How to measure mood in nutrition research
Open accessAbstract
Mood is widely assessed in nutrition research, usually with rating scales. A core assumption is that positive mood reinforces ingestion, so it is important to measure mood well. Four relevant theoretical issues are reviewed: (i) the distinction between protracted and transient mood; (ii) the distinction between mood and emotion; (iii) the phenomenology of mood as an unstable tint to consciousness rather than a distinct state of consciousness; (iv) moods can be caused by social and cognitive processes as well as physiological ones. Consequently, mood is difficult to measure and mood rating is easily influenced by non-nutritive aspects of feeding, the psychological, social and physical environment where feeding occurs, and the nature of the rating system employed. Some of the difficulties are illustrated by reviewing experiments looking at the impact of food on mood. The mood-rating systems in common use in nutrition research are then reviewed, the requirements of a better mood-rating system are described, and guidelines are provided for a considered choice of mood-rating system including that assessment should: have two main dimensions; be brief; balance simplicity and comprehensiveness; be easy to use repeatedly. Also mood should be assessed only under conditions where cognitive biases have been considered and controlled.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
An individual's food choices are influenced by well-established factors such as mood, cognitive process, religion, culture, climate, and socioeconomic conditions.
“An individual’s food choices are influenced by well-established factors such as mood [155], cognitive process, religion, culture, climate, and socioeconomic conditions [156].”
From Medical Nutrition Therapy for Women with Gestational Diabetes: Current Practice and Future Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [155]
Cites
Steiner, J. E., Glaser, D., Hawilo, M. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2001) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00051-8 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
de Castro, J. M. (1987) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/0031-9384(87)90154-5 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cheong, L., Law, L. S.-C., Tan, L. Y. L., Amal, A. A.-A., Khoo, C. M., & Eng, P. C. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17071210 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hammersley, R., Reid, M., & Atkin, S. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Hull (GB)
- Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (QA)
- Corresponding author
- Hammersley, Richard
- Venue
- Nutrition Research Reviews
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-12
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 284-294
- ISSN
- 0954-4224 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-2700
- OpenAlex
- W2148736660
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 0.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nutrition Research Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Nuffield Foundation
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- mood measurement, food and mood, eating environment
- MeSH terms
- Affect, Cognition, Emotions, Food, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Guidelines as Topic, Nutritional Sciences
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