Search

People often fail to acknowledge external influences on their food intake, but there might be some circumstances in which people are willing to report that those external factors influenced their behavior. This study examined whether participants who believed that they had overeaten would indicate that the portion size they were served influenced their food intake. Participants (119 women) ate a pasta lunch at two separate sessions, one week apart. At the second session, participants were randomly assigned to receive either a regular portion of pasta (the same portion as the first session) or a large portion of pasta (a portion that was twice the size), and to receive false feedback about their food intake indicating that they had either eaten about the same as or substantially more than they had at the previous session. Participants were then asked to indicate the extent to which the amount of food served influenced how much they ate at that second session. Compared to participants who were informed that they had eaten the same amount across the two sessions, those who were informed that they ate more at the second session reported a stronger influence of the amount of food served if they also received a large portion of pasta, but not if they received a regular portion of pasta. These findings suggest that the willingness to implicate external influences (e.g., portion size) on one's food intake may be driven by a self-serving bias, providing an "excuse" for overeating. However, the external cue must be salient enough to be a plausible explanation for one's behavior., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Normative eating cues (portion size, social factors) have a powerful impact on people's food intake, but people often fail to acknowledge the influence of these cues, instead explaining their food intake in terms of internal (hunger) or sensory (taste) cues. This study examined whether the same biases apply when making predictions about how much food a person would eat. Participants (n = 364) read a series of vignettes describing an eating scenario and predicted how much food the target person would eat in each situation. Some scenarios consisted of a single eating cue (hunger, taste, or a normative cue) that would be expected to increase intake (e.g., high hunger) or decrease intake (e.g., a companion who eats very little). Other scenarios combined two cues that were in conflict with one another (e.g., high hunger + a companion who eats very little). In the cue-conflict scenarios involving an inhibitory internal/sensory cue (e.g., low hunger) with an augmenting normative cue (e.g., a companion who eats a lot), participants predicted a low level of food intake, suggesting a bias toward the internal/sensory cue. For scenarios involving an augmenting internal/sensory cue (e.g., high hunger) and an inhibitory normative cue (e.g., a companion who eats very little), participants predicted an intermediate level of food intake, suggesting that they were influenced by both the internal/sensory and normative cue. Overall, predictions about food intake tend to reflect a general bias toward internal/sensory cues, but also include normative cues when those cues are inhibitory. If people are systematically biased toward internal, sensory, and inhibitory cues, then they may underestimate how much food they or other people will eat in many situations, particularly when normative cues promoting eating are present., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We examined whether people's attributions for their eating behaviour differ according to whether they believe they have eaten more, less or about the same as they normally would., Design: Participants were served a small or large portion of pasta for lunch. Afterwards, they were asked to compare how much they ate in the study to how much they normally eat for lunch, resulting in three intake-evaluation categories: 'ate less', 'ate about the same' or 'ate more'., Main Outcome Measures: How much participants ate; the extent to which they attributed their food intake to an internal cue (i.e. hunger) and an external cue (i.e. the amount of food served)., Results: Participants served a large portion ate more than those served a small portion, but the magnitude of the portion-size effect did not vary across intake-evaluation categories. Furthermore, although participants in all groups indicated that their hunger influenced how much they ate, only those in the 'ate more' group indicated that the amount of food available influenced how much they ate., Conclusion: People appear to be willing to explain their food intake in terms of an external cue only when they believe that they have eaten more than they normally would.

Objective: Social factors have a powerful influence on people's food intake but people typically fail to acknowledge the influence of such external cues, instead explaining their food intake in terms of factors such as how hungry they are. We examined whether the tendency to explain one's food intake in terms of internal cues (i.e., hunger) rather than external cues (i.e., other people's behavior) would be apparent when those cues are in conflict with one another., Method: Female participants (n = 104) took part in a pizza taste test after having been food deprived for 18-hr or after consuming a meal-replacement preload. Half of the participants were also exposed to a social norm that conflicted with their deprivation condition: deprived participants were exposed to a low-intake norm, whereas preloaded participants were exposed to a high-intake norm. After completing the taste test, participants indicated the extent to which their food intake was influence by how hungry they were and how much other people ate., Results: Deprived participants ate less when exposed to a low-intake norm than when no norm was present, but reported that the behaviors of others had no impact on their food intake. In contrast, preloaded participants did not eat significantly more when exposed to a high-intake norm, but reported that the behavior of others made them eat more., Conclusions: Participants are generally inaccurate in the attributions they make for their food intake, and we suggest that these inaccuracies may be because of motivated misreporting. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).)

Research has shown that the bigger the portion that people are served, the more food they eat; this phenomenon is referred to as the portion-size effect. Providing objective serving-size information on food products has been shown to reduce the influence of external food cues on people's eating behavior. The current study examined whether providing objective serving-size information would also reduce the portion-size effect. 100 female participants were served either a small or large portion of pizza in the context of a taste test. The large portion was either unlabeled, labeled as "Contains 2 servings," or labeled as "Contains 4 servings." Food intake was lower when the large portion was labeled "Contains 4 servings" compared to when it was labeled "Contains 2 servings." Moreover, participants' intake in the large portion/4 servings condition was statistically similar to the intake of participants in the small portion condition. Thus, the standard portion-size effect was observed when the large portion was unlabeled or was labeled as "Contains 2 servings," but not when the large portion was labeled as "Contains 4 servings". These findings suggest that providing serving-size information can reduce the portion-size effect, but that the specific content (and not just the presence) of serving-size information is important in determining food intake., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.