distraction and social faciliatation

Question 1

studies on distraction

Answer 1

• Lots of evidence to suggest we eat more when we are
  distracted.
• Cognitive load might be important - tv more cognitive loading
  ▫ E.g. Blass et al., (2006) – TV vs. music
• Distraction may interfere with food memory- when distracted we forget what we eat
  ▫ E.g., Higgs & Woodward (2009) – subsequent snack
  intake
• Food related distractors (variety) can also lead to
  increased intake
  ▫ E.g., Heatherington et al., (2006).

Question 2

Study on variety, distraction, and satiation

Answer 2

Hetherington 2006
Hetherington 2006- conclusions
The study investigates how introducing variety during eating affects food intake and satiation. It found that variety can increase consumption by up to 40%, as it delays the normal decline in food pleasantness (satiation). Two experiments were conducted:

Experiment 1:

33 participants ate popcorn in four conditions:
Eating without interruption (control).
Interruption to taste the same food (same condition, SC).
Interruption to taste a food with similar taste (congruent condition, CC).
Interruption to taste a food with different taste (incongruent condition, IC).
Participants ate significantly more in CC and IC compared to SC, with pleasantness ratings for food staying higher in CC and IC, indicating delayed satiation.
Experiment 2:

47 participants ate chocolate in two conditions:
Tasting and rating only chocolate (food focus, FF).
Tasting and rating both chocolate and cheese crackers (food distraction, FD).
FD participants consumed more than FF participants, with pleasantness declining faster in FF, supporting the idea that variety delays satiation.
Conclusion:
Variety in foods increases consumption by delaying satiation. Encouraging consumers to focus solely on the food they are eating might reduce intake by restoring the natural decline in food pleasantness over time

small sample sizes!
women may restrict food more! gender differences were shown

Question 3

what is social facilitation?

Answer 3

. Social facilitation is the tendency to eat more in
the presence of others
* Early evidence from De Castro (diary studies;
review 1997).
* People eating in groups ate 44% more than those
eating alone.

The presence of others has a cumulative effect, but the incremental size
of the effect declines as the number of others increases (de Castro &
Brewer, 1991) – social correlation
* 1 person present – 28%
* 2 people – 41%
* 3 people – 53%
* 4 people - 53%
* 5 people – 71%

confounding factors?

Question 4

how this links with social impact theory?

Answer 4

Latané, 1981.
* People’s feelings, attitudes and behaviours can be
manipulated by the presence of others
* The subsequent impact on behaviour is a result of
the interaction between:
▫ The strength or the source of the impact. e,g how important person is to us
▫ Their immediacy/proximity e.g. sat next to us
▫ The number of sources exerting the impact e.g. number of people

Question 5

the context of the groups-

Answer 5

• Who, where, when and for how long?
  ▫ de Castro (1990) –weekend vs. weekday, exclusion
  of lone eaters - weekend eat more. social facilitation effect still robust

▫ The group context
 Clendenen, Herman & Polivy (1994); Herman (2003) –
friends vs. strangers= found friends caused more of a social facilitation effect, importance of those people is relevant

 Gender differences – Salvy et al., (2007).= females eat more when with romantic partners. men more likely to eat more with friends

 Eating in a crowd vs defined group(Hirsch & Kramer,
1993).=

Question 6

the time extension hypothesis

Answer 6

• Increased duration of meals with others - but no
  modification of eating rate (de Castro; 1990).
• Time Extension Hypothesis
  (Pliner et al., 2006)
• More people = more socialisation =
  increased meal length (and increased
  exposure to food cues) → increased
  consumption.
• More relaxing environment?

Question 7

distraction vs social faciliation/

Answer 7

Hetherington 2006
* 35 participants (21 men) attended
lab 4 times (within subjects).
▫ (A) control – ate alone
▫ (B) distraction –ate alone with TV
on
▫ (C) strangers – eat in the presence
of 2 same sex strangers
▫ (D) friends – eat in the presence of
2 same sex friends
* All sessions recorded and
analysed

people ate most with friends, but also TV
Tv was 14% friendls was 18%

Question 8

social faciliation as a positive

Answer 8

• Walker-Clarke, Walesek & Meyer (2022)
• Eating alone in older adults linked to
  ▫ Reduced intake
  ▫ increased likelihood of low BMI
  ▫ lower food diversity
  ▫ decreased consumption of fruit and veg
  ▫ Higher likelihood of skipping meals
  ▫ Reduced food enjoyment

Question 9

social isoaltion and eating behaviour

Answer 9

Hanna et al., (2023)
* Scoping review of 29 studies (including 8 during COVID)
exploring links between loneliness/social isolation with
dietary behaviours
* Linked to poorer dietary quality
▫ E.g., low fruit and veg intake
▫ Lower dietary quality/greater intake of energy-dense, nutrient
poor foods.
▫ Impact of loneliness on all aspects of the meal process (e.g.,
shopping, cooking, eating).