Goal Priming in Dieters: Recent Insights and Applications

What are the psychological mechanisms that make dieting so challenging in our food-rich living environment? Social psychological research on goal priming provides a useful framework for answering this question, as well as implications for how to enhance dieting success. This review presents and discusses recent research which shows that attractive food cues prime the hedonic eating goal in dieters, and thus facilitate overeating. However, external cues priming the goal of weight control can be used to offset these effects and thus to facilitate dieting success, as is demonstrated in both field and laboratory experiments. In addition, recent strategies to prevent hedonic effects of attractive food, such as mindful attention, can facilitate self-regulation. These recent advances in our understanding of dieting behavior have theoretical and practical implications for how successful dieting can be facilitated, both by means of individual strategies, as well as by environmental changes

Emotional over- and under-eating in early childhood are learned not inherited

Emotional overeating (EOE) has been associated with increased obesity risk, while emotional undereating (EUE) may be protective. Interestingly, EOE and EUE tend to correlate positively, but it is unclear whether they reflect different aspects of the same underlying trait, or are distinct behaviours with different aetiologies. Data were from 2054 five-year-old children from the Gemini twin birth cohort, including parental ratings of child EOE and EUE using the Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire. Genetic and environmental influences on variation and covariation in EUE and EOE were established using a bivariate Twin Model. Variation in both behaviours was largely explained by aspects of the environment completely shared by twin pairs (EOE: C = 90%, 95% CI: 89%-92%; EUE: C = 91%, 95% CI: 90%-92%). Genetic influence was low (EOE: A = 7%, 95% CI: 6%-9%; EUE: A = 7%, 95% CI: 6%-9%). EOE and EUE correlated positively (r = 0.43, p < 0.001), and this association was explained by common shared environmental influences (BivC = 45%, 95% CI: 40%-50%). Many of the shared environmental influences underlying EUE and EOE were the same (rC = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.55). Childhood EOE and EUE are etiologically distinct. The tendency to eat more or less in response to emotion is learned rather than inherited

Mental Health and School Functioning for Girls in the Child Welfare System : the Mediating Role of Future Orientation and School Engagement

This study investigated the association between mental health problems and academic and behavioral school functioning for adolescent girls in the child welfare system and determined whether school engagement and future orientation meditated the relationship. Participants were 231 girls aged between 12 and 19 who had been involved with the child welfare system. Results indicated that 39% of girls reported depressive symptoms in the clinical range and 54% reported posttraumatic symptoms in the clinical range. The most common school functioning problems reported were failing a class (41%) and physical fights with other students (35%). Participants reported a mean number of 1.7 school functioning problems. Higher levels of depression and PTSD were significantly associated with more school functioning problems. School engagement fully mediated the relationship between depression and school functioning and between PTSD and school functioning, both models controlling for age, race, and placement stability. Future orientation was not significantly associated with school functioning problems at the bivariate level. Findings suggest that school engagement is a potentially modifiable target for interventions aiming to ameliorate the negative influence of mental health problems on school functioning for adolescent girls with histories of abuse or neglect

The market reaction to the choice of accounting method for stock splits and large stock dividends

Prior research has used inaccurate classification rules to distinguish between stock splits and stock dividends. The CRSP classification of two-for-one stock distributions agrees with the actual accounting treatment only 23\% of the time. In addition, the accounting treatment impacts the announcement period reaction-two-for-one distributions accounted for as stock dividends are associated with five-day announcement period returns of 2.70\%, significantly greater that the 0.93\% announcement returns for distributions accounted for as stock splits. Announcement returns are positively related to earnings growth in the two years following the distribution for stock dividend firms but not for stock split firms. The accounting choice appears to be used to confirm management's private information about future earnings revealed at the time of the distribution announcement

Accounting rules and the signaling properties of 20 percent stock dividends

Stock dividends which increase outstanding shares by less than 25 percent require a transfer from retained earnings of the market value of the new shares, a much larger transfer than that required for stock dividends of 25 percent or more. Choosing a distribution factor near, but below, 25 percent may be an indication of management optimism that future income will replenish retained earnings, avoiding constraints on future cash distributions. In this study, firms declaring 20 percent and 25 percent stock dividends are compared. The 20 percent stock dividend firms exhibit significantly greater announcement-period abnormal returns and significantly greater post-declaration cash dividend growth. These effects are greatest for firms incorporated in states where the level of,retained earnings more strictly constrains the payment of cash dividends

What do stock splits really signal?

We observe significant post-split excess returns of 7.93 percent in the first year and 12.15 percent in the first three years for a sample of 1,275 two-for-one stock splits. These excess returns follow an announcement return of 3.38 percent, indicating that the market under-reacts to split announcements. The evidence suggests that splits realign prices to a lower trading range, but managers self-select by conditioning the decision to split on expected future performance. Presplit runup and post-split excess returns are inversely related, indicating that our results are not caused by momentum