMO
Research has shown that expected satiety is highly associated with portion-size selection and can vary (kcal-for-kcal) significantly between foods. However, research has not adequately investigated whether current appetite influences relative differences in the expected satiety of foods. This is important to explore to better understand how current motivational state influences food choice and portion selection. This study used 'hypothetical' and 'momentary' expected-satiety assessments to understand whether methods requiring a reflection on current motivational state [momentary] versus more hypothetical considerations when assessing expected satiety can influence the interpretation of results. It was hypothesised that current appetite would only influence relative differences in expected satiety between foods for momentary, but not hypothetical, expected satiety assessments. Participants (n = 54) were shown images of twelve foods, once when hungry and once when full. In each case, they selected a portion for each food to 1) match the expected satiety of a fixed-portion 'standard' food [hypothetical], and 2) stave off hunger until their next meal [momentary]. Results showed that the relative between-food comparison of expected satiety was stable for hypothetical (p=.73) but not momentary assessments (p<.001) suggesting that while current motivational state may influence food choice and portion selection in the moment, more generalised comparisons of the satiating abilities of foods (learned over a longer period) remain stable. This is important 1) for methods in future studies, as immediate dietary intake does not appear to influence hypothetical expected satiety, thus dietary control is not necessary before participants undertake these assessments, and 2) as it confirms that difficulties associated with dietary regulation may not be due to inaccurate hypothetical judgements about foods, but instead appear to be influenced by contextual nuances that occur in the moment.
