Psychology of Food/Eating Terms Flashcards
Metabolic/Homeostatic Hunger
driven by physiological necessity, feel full due to peripheral/ central factors
Eg. Food in GI tract would decrease metabolic hunger
Hedonic Hunger
eating for the sake of pleasure; a powerful desire for food in the absence of any need for it
Orthonasal
olfactory route via external nares, ie. nostrils
Retronasal
olfactory route vis back of the mouth through nasopharynx, more difficult to use this route to identify food
Gastrophysics
scientific study of factors affecting our multisensory experience of food and drink; combines gastronomy and psychophysics.
Ie. temperature, taste/smell interactions, colour, texture, sound affecting flavour perception
Chemesthesis
sensations of irritation or ‘burn’ that arise when chemical compounds in foods activate receptor mechanisms for pain, touch, or thermal perception. Irritants cause sensitization (increasing irritation and pain in short term)
Eg. capsaicin from chili pepper, menthol in mouthwash
Hedonic Response
affective (pleasure) response to foods or their components, liking of a food increases chewing/swallowing rates. Knowing food was prepared just for you makes it taste better
Preference for sweet taste are under opioid control: opioid agonists increase, whereas antagonists decrease, preferences for sweet taste in humans
Hedonic Optimum
best concentration of a substance in a particular food or beverage, differs among food/cultures but generally has an inverted-U shape with increasing concentration. Must be expected (in appropriate context)
Eg. perfect amount of salt on pasta
Genetics
some tastes inherently preferred, some inherently disliked.
Sweet: preference for sweet is stronger than any other taste, sweet foods contain sugar, high in calories, high in energy, newborn babies suck sugary pacifiers more
Salt: strong preference also exists for salty tastes, salt is required for regulating body’s fluid balance, newborns do not appear capable of detecting salty tastes
Bitter: not preferred, supertasters (people who more sensitive to bitter compounds in foods including coffee, grapefruit, beer), correlated with increased number and density of certain papillae on tongue containing taste buds
Environment
effects of experience and social factors on taste
Familiarity, conditioned taste aversion, medicine effect, flavour-flavour learning, flavour-nutrient learning, dessert effect, social factors, culture/cuisine
Mere-exposure effect (familiarity)
with repeated exposure new foods will be accepted. Only occurs when food actually ingested. Occurs due to learned safety (injested without negative consequences). Infants need minimum 8-10 exposures, 12-15 has clear increase in acceptance
Eg. exposing children to novel fruits (lychee, papaya) 8-10 times increased preferences
Conditioned taste aversion (CTA)
tastes previously associated with negative postingestive consequences (nausea or vomiting) are avoided. Adaptive response to potentially dangerous toxins.
4 types of food aversions: distasteful, dangerous, inappropriate, disgusting
Distasteful
aversive taste, smell or texture in food
Eg. room-temp milk
Dangerous
food we reject because of reputed/anticipated negative consequences
Eg. poisonous mushrooms
Medicine Effect
foods associated with recovery from illness may become preferred
Inappropriate
considered inedible/minimal nutritive value
Eg. tree bark
Digusting
considered offensive, rejected both on ideational and sensory ground
Eg. urine
Flavour-Flavour Learning
pairing novel taste/flavour with a preferred one increases preference for it,
Eg. people given unfamiliar herbal teas, some sweetened others unsweetened: preference for sweetened tea increased (even when presented unsweetened)
Flavour-Nutrient Learning
tastes associated with higher calories are preferred
Dessert Effect
eating dessert at the end of a meal increases preference for the sweet taste of dessert,
rewarding a child for eating spinach with a dessert will not increase preference for spinach but will increase preference for dessert
following a particular meal (potatoes), rats given dessert (sucrose) decreased preference for potatoes. Flavor of sucrose is more closely associated with the postingestive consequence of potatoes than flavour of potatoes.
Consumption Norms
mediating factor of food consumption volume. aspects of the environment influence the quantity of food that is acceptable to consume.
Eg. package size or eating behaviour of your dinner companion
Wansink,van Ittersum, Painter (2006): participants were 85 food/nutrition experts attending an ice cream social. Randomly received 17 oz or 34 oz bowl and served themselves ice cream. Filled out a survey estimating the amount of ice cream they took while bowls secretly weighed. Those who used larger bowl ate 31% more, did not perceive they ate more with larger bowls
Consumption Monitoring
mediating factor of food consumption volume. Monitoring food consumption helps reduce discrepancies between perceived and actual consumption amounts. Food choice may be emphasized to the neglect of food quantity (eating whole package of low-fat cookies)
Eg. paying attention to amount eaten vs eating until all the food is gone
Wansink, Painter, North (2005): served tomato soup in bowls continuously refilled via hidden tubes, people ate 250mL from normal bowls but ate 435 mL from refilled bowls (73% more, did not believe they consumed more, did not feel more full), visual cues affect consumption more than feeling full
Atmospherics
ambient characteristics that influence the eating environment
Eg. dimmed/soft lighting increases comfort/eating duration, leads to greater consumption
Eg. unpleasant odours shorten meal duration / food consumption
Eg. soft music encourages slower eating rate, longer meal duration and greater consumption. loud/uncomfortable music can cause quicker eating and less consumption monitoring
Effort
ease, access or convenience with which food can be consumed
Eg. Painter, Wansink, Heiggelke (2002): secretaries given dishes containing 30 Hershey’s kissed, refilled every evening for 3 weeks.
Put dish a) in desk drawer (not visible/convenient), b) on desk (visible/convenient) c) on shelf 2 m away (visible/incovenient).
Those with candies on their desk ate average of 5.6 more/day than those with candies on the shelf.
Overestimated on desk consumption by 13%, underestimated on shelf consumption by 63%. Easier access to food increases consumption
Social Facilitation
presence of others influences what is eaten, increases the amount
Eg. de Castro, Brewer (1992): found dramatic link between number of dining companions and consumption, meals eaten with another person were 33% larger than meals eaten alone. Less variability in amount consumed as number of companions increases. Only works if you are with people you know, when eating with a stranger the effects disappear
Distractions/Attention
can initiate ‘scripted’ patterns of food consumption; can reduce monitoring; can extend meal duration
Robinson et al. (2013): people snack more while watching TV even if not physically hungry
Eg. patients with amnesia who were told it was dinnertime ate a second complete meal only 10-30 min after having eaten a meal
Wansink/Park (2001): gave free popcorn to moviegoers in Chicago, more attention paid to movie = more popcorn was eaten, people ate more if accompanied by a person of the opposite sex
Labels
choice of terms used to describe food can frame different attributes, affecting consumption
Eg. Turnwald et al. (2019): university dining halls displayed one of three kinds of labels for identical vegetable dishes: health focused label (healthy choice turnips), basic label (turnips), taste focused label (Herb n Honey Balsamic glazed turnips).
Taste focused labels: increased perception of tastiness, increased selection by 14-29%, increased consumption by 39%
Salience
seeing (or smelling) a food can increas e hunger and can stimulate unplanned consumption
Eg. people asked to write a description of the last time they ate soup increased their consumption of canned soup (ate 2.4 times more than control group)
Variety/ Structure
(perceived) variety can make one believe they will enjoy the assortment more, may suggest an appropriate amount to eat; “organization’ of food also affects consumption
Eg. if offered three kinds of yogurt people eat 23% more than if offered only one flavour
Kahn/Wansink (2004): Study A: gave people 300 M&Ms while watching Hazzard County, those given bowel with 7 colours ate 64, those given 10 colours ate 91 (43% more). Study B: gave people 300 jelly beans in six flavors, those given organized assortment ate 13, those given
Size of Packge/Proportions
as package size increases so does consumption - even when the energy density of the food is altered to compensate (volume is a better indicator of “fullness” than calorie density food), larger packages suggest larger consumption norms
Eg. Wansink / Kim (2005): gave free popcorn to moviegoers, bucket was medium (120g) or large (240g), popcorn was fresh or stale (14 days old). Fresh popcorn: 45.3% more eaten when given in large container. Stale popcorn: 33.6% more eaten from large container. Package size can influence consumption of unfavorable foods
Stockpiled Food
“warehouse”- sized food takes up much space and is highly salient
Eg. Chandon / Wansink (2002): stocked people’s houses with eight different food (eg. juice/granola (ready to eat); oatmeal/noodles (need to prepare)), given moderate (4) or large quantities (12), monitored consumption over 2 weeks, stockpiled convenient ready-to-eat foods were eaten at twice the rate of non stockpiled foods
Serving Containers
container may act as a perceptual cue influencing consumption; over 71% of one’s caloric intake is consumed using serving aids
Eg. Wansink / Van Ittersum (2012): surface area of average dinner plate has increased 36% since 1960. People serve themselves 25% more on a 12 inch plate than on a 10 inch plate. Overserving decreased if attention drawn to Delboeuf illusion. Overserving effect is enhanced if there is: low contrast between food colour/plate colour, high contrast between plate coour and tablecloth colour
