Factors that influence food amount ratings by White, Hispanic, and Asian samples

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2005

Abstract

Objective: Two studies explored in nonclinical samples variables that may influence meal size assessments.

Research Methods and Procedures: In Study 1, the contribution of dietary restraint, weight, depressive symptoms, and gender to ratings on the Food Amount Rating Scale was examined in 153 white women and 121 white men; in Study 2, the contribution of dietary restraint, weight, ethnicity, and ethnic group identification to Food Amount Rating Scale ratings was examined in 67 Asian, 81 Hispanic, and 107 white women.

Results: Study 1 indicated that food amounts were rated as larger when rated by male rather than female raters (male rater, mean = 62.37, SD = 1.14; female rater, mean = 59.28, SD = 0.89), for female rather than male targets (male target, mean = 56.16, SD = 0.97; female target, mean = 64.87, SD = 1.02), and by restrained rather than unrestrained eaters (restrained, mean = 63.14, SD = 1.11; unrestrained, mean = 58.69, SD = 0.91). Study 2 indicated that food amounts were rated as larger when rated by restrained eaters (restrained, mean = 67.53, SD = 1.21; unrestrained, mean = 64.99, SD = 1.09), Hispanic women (Asian, mean = 64.59, SD = 1.61; Hispanic, mean = 68.71, SD = 1.30; white, mean = 65.41, SD = 1.34), and underweight women (underweight, mean = 70.38, SD = 1.68; normal weight, mean = 64.52, SD = 0.93; overweight: mean = 64.23, SD = 1.64).

Discussion: Food amount judgments may be influenced by personal characteristics. Future research should examine whether variation in food amount judgments is related to dieting behavior, disordered eating, or obesity.

Comments

Copyright 2005 Wiley

A link to full text has been provided for authorized users.

Publication Title

Obesity

Published Citation

Dohm, F. A., Cachelin, F. M., & Striegel‐Moore, R. H. (2005). Factors that influence food amount ratings by White, Hispanic, and Asian samples. Obesity, 13(6), 1061-1069. doi:10.1038/oby.2005.124.

DOI

10.1038/oby.2005.124

Peer Reviewed

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS