Cited by 295Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsEating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

A comparison of acceptance- and control-based strategies for coping with food cravings: An analog study

Forman, Evan M., Hoffman, Kimberly L., McGrath, Kathleen B., Herbert, James D., Brandsma, Lynn L., Lowe, Michael R.·2007·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The present study utilized an analog paradigm to investigate the effectiveness of two strategies for coping with food cravings, which was theorized to be critical to the maintenance of weight loss. Ninety-eight undergraduate students were given transparent boxes of chocolate Hershey's Kisses and instructed to keep the chocolates with them, but not to eat them, for 48 h. Before receiving the Kisses, participants were randomized to receive either (a) no intervention, (b) instruction in control-based coping strategies such as distraction and cognitive restructuring, or (c) instruction in acceptance-based strategies such as experiential acceptance and defusion techniques. Measures included the Power of Food Scale (PFS; a measure of psychological sensitivity to the food environment), self-report ratings of chocolate cravings and surreptitiously recorded chocolate consumption. Results suggested that the effect of the intervention depended on baseline PFS levels, such that acceptance-based strategies were associated with better outcomes (cravings, consumption) among those reporting the highest susceptibility to the presence of food, but greater cravings among those who scored lowest on the PFS. It was observed that craving self-report measures predicted chocolate consumption, and baseline PFS levels predicted both cravings and consumption. Results are discussed in terms of the implications for weight loss maintenance strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2007.04.004

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forman, E. M., Hoffman, K. L., McGrath, K. B., Herbert, J. D., Brandsma, L. L., & Lowe, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Drexel University (US)
  • Chestnut Hill College (US)
Corresponding author
Forman, Evan M.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
45
Issue
10
Pages
2372-2386
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012540132
Cited by
295
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 18
FWCI
13.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
food cravings, weight loss maintenance, Power of Food Scale, chocolate consumption, distraction, cognitive restructuring, experiential acceptance, defusion, dietary habits
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Behavior, Diet, Reducing, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Middle Aged, Obesity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Multivariate Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review