Journal of Abnormal Psychology

1975, Vol. 84, No. 6, 666-672

Anxiety, Restraint, and Eating Behavior

C. Peter Herman and Janet Polivy
Northwestern University
It was hypothesized that individual differences in eating behavior based on the
distinction between obese and normal subjects could be demonstrated within
a population of normal subjects classified as to the extent of restraint chron-
ically exercised with respect to eating. Restrained subjects resembled the obese
behaviorally, and unrestrained subjects resembled normals. This demonstration
was effected in the context of a test .of the psychosomatic hypothesis of
obesity. The results indicated that although some individuals may eat more
when anxious, there is little empirical support for the notion that eating serves
to reduce anxiety. An explanation for this apparent inconsistency was offered.

The role of anxiety as a possible causal admission, crackers are "a neutral sort of
agent in obesity has recently been subjected food, neither liked nor disliked by most
to experimental analysis. Schachter, Goldman, people (p. 95)." McKenna predicted that
and Gordon (1968) hypothesized that al- the replacement of crackers with "extremely
though anxiety would decrease eating in nor- appetizing and tasty" (p. 314) chocolate-chip
mal-weight subjects by inhibiting gastric con- cookies would elicit significant overeating in
tractions and releasing sugar into the blood- the anxious obese. McKenna's results with
stream, it would have little if any effect on these cookies indicated that the facilitative
the obese, who do not eat on the basis of effect of anxiety on the obese's eating was
internal physiological state. These predictions almost as strong as its inhibitory effect on
were confirmed, with normal-weight subjects normals' eating (33% more and 39% less,
eating substantially less (34%) when anxious respectively), although the former effect fell
and the obese eating nonsignificantly more short of conventional significance levels. Nev-
(15%). Schachter et al. (1968) concluded ertheless, McKenna found no evidence of sig-
that the psychosomatic hypothesis of obesity nificant or differential anxiety reduction for
—that the obese in effect confuse hunger the obese. In fact, the group showing the
with negative affect (Bruch, 1961) and thus greatest anxiety reduction was composed of
overeat in response to aversive emotional noneating, obese control subjects. McKenna
states (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1957)—had failed argued, however, that the temporal arrange-
to find confirmation. Obese subjects did not ments of his experiment may have prevented
eat more when anxious and did not exhibit accurate measurement of eating-induced anx-
significant anxiety reduction as a consequence iety reduction; he suggested that anxiety re-
of eating. duction may be an ephemeral effect which had
McKenna (1972) hypothesized that the dissipated by the time he attempted to assess
psychosomatic hypothesis had some merit, it. The present experiment thus incorporated
but perhaps only when good-tasting food was both a good-tasting food (ice cream) and an
available. Schachter et al. had employed immediate assessment of anxiety-reduction
crackers as their criterion food; by their own effects.
This research was supported by the Bureau of The second focus of the present experiment
Health Services Research Grant HS 00049-04, ad- dealt with the notion that eating behavior dif-
ministered by James H. Bryan. The authors wish ferences between obese and normal-weight
to thank Andy Davis for his invaluable assistance as
an experimenter. subjects are perhaps more dependent on the
The second author is now at Loyola University in extent of underweight than overweight. Re-
Chicago. cent theorizing by Nisbett (1972) proposes
Requests for reprints should be sent to C. Peter
Herman, Department of Psychology, Northwestern that many (perhaps most) obese individuals
University, Evanston, Illinois 60201. may in fact be relatively deprived or "under-
666
 ANXIETY, RESTRAINT, AND EATING BEHAVIOR 667

weight" with respect to their own biological the argument offered by Schachter and his
set-points, an individual difference parameter coworkers (e.g., Schachter and Rodin, 1974)
which varies directly as a function of the that "externality" is the characteristic of
number of fat cells in the body. Fat cell the obese that accounts for their anomalous
number, fixed in the adult, is in turn a func- eating behavior. The Schachterian position
tion of genetic endowment and early nutri- might argue that restrained normals resemble
tional experience. The obese, according to the obese because they are in fact identical
Nisbett, are overendowed with fat cells, and with respect to externality, differing only in
consequently overeat in an attempt to satisfy the extent to which food consumption has
the demands imposed by their adipose tissue been effectively inhibited. Nevertheless, if
for repletion. Such demands are expressed in- restraint can be shown to be an effective
directly, in this view, through an external predictor variable, independent of objective
orientation to food cues which characterizes weight, then the notion that externality may
food-deprived organisms. Cultural and social be a consequence of dieting (a prominent
pressures, however, tend to inhibit weight activity of the obese and other restrained
gain in most obese individuals; the result is eaters) or forced weight loss, gains cogency.
a compromise state of social overweight and Some support for this notion is provided by
biological underweight. Implications of this the finding (Hibscher, 1974) that restraint,
theory include: (a) The obese ought to re- as measured in the present study, correlates
semble food-deprived normals behaviorally significantly, r(&4) = .25, p < .02, with
because both are in effect hungry (i.e., below plasma free fatty acid after an overnight fast
set-point), a contention for which Nisbett within both obese and normal-weight subject
(1972) provides some suggestive evidence; groups. Free fatty acid level is a well-es-
(b) obese individuals who have repudiated tablished index of food deprivation (Walker.
social pressures and attained prodigious & Remley, 1970). The present position, then,
weight ought to resemble normal-weight indi- is in agreement with the notion that ex-
viduals who are also at or near their biological ternality is a prominent characteristic of the
set-points, another contention for which some obese; however, it regards externality as an
evidence is accumulating (Nisbett, 1972); intervening variable that mediates the effect
(c) normal weight individuals who are con- . of relative deprivation on behavior.
stantly dieting and concerned with not gain- The present experiment thus incorporated
ing weight, and who presumably would gain the following critical features: (a) an anxiety
substantial weight if they were to "let them- manipulation comparable to that employed in
selves go," ought to resemble the obese be- the previous research, (b) an assessment of
haviorally. the effects of this manipulation on the con,
Schachter's original distinction between sumption of a good-tasting food, (c) an as-
obese and normal individuals, then, might sessment of the effects of eating on anxiety
profitably be mapped onto restrained and un- reduction, and (d) the use of restrained and
restrained normal-weight individuals. If it unrestrained normal-weight subjects rather
could 'be demonstrated that restrained nor- than the obese and normal-weight subjects
mals (presumably well below set-point) be- previously studied. The principal prediction
have like Schachter's (or McKenna's) obese, of the study was that restrained normal-
and that unrestrained normals (presumably weight subjects would behaviorally resemble
at or near set-point) behave in a manner the obese in their response to anxiety,
corresponding to Schachter's normals, then whereas unrestrained normals would resemble
indirect support will have been provided for Schachter's and McKenna's normals. It was
Nisbett's relative deprivation model in ac- thought that the most powerful demonstration
counting for obese-normal behavioral differ- of the parallelism between the obese and re-
ences. Establishing a behavioral parallel be- strained normals would be in a situation in
tween restrained normal-weight eaters and which the behavior of the obese had already
the obese would not specifically undermine been well investigated experimentally. Also,
668 C. PETER HERMAN AND JANET POLIVY

if overeating is ultimately a consequence of damage and that the pain she would feel would be
adipose demand rather than aversive psychic brief. She was then asked to remove rings, bracelets,
watches, and any other metal objects from her non-
states (as Nisbett implies), then one would preferred hand, and the experimenter attached elec-
expect that if and when restrained eaters ex- trodes coming from the electrical device, adjusting
hibited excessive eating, such behavior would a knob labeled "shock level" to the second-highest
not necessarily be anxiety reducing. position.
Low anxiety. Subjects were given an introduction
similar to that given in the high-anxiety condition,
METHOD but the focus was shifted so that the subjects could
be assured that "only the mildest possible tactile
Overview stimulation is required." The experimenter indicated
Female subjects were randomly assigned to high- that electrical stimulation would be used, but hesi-
anxiety or low-anxiety conditions, as in Schachter tated to even call it shock because the subjects would
et al. (1968). The amount of ice cream consumed feel only a slight tingle or tickling, if anything.
while anticipating electric shock (or "mild tactile Electrodes were attached as above, and the ex-
stimulation") was assessed in an ostensible taste- perimenter adjusted the shock level knob to the
rating context. Anxiety was assessed immediately be- second-lowest position.
fore and after eating as part of a mood scale. Sub- From this point on, all subjects were treated
jects were retrospectively designated as restrained or identically. First, the subject was presented with a
unrestrained on the basis of scores on a restraint mood scale ("to assess [her] present mood"), em-
questionnaire administered at the end of the ex- bedded in which were two questions assessing anx-
periment. iety. Next, -three containers of ice cream—one
chocolate, one vanilla, and one strawberry—were pre-
sented to the subject, allegedly for the initial test-
Subjects ing. The subject was told that she would have 10
Subjects were 42 female students at Northwestern min to rate the three flavors on three S-item ques-
University who received credit toward the experiment tionnaires. She was instructed that it was essential
requirement of an introductory psychology course. that she taste the flavors in a specific order, choco-
late, then vanilla, then strawberry, to control for
Subjects were run individually from 11:00 A.M.
until 6:00 P.M. at hourly intervals. Subjects were the effect of one taste on another. It was empha-
asked not to eat for 5 hr preceding the experiment, sized that she must be certain about all S ratings
of the chocolate ice cream before proceeding to the
on the grounds that the experiment involved the
sense of taste. Two subjects became intensely dis- vanilla, and so on. She could taste as much of each
tressed at the mention of possible electric shock, flavor as she wanted, and after all of the ratings
despite assignment to the low-anxiety condition; had been made, she could go back and have as much
their data were not considered in any analyses. of any flavor as she wanted as long as she didn't
change any of the ratings. The subject was then left
to taste and rate the ice cream in isolation for 10
Procedure min. Each container held approximately 600 g of
ice cream, enough to make it appear unlikely that
Upon arrival, subjects were seated at a table in the experimenter could tell how much the subject
a cubicle containing a formidable-looking electrical had eaten. The questionnaires were sufficiently short
device. Subjects were informed that the experiment that the subject could easily complete them in 10
concerned sensory psychology, specifically, the way min with ample time to eat more ice cream before
one sort of sensation affects another. The experiment the experimenter returned.
was further described as an investigation of the Following the 10-min taste period, the experimenter
influence of tactile stimulation on taste. Subjects returned and immediately administered the second
were told that they would first taste some food under mood scale which included the two questions as-
normal circumstances, then receive some tactile stimu- sessing anxiety, explaining that it was necessary to
lation, and finally taste some more food to determine "correct for" short-term mood changes. Finally, the
the effect of the tactile stimulation. In addition to subject was given the restraint questionnaire, osten-
the effects of tactile stimulation, subjects were told sibly so that individual differences in eating habits
the experimenter was also interested in some psycho- could be "correlated out." The restraint scale was
logical factors affecting taste. Consequently, subjects adapted from a previous study (Herman & Mack,
were informed they would be asked to fill out "a in press) in which restraint scores successfully pre-
couple of mood scales and a general personality dicted differential responses to a preload manipula-
inventory." tion. This scale attempts to assess the extent to
High anxiety. The subject was given a short dis-
course on influencing taste perception with tactile which individuals exhibit behavioral and attitudinal
stimulation, the outcome of which was that it would concern about dieting and keeping their weight down.
be necessary to use electrical stimulation amounting The 11 items comprising the scale and the corre-
to "a fairly painful shock." The subject was assured sponding scoring are listed in the Restraint Question-
that there would be no real danger or permanent naire.
 ANXIETY, RESTRAINT, AND EATING BEHAVIOR 669
RESTRAINT QUESTIONNAIRE strained eaters were defined as those scoring
Diet and Weight History 17 or more on the scale; subjects scoring be-
1. How many pounds over your desired weight low 17 were classified as unrestrained. The
were you at your maximum weight? (score: 1 point/ use of a median split, though not in any way
S pounds) dictated theoretically, had effectively dis-
2. How often are you dieting?—rarely, sometimes, criminated between comparable subjects in a
usually, always, (score: 1-4)
3. Which best describes your behavior after you prior study (Herman & Mack, in press). The
have eaten a "not allowed" food while on your decision to categorize fully half of the sample
diet?—return to diet, stop eating for an extended as restrained, then, is warranted mainly by
period of time in order to compensate, continue on the commonsense notion that a substantial
a splurge, eating other "not allowed" foods, (score:
0-2) proportion of college coeds are, in fact, sup-
4. What is the maximum amount of weight that pressing their weight owing to societal pres-
you have ever lost within 1 month? (score: 1 point/ sures.
S pounds)
5. What is your maximum weight gain within a
week? (score: 1 point/3 pounds) Properties oj the Restraint Scale
6. In a typical week, how much does your weight The 11-item scale used in the present study
fluctuate (maximum-minimum) ? (score: 1 point/ was an expansion of a S-item scale which had
3 pounds)
discriminated successfully between subjects in
CoHcern with Food and Eating a previous study (Herman & Mack, in press).
I. Would a weight fluctuation of 5 pounds affect The present scale had substantial internal
the way you live your life?—not at all, slightly, consistency (coefficient a = .75). The two
moderately, very much, (score: 0-3) subscales, which dealt with diet and weight
,8. Do you eat sensibly before others and make up
for it alone?—never, rarely, often, always, (score: history, and concern with food and eating,
0-3) had internal consistency coefficients of .68
9. Do you give too much time and thought to and .62, respectively. The correlation between
food?—never, rarely, often, always, (score: 0-3) scores on these two subscales was .48 (p <
10. Do you have feelings of guilt after overeat-
ing?—never, rarely, often, always, (score: 0-3) .01). Internal reliability, then, was adequate.
II. How conscious are you of what you're eat- The validity of the scale is currently based
ing?—not at all, slightly, moderately, extremely, on its predictive power. However, the signifi-
(score: 0-3) cant correlation between restraint and a
While the subject filled out the mocd scale, the physiological measure of deprivation, as re-
experimenter removed the ice cream and weighed it ported by Hibscher (1974) lends some evi-
in a separate room. Amount eaten was determined by dence of construct validity to the scale.
subtracting this weight from the weight of the con-
tainers before they were presented to the subject.
After the restraint scale was completed by the sub- Manipulation Check
ject, the experimenter asked her some questions to de- The effect of anxiety manipulation was
termine the degree of food deprivation and previous
knowledge of the experiment. The subject was com- highly significant, f(38) = S.66, p < .001.
pletely debriefed, instructed not to discuss the ex- The anticipation of painful electric shock led
periment, and weighed and measured. subjects to report substantially more anxiety
Because height, weight, and degree of restraint and apprehension, as one would expect. On a
were not determined until the end of the experiment,
it was impossible to eliminate obese subjects (S obese combined 12-point scale, low-anxiety subjects
subjects, 15% or more overweight, were run). It reported a mean anxiety score of 2.75,
was also impossible for the experimenter to know whereas high-anxiety subjects' mean score
which subjects were restrained or unrestrained eaters, was 7.20.
thus effectively blinding the experimenter.
Because the obese in Schachter et al.'s
RESULTS (1968) study were more distressed by the
anticipation of electric shock and were re-
Classification of Subjects ported to be hyperemotional in general (see
Subjects were divided into restrained and Schachter & Rodin, 1974, for a review), one
unrestrained groups on the basis of a median would expect, according to the logic of the
split of scores on the restraint scale. Re- present experiment, that restrained subjects
670 C. PETER HERMAN AND JANET POLIVY
TABLE 1 (b) increased eating in response to anxiety
NUMBER or GRAMS or ICE CREAM CONSUMED might occur only in the obese (an impli-
(INCLUDES ALL SUBJECTS)
cation of the psychosomatic hypothesis).
Subjects Low anxiety High anxiety Therefore, a separate analysis was performed
on normal-weight subjects only, the results
Unrestrained (<17) 177.73(11) 107.60(10) of which appear in Table 2. The exclusion of
Restrained 146.88 (8) 162.00 (11)
obese subjects (all of whom were restrained)
Note. Numbers in parentheses refer to number of subjects in did not, of course, influence the strong in-
that cell. The imbalance in numbers of restrained and un- hibitory effect of anxiety on unrestrained
restrained subjects is due to ties at the median.
subjects. The effect of anxiety on restrained
would be hyperreactive to the anxiety ma- normals was somewhat stronger than for all
nipulation. In fact, restrained high-anxiety restrained subjects but was not significant.
subjects' mean self-report score was 8.47; Overall, the Anxiety X Restraint interaction
unrestrained high-anxiety subjects' mean was strengthened, F(l,31) = 5.67, p < .05,
score was 5.80, *(19) = 2.66, p < .05. If the and no main effects emerged. The parallel
four obese subjects (^ = 6.38) are elimi- with Schachter et al.'s results is maintained;
nated, the mean score for restrained subjects restrained normals in this study ate 24%
increases to 9.67. Although the difference be- more when anxious, whereas Schachter's most
tween obese and normal-weight restrained comparable group of obese (those who had
eaters is not significant, it appears that nor- not been preloaded) ate 20% 'more. Unre-
mal-weight restrained eaters are at least as strained normals ate 39% less when anxious,
hyperreactive to stressful stimuli as are the and Schachter's nonpreloaded normals ate
obese. It should be noted that the restrained 44% less. The obese subjects excluded in this
subjects are not simply more anxious in gen- analysis actually ate less when anxious, in
eral than unrestrained subjects; in the low- clear opposition to the psychosomatic hy-
anxiety condition, restrained subjects reported pothesis. Obviously, these five subjects ought
no more anxiety than did unrestrained sub- not to be taken too seriously, particularly
jects. Of the two subjects who were elimi- inasmuch as there was only one obese low-
nated from the low-anxiety condition for anxiety subject, but the accumulating evi-
unusual distress, one was restrained and the dence does not seem to support the psycho-
other was unrestrained. somatic hypothesis.
Effect of Anxiety on Eating Effect of Eating on Anxiety Reduction
The differential effects of anxiety on re- Anxiety reduction was assessed by sub-
strained and unrestrained subjects may be tracting posteating anxiety scores (on the
seen in Table 1. Unrestrained eaters ate sig- mood questionnaire) from preeating scores
nificantly less, t(l9) = 2.71, p < .05, when for subjects in the high-anxiety condition. For
anxious; restrained eaters ate slightly more, all subjects, there was a slight decrease (from
although the increase was not significant. 7.20 to 6.37) in reported anxiety which was
Overall, this pattern produced a significant not significant. This decrease, however, was
Anxiety X Restraint interaction, F(l,36) = not uniform for all high-anxiety subjects. Un-
4.55, p < .05, though neither anxiety nor re- restrained subjects decreased a trivial amount
straint alone affected consumption. These re-
sults are in substantial agreement with those TABLE 2
of Schachter et al. (1968). It seems fair to NUMBER OF GRAMS or ICE CREAM CONSUMED
(EXCLUDES OBESE .SUBJECTS)
conclude that the obese-normal distinction
can be well conceptualized as a distinction Subjects Low anxiety High anxiety
between restrained and unrestrained eaters.
Included in the restrained group, it should Unrestrained (<17) 177.73 (11) 107.60 (10)
Restrained (#:17) 141.29 (7) 175.86 (7)
be noted, were five obese subjects. One might
argue that (a) a strict test of the restraint Note. Numbers in parentheses refer to number of subjects in
that cell. The imbalance in numbers of restrained and un-
notion ought to exclude obese subjects, and restrained subjects is due to ties at the median.
 ANXIETY, RESTRAINT, AND EATING BEHAVIOR 671

(from 5.80 to 5.73), whereas restrained eaters obesity—that normal-weight individuals who
decreased from 8.47 to 6.9S, t(\T) - 1.9S, are restraining their intake (and are thus at
p < .10. The failure of eating to reduce a weight substantially below biological set-
anxiety significantly for restrained eaters is point) ought behaviorally to resemble obese
compounded by the possibility that the de- individuals (likewise below set-point)—ap-
cline in anxiety that did appear may have pears to have been well confirmed. Unre-
been due to statistical regression. strained normals ate significantly less when
The psychosomatic hypothesis, of course, anxious, as did normals in both Schachter et
predicts that eating will result in anxiety re- al.'s (1968) and McKenna's (1972) studies.
duction. It seems logical, however, to refine Restrained eaters ate nonsignificantly more,
this hypothesis so as to predict a positive as did both Schachter et al.'s and McKenna's
relation between amount eaten and the ex- obese. The percentage decrease for unre-
tent of anxiety reduction. Although unre- strained eaters when anxious (39%) fell
strained eaters showed virtually no anxiety within the range of values obtained in Mc-
reduction as a group, there was nevertheless Kenna's and Schachter et al.'s studies (39%
an extremely strong correlation (r — .80; and 44%, respectively), and the percentage
p < .01) between amount of ice cream con- increase for restrained normals (24%) was
sumed and extent of anxiety reduction. The likewise intermediate (33% and 20%, re-
interpretation of this correlation is necessarily spectively). Overall, the pattern and signi-
ambiguous; it is quite possible that greater cance levels of results in this study accorded
eating produces greater anxiety reduction. well with the comparable previous research
The fact that anxiety inhibits eating for un- categorizing subjects on the basis of degree of
restrained subjects, however, makes it appear overweight. The notion that relative depriva-
more likely that those subjects who experience tion rather than obesity per se may be the
the most "spontaneous" anxiety reduction most viable conceptualization underlying indi-
over the course of the experiment (as the vidual differences in eating behavior appears
initial fear of previously unanticipated shock, to have considerable merit. Furthermore, the
or the nonspecific apprehension associated restrained-unrestrained distinction becomes
with being a subject dissipates) are most more powerful when obese subjects are elimi-
likely to eat the most because they are least nated from the data.
anxious. For restrained subjects, the corre- Secondarily, the relative hyperemotionality
sponding correlation is not significantly dif- of the obese (cf. Pliner, Meyer, & Blankstein
ferent from 0; there is no relation between [1974], Rodin [1973], and Schachter &
extent of anxiety reduction and amount eaten, Rodin [1974]) is paralleled by the relative
and the fact that the range of these subjects' hyperemotionality of restrained normals,
scores on both amount eaten and anxiety re- whose emotional reactivity tends to surpass
duction is greater than the range for unre- even that of the obese.
strained subjects rules out a truncation arti- One cannot, of course, dismiss the possi-
fact. If eating reduces anxiety for restrained bility that restrained eaters are simply ex-
eaters (or the obese), it does not appear to ternal individuals who happen not to be
do so systematically. obese; externality may be the critical determi-
nant of their behavior. However, it seems at
DISCUSSION least as likely that the obese are simply re-
Because the present study focused on two strained eaters who happen to be obese. Al-
separable issues, we will consider them sepa- though they no doubt exhibit externality, this
rately and conclude with a suggested integra- characteristic may well be a result of their
tion. "biological underweight" rather than a cause
of their actuarial overweight. The stimulus-
Parallels Between Obese and bound portrait that the Schachterian position
Restrained Normals presents in describing the obese seems, at least
The prediction derived from Nisbett's in its simplest form, to predict that externality
(1972) relative deprivation interpretation of and restraint ought to be mutually exclusive,
672 C. PETER HERMAN AND JANET POLIVY

which is obviously not the case. Nisbett's posi- however, it is still unnecessary to invoke an
tion views externality and restraint as virtu- anxiety-reducing effect of eating to account
ally synonymous. The critical test of these for such increased consumption. The restraint
theories awaits the behavioral assessment of which governs the intake of restrained eaters
a sample of obese individuals who are clearly need not be considered immutable; such re-
not "below set-point." straint can be removed experimentally (cf.
Herman & Mack, in press). Anxiety may be
The Psychosomatic Hypothesis regarded as a disrupter of behaviors (includ-
Technically, the psychosomatic hypothesis ing self-control behaviors) and may act to
is composed of two somewhat independent disinhibit the deprivation-motivated (exter-
hypotheses, which merit separate considera- nal) eating behavior otherwise held in check
tion. First, it has been maintained that anx- by the restrained eater. Increased consump-
iety augments eating by the obese (or, as we tion when anxious may be more a reflection
maintain, the relatively deprived). The pres- of the individual's chronic hunger (normally
ent study confirms the pattern established by suppressed) than an attempt to achieve emo-
Schachter et al. (1968) and McKenna tional homeostasis.
(1972): a nonsignificant increase in consump-
tion. Even though no single study has demon- REFERENCES
strated a substantial effect, the consistency Bruch, H. Transformation of oral impulses in eating
disorders: A conceptual approach. Psychiatric
of the results across studies necessitates cau- Quarterly, 1961, 35, 458-481.
tion before this aspect of the psychosomatic Herman, C. P., & Mack, D. Restrained and unre-
hypothesis is dismissed. It seems best to con- strained eating. Journal of Personality, in press.
sider the phenomenon to be weakly sup- Hibscher, J. A. The effect of free fatty acid and pre-
load level on the subsequent eating behavior of
ported; it remains an open question as to normal weight and obese subjects. Unpublished
whether a more powerful anxiety manipula- doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University,
tion (perhaps utilizing an ego-involving 1974.
threat) might succeed in significantly increas- Kaplan, H. I., & Kaplan, H. S. The psychosomatic
ing consumption. concept of obesity. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 1957,125, 181-189.
The second component of the psychoso- McKenna, R. J. Some effects of anxiety level and
matic hypothesis involves the purported anx- food cues on the eating behavior of obese and
iety-reducing effect of eating. Neither Schach- normal subjects. Journal of Personality and Social
ter et al. nor McKenna provided any evidence Psychology, 1972, 22, 311-319.
Nisbett, R. E. Hunger, obesity, and the ventromedial
to support this notion, and the present study hypothalamus. Psychological Review, 1972, 79,
also failed to produce conclusive evidence. 433-453.
The extent of anxiety reduction for re- Pliner, P., Meyer, P., & Blankstein, K. Responsiveness
strained eaters did not qualify as conven- to affective stimuli by obese and normal indi-
viduals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974,
tionally significant, and the subsidiary notion 83, 74-80.
that amount eaten and extent of anxiety re- Rodin, J. Effects of distraction on performances of
duction ought to be related received no sup- obese and normal subjects. Journal of Comparative
port at all. McKenna's contention that the and Physiological Psychology, 1973, 83, 68-75.
anxiety-reduction effect is ephemeral and must Schachter, S., Goldman, R., & Gordon, A. Effects of
fear, food deprivation, and obesity on eating.
be assessed immediately leaves open the pos- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,
sibility of assessment during eating revealing 10, 91-97.
a significant effect. At present, however, this Schachter, S., & Rodin, J. Obese humans and rats.
aspect of the psychosomatic hypothesis must Washington, D.C.: Erlbaum-Halstead, 1974.
Walker, D., & Remley, N. The relationships among
be considered even further from confirmation percentage body weight loss, circulating free fatty
than the "anxiety increases consumption" acids and consummatory behavior in rats. Physiol-
notion. ogy and Behavior, 1970, 5, 301-309.
If it is true that anxiety does increase con- (Received December 30, 1974; revision
sumption for restrained or obese persons, received March 17, 1975)