Kitchenscapes, Tablescapes, Platescapes, and Foodscapes

Sobal, Jeffery; Wansink, Brian

doi:10.1177/0013916506295574

Cited by 217 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We point to the numerous research studies that show children and adults tend to eat more when given larger portion sizes (Fisher, Rolls, andBirch 2001, 2003;Kral, Roe, and Rolls 2004;Kral et al 2002;Sobal and Wansink 2007;Rolls, Engell, and Birch 2000;Nisbett 1968;Rolls, Morris and Roe 2002;Wansink 2004Wansink, Painter, and North 2005). For example, Levitsky and Youn (2004) report that young adults, served larger portions from one week to the next increase their consumption the next week by as much as 40%.…”

Section: Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 79%

Using Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implications of Context Dependent Demand

Sharpe¹,

Staelin²,

Huber³

2008

J Consum Res

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors would like to especially thank Kelly Davis and Greg Allenby for their research contributions. Additionally, the authors thank Bob Clemens and Preyas Desai for their helpful suggestions and comments. 3Obesity is now a global problem. Within the U.S., the rise in obesity has been largely driven by the increase in caloric consumption. Suggested solutions for decreasing consumption have included information provision and taxation on fast food. We investigate a third option that takes advantage of the behavioral regularity where consumers tend to avoid purchasing the smallest or largest size of a portfolio of options. We do so in the context of soft drinks purchased at fast food restaurants. Using a virtual shopping experiment, we estimate for each member of our national sample of adults, their value for drink size, price, and extremeness aversion. We then use these estimates in policy simulations to identify options that are most likely to reduce consumption with limited reduction in retailer profits. 4The average American is 24 pounds heavier now than in 1960 (Jacobson and McLay 2006).Over this same time period, the proportion of adults classified as overweight has grown from 44% to 66% 1 and the subset considered clinically obese has more than doubled from 13% to 32% of the population 2 (Flegal et al. 2002; Ogden et al. 2006). Like smoking, obesity has soci as well as personal costs. The estimated healthcare cost in the U.S. associated with overweight and obesity is well over $100 billion al uch of society.3 (DHHS 2001;Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang 2003).Nearly half of this expense is borne by government healthcare programs (Medicaid and Medicare) while much of the remainder is met by health insurance premiums (Finkelstein et al. 2003). Because the cost is spread over all tax payers and insurance premium holders, obesity imposes negative externalities on mObesity is not unique to American consumers. For example in Canada, 59% of the population is overweight and 23% is obese (Tjepkema 2005). In England over the last 25 years, obesity has tripled (NHS 2005). Even France, long renowned for its thinness, has doubled its obesity levels in just a decade (Rosenthall 2005). According to the World Heath Organization (2003), an estimated one billion adults are overweight worldwide of whom 300 million are classified as clinically obese.Weight gain generally comes from an increase in consumption or a decrease in activity levels (exercise). 4 Despite the popular belief that exercise and activity levels have declined over the past several decades in the U.S., these levels have remained relatively flat (CDC 2001; CDC 2006a;Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003;Kruger, Ham, and Kohl 2005). On the other hand, the 2003). Americans are eating more and this increase in caloric consumption can be directly tied to the observed rise in obesity (Carangelo 1995;Cutler et al. 2003;Young and Nestle 2002).As might be expected the increase in consumption has paralleled an increase in portion sizes (Schwartz and Byrd-Bredbenner...

show abstract

Section: Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 79%

Using Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implications of Context Dependent Demand

Sharpe¹,

Staelin²,

Huber³

2008

J Consum Res

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More successful habit change strategies likely target the specific contextual triggers of habitual behavior. These include vigilant monitoring of the unwanted response (Quinn, Pascoe, Wood & Neal, 2010), environmental re-engineering (e.g., Verplanken & Wood, 2006), and stimulus control techniques to reduce exposure to the triggers (Sobal & Wansink, 2007).…”

Section: Discontinuity Between Habit Mechanisms and Self-perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life

Neal

Wood

Labrecque

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

360

249

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, interventions that alter subtle cues in eating situations have been shown to control eating habits. Sobal and Wansink (2007) demonstrated that the amounts of food and drink that people serve and consume decrease with smaller sizes of plates, spoons, and glasses. Smaller plates lead to lesser food intake, because people habitually consume around 92% of what they serve themselves (Wansink & van Ittersum, 2011), that is, habitual control of food intake is cued by the amount of food on a plate (Wansink & Cheney, 2005).…”

Section: Influencing Habitual Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action Change Theory: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective on Behavior Change

Vlaev

Dolan

2015

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional theories of behavior change rely mostly on influencing higher-order mental processes as a route to altering deliberate responses, whereas more recent theorizing postulates that interventions can also rely on using contextual cues influencing lower-order processes as a route to changing spontaneous responses. We propose an alternative mechanistic account based on reinforcement learning theory, which utilizes different action control systems in the brain. Therefore, this account works at a different level of analysis and description, which promises to lead to the development of a more general and integrative theory of behavior change. Reward systems generate specific affective states that influence behavior via 3 action controllers. Innate actions are stereotyped evolutionarily determined responses to stimuli. Habitual actions develop through stimulus-response learning without explicit outcome representations. Goal-directed actions are based on an explicit model of the structure of the environment, which utilizes computations of action-outcome contingencies. We describe how these mechanisms for action control parsimoniously explain behavior change theories and techniques.

show abstract

Kitchenscapes, Tablescapes, Platescapes, and Foodscapes

Cited by 217 publications

References 77 publications

Using Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implications of Context Dependent Demand

Using Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implications of Context Dependent Demand

How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life

Action Change Theory: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective on Behavior Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About