Skip to main content

The accelerator, the brake, and the terrain: associations of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and the home food environment with diet quality during pregnancy and postpartum in the pregnancy eating attributes study (PEAS) cohort



Neurobehavioral factors, including reward-related eating and self-regulation, in conjunction with the food environment, may influence dietary behaviors. However, these constructs have not been examined in pregnancy and postpartum, a time of changing appetite and eating behaviors, and when dietary intake has implications for maternal and child health. This study examined associations of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and the home food environment with pregnancy and postpartum diet quality.


Participants in the Pregnancy Eating Attributes Study observational cohort were enrolled at ≤12 weeks gestation and followed through one-year postpartum. Pregnancy and postpartum Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-total), and adequacy and moderation scores, respectively, were calculated by pooling 24-h diet recalls administered each trimester and during 2, 6, and 12 months postpartum. Participants completed four measures of reward-related eating – Modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS), Power of Food Scale (PFS), Multiple Choice Procedure (MCP), and Reinforcing Value of Food Questionnaire (RVFQ); two measures of self-regulation – Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) and Delay of Gratification Inventory (DGI); and a Home Food Inventory (HFI), yielding obesogenic (OBES) and fruit/vegetables (FV) scores. Linear regression analyses estimated associations of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food environment with diet quality during pregnancy and postpartum, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.


Pregnancy HEI-total was inversely associated with PFS (β = − 0.14 ± 0.05, p = 0.009), mYFAS(β = − 0.14 ± 0.06, p = 0.02), 2 of the 5 RVFQ indices, MCP (β = − 0.14 ± 0.05, p = 0.01), and DGI food subscale (β = 0.23 ± 0.05, p < 0.001), but associations of postpartum HEI-total with reward-related eating measures and self-regulation were small and not statistically significant. Pregnancy and postpartum HEI-total were associated inversely with HFI-OBES (β = − 0.17 ± 0.06, p = 0.004 and β = − 0.19 ± 0.07, p = 0.006, respectively), and positively with HFI-FV (β = 0.21 ± 0.05, p < 0.001 and β = 0.17 ± 0.06, p = 0.009, respectively).


Associations of poorer diet quality with greater reward-related eating during pregnancy but not postpartum suggests the need to better understand differences in the determinants of eating behaviors and approaches to circumvent or moderate reward-related eating to facilitate more optimal diet quality across this critical period.

Trial registration URL – Registration ID – NCT02217462. Date of registration – August 13, 2014.


Better maternal diet quality during pregnancy is related to decreased risk of excess gestational weight gain [1], gestational diabetes [2], and offspring adiposity [3]. However, across racial/ethnic groups and income levels, adherence to dietary recommendations during pregnancy is low, and little is known about influences on diet quality during this period [4,5,6]. Therefore, identifying modifiable determinants of diet quality in pregnancy is essential for improving numerous maternal and child health outcomes [7, 8].

Poor diet quality, in particular, excessive intake of discretionary foods (i.e., energy-dense foods providing minimal nutrient value), may result from hedonically-driven eating behavior motivated by the rewarding characteristics of food rather than homeostatic need, termed reward-related eating [9,10,11,12]. The influence of discretionary foods on brain reward circuitry [13] may additionally contribute to their preferential selection [10, 14], potentially displacing intake of more healthful foods. Previous research in non-pregnant samples using brief screeners or food frequency questionnaires has shown that reward-related eating is associated with unhealthy snack food choices in an experimental paradigm [15], and with increased intake of sugar-sweetened beverages [16], snacks [17] and discretionary foods [18,19,20] in observational studies. However, the relationship of reward-related eating with overall diet quality has not been examined in pregnant women, in whom preference for palatable foods may be heightened due to increased cravings [21, 22].

Reward-related eating (i.e., the “accelerator”) is hypothesized to interact with inhibitory control of eating impulses [23,24,25] (the “brake”) and with the availability of discretionary foods in the environment [26] (the “terrain”). Laboratory-based studies in non-pregnant samples indicate that greater self-regulation is associated with overall lower food intake [27, 28] and attenuates relationships of reward-related eating with food intake [29,30,31]. Additionally, a food environment abundant with highly palatable discretionary foods not only facilitates accessibility, but also increases cues prompting their intake [32]. While studies indicate that greater home food availability of discretionary foods is associated with worse diet quality in pregnant [33] and non-pregnant samples [34,35,36,37,38], previous studies have not investigated whether the availability of discretionary foods in the home moderates the association of reward-related eating with diet quality.

The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of reward-related eating with diet quality during pregnancy and postpartum, and to examine whether self-regulation and the home food environment moderates this relationship. We hypothesized that greater reward-related eating is associated with poorer diet quality, particularly greater intake of discretionary foods, and that lower self-regulation or a more obesogenic home food environment would strengthen the relationship. Additionally, the study explores differences in measures of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food environment between pregnancy and postpartum.


Design and participants

The Pregnancy Eating Attributes Study (PEAS) was a prospective observational study of women enrolled at ≤12 weeks gestation from two university-based obstetrics clinics in Chapel Hill, North Carolina from November 2014 through October 2016 and followed through one-year postpartum [39]. The primary study aims were to examine the roles of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food availability on dietary intake and weight change during pregnancy and postpartum, including potential moderating roles of self-regulation and home food availability on the association of reward-related eating with diet and weight outcomes. Power analyses to determine sample size have been reported previously [39]. Data collection was completed in June 2018. Inclusion criteria were: confirmed pregnant ≤12 weeks gestation at enrollment; uncomplicated singleton pregnancy anticipated; age ≥ 18 and < 45 at screening; willingness to undergo study procedures and provide informed consent for her participation and assent for the baby’s participation; BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2; able to complete self-report assessments in English; access to Internet with email; plan to deliver at the UNC Women’s Hospital; and plan to remain in the geographical vicinity of the clinical site for 1 year following delivery. Exclusion criteria included: pre-existing diabetes; multiple pregnancy; participant-reported eating disorder; any medical condition contraindicating participation in the study such as chronic illnesses or use of medication that could affect diet or weight; or psychosocial condition contraindicating participation in the study.


Research staff identified potential participants through the electronic clinical appointments and medical records database. At the time of the visit, eligibility was verified and signed informed consent obtained from those electing to participate. Study visits were conducted prenatally at baseline (< 12 weeks gestation), 13–18 weeks, 16–22 weeks, and 28–32 weeks gestation, and postpartum at 4–6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, at which time anthropometric data and biospecimens were obtained. Self-report measures were completed online within each study visit window, prompted by email reminders to participants regarding the opening and closing of each window. Participants accessed online questionnaires and the 24-h dietary recall system through a study website developed and hosted by the study data coordinating center. Study procedures were approved by the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board.


Dietary intake

Participants were asked to complete a dietary recall within each study visit window using the Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Recall (ASA24), a web-based tool for obtaining self-administered 24-h dietary recalls developed by the National Cancer Institute and validated against the interviewer-administered automated multiple pass method [40, 41]. The ASA24 prompts participants to indicate all foods consumed, including details of food preparation, brands, portion size, and additions. From this data, the program assigns food codes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Surveys and provide estimates of macronutrient, micronutrient, food categories and USDA Food Patterns Equivalents Database food groups. Participants received written instructions on use of the program, and research staff provided assistance if participants reported difficulty using the interface. Research staff at the University of North Carolina Nutrition and Obesity Research Core identified and corrected implausible entries (e.g., food items with implausible energy, fat or weight) and missing food or nutrient values and quantities. Dietary records indicating daily energy intakes of < 600 kcal (36 of 1883 records, 1.9%) were excluded from analyses. Dietary records with daily energy intakes of > 4500 kcal were reviewed and determined to reflect plausible intake, and thus were retained. Cutoffs for examining implausibility were based on research in non-pregnant adults indicating that energy intake cutoffs of < 500 kcal and > 3500 kcal produced similar estimates of associations of diet with BMI as compared with the Goldberg method and predicted total energy expenditure method [42]; we increased the cutoffs for this sample to account for the increased energy requirements of pregnancy [43]. Dietary intake data were used to calculate the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI), an a priori indicator of diet quality that reflects conformance to the 2015 US Dietary Guidelines for Americans [44]. The HEI total score ranges from 0 to 100 and is calculated by summing 13 component scores, including 9 “adequacy components” (total fruit, whole fruit, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and 4 “moderation components” (refined grains, sodium and added sugars and saturated fats), which are calculated on a per-1000 kcal or percent of kcal basis. The 9 subscales reflecting adherence to adequacy components were summed to create a HEI-adequacy score (max score = 60), and the 4 moderation subscales were summed to create a HEI-moderation score (max score = 40). Previous studies have found little change in dietary intake across trimesters [45,46,47]; therefore, diet recalls from pregnancy and those from postpartum were pooled to calculate HEI across pregnancy (n = 365) and across postpartum (n = 266) using the simple HEI scoring algorithm – per person [48].

Hedonic hunger

The Power of Food Scale (PFS) is a 15-item questionnaire that measures hedonic hunger, the appetitive response to highly-palatable food cues in the environment [49]. Items querying response to the availability, presence, or taste of desirable food are rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The measure demonstrates strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.77, p < 0.001), and has been validated with respect to overeating [29], outcomes of weight-loss interventions [50], and brain activity in response to viewing images of food versus control [51]. The PFS was completed each trimester during pregnancy and at 6 months postpartum (n = 227); mean scores across pregnancy were calculated (n = 377).

Addictive-like eating

The modified Yale Food Addiction Scale (mYFAS), a 9-item abbreviated version [52] of the Yale Food Addiction Scale assesses the presence of eating disorder symptoms consistent with diagnostic criteria for food addiction. The measure has demonstrated psychometric properties similar to the original instrument, and greater scores were associated with higher BMI across two cohorts of women [52]. The mYFAS was completed at baseline (n = 344) and 6-months postpartum (n = 217). Responses to each item were dichotomized to a score of 0 or 1 based on published cut-off values [52] and summed. Due to the highly skewed distribution, scores of 2 or more (12.5% of responses) were collapsed (only 2.3% of respondents scored 3 and 1.8% scored 4 or higher).

Food reinforcement measures

The Reinforcing Value of Food Questionnaire (RVFQ) [53] and Multiple Choice Procedure (MCP) [54] assessed the relative reinforcing value of food. The RVFQ asks participants to report the number of portions of a specified food that they would purchase for same-day intake at varying cost levels. The measure generates five indices: breakpoint (first price at which consumption was zero), intensity of demand (consumption at the lowest price), elasticity of demand (sensitivity of consumption to increase in cost; individual elasticities calculated using the modified exponential demand equation) [55], Omax (maximum expenditure), and Pmax (price at which expenditure was maximized). The measure has demonstrated validity against a laboratory task assessing food reinforcement value [53]. The MCP asks participants to make a series of discrete choices between receiving an increasing amount of a monetary reward versus an alternative reinforcer. The datum of interest is the specific price at which participants begin to select the money over the reinforcer (breakpoint). The MCP has previously been validated in the assessment of reinforcement value of alcohol and cigarettes (e.g., [56]), and was adapted by the investigators to assess the relative reinforcing value of food. Study participants were presented with the name and images of 18 palatable foods (e.g., cookies, donuts, ice cream, chips, nachos, French fries) and asked to rate their degree of liking of each items using a labeled hedonic scale with 10 response options ranging from “most disliked sensation imaginable” to “most liked sensation imaginable” [57]. The two highest-rated foods were then used for the RVFQ and MCP, which were assessed at the first two pregnancy visits and 6 months postpartum (n = 209 for RVFQ and 211 for MCP). For each measure, mean scores across the two pregnancy visits were calculated (n = 348 for RVFQ and 350 for MCP). Due to highly skewed distributions, scores were log transformed.


Two measures of self-regulation were administered. The 15-item short form of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-15) measures impulsivity across three dimensions – non-planning, motor impulsivity, and attentional impulsivity. The measure has demonstrated similar psychometric properties and associations with neurobehavioral traits as the original instrument [58]. The Delaying Gratification Inventory (DGI) is a 35-item questionnaire measuring the tendency to forego immediate satisfaction in favor of long-term rewards across five domains – food, physical pleasure, social interaction, money and achievement [59]. The subscale scores have shown good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69–0.89) and strong test-retest reliability (r = 0.74–0.90). Both measures were completed at baseline (n = 314 for BIS and 330 for DGI) and 6 months postpartum (n = 215 for BIS and 219 for DGI). For this study, associations with the total score and the food subscale (DGI-food) were examined.

Home food environment

The Home Food Inventory includes a comprehensive range of foods in 15 categories and queries the presence of each food in the home [60]. Participants completed the inventory at baseline (n = 303) and 6 months postpartum (n = 266). Consistent with the measure’s scoring protocol, a fruit and vegetable home food environment score (HFI-FV) and an obesogenic home food environment score (HFI-OBES) were calculated as counts of the number of foods in the home in each classification. The fruit and vegetable score includes 26 common fruits and 20 common vegetables. Foods classified as obesogenic include regular-fat versions of cheese, milk, yogurt, other dairy, frozen desserts, prepared desserts, savory snacks, added fats, regular-sugar beverages, processed meat, high-fat microwavable foods, candy, and access to unhealthy foods in refrigerator and kitchen.

Demographic and medical characteristics

Demographic information including household composition, marital status, education, and race/ethnicity were reported by participants at baseline. Income-to-poverty ratio was calculated from participant report of total household income and household size [61]; higher values indicate greater income relative to the poverty threshold. Participant age and parity were obtained from the electronic medical record. Measured weight and height were obtained at the baseline visit and used to calculate early pregnancy BMI.


Paired t-tests examined differences in measures of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food environment between pregnancy and postpartum; Pearson correlations examined associations of these variables between pregnancy and postpartum. Multiple linear regression analyses estimated associations of measures of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food environment with diet quality during pregnancy and postpartum, adjusting for education, income, household size, marital status, and race/ethnicity. Postpartum analyses additionally adjusted for duration of breastfeeding. Variables were standardized prior to analyses to provide standardized estimates. Multiplicative interaction terms were used to determine whether self-regulation or home food environment moderated associations reward-related eating with diet quality. Simple slopes analyses were used to interpret significant interaction terms. Based on the findings, interactions were graphed with reward-related eating as the moderator as this provided a clearer interpretation. SPSS version 21 was used for all analyses. Analyses employed complete-case analysis; p values < 0.05 were interpreted as statistically significant.


Of 458 women enrolled, 91 (20%) withdrew prior to delivery and 46 (10%) withdrew during postpartum (Fig. 1). Diet records were provided by 365 participants during pregnancy and 267 during postpartum. The sample was predominantly married, college-educated, and white; approximately half were of normal weight status (Table 1). Mean HEI-total scores of ~ 58 in both pregnancy and postpartum indicate inadequate adherence to dietary guidelines. RVFQ-breakpoint, RVFQ-Omax, and RVFQ-Pmax were significantly lower, while BIS-15 and HFI-FV were significantly higher, during postpartum versus pregnancy (Table 2). No other measures differed significantly between pregnancy and postpartum.

Fig. 1

Flow of recruitment and participation in the Pregnancy Eating Attributes Study (PEAS)

Table 1 Sample characteristics of participants with diet recall data (n = 365) in the Pregnancy Eating Attributes Study (PEAS)
Table 2 Paired comparisons of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food environment during pregnancy and postpartum

Pregnancy HEI-total was inversely associated with reward-related eating as measured by the PFS, mYFAS, MCP, RVFQ-intensity, and RVFQ-Omax, but not RVFQ-breakpoint, RVFQ-Pmax, or RVFQ-elasticity (Table 3). Of these, HEI-adequacy was associated with PFS, mYFAS, RVFQ-intensity, and RVFQ-Omax, while HEI-moderation was associated with PFS, FVFQ-intensity, and MCP. HEI-total and HEI-moderation were not associated with general measures of self-regulation but were positively associated with DGI-food; HEI-adequacy was associated with all self-regulation measures. HEI-total, adequacy, and moderation scores were associated positively with HFI-FV and inversely with HFI-OBES, except the association of HEI-moderation with HFI-OBES was at the threshold for statistical significance.

Table 3 Associations of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food environment with pregnancy diet quality

In postpartum, diet quality was not associated with reward-related eating or self-regulation (Table 4). HEI-total, HEI-adequacy, and HEI-moderation were associated inversely with HFI-OBES and positively with HFI-FV.

Table 4 Associations of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and home food environment with postpartum diet quality

Tests for interaction of each measure of reward-related eating with each self-regulation and home food environment on HEI-total yielded several significant interaction terms (Fig. 2). In pregnancy, DGI interacted with RVFQ-Pmax (β = − 0.12 ± 0.06, p = 0.03) such that self-regulation was positively associated with diet quality when reward-related eating was low. In postpartum, BIS (β = 0.23 ± 0.07, p = 0.002) and DGI (β = − 0.23 ± 0.08, p = 0.003) interacted with MCP; BIS (β = 0.14 ± 0.07, p = 0.04) and DGI (β = − 0.17 ± 0.07, p = 0.02) interacted with RVFQ-breakpoint, and DGI interacted with RVFQ-elasticity (β = 0.22 ± 0.09, p = 0.01) such that greater self-regulation was associated with higher diet quality when reward-related eating was low. Additionally, HFI-OBES significantly interacted with RVFQ-intensity (β = 0.20 ± 0.07, p = 0.006) such that less obesogenic home food environment was associated with higher diet quality when reward-related eating was low. No other significant interactions were observed.

Fig. 2

Interactions of home food environment and self-regulation with reward-related eating on diet quality. RVFQ, Reinforcing Value of Food Questionnaire; MCP, Multiple Choice Procedure; HFI-FV, fruit and vegetable home food environment score; HFI-OBES, obesogenic home food environment score; BIS-15, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; DGI, Delaying Gratification Inventory


In this sample of women followed from early pregnancy through one-year postpartum, diet quality during pregnancy was indicative of improvement needed, and was associated inversely with multiple measures of reward-related eating; however, these associations were not observed during postpartum. Additionally, pregnancy and postpartum diet quality were associated positively with fruit and vegetable availability in the home and inversely with an obesogenic home food environment.

Findings of an inverse association of reward-related eating with diet quality during pregnancy is consistent with a small body of research showing relationships of reward-related eating with greater intake of discretionary foods. Higher PFS was associated with greater intake frequency of discretionary, but not healthful, foods in US emerging adults [18] and more frequent snacking in a small sample of Australian adults [17]. Classification as “food addicted” using the YFAS was associated with greater intake of red/processed meat, low-fat snacks/desserts, and low-calorie beverages in the Nurses’ Health Study [20], greater percent energy intake from discretionary foods in Australian adults [19], and greater sweetened beverage intake in Dutch adolescents [16]. In the current study, however, associations of reward-related eating with diet quality were not more consistently observed for the moderation components than for the adequacy components, contrary to our hypothesis.

To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined reward-related eating during pregnancy and postpartum. The differences in relationships of measures of reward-related eating with diet quality between pregnancy and postpartum observed in this study were unexpected and may reflect differential influences between periods. Previous research indicates that women may relax efforts to control eating during pregnancy [62, 63], which may result in greater susceptibility to reward-related eating. Little is known about influences of eating behaviors during postpartum, when there are no physiological expectations for weight gain. Eating behaviors may be influenced by the unique demands of the postpartum period, including breastfeeding, irregular sleep, infant care, and for many, return to the workplace. Additionally, it is plausible that postpartum women may regulate their eating more carefully in an effort to return to their pre-pregnancy weight [64].

The association of higher diet quality with greater delay of gratification for food, but not overall delay of gratification, during pregnancy is a novel finding. While limited research has shown associations of general delay discounting with dietary intake [30, 65], assessment of domain-specific delay of gratification may have greater utility. Further research to determine the potential relevance of this construct and its malleability to intervention would be informative.

Consistent with previous research in pregnant [33] and general samples [34,35,36,37,38], better diet quality was associated with a less obesogenic home food environment. This association likely reflects both self-selection and environmental shaping. That is, food purchases likely reflect one’s eating intentions; additionally, the availability of foods in the home constrains or facilitates eating choices. In focus groups, women reported keeping foods they craved out of their homes to help them resist cravings [62]. Given that approximately two-thirds of energy intake is consumed from foods in the home [66], efforts to promote a healthful food environment during pregnancy and postpartum are likely to improve diet quality.

Findings yielded modest evidence that reward-related eating and self-regulation may interact in their influence on dietary intake; however, the interpretation of these interactions differed from that hypothesized, suggesting that reward-related eating may moderate relationships of self-regulation with dietary intake. For the significant interactions observed, differential associations were observed at low levels of reward-related eating, indicating that high reward-related eating may override the influence of self-regulation and the home food environment on diet quality. However, the interactions observed should be interpreted with caution given the multiple measures of reward-related eating and therefore large number of interaction terms tested.

Findings from this study should be interpreted in consideration of the study’s strengths and limitations. While there is no gold standard measure of reward-related eating, the use of multiple measures of the construct facilitates examination of the research question. However, measures did not include a behavioral choice task assessment or brain imaging measures of food reinforcement. Dietary intake was assessed using multiple 24-h recalls across pregnancy and postpartum; however, only one recall was obtained at each time point, precluding the ability to examine differences between trimesters or different times in postpartum. The study’s use of HEI as the outcome of interest facilitates a focus on overall dietary intake; however, it is notable that the same HEI score can be achieved through a variety of eating patterns. Additional strengths include the large sample size, repeated assessments from early in pregnancy to 1 year postpartum, and measurement of multiple potential confounders. An important limitation relates to the sample characteristics, as the study was conducted in a single geographic area with limited racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity; the city’s population is 73% white with a median income of $68,640, and 75% have a bachelor’s degree or higher [67]. Thus, future research examining these questions in more diverse samples is needed. Additionally, due to incomplete data in the electronic medical records, we were unable to control for smoking status. Finally, these associations are observational, and thus causality cannot be inferred. Experimental and intervention studies are needed to determine the degree to which reward-related eating and self-regulation are malleable, and whether change in these constructs and the home food environment are associated with subsequent changes in diet quality.


In summary, greater reward-related eating and lower delay of gratification were associated with lower diet quality in this sample of primary well-educated women during pregnancy but not postpartum, while the home food environment was associated with diet quality across both time periods. In addition, there was some evidence that higher reward-related eating may outweigh influences of self-regulation and the home food environment. Findings suggest the importance of research to further advance our understanding of the determinants of reward-related eating and the development of approaches to circumvent or moderate them. Additionally, there is a need to better understand differences in determinants of eating behaviors between pregnancy and postpartum to facilitate more optimal diet quality during this critical period.

Availability of data and materials

Data described in the manuscript, code book, and analytic code will be made available upon request pending approval of a data use agreement. Following publication of study objectives, de-identified data will be shared in the NICHD Data and Specimen Hub.



Healthy Eating Index-2015


Modified Yale Food Addiction Scale


Power of Food Scale


Multiple Choice Procedure


Reinforcing Value of Food Questionnaire


Home Food Inventory


Obesogenic home food environment score


Fruit and vegetable home food environment score


Barratt Impulsiveness Scale


Delaying Gratification Inventory


  1. 1.

    Olson CM, Strawderman MS. Modifiable behavioral factors in a biopsychosocial model predict inadequate and excessive gestational weight gain. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(1):48–54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Shin D, Lee KW, Song WO. Dietary patterns during pregnancy are associated with risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Nutrients. 2015;7(11):9369–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Shapiro AL, Kaar JL, Crume TL, Starling AP, Siega-Riz AM, Ringham BM, et al. Maternal diet quality in pregnancy and neonatal adiposity: the healthy start study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2016;40(7):1056–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wen LM, Flood VM, Simpson JM, Rissel C, Baur LA. Dietary behaviours during pregnancy: findings from first-time mothers in Southwest Sydney, Australia. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rifas-Shiman SL, Rich-Edwards JW, Kleinman KP, Oken E, Gillman MW. Dietary quality during pregnancy varies by maternal characteristics in project viva: a US cohort. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(6):1004–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Siega-Riz AM, Bodnar LM, Savitz DA. What are pregnant women eating? Nutrient and food group differences by race. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(3):480–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kominiarek MA, Rajan P. Nutrition recommendations in pregnancy and lactation. Med Clin North Am. 2016;100(6):1199–215.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Martin-Gronert MS, Ozanne SE. Maternal nutrition during pregnancy and health of the offspring. Biochem Soc Trans. 2006;34(Pt 5):779–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Alonso-Alonso M, Woods SC, Pelchat M, Grigson PS, Stice E, Farooqi S, et al. Food reward system: current perspectives and future research needs. Nutr Rev. 2015;73(5):296–307.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Alsio J, Olszewski PK, Levine AS, Schioth HB. Feed-forward mechanisms: addiction-like behavioral and molecular adaptations in overeating. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2012;33(2):127–39.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lowe MR, Butryn ML. Hedonic hunger: a new dimension of appetite? Physiol Behav. 2007;91(4):432–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lutter M, Nestler EJ. Homeostatic and hedonic signals interact in the regulation of food intake. J Nutr. 2009;139(3):629–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Stoeckel LE, Weller RE, Cook EW 3rd, Twieg DB, Knowlton RC, Cox JE. Widespread reward-system activation in obese women in response to pictures of high-calorie foods. Neuroimage. 2008;41(2):636–47.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Leigh SJ, Morris MJ. The role of reward circuitry and food addiction in the obesity epidemic: an update. Biol Psychol. 2018;131:31–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Van Dillen LF, Andrade J. Derailing the streetcar named desire. Cognitive distractions reduce individual differences in cravings and unhealthy snacking in response to palatable food. Appetite. 2016;96:102–10.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mies GW, Treur JL, Larsen JK, Halberstadt J, Pasman JA, Vink JM. The prevalence of food addiction in a large sample of adolescents and its association with addictive substances. Appetite. 2017;118:97–105.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Schuz B, Schuz N, Ferguson SG. It's the power of food: individual differences in food cue responsiveness and snacking in everyday life. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:149.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nansel TR, Lipsky LM, Eisenberg MH, Haynie DL, Liu D, Simons-Morton B. Greater food reward sensitivity is associated with more frequent intake of discretionary foods in a nationally representative sample of young adults. Front Nutr. 2016;3:33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pursey KM, Collins CE, Stanwell P, Burrows TL. Foods and dietary profiles associated with 'food addiction' in young adults. Addict Behav Rep. 2015;2:41–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lemeshow AR, Rimm EB, Hasin DS, Gearhardt AN, Flint AJ, Field AE, et al. Food and beverage consumption and food addiction among women in the Nurses' health studies. Appetite. 2018;121:186–97.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Padmanabhan U, Summerbell CD, Heslehurst N. A qualitative study exploring pregnant women's weight-related attitudes and beliefs in UK: the BLOOM study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:99.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Orloff NC, Hormes JM. Pickles and ice cream! Food cravings in pregnancy: hypotheses, preliminary evidence, and directions for future research. Front Psychol. 2014;5:1076.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Appelhans BM. Neurobehavioral inhibition of reward-driven feeding: implications for dieting and obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009;17(4):640–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Carr KA, Daniel TO, Lin H, Epstein LH. Reinforcement pathology and obesity. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2011;4(3):190–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    van den Bos R, de Ridder D. Evolved to satisfy our immediate needs: self-control and the rewarding properties of food. Appetite. 2006;47(1):24–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lee PC, Dixon JB. Food for thought: reward mechanisms and hedonic overeating in obesity. Curr Obes Rep. 2017;6(4):353–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Daniel TO, Stanton CM, Epstein LH. The future is now: reducing impulsivity and energy intake using episodic future thinking. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(11):2339–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Guerrieri R, Nederkoorn C, Jansen A. How impulsiveness and variety influence food intake in a sample of healthy women. Appetite. 2007;48(1):119–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Appelhans BM, Woolf K, Pagoto SL, Schneider KL, Whited MC, Liebman R. Inhibiting food reward: delay discounting, food reward sensitivity, and palatable food intake in overweight and obese women. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2011;19(11):2175–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rollins BY, Dearing KK, Epstein LH. Delay discounting moderates the effect of food reinforcement on energy intake among non-obese women. Appetite. 2010;55(3):420–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ely AV, Howard J, Lowe MR. Delayed discounting and hedonic hunger in the prediction of lab-based eating behavior. Eat Behav. 2015;19:72–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Higgs S. Cognitive processing of food rewards. Appetite. 2016;104:10–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Nunnery DL, Labban JD, Dharod JM. Interrelationship between food security status, home availability of variety of fruits and vegetables and their dietary intake among low-income pregnant women. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(4):807–15.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Gorin AA, Wing RR, Fava JL, Jakicic JM, Jeffery R, West DS, et al. Weight loss treatment influences untreated spouses and the home environment: evidence of a ripple effect. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(11):1678–84.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kegler MC, Alcantara I, Haardorfer R, Gazmararian JA, Ballard D, Sabbs D. The influence of home food environments on eating behaviors of overweight and obese women. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46(3):188–96.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Ledoux TA, Mama SK, O'Connor DP, Adamus H, Fraser ML, Lee RE. Home availability and the impact of weekly stressful events are associated with fruit and vegetable intake among African American and Hispanic/Latina women. J Obes. 2012;2012:737891.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Patterson RE, Kristal AR, Shannon J, Hunt JR, White E. Using a brief household food inventory as an environmental indicator of individual dietary practices. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(2):272–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Trapp GS, Hickling S, Christian HE, Bull F, Timperio AF, Boruff B, et al. Individual, social, and environmental correlates of healthy and unhealthy eating. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(6):759–68.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Nansel TR, Lipsky LM, Siega-Riz AM, Burger K, Faith M, Liu A. Pregnancy eating attributes study (PEAS): a cohort study examining behavioral and environmental influences on diet and weight change in pregnancy and postpartum. BMC Nutr. 2016;2:45. Epub 2016 Jul15. PMID: 28663822; PMCID: PMC5486996.

  40. 40.

    Kirkpatrick SI, Subar AF, Douglass D, Zimmerman TP, Thompson FE, Kahle LL, et al. Performance of the automated self-administered 24-hour recall relative to a measure of true intakes and to an interviewer-administered 24-h recall. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100(1):233–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Thompson FE, Dixit-Joshi S, Potischman N, Dodd KW, Kirkpatrick SI, Kushi LH, et al. Comparison of interviewer-administered and automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recalls in 3 diverse integrated health systems. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(12):970–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Rhee JJ, Sampson L, Cho E, Hughes MD, Hu FB, Willett WC. Comparison of methods to account for implausible reporting of energy intake in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(4):225–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Most J, Dervis S, Haman F, Adamo KB, Redman LM. Energy intake requirements in pregnancy. Nutrients. 2019;11(8):1812. PMID: 31390778; PMCID: PMC6723706.

  44. 44.

    US. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 dietary guidelines for Americans. 8th ed; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    McGowan CA, McAuliffe FM. Maternal dietary patterns and associated nutrient intakes during each trimester of pregnancy. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(1):97–107.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Rifas-Shiman SL, Rich-Edwards JW, Willett WC, Kleinman KP, Oken E, Gillman MW. Changes in dietary intake from the first to the second trimester of pregnancy. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006;20(1):35–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Savard C, Lemieux S, Carbonneau É, Provencher V, Gagnon C, Robitaille J, et al. Trimester-specific assessment of diet quality in a sample of Canadian pregnant women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(3):311.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences. Healthy Eating Index SAS code [Available from: Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  49. 49.

    Cappelleri JC, Bushmakin AG, Gerber RA, Leidy NK, Sexton CC, Karlsson J, et al. Evaluating the power of food scale in obese subjects and a general sample of individuals: development and measurement properties. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;33(8):913–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Forman EM, Butryn ML, Juarascio AS, Bradley LE, Lowe MR, Herbert JD, et al. The mind your health project: a randomized controlled trial of an innovative behavioral treatment for obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2013;21(6):1119–26.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Yoshikawa T, Tanaka M, Ishii A, Watanabe Y. Immediate neural responses of appetitive motives and its relationship with hedonic appetite and body weight as revealed by magnetoencephalography. Med Sci Monit. 2013;19:631–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Flint AJ, Gearhardt AN, Corbin WR, Brownell KD, Field AE, Rimm EB. Food-addiction scale measurement in 2 cohorts of middle-aged and older women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(3):578–86.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Epstein LH, Dearing KK, Roba LG. A questionnaire approach to measuring the relative reinforcing efficacy of snack foods. Eat Behav. 2010;11(2):67–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Griffiths R, JR Troisi I, Silvermian K, Miumford G. Multiple-choice procedure: an efficient approach for investigating drug reinforcement in humans. Behav Pharmacol. 1993;4(1):3–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Koffarnus MN, Franck CT, Stein JS, Bickel WK. A modified exponential behavioral economic demand model to better describe consumption data. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015;23(6):504–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Schmitz JM, Sayre SL, Hokanson PS, Spiga R. Assessment of the relative reinforcement value of smoking and drinking using a multiple-choice measurement strategy. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5(5):729–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Lim J, Wood A, Green BG. Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale. Chem Senses. 2009;34(9):739–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Spinella M. Normative data and a short form of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Int J Neurosci. 2007;117(3):359–68.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Hoerger M, Quirk SW, Weed NC. Development and validation of the delaying gratification inventory. Psychol Assess. 2011;23(3):725.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Fulkerson JA, Nelson MC, Lytle L, Moe S, Heitzler C, Pasch KE. The validation of a home food inventory. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5(1):55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    U.S. Census Bureau PD, Fertility & Family Statistics Branch. Current population survey: definitions and explanations; 2004. Available from:

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Blau LE, Lipsky LM, Dempster KW, Eisenbeerg Colman MH, Siega-Riz AM, Faith MSF, et al. Women's experience and understanding of food cravings in pregnancy: a qualitative study in women receiving prenatal care at the University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(5):815–24. Epub 2019 Dec 6. PMID: 31813756; PMCID: PMC7186144.

  63. 63.

    Davies K, Wardle J. Body image and dieting in pregnancy. J Psychosom Res. 1994;38(8):787–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Lipsky LM, Strawderman MS, Olson CM. Maternal weight change between 1 and 2 years postpartum: the importance of 1 year weight retention. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2012;20(7):1496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Garza KB, Ding M, Owensby JK, Zizza CA. Impulsivity and fast-food consumption: a cross-sectional study among working adults. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(1):61–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Guthrie JF, Lin BH, Frazao E. Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977-78 versus 1994-96: changes and consequences. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2002;34(3):140–50.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Quick facts: Chapel Hill, North Carolina [Internet]. [cited 07/30/2020]. Available from:

Download references


Not applicable.


This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Intramural Research Program (contract #HHSN275201300012C and #HHSN275201300026I/HHSN27500002). The funding body had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or writing of the manuscript.

Author information




TRN, LL, MF, AL, and AMSR designed the research. TRN analyzed data, wrote the paper, and had primary responsibility for final content. All authors provided substantive revisions to the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tonja R. Nansel.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Study procedures were approved by the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board, IRB number 13–3848. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nansel, T.R., Lipsky, L.M., Faith, M. et al. The accelerator, the brake, and the terrain: associations of reward-related eating, self-regulation, and the home food environment with diet quality during pregnancy and postpartum in the pregnancy eating attributes study (PEAS) cohort. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 17, 149 (2020).

Download citation


  • Diet quality
  • Pregnancy
  • Postpartum
  • Reward-related eating
  • Self-regulation
  • Impulsivity
  • Delay of gratification
  • Home food environment