Introduction

The prevalence of eating and weight related problems, such as disordered eating (i.e., binge eating, emotional eating, loss of control overeating, negative body image, and restriction) and overweight and obesity, is high and continues increasing. In Australia, 4.6% of people self-report binge eating and 7.2% of people self-report engaging in restrictive eating (Hay, Mond, Buttner, & Darby, 2008). Overweight and obesity affects 63% of the population (Authoritative Information and Statistics, 2015). Furthermore, research has found that disordered eating is even more common in overweight and obese populations (Hay et al., 2008). Given that eating-related disturbances are associated with psychological distress and predict poorer mental health outcomes (Patton, Selzer, Coffey, Carlin, & Wolfe, 1999), the high prevalence rates of these problems is of concern.

It is important to develop an understanding of adaptive eating behaviour and its relationship to various health and psychological variables in order to promote healthful eating behaviours and attitudes in the general population. That is, developing models of adaptive eating behaviours may help in the understanding of how to improve maladaptive eating. The Satter Eating Competence (ecSatter) model is one theory which aims to understand adaptive eating behaviour in general populations (Satter, 2007). Rather than focusing on the negative cognitions and behaviours which underlie disordered eating, this model focuses on understanding the biopsychosocial processes related to adaptive eating. The model describes individuals who hold positive attitudes towards food, use internal cues to guide eating, and ensure they are eating enough across contexts as “competent eaters”. There are four domains within the eating competence model.

First, the domain of eating attitudes refers to cognitions about food and eating, where competent eaters have more positive attitudes than non-competent eaters (Satter, 2007). Second, in the food acceptance domain competent eaters are characterised by adaptiveness and flexibility in relation to consumption of different varieties of food. This food acceptance has been shown to be positively related to fruit and vegetable intake (Krall & Lohse, 2011; Lohse, Satter, Horacek, Gebreselassie, & Oakland, 2007). Third, internal regulation refers to the experiential ability to use physiological cues of hunger, appetite, and satiety to guide eating. This involves attending to uncomfortable feelings of emptiness, indulging in gustatory craved food, and finishing eating when experiencing feelings of fullness, and has been shown to be negatively related to restrictive eating (Krall & Lohse, 2011).  Finally, the contextual skills domain refers to behaviours related to the purposeful engagement in structured eating across environments. Individuals with high contextual skills self-report meal preparation significantly more often than individuals with low contextual skills (Krall & Lohse, 2011).

Overall, there is evidence to support the contention that eating competence is associated with better physical health, lower eating disorder psychopathology and higher psychological wellbeing (Krall & Lohse, 2011; Lohse et al., 2007). For example, Lohse et al. (2007) found that eating competence is associated with increased physical health. Specifically, they found that participants who were eating competent had significantly lower body mass index (BMI) than non-eating competent participants. Additionally, eating competent participants were more likely to engage in physical activity (Lohse et al., 2007) and to have higher diet quality (Lohse, Bailey, Krall, Wall, & Mitchell, 2012), than their non-eating competent counterparts. Finally, Psota, Lohse and West (2007) found that eating competent participants had increased cardiovascular health and were at a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease, when compared to non-eating competent participants.

Eating competence has also been found to be associated with decreased psychopathology such that eating competent participants report less eating-related concerns and lower eating disorder symptomology when compared to non-eating competent participants (Krall & Lohse, 2011; Lohse et al., 2007). In particular, Lohse et al. (2007) found that participants who were eating competent scored significantly lower on eating disorder measures, such as restrained eating and drive for thinness, than those who were non-eating competent.

Finally, eating competence has been found to be positively related to psychological wellbeing. In particular, studies have found that those who are eating competent report significantly less body and weight dissatisfaction than those who are not eating competent (Krall & Lohse, 2011; Lohse et al., 2007). Further, a Finnish study using participants aged 10 to 17 found that eating competent participants felt comfortable with their body size whereas non-eating competent participants did not (Tilles-Tirkkonen et al., 2015). Non-eating competent participants experienced discomfort about their size and believed themselves to be ‘somewhat’ or ‘too’ fat. Additionally, this study found that eating competence was associated with higher self-esteem when compared to non-eating competence.

Although there is currently some preliminary evidence that the construct of eating competence is related to a series of health, psychopathology and psychological wellbeing outcomes, much of this evidence comes from a small number of studies. Furthermore, with one exception, these studies were conducted in American samples. Thus, there is a need to replicate previous results and test whether they extend to the Australian population. In addition to this, much of the eating competence literature has focused on inverse associations between eating competence and negative or pathological traits. There is a need to explore whether eating competence is associated with adaptive and positive traits, like body appreciation.

The current study

The purpose of this study is to test whether there are differences between eating competent and non-eating competent participants in (a) markers of health (BMI), (b) a measure of disordered eating psychopathology and (c) body appreciation in an Australian sample. Consistent with the research reviewed above, we have developed the following three hypotheses.

1. Does body mass index (BMI) differ between participants who are Australian and participants who are not Australian?
2. Is there statistical significance difference in BMI between participants who are eating competent and participants who are not eating competent?
3. Does Mean (10 BAS questions)differ between participants who are eating competent and participants who are not eating competent?

Method

Participants

A total of 168 students who were enrolled in a first-year unit in the School of Psychology of ACU across the Brisbane, Melbourne and Strathfield campuses participated in the study outside of their classes. Out of 168; majority of the students were females; 143 (85.1%) followed by males; 23 (13.7%). However, 2 (1.2%) of the students did not specify their gender. Furthermore, 133 (79.2%) of the participants were Australian and that only 35 (20.8%) were non-Australian. Moreover, the mean age of the participants is 21.39 with a standard deviation of 5.92. The minimum and maximum age in years are 17-58 with a range of 41 years. On BMI, at least 131 participants gave information on their BMIs, with a minimum and maximum BMI being 16.73 and 54.62 respectively. The mean and standard deviation of the participants BMI accounted for 24.73 and 5.17 respectively while the range of participants BMI is 37.89. Furthermore, the participants had a mean weight of 68.78 with a standard deviation of 16.91. The range of their weight is recorded as 169.30 where the maximum and minimum weight of the participants are recorded as 175.0 and 5.7 respectively. Finally, the participant’s height had a mean and standard deviation of 1.67 and 0.88 respectively. Furthermore, their height ranges from 1.52 to 1.91 with a fixed range of 0.39.

Measures

Demographics. Participants were asked to provide general demographic information such as age, gender, whether they were born in Australia, weight (kg), and height (cm). Weight and height information were used to compute BMI (kg/m²).

Eating Competence. The construct of eating competence was assessed using the Satter Eating Competence Inventory 2.0 (ecSI 2.0; Lohse, 2015). The ecSI 2.0 is a 16-item questionnaire. Items ask participants to state how often they believe they engage in various eating-related behaviours (e.g. “I experiment with new food and learn to like it”, or “I eat as much as I am hungry for”) using a 5-point scale, ranging from “always” to “never”. Answers are scored so that “rarely” and “never” are assigned a score of zero, “sometimes” is scored as a one, “often” is scored as a two and “always” is scored as a three. Scores are added up to compute an overall eating competence scores ranging from 0 to 48, and participants who score 32 or above are classified as eating competent.

Disordered eating psychopathology. The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q; Fairburn & Beglin, 1994), is a 28-item measure used to assess the presence of behavioural symptoms of disordered eating over the previous month. The EDE-Q includes subscales measuring restraint, eating concern, shape concern, and weight concern. In this study, only the global EDE-Q score was used. To obtain a global score, the weighted mean of the subscales is calculated. A global score larger than 1.5 is considered of concern and a global score larger than 3 is indicative of an eating disorder.

Body appreciation. The Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2; Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015) is a 10-item measure of positive body image. The BAS-2 measures positive thoughts towards one’s body, acceptance of one’s body (above and beyond physical shape or weight), respect for one’s body via attendance to one’s physical needs, and protection of one’s body self-esteem by avoiding comparison of one’s self to idealised body types. Participants are asked to state the extent to which each item characterises their attitudes or behaviours on a five point scale ranging from 1=Never to 5=Always. Items include statements such as “I respect my body” and “I appreciate the different and unique characteristics of my body”. Overall scores are computed by averaging the scores across items.

Procedure

Participants were invited to complete a 40-minute online survey as a part of their coursework for an undergraduate psychology subject. The survey presented the measures listed above amongst other measures that were part of a larger study. Participants received course credit for participation and could opt to enter into a draw to win an iPad.

Results

1. Does body mass index (BMI) differ between participants who are Australian and participants who are not Australian?

According to the findings in Table 1, the results show that Australian students had a higher mean of BMI score of 25.01, with a standard deviation of 5.57 and standard error of 0.55 than the students who are none-Australian who had a mean of 23.62, with a standard deviation of 3.03 and standard error of 0.58.

An independent sample t-test was done to compare the body mass index (BMI) between the countries of the students.  From the findings, the test of the Levene’s for the Variances considered to be equal was significant (p =.026 >.05) hence with the assumption of the equal variances, is a confirmation that the mean differences were significantly different. As a result, the homogeneity assumptions of the variances were violated. Moreover, test statistics readings from row labeled equal variances not assumed were assumed, indicating p.v <.05. Consequently, the evidence of the results is that on average the Australian BMI score (M= 25.01, SE=0.55), was significantly higher than the non- Australian BMI score (M= 23.62, SE=0.58), t (129) = 1.254, p = .026, (see Table 1).

1. Is there statistical significance difference in BMI between participants who are eating competent and participants who are not eating competent?

According to the findings in Table 1, the results show that Eating competent had a higher mean of (10 BAS questions) score of 3.68, with a standard deviation of 0.93 and standard error of 0.11 than the non-eating competent students who had a mean of 2.61, with a standard deviation of 0.89 and standard error of 0.09. Consequently, the evidence of the results is that on average the eating competent students mean (10 BAS questions) score (M= 3.68, SE=0.93), was significantly higher than the eating competent students mean of (10 BAS questions) score (M= 2.61, SE=0.09), t (166) = 7.596, p = .0005, (see Table 1). Based on the results given, it is prudent to conclude that country has significant influence on BMI of the students.  

1. Does Mean (10 BAS questions)differ between participants who are eating competent and participants who are not eating competent?

According to the findings in Table 1, the results show that Non-Eating competent had a higher mean of BMI score of 25.96, with a standard deviation of 4.90 and standard error of 0.57 than the eating competent students who had a mean of 23.08, with a standard deviation of 5.10 and standard error of 0.68. Consequently, the evidence of the results is that on average the non-eating competent students BMI score (M= 25.96, SE=0.56), was significantly higher than the eating competent students BMI score (M= 23.08, SE=0.68), t (129) = -3.267, p = .001, (see Table 1). Moreover, eating competency has significant influence on BMI of the students.  On the other hand, results confirmed that the mean (10 BAS questions) has significant influence on eating competence of the students.  

Discussion

Basically, the study was set to respond to three questions; “Does body mass index (BMI) differ between participants who are Australian and participants who are not Australian? Is there statistical significance difference in BMI between participants who are eating competent and participants who are not eating competent? and Does Mean (10 BAS questions) differ between participants who are eating competent and participants who are not eating competent?. From the results, the Australian BMI score was significantly higher than the non- Australian BMI score. Based on the results given, it is prudent to conclude that the country has a significant influence on BMI of the students.  This implies that Australian citizens may be having some predisposing factors making them have bigger BMI. Moreover, noneating competency score was higher than the score among the eating competent students. This confirms that eating competency has significant influence on BMI. Finally, the results on the mean (10 BAS questions) are high among the eating competent students than the non-eating competent students showing that the 10 BAS questions have significant influence on BMI of the students.  

References

Authoritative Information and Statistics. (2015). Cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease—Australian facts: risk factors.

Fairburn, C. G., & Beglin, S. J. (1994). Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self?report questionnaire? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16, 363-370.

Hay, P.S., Mond, J., Buttner, P., & Darby, A. (2008). Eating disorder behaviors are increasing: Findings from two sequential community surveys in South Australia. PLoS One, 3, e1541. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001541

Krall, J. S., & Lohse, B. (2011). Validation of a measure of the Satter eating competence model with low-income females. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8(1), 26. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-8-26

Lohse, B. (2015). The Satter eating competence inventory for low-income persons is a valid measure of eating competence for persons of higher socioeconomic position. Appetite, 87(1), 223-228. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.228

Lohse, B., Bailey, R. L., Krall, J. S., Wall, D. E., & Mitchell, D. C. (2012). Diet quality is related to eating competence in cross-sectional sample of low-income females surveyed in Pennsylvania. Appetite, 58(2), 645-650. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.022

Lohse, B., Satter, E., Horacek, T., Gebreselassie, T., & Oakland, M. J. (2007). Measuring eating competence: Psychometric properties and validity of the ecSatter Inventory. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39(5), 154-166. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2007.04.371

Mond, J. M., Hay, P. J., Rodgers, B., & Owen, C. (2006). Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q): Norms for young adult women. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 53-62.

Patton, G. C., Selzer, R., Coffey, C., Carlin, J. B., & Wolfe, R. (1999). Onset of adolescent eating disorders: Population based cohort study over 3 years. British Medical Journal, 318(7186), 765-768. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7186.765

Psota, T. L., Lohse, B., & West, S. G. (2007). Associations between eating competence and cardiovascular disease biomarkers. Journal of Nutrition Education of Behavior, 39(5), 171-178. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2007.05.004

Satter, E. (2007). Eating competence: Definition and evidence for the Satter eating competence model. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39(5), 142-153. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2007.01.006

Tilles-Tirkkonen, T., Nuutinen, O., Suominen, S., Liukkonen, J., Poutanen, K., & Karhunen, L. (2015). Preliminary finnish measures of eating competence suggest association with health-promoting eating patterns and related psychobehavioral factors in 10-17 year old adolescents. Nutrients, 7(5), 3828-3846. doi:10.3390/nu7053828

Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: item refinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53-67.