modelling Flashcards
modelling
- Perceived eating habits of others are important.
- Nisbett & Storms (1974) taste test study
▫ Food consumption of the confederate influenced
consumption of participant. hihg intake condition (confederate eats more, participant eats 2x more). People ate more if confederate ate more. However this effect was only seen in normal weight adults-
This effect also, Roth 2001- showed how for this effect to occur they must be in physical proximity with the participant. Thye found that simply telling a participant the ‘confederate’ ate more did not affect their eating!
- Caveats…
▫ Presence of the confederate
▫ Similarity of the confederate
▫ Attractiveness / slimness
▫ Hunger
▫ Realism
Conger et al., 1980- a strong caveat is that the model/person has to be similar, e.g. males did not change eating when confederate was female as they expect them to eat less, whilst children focus on connectedness
Salvy 2007- found differences when ppt is female, and attractivenss and slimness had a large efffect on what they consumed. found if the confederate is thin, they weree less liely ro copy in the overeating situation
Goldman t al., 1991- hihglighted the strength of this modelling effect and found the modelling effect, even when participants had not eaten for 24 hours. This shows how social influences are very strong influences on short term intake.
lab study
modelling 2
- Confederate studies replicated many times
- Evidence to suggest that participants eat nearly twice as
much in the high intake condition compared to low intake
condition.
▫ Feeney et al., (2011); Hermans et al., (2010). - Studies have replicated effects in children (Belevander et al., (2012).
- Dyad studies- 2 participants eat similar amounts, matching effect
▫ Herman et al., (2005);
▫ Robinson et al., (2011) - Impact on food choice
▫ Robinson & Higgs (2013).
modelling evidence
Cruwys, Belevander & Hermans (2015): robustness of
the modelling effect (69 studies reviewd! 64 demonstrated a sig modelling effect)
▫ Increased desire for affiliation/perceived similarities
to model (think you are similar)
▫ Attenuation for healthy snacks or breakfast/lunch
▫ Food choice versus food intake (more studies in food intake)
▫ Limited evidence for moderating effects of hunger,
presence, age, weight, personality, eating goals etc.
Social modeling is a primary determinant of food intake and food choice.
*
Sixty-nine experimental studies of modeling were reviewed.
*
Modeling is not moderated by hunger, restraint, age, or weight.
*
Modeling is strongest for intake of snack foods and for in-group models.
*
Modeling has relevance for public health interventions to encourage healthy eating.
the role of perceived similarity
Cruwys et al., (2012)
* N = 119 female university students
* Exposed to a confederate (4 conditions)
▫ In group vs. out group
All of the popcorn (high norm) vs. None of the popcorn (low norm)
* “Evaluation of university promotion videos”
* Measured how much popcorn was consumed.
- No differences in popcorn consumption between low
and high norm conditions when confederate is
presented as an ‘outgroup’ member - Modelling of eating behaviour occurs for both the low
and high norm conditions when confederate is
presented as an ‘in group’ member. e.g. people ate more when confederate in ‘in group’ condition ate more
speaks for the perceived similarity for the participant and confederate-
modelling: the theory
- Modelling for Appropriateness
This type of modelling is based on the Normative Theory (Herman & Polivy, 2005). The main idea is:
Normative theory- Core Idea: Social norms act as guidelines for appropriate behavior, including eating. People are influenced by:
Descriptive Norms: What others are eating (e.g., amount or type of food).
Injunctive Norms: What others approve or disapprove of eating.
Application to Food Intake:
In social settings, individuals eat similar amounts or choose similar foods to fit in or align with perceived norms.
Definition: People adjust their eating behavior to align with what they believe is socially appropriate in a given situation.
Key Aspects:
Principle regulatory influence: Social norms guide how much or what people think is “appropriate” to eat in a specific social context.
Uncertainty and affiliation motives: When people are uncertain about what is appropriate, they look to others for cues. Additionally, people may model their eating to foster social connections or gain approval (affiliation motives).
- Modelling for Ingratiation (Trying to Be Liked)
This focuses on adjusting behavior to be liked or accepted by others. It involves:
Behavioral Mimicry:
This is an automatic process where people unconsciously imitate others’ behavior to build rapport or fit in. However, this process can be more difficult when there’s a high cognitive load (e.g., if someone is distracted or mentally fatigued).
Remote Confederate Design: This is a research method often used to study these behaviors, where participants are influenced by an unseen or remote individual’s behavior.
when is modelling likely to occur?
- percieved similarity between oursleves and the model
- desire to affiliate with the model
- unfamiliar situations
modelling for healthy food
Although modeling effects on vegetable and fruit consumption have been found among children and adults (Salvy et al, 2008a), there is some evidence that people are less likely to model their eating partner for healthy or unpalatable foods. For example, Hermans and colleagues (Hermans, Larsen, Herman, & Engels, 2009b) found that the size of the effect of modeling was small when participants were offered cucumber and carrots, and three studies have found no evidence of modeling for healthy foods (Goldman et al, 1991, Pliner, Mann, 2004).
