Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice

REVIEW ARTICLE

Effect of Ambience on Food Intake and Food Choice Nanette Stroebele, MA, and John M. De Castro, PhD From the Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Eating takes place in a context of environmental stimuli known as ambience. Various external factors such as social and physical surroundings, including the presence of other people and sound, temperature, smell, color, time, and distraction affect food intake and food choice. Food variables such as the temperature, smell, and color of the food also influence food intake and choice differently. However, the influence of ambience on nutritional health is not fully understood. This review summarizes the research on ambient influences on food intake and food choice. The literature suggests that there are major influences of ambience on eating behavior and that the magnitude of the effect of ambience may be underestimated. Changes in intake can be detected with different levels of the number of people present, food accessibility, eating locations, food color, ambient temperatures and lighting, and temperature of foods, smell of food, time of consumption, and ambient sounds. It is suggested that the manipulation of these ambient factors as a whole or individually may be used therapeutically to alter food intake and that more attention needs to be paid to ambience in nutrition-related research. Nutrition 2004;20:821– 838. ©Elsevier Inc. 2004 KEY WORDS: food intake, food choice, humans, ambient factors

INTRODUCTION People’s eating behavior has a decisive effect on health. Obesity, for instance, is one of today’s most visible public health problems. It is a significant risk factor for serious diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, hypertension and stroke, diabetes mellitus, and various forms of cancer. In developed countries, the global prevalence of obesity was 20.4% among adults in 2000.1 In addition, the development of nutrition-related chronic diseases, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, appears to have increased in children and adolescents.2–5 It is widely recognized that a lack of physical activity without a commensurate decrease in food intake is the primary reason for recent increasing rates of obesity. However, why intake has not decreased to match the decreased expenditure is not understood. It is possible that environmental factors such as where, when, and with whom food consumption takes place might be, at least in part, responsible. Environmental factors such as the presence of other people, time of consumption, smell, colors, or physical setting might influence food intake and food choice, resulting in a lack of appropriate adaptations in intake. As Meiselman argued, there is a sufficient amount of research investigating sensory and internal physiologic mechanisms in control of food intake, but the possibility of other situational and social factors has been largely ignored.6,7 In consumer research, the study of the atmospherics surrounding the consumer-related place is well established. The term ambience is used most often in customer and marketing service research examining store atmospherics.8 It seems that the ambience of the location is sometimes more important than the product.9 Also, the individual’s expectations about the product can be as important as the product.10 Systematic exposure to a particular ambience is used to influence consumers’ and buyers’ purchasing

Correspondence to: Nanette Stroebele, MA, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, MSC 2A1155, 33 Gilmer Street SE, Unit 2, Atlanta, GA 30303-3082, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Nutrition 20:821– 838, 2004 ©Elsevier Inc., 2004. Printed in the United States. All rights reserved.

behavior. One way of describing ambience is that it consists of “parts of the environment that are hard to localize and that surround the organism integrally like temperature, sound, smell and so on” with “potential for impinging upon human functioning at nearly all levels—physiology, motivation, mood, behavior, cognition and social interaction.”11,12 In addition, ambience, described as the atmosphere of the environment, can serve as an effectcreating medium and a surrounding influence. The main sensory channels affected by the environment are visual, auditory, olfactory, and textual. Colors, sounds, smell, and textures in the environment may directly arouse visceral reactions that contribute favorably to eating behavior. The conceptualization of ambience includes not only environmental stimuli but also food-related sensory stimuli. Both factors are considered as ambient factors with a direct effect on food intake. Various components of ambience can trigger sensations in the consumer that might increase or decrease food intake; in other words, these situational and sensory factors might help convert behavioral intentions into actual eating behavior. Hence, the review examines environmental factors including social variables, general surroundings, color and lighting, and ambient temperature and variables such as color, temperature, and odor of the food that are associated with the immediate environment of eating. The term ambience as used in this review connotes the external conditions present as opposed to internal stimuli such as hunger, physiologic states, and psychological thoughts or moods. We are aware of more societal factors influencing food intake such as the media and advertisement, cultural norms, distribution system, and food supply. But the consumer is mainly exposed to these variables well before consumption occurs. This review is limited to the immediate context of eating. For a review including food supply, food advertising, and food pricing see French et al.2 We review the effects of external stimuli such as social variables, the room setting, color, light, sound, smell, temperature, and time-related factors on food intake and food choice because the two are inexorably intertwined. Eating behavior is mostly studied in controlled laboratory settings or in the natural environment with self-report surveys. It is studied by specialists in a large number of disciplines, including 0899-9007/04/$30.00 doi:10.1016/j.nut.2004.05.012

822

Stroebele and De Castro

psychology, sociology, physiology, medicine, neuroscience, nutritional science, architecture, marketing, and biochemistry. We concentrate on human behavior, although we are aware of the extensive research with non-human animals. Observations of humans eating in laboratories are very useful but often not indicative of real-world eating behavior.13 Hence, the current review presents laboratory and real-world studies with experimental and epidemiologic data. Further, this review focuses on the behavior observed in Western culture (European and North American populations) because most studies have been performed within Western society. However, it should be pointed out that observations of Asian culture have indicated the importance of cultural background on ambience-related food intake. The presentation of dishes, coordination of colors, and room arrangements, i.e., Feng Shui, a Chinese lifestyle enhancement through creating a harmonic environment by placing and arranging objects, are essential parts of daily eating behavior in Asia. The reviewed studies employ a broad range of methodologies, including laboratory experiments, field experiments, survey methods, diet diaries, observations, and intervention studies (the Appendix summarizes the studies and their methodologies). Observational research approaches have the advantage of viewing reallife eating behavior but may have difficulties with reliability and validity. Inter-rater reliabilities have been established in only a few studies.14 –16 In addition, some observational studies, to leave the individual undisturbed, have calculated the subject’s food intake by guessing based on cursory observation or photographs.14,17,18 The accuracy of the real-meal size measurement is questionable. Other observational approaches have used surveys. Social modeling effects and television viewing habits, especially when examining children’s food intake, are based mostly on parents’ reports19,20 or retrospective questionnaires filled out by teenagers.21,22 It is impossible to ascertain the accuracy of these data. It can be affected by memory lapses and the parents may not be observing all of the actual behavior of their children. In addition, most observational and survey studies are correlational in nature and as a result do not allow for causal interpretations. Causation can be explored in field experiments in which the setting and different components of food intake are varied and compared within certain settings.23,24 Many of these field experiments were carried out in institutional settings, such as military facilities and student cafeterias.25–30 Both appear to be chosen for their easy access and availability. School and military cafeterias offer a good opportunity to observe food intake in a situation where it is relatively easy to manipulate factors such as food accessibility and presentation. But the results of research using these settings and samples might not be generalizable to real-world behavior in the general population. Laboratory studies afford another opportunity to explore causation because in highly controlled settings each influential factor’s impact can be assessed separately. With observational and field experiment approaches, it is very difficult to isolate each ambient factor from the overall ambience of the environment. However, laboratory research examines mainly students31–33 whose behavior may not be representative of the population. Moreover, laboratory studies,31,33–35 due to reactivity, can produce behavior that does not reflect the usual behavior that people demonstrate outside the experimental setting. The diet diary approach requires a detailed self-report of participants’ food intake in their normal everyday environments.36,37 This has the advantage of relative ease in collecting large quantities of detailed data about real-world influences on intake. However, this procedure almost always underestimates actual food intake as a result of reactivity and under-reporting. It is possible to take underestimation into consideration when analyzing obtained data by employing within-subject analyses.38 The underestimation can become problematic when comparing between subjects or groups and when accurate estimates of the absolute levels of intake are required. In addition, the analyses using diet diaries are corre-

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 lational in nature and causation cannot be established. It is also important to consider that many of the measurements involve subjective rating on the part of the participants. There are most often no objective measures available to verify the reports. For instance, the lighting or temperature in a certain situation might be bright and cold but the subject does not perceive it that way. Although each of these approaches has weaknesses, the flaw in one type of research is often a strength in another. Hence, the application of multiple approaches to understanding the influence of an ambient factor is optimum. If different methodologic approaches produce similar results, then it is likely that the results are not artifactual but may be considered as reliable findings that may have future health implications.

AMBIENCE EFFECTS ON FOOD INTAKE Social Variables SOCIAL FACILITATION. The presence of other people during food consumption can have a profound effect on intake; this effect is called social facilitation. Klesges et al. demonstrated that men and women eat more when they are with others than when eating alone.39 Observations of people in restaurants and coffee shops showed a positive relation between meal duration and group size.17,40,41 Social facilitation of spontaneous meal size was mediated by meal duration in all three studies. De Castro presented an extended overview about the effect of social facilitation, the influence of heredity, and theoretical explanations.42 In the laboratory, students were observed to eat more ice cream when eating took place in groups than when eating alone.31 Another experimental study showed that meals eaten by a group of participants were rated higher in palatability than meals eaten alone, but no significant increase in meal size was detected.34 Investigations of the daily eating habits of people in natural environments demonstrated large and orderly effects of the presence of other people at meals for all age groups. The more people present, the greater the quantity of food consumed, with a caloric increase of 76% with seven or more people.36,37,42 Meal portions eaten with others were 44% larger on average and also contained more carbohydrates, fat, protein, and total calories. In addition, the participants ate more relative to the time since their last meal and did not wait as long relative to the size of the meal than with meals eaten alone. Social factors not only increased the amounts eaten but also disrupted postprandial regulation. Similar results were observed for all meal occasions: breakfast, lunch, and dinner.43 Even having a delivery person stay with elderly people who were participating in a home-delivery program significantly increased food intake of the elderly.44 Social facilitation appeared to take place regardless of time of day, place, or whether the participants ate a meal or a snack. Social facilitation also influences weekday versus weekend consumption. Weekends and holidays usually involve eating with more people.37,42 Social facilitation also seems to influence people’s drinking behavior.45 It appears that meals accompanied by alcohol intake produce an even larger social facilitation effect.43 The Mass Observation team, a social research organization in England, observed that people in groups drink larger quantities than people drinking alone.46 They postulated that social pressure on a person in a group was responsible. Sommer observed that group drinkers, on average, spent twice as long in a pub as isolated drinkers.45 When time was taken into account, no differences were found between alcohol consumption and number of people present. However, a meta-analytic review showed modeling to have a significant effect on alcohol amount consumed.47 In general, alcohol consumption is directly related to the length of time in the drinking location, which seems to be related to the attractiveness or pleasantness of the location.41

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 SOCIAL MODELING. The social relationship between the people consuming a meal tends to influence consumption. Younger children pay more attention to the eating habits and consumption of their parents and their family in general, whereas teenagers mostly adopt the eating habits of their peers.48 –50 It is especially during school times that teenagers are influenced in their foodrelated opinion and behavior by their peers.48 But more recent research observed a stronger relation between the family’s and the adolescent’s eating behavior than between the adolescent’s and their peers’ eating behavior.21 Family appears to have a major influence on adolescents’ eating behavior by affecting food attitudes, preferences, and values that affect intake. Data about the association of family dinners and adolescents’ food and nutrient intake showed a relation between dietary quality with more fruits and vegetables, lower consumption of fatty and fried foods, and frequency of eating dinner with the family.21,22 It is important to note that the family meal has wide ranging effects on the children. Frequently eating together with the family improved children’s healthy eating patterns and school performance significantly.19,20 Further, it was shown that if the husband/father attended the meal with his family, the food choice and the ambience changed significantly.51,52 The food intake changed, with more meat being served, and the family seemed to put a greater emphasis on table manners and a pleasant eating environment. Conversely, negative comments of parents at the dining table led to less food consumption by their children.53,54 In another study, arguments concerning eating behavior during dinner appeared to be associated with greater consumption of fat.55 The nature of the eater’s companions appears to influence intake. Meals eaten with friends or family members were larger than meals eaten with strangers, alone, or with coworkers.32 Different studies reported that meals eaten with family and spouse are larger and eaten faster, whereas meals eaten with friends are of longer duration.56 Significant changes in eating also seem to occur when couples began to live together.57 Meals on weekday evenings seemed to become more regular and substantial, whereas, before moving in together, the participants reported eating more snacks in the evenings. In addition, food choice and with it food intake appeared to become strongly affected by the partner’s likes and dislikes. The behavioral attributes of eating companions can affect intake. Not only do family and friends appear to affect people’s eating behavior, but so do other eating companions. Kramer et al. studied social influences on food intake in military settings.25 Negative comments about the food by the soldiers’ supervisor during consumption decreased the soldiers’ food intake significantly. In addition, how well or little known the companion at the meal is appeared to play a role in people’s eating behavior.58 The investigator hypothesized that the better known the companion, the greater the relaxation and, thus, the greater the facilitation of intake. In addition, the amount eaten by a companion can affect intake. The presence of a social model who drank a lot of water increased the water consumption of the participants.26 In another experiment, the eating behavior of college students depended on that of their fellow students,33 and participants in a experimental study ate significantly fewer cookies in the presence of a noneating observer.35 The number of sandwich quarters consumed by the participants varied as a function of the fellow student’s sandwich consumption. Increased sandwich consumption was observed when the fellow student increased his or her amount of intake. These findings suggest that there are direct behavioral modeling effects on food intake when people adapt their intake to the eating behavior of their companions. Even hunger does not seem to have a modulating effect.59 Independent of the participants’ levels of food deprivation, they showed conformity with the model’s food consumption.

Ambience and Food Intake

823

Another social variable that seems to have an effect on intake is the companion’s attractiveness. Eating with a partner considered attractive by the opposite sex decreased the amount eaten, especially by female subjects.60 The effect applied only to partners of the opposite sex. One of the explanations for these results was social desirability, where it is considered more feminine for women to eat only a small portion.

Summary. In summary, there seems to be reasonable evidence to conclude that the number and relationship of the people present at a meal influence the amount of food consumed. In general, the more people present, the more food will be eaten. Also, the better known the people present, the greater the facilitation of intake. Family and friends may produce relaxation and thereby increase meal duration. This suggests a possible explanation for the general influence of the social relationship on intake. People in general are more relaxed and comfortable with familiar people than with strangers. This causes them to stay longer at the table and continue to eat, which leads to a higher level of food intake. It is also possible that a relaxing ambience might diminish the awareness of the amount consumed, whereas a tense situation might increase people’s self-awareness. Reduction in intake seems to occur when tension increases, as with an attractive opposite-sex companion. Attractive companions, supervisors, or other unfamiliar or important people may induce a tense emotional tone, so food intake decreases. If nervous or tense, the individual might leave the eating situation after a shorter period, which leads to a smaller meal. Alternatively, the high self-awareness could lead to a greater self-monitoring of food intake. Aside from changes in food intake, it appears that people may adapt and model the eating behavior of their companion when it seems to be desirable to make a positive impression on that companion, such as a supervisor. These findings have health implications. Because recent epidemiologic data have reported increasing incidences of pediatric obesity,3,61 nutritional interventions should focus on educating family members about the social effect on their children’s food intake. Not only what is served at home but also the communication style appeared to influence the children’s food intake.53,54 The investigators did not suggest that eating alone should be used as an approach to decrease food intake in children due to the importance of the social interactions during meals but might be applied by the adult obese who might find that eating alone is useful for decreasing food intake successfully. However, modeling responsible levels of intake may be effective. In addition, increasing overweight people’s awareness during meal consumption might affect their food intake. Research has associated increasing awareness with a decrease in food intake.62 In contrast, promoting eating together for people, such as those elderly who have weight loss and anorectic symptoms, may be a useful approach to improving health. Physical Surroundings The physical surroundings while eating are important variables. Restaurant designers, architects, and marketing personnel are well aware of the power of the environment on people’s behavior and eating behavior in particular.9 The literature on environmental influences on people’s food intake, including the effect of foodexternal stimuli such as eating location with its odor, temperature, color, or lighting variations are reviewed. In addition, food-related components of the ambience, such as odor, temperature, and color of the food, are reviewed. TYPE OF FOOD PRESENTATION AND LOCATION. The presentation of food cues seems to influence consumption. Participants in an experimental study by Marcelino et al. were asked to rate their subjective hunger, their appetite for pizza, and their

824

Stroebele and De Castro

desire to eat a slice of pizza.63 First, participants rated their momentary subjective hunger and general appetite for pizza before being exposed to the pizza. Second, during the presentation of the pizza, the subjects rated their desire and appetite to eat a slice. Third, the subjects could choose to eat a slice. The higher people rated their appetite for pizza, the greater was the probability that they would eat a slice. Interestingly, 14% of the participants who had declared no appetite for pizza ate a slice of pizza at the end of the experiment. Participants also indicated a greater desire to eat pizza after being visually exposed to it. A stronger effect of visual exposure on the increase of appetite was observed in women than in men. The sight of food in healthy individuals increased reported hunger.64,65 In association with the presentation of food, physiologic responses such as salivation can be observed even when the individual is not hungry.66 Overweight subjects showed enhanced secretion of insulin in response to the presentation of a steak being grilled.67 The sight of food enhanced the desire to eat, independent of energy depletion. Further, there seems to be physiologic evidence that just the sight and the smell of food can influence the brain’s activity. The mere presentation of food can cause a significant increase in the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is associated with feelings of pleasure and reward.68 The release of dopamine in the dorsal striatum was correlated with self-reports of hunger and the desire for food. Although all of these studies have been conducted in experimental settings, it seems reasonable to assume that the sight of food increases the desire to eat and is accompanied by physiologic responses to food exposure. In “real-world” situations, it might lead to food intake independent of the individual’s hunger state. The accessibility of food in the immediate eating environment influences intake. The availability of a table and cutlery in a dining room increased the caloric intake of soldiers in comparison with those eating in the field,69 whereas decreasing accessibility of food decreased consumption.25,70 Further, Engell et al. demonstrated that subjects drink significantly more water when it is on the table than when it is farther away.26 A similar experimental study confirmed the results of increased water consumption when a water pitcher was located on the table instead of within the dining area or across the hall.71 Meyers et al. observed people’s eating behavior at a hospital cafeteria and found that the accessibility of dessert affected the likelihood of selecting low-calorie desserts and the likelihood of selecting any dessert.16 Interestingly, this effect was not significant when high-calorie desserts were made more or less accessible. Further, a significant overall increase in ice cream consumption occurred when the lid of the ice cream cooler was taken off than when it was left on.16 The same results were obtained when examining students’ milk consumption in a school cafeteria.18 Milk consumption depended on the position of the milk machine in the dining facility. Participants chose milk more often as a beverage when the machine was moved closer to the beverage service area. Physical availability, such as the accessibility to the locations or availability at home, also appears to influence beverage consumption. The rare literature about food availability and adolescents’ eating behavior indicated that the availability and accessibility of fruits and vegetables at home is significantly positively associated with adolescents’ fruit and vegetable consumption.50 As for the physical availability of alcohol (the number of restaurants close by), greater alcohol consumption and drinking frequency were observed when restaurants were located closer to people’s homes.72 Thus, the longer the distance to the food or beverage location, the fewer food and drinks people consumed. The presentation of different portions can markedly affect intake. Portion seems to increase food intake significantly.73 General food product portions have increased by about 50% since the 1960s and 1970s.74 A study by the US Department of Agriculture acknowledged the fact that Americans in comparison with people of other countries serve larger meal portions.75 The effect appears

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 to be particularly significant for consumption outside the home.76 For example, portions sold by fast-food restaurants are often two to five times larger than the defined standard serving size.76 In an experimental study, portion size in a student cafeteria was manipulated by serving larger or smaller lunch portions on several different days.77 The results showed that, on days with larger portions, substantially more was eaten. The effect of portion size was considerably larger than the stimulating effect of variety in flavor on intake. The portion size effect appears to interact with variety effects. Rolls et al. also observed participants in a laboratory setting and discovered that they consumed 30% (160 kcal) more when served the largest portion (5 versus 2 cups of macaroniand-cheese lunches) than when served the smallest portion.78 Interestingly, the fullness ratings did not differ across meal sizes, and the results seemed to be independent of serving method (already on the plate or in a serving dish). Using larger popcorn containers at a movie theater also encouraged people to eat more popcorn than using smaller containers.79 However, the consumers tended to perceive the popcorn in the small containers as healthier than the popcorn in the large containers. Packaging can even affect the rate of intake. Beer bottles with a larger opening produced faster drinking than did bottles with smaller openings.80 In general, large packages and portions appear to stimulate greater usage volume than do small packages; this seems to be the case for all products and food items and for all eating situations.80Usually, people spend or use more if they have more of the product.80 This appears to apply also for food. Physiologic signs of fullness might be ignored when larger portions offer the possibility to consume more of the desired food. Complex physical surroundings can affect people’s food intake and food choices. In different eating environments, food consumption can differ. Larger food intake occurred in traditional restaurants and fast-food restaurants in comparison with participants’ homes or other locations37,81– 83 Also, there is evidence for larger energy intake in fast-food than in traditional restaurants.39 The frequency of visits to fast-food restaurants appeared to be associated not only with larger total energy intake (and more frequent consumption of high-fat food such as hamburgers and French fries in addition to sodas) but also with a decrease in physical activity, an increase in body weight, and more television viewing.84,85 Subjects consuming restaurant food more often were found to have larger total daily intakes of energy and fat.86 Location also appears to affect meal duration. Meals consumed at restaurants are generally of longer duration and have larger portions and more variety than meals at home.43,87 Meiselman et al. extensively investigated the influence of the eating environment on food choice and perceived food quality.23,88 –90 The relation between physical surroundings and various other factors, such as appropriateness of certain food types, influencing food choice and preference seem to have been investigated more often than the relation between ambience and food intake.70,88,90,91 One study examined spatial associations of certain foods with certain locations.91 Participants were asked to select food items appropriate for different eating occasions such as lunch or dinner and for physical locations such as kitchen, office, or restaurant. The results showed that eating occasion and location influenced food choice. Location appeared to be more influential in choosing food for lunch, compared with other eating occasions such as snacking. The meal selection depended on the location and on cultural background. Certain foods were considered more or less appropriate depending on the location and the culture the participants were from. For instance, snacks seemed to be mostly selected in physically constrained eating locations such as cars or office desks. Particular products appeared to be associated with certain situations; participants chose chocolate as appropriate in the car and sandwiches as appropriate at the office desk or in an airplane.90 With regard to perceived food quality, it seems that the same food served in different places results in different food quality

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 ratings. In one study, meals similar in color, flavor, and texture were rated higher when served in restaurants than in the student cafeteria, with meal ratings in the laboratory being between those two ratings.23 In addition, comparing military with other institutional foods (e.g., in school cafeterias or hospitals) showed that expectations and attitudes of the consumers toward institutional food depended on the variety, the food presentation, and the physical dining setting.27,68,92,93 Institutions such as hospitals that are supposed to promote recovery were ranked the lowest. Soldiers and civilian consumers rated among other variables the quality of food service, food presentation, and dining setting when comparing institutional with other food service settings. Low quality ratings were reported for food presentation, food variety, and physical setting for the institutional food services. Institutional food services are usually equipped sparsely, although the lack of tablecloths, silverware, and attractive food presentation (above others) may be major contributors to consumers’ negative perceptions and attitudes toward institutional foods. Comparing people’s impressions of restaurant design types suggests that people’s cognitive schemata toward food importantly affect behavior and attitudes.94 Photographs of different restaurant facades were shown to students. It was found that common cognitive representations influenced the ratings of costs, food quality, and ambience. For example, pictures of expensive dinner restaurants were characterized by adjectives such as delicious, elegant, comfortable, and relaxing. In physical description ratings, subjects clearly differentiated the appearance of different restaurant types. Elaborated designs were more associated with expensive dinner restaurants than with “sandwich shops,” whereas sandwich shops evoked more simple design associations.94 There seems to be a strong influence of cognitive schemata not only when entering a restaurant but also when imagining going out for dinner that influence people’s perception and expectations regarding their eating environment. Studies that manipulate the ambience of the eating environment are scarce, but nevertheless demonstrate that ambience strongly influences eating habits. Bell et al. changed the ambience of a restaurant by creating a typical Italian atmosphere with red-andwhite checked tablecloths, the Italian flag, Italian menus, and other Mediterranean symbols or by keeping the usual restaurant design.24 The menu was the same for the two settings, but for the Italian setting the menu was written in Italian. Under the “Italian condition,” all meals were rated as more Italian. The customers also consumed more dessert in the Italian ambience. Another example of the effect of a changed eating environment on consumption is the unpublished study by Bell and Kramer.88 A college dining room was manipulated by hanging up posters that provided information about healthy food and presented fitness equipment. Results demonstrated that the students ate more healthily by adding more fruits and vegetables but less meat to their diet.

Summary. There are individual aspects of the eating locations that influence people’s food intake. Visual exposure to food appears to increase intake, possibly by increasing hunger or other psychological factors. The research indicates that accessibility and availability increase food intake. Convenience is a growing tendency in Western society.95 Making healthy food easier to access might support healthier food choices.96 Even small changes such as providing water pitchers on tables, which increased fluid intake, are modifications easy to establish. Interventions could also decrease portion sizes. Larger portions increase food intake; if less is offered, then less will be consumed. Complex physical surroundings can also influence people’s food intake. Out-of-home consumption is associated with a larger caloric intake in comparison with eating at home. Obviously, to restrain intake, eating at home should be encouraged. Unfortu-

Ambience and Food Intake

825

nately, more than half of out-of-home eating occasions of adolescents occur at school, followed by fast-food restaurants.50 More indirect is food intake influenced by people’s food choice and their perception of the food quality in relation to the eating location. School cafeteria food, hospital food, and restaurant food are perceived as different in quality. Food quality is affected by people’s expectations about the eating location. Through prior experience, economic considerations, or pre-existing attitudes, ratings of food liking change in the direction of expected liking.97,98 In other words, food choice depends to a great extent on expectations. Eating locations, in particular, create different hedonic and sensory expectations and change food choice accordingly. It is important to note that food location might change food intake less than the consumer’s expectation about food quality and food cost at the food location.23 Hence, for food intake at some locations, it might be useful to alter people’s perceptions and expectations rather than to try to change directly the food offered. Changing people’s opinion is difficult, but repeated exposure appears to be a useful intervention technique.99 For example, signs of the origin of the offered food and beverages (Tropicana orange juice) might help increase people’s perception of quality in institutions such as hospitals or military cafeterias, where food and fluid intake is essential for maintaining people’s health. In addition, high-fat and high-sugar snacks are preferred over fruit and vegetable snacks, but price reduction of the latter increases their purchase.100,101 How changes in meal environments can affect eating behavior and well-being was demonstrated by Elmstahl et al. who examined hospital nutrition in a geriatric long-term care ward.102 Instead of a typical clinical dining room, they rearranged the meal environment into a dining-room environment similar to that of the 1940s. By creating a more comfortable ambience with paintings, carpets, and chinaware, for example, an increased caloric intake was observed. A change in mealtime routine at another geriatric ward, including more time to eat and a more pleasant ambiance, increased the frequency of communication between the patients and their general activity. Their eating behavior also improved, as seen by the use of napkins and other table manners.103 In a somewhat similar study, an improved ambience of food consumption resulted in significant weight increase and health stabilization of nursing home residents.104 Hospital nutrition and food consumption in other health-related facilities apparently differ from the usual “free-living” eating environment. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that imitating the free-living and more comfortable eating environment significantly improves patients’ nutritional status. This might be important to examine further when looking for ways to improve people’s health and living. This applies especially for elderly people and people with health problems. Altering the environments occupied by children and adolescents offers an opportunity to positively influence eating behavior patterns that could be sustained throughout life. Schools that offer easy access to foods and beverages should transform this environment to promote and reinforce healthy eating. Unfortunately, most school systems have economic ties with vending machine and soft drink companies,105,106 which could impede such a transformation. However, many interventions to change the food environment at schools have been promising,107–109 and dietary behavior changes appear to be maintained over time.110,111 For a detailed review about adolescent nutritional interventions, see Hoelscher et al.112 An increase in availability and accessibility of healthy foods at school is just one possible intervention. Because the examination of the complex physical surroundings as a whole and the simple variability in food presentation appear to affect food intake, the question arises as to whether subtle differences in specific external and food stimuli can influence people’s food intake in a particular way. The literature on variation, in particular external stimuli and the ability to produce systematic changes in food intake and food choice due to variations in external and food stimuli, is reviewed.

826

Stroebele and De Castro

COLORS. Color can be a food-internal or a food-external stimulus. The latter refers to the colors in the environment. Colors are one of the most powerful marketing tools used in today’s advertising industry.9 They seem to have an effect on not only mood but also biological processes such as increasing blood pressure or producing heat, hunger, or thirst.113 Color can produce autonomic biological reactions, create certain emotional responses, and direct attention. Retailers have traditionally used color to project an image or to create a desired atmosphere. Warm colors tend to be physically stimulating, whereas cool colors seem to be more relaxing.114 For instance, the color red seems to arouse and activate people by influencing the autonomic nervous system and certain brain areas.115 Infants react physiologically and psychologically to colors.116 Muscular activity and the activity of mental processes seemed to be influenced by color.116 Orange and yellow light appear to increase muscular activity. Greater motor activity and higher positive mood in a pink-colored room in comparison with bluecolored room were observed in preschool children.93 The investigators suggested the pink room as a factor for the increase of general arousal in children. Yellow-painted rooms appeared to be “softly exciting” and “blue tends to produce a grave mood.”116 Scott went as far as to postulate that “the presence of an undesired, distasteful or offensive color may change the child’s mood and disposition from contentment to discontentment, from happiness to misery, all of which affects its nutrition.”116 Room colors also affect sensation. The sensation of hot and cold temperatures changes according to room color. At approximately 15°C (⬃59°F), subjects sensed cold in a room painted blue-green but sensed cold in a room painted orange only when the temperature was approximately 2°C (⬃35°F).113 A study on the effect of interior office colors on subjects’ task performance and mood states showed differences in workers’ productivity (or cognitive performance) and mood for different colors with significant gender differences.117 Low-saturated colors seem to be more depressing for women than for men, whereas men reported more depression and anger in high-saturated room colors. In food service, food colors and colors of objects interact.115 Blue grapes do not appear blue if served on a blue plate.118 The choice of color for decorating a restaurant depends strongly on the prospective customers. Young people seemed to prefer bright, strong colors, whereas adults mostly enjoyed their meals in weak, unobtrusively colored environments.119 Thus, soft darkish colors are used mainly in the dining restaurants, whereas fast-food restaurants mostly use furniture and equipment with bright colors.115 Even the colors of food-related utensils such as silverware or tablecloths are taken into consideration when consumers’ preferences are examined. Coffee drinkers judged the same coffee served from a blue pot as mild and from a brown pot as too strong.120 The best judgment of “aromatic and strong” was given to coffee served in a red pot. It appears that color as a food-external stimulus could affect food intake more indirectly by manipulating people’s cognitive, emotional, or physiologic reactions. Environmental colors seem to more unconsciously influence mood, sensation, appetite, food choice, hunger, and food attractiveness. Bright colors appear to arouse and stimulate, whereas darker colors seem to promote relaxation. Different colors seem to have different effects on the nervous system. Thus, room colors might influence people’s mood not only in relation to cognitive or physical performance but also in relation to eating behavior. Food color also affects people’s judgment and food perception. For example, orange juice was rated sweeter when it had a bright yellow-orange color than when it had a light yellow color.121 Most research studies in food science and marketing focus on food color effects on consumer’s food choice and preference.122 Marketing research emphasizes purchasing behavior, whereas food scientists are more interested in the interaction between food color and taste or flavor preference.121,122 Consumers’ expectations and attitudes

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 about food and beverages depends partly on its colors.123 However, temperature as a sensory characteristic was most commonly reported as an important factor for determining refreshing food and beverages.124 Food and beverage intakes are influenced by people’s color preferences. Colored beverages, for instance, were expected to be more refreshing when clear, red, or orange than when green or purple.123,124 To examine the influence of food appearance on intake, children were offered sweets of different colors.125 The children consumed similar amounts under all conditions; the variety of colors seemed to have no effect on intake for the same kind of food. However, the study showed that the taste of the favorite color of the foods eaten (e.g., smarties, chocolate covered with colored sugar layers) was rated higher than the taste of the other colors, and a significant decline in pleasantness of the colors eaten in comparison with the colors not eaten was reported.124 In general, preference for food decreases after consumption. This effect is called sensory-specific satiety and mostly relates to odor preference changes.126 However, it appears that visual exposure triggers similar alterations. As in the case of food temperature, the effect of different food colors seems to depend on previous experience and expectation.127 Independent of the actual taste, children indicated that red gelatin tasted like strawberry and that yellow gelatin tasted like lemon.128 The same expectation-driven taste sensation was observed when offering white but chocolate-flavored ice cream and brown but vanilla-flavored ice cream.128 The participants perceived whitecolored ice cream as vanilla and brown vanilla-flavored ice cream as chocolate.

Summary. In general, the literature about the influence of color on food intake is sparse and has reported mostly preferencedependent and expectation-driven differences in color perception. Nevertheless, the color of food plays a key role in food choice by influencing sweetness perception, food preference, and acceptability.129 In addition, pleasantness ratings seem to be influenced by colors, and pleasantness has a noticeable effect on food selection. Food variety and food color variety lead to an increase in consumption, which can be easily observed in “all-you-can-eat” places.130 Possibly, the variety of the presented food seduces the customer to try all available food items and makes it harder to stop eating. Thus, offering several foods or beverages in the preferred color appears to be a logical option to increase intake. In contrast, presenting only a very few foods for selection might reduce consumption. Amazingly, room colors are even less studied with regard to food intake. Research is needed to investigate the effect of different room colors at the eating location on intake and food choice. Painting health care facilities, such as nursing homes, with stimulating warm colors might promote the inhabitants’ food consumption. LIGHT. Bright light activates most human beings. In contrast, warm light relaxes and slows down a person’s movements.115 Changing the amount of illumination on a table with a bowl of nuts seemed to induce obese people to eat more when the table was brightly illuminated.130 Conversely, as illumination increased, people’s duration of stay in the establishment shortened and with it their alcohol consumption.45 Also, exposure to dimmer light appeared to promote disinhibited eating in restrained eaters.131 The study conducted with undergraduate students showed that those who stayed up later were more likely to overeat.131 According to the researcher, people are less inhibited and less self-conscious when lights are low and, therefore, eat more at night. It is argued that exposure to the dimmer lighting of evening promotes general behavioral disinhibition. Although the studies are contradictory, it is possible that the findings of study of restrained eaters131 relate more to temporal issues than to lighting effects. There is evidence that, the later the time of day, the harder it becomes for normal

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 individuals28 and for individuals with eating disorders to control their food intake.132,133 In general, preference in lighting seems to depend on the social situation such as the setting and the number of people present.134 For example, people preferred dimmer light when eating with their partner than when eating alone or in a group. Eating in the kitchen versus the dining room or the family room was associated with brighter lightning in general.134 In places with glaring light, people tend to eat faster, whereas in places with warm light, people tend to take more time for food consumption.118 In most fast-food or lunch restaurants, bright lights are installed, which tend to influence the customers to eat their meals relatively quickly.115 Usually, lighting, noise level, and duration of stay seem to be related, and lighting and noise will shorten the duration people will remain inside a drinking establishment.45

Summary. Research on the relation between food intake and lighting is sparse and often contradictory. Nevertheless, warm light appears to make people more comfortable, leading to them staying longer in the 1ocation, which leads to increased food intake,118 whereas glaring light decreases the amount of time people spend in the eating location. The bright illumination in fast-food restaurants and cafeterias may be promoting a rapid insertion of food, whereas eating at home in association with dimmer lighting may be promoting longer consumption and less total energy intake.86 Thus, although these health implications are speculative, eating in a softly illuminated dining room might contribute to decreased food intake, whereas eating in a brightly illuminated area might promote the intake of rapidly eaten meals of greater total energy content. Unfortunately, the existing literature is sparse, and there is a need to examine the relation between lighting and food intake more intensively. Research such as a simple variation in lighting in facilities such as school or military cafeterias are possible research ideas that would be very useful. TEMPERATURE. Temperature effects can be examined by manipulating food temperature or ambient temperature. In research on food temperature, the stomach seems to react differently to hot and cold food. For instance, warm milk is supposed to slow down people’s metabolism more than cold milk due to the tryptophan in milk that alters sleep patterns.135 In addition, warmed-up food brings out the presumably pleasant flavor in the food,136 whereas hot foods appear to suppress appetite by raising body temperature and inducing satiety. Experiments comparing different preloads before meal consumption showed differences in satiety ratings for heated or cold preloads, with heated foods rated as more satiating than cold foods.137,138 Hot soup appears to reduce the subsequent meal intake more than other preloads such as fruits, cheese, or crackers.137,138 Thus, different kinds of preloads seem to have different satiating effects. In contrast, no significant effect on subsequent intake of cheese sandwiches or on sensations of hunger or satiety was observed when subjects were given a fixed portion of fruit juice served at 1°C or 60°C.138 Possibly, only temperatures of certain types of food, such as soups, influence intake significantly. This may indicate that the temperature effects are based on expectation. Conversely, the preload effect might have been significant even if cold soup had been served. The effects of food temperature on food preferences have also been studied.134 It was demonstrated that the temperature at which food was consumed is mostly affected by personal preference and rates of exposure. People like certain foods and beverages at certain familiar temperatures and dislike them at others.140 Subjects tasted beverages such as chicken bouillon, wine, fruit punch, and water at different temperatures. The beverages were most preferred when presented at their usual temperature of consumption. Results indicated a major influence of culture-based expec-

Ambience and Food Intake

827

tations in determining preferred food temperatures.93,139,140 Temperature preferences reflect people’s experience and type of exposure with a certain product; some prefer warm beer and hot wine because they always drank it that way.139 According to Zellner et al.,140 these preferences could be based on direct experience with the taste, socially spread information about the taste, or general ideas about the foods’ temperature appropriateness. Thus, research is necessary to study these important relations between food temperature and eating behavior with respect to expectationdriven food intake and food choice. Ambient temperature also appears to influence food choice and food intake. People eat more when exposed to cold than to hot temperatures,141,142 although divergent results have been reported.143 Westerterp-Platega143 found no difference in participants’ food intake when they were exposed to profound short-term temperature changes. In general, the basal metabolic rate is higher in winter than in summer, and an increase in metabolic rate is observed in humans when exposed to cold temperatures, which is also related to an increase in caloric consumption.144 Conversely, with prolonged exposure to heat, reduced energy intake is observed. In cold weather, the body needs more energy to maintain temperature and rise in activity level. This produces an increase in food intake.143 Even the transportation of the ingested food from the stomach to the intestine seems to be faster under cold conditions.145 In the heat, adequate fluid and electrolyte consumption is needed.146 Fluid intake seems to vary in different ambient temperatures, and palatability appears to change in hot environments (and when working or doing exercise).147 Fluid consumption in hot environments was increased with flavored beverages in comparison with water, with a strong preference for drinks with high levels of carbohydrates and electrolytes.148,149 Sensory changes during exposure to different ambient temperatures might be present for fluid intake, but that does not seem to be the case for food intake because short-term exposure to changes in ambient temperature produced no significant effects on odor, taste, or hunger ratings.150 It is a common belief that hot foods will be chosen when it is cold and that cold foods will be preferred when it is hot. For instance, bakery sales go down in the summer because consumers prefer “lighter” food.151 More consumer surveys confirmed that soups and bakery items sales decrease in the summer.152 Observations of the caloric intake of soldiers in the field showed that, with increasing temperatures, the soldiers consume fewer calories.153 However, follow-up studies could not repeat these results.154 Consequently, because heat seems to suppress food intake, restaurants in regions with long periods of high temperatures are air conditioned to assure that their customers still order “normally.”142 Food intake itself creates heat, and a complete meal increases body temperature by about 1°C .136 For instance, adding fat to the diet by choosing a beefsteak raised an individual’s skin temperature on average by about 2°C approximately 60 min after the meal.155 In general, food preferences seem to be related not only to environmental temperature but also to the individual’s metabolism142 by increasing or decreasing body temperature. More specifically, cold foods are more often preferred when the individual is hot, whereas hot foods will be chosen when the individual feels the need to become warmer.142

Summary. Food temperature appears to influences appetite, hunger, and food preference, with hot foods somehow having a suppressive effect on appetite and on food intake. Food temperature also seems to be shaped by the individual’s lifelong experience with the served food and expectations about the temperature of the particular food. Ambient temperature appears to have an influence on food intake and food choice. Warm environmental temperature seems to decrease food intake, whereas cool environments seem to

828

Stroebele and De Castro

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004

increase food intake. Although most studies are experimental and more have been done with animals,142 consumer comparison data showed significant tendencies in food purchase variations during the four seasons. Hence, a cold, air-conditioned environment could be used to facilitate intake when needed, whereas a warmer environment might be used to suppress it. Possible research could investigate the effect of serving lowcalorie hot foods, such as soups, in hot environments. In addition, studying changes in food intake by changing the room temperature might be useful. For instance, turning down the air conditioning, as is common in discos and clubs, increases fluid consumption. A warmer room might help those people who need to drink a certain amount, such as some of the elderly.

appears to combine the sensory components to perceive the food’s quality; therefore, it is difficult to examine smell or other sensory attributes separately. For other sensory attributes of food and their influence on food choice and consumption, see reviews by Cardello,10 Deliza and MacFie,97 and Drewnowski.177 Studies in nursing homes104 were conducted by comparing flavor-enhanced cooked meals with general meals for promotion of food intake, based on the assumption that sensory abilities decline with age.178,179 An increase in food consumption was observed. More studies are necessary to specify the appropriate stimulus intensity needed for promotion of intake in the elderly. This could be an important contribution to the nutritional intakes of the elderly by enhancing the pleasantness of food and food intake.

SMELL. The influence of odor on food intake is complex. Odors can be in the environment or directly related to the presented food. The smell of appetizing food, the sight of food, and talking about food for 30 min increased gastric acid secretion and serum gastrin concentrations. This also can be provoked by simply smelling or thinking of food.156 It appears that the perceptual similarity of taste and odor makes it difficult for humans to separate these sense perceptions from one another.157,158 Taste qualities are often attributed to the food’s odor by producing taste enhancement or suppression effects.157,159 Sweet scents, for instance, can increase perceived sweetness.160 Sensitivity to odors appears to be higher before than after a meal.161,162 For instance, the smell of an orange was less pleasant after consuming a strongly sweetened product.163 Usually, odor preference and rated attractiveness for certain foods decrease after their consumption, which is called sensory-specific satiety.126,164 Eating a meal or having a full stomach decreases the pleasantness of food-related odors but not of non–food-related odors. In addition, the pleasantness of already consumed foods declines more than the pleasantness of foods that have not been eaten.165 Negative taste experience of foods such as eating disliked or spoiled food also decreased odor pleasantness ratings. Interestingly, there does not seem to be a difference between just smelling and actually consuming a food because both seem to produce olfactory sensoryspecific satiety.166 The attractiveness of an odor seems to depend on the physical condition of the individual. Food seems to smell extremely good when a subject is hungry,167 and hunger seems to increase the pleasantness of taste, in particular sweet taste.168 Odors coming from the environment have a different effect on food intake. Odor can often act as an effective retrieval cue for recent events or even for situations that happened in the past. Re-exposure to a certain odor in a museum visited earlier helped the subjects to remember the contents of this particular museum.169 Odors that are paired with an experience remain a powerful longlasting cue.170 In food-related situations, odor could serve as a stimulus for the memory of contextual cues and may thereby produce a pleasant or unpleasant ambience. Scents also seem to influence consumer behavior.171 Pleasant odors directly associated with a product increase the consumers’ quality evaluation.171,172 Further, pleasant odors can increase the time spent in the store and the number of items purchased.173,174 The smell of fresh bread might increase the consumer’s appetite for bread and the willingness to purchase bread or a similar food.175

Time-Related Characteristics

Summary. Smell is directly connected to food consumption. It is affected by prior food intake and hunger state, and food intake seems to depend on the pleasantness of the odor. But smell also seems to affect mood by reviving positive memories (e.g., grandma’s cookies) and to influence expectations about food quality, food choice, and intake. In general, there is evidence for the interaction of sensory characteristics of food.176 The individual

MEAL FREQUENCY. The time since the last meal, the time of day, day of the week, and the season of the year affect food intake and food choice.180 –182 It seems that, in humans, eating behavior, especially the meal size, is adjusted based on the period of time since the last meal,29 with the amount eaten influenced by the time that has passed since the subject’s last meal, subjective hunger state, and the contents of the stomach.183 Interestingly, when living in a time-isolation environment, people increased intermeal intervals significantly,184,185 but caloric intake did not change.186 The researchers suggested that the mechanisms responsible for the timing of the sleep-wake cycle also govern meal timing.184 –186 In the laboratory, participants delayed their next meal by a duration proportional to the amount of food eaten in the preceding meal,187 i.e., the amount of intake predicted the time of consumption. However, humans in the real world adjust meal size based on the period of time since the previous meal.188,189 This pattern is completely opposite to that observed in the laboratory. Contrary to food intake in the laboratory under “free-running” conditions, people in the real world will eat more when more time has past after the last meal, but the amount of intake does not predict the time of the next meal. It was also shown that as the day progressed, the time until the next meal decreased. Thus, it appeared that people obtained less satiety from a given amount of food later in the day.180,190 MEAL TIMES (OVER THE COURSE OF THE DAY). Hunger ratings have a diurnal rhythm associated with the meal pattern throughout the day.183 The degree of satiation appears to depend on the time of meal consumption.190 Eating during the morning produced greater satiety than eating at any other time during the day. Even when controlling for weekdays versus weekends, ingesting a large proportion of one’s daily intake in the morning is associated with lower overall intake over the day, whereas higher overall intake during the day is linked to a large proportion of one’s daily intake in the evening. Participants who ate more than usual in the morning also ate smaller average meals with less fat over the day. Eating at different times during the day might have different effects on people’s food intake; for instance, eating a large amount in the morning might lead to a decrease in overall intake throughout the day. Diurnal rhythms of appetite also appear to be related to the usual meal times during the day.191 Food preference shifts significantly with time of day.192 Breakfast is relatively high in carbohydrate and dinner is relatively high in fat.143 Peryam and Gutman demonstrated that breakfast items, such as cold cereals and orange juice, are preferred more in the morning than in the afternoon and that dinner items, such as pizza and green salad, are more preferred in the afternoon than in the morning.30 Women seemed to exhibit these preferences more than men. Kramer et al. hypothesized that, depending on the time of day, certain foods would be rated as more or less appropriate and therefore preferred over other foods

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 (higher hedonic ratings).193 Three experiments showed that certain foods are rated as more appropriate at certain times, with breakfast items preferred more in the morning than in the afternoon and dinner items preferred more in the afternoon than in the morning. Both research groups indicated that food acceptability is influenced mainly by culturally learned rules and patterns. Appropriateness appears to be particularly relevant to food selection and affects the type of food chosen rather than amount consumed.193 This suggests that it is important to understand the culture and patterns of an individual when prescribing an intervention to enhance or suppress intake or to promote healthy food choices. The relation between eating behavior and time of day can affect health. In shift workers, irregular sleep and eating patterns are common; these patterns might disrupt biological rhythms.194 –196 Surveys of shift workers have demonstrated disrupted eating patterns such as loss of appetite or obesity, increased alcohol intake, and problems with digestion. Another observed effect was the redistribution of food intake by three shift workers to the night shift.195 Greater caloric intake occurred during the night than during the day. Eating at regular times is favorable for metabolism due to anticipatory effects, i.e., the body adjusts temperature and hormones in advance of the meal to better cope with the forthcoming “nutrient load.”195 Thus, irregular meal consumption might be counterproductive for maintaining good health. The typical main meal around midday meets circadian rhythms of glucose metabolism.197,198 Sleep debt seems to have a harmful effect on carbohydrate metabolism and endocrine function.199 Metabolic functions appear to decline when sleep deprivation occurs. This may be relevant for not only shift workers but also for those who are unemployed and people affected by jet lag, when eating routines become altered by another time zone.195,200 Another interesting finding is that people eat significantly more on weekends (⬃10% increase in the average meal size) than on weekdays, which is most likely explained by environmental and cultural effects, such as social facilitation.201 Weekends and holidays demonstrate a break from the daily eating routine and usually involve eating with more people and eating out, which can increase food intake.37,42 On weekends, the number of people present is, in general, larger during meals than during weekdays. However, this social facilitation effect applies only to people younger than 50 y. Increased energy intake on weekends only occurred in subjects younger than 50 y.172 In addition, the increased food intake may be due in part to the longer duration of the meals on weekends. It appears that greater schedule flexibility on weekends eliminates constraints on meal duration. The fact that there are more frequent restaurant visits, more people present, and more time for consumption on the weekend appears to operate to increase caloric intake. Summary. Overall, time-related influences affect food choice and food intake. Disruption of regular eating patterns can be detrimental for performance tasks and health.195 Certain types of food seem to be preferred at certain times of the day, which is clearly affected by people’s experiences with the food and attitudes toward certain meal types at certain times. Interestingly, the time of consumption appears to influence the food chosen and the amounts of food consumed. A large breakfast in the morning appears to reduce intake over the entire day, whereas intake late at night may result in increased food consumption. Future research should consider applying theses principles to weight loss programs. It might be possible to reduce overall daily intake by serving a large portion in the morning rather than later in the day. In addition, restricting the time allocated for intake on weekends might be another approach to reducing intake.

Ambience and Food Intake

829

SOUND In restaurants, background music is often used to soften the atmosphere.202 The chosen music is meant to shield one party from the other and to neutralize noises from guests or from the kitchen.202 However, music can do more than just cover unwanted sounds. It can support relaxation or change mood203 and seems to influence the amount of food and fluid consumed. Regardless of the prior frequencies of soft drink consumption and exposure to loud music, increasing auditory stimulation led to an increase in total consumption.204 The louder the music, the more people drank. Other studies reported an increase in the disposition to consume alcohol by continuous exposure to rock-type music.205 One laboratory study by Ferber and Cabanac exposed participants to loud noise or music for 2 min while eating.206 Loud, unpleasant noise increased not only the participants’ heart rate and blood pressure but also their food intake. The investigators concluded that noise as a stressor can lead to increased food consumption. Whether being exposed to loud music has the same effect on food intake is unknown but may become an interesting future research area. In contrast, the pace of the music is effective for enhancing food and fluid intake. The laboratory experiment by McElrea and Standing with college students showed that the participants drank faster when exposed to fast music than to slow music.207 Music tempo can affect chewing intensity, with an increasing number of bites associated with increasing music speed.208 Conversely, slower music was accompanied by a slower rate of eating but larger bar bills for customers.209 Background music decreased the customers’ dining speed significantly, but a slower tempo encouraged customers to drink more. Another study confirmed these findings by investigating differences in time spent in a restaurant as a result of the music speed.210 Controlling for loudness of music, temperature, and lighting, the study found that slow music while eating significantly increases the time spent dining and the restaurant bill. There was a larger amount of money spent by the slow-music tempo group (for food and drinks), which was also associated with a longer stay in the restaurant. Preference for the type of music playing also seemed to strongly influence the time spent in the restaurant. The more the people liked the music played, the longer they stayed at the location. The researchers concluded that tempo and its interaction with preference have a significant influence on time and money spent in a restaurant, which leads to increased food and fluid intakes. People who like the environment (which is related to the music tempo above other variables) stay longer and end up ordering dessert or another drink to prolong their stay, whereas people who do not like the atmosphere choose to leave. The more the music is liked, the more subjects like the atmosphere and the more they want to return to the situation.20 In general, musical style appears to mediate the effect of music on responses to listening situations.211 In general, consumer purchasing behavior appears to be affected by music. Background classical music, for instance, led to longer duration in the store and to the purchase of more expensive wine than when “Top-40” music was played.212

Summary. Loud and fast music appears to increase fluid and food consumption. However, slower and softer music is associated with a longer stay in the eating and drinking location, which also leads to increased intake. Apparently, music in general or even noise increases intake. This may occur because of people’s preferences and liking for this auditory stimulation while eating and drinking, which prolongs customers’ stay. It is doubtful that loud music that is perceived by the individual as pleasant will be stressful. Nevertheless, a general increase in arousal might lead to an increase in food and fluid intake. This idea is supported by Dube and Chebat’s results of the effect of arousal induced by music.213 Increased pleasantness and arousal lead to a greater willingness to return to the environment.

830

Stroebele and De Castro

The effect of playing music on health and eating promotion was demonstrated in a Swedish nursing home.214 Music during meals, independent of the type of music, increased food intake in the elderly with dementia and decreased the patients’ feelings of depression and anxiety. The patients’ mood seemed to be lightened through music exposure. Future research should investigate whether such an application of music in the general population and in hospitals could be used to promote intake. Conversely, the effect of restricting music during intake should be examined for dietary intake reduction strategies. In addition, studies that systematically change music types (fast, slow, loud, soft) that are played in dining facilities to examine the amount of food consumed and the duration of stay are needed to better define the relation between music and ingestive behavior.

Distraction and Television Viewing Television appears to have a very powerful effect on food intake and food choice, particularly in children and adolescents.215–217 Studies indicated that the time spent watching television correlates significantly to body fat content216 and to snacking and caloric intake.216 The more time the children spent in front of the television, the higher their body fat composition and the lower their average energy expenditure.218,219 Other studies reported similar results for adults.85,220,221 In one study, time spent watching television by male subjects was significantly associated with the subjects’ weight.220 Time spent watching television was positively associated with risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes in women in a prospective cohort study,222 as were other sedentary behaviors such as sitting at work or driving. The data obtained from 7-d diet diaries completed by college students indicated that television watching was significantly associated with an increase in meal frequency.223 Approximately one additional meal was added to the usual food intake on days when eating occurred while the television was on compared with days when no eating occurred while the television was on. Similar results were found by Dietz and Gortmaker224 and del Toro and Greenberg225 who reported an increase of children’s between-meal snacking while viewing television. In addition, less physical activity over the day was reported when television was watched.222,223 Physical activity appears to decrease when the hours of television viewing increases.226 Further, the amount of television viewing appears to be directly related to children’s consumption of snacks advertised on television227 and food commercials in general.228 –230 A telephone survey on family mealtime environment assessed fruit, vegetable, and fat intake.55 The findings showed a significant association between television viewing during dinner and decreased consumption of fruits and vegetables and increased consumption of fat. Even in experimental settings, an increase in food consumption was detected with television viewing. Poothullil observed, in a quasi-experimental design, a significant increase in cereal consumption during television viewing.231 The investigator suggested that distracting activities such as watching television could result in the participants ignoring orosensory signals of satiation. This was supported by our own results, which showed that subjects also reported less hunger before eating while viewing television.223 This idea is also supported by an increase in meal size while being involved in other distracting activities, such as listening to a recorded story on tape.34 Summary. Television viewing seems to affect food intake and food choice. Although it appears to be evident that advertising food on television influences people’s food choice and purchase, it seems to be less clear how television watching changes people’s food consumption. It also seems to be unclear what triggers food consumption and snacking in particular while watching television.

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 Food advertisement, boredom, or emotional arousal may be possible influential factors. However, the data indicate that viewing television correlates with an increased food intake and greater weight. This may occur due to a decrease in the amount of physical activity or an increase in the amount consumed. Adding snacks while watching television or eating more while the television is turned on may be due to distraction. Watching less television may not only increase general energy expenditure but also decrease intake. Restriction of television viewing may be useful for intake restraint. Also, combining watching television with other activities, such as hobbies, household chores, or other less sedentary activities, might successfully reduce snacking and increase energy expenditure. It may be especially important for children and adolescents to control television viewing to help reduce the increase of pediatric obesity. More research is needed to study the relation between television viewing and food intake and the effectiveness of manipulation of television watching on total intake and body weight.

CONCLUSION The present review suggests that the impact of ambience on food intake may be underestimated. As Rozin and Tuorila concluded: “to ignore contextual influences (on food choice and intake) is to risk misinterpreting the meaning and significance of human food choice.”232 Ambience appears to affect the amount and patterns of eating and the food choices and preferences. Eating-related health issues such as obesity have increased in importance over recent years.233 The data suggest that environmental factors such as where, when, and with whom food consumption takes place may be at least partly responsible. Environmental factors such as the presence of other people, location, portion size, time of consumption, smell, color, physical setting, and television viewing appear to influence food intake and food choice. These factors may not only promote intake but also make it more difficult for people to alter their food intake. As Eartmans et al. stated: “a variety of social, cultural and economic factors contribute to the development, maintenance and change of dietary patterns.”234 The effects of food color, food temperature, and timing of meals over the day appear to be affected by people’s experiences and expectations. Further, simply perceiving sensory characteristics of a certain food does not necessarily mean that the individual will or will not choose to consume that food.235 It is also the individual’s liking for specific sensory characteristics that play a role in determining the food choice. Mostly, it seems that people are influenced in their food choice by learned aspects and attitudes. We learn throughout our lifetime to eat at certain times under certain circumstances and to prefer our orange juice in a particular color at a certain temperature and with a certain texture. More specifically, we are conditioned to eat in a certain way when exposed to certain food-related and non–food-related situations. Repeated exposure to food that is offered by family members99 and the effect of operant conditioning by rewarding certain food choices or amounts of intake236 are techniques that might be even useful in therapeutic settings. Eating locations seem to affect choice and intake. They appear to influence food choice by creating consumer expectations about food quality and experiences with certain locations in general. Experience, for instance, can teach one to prefer restaurant food to hospital food, but it also influences the amount of food intake, with more intake in restaurants and fast-food restaurants in particular. Other ambient factors also increase food intake such as bright colors and light, music, or the presence of other people. Meals eaten with family or friends especially seem to stimulate food consumption.56 Lower temperatures, such as air-conditioned rooms, seem to have a similar effect of increasing intake. The

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 proximity of food, its portion size, its presentation, and its smell seem to play a role in increasing food intake. The closer the food and the larger the portion, the more food will be consumed. In addition, food consumption early in the day appears to be associated with a lower overall caloric intake throughout the day, especially if the amount reflects a large proportion of daily overall intake. Research on different lighting situations or room colors is rare; however, warm light appears to prolong the time spent in the location and, therefore, is associated with greater consumption, whereas glaring light is avoided so food is consumed faster. Also, distraction, such as television viewing, appears to increase the amount consumed while in the distracted situation or add snacks to overall intake. Some ambient influences are well researched. The research of social variables, social facilitation, and modeling is well established with various methods such as diet diary reports and observational and laboratory studies that yield a strong conceptual replication network. Unfortunately, many other research areas related to ambience need further studies. For instance, studies investigating food or room color and lighting effects were conducted only in laboratory settings. The generalization of these findings is questionable because it is difficult to know whether the subjects would react in the same way in real-world eating situations. Diet diary studies could be conducted that include people’s subjective ratings of the brightness or temperature of the eating situation to detect possible relevant differences in food intake under different lighting and temperature circumstances. Also, field studies that manipulate the natural environment by changing the color, lighting, or temperature of the eating location might be useful to establish causality in real-world settings. In contrast, music and television viewing have been investigated in observational studies. The direction of causation and the possibility of a third variable being responsible for the outcome have not been determined. To gain better insight, laboratory studies that change music or have the television turned on while subjects consume a meal would be useful. Moreover, diet-diary reports that include questions about the presence of music and its characteristics while eating would be appropriate. Only Bell et al. carried out studies assessing ambient changes in natural settings such as a restaurant or a student cafeteria. Unfortunately, these researchers focused on the participants’ food choices rather than on food intake. It would have been interesting to investigate whether the changes in ambience would lead to changes in food intake. Modifications of ambience in clinical facilities showed alterations in food intake and the patients’ eating behavior in general.103,104 Nevertheless, the generalization of studies in clinical facilities remains questionable because patients are not comparable with other populations, and there are other salient influences present, such as the increased involvement of the patients and the increased attention of the caregivers. The fact that ambient factors can result in people eating significantly more or less than usual can be used to improve or change the food intake of the population where appropriate. Even so, more applied research work that examines the ability of ambience

Ambience and Food Intake

831

manipulation on increased intake is needed. Such studies are rare, but ambience may be an important variable in constructing intervention programs.237,238 Ambient factors may be used to help people maintain or achieve a balanced nutrition and a feeling of well-being. Among school cafeterias, hospitals, and military facilities, where food is especially important for physical and cognitive performance and health improvement, ambient factors (e.g., colors, comfortable seating opportunities) that might promote food intake and therefore health could be developed and added. Simple changes, such as health-promoting information presented during the meal,88 seem to lead to healthier food choices. Other external factors, such as container and package size, can increase or decrease food consumption.79 For example, intervention programs focusing on school cafeterias should encourage schools, on the one hand, to add more fruits and vegetables to their menu and, on the other, to decrease the package size and availability of less healthy foods. Especially in children who show an increase in the development of nutrition-related chronic diseases,2,3 modifications of dietary patterns should be considered. For the development and maintenance of a healthy diet, limiting excessive portion sizes, encouraging eating earlier in the day, and increasing the availability of healthy foods are simple options to intervene in children’s lifestyle. Frequent exposure to unhealthy food during childhood can form patterns for the future food choices and intake. Parents, peers, and the media can influence children’s food choice and food intake by modeling behavior and simple social facilitation. For example, intervention programs for children should start focusing attention on the parents’ eating behavior by making sure that the parents are an adequate example for healthy eating behavior. Further, minimizing children’s time in front of the television by emphasizing and encouraging more active leisure activities might help decrease intake and increase expenditure. In conclusion, differences in ambience influence food choice and intake amounts. Clearly, the state of our current knowledge is spotty, with a lack of systematic research in many areas, especially in applied studies. Further research is needed on the effects of manipulating the ambience in a real-world context. Because eating has an immense effect on health, environmental interventions such as changes of complex locations in hospitals, nursing homes, and student cafeterias should be considered. Even small changes such as providing water pitchers or offering more fruits and vegetables on tables are possible interventions to alter intake in the real world. In essence, it is important to consider ambient influences on food intake and food choice in an attempt to understand and alter eating behavior where needed.72,102,168,212

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This review article originates from a research scholarship supported by the Dr. Rainer Wild-Stiftung, Heidelberg, Germany. The authors express their special thanks to Gesa Schoenberger and Dr. Rainer Wild.

832

Stroebele and De Castro

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 APPENDIX A.

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES THAT HAVE INVESTIGATED THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AMBIENCE AND FOOD INTAKE OR CHOICE First Author

Year

Aggleton

1999 Adults

45

Bellisle Bellizzi

2001 Women 1983 Female students

41 125

Bernstein

1981 Male adults

Berry Birch Cherulnik

1985 Students 1984 Children, adults 1991 Adults

Clapp

2000 Male adults

18

Clendenen Dittmar

1994 Female students 1996 Female students

120 31

Edelman

1986 Military personnel, civilians 1977 Female adolscents and adults 1986 Healthy adults 1987 Men 2000 Students 1996 Adults 1991 Students 1980 Students 1984 Adults

18 ⫹ 32, 12 ⫹ 41

Laboratory experiment questionnaire Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment questionnaire Laboratory experiment (over 3–10 wk) Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment questionnaire Laboratory experiment questionnaire Labortory experiment Laboratory experiment questionnaire Laboratory experiment

102

Laboratory experiment

ANOVA

13 10 389 39 84 ⫹ 62 12 65

Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory

Wilcoxon rank sum test, t test Wilcoxon rank sum test, t test ANCOVA

37 ⫹ 36 15 ⫹ 16

Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment

Lavin Lindman Marcelino

1981 Female students 1993 Children (obese and normal) 1992 Male military personnel 1998 Children, adults 1986 Male adults 2001 Students

McCarron McElrea Pliner Pliner

1989 1992 1982 1993

Students Female students Male students Students

10 40 24 96 ⫹ 139

Polivy Pothullil Rolls Rolls Rolls

1979 2002 1981 1982 1997

86 9 32 ⫹ 24 24 12 ⫹ 12

Rolls Ross Russek Schifferstein Spiegel

2002 1974 1979 1996 1999

Students Women Students Teenagers Normal-weight adults Adults Male students Adults Students Men

Stevenson Van Cauter

1999 Students 1989 Non-obese, male adults 2002 Food-deprived adults

Falciglia Feldman Ferber Garber Goldfield Goldman Hill Kissileff Klajner Klesges Kramer

Volkow

Subject type

N

3 126 30 ⫹ 25 28 ⫹ 24

19 116 ⫹ 57 ⫹ 30 66 367

51 120 28 36 11

Study type and

ANOVA

and

Repeated measures ANOVA ANOVA

and

Descriptive statistics, correlational analysis ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA, chi-square

and

ANOVA

and

ANOVA, Fisher’s PLSD post hoc test ANOVA

experiment experiment experiment experiment experiment experiment experiment

Laboratory experiment and questionnaire Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment and questionnaire Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Laborator experiment Laboratory experiment and questionnaire Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory

experiment experiment experiment experiment experiment

Statistical analysis

ANOVA

ANOVA ANOVA Linear and multiple regression, ANOVA, t test ANOVA, Newman-Keuls analysis ANOVA, Tukey’s test Repeated measures ANOVA, t test t test ANOVA ANOVA Chi-square test, ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA t test, ANOVA, Newman-Keuls analysis t test, ANOVA ANOVA

31 ⫹ 28 14

Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment

ANOVA ANOVA Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test ANOVA Repeated measures ANOVA, correlational analysis ANOVA, t test Correlational analysis

10

Laboratory experiment

ANOVA

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004

Ambience and Food Intake

833

APPENDIX A. CONTINUED First Author

Year

Subject type

N

Wansink Wilk Bissonnette Boutelle Butler Cardello Del Toro Dietz

1996 1996 2001 2003 1987 1996 1989 1985

Women Boys Adolescents Adults Students Military pers/, students High-school students Children, parents

98 ⫹ 126 ⫹ 203 ⫹ 184 12 651 277 372 131 ⫹ 121, 26 ⫹ 97 225 6956 ⫹ 6671

Donkin

1993 Parents

Feunekes Gillman Gortmaker

1998 Adolescents, parents 2000 Children 1990 Parents

Gruenewald Hu

2002 Adults 2003 Women

Inman

2001 Adult consumers

Jeffrey Kasof Lasfargues Marshall Marshall

1990 2002 1996 1996 2003

McCrory Taras Tucker

1999 Adults 1989 Mothers 1989 Obese adult males

73 66 6138

Tucker

1991 Obese adult females

4771

Zellner Clemens Coon de Castro de Castro de Castro de Castro

2002 1999 2001 1985 1986 1987 1988

Students Women Child–parent pairs Students Students Students Adults

86 129 90 84 38 38 31

Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire and physical examination Questionnaire and physical examination Questionnaire Diet diary 3-d diet diary, interview 4-d diet diary 9-d diary 9-d diary 7-d diet diary

de Castro de Castro de Castro de Castro de Castro de Castro Feunekes Jula

1989 1991 1991 1992 1990 1994 1995 1999

Adults Adults Adults Adults Adults Adults Students Hypertensive patients

63 315 323 125 78 515 50 317 ⫹ 270

7-d diet diary 7-d diet diary 7-d diet diary 7-d diet diary 7-d diet diary 7-d diet diary 4- and 7-d diet diaries 4-, 5-, and 7-d diet diaries

Koelega

1994 Adults

Lennernaes Stroebele Areni

1995 Male industrial workers 2004 Students 1993 Restaurant patrons

96 81 NA

Bell Birch Caldwell

1994 Adults 1980 Children 2002 Restaurant patrons

136 21 62

Engell Klesges

1996 Military personnel 1984 Dinner patrons

36 ⫹ 60 539

Adults Students Adults Students Students

507 1166 16 202 786 ⫹ 778 7826 50 277 2000 ⫹ 850 ⫹ 850 1059 401 1000 193 66 ⫹ 61

7

Study type Laboratory experiment Laboratory experiment Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Parental and self-report questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire and interview Cross-sectional, questionnaire Questionnaire (longitudinal) Questionnaire Questionnaire (prospective cohort study) Consumption diary panel ⫹ questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire

4-d diary with air-dilution olfactometer 24-h recall diary 7-d diet diary Experimental observation in restaurant Naturalistic observation in restaurant Observation Observation in restaurant, questionnaire Naturalistic observation in cafeteria Observational study in 14 restaurants

Statistical analysis ANOVA ANOVA Correlational, regression analysis Regression analysis ANOVA, t test ANOVA ANOVA, correlational analysis ANOVA, chi-square Descriptive statistics, correlational analysis NA Correlational, regression analysis Descriptive statistics, correlational analysis Regression analysis MANOVA Bootstrap, cluster, repeated measures analysis MANOVA ANOVA t test, regression analysis Descriptive statistics Correspondence, cluster, discriminant analysis Multiple regression analysis t test Mantel-Haenszel risk estimates, chi-square Mantel-Haenszel risk estimates, chi-square Descriptive statistics t tests, chi-square test t tests, multiple regression analysis Correlational analysis, ANOVA Correlational analysis, ANOVA Correlational analysis Correlational analysis, regression analysis ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA Correlational, path analysis Repeated measures ANOVA, correlational analysis ANOVA, correlational analysis ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA, chi-square Chi-square test Correlational, regression analysis t test, multiple regression analysis ANOVA, post hoc, Tukey’s test ANOVA

834

Stroebele and De Castro

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 APPENDIX A. CONTINUED

First Author

Year

Subject type

N

Study type

Koivisto Kwallek

1994 1996

Families with children Adults

50 675

Observation and 7-d diet diary Experimental observation at the workplace Observation in cafeteria Experimental observation in cafeteria Observational study in cafeteria Naturalistic observation in restaurant Experimental observation in cafeteria Experimental observation at cafeterias Experimental observation in nursing home Observational study in cafeteria Experimental field study with questionnaire Observation in restaurants and coffee shops Observation in restaurants and coffee shops Experimental observation in movie theater Interviews and diet diaries Structured interview and questionnaire Intervention study with experimental and control groups Intervention study Intervention study with 1-d diet diary Intervention study with experimental and control groups Community-based intervention work and schools Intervention study Intervention study with experimental and control groups Intervention study with experimental and control groups Intervention study over 4 y Intervention study with experimental and control groups Intervention study with experimental and control groups Clinical study with control group Longitudinal study (7 y, questionnaire)

Lieux Meiselman

1992 2000

Students Students

Meyers Milliman North

1980 1986 1996

Cafeteria patrons Restaurant patrons Students

1449 ⫹ 1250

Peryam

1958

Military personnel

30

Ragneskog

1996

Nursing home patients

20

Roballey Schifferstein

1985 2002

Men Bookstore patrons

11 48

Sommer

1989

Dinner patrons

NA

Sommer

1997

Dinner patrons

NA

Wansink

2000

Moviegoers

151

Kemmer Rand

1998 1997

Heterosexual couples Gastric surgery patients

22 2097 ⫹ 111

Bossert-Zaudig

1991

20 ⫹ 9 ⫹ 9

de Graaf Elmstahl

1993 1987

Eating-disordered patients Healthy obese adults Geriatric patients

French

2000

Women

French

2003

Schools and work sites

12 ⫹ 12

Jeffrey Mathey

1994 2001

Adults Nursing home residents

NA 38 ⫹ 10

Melin

1981

Geriatric patients

Murphy Zive Nader

2002 1999

Middle school students Students

Suda

2001

Seniors

Greeno Kelder

1995 1994

Overweight subjects Adults

214 50 ⫹ 175

236

28 16 891

21 24 3714 81 40 ⫹ 39 2376

Statistical analysis ANOVA ANOVA, ANCOVA ANOVA Post hoc tests, ANOVA ANOVA Correlational, chi-square analysis Correlational analysis, ANOVA ANOVA Wilcoxon rank test, ANOVA, correlational analysis ANOVA, chi-square ANOVA, MANOVA Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics ANOVA, ANCOVA Descriptive statistics Chi-square test Repeated measures ANOVA Repeated measures ANOVA t test Chi-square, ANOVA NA NA t test Descriptive statistics, t test Descriptive statistics ANOVA Repeated measures ANOVA Descriptive statistics Regression analysis

ANOVA, analysis of variance; MANOVA, multivariate analysis of variance; NA, not available; PLSD, Fisher’s protected least significance difference

REFERENCES 1. WHO technical report series 2001. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2001 2. French SA, Story M, Jeffrey RW. Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Annu Rev Public Health 2001;22:309 3. Troiano RP, Flegal KM. Overweight children and adolescents: description, epidemiology, and demographics. Pediatrics 1998;101:497 4. Rosenbloom AL, Joe JR. Emerging epidemic of type 2 diabetes in youth. Diabetes Care 1999;22:345

5. Berenson GS, Srinivasan SR, Bao W. Precursors of cardiovascular risk in young adults from a biracial (black-white) population: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Ann NY Acad Sci 1997;817:189 6. Meiselman HL. Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite 1992;19:49 7. Meiselman HL. Obstacles to studying real people eating real meals in real situations. Appetite 1992;19:84 8. Sharma A, Stafford TF. The effect of retail atmospherics on customer persuasion. A empirical investigation. J Bus Res 2000;49:183

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 9. Kotler P. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. J Retail 1973;49:48 10. Cardello AV. Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In: Mac Fie HJH, Thomson DMH, eds. Measurement of food preferences. London: Blackie Academic & Professional, 1994:253 11. Dorsch F. Psychologisches Wo¨ rterbuch. Go¨ ttingen: Huber, 1991 12. Campbell JM. Ambient stressors. Environ Behav 1983;15:355 13. De Castro JM. Eating behavior: lessons from the real world of humans. Nutrition 2000;16:800 14. Klesger RC, Bartsch D, Norwood DD, et al.The effects of selected social and environmental variables on the eating behavior of adults in the natural environment. Int J Eating Dis 1984;2:35 15. Sommer R, Steele J. Social effects on duration in restaurants. Appetite 1997; 29:25 16. Meyers AW, Stunkard AJ, Coll M. Food accessibility and food choice. A test of Schachter’s externality hypothesis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1980;37:1133 17. Sommer R, Sommer BA. Social facilitation effects in coffee-houses. Environ Behav 1989;21:651 18. Lieux ME, Manning CK. Evening meals selected by college students: impact of the foodservice system. J Am Diet Assoc 1992;92:560 19. Allen DE, Patterson ZJ, Warren GL. Nutrition, family commensality, and academic performance. J Home Econ 1970;62:333 20. Donkin AJM, Neale RJ, Tilston C. Children’s food purchase requests. Appetite 1993;21:291 21. Feunekes G, de Graaf C, Meyboom S, van Staveren W. Food choice and fat intake of adolescents and adults: associations of intakes within social networks. Prev Med 1998;27:645 22. Gillman M, Rifas-Shiman S, Frazier L, et al. Family dinner and diet quality among older children and adolescents. Arch Fam Med 2000;9:235 23. Meiselman HL, Johnson JL, Reeve W, Crouch JE. Demonstration of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 2000;35:231 24. Bell R, Meiselman HL, Pierson BJ, Reeve WG. Effects of adding an Italian theme to a restaurant on the perceived ethnicity, acceptability, and selection of foods. Appetite 1994;22:11 25. Hirsch ES, Kramer FM. Situational influences on food intake. In: Marriott BM, ed. Nutritional needs in hot environments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993:215 26. Engell D, Kramer M, Malafi T, Salomon M, Lesher L. Effects of effort and social modelling on drinking in humans. Appetite 1996;26:129 27. Cardello AV, Bell R, Kramer FM. Attitudes of consumers toward institutional food. Food Qual Prefer 1996;7:7 28. de Casto JM. Circadian rhythms of the spontaneous meal pattern, macronutrient intake, and mood of humans. Physiol Behav 1987;40:437 29. De Castro JM, Mc Cormick J, Pedersen M, Kreitzman SN. Spontaneous human meal patterns are related to preprandial factors regardless of natural environmental constraints. Physiol Behav 1986;38:25 30. Peryam DR, Gutman NJ. Variation in preference ratings for foods served at meals. Food Technol 1958;12:30 31. Berry LS, Beatty WW, Klesges RC. Sensory and social influences on ice cream consumption by males and females in a laboratory setting. Appetite 1985;6:41 32. Clendenen VI, Herman CP, Polivy J. Social facilitation of eating among friends and strangers. Appetite 1994;23:1 33. Polivy J, Herman CP, Younger JC, Erskine B. Effects of a model on eating behavior: the induction of a restrained eating style. J Person 1979;47:100 34. Bellisle F, Dalix AM. Cognitive restraint can be offset by distraction, leading to increased meal intake in women. Am J Clin Nutr 2001;74:197 35. Roth DA. The influence of norms on eating behavior: an impression management approach. Dissert Abstr Int 2000;61:1B–590 36. De Castro JM, Brewer EM. The amount eaten in meals by humans is a power function of the number of people present. Physiol Behav 1992;51:121 37. De Castro JM, De Castro ES. Spontaneous meal patterns of humans: influence of the presence of other people. Am J Clin Nutr 1989;50:237 38. De Castro JM. Methodology, correlational analysis, and interpretation of diet diary reports of the food and fluid intakes of free-living humans. Appetite 1994;23:179 39. Klesges RC, Bartsch D, Norwood JD, et al. The effects of selected social and environmental variables on the eating behavior of adults in the natural environment. Int J Eat Disord 1984;2:35 40. Sommer R, Steele J. Social effects on duration in restaurants. Appetite 1997; 29:25 41. Feunekes GI, de Graaf C, van Staveren WA. Social facilitation of food intake is mediated by meal duration. Physiol Behav 1995;58:551 42. De Castro JM. Socio-cultural determinants of meal size ad frequency. Br J Nutr 1997;77(suppl 1):39 43. De Castro JM, Brewer EM, Elmore DE, Orozco S. Social Facilitation of the spontaneous meal size of humans occurs regardless of time, place, alcohol or snacks. Appetite 1990;15:89

Ambience and Food Intake

835

44. Suda Y, Marske CE, Flaherty JH, et al. Examining the effect of intervention to nutritional problems of the elderly living in an inner city area: a pilot project. J Nutr Health Aging 2001;5:118 45. Sommer R. Personal space. The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969 46. Mass Observation. The pub and the people: a worktown study. London: Victor Gollancz, 1943 47. Quigley BM, Collins RL. The modeling of alcohol consumption: a metaanalytic review. J Stud Alcohol 1999;60:90 48. Bull NL. Studies of the dietary habits, food consumption and nutrient intakes of adolescents and young adults. World Rev Nutr Diet 1988;57:24 49. Bissonette MM, Contento IR. Adolescent’s perspectives and food choice behaviors in terms of the environmental impacts of food production practices: application of a psychosocial model. J Nutr Educ 2001;33:72 50. Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D. Competitive foods in schools: issues, trends, and future directions. Topics Clin Nutr 1999;15:37 51. Charles N, Kerr M. Just the way it is: gender and age differences in family food consumption. In: Brannen J, Wilson G, eds. Give and take in families. Studies in resource distribution. London: Allen & Unwin, 1987:155 52. Charles N, Kerr M. Women, food and families. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988 53. Birch LL, Zimmerman S, Hind H. The influence of social affective context on the development of children’s food preference. Child Dev 1980;51:856 54. Koivisto UK, Fellenuis J, Sjo¨ den PO. Relations between parental mealtime practices and children’s food intake. Appetite 1994;22:245 55. Boutelle KN, Birnbaum AS, Lytle LA, et al. Associations between perceived family meal environment and parent intake of fruit, vegetables, and fat. J Nutr Educ Behav 2003;35:24 56. De Castro JM. Family and friends produce greater social facilitation of food intake than other companions. Physiol Behav 1994;56:445 57. Kemmer D, Anderson AS, Marshall DW. Living together and eating together: changes in food choice and eating habits during the transition from single to married cohabiting. Sociol Rev 1998;46:48 58. Messer E. Sociocultural aspects of nutrient intake and behavioural responses to nutrition. In: Galler JR, ed. Human nutrition. A comprehensive treatise. Nutrition and behavior. New York: Plenum Press, 1984:63 59. Goldman SJ, Herman CP, Polivy J. Is the effect of a social model on eating attenuated by hunger? Appetite 1991;17:129 60. Pliner P, Chaiken S. Eating social motives and self-presentation in women and men. J Exp Soc Psychol 1990;26:240 61. Haire-Joshu D, Nanny MS. Prevention of overweight and obesity in children: influences on the food environment. Diabetes Educ 2002;28:415 62. Pliner P, Iuppa G. The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite 1982;3:283 63. Marcelino AS, Adam AS, Couronne T, et al. Internal and external determinants of eating initiation in humans. Appetite 2001;36:9 64. Klajner F, Herman CP, Polivy J, Chhabra R. Human obesity, dieting, and anticipatory salivation to food. Physiol Behav 1981;27:195 65. Bossert-Zaudig S, Laessle R, Meiller C, Ellring H. Hunger and appetite during visual perception of food in eating disorders. Eur Psychiatry 1991;6:237 66. Hill AJ, Magson LD, Blundell JE. Hunger and palatability: tracking ratings of subjective experience before, during and after the consumption of preferred and less preferred food. Appetite 1980;5:361 67. Rodin J. Has the distinction between internal versus external control of feeding outlived its usefulness?. In: Bray GA, ed. Recent advances in obesity research, Vol 2. London: Newman, 1978:75 68. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, et al. “Nonhedonic” food motivation in humans involves dopamine in the dorsal striatum and methylphenidate amplifies this effect. Synapse 2002;44:175 69. Meiselman HL, Hirsch ES, Popper RD. Sensory, hedonic and situational factors in food acceptance and consumption. In: Thomson DMH, ed. Food acceptability. London: Elsevier, 1989:77 70. Marshall D. Appropriate meal occasions: understanding conventions and exploring situational influences on food choice. Int Rev Retail Distribut Consum Res 1993;3:279 71. Engell D, Kramer M, Malafi T, et al. Effects of effort and social modelling on drinking in humans. Appetite 1996;26:129 72. Gruenewald PJ, Johnson FW, Treno AJ. Outlets, drinking and driving: a multilevel analysis of availability. J Stud Alcohol 2002;63:460 73. Edelman B, Engell D, Bronstein P, Hirsch E. Environmental effects on the intake of overweight and normal-weight men. Appetite 1986;7:71 74. Tufts University. Larger portion sizes. We’re surrounded. Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter 2002;20:4. Available at: http://healthletter.tufts.edu/. Accessed April 21, 2003 75. American Institute of Cancer Research. Growing evidence confirms that Amer-

836

76. 77.

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84.

85. 86.

87. 88.

89. 90.

91. 92.

93.

94. 95. 96. 97.

98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103.

104.

105.

106.

Stroebele and De Castro icans eat too much. American Institute of Cancer Research Newsletter 2002;75. Available at: http://www.aicr.org/cpublications.html. Accessed April 21, 2003 Young LR, Nestle M. The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Am J Public Health 2002;92:246 Booth DA, Fuller J, Lewis V. Human control of body weight: cognitive or physiological? Some energy-related perceptions and misperceptions. In: Cioffi LA, et al, eds. The body weight regulatory system: normal and disturbed mechanisms. New York: Raven Press, 1981:305 Rolls BJ, Morris EL, Roe LS. Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76:1207 Wansink B, Park SB. Accounting for taste: prototypes that predict preference. J Data Market 2000;7:308 Wansink B. Can package size accelerate usage volume? J Market 1996;60:1 Clemens LHE, Slawson DL, Klesges RC. The effect of eating out on quality of diet in premenopausal women. J Am Diet Assoc 1999;99:442 De Castro JM, Stroebele N. Food intake in the real world: implications for nutrition and aging. Clin Geriatr Med 2002;18:685 Guthrie JF, Biing-Hwan L, Frazao E. Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977–78 versus 1994 –96. Changes and consequences. J Nutr Educ Behav 2002;3:140 French SA, Harnack L, Jeffery RW. Fast food restaurant use among women in the Pound of Prevention study: dietary, behavioral and demographic correlates. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24:1353 Jeffrey RW, French SA. Epidemic obesity in the United States: are fast foods and television viewing contributing? Am J Public Health 1998;88:277 McCrory MA, Fuss PJ, Hays NP, et al. Overeating in America: association between restaurant food consumption and body fatness in healthy adult men and women ages 19 to 80. Obes Res 1999;7:564 Malouf NM, Colaguiri S. The effects of McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut meals on recommended diets. Asian Pac J Clin Nutr 1995;4:265 Bell R, Meiselman HL. The role of eating environments in determining food choice. In: Marshall D, ed. Food choice and the consumer. Glasgow: Blackie Academic & Professional, 1995:292 Meiselman HL, MacFie HJH. Food choice, acceptance and consumption. London: Blackie Academic & Professional, 1996 Marshall D, Bell R. The relative influence of meal occasion and situation on food choice. In: Worsley A, ed. Multidisciplinary approaches to food choice. Adelaide, Australia: Food Choice Conference, 1996:99 Marshall D, Bell R. Meal construction: exploring the relationship between eating occasion and location. Food Qual Prefer 2003;14:53 Branch LG, Meiselman HL. The consumer’s opinion of food service system: the 1973 Travis Air Force Base Survey. Natwick, MA: United States Army Natwick Laboratories, 1973 Cardello AV. Patient’s perceptions of meal acceptability. Hospital patient feeling systems. In: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, MN. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 1982:31 Cherulnik PD. Reading restaurant facades. Environmental inference in finding the right place to eat. Environ Behav 1991;23:150 Schlosser E. Fast food nation. The dark side of the all American meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001 Goldfield GS, Epstein LH. Can fruits and vegetables and activities substitute for snack foods? Health Psychol 2002;21:299 Deliza R, MacFie HJH. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: a review. J Sens Stud 1996;11:103 Meal DJ. Symposiums on ‘Functionality of nutrients and behaviour’. Food choice and intake: the human factor. Proc Nutr Soc 1999;58:513 Pliner P. The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite 1982;3:283 Jeffrey RW, French SA, Raether C, Baxter JE. An environmental intervention to increase fruit and salad purchases in a cafeteria. Prev Med 1994;23:788 French SA. Pricing effects on food choices. J Nutr 2003;133:841S Elmstahl S, Blabolil V, Fex G, Ku¨ ller R, Steen B. Hospital nutrition in geriatric long-term medicine. Compr Gerontol 1987;A1:29 Melin L, Go¨ testam KG. The effects of rearranging ward routines on communication and eating behaviors of psychogeriatric patients. J Behav Anal 1981; 14:47 Mathey MF, Vanneste VG, de Graaf C, et al. Health effect of improved meal ambiance in a Dutch nursing home: a 1-year intervention study. Prev Med 2001;32:416 Pendergrast M. For God, country, and Coca-Cola. The definite history of the great American soft drink and the company that makes it. New York: Basic Books, 2000 Story M, Neumakr-Sztainer D, French S. Individual and environmental influences on adolescent eating behaviors. J Am Diet Assoc 2002;102(suppl 3):S40

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 107. Ellison RC, Capper AL, Goldberg RJ, et al. The environmental condition: changing school food service to promote cardiovascular health. Health Educ Q 1989;16:285 108. Jacobsen MF, Brownell KD. Small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods to promote health. Am J Public Health 2000;90:854 109. Murphy Zive M, Pelletier RL, Sallis JF, Elder JP. An environmental intervention to improve a la carte foods at middle schools. J Am Diet Assoc 2002; 102(suppl 3):S76 110. Nader PR, Stone EL, Lytle LA, et al. Three-year maintenance of improved diet and physical activity. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999;153:695 111. Kelder SH, Perry CL, Klepp KI, Lytle LA. Longitudinal tracking of adolescent smoking, physical activity, and food choice behaviors. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1121 112. Hoelscher DM, Evans A, Parcel GS, Kelder SH. Designing effective nutrition interventions for adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc 2002;102(suppl 3):S52 113. Braem H. Die Macht der Farben. Munich: Wirtschaftsverlag Langer-Mu¨ ller/ Herbig, 1987 114. Bellizzi JA, Crowley AE, Hasty RW. The effects of color in store design. J Retail 1983;59:21 115. Birren F. Light, color & environment: presenting a wealth of data on the biological and psychological effects of color, with detailed recommendations for practical color use, special attention to computer facilities, and a historic review of period styles. West Chester, PA: Schiffer, 1988 116. Scott GD. The psychic value of music and color in infant and child nutrition. Med J Rec 1931;113:161 117. Kwallek N, Lewis CM, Lin-Hsiao JW, Woodson H. Effects of nine monochromatic office interior colors on clerical tasks and worker mood. Color Res Applic 1996;21:448 118. Lyman B. A psychology of food. More than a matter of taste. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1989 119. Grunert SC. Essen und Emotionen. Die Selbstregulierung von Emotionen durch das Essverhalten. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union, 1993 120. Favre JP, November A. Color and communication. Zurich: ABC-Verlag, 1979 121. Pangborn RM. Sensory techniques of food analysis. In: Gruenwedel DW, Whitaker JR, eds. Food analysis: principles and techniques, Vol 1. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1984:55 122. Garber LL, Hyatt EM, Starr RG. The effect of food color on perceived flavor. J Market Theory Pract 2000;8:59 123. Clydesdale FM, Gover R, Philipsen DH, et al. The effect of color on thirst quenching, sweetness, acceptability and flavor intensity in fruit punch flavored beverages. J Food Qual 1992;15:19 124. Zellner DA, Durlach P. What is refreshing? An investigation of the color and other sensory attributes of refreshing foods and beverages. Appetite 2002;39: 185 125. Rolls BJ, Rowe EA, Rolls ET. How sensory properties of foods affect human feeding behavior. Physiol Behav 1982;29:409 126. Rolls BJ. The role of sensory-specific satiety in food intake and food selection. In: Capaldi ED, Powley TL, eds. Taste, experience, and feeding. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1990:197 127. Lavin JG, Lawless HT. Effects of color and odor on judgements of sweetness among children and adults. Food Qual Prefer 1998;9:283 128. Walford J. Historical development of food coloration. In: Walford J, ed. Developments in food colours. London: Applied Science, 1980:1 129. Clydesdale FM. Color as a factor in food choice. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 1993;33:83 130. Ross L. Effects of manipulating salience of food upon consumption by obese and normal eaters. In: Schachter S, Rodin J, eds. Obese human and rats. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1974:43 131. Kasof J. Indoor lighting preferences and bulimic behavior. An individual differences approach. Person Indiv Differ 2002;32:383 132. Greeno CG, Wing RR, Marcus MD. Nocturnal eating in binge eating disorder and matched-weight controls. Int J Eat Disord 1995;18:343 133. Rand CSW, Macgregor AMC, Stunkard AJ. The night eating syndrome in the general population and among postoperative obesity surgery patients. Int J Eat Disord 1997;22:65 134. Butler DL, Biner PM. Preferred lighting levels. Variability among settings, behaviors, and individuals. Environ Behav 1987;19:695 135. Bre´ zinova V, Oswald I. Sleep after a bedtime beverage. Br Med J 1972;2:431 136. Trant AS, Pangborn RM. Discrimination, intensity, and hedonic responses to color, aroma, viscosity, and sweetness of beverages. Lebensm Wiss Technol 1983;16:147 137. Kissileff HR, Gruss LP, Thornton J, Jordan HA. The satiating efficiency of foods. Physiol Behav 1985;32:319 138. Rolls BJ, Fedoroff IC, Guthrie JF, Laster LJ. Effects of temperature and mode of presentation of juice on hunger, thirst and food intake in humans. Appetite 1990;15:199

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004 139. Green BG. Heat as factor in the perception of taste, smell, and oral sensation. In: Marriott BM, ed. Nutritional needs in hot environments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993:173 140. Zellner DA, Stewart WF, Rozin P, Brown JM. Effects of temperature and expectations on liking for beverages. Physiol Behav 1988;44:61 141. Brobeck JR. Food intake as a mechanism of temperature regulation. J Biol Med 1948;20:545 142. Herman CP. Effects of heat on appetite. In: Marriott BM, ed. Nutritional needs in hot environments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993:187 143. Westerterp-Platenga MS. Effects of extreme environments on food intake in human subjects. Proc Nutr Soc 1999;58:791 144. Collins KJ. The endocrine component of human adaptation to cold and heat. In: Assenmacher I, Farner DS, eds. Environmental endocrinology. Proceedings of an International Symposium held in Montpellier (France), 11–15 July 1997. Berlin: Springer, 1978:294 145. Logue AW. The psychology of eating and drinking. New York: WH Freeman, 1991 146. Murray R. The effects of consuming carbohydrate-electrolyte beverages on gastric emptying and fluid absorption during and following exercise. Sport Med 1987;4:322 147. Murray R. Fluid needs in hot and cold environments. Int J Sport Nutr 1995;5: S62 148. Wilk B, Bar-Or O. Effect of drink flavor and NaCL on voluntary drinking and hydration in boys exercising in the heat. J Appl Physiol 1996;8:1112 149. Clapp AJ, Bishop PA, Smith JF, Bauman TR. Palatability rating of different beverages of heat exposed workers in a simulated hot industrial environment. Int J Ind Ergonom 2000;26:57 150. Russek M, Fantino M, Cabanac M. Effect of environmental temperature on pleasure ratings of odors and tastes. Physiol Behav 1979;22:251 151. Bakery Business News. Summer 2002. Business trends. Available at: www. bakerybusiness.com. Accessed April 21, 2003 152. Kuß A, Tomczak T. Ka¨ uferverhalten: eine marketingorientierte Einfu¨ hrung. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2000 153. Johnson RE, Kark RM. Environment and food intake in man. Science 1948; 105:378 154. Yates AA. Food intake, appetite, and work in hot environments. In: Marriott BM, ed. Nutritional needs in hot environments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993:297 155. Booth G, Strang JM. Changes in temperature of the skin following the ingestion of food. Arch Intern Med 1936;57:533 156. Feldman M, Richardson CT. Role of thought, sight, smell, and taste of food in the cephalic phase of gastric acid secretion in humans. Gastroenterology 1986; 90:428 157. Rozin P. “Taste-smell confusions” and the duality of the olfactory sense. Percept Psychophysiol 1982;31:397 158. Prescott J. Flavour as a psychological construct: implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Qual Prefer 1999;10:349 159. Stevenson RJ, Prescott J, Boakes RA. Confusing tastes and smells: how odours can influence the perception of sweet and sour tastes. Chem Senses 1999;24:627 160. Schifferstein HNJ, Blok ST. The signal function of thematically (in)congruent ambient scents in a retail environment. Chem Senses 2002;27:539 161. Goetzl FR, Abel M, Ahokas AJ. Occurrence in normal individuals of diurnal variations in olfactory acuity. J Appl Physiol 1950;2:553 162. Koelega HS. Diurnal variations in olfactory sensitivity and the relationship to food intake. Percept Motor Skill 1994;78:215 163. Cabanac M. Physiological role of pleasure. Science 1971;173:1103 164. Inman JJ. The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety seeking. J Consum Res 2001;28:105 165. Rolls BJ, Rolls ET, Rowe EA, Sweeney K. Sensory specific satiety in man. Physiol Behav 1981;27:137 166. Rolls ET, Rolls JH. Olfactory sensory-specific satiety in humans. Physiol Behav 1997;61:461 167. Barker LM. The psychobiology of human food selection. Westport, CT: AVI Publishing Co., 1982 168. Whitten LA. Hedonics of taste-odor mixtures in humans: a study of flavor perception. Dissert Abstract Int B Sci Engin 1996;57(3B):2192 169. Aggleton JP, Waskett L. The ability of odours to serve as state-dependent cues for real-world memories: can Viking smells aid the recall of Viking experiences? Br J Psychol 1999;1:1 170. Richardson CT, Zucco GM. Cognition and olfaction: a review. Psychol Bull 1989;105:352 171. Gulas CS, Bloch PH. Right under our noses: ambient scent and consumer responses. J Bus Psychol 1995;10:87 172. Bone PF, Jantrania S. Olfaction as a cue for product quality. Market Lett 1992;3:289 173. Knasko SC. Ambient odor and shopping behavior. Chem Senses 1989;14:178

Ambience and Food Intake

837

174. Leenders MAAM, Smidts A, Langeveld M. Effects of ambient scent in supermarkets. In: Hildebrandt L, Annackee D, Klapper D, eds. Marketing and competition in the information age. Proceedings of the 28th EMAC Conference, Humboldt University, Berlin. 175. Schifferstein HN, Verlegh PW. The role of congruency and pleasantness in odor-induced taste enhancement. Acta Psychol 1996;94:87 176. Prescott J. Flavour as a psychological construct: implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Qual Prefer 1999;10:349 177. Drewnowski A. Taste preferences and food intake. Annu Rev Nutr 1997;17:237 178. Schiffman SS. Taste and smell losses in normal aging and disease. JAMA 1997;278:1357 179. Schiffman SS. Intensification of sensory properties of food for the elderly. J Nutr 2000;130(suppl 4):927S 180. De Castro JM. Circadian rhythms of the spontaneous meal patterns, macronutrient intake, and mood of humans. Physiol Behav 1987;40:437 181. De Castro JM. Seasonal rhythms of human nutrient intake and meal patterns. Physiol Behav 1991a;50:729 182. De Castro JM. Weekly rhythms of spontaneous nutrient intake and meal pattern of humans. Physiol Behav 1991b;50:738 183. De Castro JM, Elmore DK. Subjective hunger relationships with meal patterns in the spontaneous feeding behavior of humans: evidence for a causal connection. Physiol Behav 1988;43:159 184. Green J, Pollak CP, Smith GP. Meal size and intermeal interval in human subjects in time isolation. Physiol Behav 1987;41:141 185. Green J, Pollak CP, Smith GP. The effect of desynchronization on meal patterns of humans living in time isolation. Physiol Behav 1987;39:203 186. Aschoff J. Meal timing in humans during isolation without time cues. J Biol Rhythms 1986;1:151 187. Bernstein IL. Meal patterns in “free-running” humans. Physiol Behav 1981;27: 621 188. de Castro JM, Kreitzman SM. A microregulatory analysis of spontaneous human feeding patterns. Physiol Behav 1985;35:329 189. de Castro JM, McCormick J, Pedersen M, Kreitzman SM. Spontaneous human meal patterns are related to preprandial factors regardless of natural environment constraints. Physiol Behav 1986;38:25 190. de Castro JM. The influence of time of day of food intake on overall intake in humans. Nutrition 2004(in press) 191. De Graaf C, Jas P, van der Kooy K, Leenen R. Circadian rhythms of appetite at different stages of a weight loss programme. Int J Obesity 1993;17:521 192. Birch LL, Billman J, Richards SS. Time of day influences food acceptability. Appetite 1984;5:109 193. Kramer FM, Rock K, Engell D. Effects of time of day and appropriateness on food intake and hedonic ratings at morning and midday. Appetite 1992;18:1 194. Lasfargues G, Vol S, Cace`s E, et al. Relations among night work, dietary habits, biological measures and health status. Int J Behav Med 1996;3:123 195. Lennerna¨ s M. Nutrition in the 24-hour society. Some aspects on eating when others are sleeping. In: Ko¨ hler BM, Feichtinger E, Dowler E, Winkler G, eds. Public health and nutrition. The challenge. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 1999:163 196. Lennerna¨ s M, Hambraeus L, Akerstedt T. Shift related dietary intake in day and shift workers. Appetite 1995;25:253 197. Schlettwein-Gsell D. Can we measure the impact of dietary habits and attitudes on nutritional status?. In: Ko¨ hler BM, Feichtinger E, Dowler E, Winkler G, eds. Public health and nutrition. The challenge. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 1999:173 198. Van Cauter E, Desir D, Decoster C, et al. Nocturnal decrease in glucose tolerance during constant glucose infusion. J Endocrinol Metab 1989;69:604 199. Spiegel K, Leproult R, Van Cauter E. Impact of sleep debt on metabolic and edocrine function. Lancet 1999;354:1435 200. Waterhouse JM, Minors DS, Atkinson G, Benton D. Chronobiology and meal times: internal and external factors. Br J Nutr 1997;77:29 201. Jula A, Seppanen R, Alanen E. Influence of days of the week on reported food, macronutrient and alcohol intake among an adult population in south western Finland. Eur J Clin Nutr 1999;53:808 202. Jenn A. Die deutsche Gastronomie. Eine historische und betriebswirtschaftliche Betrachtung. Frankfurt: Deutscher Fachverlag, 1993 203. Crozier WR. Music and social influence. In: Harbgreaves DJ, North AC, eds. The social psychology of music. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997:67 204. McCarron A, Tierney KJ. The effect of auditory stimulation on the consumption of soft drinks. Appetite 1989;13:155 205. Lindman R, Lindfors B, Dahla E, Toivola H. Alcohol and ambience: social and environmental determinants of intake and mood. In: Lindros KO, Ylikahri R, Kiianmaa K, eds. Proceedings of the Third Congress of the International Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1986:385 206. Ferber C, Cabanac M. Influence of noise on gustatory affective ratings and reference for sweet or salt. Appetite 1987;8:229 207. McElrea H, Standing F. Fast music causes fast drinking. Percept Motor Skill 1992;75:362

838

Stroebele and De Castro

208. Roballey TC, McGreevy C, Rongo RR, et al. The effect of music on eating behavior. Bull Psychon Soc 1985;23:221 209. Milliman RE. The influence of background music on behavior of restaurant patrons. J Consum Res 1986;13:286 210. Caldwell C, Hibbert SA. The influence of music tempo and musical preference on restaurant patrons’ behavior. Psychol Market 2002;19:895 211. North AC, Hargreaves DJ. The effects of music on responses to a dining area. J Environ Psychol 1996;16:55 212. Areni CS, Kim D. The influence of background music on shopping behavior: classical versus Top-40 music in a wine store. Adv Consum Res 1993;20:336 213. Dube´ L, Chebat J-C. The effects of background music on consumers’ desire to affiliate in buyer-seller interactions. Psychol Market 1995;12:305 214. Ragneskog H, Brane G, Karlsson I, Kihlgren M. Influence of dinner music on food intake and symptoms common in dementia. Scand J Caring Sci 1996;10:11 215. Coon KA, Goldberg J, Rogers BL, Tucker KL. Relationships between use of television during meals and children’s food consumption patterns. Pediatrics 2001;107:167 216. Rosenbaum MM, Leibel RL. The physiology of body weight regulation: relevance to the etiology of obesity in children. Pediatrics 1998;101:525 217. Taras HL, Sallis JF, Patterson TL, et al. Television’s influence on children’s diet and physical activity. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1989;10:176 218. Gortmaker SL, Dietz WH, Cheung LW. Inactivity, diet, and the fattening America. J Am Diet Assoc 1990;90:1247 219. Klesges RC, Shelton ML, Klesges LM. Effects of television on metabolic rate: Potential implications for childhood obesity. Pediatrics 1993;91:281 220. Tucker LA, Friedman GM. Television viewing and obesity in adult males. Am J Public Health 1989;79:516 221. Tucker LA, Bagwell MRN. Television viewing and obesity in adult females. Am J Public Health 1991;81:908 222. Hu FB, Li TY, Colditz GA, et al. Television watching and other sedentary behaviors in relation to risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. J Am Med Assoc 2003;289:1785 223. Stroebele N, de Castro JM. Television viewing nearly adds an additional meal to daily intake. Appetite 2004;42:111 224. Dietz WH, Gortmaker SL. Do we fatten our children at the television set?

Nutrition Volume 20, Number 9, 2004

225. 226. 227. 228.

229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234.

235.

236. 237.

238.

Obesity and television viewing in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 1985;75: 807 Del Toro W, Greenberg BS. Television commercials and food orientations among teenagers in Puerto Rico. Hispan J Behav Sci 1989;11:168 Dietz WH. You are what you eat—what you eat is what you are. J Adolesc Health Care 1990;11:76 Clancy-Hepburn K, Hickey A, Neville G. Children’s behavior responses to TV food advertisements. J Nutr Educ 1974;6:93 Dittmar H, Blayney M. Women’s self-reported eating behaviours and their responses to food and non-food television advertisements. Eur Eat Disord Rev 1996;4:217 Falciglia GA. Food cue prominence in television commercials and eating behaviour of obese and non-obese females. Dissert Abstr Int 1977;38:1656 Strasburger VC. Children and TV advertising. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2001;22:185 Poothullil JM. Role of oral sensory signals in determining meal size in lean women. Nutrition 2002;18:479 Rozin P, Tuorila H. Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Qual Prefer 1993;4:11 Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, et al. The continuing epidemic of obesity in the United States. JAMA 2000;284:1650 Eertmans A, Van den Bergh O, Baeyens F. Food likes and their relative importance in human eating behavior: review and preliminary suggestions for health promotion. Health Educ Res 2001;16:443 Sheperd R. Does taste determine consumption? Understanding the psychology of food choice. In: Frewer LJ, Risvik E, Schifferstein H, eds. Food, people, and society: a European perspective of consumers’ food choices. Berlin: Springer, 2001:117 Tapper K, Horne PJ, Lowe CF. The Food Dudes to the rescue! Psychologist 2003;16:18 Booth SL, Mayer J, Sallis JF, et al. Environmental and societal factors affect food choice and physical activity: rationale, influences, and leverage points. Nutr Rev 2001;59:S21 Wetter AC, Goldberg JP, King AC, et al. How and why do individuals make food and physical activity choices? Nutr Rev 2001;59:S11