Promoting Healthy Eating in Adults: An Evaluation of Pleasure-Oriented versus Health-Oriented Messages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing initiatives to promote healthy eating remain largely ineffective as individuals struggle to adhere to dietary recommendations. Therefore, challenging the strategies currently used is of significant importance. Recent studies have indicated the potential of an approach oriented towards eating pleasure to promote the consumption of healthy foods. The aim of this study was to compare perceptions and the potential effect of pleasure-oriented and health-oriented messages promoting healthy eating among French-Canadians. Two leaflets similar in all respects, except for the message orientation (pleasure or health), were developed. Perceived message orientation and effectiveness, perceptions towards healthy eating as well as emotions, attitude towards healthy eating, and intention to eat healthily were evaluated. A total of 100 adults (50% women; mean ± SD age 45.1 ± 13.0 y) were randomly assigned to read 1 of the 2 leaflets (pleasure: n = 50; health: n = 50). Questionnaires were completed online and data were also collected at a visit made to the Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods. The difference in message orientation (pleasure compared with health) was well perceived by participants (P ≤ 0.01). The pleasure-oriented message was successful in inducing the perception that eating healthy can be pleasurable (pre- compared with post-reading; P = 0.01). Perceived message effectiveness and induced emotions in response to reading were similar between leaflets. Both messages significantly improved global attitude towards healthy eating (P ≤ 0.01) and increased intention to eat healthily (P < 0.001). Additional analyses showed that the affective attitude towards healthy eating increased more after reading the pleasure leaflet than the health leaflet (P = 0.05), whereas the health message tended to improve cognitive attitude more than the pleasure leaflet (P = 0.06). These findings suggest that the leaflets would be appropriate to promote healthy eating through 2 distinct approaches (health and pleasure paradigms) and propose that different effects on attitude could be observed from these 2 approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".