Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 22;17(15):2391.
doi: 10.3390/nu17152391.

Psychological Well-Being and Dysfunctional Eating Styles as Key Moderators of Sustainable Eating Behaviors: Mind the Gap Between Intention and Action

Elena Lo Dato  1 , Sara Gostoli  1 , Elena Tomba  1
Affiliations

Psychological Well-Being and Dysfunctional Eating Styles as Key Moderators of Sustainable Eating Behaviors: Mind the Gap Between Intention and Action

Elena Lo Dato et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Background: Promoting sustainable eating is gaining increasing attention, yet the transition from intentions to actual behaviors remains unclear. This study compares the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of behavioral choice (TBC) in predicting such intentions and examines the moderating role of distress, psychological well-being, and dysfunctional eating styles in the intention-behavior relationship. Methods: A total of 223 participants from the general population (29.49 ± 9.30 years; 68.6% females) completed an online survey assessing TPB and TBC predictors, the Sustainable and Healthy Dietary Behaviors (SHDB) questionnaire, the Depression and Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21), the Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS), and the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ). Results: The TBC model explained a significantly greater variance in intention (R2 = 0.45, ΔR2 = 0.28, F(215,4) = 27.27, p < 0.001) compared to the TPB, with TBC-affect (β = 0.48, p < 0.001) and felt obligation (β = 0.23, p < 0.001) being the strongest predictors. Moderation analyses revealed that the intention-behavior link was stronger in participants with lower external eating and autonomy. Conclusions: Both internal and external factors play a crucial role in predicting intentions. In addition, the intention-behavior link is stronger in individuals who are less reactive to external food stimuli and more influenced by social pressure. Promoting more balanced psychological well-being and functional eating habits may foster more sustainable diets.

Keywords: dysfunctional eating styles; psychological well-being; sustainable eating; theory of behavioral choice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Predictive theoretical model of sustainable eating intentions and behaviors, integrating constructs from the TPB and the TBC, along with clinical psychological variables.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Interaction plot illustrating the moderating effect of DEBQ-external eating in the relation between intention and SHDB-total score. The three lines represent low (2.42), medium (3.40), and high (4.38) levels of DEBQ-external eating, corresponding to one standard deviation below the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean, respectively. Notes. DEBQ, Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire; SHDB, Sustainable and Healthy Dietary Behaviors.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Interaction plot illustrating the moderating effect of PWB-autonomy in the relation between intention and SHDB-cooking. The three lines represent low (22.79), medium (29.20), and high (35.62) levels of PWB-autonomy, corresponding to one standard deviation below the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean, respectively. Notes. PWB, psychological well-being; SHDB, Sustainable and Healthy Dietary Behaviors.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lindgren E., Harris F., Dangour A.D., Gasparatos A., Hiramatsu M., Javadi F., Loken B., Murakami T., Scheelbeek P., Haines A. Sustainable Food Systems-a Health Perspective. Sustain. Sci. 2018;13:1505–1517. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0586-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Swinburn B.A., Sacks G., Hall K.D., McPherson K., Finegood D.T., Moodie M.L., Gortmaker S.L. The Global Obesity Pandemic: Shaped by Global Drivers and Local Environments. Lancet. 2011;378:804–814. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60813-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Popkin B.M., Ng S.W. The Nutrition Transition to a Stage of High Obesity and Non-communicable Disease Prevalence Dominated by Ultra-Processed Foods Is Not Inevitable. Obes. Rev. Off. J. Int. Assoc. Study Obes. 2022;23:e13366. doi: 10.1111/obr.13366. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tremmel M., Gerdtham U.-G., Nilsson P.M., Saha S. Economic Burden of Obesity: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2017;14:435. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14040435. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Willett W., Rockström J., Loken B., Springmann M., Lang T., Vermeulen S., Garnett T., Tilman D., DeClerck F., Wood A., et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet. 2019;393:447–492. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources