ARTICLE IN PRESS Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 www.elsevier.com/locate/appet Research Report Effects of social influence on eating in couples, friends and strangers Sarah-Jeanne Salvya,, Denise Jarrinb, Rocco Palucha, Numrah Irfanc, Patricia Plinerd a Department of Pediatrics, Division of Behavioral Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Farber Hall, Room G56, 3435 Main Street, Building #26, Buffalo, NY 14214-3000, USA b Concordia University, Montreal, Que., Canada c University of Guelph, Ont., Canada d University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Ont., Canada Received 11 September 2006; received in revised form 11 December 2006; accepted 15 December 2006 Abstract Previous research indicates that both males and females eat less in the presence of a stranger of the opposite sex than in the presence of a same sex. Another literature shows that people tend to model or matching the amount eaten by others. The extent to which people are eager to inhibit their food consumption or match other’s intake is likely to vary as a function of the characteristics of the co-eater. The present study examines how males and females adjust their level of eating as a function of their familiarity with and the gender of their eating companion, using a free-eating paradigm. Findings indicated that both the familiarity between co-eaters and the participants’ gender predicted food consumption. Although unfamiliarity suppressed both men’s and women’s food intakes, the matching effect operated only when a female co-eater was involved. We conclude that the overarching motive (i.e., producing a positive impression) does not necessarily vary substantially across the various gender-familiarity combinations, but that the means or strategies (eating lightly and or matching of intake) by which the person accomplishes it and the strength of the motive vary as a function of the audience. In other words, in some social contexts self-enhancing motives can be served by restricting intake as well as through ingratiatory strategies such as attitudinal or behavioral conformity. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Social influences; Eating; Free-eating paradigm; Impression management Introduction Food is obviously used to satisfy the body’s needs, but it can also serve a communicative function. What and how much you eat communicate more than your culinary preferences; it is a self-presentational statement. You are what you eat! Self-presentation, or impression management, involves regulating one’s own behavior to create a specific image for an audience (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Leary et al., 1994; Schlenker, 1975), and eating behavior may have utility for impression management (Bock & Kanarek, 1995; Mori, Chaiken, & Pliner, 1987; Pliner & Chaiken, 1990). Conveying a positive impression through Corresponding author. E-mail address: ssalvy@buffalo.edu (S.-J. Salvy). 0195-6663/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.12.004 eating can manifest itself in eating lightly and through eating conformity (i.e., matching or modeling the amount eaten by someone else). Studies on impression management through eating lightly show that some eating companions make people more eager to suppress their intake in order to convey a good impression (Mori et al., 1987; Pliner & Chaiken, 1990). These studies have looked at the amount of food people consumed when the characteristics of the eating companion were manipulated. Mori et al. (1987, Experiment 1) found that both male and female participants ate less in the presence of a desirable partner of the opposite sex than in the presence of a less desirable partner. In a second study, women whose feminine identity was threatened (i.e., because they scored ‘‘masculine’’ on a questionnaire) restricted their intake. Pliner and Chaiken (1990) ARTICLE IN PRESS S.-J. Salvy et al. / Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 replicated Mori et al.,’s (1987) findings and explored the reported social motives operating in interpersonal situations. They found that behaving in a socially desirable manner was an important motive for men, while being socially desirable and appearing feminine were important for women. Other research shows that women who eat minimally are viewed more positively than are women who eat a lot (Bock & Kanarek, 1995; Chaiken & Pliner, 1987). Further, it is widely assumed that people become overweight because of a lack of self-control around food (DeJong & Kleck, 1986; Puhl, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2005), and overweight people are stereotyped as lazy, selfindulgent, unattractive, lacking self-esteem, socially inept, uncooperative, and intellectually slow (Allon, 1982; DeJong, 1993; Harris, 1990; Hebl & Heatherton, 1998; Madey & Ondrus, 1999). Thus, individuals’ concern about eating too much in front of others and attempts to manage impressions by eating lightly are not totally misguided. The effect of modeling or matching effect on can be seen most clearly in studies using a conformity paradigm, in which a naı̈ve participant eats in the presence of a confederate whose level of eating is predetermined by the experimenter. These studies have consistently found that participants eat less in the presence of a confederate who eats minimally than in the presence of one who eats a large amount (Conger, Conger, Costanzo, Wright, & Matter, 1980; Goldman, Herman, & Polivy, 1991; Nisbett & Storms, 1974; Roth, Herman, Polivy, & Pliner, 2001; Herman, Roth, & Polivy, 2003). One explanation for these findings is that people believe that by conforming they will ingratiate themselves to others; behavioral similarity will lead others to like and accept them (e.g., Sunnafrank, 1991; Sunnafrank, Ramirez, & Metts, 2004). In the language of Jones and Pittman’s (1982) model of self-presentation, matching the intake of the eating companion would have a similar ingratiating function as attitude conformity. However, most studies on eating conformity have averaged the participants’ intake and compared these levels of eating to the consumption of experimental confederates who were eating predetermined amounts of food. A more appropriate test of the matching hypothesis would involve assessing the relationship between co-eaters’ intakes (i.e., correlational analysis). Most of the findings in the literatures on impression management and matching in eating are based on eating among strangers, so it is not known whether familiarity mediates or moderates these effects. From a self-presentational perspective, people should be more motivated to convey a good impression during their initial interactions with a stranger than with someone who they know well (Leary et al., 1994). This is consistent with findings indicating that individuals use different self-presentation strategies when conversing with different targets, relying on self-enhancement with strangers but shifting toward modesty with friends (Tice, Butler, Muraven, & Stillwell, 1995). The familiarity hypothesis is further reinforced by Clendenen, Herman, and Polivy’s (1994) finding that 93 people ate less dessert when eating with strangers than with friends, although there was no difference in entrée consumption (deli food) between friends and strangers. Presumably, strangers were more concerned with selfenhancement (i.e., appearing socially desirable or feminine) and limited their intake of ‘‘forbidden’’ dessert. Evidence for the familiarity hypothesis also comes from de Castro’s findings that social facilitation of eating (people eat more in the presence of others than when they eat alone) appears to be stronger when people eat in the presence of friends and family than when they eat with strangers (de Castro, 1990, 1994). The studies reviewed above indicate that people sometimes inhibit their food intake when eating with someone else (Mori et al., 1987; Pliner & Chaiken, 1990) and sometimes match their co-eater’s food consumption (Nisbett & Storms, 1974; Rosenthal & Marx, 1979; Rosenthal & McSweeney, 1979; Roth et al., 2001). Although, the evidence for impression management and matching (eating conformity) has come from separate literatures, we contend that it is possible for both processes to operate at the same time and to be studied simultaneously. The idea is that overarching motive (i.e., producing a positive impression) does not necessarily vary substantially, but that the means or strategies (eating lightly and or matching of intake) by which the person accomplishes it and the strength of the motive vary as a function of the audience. In some social contexts selfenhancing motives can be served by restricting intake while in others individuals may use ingratiatory strategies such as behavioral conformity (Jones & Pittman, 1982). The present study examines how males and females adjust their level of eating as a function of their familiarity with and the gender of their eating companion, using a free-eating paradigm. In previous matching studies, because the confederates’ intake was varied only at two levels, we can conclude only that participants’ eating is elevated when the confederate eats a lot compared to when the confederate eats only a little. We cannot determine how well the subjects are ‘‘tracking’’ the confederates’ intake. In contrast, the free-eating paradigm allows the formulation of predictions regarding not only the amount of food consumed by the two participants, but also the relationship between co-eaters’ food intake (i.e., matching effect). We contend that people strategically vary their level of eating with different audiences to fulfill a similar overarching motive of a positive self-presentation. Based on the impression management literature, we predicted that both males and females would eat less in the presence of a partner of the opposite sex than in the presence of a same sex co-eater (Mori et al., 1987; Pliner & Chaiken, 1990). However, we also predicted that the inhibiting effect of an opposite sex co-eater would be moderated by familiarity. Presumably, eating that takes place in the first stages of a relationship is in marked contrast with the eating that occur when partners are well acquainted with each other. Individuals interacting with well-known others are ARTICLE IN PRESS 94 S.-J. Salvy et al. / Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 generally assured of their affection and have less need to use strategic self-presentation to obtain their approval (Jellison & Gentry, 1978; Leary et al., 1994). Consistent with a self-presentational account of eating conformity, we predicted that individuals would match the amount eaten by their partner, resulting in a positive correlation between the amounts eaten by the two. We also predicted a stronger effect of matching among strangers than among acquainted co-eaters because of the greater importance of ingratiation when eating with a stranger than when eating with someone who knows one well (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Empirically this should translate into higher correlations between co-eaters’ intakes in dyads composed of strangers than in the corresponding acquainted dyads. Finally, we predicted that the more affiliative and supportive nature of women’s interpersonal interactions would promote greater eating conformity in dyads involving at least one female (i.e., greater relationship between co-eaters’ intake) (Eagly, 1978; Wood, Christensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997). Women may conform more than men, because they take greater responsibility for establishing and maintaining positive interpersonal bonds (Eagly, 1978, 1983, 1987), while men’s greater drive for independence and distinctiveness (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross & Madson, 1997) lends itself to non-conformity with regard to eating. Method Overview and design The design used in this experiment was a 2 3 factorial design with familiarity (familiar vs. strangers) and dyads’ gender composition (both females, both males, mixed) as between-subject factors. The design generated six experimental conditions: opposite-sex romantic partners, opposite-sex strangers, female friends, female strangers, male friends and male strangers. Under the pretext of a study on patterns of interaction among friends, couples and strangers, participants were asked to converse in dyads about a non-threatening topic (i.e., enjoyable activities) for ten minutes. With the rationale of making the situation more relaxed and similar to everyday-life conversations, participants were casually offered pre-weighed bowls of snack foods (cookies and crackers). The main variable of interest was the total amount of snack in grams consumed by participants. Participants Participants were 173 women and 137 men recruited through the psychology undergraduate subject pool, through an advertisement posted on a bulletin board devoted to the recruitment of paid participants in experiments, through word of mouth, or through direct approach by the experimenters in public places around the campus. Students recruited through the subject pool received a course credit for their participation; all other participants received a 10-$ compensation. At the time of recruitment, participants were told that the study assayed patterns of interaction among friends, couples and strangers and were informed that they would be conversing for 10 min with their romantic partner, a friend or a stranger, depending on the condition. All participants were asked to bring a friend or their romantic partner for the experimental session. The individuals accompanying the participants (friend, romantic partner) were also compensated (i.e., course credit if they were students and 10-$ compensation if they were not). On the day of the experiment, participants were randomly paired with their friend or partner or with a stranger. Dyads of strangers were composed of participants who were paired with the partner/friend of another participant who had come for the same session. At the time of recruitment, participants were told that food consumption could impact on moods and that for this reason they were required to abstain from eating 2 h before their experimental session. Adherence to this recommendation was assessed upon their arrival to the laboratory. Participants who did not comply with this requirement were rescheduled. All experimental sessions were conducted between 1000 and 1800 h. Table 1 displays the participants’ mean ages and weights across conditions. Female friends had known each other for an average of 2.96 years, male friends for 4.16 years and romantic partners for 2.75 years. Procedure After consent procedures, participants were instructed to discuss activities that they enjoyed doing with either their Table 1 Mean ages and body weights across conditions (SD) Unfamiliar Familiar Same sex Age Weight (lb) Opposite sex Same sex Opposite sex Female Male Female Male Age Weight Age Weight 19 (1.11) 132 (26.8) 20 (4.25) 158.6 (31.08) 19 (1.32) 128.44 (28.60) 19 (1.64) 159.29 (27.01) 19 (1.19) 132.27 (24.73) 19 (1.68) 162.11 (30.36) 20 (4.19) 122.13 (21.64) 21 (4.52) 170.12 (28.73) Note: Participants (males and females separately) did not differ in terms of body weight across conditions. ARTICLE IN PRESS S.-J. Salvy et al. / Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 friends or with their romantic partner depending on the person they had brought with them. For example, participants who came with their friends were asked to talk about activities they enjoyed doing with their friends. Eating was therefore ‘‘incidental’’ to what was described and the study did not involve working on a task, which might have influenced the amount participants eat (e.g., a forced tasting task). On the pretext of making the atmosphere more convivial, participants were casually offered bowls copiously filled with crackers and cookies. So that it would be possible to assess the intake of each participant independently, each received a separate set of bowls. They were casually told that they could eat as much or as little as they wanted while conversing. These pre-weighed bowls of snack foods were positioned so that participants had access only to their own bowls without being able to reach their partner’s bowls. Each participant had access to three small bowls of snacks (described below). Participants were sitting side by side at a table but their chairs were positioned to face each other. A tape recorder was placed on the table and participants were told that they would be left alone for the discussion but that their conversation would be recorded. Post-experiment interviews indicated that participants were naı̈ve to the real purpose of the experiment and were unaware that their snack consumption would be recorded. Since the purpose of the study did not involve analyzing the participants’ dialogues, the recorded conversations were erased after each session. Before leaving the room, the experimenter informed the participants that she would knock on the door at the end of the 10 min conversation period. After exactly 10 min, the experimenter returned to the experimental room and turned off the tape recorder. The participants were asked to end their conversation, the snacks were removed and participants were asked to complete a questionnaire package about their daily habits, behaviors, preferences and perceptions. Questionnaires were administered and height and weight measurements were obtained at the end of the session so that these measurements would not influence the eating data. Participants were then debriefed about the real purpose of the experiment, and the bowls of snacks of each participant were weighed on a Tanita electronic scaleTM to the nearest gram. Our dependent variable was the total amount of snack foods eaten by each participant during the discussion, as measured by the weight in grams. Food Two kinds of cookies and one type of crackers were used in this study. The cookies were Chips Ahoy Mini Chocolate Chip cookies and Oreo Sandwich Cookies Mini Bite Size, and the crackers were Ritz Bits Cracker Cheese Sandwiches. All three snacks were produced by Nabisco (East Hanover, NJ) and all had an average weight of 2 g per cookie/cracker and an average of 10 kcal (7.3 g) per 95 cookie/cracker. Cookies and crackers were stored in hermetically sealed bags. Uneaten snacks were discarded after each session. Each participant received pre-weighed bowls of cookies and crackers (150720 g of snacks per bowl). The amounts of food provided were intentionally large so that participants could eat as much as they wanted without finishing all the food provided. Results Data analysis In this study, we were interested in two aspects of participants’ food intake: (1) the average levels of food consumption and (2) the relationship between co-eaters’ food intakes. Before proceeding to the main analyses, we assessed whether there was any difference of body weight across conditions, given that such difference would impact on the results; there were not (p ¼ .28). We also compared female friends, male friends and couples in terms of how long the participants in these dyads had known each other. The results of the ANOVA revealed no significant difference across these conditions. Amount of food consumed When the observations are non-independent, it is necessary to treat the dyad rather than the individual as the unit of analysis (Kenny, 1995; Kenny & Judd, 1986). One participant’s intake is influenced by the partner’s intake and has to be considered in relation to other participant’s consumption. This mutual influence violates the assumption of independence between observations required for analysis of variance. Random-effects models (also called multilevel, hierarchical linear or mixed models) provide a useful approach to account for interdependence in two-person relationships (Gibbons & Hedeker, 1994; Hedeker & Gibbons, 1994; Hedeker, Gibbons, & Flay, 1994). These models make it possible to assess the effects due to the individual while controlling for the variance due to the other member of the dyad. This is determined by the covariances among the regression coefficients and can be characterized by a covariance function (Hedeker & Gibbons, 1996). The outcomes at the individual level are modeled taking into consideration the dependence of a participant’s data on the other individual’s data (Hedeker, 2003). Participants’ snack intakes were analyzed using SYSTAT Software (Systat, 2004). Based on our hypotheses, familiarity, partner’s gender, participant’s gender and interactions between these variables were entered as fixed effects into the models as predictors of participants’ snack intake. Fig. 1 illustrates participants’ mean snack consumption across conditions. A random regression analysis performed with consumption as the dependent variable revealed a main effect of familiarity, F(1, 153) ¼ 15.80, po.001, a main effect of participant gender F(1, 153) ¼ 11.53, ARTICLE IN PRESS 96 S.-J. Salvy et al. / Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 90 80 70 Snack Consumption (g) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Male Male Friends Strangers (n=36) (n=40) Female Female Friends Strangers (n=36) (n=76) Females Males Females Couples (n= 74) Males Strangers (n=48) Fig. 1. Mean snack consumptions and standard errors across conditions. po.001, and a familiarity by partner gender interaction, F(1, 153) ¼ 6.44, po.05. Differences of least square means indicated that male friends (M ¼ 70.14) ate more than male strangers (M ¼ 30.92), t(153) ¼ 3.73, po.001), female friends (M ¼ 31.16), t(153) ¼ 4.21, po.001), and female strangers (M ¼ 23.06), t(153) ¼ 4.36, po.001). Male friends also ate more than both males (M ¼ 30.83), t(153) ¼ 3.58, po.001) and females eating with an opposite sex stranger (M ¼ 16.92), t(153) ¼ 4.85, po.001) and more than males (M ¼ 43.87), t(153) ¼ 2.65, po.01) and females (M ¼ 44.08), t(153) ¼ 2.62, po.001) eating with their significant other. In other words, male friends ate more than all other participants. Females eating with their significant others ate more than females eating with female strangers, t(153) ¼ 2.12, po.05, and with male strangers, t(153) ¼ 2.68, po.01. The proportion of participants, who ate nothing, referred to as ‘‘non-eaters’’, in the couples group was 10%; whereas as in the opposite sex strangers condition, 30% ate nothing. In the friends conditions, non-eaters ranged from 1% to 10% for males and females friends, respectively. In the opposite-sex strangers group, 10% for males and 40% for the females did not eat. When the noneaters were removed from the analyses, the results were substantially the same. Relationship among co-eaters’ intakes The second question of interest was whether co-eaters’ familiarity and the dyads’ gender composition would moderate the intake matching reported in previous studies. Table 2 Correlation between partners’ intake by condition Familiarity Male dyads Female dyads Mixed dyads Familiar Unfamiliar .23a .18a .53**a .73**a .56**b .59*b * ¼ po.005; ** ¼ po.001. a Intraclass correlation. b Pearson correlation. The assessment of relationships between two measures via Pearson correlations applies only to situations where members of a dyad are distinguishable (i.e. one unequivocally belongs to the X group and the other unequivocally belongs to the Y group). When the designation of members of a pair is arbitrary (i.e., when there is no way to disentangle variability due to specific individual), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) provide accurate estimations of the magnitude of the relationships between variables (Griffin & Gonzalez, 1995; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). ICCs were calculated for undistinguishable dyads (i.e., same-sex dyads), while Pearson correlations coefficients were calculated for distinguishable dyads (i.e., opposite-sex dyads). ICCs for dyads are interpreted in the same fashion as Pearson correlations (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Therefore, intradyadic similarity was indexed by the Intraclass and Pearson correlation coefficients. The ICCs were measured with the SPSS 12.0 ‘‘reliability’’ procedure (SPSS, 2003), using a one-way random model (Howell, 2000). ARTICLE IN PRESS S.-J. Salvy et al. / Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 Table 2 displays the correlation coefficients between the co-eaters’ consumption. The relationships between the coeaters’ intakes were used as indexes of social influence. The degree of intake matching was high in all dyads with the exception of the relationships found in dyads composed of male strangers and male friends. All intradyadic correlations of intake were statistically significant with the exception of the ICCs in the two types of male-only dyads (male friends and male strangers). Comparison of all the ICCs generated indicated that the dyads composed of male strangers significantly differed from all the other dyads with the exception of the correlation of intake in pairs of male friends. Male friends’ matching of intake significantly differed from the ICC observed in dyads composed of female strangers (Z ¼ 2.78, po.01) and marginally differed from the correlation found in couples (Z ¼ 1.91, p ¼ .056). Discussion This study examined how males and females adjust their level of eating as a function of their familiarity with their co-eater and the dyads’ gender composition, using a freeeating paradigm. The two variables of interest were the amount of snack-food the participants ate and the degree of intake matching among eating companions. The results pertaining to the amount of food consumed indicated that both male and female participants who were eating with familiar co-eaters ate more than male and female participants eating in the presence of unfamiliar eating companions. However, these results were qualified by the gender of the partner. Females in the couple condition ate more than females in all other conditions, while male friends ate significantly more than the males in all other conditions. The effect of familiarity on food consumption is consistent with findings indicating that social facilitation of eating may be stronger among friends and relatives than among strangers and stronger among men than among women (de Castro, 1994). As expected, participants’ gender had an effect on the level of matching. The matching data indicated that the overall degree of intake relationship was high in all dyads involving at least one female. In contrast, the ICCs in dyads involving only males (i.e., male strangers and male friends) did not reach statistical significance. This is consistent with the studies on sex-related differences in social interactions and conformity described earlier (Boyatzis, Chazan, & Ting, 1993; Davis & Franzoi, 1991; DePaulo, Epstein, & Wyer, 1993; Exline, 1972) on which we based our prediction. These studies have found that women are more likely than men to consider their partner’s perspective in order to anticipate the partner’s needs and reactions and are better at adjusting to situational factors to foster affiliation (Pollak Levine & Feldman, 1997). Assuming that self-presentation through eating operates in the same way, females may have adjusted their level of intake to ingratiate themselves, appear likeable, or cement 97 a bond of acquaintance. In this view matching of eating would have the social function of fostering group cohesiveness and enhancing amicability. Conversely, men’s drive for distinctiveness (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross & Madson, 1997) may have lent itself to nonconformity with regard to eating. In other words, men might have monitored accurately how much their eating companions were eating, but used this information to distinguish or separate themselves from others rather than to foster similarity. Contrary to our hypothesis, the partners’ familiarity did not significantly influence matching. The matching of intake in dyads of strangers did not differ from the matching in dyads of acquainted co-eaters. Our failure to obtain a familiarity effect in the matching data is puzzling given that we did obtain a familiarity effect in amounts eaten. We are unable to explain this at the moment and can only suggest that it is possible that the depth of the relationship influences the amount of matching on eating. In this study, this variable was not assessed beyond examining the duration of the relationships between friends and between partners. Although these dyads did not differ significantly in terms of how long the partners had known each other, it is possible that differences in terms of the depth of the relationships moderate the effects of social influences on snack consumption and their intake matching. Since social conditions often act by increasing the amount of time at meals (de Castro, 1994; Pliner, Bell, Hirsch, & Kinchla, 2006), the restriction that the session was always 10 min long probably affected the results. This time limitation was useful for experimental control, but it limited the interpretation of the findings. Similarly, although there were significant differences in food intake as a function of familiarity and participant gender, the overall food intake was rather low (e.g. females eating with male strangers). The time constraint imposed on eating probably explains, at least partly, low food consumption. Future studies might benefit from using a similar paradigm to look at meal, rather than snack intake. Future research ought to explore the social motives accounting for differences between men and women with regard to matching of eating. Even if women are somewhat more willing to match others’ intake when it seems that conformity is useful to develop or cement a bond (Eagly, 1978), there might be a threshold that they are not ready to cross because their own personal values and desires conflict with their inclination to adapt to the situation. And further research should examine the moderating/mediating effects of depth and/or duration of relationship on the kinds of behaviors studied here. References Allon, N. (1982). The stigma of overweight in everyday life. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Psychological aspects of obesity: A handbook (pp. 130–174). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. ARTICLE IN PRESS 98 S.-J. Salvy et al. / Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44. Bock, B. C., & Kanarek, R. B. (1995). Women and men are what they eat: The effects of gender and reported meal size on perceived characteristics. Sex Roles, 33, 109–119. Boyatzis, C. J., Chazan, E., & Ting, C. Z. (1993). Preschool children’s decoding of facial emotions. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 375–382. Chaiken, S., & Pliner, P. (1987). Women, but not men, are what they eat: The effect of meal size and gender on perceived femininity and masculinity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 166–176. Clendenen, V. I., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1994). Social facilitation of eating among friends and strangers. Appetite, 23, 1–13. Conger, J. C., Conger, A. J., Costanzo, P. R., Wright, K. L., & Matter, J. A. (1980). The effect of social cues on the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects. Journal of Personality, 48, 258–271. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. L. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 70–87. de Castro, J. M. (1990). Social facilitation of duration and size but not rate of the spontaneous meal intake of humans. Physiology & Behavior, 47, 1129–1135. de Castro, J. M. (1994). Family and friends produce greater social facilitation of food intake than other companions. Physiology & Behavior, 56, 445–455. DeJong, W. (1993). Obesity as a characterological stigma: The issue of responsibility and judgements of task performance. Psychological Reports, 73, 963–970. DeJong, W., Kleck, R. E. (1986). The social psychological effects of overweight. In Paper presented at the physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior. The Ontario symposium, Hillsdale, NJ. DePaulo, B., Epstein, J., & Wyer, M. (1993). Sex differences in lying: How women and men deal with dilemma of deceit. In M. Lewis, & C. Saarni (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 126–147). New York, NY: Guilford. Eagly, A. H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85(1), 86–116. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation, Vol. xii. NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Exline, R.V. (1972). Visual interaction: The glances of power and preference. In Paper presented at the Nebraska symposium on motivation, Lincoln, NE. Gibbons, R. D., & Hedeker, D. (1994). Application of random-effects probit regression models. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 285–296. Goldman, S. J., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (1991). Is the effect of a social model on eating attenuated by hunger? Appetite, 17, 129–140. Griffin, D., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430–439. Harris, M. (1990). Is love seen as different for the obese? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1209–1224. Hebl, M. R., & Heatherton, T. F. (1998). The stigma of obesity in women: The difference is black and white. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 417–426. Hedeker, D. (2003). A mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression model. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1433–1446. Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (1994). A random-effects ordinal regression model for multilevel analysis. Biometrics, 50, 933–944. Hedeker, D., & Gibbons, R. D. (1996). MIXREG: A computer program for mixed-effects regression analysis with autocorrelated errors. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 49, 229–252. Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R. D., & Flay, B. R. (1994). Random-effects regression models for clustered data with an example from smoking prevention research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 757–765. Herman, C. P., Roth, D. A., & Polivy, J. (2003). Effects of the presence of others on food intake: A normative interpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 873–886. Howell, D. C. (2000, August 26). Intraclass correlation: For unordered pairs. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from /http://www.uvm.edu/dhowell/ StatPages/More_Stuff/icc/icc.html##Shrout&FleisS. Jellison, J. M., & Gentry, K. W. (1978). A self-presentation interpretation of the seeking of social approval. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 227–230. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, Vol. 1 (pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kenny, D. A. (1995). The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Personal Relationships, 2, 67–75. Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. A. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422–431. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York: Guilford Press. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47. Leary, M. R., Nezlek, J. B., Downs, D., Radford-Davenport, J., et al. (1994). Self-presentation in everyday interactions: Effects of target familiarity and gender composition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 664–673. Madey, S. F., & Ondrus, S. A. (1999). Illusory correlations in perceptions of obese and hypertensive patients’ noncooperative behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(6), 1200–1217. Mori, D., Chaiken, S., & Pliner, P. (1987). ‘‘Eating lightly’’ and the selfpresentation of femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 693–702. Nisbett, R. E., & Storms, M. D. (1974). Cognitive and social determinants of food intake. In H. London, & R. E. Nisbett (Eds.), Thought and feeling: Cognitive alternation of feeling states (pp. 190–208). Chicago: Aldine. Pliner, P., Bell, R., Hirsch, E. S., & Kinchla, M. (2006). Meal duration mediates the effect of ‘‘social facilitation’’ on eating in humans. Appetite, 46, 189–198. Pliner, P., & Chaiken, S. (1990). Eating, social motives, and selfpresentation in women and men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 240–254. Pollak Levine, S., & Feldman, R. S. (1997). Self-presentational goals, selfmonitoring, and nonverbal behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 505–518. Puhl, R. M., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2005). Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypes about obese people: A new approach for reducing bias. Health Psychology, 24, 517–525. Rosenthal, B., & Marx, R. D. (1979). Modeling influences on the eating behavior of successful and unsuccessful dieters and untreated normal weight individuals. Addictive Behaviors, 4, 215–221. Rosenthal, B., & McSweeney, F. K. (1979). Modeling influences on eating behavior. Addictive Behaviors, 4, 205–214. Roth, D. A., Herman, C. P., Polivy, J., & Pliner, P. (2001). Selfpresentational conflict in social eating situations: A normative perspective. Appetite, 36, 165–171. Schlenker, B. R. (1975). Self-presentation: Managing the impression of consistency when reality interferes with self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 1030–1037. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 420–428. SPSS. (2003). SPSS base 12.0.1 for Windows (Version 12.0.1.). Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. ARTICLE IN PRESS S.-J. Salvy et al. / Appetite 49 (2007) 92–99 Sunnafrank, M. (1991). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity: A communication-based assessment. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook, Vol. xiv (pp. 451–497). CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. Sunnafrank, M., Ramirez, A., Jr., & Metts, S. (2004). At first sight: Persistent relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 361–379. Systat. (2004). SYSTAT Software (Version 110). Richmond, CA: SYSTAT Software, Inc. 99 Tice, D. M., Butler, J. L., Muraven, M. B., & Stillwell, A. M. (1995). When modesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation to friends and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1120–1138. Wood, W., Christensen, P., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535.
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersYou can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users(For complaints, use another form )