Search

To be a successful dieter, one has to be able to consistently resist immediate temptations in order to achieve the bigger, but delayed rewards of weight loss, increased attractiveness and better health. These long-term benefits are by no means guaranteed as the delayed rewards are more uncertain than the immediate rewards. Several researchers have suggested that the population of restrained eaters consists of two populations: unsuccessful dieters who score high on restraint and high on disinhibition, and successful dieters who score high on restraint but low on disinhibition. The present study examines to what extent restrained eating in combination with individual differences in self-control (akin to low disinhibition) is related to successful decision making on a task that mimics the uncertainty of dieting (measured with the Iowa Gambling Task). As expected, self-control moderated the association between restraint and decision making: restrained eating was related to worse decision making when self-control was low, but to better decision making when self-control was high. This suggest that those high in restraint and high in self-control may be more successful in their dieting attempts because they are generally better at inhibiting short-term rewards in order to gain better long-term outcomes.

Evolutionary explanations of overeating in modern society emphasize that humans have evolved to eat to their physiological limits when food is available. The present paper challenges the idea that eating is driven by the availability of food only and proposes that it is regulated by strategic anticipatory behaviour in service of the most profitable long-term scenario as well. Our alternative explanation emphasizes the interaction between the reward system that regulates the liking and wanting of food and the role of self-control, which is involved in maintaining the best outcome in the long run.