Eating in larger groups increases food consumption

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
Archives of Disease in Childhood (Impact Factor: 2.91). 06/2007; 92(5):384-7. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2006.103259
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether children's food consumption is increased by the size of the group of children in which they are eating.
Crossover study.
University based preschool.
54 children, aged 2.5-6.5 years.
Each child ate a standardised snack in a group of three children, and in a group of nine children.
Amount each individual child consumed, in grams.
Amount eaten and snack duration were correlated (r = 0.71). The association between group size and amount eaten differed in the short (<11.4 min) versus the long (> or =11.4 min) snacks (p = 0.02 for the interaction between group size and snack duration). During short snacks, there was no effect of group size on amount eaten (16.7 (SD 11) g eaten in small groups vs 15.1 (6.6) g eaten in large groups, p = 0.42). During long snacks, large group size increased the amount eaten (34.5 (16) vs 26.5 (13.8), p = 0.02). The group size effect was partially explained by a shorter latency to begin eating, a faster eating rate and reduced social interaction in larger groups.
Children consumed 30% more food when eating in a group of nine children than when eating in a group of three children during longer snacks. Social facilitation of food consumption operates in preschool-aged children. The group size effect merits consideration in creating eating behaviour interventions.

Download full-text


Available from: Julie C Lumeng, Jun 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Developmental psychologists have devoted significant attention to investigating how children learn from others' actions, emotions, and testimony. Yet most of this research has examined children's socially guided learning about artifacts. The present article focuses on a domain that has received limited attention from those interested in the development of social cognition: food. We begin by reviewing the available literature on infants' and children's development in the food domain and identify situations in which children evidence both successes and failures in their interactions with foods. We focus specifically on the role that other people play in guiding what children eat and argue that understanding patterns of successes and failures in the food domain requires an appreciation of eating as a social phenomenon. We next propose a series of questions for future research and suggest that examining food selection as a social phenomenon can shed light on mechanisms underlying children's learning from others and provide ideas for promoting healthy social relationships and eating behaviors early in development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
    Developmental Psychology 03/2012; 49(3). DOI:10.1037/a0027551 · 3.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Limited exposure to solid food in early childhood may affect the development of appetite regulation. We used formal satiation studies to assess energy compensation in children who have been artificially fed. Subjects were 11 children, median age 4.5 years (range 1-10) who were formerly (n=4) or currently (n=5) mainly tube fed or supplement fed (n=2), with a range of surgical or neurodevelopmental problems. On 2 separate days a high-energy preload (HEP) and low-energy preload (LEP) drink were given followed by a multi-item test lunch. A compensation index (COMPX) score was derived as follows: COMPX (%)=[(Meal(lep)-Meal(hep))/(Preload(hep)-Preload(lep))]× 100. The median (range) COMPX of the participants was 70% (-73% to 178%). The 8 boys tended to compensate more (median 99%) than the 3 girls (30%; P Mann-Whitney=0.1), but there was no clear association of compensation with age. Although a small preliminary study, this suggests that children who have been artificially fed demonstrate energy compensation comparable to that of normally fed children.
    Appetite 11/2010; 56(1):205-9. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.002 · 2.52 Impact Factor