Stress and Hedonic Food Consumption Moderated by LHS and Locus of Control
Danielle Bos
University of Groningen, the Netherlands S3158411
Table of contents Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Method 9 Results 12 Discussion 14 References 18 Appendix 21
Abstract
There has been a lot of research on the effect of stress on hedonic food consumption. Howe-ver, the research shows mixed results as to what effect stress has on hedonic food consumpti-on. In this paper we try to identify two scenario’s in which stress may influence hedonic con-sumption using two personality traits as moderators. The first scenario is when the relations-hip is being influenced by the personality trait Life History Strategy (LHS). The second per-sonality trait is locus of control. It is suggested that participants with a fast LHS are willing to spend more on hedonic food items as opposed to participants with a slow LHS. The second suggestion is that participants with an external locus of control will are more willing to spend on hedonic food items as compared to participants with an internal locus of control. In this paper there were no significant results indicating that there is a relationship between stress and hedonic food consumption and that this relationship is being moderated by either LHS or locus of control.
Introduction
In this paper we will elaborate on the existing literature on the relationship between stress and hedonic food consumption. More specifically, the moderating effects that Life His-tory Strategies (LHS) and locus of control have on this relationship is being examined. Life-history theory suggests that people need to make a trade-off on how much energy and re-sources they spend on somatic effort and reproductive effort (Manner et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2009). Locus of control has been defined as “the extent to which people believe that the re-wards they receive in life can be controlled by their own personal actions” (Qi & Cui, 2019; Wang, Bowling & Eschleman, 2010).
Nowadays, the amount of people that are overweight or obese is increasing. “The obesity rate has almost doubled since 1980 worldwide. Not only does the obesity rate increa-se among adults, it has also been increasing among children'' (Finecane et al., 2011). Obesity can result in various health issues and therefore it is important to investigate why people be-have the way they do that leads them to be overweight or obese. When people know the rea-sons of their unhealthy behavior they can try to change it and get to a healthy amount of weight. One of the most significant factors contributing to obesity is an unhealthy diet. Peop-le tend to eat too much unhealthy food that are not nutritionist.
Stress on hedonic consumption
There are different factors that can lead people to behave less healthy with regard to their food choices, including the factor stress. Research on the effect of stress on hedonic. consumption is divided. Wallis & Hetherington (2009) found that, under the condition of emotional eating, there was an increase in the consumption of hedonic foods. People that are emotional eaters tended to overeat in hedonic foods when they experienced feelings of stress.
Under the condition of non-emotional eating they found an equal amount of overconsumption and underconsumption on all the food items. This suggest that when people are emotional eaters they consume more hedonic foods. Mckay et al (2021) hypothesized that unhealthy food suppresses self-rated anxiety and stress as opposed to healthy foods. However, they found that when the participants were feeling anxious, consuming hedonic food items did not reduce the feeling overtime. It is believed that people use hedonic foods as a coping mecha-nism for stress in order to reduce the feeling. The research of Mckay et al (2021) show that this believe is not true and that it does not help to reduce the feeling of stress. People only think that eating hedonic foods will help them but in reality it does not influence the stressful feeling. Due to the differences in personality traits people perceive stress in different ways and also cope with stress in different ways. Two personality traits are being researched to see if they influence the way people use hedonic food items as a coping mechanism for stress.
Life History Strategy
When people allocate more of their energy and resources on somatic effort they have a low life history strategy. On the contrary, when they allocate more of their energy and re-sources on reproductive effort they have a fast life history strategy (Manner et al 2017; Figue-redo et al., 2006). For the first analysis of this paper the study of Fennis et al. (2021) is being replicated, more specifically we try to replicate their experiment one. They suggest that there is a relationship between stress and hedonic food consumption and that this relationship is moderated by LHS. In the experiment they presented the participants with a mathematical task that they had to solve either with or without time pressure to manipulate the feeling of stress. They were also given feedback about their performance to increase the induced fee-ling. After the stress manipulation the participants indicated their willingness to pay for a list
of food items including five hedonic food items to see if the amount they spend on the hedo-nic food items of their total money willing to spend is higher when people were feeling stres-sed as compared to the participants who did not experience stress. The results of Fennis et al. (2021) confirmed their hypothesis. Participants with a fast LHS tended to have a higher desi-re for hedonic foods under a stdesi-ressful condition while a slow LHS did not incdesi-rease the parti-cipants desire for hedonic foods.
Hypothesis 1: stress has a positive influence on the desire and choice of hedonic food consumption and a fast LHS strengthen this relationship while a slow LHS weakens this relationship.
Figure 1
Conceptual model analysis 1
In the second part of this paper we are going to extend the former research by using the personality scale locus of control. This personality trait has not been investigated exten-sively in relation to hedonic food consumption and therefore we can learn a lot about it. No-gaj (2017) found that there is a relationship between the locus of control and stress coping strategies. Participants with an external locus of control mostly used an emotion-oriented co-ping style while participants with an internal locus of control tended to use a task-oriented coping style. When people are more task orientated they undertake actions that will help them to solve the problem that caused them to feel stressed (Nogaj, 2017). On the contrary, people who have an emotion-oriented coping style focus on their self and their emotions (Nogaj, 2017).
From this article we can state that people cope with stress in different ways and that this leads to different actions to lessen the feeling of stress. Consuming hedonic food items is one of the actions that a person can take. Locus of control influences the way people cope with stress and therefore can influence the consumption of hedonic foods. The people that use an emotion-oriented coping style (the participants with an external locus of control) are pro-bably more likely to overeat in hedonic products. They focus on the feeling of stress and be-lieve that they can use hedonic food items to lessen this negative feeling. In contrast, the peo-ple with a more task-oriented coping style (the participants with an internal locus of control) will take action to for example change their environment to lessen the feeling of stress. They will be less likely to consume hedonic food items to deal with the stress and instead find a way to remove the stressor and thus also the feeling of stress.
Qi and Cui (2019) investigated the effect stress has on hedonic consumption through core self evaluation that is mediated by locus of control. They found that there was a main effect of stress on hedonic food consumption and that locus of control has a mediating effect
on food intake through core self evaluation. Locus of control significantly predicted the core self evaluation, which was measured using self esteem, and this influenced the consumption of hedonic food items. An internal locus of control led to increased self esteem that, when exposed to a stressor, does not lead to an increase in hedonic food consumption. An external locus of control led to a decrease in self esteem and therefore increased the intake of hedonic food items when exposed to a stressor. They also studied the direct effect of locus on control on food intake but this relationship was not significant. Locus of control does not have a di-rect effect but maybe it does have an indidi-rect effect by influencing the relationship between stress and hedonic food consumption through core self evaluation.
Concluding for the information above, It is expected that an external locus of control has a positive effect on the relationship of stress and hedonic eating and that an internal locus of control has a negative effect on this relationship. When someone has an internal locus of control they will hold themselves accountable if something goes wrong or goes well. In a stressful situation they will seek ways to reduce stress by taking action. When someone has an external locus of control they will put the responsibility on environmental factors and be-lieve that they cannot change it. They only focus on the negative feeling and not on internal factors they can change to lessen the feeling of stress. Therefore they are more likely to in-dulge in hedonic foods due to the lack of control they are feeling as compared to people with an internal locus of control.
Hypothesis 2: stress has a positive influence on the desire and choice of hedonic food consumption and an external locus of control strengthen this relationship while an in-ternal locus of control weakens this relationship.!
Figure 2 Conceptual model analysis 2
This paper will add to the existing literature by trying to replicate an existing study and extend the current knowledge by investigating the effect that a new personality scale has on the relationship between stress and hedonic food consumption. Locus of control has not been studied extensively yet and therefore this paper will give more insights into the effects that locus of control has.
Method
This experiment tested the effect of stress on hedonic food consumption and the mo-derating effect of LHS and locus of control. In order to test this participants are divided bet-ween a low or high stress condition and their LHS and locus of control are measured. Two analyses derived from this experiment.
Participants and Design
The total sample consisted of 79 participants with an average age of 34.96 (SD= 15.548) and 68.4 % females. The participants in this study were selected based on a conve-nience sample. They are asked to take part in this study either personally or via different so-cial media channels. The participants were randomly assigned to either the high stress condi-tion or the low stress condicondi-tion as a between subjects factor and LHS and locus of control as a measured predictor.
Procedure
This experiment consists of two tasks followed by questions about some personality traits. In the beginning of the study participants were given the task to read either a stress in-ducing (N= 35) or a relaxing article (N= 44). After reading the article they had to specify how that article made them feel. Their second task is to indicate how much they are willing to spend on different food items. A list consisting of 27 food items was presented including five hedonic food items. The hedonic food items are: cookies, ice cream, chocolate, chips and sweets. Referring to the article they have to indicate how they experienced reading the article on six different emotions. After the tasks were done participants were first asked about their level of LHS (the first moderator). The study continued by asking participants about their lo-cus of control (the second moderator). After that, participants indicated their perceived cur-rent socioeconomic status followed up by some demographic questions. After the demograp-hic questions the study came to an end and the participants had the opportunity to fill in their email to be updated about the results of the study. Participants are thanked for their participa-tion and updated about the results when requested.
Independent and Dependent Variables
Stress is manipulated by presenting about half of the participants with a stressful news article and presenting the other participants with a non stressful article (Fennis, unpublished manuscript; for the articles see appendix A exhibits 3 and 4). After the second task partici-pants are asked to indicate how they feel on six emotions including ‘stressful’. This is to check if the article had indeed induced feelings of stress under the high stress condition and did not induce stress in the low stress condition. This item is measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree) with a higher score meaning more feelings of stress. The willingness to pay for hedonic food is measured by calculating the proportion par-ticipants are willing to spend on hedonic foods (Oliver et al., 2000). A list was provided with 27 food items consisting of five hedonic food items (M= .1823, SD= .04534).
To measure LHS the K-SF-42 scale is used (Figueredo et al., 2006). This scale con-sists of 42 items divided in two sections. The first section concon-sists of 24 items and has a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree) and the second section consists of 18 items and has a 4-point Likert scale (1= not at all, 4= a lot). The scale is averaged with a lower score indicating a faster LHS and a higher score indicating a slower LHS (M= 3.5879,
SD= .50117; Cronbach’s α= .876). Items that are included in this scale are: “I can find
some-thing positive even in the worst situations“, “I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pul-ling back” and “How much time and attention did your biological father give you when you needed it?”.
The scale for locus of control is derived from Levenson (1981). This scale has 19 items and it is measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). The scale is averaged with a lower score indicating an internal locus of control and a higher score indicating an external locus of control (M= 3.0340, SD= .71948; Cronbach’s α=
.843). Items included in this scale are: “I believe that my success depends on ability rather than luck”, “I love life” and “I make a decision and move on” .
Lastly, participants' current socioeconomic status is measured using the scale of Gris-kevicius et al. (2011). This scale has three items and is measured on a 9-point Likert scale (1= totally disagree, 9= totally agree). The scale is averaged with a lower score indicating a lower socioeconomic status and a higher score indicating a higher socioeconomic status (M=
6.5570, SD= 1.81064; Cronbach’s α= .698). The items for this scale are: “I have enough mo-ney to buy things I want”, “I don’t need to worry too much about paying my bills”, and “I don’t think I’ll have to worry about money too much in the future”. To analyze the data a multiple regression using PROCESS is used for both analyses.
Results
Manipulation check. Randomization checks have been performed on the variables
gender, age, LHS and locus of control. From the randomization check of gender we can con-clude that this variables is not randomly and evenly distributed among the different conditi-ons (X² (2)= 1.344, p= .511). The variable age was also not evenly distributed (F (1,76)= 1.134, p= .290). The randomization check of the moderator LHS also showed that this varia-ble is not randomly distributed amongst the conditions (F (1,77)= .250, p= .619). Lastly, the randomization check for the second moderator locus of control also indicates that this varia-ble is not randomly distributed (F (1,77)= 0.975, p= .327). Multiple regression analyses using PROCESS is used in both analyses. The analyses will be done using model 1 of Hayes
(2018).
The manipulation of stress using the negative and stress inducing news article evoked more feelings of stress (Mhigh stress = 3.657 SDhigh stress = .078) then the positive, relaxing article
(Mlow stress = 2.182, SDlow stress = .062). However a regression analysis that used the stress task,
LHS and its interaction to test the stress manipulation, did not yield any significant impact. There was not a significant impact of the stress task (β = 1.726, SE = 2.701, t = .639 , p = .525). The analysis also did not yield a significant impact of LHS (β = -.177, SE = .514 , t = -.344 , p = .732) and the interaction of the stress task and LHS (β = .073, SE = .747, t = .98, p = .922). Therefore we can not say that the manipulation of stress was successful while ruling out alternate effects.
Target analysis. Even though the manipulation was not successful, it did evoke more
feelings of stress in the high stress condition and therefore the analysis will continue. The re-plication hypothesis that acute stress boosts the tendency to engage in hedonic food consump-tion among participants with a fast LHS but not for participants with a slow LHS is tested using a multiple regression analysis with the proportion willing to spend on hedonic food items as criterion and stress (low vs. high), LHS and their interaction as predictors. The re-sults showed that there was not a significant effect of the interaction of stress and LHS on hedonic food consumption (β = .0142 , SE = .0208, t = .6844, p = .4959, see appendix B for full SPSS output). This result is not in line with the replication hypothesis and therefore we reject this hypothesis. The data has been reanalyzed using current SES as a covariate. Howe-ver, this did not result in a significant effect. LHS also did not have a significant effect on he-donic food consumption.
The extension hypothesis that acute stress boosts the tendency to engage in hedonic food consumption among participants with an external locus of control but not for partici-pants with an internal locus of control is tested using a multiple regression analysis with the proportion willing to spend on hedonic food items as criterion and stress (low vs. high,
ef-fects coded), LHS and their interaction as predictors.There was not a significant effect of the interaction of stress and locus of control on hedonic food consumption (β = .0057, SE = .0152, t = .3746, p = .7091, see appendix C for full SPSS output). This result is not in line with the extension hypothesis and therefore we reject this hypothesis. The data has been re-analyzed once more using current SES as a covariate. However, this also did not result in a significant effect. There was also not a significant effect of locus of control on hedonic food consumption. Both analyses did not result in a significant main effect of stress on hedonic food consumption.
In sum, this study did not find evidence for the relationship that has been found by Fennis et al. (2021) nor can it replicate these using a different moderator. Acute stress did not increase the tendency for hedonic food consumption among fast or slow LHS consumers. Acute stress did also not increase the tendency for hedonic food consumption among internal or external locus of control consumers.
Discussion
In this paper we investigated if stress has an effect on hedonic food consumption and if this effect is moderated by both LHS and locus of control. It was hypothesized that a fast LHS will positively influence the effect of stress on hedonic food consumption and a slow LHS will negatively influence this effect. An external locus of control was hypothesized to positively influence the effect and an internal locus of control was hypothesized to negatively influence the effect. To test these hypotheses the data from the experiment is analyzed with a multiple regression using PROCESS. From this analysis we can conclude that there is no main effect of stress on hedonic consumption. The results also show that the variables LHS and locus of control do not moderate the relationship. When people have a fast LHS they are not inclined to indulge in hedonic food items more than the people who have a slow LHS.
People who have an external locus of control also do not indulge more in hedonic food items as their counterparts who have an internal locus of control.
A limitation of this study is that it only consisted of 79 participants. This is a relative-ly low number of participants and if there would have been more participants than the result may have been more reliable. Due to the fact that it was an online experiment external factors could cause the participants to respond differently as when they would have if they were to come to a lab and answer the experiment in a private room. Most of the participants have withdrawn from the experiment when they saw the article or during the questions about LHS and only 79 participants have completed the whole experiment. If the article was shorter then maybe more participants would have completed the whole experiment and the results would have been more reliable since we only have a small sample right now. Another limitation about the online experiment is that people could stop the experiment when they wanted and continue it later. If the participants read the article and afterwards decide to stop and continue later then the stress manipulation is not applicable to the rest of their answers. The time bet-ween reading the article and answering the questions is to long and therefore the manipulated stressful or relaxed feeling is diminished. This could explain why the manipulation failed in this paper.
Since there is no main effect of stress on hedonic consumption it only add to the cur-rent discussion on this topic. The non significant results of the two moderators can explain partially why in some cases there is a significant result of stress on hedonic food consumption since we can argue that these moderators do not elicit the tendency to consume more hedonic food items. This study also showed that there was no moderating effect of LHS which is not in line with the research of Fennis et al. (2021) that we replicated. They did find a moderating effect of LHS on the relationship between stress and hedonic consumption. Further research
can be done to see if there are any covariates that have not been studied in this paper that ex-plain the discrepancy between these results.
Nogaj (2017) showed that locus of control leads to a slight preference for a stress cop-ing mechanism. This study did not find difference in hedonic consumption between internal and external locus of control. Locus of control has not a significant effect on the type of stress coping mechanism. Qi and Cui (2019) found that locus of control has a mediating ef-fect on the relationship between stress and hedonic consumption through core self evaluation. However, this study shows that locus of control does not have a moderating effect. Therefore we can say that locus of control can have a mediating effect but it does not have a moderating effect.
This research showed that the hypothesis that stress leads to more hedonic consump-tion is not true under all condiconsump-tions. This research leads to a discussion if LHS has a moderat-ing effect since this is not in line with the findmoderat-ings of Fennis et al. (2021). This study adds to the existing literature by ruling out the personality trait locus of control as a moderator of the relationship between stress and hedonic consumption.
Significant results could have led marketing managers to advertise hedonic food items more in parts of the city where consumers are more likely to have a fast LHS. When these consumers see the advertisement and feel stressed they are more inclined to buy the product on the advertisement. However, since the results were not significant marketing managers do not need to keep LHS in mind when they search for a place to put the advertisement. Con-sumers who have a fast LHS do not need to worry that they are more inclined to buy hedonic food items when they are stressed. They can go to the grocery store even if they are feeling a bit stressed without unintentionally spending more money on buying hedonic food items. The same principle applies for people with an external locus of control. This trait will not lead to
purchasing more hedonic food items to cope with the stress they are feeling.
For the stress manipulation an article is used that either made the participant feel re-laxed or stressed. However, this manipulation did not result in a significant difference in the amount of stress participants felt after reading the article. A possibility for further research is to use a different stress manipulation to see if that will lead to a significant effect. If that leads to significant results the research adds to the proposition that LHS or locus of control has an effect on the relationship between stress and hedonic food consumption. There is an ongoing discussion as to when stress leads to more hedonic food consumption. To create a better and broader picture under which conditions this statement is true further research can be done using other personality traits as moderator. This shows what type of consumers are more in-clined to stressful eating and can help settle the discussion. This experiment has been an onli-ne experiment due to COVID-19 restrictions and the participants were asks about their wil-lingness to pay for certain food items. When the restrictions are no longer applicable further research can be done using a different setting. In this setting the behavior of the participants can be observed and therefore we can measure the actual consumption of hedonic foods and see if this differs from their intentions to buy hedonic food items. To conclude, we can say that consumers do not need to stress about the proposition that stress leads to more hedonic food consumption as no results were found that indicate that this is true.
References
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H. & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental di-mensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environ-ments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204–268.
Fennis, B. M. (n.d.). Myopic Effects Of Stress On Nudge Effectiveness. Unpublished Man-uscript.
Fennis, B. M., Gineikiene, J., Barauskaite, D. & Koningsbruggen van, G. M. (2021). Acute Stress Can boost or Buffer Hedonic Consumption The Role of Individual Differences in Consumer Life History Strategies. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M. R., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R. & Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and Life History Theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26, 243–275.
Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner, C., ... & Hohman, Z. J. (2014). The psychometric assessment of human life history strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 148-156.
Finucane, M. M., Stevens, G. A., Cowan, M., Danaei, G., Lin, J. K., Paciorek, C. J., Singh, G. M., Gutierrez, H. R., Lu, Y., Bahalim, A. N., Farzadfar, F., Riley, L. M. & Majid Ezza-ti,M. (2011). National, regional, and global trends in body mass index since 1980: Systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9.1 million participants. Lancet, 377(9765), 557-567.
Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2011). Environmental con-tingency in life history strategies: the influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(2), 241– 254.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd Ed). New York: Guilford.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15-63). New York: Academic Press.
Maner, J. K., Dittmann, A., Meltzer, A. L., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). Implications of life-his-tory strategies for obesity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32), 8517-8522.
Mckay, N., Przybysz, J., Cavanaugh, A., Horvatits, E., Giorgianni, N. & Czajka, K. (2021). The effect of unhealthy food and liking on stress reactivity. Physiology & Behavior,
229.
Nogaj, A. A. (2017). Locus of control and styles of coping with stress in students educated at Polish music and visual art schools- a cross-sectional study. Polish Psychological
Bul-letin, 48(2), 279-287.
Oliver, G., Wardle, J., & Gibson, E. L. (2000). Stress and food choice: a laboratory study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(6), 853-865.
Qi, W. & Cui, L. (2019). Eat to avoid negative awareness: Locus of control and core self-evaluation as serial mediators in the effect of stress on food intake. Appetite, 143(1), Wallis, D. J. & Hetherington, M. M. (2009). Emotions and eating. Self-reported and
experi-mentally induced changes in food intake under stress. Appetite, 52(2), 355-362. Wang, Q., Bowling, N. A. & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). A meta"analytic examination of work
Appendix A Experiment outline
Exhibit 1. Introduction
Dear participant,
Welcome to a short survey (5-10 minutes) composed of two parts.
My name is … and I am … student at the University of Groningen. In order to fulfill my … degree I am interested in two different topics; Human Cognition and Spending Behavior.
• The first study is about the consequences of quantitative reasoning, which includes a mathematical test.
• The second study is about purchase behavior, in which a specific scenario will be given.
Your participation in this study will remain confidential and there will be no attempt to link your re-sponses and your identity. Also, your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time by closing the survey platform.
If you have questions about this research, you can send an email message to … list name and email
I have read the above information, and do give my consent to participate in the study.
Exhibit 2. High and Low Stress conditions
This survey contains multiple parts and the first part of the survey is related with under-standing how people read articles, what they are feeling and thinking about when read-ing.
You will read a recent article which appeared in a Sunday section of The Guardian. This article is selected because it has an ideal length for studies on reading. Please read the arti-cle very carefully and take your time to visualize the material as vividly as possible. After reading, you will be asked a few questions.
ONLY when you finish reading the article, press the ‘next’ button (>>) to continue the sur-vey.
Exhibit 3. High Stress condition
By ALISON JAMESTON, Senior Writer --The Guardian
Five months ago Jonathan Pierce had a stable, well-paying job. Having earned a college de-gree, Jon was doing well at age 25. He even believed he was about to be promoted. Today, however, Jon is yet again standing in the dreary unemployment line downtown. “I didn’t think this could happen to me,” he mutters while shaking his head. “I have a college degree and I can’t even get a job interview, let alone a job. I’m facing foreclosure on my house, and I just don’t know where the money is going to come from.”
This depressing scene is not unique. If you thought the world had recovered from its latest recession and the economy is stable and growing, think again. Recent reports show that dark clouds are gathering on the horizon fast and a sharp economic downturn is imminent, fuelled by the crippling COVID-19 pandemic, the raging global trade war between the US, China and Europe, the Brexit, the immigration crisis in Europe, and the continuing instability in the Middle East.
Indeed, over the past year, unemployment lines have grown sharply again, both in the US as well as the EU. “The early numbers are staggering,” notes Oliver Windsor, the head of the EU Economic Commission. And it’s not just blue-collar jobs like construction and food ser-vice that are being cut. It’s also white-collar jobs like management and office work that are being hit. Job security appears to be a thing of the past, with more and more people losing their jobs almost overnight and being faced with the daily struggle of how to pay the bills, and make ends meet. According to Windsor, “the best-case scenario looks like the recession will return again. The worst-case scenario is a depression similar to that in the 1930s.” Unfor-tunately, there is little more the government can do to remedy the situation. As every econ-omist knows, changing the interest rates might slow the bleeding, but it can’t fix the underly-ing structural problems.
The impending economic crisis is only the beginning of a new reality faced by all of us. After decades of economic growth, experts agree that the U.S. and Europe are on the verge of an economic shift. “The economy of the 21st century is fundamentally different from that in the past,” explains Dr. Patricia Wharton, chair of the panel for EU Economic Stability. “The sad
truth is that this generation is certain to be the first generation to do worse than their par-ents—and their children will likely be even worse off. The American Dream – as we know it – will no longer exist for our children and the same applies to European citizens. Rising oil prices, a housing bubble, skyrocketing energy prices, and a massive trade deficit only begin to scratch the surface of our economic problems.”
The fact that young adults should expect to have little economic advancement is only part of the imminent economic disaster. Skyrocketing worldwide population growth and scarcity of natural resources are both working together to transform the economy. To understand how these factors are changing life for all of us, Oliver Windsor, one of 80 leading scientists who contributed to the government report, reminds us of the basics: “There are literally billions of people out there competing with each other. And these people are not just competing for jobs. The truth is that they’re competing for food, water, and air.”
The underlying fact is that our planet simply cannot support tens of billions of people. While it may be difficult for some to even imagine that one might one day live in poverty, the world in the 21st century is so highly inter-connected that for many this reality is literally around the corner. Things that happen in China, India, and Africa have tremendous consequences for what happens in the rest of the world. And as necessities like safe food, drinkable water, and breathable air become scarcer and expensive, the world as we know it will become a very dif-ferent place.
Watching Jonathan Pierce wait in the unemployment line downtown, one can’t help but be reminded of the Great Depression—a time in history that most people only remember from their history classes. The images of the Depression are difficult to erase: Malnourished chil-dren begging for food, people standing in line for days just to get a slice of bread and a cup of soup, everyone struggling to feed themselves and their families. The sad truth for people like Jonathan Pierce and countless others is that losing a job is only the beginning. Tough times are ahead.
Exhibit 4. Low Stress condition: Peaceful Meadow Relaxation
By ALISON JAMESTON, Senior Writer --The Guardian
Present day living is full of hassles, chores and stressors. Yet, modern science has identified ways to overcome the burden of modern life, and regain a sense of calm relaxation that fos-ters balance and peace of mind. Research has shown that regular relaxation training delivers these benefits and so aids in promoting health and wellbeing. It allows you to take mental va-cation to reduce stress and experience full body relaxation. The good news is that it does so immediately: there is no need for weeks of meditation to observe the calm and soothing ef-fects, you will notice them immediately upon the first try-out. This is how it works:
“Take a moment to relax your body. Get comfortable. Notice how your body feels, and make some slight adjustments to increase your comfort. Take a deep breath in. Hold it… and breathe out, releasing tension.
Breathe in again, and as you exhale, allow your body to relax slightly. Continue to breathe slowly…deeply. As you visualize the following scene, let your body and mind become more and more relaxed with each moment.
Imagine yourself walking outdoors. You are walking through the trees...small aspens, their leaves moving in a slight breeze. The sun shines down warmly. You walk toward a clearing in the trees. As you come closer to the clearing, you see that it is a meadow. You walk out of the trees, into the meadow. Tall green grass blows gently... You are probably feeling a bit tired...It would be so nice to sit down in the grass.
Walk further into the meadow now...looking around... Imagine the meadow in your mind’s eye...what does the meadow look like? Find a place to sit. You might want to sit or lie down in the grass…perhaps you have a blanket with you that you can unroll over the soft grass and lie down. Feel the breeze caress your skin as you sit or lie down in the sun. It is a pleasant day…warm, but not hot…quiet and peaceful. Notice the sights around you. The grass, whis-pering…see the mix of meadow grasses, clover, wildflowers around you. Watch a small la-dybug climb a blade of grass. Climbing up toward the top, pausing for a moment, and then flying away.
Imagine closing your eyes and listening to the sounds of the meadow. Hear birds singing… the breeze rustling the grass softly… Feel the sun on your face. Imagine turning your face up toward the sky, eyes closed, enjoying the warmth of the sun. Smell the grass…the wildflow-ers…the smell of the sun on the earth… Look around again to see the sights around you. No-tice how the ground follows gentle contours of hills. See the blue sky above you…a few wispy clouds drifting slowly by.
See the trees at the edge of the meadow….The meadow is lush and green, a haven for birds and animals. As you watch, a deer peers out through the trees, and emerges to graze at the edge of the meadow. The deer raises its head to look at you, sniffing the breeze, and then turns, disappearing silently into the trees. Rest and luxuriate in this peaceful, beautiful mead-ow…. Notice the sights, sounds, and smells around you…. Feel the soft grass beneath you, the sun and breeze on your skin. Imagine all the details of this place.
Now it is time to leave the meadow and return to the present. Notice your surroundings. Feel the surface beneath you. Hear the sounds around you. Open your eyes to look around, re-ori-enting to the present. Take a moment to stretch your muscles and allow your body to
reawak-en. When you are ready, return to your usual activities, keeping with you a feeling of peace and calm.”
You can start with short relaxation sessions and with more experience, achieving relaxation will become easier and you will be able to relax for longer periods of time. Some people pre-fer to relax right before bed to help fall asleep. Others relax first thing in the morning to start the day refreshed and revitalized. Consider if there are times in the day when your energy is high or low. These can be ideal times to schedule in a brief relaxation session.
Exhibit 5.
How do you feel after reading this article? Please describe your thoughts and feelings in 4-6 sentences. It’s very important that you’d write as detailed as possible.
________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________
The first part of the survey is finished now. Please press the ‘next’ button to continue (>>).
Exhibit 6.
Welcome to the second part of this study.
This part is about spending behavior in a grocery store. You will now be given a short scenario.
In your regular visit to the supermarket you encounter different product on the shelves. Please indicate for each of the following products what you would be willing to spend on
€____ Bread €____ Milk €____ Crackers €____ Cookies €____ Lemon €____ Broccoli €____ Oat Flakes €____ Salad €____ Onions €____ Ginger €____ Radish €____ Detergent €____ Ice Cream €____ Potatoes €____ Chewing gum €____ Eggs €____ Avocados €____ Biscuits €____ Blueberries €____ Yogurt €____ Toilet Paper €____ Chocolate €____ Nuts €____ Cereals €____ Chips €____ Sweets €____ Apples
Exhibit 7. Manipulation Check/ Mood measure (Acar-Burkay, et al. 2014)
Back to the news story .. Please use the scale below to tell us how you experienced reading the story
Exhibit 8. K-SF-42: scale for LHS:
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Use the scale below and write your answers in the spaces provided. For any item that does not apply to you, please enter “0.”
Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Slightly Don’t Know/Not Applicable Agree Slightly Agree Some-what Agree Strongly
–3. –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3 1. When faced with a bad situation, I do what I can to change it for the better 2. When I encounter problems, I don’t give up until I solve them. 3. I <ind I usually learn something meaningful from a dif<icult situation. 4. When I am faced with a bad situation, it helps to <ind a different way of looking at things. 5. Even when everything seems to be going wrong, I can usually <ind a bright side to the situation. 6. I can <ind something positive even in the worst situations.
7. I spend a great deal of time per month giving informal emotional support to my blood relatives. 8. I contribute a great deal to the welfare and well-being of my blood relatives in the present.
9. I spend a great deal of time per month giving informal emotional support to casual acquaintances
(such as neighbors or people at church).
10. I contribute a great deal to the welfare and well-being of my friends these days.
11.
I spend a great deal of time per month doing formal volunteer work at school or other youth-Strongly
disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor dis-agree
Somewhat
agree Agree Strongly agree
DIFFICULT STRESSFUL EASY FUN DEMAN-DING ENJOYABLE
related institution. 12. I often contribute to any other organizations, causes, or charities (including donations made through monthly payroll deductions). 13. I’m a very religious person. 14. Reli-gion is important in my life. 15. Spiri-tuality is important in my life.
16. I closely identify with being a member of my religious group. 17. I frequently attend religious or spiritual services.
18. When I have decisions to make in my daily life, I often ask myself what my religious or spiritual beliefs suggest I should do.
19. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them. 20. I don’t feel comfortable
ope-ning up to romantic partners. 21. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back.
22. I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes scares them away. 23. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
24 I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like.
The following are some questions about means of help that people offer each other. Use the scale below and write your answers in the spaces provided, indicating about how often any parent, family member, or friend has helped you in each of the following ways. For any item that does not apply to you, please enter “0.”
While you were growing up…
25. How much time and attention did your biological mother give you when you needed it?
26. How much effort did your biological mother put into watching over you and making
sure you had a good upbringing?
27. How much did your biological mother teach you about life? 28. How much love and affection did your biological father give you while you were growing up?? 29. How much time and attention did your biological father give you when you needed it?
30. How much did your biological father teach you about life
Not At All A Little Some A Lot
During the last month…
31. How much have your relatives helped you get worries off your mind? 32. How much have your relatives
told you that you had done some-thing well?
33. How much have your relatives told you that they liked the way you are? 34. How much have your relatives shown you affection?
35. How much have your relatives listened to you when you talked about your feel-ings?
36. How much have your relatives shown interest and concern for your well-being?
37. How much have your friends helped you get worries off your mind? 38. How much have your friends told you that you had done something well? 39. How much have your friends told you that they liked the way you are? 40. How much have your friends shown you affection? 41. How much have your friends offered to take you somewhere? 42. How much have your friends shown interest and concern for your well-being?
Exhibit 9. Levenson (1981) scale for locus of control:
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Use the scale below and write your answers in the spaces provided. For any item that does not apply to you, please enter “0.”
Disagree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Slightly Don’t Know/Not Applicable Agree Slightly Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly
–3 –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3
1.________I feel comfortable with myself. 2.________I believe that my success depends on ability rather than luck.
3.________I believe that unfortunate events occur because of bad luck.
4.________I just know that the world is con-trolled by a few powerful people.
5.________I come up with good solution. 6.________I love life.
7.________I act comfortably with others. 8.________I am less capable than most peo-ple.
9.________I am up to any task. 10._______I see difficulties everywhere.
11._______I like to take responsibility for making decisions.
12._______I take the initiative.
13._______I make a decision and move on. 14._______I feel that my life lacks direction. 15._______I habitually blow my chances. 16._______I dislike taking responsibility for making decisions.
17._______I dislike myself.
18._______I feel that I am unable to deal with things.
19._______I just know that I will be a suc-cess.
Exhibit 10. Socioeconomic status (Griskevicius et al. 2011)
Please indicate the extent of agreement with the following statements, rang-ing from 1 to 9, whereas 1= Totally Disagree and 9= Totally Agree
Demographic questions.
You are at the end of the questionnaire. Please finalize answering some de-mographic questions.
What is your age?
Currently I am….
# Studying
# Working
# Looking for a job
# Not applicable
What is your nationality?
# Dutch
# Other, namely ____________________
Exhibit 12. Debriefing section
THANK YOU!
This is the end of the questionnaire.
Thank you for taking your time to complete all questions.
If you are interested in the results of the study, please fill in your e-mail ad-dress.
Your information will be kept confidential and will only be used to keep you updated about the final results of the research.
Appendix B
Appendix C
