Experimentally Manipulated Low Social Status and Food Insecurity Alter Eating Behavior Among Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Objective This randomized trial experimentally manipulated social status to assess effects on acute eating behavior and 24‐hour energy balance. Methods Participants (n = 133 Hispanics; age 15‐21 years; 60.2% females) were randomized to low social status (“LOW”) or high social status (“HIGH”) conditions in a rigged game of Monopoly (Hasbro, Inc.). Acute energy intake in a lunchtime meal was measured by food scales. Twenty‐four‐hour energy balance was assessed via summation of resting metabolic rate (metabolic cart), physical activity energy expenditure (accelerometer), thermic effect of food, and subtraction of twenty‐four‐hour energy intake (food diary). Results In the total sample, no significant differences were observed by study condition at lunchtime. LOW females consumed a greater percent of lunchtime daily energy needs (37.5%) relative to HIGH females (34.3%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.291). In males, however, LOW consumed significantly less (36.5%) of their daily energy needs relative to HIGH males (45.8%; P = 0.001). For 24‐hour energy balance, sex differences were nearly significant (P = 0.057; LOW females: surplus +200 kcal; HIGH males: surplus +445 kcal). Food‐insecure individuals consumed a nearly significant greater lunchtime percent daily energy than those with food security (40.7% vs. 36.3%; P = 0.0797). Conclusions The data demonstrate differential acute and 24‐hour eating behavior responses between Hispanic male and female adolescents in experimentally manipulated conditions of low social status.

Psychological Resilience, Experimentally Manipulated Social Status, and Dietary Intake among Adolescents

“…As previously described in other studies, potential HA participants 15 to 21 years old were recruited in North Central Florida and were screened to determine eligibility [ 17 ]. Exclusions included any severe dietary restrictions, loss or gain of more than 10 pounds in the last six months, tobacco use, birth outside of the United States, or a body mass index outside the range of 18.5–40 kg/m 2 .…”

“…The protocol for this study was developed based on a proof of concept study [ 15 ]. The findings and methods for the primary outcomes of this larger randomized controlled trial are published elsewhere [ 17 ]; thus, the methods will focus on measures pertaining to this secondary analysis. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida.…”

“…A detailed account of the status manipulation checks and main effects of the manipulation have been published previously [ 17 ]. Briefly, participants in the low SS condition had significantly fewer Monopoly resource earnings, felt significantly less powerful, and felt significantly more frustrated than those in the high SS condition [ 17 ].…”

“…Variables used for analysis were total energy intake, percent of daily energy needs consumed, SFA(g), sodium (mg), and sugar (g) consumed. Percent of daily energy needs consumed was calculated using RMR, physical activity energy expenditure collected via the accelerometer, and an assumed dietary induced thermogenesis of 10% [ 17 ]. The calories consumed from the ad libitum lunch were then divided by the total energy expenditure (derived from resting metabolic rate plus energy expenditure and 10% thermic effect of food) to represent the percent of daily energy needs consumed at the lunch.…”

“…Few studies have investigated the relationship between subjective SS and diet. Previous studies using experimental manipulations of SS have found that individuals in a low SS condition exhibit increased intended or actual calorie consumption [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] and increases in ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone [ 18 ]. Due to the possible association between low SS and increased risk for obesity, it is important to identify factors such as psychological resilience that may ameliorate this risk.…”