Social influences

Question 1

Social context

Answer 1

the social aspect of who they’re eating with seemed to be more important than content
less than 1/3 of people consistently eat alone

Question 2

Development of eating habits

Answer 2

exposure to patterns within a social/cultural context
knowledge from nutrition education
habitual food selection and consumptions
satiety cascade - cognitive components effect what, when and how much we eat

Question 3

Distractions

Answer 3

more distracting a task, more it impacts how much we eat, more consumed in high cognitive load than less (Blass et al 2006)
food related distractors (variety) can increase intake, more eaten in distracted condition but stronger effect in males, females may be higher in restraint (Hetherington et al 2006)

Question 4

Distraction and memory

Answer 4

distracted at lunch, more likely to overconsume subsequent snack and report less vivid memory (Higgs & Woodward 2009)

Question 5

Social facilitation

Answer 5

tendency to eat more in presence of others (Ruddock et al 2019)
may be positive in older adults who have increased chance of low BMI and reduced intake (Waller-Clarke et al 2022)

Question 6

Reasons for social facilitation

Answer 6

eating with others may be more enjoyable and enhance reward, increasing consumption (Ruddock et al 2019)
social impact theory - people’s feelings, attitudes and behaviours can be manipulated by presence of others’ impact is result of interactions between strength/source of impact, immediacy/proximity, number of sources exerting impact (Latane 1981)
strangers may cause social desirability and moderation of intake/restraint

Question 7

Social facilitation evidence

Answer 7

people ate 44% more when in a group than eating alone (De Castro 1997)
presence of others has a cumulative effect but size of effect decreases as number of others increases (social correlation) (de Castro & Brewer 1991)

Question 8

Group context

Answer 8

social facilitation stronger with friends than strangers (Clendenen et al 1984)
social correlation present for friends/family not strangers (Herman 2003)
females ate less eating with other females than males (Salvy et al 2007)
less defined group (crowd - cinema) has less effect than a more defined group (restaurant with friends) (Hirsch & Kramer 1993)

Question 9

Time extension hypothesis

Answer 9

increased duration of meal with others but no moderation of eating rate so eat more (de Castro 1990)
may be due to increased meal length so increased exposure to food cues (Pliner et al 2006)

Question 10

Social facilitation and distraction

Answer 10

distraction increases intake, friends increase intake but strangers don’t even when distracted, suggests distraction itself doesn’t explain social effects, may support time extension hypothesis (Hetherington et al 2006)

Question 11

Impression management

Answer 11

attempt by individual to control views of other members of group through socially acceptable behaviour even if it’s not habitual
must include: socially acceptable stereotypes/expectations, awareness of these and motivation to adhere to these
more likely to like a confed when believed they’d eaten more than themselves (social comparison) (Loeone, Herman & Pliner 2008)

Question 12

Consumption stereotypes

Answer 12

those who consume healthier diets rated more feminine, moral, having smaller body and being less fun (Vartanian et al 2015)
threats to masculine identity (told interests were feminine) increased intake of meat (Lipschitz & Herman 2010)
women with a partner ate less with a male than a female (Young et al 2009)

Question 13

Modelling evidence

Answer 13

match intake to that of confederate (Nisbett & Storms 1974)
ate nearly twice as much when confed had high intake compared to low (Hermans et al 2010)
also seem to match food choices/selection (Robinson & Higgs 2013)

Question 14

Reasons for modelling

Answer 14

may be for appropriateness (normative theory - Herman & Polivy 2005) - principle influence is beliefs about what/how much is appropriate to eat
for integration - to be liked but doesn’t explain effects when confed not in the room
unconscious mimicry may occur regardless of salient goals/intentions

Question 15

Factors impacting modelling

Answer 15

confed must be in the room and have similarity to Pp for strongest effects
modelling effects seem pretty robust, particularly when increased desire for affiliation/perceived similarity to model/with high energy dense foods (Hermans et al 2015)
occurs when confed is ‘ingroup’ but not ‘outgroup’ (Cruwys et al 2012)
modelling removed when confed was friendly as less need to be liked (Hermans et al 2009)
extent individual identifies with group may effect how much they follow perceived norms (Robinson et al 2013)

Question 16

Social comparison theory (Festinger 1954)

Answer 16

we rely on comparisons between us and others
only model when similarities exist so may only make comparisons to those we feel relevant to us
girls tend to eat more paired with overweight peer than normal weight peer (Salvy et al 2009)

Question 17

Modelling meal vs snack

Answer 17

meal-modelling may be less powerful as have pre-existing conceptions about how much to eat for meals (Hermans et al 2010)
suggests modelling strongest when uncertain about how much to eat

Question 18

Social norms

Answer 18

implicit codes of conduct that provide guide to appropriate action, communicated via cultural practices/rules, behaviours or environmental cues
descriptive - perceived prevalence
injunctive - perceived expectations
adaptive to ensure consumption of safe foods and enhance evolutionary fitness

Question 19

Social norms food evidence

Answer 19

perceived norms on GB sig predictor of participants consumption of fruit/veg and snacks (Hawkins et al 2020)
lab Pps conform to believed norm for food consumption - mimicking choice and consumption level (Cruwys et al 2016)
converge on a consumption in a group so variability reduced (Pliner et al 2003)
dieting among friends/weight-based teasing predict onset of disordered eating behaviours (Paxton et al) but individuals may choose to affiliate with those similar to selves
exposure to socially endorsed LED food images may contribute to healthy eating by nudging to select/consume larger portions of these

Question 20

Situated identity enactment model

Answer 20

eating behaviour is context specific to norms and identities, social context determines salience of both social norms and social identities, social norms then influence disordered eating (Cruwys et al 2016)
context leads individual to identify with group that endorse a norm
suggests we should place emphasis on ‘social’ aspects of biopsychosocial model of disordered eating, not just what’s happening within the individual

Question 21

Use of social influences

Answer 21

may be harnessed to achieve healthy changes if programmes can cause shift in perception of group norms so no longer believe peers endorse thinness as valued goal (Cruwys et al 2015)
social factors may be particularly influential on nutrition as adaptive and social norms inform about likely optimal behaviours (Robinson et al 2013)

Question 22

Factors moderating norm following

Answer 22

norm uncertainty, norm referent group, individual characteristics (men have greater drive for distinctiveness), food type (Higgs 2015)

Question 23

Social context

Answer 23

influences which social identities and norms are cognitively salient (Onorato & Turner 2004)
perceptions of norms are highly sensitive to contextual factors (portion, packaging size) (Jeffery et al 2007)
women’s media is strong normative cue that can be sig contextual factor increasing vulnerability to disordered eating (Krones et al 2015)