The office candy dish: Proximity's influence on estimated and actual consumption

Cornell Food and Brand Laboratory, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
International Journal of Obesity (Impact Factor: 5). 06/2006; 30(5):871-5. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803217
Source: PubMed


OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE: Although there is increasing interest in how environmental factors influence food intake, there are mixed results and misunderstandings of how proximity and visibility influence consumption volume and contribute to obesity. The objective of this paper is to examine two questions: first, how does the proximity and salience of a food influence consumption volume? Second, are proximate foods consumed more frequently because they are proximate, or are they consumed more frequently because people lose track of how much they eat?
The 4-week study involved the chocolate candy consumption of 40 adult secretaries. The study utilized a 2 x 2 within-subject design where candy proximity was crossed with visibility. Proximity was manipulated by placing the chocolates on the desk of the participant or 2 m from the desk. Visibility was manipulated by placing the chocolates in covered bowls that were either clear or opaque. Chocolates were replenished each evening, and placement conditions were rotated every Monday. Daily consumption was noted and follow-up questionnaires were distributed and analyzed.
There were main effects for both proximity and visibility. People ate an average of 2.2 more candies each day when they were visible, and 1.8 candies more when they were proximately placed on their desk vs 2 m away. It is important to note, however, that there was a significant tendency for participants to consistently underestimate their daily consumption of proximately placed candies (-0.9) and overestimate their daily consumption of less proximately placed candies (+0.5).
These results show that the proximity and visibility of a food can consistently increase an adult's consumption of it. In addition, these results suggest that people may be biased to overestimate the consumption of foods that are less proximate, and to underestimate those that are more proximate. Knowing about these deviation tendencies is important for those attempting effectively monitor their consumption of fat and sugar.

Download full-text


Available from: james e Painter, Jan 19, 2015
  • Source
    • "People consume more food when it is located in their proximity than at a distance [8]. This effect can be observed in distances as small as 50 cm. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Proximal objects provide affordances that activate the motor information involved in interacting with the objects. This effect has previously been shown for artifacts but not for natural objects, such as food. This study examined whether the sight of proximal food, compared to distant food activates eating-related information. In two experiments reaction times to verbal labels following the sight of proximal and distant objects (food and toys) were measured. Verbal labels included function words that were compatible with one object category (eating and playing) and observation words compatible with both object categories. The sight of food was expected to activate eating-related information when presented at proximity but not at distance, as reflected by faster reaction times to proximal than distant compatible eating words and no difference between reaction times to proximal and distant food for observation words (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 additionally compared the reaction times to wrapped and unwrapped food. The distance effect was expected to occur only for unwrapped food because only unwrapped food is readily edible. As expected, Experiment 1 and 2 revealed faster responses to compatible eating words at proximity than at distance. In Experiment 2 this distance effect occurred only for readily edible, unwrapped food but not for wrapped food. For observation words no difference in response times between the distances was found. These findings suggest that the sight of proximal food activates eating-related information, which could explain people's differential behavioral responses to reachable versus distant food. The activation of eating-related information upon sight of accessible food could provide a cognition-based explanation for mindless eating.
    PLoS ONE 12/2013; 8(12):e84643. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0084643 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The effectiveness of this control strategy was further supported in a study that manipulated the visibility of chocolates in office candy dishes by placing them in either a clear or opaque container. When the office workers were unable to see the chocolates, they ate significantly fewer of them per day (Wansink, Painter, and Lee 2006). The second strategy, distraction, involves allocating attention away from the stimulus by using either internal or external distractions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many policy interventions that address rising obesity levels in the United States have been designed to provide consumers with more nutrition information, with the goal of encouraging consumers to decrease their caloric intake. We discuss existing information-provision measures and suggest that they are likely to have little-to-modest impact on encouraging lower caloric intake, because making use of such information requires understanding and/or motivation, which many consumers lack, as well as self-control, which is a limited resource. We highlight several phenomena from the behavioral economics literature (present-biased preferences, visceral factors, and status quo bias) and explain how awareness of these behavioral phenomena can inform both more effective information-provision policies and additional policies for regulating restaurants and public school cafeterias that move beyond information to nudge people towards healthier food choices.
    Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 10/2013; DOI:10.1093/aepp/ppt027 · 1.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "A more effective way of addressing food accessibility might be to increase the distance to unhealthy foods. Few experimental studies have been conducted in this area, but all show significant reductions in intake when the distance to (unhealthy) foods is adjusted (Maas, De Ridder, De Vet, & De Wit, in press; Musher-Eizenman et al., 2010; Wansink, Painter & Lee, 2006). Another promising intervention may be the adjustment of food prices. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a tendency to blame the so-called ‘obesogenic’ environment, characterised by the abundant presence of high caloric, palatable foods, for the failure of self-regulation of eating behaviour and, consequently, the obesity epidemic. In the present article, it is argued that in addition to the omnipresence of food, self-regulation of eating is also compromised by a lack of clear, shared standards that guide eating behaviour. We posit that this social aspect of the toxic food environment is often overlooked and that, without considering the importance of such social eating appropriateness standards as self-regulatory guides, any understanding of successful regulation of eating behaviour will remain incomplete. We hypothesise that the availability of clear, shared eating appropriateness standards will decrease the uncertainty resulting from the current lack of such standards, and will provide effective guidance of eating behaviour, thus calling for a new generation of empirical research examining this novel approach to core components of the obesogenic environment.
    Health Psychology Review 01/2012; 7(2):1-20. DOI:10.1080/17437199.2012.706987 · 2.06 Impact Factor
Show more