Environmental Food Cues
How They Can Cause Weight Gain
People are social animals so it is no surprise to learn that social and environmental settings affect the types and amounts of food we eat.
Even people not concerned about weight find themselves in social situations where they find themselves eating “socially.” Think of a birthday or a wedding celebration where cake is being passed around or at a friendly social gathering where dessert is ordered so it could be “shared.”
As researchers report in the journal Behavioral Sciences, “we eat differently when we are with other people compared with when we eat alone.”
Unfortunately, usually that means eating more and, for many of us, indulging in calorie-dense and nutrition-poor food such as desserts when we would otherwise be considered “full.” Why do we do this?
In the article, “Social influences on Eating,” researchers explain that it is both adaptive and often rewarding. “Norms of appropriate eating are set by the behavior of other people but also shared cultural expectations and environmental cues.
We are more likely to follow an eating norm if it is perceived to be relevant based on social comparison.” This change in eating pattern has been “well documented with evidence from food diaries, observational and experimental studies.”
For example, “if we eat with someone who is eating a large amount then we are likely to model what they eat and consume more than we would eat if we were dining alone.
We are also likely to eat a large amount if we eat in a group rather than eating alone.” Similarly, if we are eating with others who eat sparingly, we are likely to eat less ourselves. Researchers hope to understand the dynamics at play and learn how to use it in the “promotion of healthy eating.”
Researchers performed a meta-analysis of laboratory studies and reported that “modelling of eating is a robust phenomenon and the effect size on average is large.”
They call this a “behavioral mimicry” process. Interestingly, some participants showed little perception of “social influence” (despite eating more or less, depending on the social experiment), while others seemed quite aware of the impact of “social influence.”
Social norms, the authors note, change over time and have a direct effect on factors related to obesity. “Increases in average portion size may have created new consumption norms that are diffused through social networks.”
From dollar meals to enormous soda cups and restaurants that provide heaping portions, eating has changed recently in ways that “favor overconsumption.”
The authors propose “harnessing social norms to promote healthier eating and weight loss.” They do not say, however, how these social norms may be harnessed.
The Journal of Eating Behaviors found that children are especially sensitive to environmental food cues. In “Overweight Children Overeat After Exposure to Food cues,” discovered that “overweight children are…more vulnerable to triggers of overeating.”
The children seemed to react to food cues on a more physiological level than on a psychological one: The children’s “overeating was not related to psychological factors like mood, body esteem, and restrained eating style, but it was related to cue-elicited salivation flow.”
Food cue reactivity must be considered in any attempt to manage obesity, they conclude, especially in children.
One interesting study broke down food cues by its two main types: olfactory and cognitive. In the article, “The Effect of Pre-Exposure to Food Cues on the Eating Behavior of Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters,“ in the journal, Appetite, researchers found that the majority of participants ate more food when exposed to ten minutes of either olfactory or cognitive food cues, individually or combined.
“Restrained eaters ate significantly more than did unrestrained eaters after exposure to the food cues,” concluded the researchers. By restrained eaters, they mean eaters who had been or were on diet restrictions. Food intake remained stable when there was no food cue pre-exposure. Interestingly, “after cue pre-exposure, restrained subjects [not only] increased consumption, [but also] indicated a significantly greater craving, liking, and desire to eat the cued food (pizza) than did the unrestrained subjects.”
The authors conclude by suggesting that “restrained eaters [i.e., dieters] are more sensitive and reactive to food cues than are unrestrained eaters. The food cues appeared to generate an appetitive urge to eat in restrained eaters.” If that isn't a hint on how to stop binging, then what is?
In the American Psychological Association’s journal, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, the authors explore both the reactivity to food-cue exposure as well as “counteractive-control” measures. “Many studies have demonstrated that those high in weight-related concerns eat more after food-cue exposure, which is consistent with prediction of the cue-reactivity model,” they point out.
Confirming what the studies above concluded, “attending to salient food cues result[ed] in increased intake [cue reactivity] in individuals with high weight-related concerns.” These cue-reactive dieters “ate more” than the other control groups.
While none of the studies explore how such reactivity could be reduced on a macro or micro scale, they all agreed that it is a “critical factor in determining eating behavior” and managing obesity. This is especially true, they all seem to agree, for people presenting with weight concerns.
Indeed, as the last study showed, “Participants with high weight-related concerns who attended to a food cue ate more than did both those with high weight-related concerns in the control condition [i.e., those who were not given food cues] and those with low weight-related concerns in the attended-cue condition [i.e., those who were given food cues].”
Previous studies (see “Understanding Food Cue Reactivity And How to Curb It") suggest that exposure therapy might be useful in reducing reactivity.
References:
Suzanne Higgs, & Jason Thomas. (2016), Social influences on eating, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, Volume 9, Pages 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.10.005
Quote: Norm matching involves processes such as synchronisation of eating actions, consumption monitoring and altered food preferences. There is emerging evidence that social eating norms may play a role in the development and maintenance of obesity.
Anita Jansen, Nicole Theunissen, Katrien Slechten, Chantal Nederkoorn, Brigitte Boon, Sandra Mulkens, & Anne Roefs, (2003), Overweight children overeat after exposure to food cues, Eating Behaviors, Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 197-209, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-0153(03)00011-4
Quote: The data indeed show that overweight children do not regulate their food intake like normal-weight children do. Normal-weight children eat less after having eaten a preload and after intense exposure to the smell of tasty food, whereas the overweight children do not lessen their intake after confrontation with both food cues. They even eat marginally more after the intense exposure to the smell of tasty food.
Fedoroff, I. D., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (1997). The effect of pre-exposure to food cues on the eating behavior of restrained and unrestrained eaters. Appetite, 28(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0057
Quote: These findings suggest that restrained eaters are more sensitive and reactive to food cues than are unrestrained eaters. The food cues appeared to generate an appetitive urge to eat in restrained eaters.
Coelho, J. S., Jansen, A., Roefs, A., & Nederkoorn, C. (2009). Eating behavior in response to food-cue exposure: examining the cue-reactivity and counteractive-control models. Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 23(1), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013610
Quote: Participants with high weight-related concerns who attended to a food cue ate more than did both those with high weight-related concerns in the control condition and those with low weight-related concerns in the attended-cue condition.