Mindless Eating: The 200 Daily Food Decisions We Overlook (original) (raw)

Mindless Eating and Environmental Cues

2008

Package size, plate shape, lighting, socializing, and variety are only a few of the environmental factors that can influence the consumption volume of food far more than most people realize. Although such environmental factors appear unrelated, they generally influence consumption volume by inhibiting consumption monitoring and by suggesting alternative consumption norms. For economists, this research suggests where the rationality related to food consumption breaks down, what myths we need to see through, and what possible solutions lie ahead.

Mindless Eating and Healthy Heuristics for the Irrational

American Economic Review, 2009

Food choice decisions are not the same as intake volume decisions. The former determine what we eat (soup or salad); the latter determine how much we eat (half of the bowl or all of it). Large amounts of money, time, and intelligence have been invested in understanding the physiological mechanisms that influence food choice (James O. Hill, forthcoming). Much less has been invested in understanding how and why our environment influences food consumption volume. Yet environmental factors (such as package size, plate shape, lighting, variety, or the presence of others) affect our food consumption volume far more than we realize (Wansink 2006).

Are We Aware of the External Factors That Influence Our Food Intake?

Objectives: This research examines the extent to which people accurately report some of the external influences on their food intake. Design: In two studies, specific factors (the presence and behavior of others) were manipulated in order to influence the amount of food that individuals consumed. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcomes of interest were participants' spontaneously generated explanations for their food intake (Study 1; n 122), and their ratings of the importance of several potential determinants of food intake (Study 2; n 75). Results: In Study 1, there was high concordance between the amounts eaten by members of a dyad, but very few participants indicated that they were influenced by their partner's behavior; they instead identified hunger and taste as the primary determinants of intake. Study 2 showed that participants' intake was strongly influenced by the behavior of others, but people rated taste and hunger as much more important influences on their intake. Conclusions: If external environmental factors influence people's food intake without their awareness or acknowledgment, then maintaining a healthy diet can be a challenge, with long-term consequences for health and well-being.

Slim by Design: Redirecting the Accidental Drivers of Mindless Overeating

What food you decide to choose is very different than how much of it you decide to eat. As consumer psychologists, we understand food choice bunch better than food consumption. This review focuses on three powerful drivers of food consumption quantity: 1) Sensory cues (how your senses react), 2) emotional cues (how you feel), and 3) normative cues (how you are supposed to eat). These drivers influence consumption quantities partly because they bias our consumption monitoring – how much attention we pay to how much we eat. To date, consumption quantity research has comfortably focused on the first two drivers and on using education to combat overeating. In contrast, new research on consumption norms can uncover small changes in the eating environment (such as package downsizing, smaller dinnerware, and reduced visibility and convenience) that can be easily implemented in kitchens, restaurants, and policies to improve our monitoring of how much we eat and to offer solutions to mindless overeating.

When snacks become meals: How hunger and environmental cues bias food intake

Background: While environmental and situational cues influence food intake, it is not always clear how they do so. We examine whether participants consume more when an eating occasion is associated with meal cues than with snack cues. We expect their perception of the type of eating occasion to mediate the amount of food they eat. In addition, we expect the effect of those cues on food intake to be strongest among those who are hungry. Methods: One-hundred and twenty-two undergraduates (75 men, 47 women; mean BMI = 22.8, SD = 3.38) were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions in which they were offered foods such as quesadillas and chicken wings in an environment that was associated with either meal cues (ceramic plates, glasses, silverware, and cloth napkins at a table), or snack cues (paper plates and napkins, plastic cups, and no utensils). After participants finished eating, they were asked to complete a questionnaire that assessed their hunger, satiety, perception of the foods, and included demographic and anthropometric questions. In addition, participants’ total food intake was recorded. Results: Participants who were in the presence of meal-related cues ate 27.9% more calories than those surrounded with snack cues (416 versus 532 calories). The amount participants ate was partially mediated by whether they perceived the eating occasion to be a meal or a snack. In addition, the effect of the environmental cues on intake was most pronounced among participants who were hungry. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated that environmental and situational cues associated with an eating occasion could influence overall food intake. People were more likely to eat foods when they were associated with meal cues. Importantly, the present study reveals that the effect of these cues is uniquely intertwined with cognition and motivation. First, people were more likely to eat ambiguous foods when they perceived them as a meal rather than a snack. Second, the effect of the environmental cues on intake was only observed among those who were hungry.

Why did I eat that? Perspectives on food decision making and dietary restraint

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2010

Consumers trying to watch or restrict what they eat face a battle each day as they attempt to navigate the food-rich environments in which they live. Due to the complexity of food decision making, consumers are susceptible to a wide range of social, cognitive, affective, and environmental forces determined to interrupt their intentions to restrict their dietary intake. In this article, we integrate literature from diverse theoretical perspectives into a conceptual framework designed to offer a better understanding of the antecedents, interruptions, and consequences of dietary restraint. We outline a path for researchers to investigate how restraint behaviors in the eating domain influence a wide variety of consumer psychological phenomena. It is our hope that a collective examination of this literature provides a lens that directs future research on food decision making and dietary restraint and empowers consumers to invest their cognitive and behavioral resources towards healthy eating behaviors.

Environmental Factors that Increase the Food Intake and Consumption Volume of Unknowing Consumers

Package size, plate shape, lighting, socializing, and variety are only a few of the environmental factors that can influence the consumption volume of food far more than most people realize. Although such environmental factors appear unrelated, they generally influence consumption volume by inhibiting consumption monitoring and by suggesting alternative consumption norms. For researchers, this review suggests that redirecting the focus of investigations to the psychological mechanisms behind consumption will raise the profile and impact of research. For health professionals, this review underscores how small structural changes in personal environments can reduce the unknowing overconsumption of food.

Is This a Meal or Snack? How Hunger Influences One's Susceptibility to Environmental Cues

Background: Whether a person perceives an eating occasion – such as a reception or party – is a meal or a snack could determine what and how much they eat. The extent to which they are influenced, however, could be moderated by one’s motivational state and will be particularly strong among those who are hungry. Methods Invitations to a series of buffet mixers were sent to 122 undergraduates (75 men; BMI = 22.8, SD = 3.38). Although the food was identical, the eating occasions were physically altered to appear as either a meal (ceramic plates, glasses, silverware, and cloth napkins at a table) or a snack (paper plates and napkins, plastic cups, and no utensils). After participants finished eating, they were asked to complete the questionnaire that assessed their hunger, satiety, and their perception of the foods and how much they ate. Results: The amount a person ate was partially mediated by whether they believed the situation to be a meal or a snack. Participants who were in the presence of meal- related cues ate 27.6% more calories compared to those surrounded with snack cues (415 versus 531 calories). These results were most pronounced among participants who were hungry. Conclusions: Environmental cues such as dinnerware and seating can cue whether an eating occasion is perceived as a meal or a snack, and perceiving a meal as a snack increased food intake at a reception by 27.6%. Importantly, the impact of these eating occasion cues is uniquely intertwined by cognition and motivation. First, regardless of the actual time of the day, people ate more food when they perceived the eating occasion as a meal rather than a snack. Second, this effect was strongest among those who were hungry. A key question for further study is whether perceiving an eating occasion as a meal rather than a snack decreases one’s intake of food later that day.

Failure to report social influences on food intake: Lack of awareness or motivated denial?

Objective: Two studies examined whether people are aware of social influences on food intake, and whether recognition of those influences is driven by the observation of mimicked eating and/or matching the amount of food eaten. Method: In Study 1, participants watched a video of 1 person eating alone, or a video of 2 people eating together that varied in the extent to which the target's eating behavior mimicked or matched that of the model. Participants then made attributions for the eating behavior of the target person. In Study 2, each participant watched a video of herself eating with a confederate and made attributions for her own eating behavior. In both studies, the outcome of interest was the extent to which each participant acknowledged the influence of the model's eating behavior on the target's (or her own) food intake. Results: In Study 1, participants accurately recognized social influences on the food intake of the target person, and this recognition was facilitated by the presence of mimicked eating, but not by matching the total amount eaten. Study 2 showed that the extent to which people acknowledge social influences on their own food intake depended on their self-reported general responsiveness to social cues on eating. Conclusion: Overall, people seem to be aware that social factors can influence others' food intake. Whereas some people (high social eaters) are able to accurately report social influences on their own food intake, others (low social eaters) seem to deny those influences for reasons that merit future investigation.