Dataset Information

Liking food less: the impact of social influence on food liking evaluations in female students.

ABSTRACT: Social factors are known to influence food intake and choice. However, whether social influence acts on evaluations of food and drink liking has not been studied. Across two studies, we tested whether leading a participant to believe that other people do not like a food affects food liking evaluations. In Study 1, we exposed participants to social normative information suggesting a) that an in-group disliked orange juice, b) that an out-group disliked orange juice or c) that an in-group were neutral about orange juice. We then examined how much participants believed they liked orange juice. In Study 2, participants consumed a snack food before being led to believe that two previous participants had also eaten the food and either disliked or quite liked it. We asked participants to rate how much they had enjoyed eating the snack food. Across both studies, social influence was observed, as underlined by decreases in liking evaluations. In Study 1, beliefs about liking were only influenced by social normative information when the norm was expressed by an in-group. In Study 2, exposure to others' accounts of a negative experience with a food decreased evaluated liking of the recent consumption experience. These results suggest that social influence can act upon food liking evaluations.

SUBMITTER: Robinson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3498255 | biostudies-other | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Liking food less: the impact of social influence on food liking evaluations in female students.

Robinson Eric E Higgs Suzanne S

PloS one 20121114 11

Social factors are known to influence food intake and choice. However, whether social influence acts on evaluations of food and drink liking has not been studied. Across two studies, we tested whether leading a participant to believe that other people do not like a food affects food liking evaluations. In Study 1, we exposed participants to social normative information suggesting a) that an in-group disliked orange juice, b) that an out-group disliked orange juice or c) that an in-group were neu ...[more]

PMID: 23155416

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnvironmental cues shape behaviour, but few studies compare the impact of targeting healthier vs. less-healthy cues. One online study suggested greater impact on selection from increasing the number of less-healthy (vs. healthier) snacks. The current study aimed to: (1) extend the previous study by using physically-present snacks for immediate consumption; (2) explore responsiveness by socio-economic position; (3) investigate possible mediators (response inhibition, food appeal) of any socio-economic differences in selection.MethodsIn a between-subjects laboratory experiment UK adults (n = 417) were randomised according to their ID number (without blinding) to one of three ranges of options: Two healthier, two less-healthy ["Equal"] (n = 136); Six healthier, two less-healthy ["Increased Healthier"] (n = 143); Two healthier, six less-healthy ["Increased Less-Healthy"] (n = 138). Participants completed measures of response inhibition and food appeal, and selected a snack for immediate consumption from their allocated range. The primary outcome was selection of a healthier (over less-healthy) snack.ResultsThe odds of selecting a less-healthy snack were 2.9 times higher (95%CIs:1.7,5.1) in the Increased Less-Healthy condition compared to the Equal condition. The odds of selecting a healthier snack were 2.5 times higher (95%CIs:1.5,4.1) in the Increased Healthier (vs. Equal) condition. There was no significant difference in the size of these effects (- 0.2; 95%CIs:-1.1,0.7). Findings were inconclusive with regard to interactions by education, but the direction of effects was consistent with potentially larger impact of the Increased Healthier condition on selection for higher-educated participants, and potentially larger impact of the Increased Less-Healthy condition for less-educated participants.ConclusionsA greater impact from increasing the number of less-healthy (over healthier) foods was not replicated when selecting snacks for immediate consumption: both increased selections of the targeted foods with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. The observed pattern of results suggested possible differential impact by education, albeit not statistically significant. If replicated in larger studies, this could suggest that removing less-healthy options has the potential to reduce health inequalities due to unhealthier diets. Conversely, adding healthier options could have the potential to increase these inequalities.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN34626166 ; 11/06/2018; Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundSome weight loss medications, including liraglutide 3.0 mg, are thought to facilitate weight loss by improving appetite control. However, no studies have evaluated their long-term appetitive effects.Subjects/methodsThis study examined changes in appetite in a subsample of 113 adults with obesity (76.1% female, 55.8% white, BMI = 38.8 ± 4.8 kg/m2) who participated in a 52-week trial. Participants were randomized to intensive behavioral therapy alone (IBT-alone), IBT with liraglutide 3.0 mg/day (IBT-liraglutide), or IBT-liraglutide combined with a 12-week meal replacement diet (Multi-component). Participants rated their hunger, fullness after meals, liking of meals, and food preoccupation (all as experienced over the past week) using visual analogue scales (0-100 mm). Ratings were completed at baseline and eight subsequent visits over the year.ResultsAt week 52, participants treated by IBT-alone lost 6.2 ± 1.6% of baseline weight, compared with 11.8 ± 1.6% and 12.1 ± 1.5% in the IBT-liraglutide and Multi-component groups, respectively. Compared to IBT-alone, IBT-liraglutide participants reported larger reductions at week 6 in hunger (-0.3 ± 4.2 vs -16.8 ± 4.0 mm, p = .005) and food preoccupation (+0.2 ± 3.7 vs -16.3 ± 3.6 mm, p = .002) and larger increases in fullness (-5.1 ± 3.2 vs +9.8 ± 3.0 mm, p = .001). These significant differences persisted at all assessments through week 24. There were no differences between IBT-alone and IBT-liraglutide in meal liking. IBT-alone and Multi-component participants differed in hunger at week 6, and in food preoccupation at all assessments through week 24. Multi-component participants reported reduced liking of meals relative to the IBT-alone and IBT-liraglutide groups through weeks 40 and 52, respectively. There were no other differences among any groups at week 52.ConclusionsConsistent with short-term studies, IBT-liraglutide participants reported greater improvements in hunger, fullness, and food preoccupation than those assigned to IBT-alone. Differences in appetite persisted for 24 weeks but were not maintained at week 52, despite the relatively greater weight losses in the liraglutide-treated participants at the trial's end.

Project description:AbstractFood sharing is relatively widespread across the animal kingdom, but research into the socio-ecological factors affecting this activity has predominantly focused on primates. These studies do suggest though that food tolerance is linked to the social relationship with potential partners. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess the social factors which influence food tolerance in two canids: wolves and dogs. We presented wolves and dogs with two paradigms: dyadic tolerance tests and group carcass feedings. In the dyadic setting, the affiliative relationship with a partner was the most important factor, with a strong bond promoting more sharing in both species. In the group setting, however, rank was the primary factor determining feeding behavior. Although the dominant individuals of both species defended the carcass more than subordinates, in the dogs, the subordinates mostly stayed away from the resource and the most dominant individual monopolized the food. In the wolves, the subordinates spent as much time as dominant individuals in proximity to, and feeding from, the carcass. Furthermore, subordinate wolves were more able to use persistence strategies than the dogs were. Feeding interactions in the wolves, but not dogs, were also modulated by whether the carcass was on the ground or hanging from a tree. Overall, the social relationship with a partner is important in food distribution in wolves and dogs, but the precise effects are dependent on species and feeding context. We consider how the different socio-ecologies of the two species may be linked to these findings.Significance statementDespite the fact that food sharing is relatively widespread in the animal kingdom, the specific factors underlying whether an animal will share with a specific individual are little understood. When it comes to decisions about food sharing in wolves and dogs, friendship is the deciding factor if it is just two of you, but in a bigger group rank position decides your access to the spoils. What is more, it seems that rank positioning is even more important in dogs than wolves as dominant dogs keep the food for themselves while each wolf pack member has a chance to eat. This is the first evidence that the importance of the social relationship in food sharing is dependent on the feeding context in canids.

Project description:BackgroundThe origin of different human emotions directed towards animals (whether in the utilitarian, affective, conflictual, or cosmological context) is strongly influenced by sociocultural factors, although our genetic predispositions also play an important role in the origin of these emotions. Such emotions guide people's representations of different species, which in turn affect their attitudes toward them. For this reason, understanding the factors that guide such attitudes becomes a key element in making conservationist decisions. In this sense, the main objective of this study was to analyze how sociocultural characteristics and bioecological representations can influence students' attitudes of empathy or antipathy towards vertebrate species; as well as which classes and species are related to greater and lesser support in people for their conservation.MethodsTo do so, 667 interviews were conducted with students from urban (n = 1) and rural (n = 2) schools in the Brazilian semi-arid region. We used mixed generalized linear models (GLMM) to examine the effect of social factors and bioecological representations on empathy and antipathy attitudes and multiple factor analysis (MFA) to examine the relationship between the biological characteristics of the animals (positive or negative) and the attitudes toward them (antipathetic or empathetic).ResultsThrough GLMM, we found that students from the urban area and from lower school levels are more extreme in their responses, more frequently expressing both empathy and antipathy towards wild animals. Regarding gender, women had a higher frequency of responses associated with aversion than men for species perceived as dangerous and poisonous (p < 0.001). Through the MFA, we found greater support (empathy) for the conservation of fish species (31.56%), birds (29.37%) and mammals (25.94%), with emphasis on the Red-cowled cardinal (Paroaria dominicana) and clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) species, and less support (antipathy) for reptile and amphibian species such as rattlesnakes (Crotalus durissus) and horned frogs (Ceratophrys joazeirensis).ConclusionsThe attitudinal ambivalence reflected by varying empathy for certain species and antipathy to others has important implications for wildlife conservation. Understanding the socioeconomic factors and emotions that influence attitudes towards animals can enable integrating educational strategies for the conservation of species, especially those which are culturally important.

Dataset Information

Liking food less: the impact of social influence on food liking evaluations in female students.

Publications

Liking food less: the impact of social influence on food liking evaluations in female students.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets