Day two: BPS Annual Conference review

Following on from my first post, here are a few of my personal highlights from day two of the BPS Annual Conference (note: I may review individual research papers from conference speakers in more detail at a later date).


Symposium - Environmental influences on food and alcohol related-behaviour

Rachel Pechey (University of Cambridge): Do supermarket end-of-ailse displays increase purchases of alcoholic drinks?
In supermarkets end of aisle displays are much sought after by manufacturers as, it is hypothesised, that ease of access may lead people to purchase products in these locations more frequently. Previous research on soap sales found that special displays are more effective at increasing buying behaviours than a cost price discount. I raised questions about how this information could translate to on-line purchasing, with more people now doing their weekly shop on the internet. Pechey also briefly discussed how these findings could be applied to increase healthy purchases, rather than limiting unhealthy ones.

David M. Troy (University of Bristol): Shaping alcohol behaviour change - it's in your hands.

Choice architecture interventions are currently in vogue amongst policy makers as they are low. Troy's paper considered the impact of volume perception on drinking behaviour and how modifying glass shape could make people drink less. People have difficulties in judging the mid-point of a curved glass in comparison to a straight glass, leading to quicker drinking. Troy highlights the challenges of feasibility, meeting resistance from landlords and customers about potential and attempted changes in glass shape. However, this research does show promise in a real-world setting. 

Amy L. Ahern (MRC Human Nutrition Research): The effect of covertly reducing food portion size at a single meal on daily energy intake and appetite control in overweight and obese adults.

'Portion distortion' is an issue that many customers face. Although smaller standard sizes of most products have been introduced in an attempt to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods, these are often launched alongside duo-packs. There's also considerable variation in recommended portion size between products, and the smaller sizes often stay the same price. As a health psychology student, even I get confused! The more food we are provided with, the more we tend to eat, which is not adjusted for at the next meal (even if the portion makes us physically fuller). Ahern's research found that reducing calories at one meal, did not lead to over eating at the next meal. However, the lab experiment controlled eating to certain times, meaning real-world application where food is readily available may yield different results. 

My main question in this area is, shouldn't the government have a duty of care to have food portion in a way that consumers can understand? Literally, food for thought

Milica Vasiljevic (University of Cambridge): Beware - the impact of colour of nutritional labels and injunctive norms on perceptions and choice of snack foods.

Currently, there is mixed evidence for perceptions of healthiness associated with traffic light labels. Vasiljevic's research is looking at injunctive norms, rather than descriptive norms, in influencing eating behaviour. Injunctive norms are your behaviours that other people approve of. This paper used 'smiling' or 'frowning' emoticons to represent the healthiness of the food. Emotions, unlike colour coding, do not have to be learnt, which meant in the results that participants of a lower socio-economic status understood the facial labelling more. This research fascinated me and was extremely well presented by Vasiljevic. The discussion opened up the idea of flipping around the emoticons for eating disorder patients, encouraging them to choose foods that would help them gain weight. However, brands may be reluctant to put a frowning emoticon on their products (raising my own questions about whether consumers 'trust' nutritional labelling at all), suggesting the way to move forward is through promotion of healthier alternatives, rather than an attack on junk foods. 

Keynote: Professor Richard Crisp - Adapting to diversity

"Challenging stereotypes leads to greater creativity!"

Research has found that there is a positive correlation between creativity and diversity. When we think about or encounter atypical members of a category we cannot rely on our existing knowledge and stereotypes. Instead our brain inhibits this existing knowledge in favour of forming new, creative ideas. However, our social brain likes to create typologies to simplify the complexity of human behaviour, leading to categorisation. Diversity, it appears, is antithetical to the social mind. The solution? Engaging in imagined scripts where the individual encounters diversity, led to an actual increase in diversity contact and subsequent creativity!

Crisp's research suggest that inhibition is a core mental muscle, meaning that research like this may have an application in the realm of health, bridging the intention-behaviour gap and implementation intentions. If imagined scripts lead to actual increases in behaviour, perhaps we should all be imaging living a healthier lifestyle! 

Overall, an inspirational ending to my time at the conference. 

An honourable mention has to go to Professor Cary Cooper, who spoke passionately about work-place stress and well-being, stating  “It’s not about apples on a desk, it’s treating people like human beings". 

Another honourable mention for Susan van Scoyoc presenting a keynote address at the trainee conference about making the most of the supervisory journey. Scoyoc highlighted the need for both supervisor and supervisee to learn and engage from the experience, to evoke the 'inner supervisor' and form a secure attachment akin to a loving, but firm parent.