A metacognitive regulation approach for judgment of satiation

Abstract

Previous research has documented expected satieties and some methods quantifying them for various foods. However, it seems both metacognition and eating behaviour literatures neglected a possible metacognitive judgment in eating behaviour: “judgment of satiation” (JOS) which allows quantifying any concordant and discordant eating patterns (e.g., under- or overeating). Therefore, along with a methodology to study JOS, a working model of metacognitive regulation of eating was proposed based on Nelson and Narens’ metacognitive framework to bridge the gap between metacognition and application of it in this vitally important everyday behaviour. This straightforward understanding of regulation process is expected to piece already-accumulated evidences on satiation together, establish prospective research questions on eating behaviour and appetite control, and clarify specific eating problems further. Overall, both the conceptualisations outlined in the framework and the methodology proposed are expected to facilitate a newer insight for researchers on understanding such a complex behaviour.

Keywords:

• Judgment of satiation
• Metacognitive regulation
• Monitoring hunger
• Controlling food intake

ORCID

Mehmet Akif Guzel http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5828-1237

Notes

¹ Koriat et al. (2006), for instance, investigated the causal relationship between monitoring and control and suggested some possibilities for this relationship: a sequential mode where there exists either the effect of monitoring on control (MC) or the effect of control on monitoring (CM), and a simultaneous mode in which both MC and CM involve in the same situation. They found evidence for the existence of MC and CM processes after conducting a series of lab experiments, yet underlined the fact that many real life behaviours involve simultaneously operating processes. Agreeing strongly with this notion, I think future work could reveal the nature of relationship between the processes outlined in the working model for metacognitive regulation of eating behaviour (Figure 1).

² Alternatively, participant can rate JOS with the following question: “What portion of food shown on the photo do you think could have satiated your present hunger level?”

³ Although the ranges might vary, for example, between “1” and “3,” or “1” and “5,” taking the portion size, hunger level, and JOS as varying from say “1” to “9” for each (e.g., 1 = “the smallest portion”/“extremely hungry”/“not at all satiated,” respectively; and 9 = “the largest portion”/“completely full”/“completely satiated,” respectively) would provide the prospective studies with the possibility to detect the divergences as much fine-tuned as possible than such as varying them within three levels, and would hinder the possibility that any larger divisions “particularly for portion sizes” might be less detectable by the participant. However, prospective studies might manipulate the ranges in scales and reveal as to whether there emerge any significant differences between these variations (e.g., 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 levels) on JOS.