Cited by 51Eating Disorders and BehaviorsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

A comparison of cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion as strategies for resisting a craved food

Moffitt, Robyn, Brinkworth, Grant, Noakes, Manny, Mohr, Philip·2012·Psychology & Health

Abstract

The present study investigated the effectiveness of two cognitive strategies for resisting a craved food. One-hundred-and-ten self-identified chocolate cravers were randomised to a waiting list control condition or to receive a 60-minute standardised group intervention on cognitive restructuring (CR) or cognitive defusion (CD). All participants were provided with a bag of chocolates which they were instructed to carry with them for seven days and try to resist eating; uneaten chocolates were returned at the end of the study period. Measures included chocolate consumption and other behavioural, cognitive and evaluative self-reported outcomes. Overall, the odds of abstinence from chocolate were 3.26 times higher for participants in the CD than the CR condition. The effect of the interventions depended on baseline cognitive distress levels; for individuals at high levels of cognitive distress the CD condition led to significantly more restraint from chocolate than both the CR and control conditions. In addition, CD led to greater self-reported improvements in eating behaviours during the study period and was rated significantly easier to use and apply than CR. CD is discussed as a simple and efficient approach to manage food cravings and, potentially, other behavioural contributors to obesity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870446.2012.694436

Cites

41 of 41 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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moffitt, R., Brinkworth, G., Noakes, M., & Mohr, P.
Affiliations
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Moffitt, Robyn
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2012-10
Volume
27
Issue
sup2
Pages
74-90
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W1988688672
Cited by
51
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
cognitive restructuring, cognitive defusion, food cravings, chocolate craving, eating behaviour, obesity, group intervention, self-regulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Australia, Cognition, Eating, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Repression, Psychology, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Young Adult

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