- Email: [email protected]
Effects of a Model on Food Neophobia in Humans
app p072
14-09-95 08:42:40
Appetite, 1995, 25, 101–114
Effects of a Model on Food Neophobia in Humans KAREN HOBDEN and PATRICIA PLINER Erindale College, University of Toronto, Canada
In study 1, subjects who were high and low in trait food neophobia made a series of choices between novel or familiar foods in the presence of no model, a neophilic model who chose mostly novel foods, or a neophobic model who chose mostly familiar foods and made another series of choices in private from foods which were not modeled. Subjects who were low (but not high) in trait neophobia behaved in accordance with the behavior of the neophilic (but not neophobic) model in the model’s presence (but not absence). Study 2 clarified the results of study 1, revealing that the phenomenon was modeling and not conformity, that even highly neophobic subjects can be influenced by a stronger modeling manipulation, that food neophobia can be both increased and decreased, and that the reduced neophobia induced by exposure to a neophilic model does not generalize to non-modeled foods. 1995 Academic Press Limited
Some recent research on food selection in humans by Pelchat, Pliner and their colleagues has focussed on food neophobia, an avoidance of/unwillingness to eat novel foods. The research has revealed that although there are stable individual differences in the tendency to be neophobic (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), there are also a number of situational factors which can increase or decrease willingness to ingest unfamiliar foods. Pliner, Pelchat and Grabski (1993) showed that exposure to novel foods increased subjects’ willingness to try a different set of novel foods. Pelchat and Pliner (1994) found that providing information that a novel food tasted good increased subjects’ willingness to taste it. Interestingly, both of these manipulations, exposure and positive information, have also been shown to have an effect on individuals’ reported liking for the taste of novel foods. Several studies (Birch & Marlin, 1982; Birch et al. 1987; Pliner, 1982) have shown that “mere exposure” to the taste of foods increases liking for the taste. Cardello and Sawyer (1992) found that subjects who received positive information about the taste of a novel juice rated the juice more positively after tasting it than controls. Thus, although willingness to eat a food and liking for the taste of a food are distinct responses, they appear to be sensitive to at least some of the same manipulations. Another general factor which has been shown to have strong effects on liking for food is social influence. Duncker (1938) demonstrated that children would imitate the food choices of both another child and a fictional hero. Marinho (1940), extending his work, showed that children who observed a peer model selecting a neutral food This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Address correspondence to either author at: Erindale College, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6, Canada. 0195–6663/95/050101+13 $12.00/0
1995 Academic Press Limited
102
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
exhibited an increased preference for this food, even as much as a year later and in the absence of the model. Birch (1980) paired preschool children, who ranked their liking for two vegetables in a specific order, with three or four peers having opposite preferences. After several days of exposure to the peers’ vegetable choices, target children showed a marked change in their selection patterns in the direction modeled. In addition, post-influence assessment of the target children’s rankings of their liking for the foods showed that they came to resemble those of the peers; the originally disliked food moved up in the order while the originally liked food moved down. The findings above, indicating that exposure to a model can influence an individual’s liking for the taste of a food, raise the question of whether exposure to a model could affect willingness to taste a particular food. Certainly, the other parallels between the two variables (liking for taste and willingness to try) suggest that might be the case. In fact, there is one study (Harper & Sanders, 1975) examining the effect of modeling on willingness to try. Young children were offered an unfamiliar food by their mothers or an adult visitor, who either ate or did not eat food before offering it to the child. More children were willing to taste the food if the adult model tasted it first than if it was only offered. The purpose of the studies reported in the present paper was to examine the effect of a modeling manipulation on the willingness of adult subjects to ingest novel foods. In two studies, we exposed some subjects to a neophilic model who expressed willingness to try a set of novel foods, expecting that such subjects would be more willing to try the same novel foods than would no model controls. We also exposed some subjects to a neophobic model who expressed unwillingness to try the novel foods, expecting to see decreased willingness (or increased neophobia) in these subjects. In addition, we examined subjects’ reactions to a set of novel foods to which the model had not been exposed, in order to address the issue of the generalization of the modeling effects. Finally, we measured subjects’ chronic levels of food neophobia (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) to enable us to determine whether this trait would interact with the modeling manipulation to affect subjects’ willingness to ingest novel foods in the laboratory.
S 1 Method Overview Subjects were required to select from each of ten food pairs the member of the pair they would taste and rate in a subsequent tasting session. Each pair consisted of one novel and one familiar food in the same general category. In the two modeling conditions subjects made their selections after observing those of a confederate (ostensibly another subject). In the neophilic model condition the confederate nearly always chose the novel member of each pair, while in the neophobic model condition s/he did the reverse. In the no model condition subjects made their choices in the absence of a confederate. After making selections from the first set of ten pairs, subjects chose from another set of ten pairs without knowledge of the model’s choices. The two main dependent variables were the proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects from the set of modeled foods and the proportion of novel foods
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
103
chosen by subjects from the set of non-modeled foods. Finally, all subjects completed the Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), a measure of trait food neophobia. Subjects Forty-three subjects participated in this study (22 males and 19 females). Of these, 33 were recruited through a local Canada Employment Centre for students and received $5.00 for their participation. The remaining ten subjects were Introductory Psychology students at the University of Toronto, who participated in this study as a part of a course requirement. Subjects were on the average 19·4 (SD=2·66) years of age. Other than Food Neophobia Scale scores, no individual difference measures were obtained. Procedure All subjects were tested individually by a female experimenter in a study supposedly examining people’s food preferences. They were randomly assigned to the neophilic model, neophobic model or no model condition. Subjects were told that they would be asked to select, from a number of foods, a subset of foods to taste and rate later in the session. Those in the modeling conditions were told that for convenience two subjects were being tested simultaneously, were introduced to a confederate posing as another subject, and were informed that they and the other “subject” would remain together while choosing the foods but would be separated for the tasting phase. Subjects and confederates were then presented with ten food pairs (described in more detail below), one pair at a time, and asked to select one food from each pair to taste later. They were assured that they would not be tasting the samples shown but would be given fresh samples in much smaller amounts. Modeling manipulation. In the modeling conditions, as each pair was presented, first the confederate and then the subject made his/her choice. The confederate selected either eight novel foods (neophilic model) or eight familiar foods (neophobic model), reversing his/her pattern of selection on the fourth and seventh pairs to reduce suspension. A specific script was followed wherein the confederate indicated that his/her choices were determined on the basis of the foods’ novelty or familiarity (e.g. “Well, I’ve never had cassava chips before. I’ll give them a try”, or “The cassava chips look kinda weird. I’ll stick with the potato chips”). The number of novel foods selected by the subject was recorded. Subjects were then given a list of the 20 foods they had just seen and were asked to rate their familiarity with each one (on a seven-point scale) and to estimate the number of times they had eaten it. Postinfluence assessment. Following this, the experimenter explained that the tasting phase of the experiment would be done separately (“. . . so that you won’t influence each other’s ratings . . .”) and led the confederate ostensibly to an adjoining room. Returning to the subject, she announced that before the tasting took place, she wanted him/her to make ten additional selections from another set of ten food pairs. These food pairs, again consisting of one novel and one familiar food, were not shown to the subject, but rather were presented on a written list. As before,
104
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
after making their selections, subjects rated their familiarity with the foods and estimated the number of times they had eaten them. Next, subjects completed the Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) and were then debriefed and dismissed. Foods Each food pair in the first set consisted of one novel and one familiar food of the same food type. Six types of food were represented: fruits, vegetables, fish, dairy products, breads/snacks and dips. Within pairs, order of presentation of novel and familiar foods was counterbalanced. The pairs (as ordered both within and between pairs) were: potato chips and cassava chips, hummus and onion dip, baked beans and black beans, drumsticks (an Indian vegetable) and green beans, tunafish and octopus, goat cheese and cream cheese, Ritz crackers and papads, taramasalata and pickle dip, cow’s milk and sheep’s milk, lychees and pears. The foods were presented in small clear plastic dishes, tightly covered with clear plastic wrap so they could be seen but not smelled. They were kept out of sight until they were presented, one pair at a time, and the experimenter named them as she presented them. The second set of foods also consisted of one novel and one familiar food in the various food groups. However, these foods were never seen by the subjects; rather, they were simply named on a list. The pairs on this list were as follows: kohlrabi and celery, carrot and lotus root, banana and plantain, gooseberry and strawberry, rice and kasha, flatbrot and white bread, cheddar cheese and liptauer cheese, cow’s milk and goat’s milk, quail and chicken, knish and beef pie. Confederates The confederates were two male and two female undergraduate students, similar in age to the subjects. Each confederate served approximately equal numbers of times in the two modeling conditions and with male and female subjects. Results Preliminary analyses Novel and familiar foods. In order to confirm empirically our intuitions about the novelty–familiarity of the “novel” and “familiar” foods used in the two choice tasks, we examined the ratings of familiarity and estimates of times eaten of the 20 foods in each of the two (modeled and non-modeled) sets. For each food pair we did a dependent t-test for both ratings and estimates; the novel foods in each set were rated as less familiar (all 20 ts ≥5·16, ps ≤0·0001) and had been eaten fewer times (all 20 ts ≥4·48, ps ≤0·0001) than the familiar foods. Confederates. In the two confederate conditions we examined the proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects as a function of condition and which of the four confederates had served in the session. Since there were no effects even approaching significance, we collapsed over confederates for all remaining analyses. Subject sex. We did preliminary analyses using sex of subject and condition as independent variables. Since no effects involving sex even approached significance, we combined male and female subjects for all further analyses.
105
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
T 1 Proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects in study 1 as a function of subject’s levels of trait neophobia and modeling condition Modeling condition Neophilic
None
Neophobic
Mean
Modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·76 0·24 4 0·31 0·21 8 0·46 12
0·44 0·15 7 0·41 0·18 6 0·43 13
0·31 0·08 10 0·26 0·30 8 0·29 18
0·44 0·17 21 0·32 0·23 22
Non-modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·80 0·40 4 0·38 0·23 8 0·52 12
0·56 0·29 7 0·44 0·20 6 0·50 13
0·48 0·14 10 0·34 0·31 8 0·42 18
0·57 0·27 21 0·38 0·24 22
Trait food neophobia. The mean Food Neophobia Scale score was 32·4, a value close to that (34·5) in a larger sample of 210 subjects obtained during the development of the FNS (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). Subjects were divided into groups high and low in trait neophobia based on a median split of their scores on the Food Neophobia Scale. Analysis of choice dependent variables A 2 (high/low trait food neophobia) ×3 (neophilic/neophobic/no model) ANOVA on the proportion of novel modeled foods chosen revealed significant main effects for both trait neophobia, F(1, 37)=6·25, p <0·02, and model condition, F(2, 37)= 4·95, p <0·02. However, these effects are qualified by a significant interaction between the variables, F(2, 37)=3·91, p <0·03. The means can be seen in Table 1. Contrasts indicated that subjects low in trait neophobia selected more novel foods after observing a neophilic model than did subjects in either of the other two conditions (which did not differ), ts (37)=2·26 and 3·56, ps <0·05. Subjects high in neophobia were not affected at all by the modeling manipulation. A similar 2×3 ANOVA on the proportion of non-modelled foods chosen showed a similar pattern of results, but variability was greater and the only significant effect was that of level of trait neophobia, F(1, 37)=5·07, p <0·05. Neither the main effect of modeling condition nor the interaction even approached significance. Discussion Although the results of the study appear to indicate an effect of modeling on individuals’ willingness to ingest unfamiliar foods, they are not without ambiguity.
106
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
First of all, exactly what form of social influence was operating is not clear. Indeed, it is often difficult to distinguish between various kinds of social influence in other contexts as well. Our intention was to examine the effects of modeling, in which one individual acquires via observation the responses of a model. Such observational learning is assumed to occur in the absence of reinforcement from the model or from any other source, and the modeled behavior is as likely to be performed in the absence as in the presence of the model. However, another widely studied form of social influence is conformity, which can be defined as “. . . a change in . . . behavior . . . as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people” (Aronson, 1988, p. 19). One of the important underlying motivations for conformity is the gaining of social acceptance or the avoidance of social rejection from those to whom one is conforming. This can be inferred from the fact that when subjects’ behavior can be concealed from the source(s) of social influence, the conforming behavior disappears. Since subjects in the present study made their choices of the modeled foods in the presence of the model, it is possible that their behavior really represents a conformity effect rather than a modeling effect. That is, perhaps subjects believed that the confederate would be more likely to like or approve of them if they made similar choices. Consistent with a conformity explanation is the fact that the effect disappeared on the second set of foods when the model was no longer present. In order to permit unambiguously an interpretation in terms of modeling rather than conformity, it would have been preferable to look for an effect on the modeled foods in the absence of the model. Even if the results do represent a modeling effect rather than a conformity effect, they seem rather limited in scope. Only those subjects generally low in trait food neophobia were influenced by the model’s behavior, and they, only in the direction of even greater food adventurousness. However, closer examination of the modeling literature suggests that our modeling manipulation may have been rather weak. According to Bandura (1977), modeling with observation of consequences to the model is more effective in fostering similar patterns of behavior than is modeling alone. That is, individuals who observe a model performing a particular behavior and then see the model rewarded/punished are more/less likely than individuals seeing the model without any consequences to perform the behavior themselves. In our study, there were essentially no consequences for the model of either choosing or rejecting novel foods. The experimenter purposely maintained a neutral expression following the food choices of both confederate and subject, and the confederate, too, maintained a neutral expression; thus, there were no social consequences. Perhaps more important, since the subjects did not observe the model ingest the foods selected, they observed no consequences of ingestion. Previous research on food selection has indicated that rejection of foods is frequently based on anticipated negative consequences of ingestion, including actual physical harm, but including also unpleasant taste (Rozin & Fallon, 1980). Furthermore, it has been shown that subjects assume that unfamiliar foods, to a greater extent than familiar foods, will be dangerous and will have an unpleasant taste (Pliner et al., 1993). Had subjects in the present study been able to observe positive consequences, or the absence of negative consequences, to the model of ingestion of unfamiliar foods, the modeling manipulation might have been more effective. There is one additional ambiguity in the present study. Unfortunately, modeled/ non-modeled foods was not only confounded with presence/absence of the model it
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
107
was also confounded with presence/absence of the foods themselves, since the first set of foods was actually shown to subjects while the second set was presented only as a list. Thus, the fact that no modeling effect appeared with the second set of foods could be attributed to at least three different factors: (1) the original “modeling” effect was not modeling effect at all but a conformity effect which disappeared when subjects could respond in private; (2) the modeling effect was too “weak” to generalize to a different set of foods; or (3) subjects respond differently to foods they can actually see than they do to foods presented only in hypothetical form on a list. Finally, there were two obvious methodological weaknesses in the study. The number of subjects was uncomfortably small, in particular, there were only four subjects in the low-neophobia–neophilic-model condition. Since this was the cell which differed most from the remaining cells, and which “produced” the interaction between the trait neophobia and modeling condition, the finding should be replicated before it is taken seriously. In addition, although the experimenter was blind to trait neophobia scores, she was not blind to modeling condition. The second study was designed to replicate and extend the first while addressing the issues described above. S 2 In Study 2 we strengthened the modeling manipulation in two different ways. Most important, we had the model appear to taste the foods she had chosen. Subjects watched a videotape of a model (posing as a previous subject) choose, from ten pairs of foods, either mostly novel foods (neophilic model) or mostly familiar foods (neophobic model). After watching the model make her selections, subjects then watched her (ostensibly) taste the foods she had chosen, maintaining a neutral facial expression. In addition, the model chose nine novel (neophilic model) or familiar (neophobic model) foods out of a possible ten as opposed to eight in the previous study. After observing the model, subjects made their own selections from the same set of ten food pairs, as well as from a set of five new pairs, all actually seen. The main dependent measures were the proportions of novel foods selected from the two sets. Subjects also completed a measure of trait food neophobia (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). In this study, unlike the first, any effects of the modeling manipulation on the number of novel foods chosen could not be attributed to conformity, since the model was never present during the subject’s food selections. It was expected that, compared to a no model (control) group, subjects in the neophilic model condition would choose more novel foods and those in the neophilic model condition would select fewer novel foods from the set of modeled foods. We were uncertain as to whether the modeling effect would occur for subjects high in trait neophobia and whether it would generalize to the non-modeled foods. However, since our modeling manipulation was “stronger” than that in the first study, in the two ways described above, we were inclined to expect that both would occur. Method Subjects Subjects were 69 (17 male and 52 female) University of Toronto undergraduate students who participated in the study as part of an Introductory Psychology course requirement. Ages were not obtained.
108
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
Procedure All subjects were tested individually by a female graduate student and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: neophilic model, neophobic model or no model (control). The study was described as examining people’s perceptions of their own and others’ responses in similar situations, in this case an eating situation. Subjects in the two model conditions watched a videotape of a model selecting (and later tasting) one food from each of ten food pairs. Each pair consisted of one novel and one familiar food in the same food category; the pairs were similar but not identical to those used in study 1. The neophilic model selected nine novel and one familiar food (Ritz crackers). The neophobic model selected nine familiar and one novel food (papads). The reversal in the model’s selection pattern was included to reduce suspicion. After making selections from all ten pairs, the model ostensibly tasted the ten foods she had selected and rated her liking for each. The same female confederate was used for both conditions. As in study 1, a specific script was followed wherein the confederate indicated that her preferences were determined by the foods’ novelty or familiarity. While the confederate was making her selections, subjects were unable to see the foods on the videotape; they simply heard the experimenter name the two foods in each pair and then heard the confederate make her choice. During the confederate’s tasting phase, she actually tasted small pieces of bread and apple, carefully maintaining a neutral expression following ingestion of each food. The subjects’ first task was to rate, on nine-point scales, how definite the model seemed of her choice of one versus the other food in each pair. Following this, as the model ostensibly tasted the foods she had selected, subjects rated her apparent liking for each. These two tasks were assigned to insure that subjects paid attention to the model’s selection behavior and to the consequences of ingestion. It should be noted that subjects in the neophilic model condition observed the model supposedly tasting (with no negative consequences) nine novel foods, while subjects in the neophobic model condition observed the model supposedly tasting (again with no negative consequences) nine familiar foods. The section of the videotape on which subjects observed the confederate tasting the foods was identical for both modeling conditions. In a no modeling control group, subjects received the same cover story as subjects in the two modeling conditions but were told they would first do a task involving perceptions of their own behavior and then do a task involving perceptions of another person’s behavior. Thus, subjects expected to see a videotape and make judgments about someone else after (instead of before) making judgments about themselves in an eating situation. The experimenter knew whether the subject had been assigned to the control group vs. one of the modeling groups; however, in the latter cases, she did not know which modeling condition the subject was in. The videotape had been coded, and the experimenter left the room while subjects viewed them. After watching the videotape (or not, if they were in the control group), subjects were shown 15 pairs of foods (in plastic dishes and covered with plastic wrap), one pair at a time, and were instructed to select one food from each pair to taste subsequently. The foods consisted of the ten pairs mentioned in the videotape and five new pairs. The order of presentation of the two blocks of food pairs was counterbalanced. In order to lend credence to our cover story, we asked subjects to
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
109
rate how definite they felt about their own choices for one versus the other food in each pair. Finally, subjects completed the Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) and were then fully debriefed and dismissed. Results Preliminary analyses The mean Food Neophobia Scale score was 31·4; subjects were divided into groups high and low in trait food neophobia, based on a median split of scores. A separate group of 32 subjects provided ratings of familiarity for the 30 foods. For both the modeled and nonmodeled sets of foods, the foods designated a priori as novel were significantly more novel than those designated as familiar, ts ≥27·05, ps ≤0·001. In order to ensure that subjects correctly perceived the model’s food choices, their ratings of the model’s preference for the novel versus the familiar member of each of the food pairs were averaged over the nine condition-consistent choices. Thus, a score of nine would indicate that the subject perceived the model as preferring extremely the novel foods, while a score of one would indicate that the subject perceived the model as preferring extremely the familiar tools. A 2 (high/low food neophobia) ×2 (neophilic model/neophobic model) ANOVA on these ratings found a highly significant main effect of model condition, F(1, 41)=413·96, p <0·0001. Thus, subjects correctly perceived the neophilic model as preferring the novel foods and the neophobic model as preferring the familiar foods Xneophilic model=6·27; Xneophobic model=2·50). There was no main effect of subject’s own level of neophobia on perceptions of the model’s preferences, nor was the interaction significant. It will be recalled that when subjects made their own food choices, some were presented first with the set of the ten modeled pairs while others were presented first with the set of the five non-modeled pairs. We checked to determine whether order of presentation had any effects on subjects’ choice behavior; since there were no such effects, the data were collapsed over the order variable. Analysis of choice dependent variables Since there were ten modeled and only five non-modeled food pairs, we converted number of novel choices to proportion of novel choices so that they would be comparable. We then analysed the proportion of novel foods chosen in a 2 (high/ low trait food neophobia)×3 (neophilic/neophobic/no model)×2 (female/male subjects)×2 (modeled/non-modeled foods) split plot ANOVA with the first three variables between subjects and the fourth, within subjects. There was a highly significant effect of trait food neophobia, F(1, 63)=22·74, p <0·001. The only other effect even approaching significance was an interaction between condition and food set, F(2, 63)=2·40, p=0·10. Examination of the means, appearing in Table 2, indicates that while the effect of condition appears to be substantial for the set of modeled foods, it is negligable for the non-modeled foods. In order to examine the effects of condition more closely, we did separate 2 (trait neophobia group)×3 (condition)×2 (sex) ANOVAS on the modeled and nonmodeled foods. The analysis of the proportion of novel foods chosen from the set of ten modeled pairs yielded significant main effects for model condition, F(2, 57)= 3·17, p <0·05, for level of trait food neophobia, F(1, 57)=29·70, p <0·001, and for
110
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
T 2 Proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects in Experiment 2 as a function of subjects’ levels of trait neophobia and modeling condition Modeling condition Neophilic
None
Neophobic
Mean
Modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·58 0·16 11 0·32 0·26 12 0·44 23
0·53 0·37 10 0·22 0·15 13 0·35 23
0·43 0·28 13 0·09 0·09 10 0·28 23
0·51 0·28 34 0·21 0·20 35
Non-modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·49 0·24 11 0·27 0·31 12 0·37 23
0·46 0·39 10 0·23 0·20 13 0·33 23
0·48 0·38 13 0·10 0·10 10 0·31 23
0·48 0·33 34 0·21 0·23 35
subject sex F(1, 57)=3·99, p <0·05; none of the interactions were significant. Notably, the interaction between condition and level of trait neophobia did not even approach significance; it is clear that the same pattern of results was obtained for subjects high and low in trait neophobia. The means are presented in Table 2. The subject sex main effect showed that males chose more novel foods than did females (Ms= 4·82 and 3·19). The trait neophobia main effect showed, not unexpectedly, that subjects low in the trait of food neophobia chose more novel foods than did those high in food neophobia. The means for the modeling main effect reveal that, as expected, subjects who observed a neophilic model chose more novel foods than controls, while subjects who observed a neophobic model chose fewer novel foods than controls. Contrasts reveal that neither the neophilic nor the neophobic model condition differed significantly from the no model condition, but the two model conditions differed significantly from each other, t(57)=2·39, p <0·05. A similar 2×3×2 ANOVA on the proportion of novel foods chosen from the set of the five non-modeled food pairs failed to yield a significant effect of condition, F(2, 63) <1, ns, but the effect of trait food neophobia was significant, F(1, 63)= 15·46, p <0·001, subjects low in trait neophobia choosing more novel foods than those high in the trait. There was no significant interaction. Correlations were computed, separately by condition, between FNS scores and number of novel foods chosen from the two sets. They were as follows: no model condition, rs=−0·52 and −0·37; neophobic model condition, rs=−0·63 and −0·55;
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
111
neophilic model condition, rs=−0·53 and −38. With n=23 for each correlation, all were significant at p <0·05. Discussion The results of this study replicate in several respects and clarify the results of the first experiment. First, it appears that the finding in the original study that subjects exposed to a neophilic model’s food choices chose more of the same novel foods than those exposed to the choices of a neophobic model was a modeling effect rather than a conformity effect. That is, in the second study, subjects made their own food choices in the absence of the model, who could, therefore, not have been perceived as a potential source of social reward/punishment, and we obtained a similar modeling effect. In the second study, unlike the first, highly food neophobic subjects were also influenced by the modeling manipulation, suggesting that in study 1, the manipulation may simply have been too weak to reduce inhibitions in these individuals. Finally, we found again that the modeling effects did not generalize to a new set of food stimuli. Why we obtained sex differences in one study but not the other is unclear, and we are not inclined to attach great importance to them.
G D The results of the second study indicate that social influence in the form of modeling affects food adventurousness in individuals both high and low in trait food neophobia. Although for much of the period of human evolution ingestion of novel foods was a risky behavior, for individuals living in modern twentieth century societies, nearly all novel foods likely to be encountered will not be dangerous. Given that, Pliner et al. (1993) have suggested that food neophobia be conceptualized as a phobia in the clinical sense, since it represents an inappropriate fear response to stimuli which are innocuous. The principles of social learning theory have been used in explaining the development of phobias as well as designing treatments for them. Researchers have produced phobias in previously non-phobic subjects by exposing them to a model behaving fearfully in the presence of a particular stimulus (e.g. Cook et al., 1985; Mineka et al., 1984). Reduction in phobic behavior has been induced by exposing subjects to models fearlessly interacting with a phobic stimulus (e.g. Bandura, Blanchard & Ritter, 1969; Bandura, Grusec & Menlove, 1967). Furthermore, the changes in behavior induced by modeling have been shown to generalize to stimuli not encountered in treatment (Bandura & Menlove, 1968; Bandura & Barab, 1973). In our own study the effect of the model failed to generalize to a different set of novel foods, a finding which is inconsistent with the previous research using modeling techniques to induce or reduce phobic responses. Yet this failure to generalize makes sense from an adaptive standpoint. If one observes someone eating a novel food without experiencing any negative effects, it would be reasonable to assume that that particular food is safe to eat. But, it would not necessarily be reasonable to conclude that all novel foods are safe. One might expect the effect to generalize to foods that are similar to the modeled food, but this is an issue for future research. The second of our studies improves on past research on modeling and food neophobia (including our own first study) by ruling out conformity effects, since the
112
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
model was not present when the subjects made their food selections, and by offering subjects the opportunity to choose between familiar or novel foods. Since we often select, prepare, and consume food in the presence of others, there is ample opportunity for our behaviour to be influenced by those around us. The results of this study indicate that food adventurousness can be increased or decreased through social influence. Thus, it is probably true that children’s levels of neophobia will be influenced by those around them—especially their parents. In fact, a recent study (Pliner, 1994) found a significant positive correlation between the levels of neophobia displayed by children and their mothers. Furthermore, if an individual is required to change his/her diet (e.g. for reasons of health or for reasons of availability) by adopting one or more novel foods, one way of promoting change might be to expose him/her to models consuming the target foods.
R Aronson, E. (1988) The social animal (5th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. & Barab, P. G. (1973) Processes governing disinhibitory effects through symbolic modelling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 1–9. Bandura, A., Blanchard, E. B. & Ritter, B. (1969) Relative efficacy of desensitization and modelling approaches for inducing behavioral, affective, and attitudinal change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 173–99. Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E. & Menlove, F. L. (1967) Vicarious extinction of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 16–21. Bandura, A. & Menlove, F. L. (1968) Factors determining vicarious extinction of avoidance behaviors through modelling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 99–108. Birch, L. L. (1980) Effects of peer models’ food choices and eating behaviors on preschoolers’ food preferences. Child Development, 51, 489–96. Birch, L. L. & Marlin, D. W. (1982) I don’t like it; I never tried it: effects of exposure on two-year-old children’s food preferences. Appetite, 3, 353–60. Birch, L. L., McPhee, L., Shoba, B. C., Pirok, E. & Steinberg, L. (1987) What kind of exposure reduces children’s food neophobia? Looking vs. tasting. Appetite, 9, 171–8. Cardello, A. V. & Sawyer, F. M. (1992) Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 253–77. Cook, M., Mineka, S., Wolkenstein B & Laitsch, K. (1985) Observational conditioning of snake fear in unrelated rhesus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 591–610. Duncker, K. (1938) Experimental modification of children’s food preferences through social suggestion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 37, 489–507. Harper, L. V. & Sanders, K. M. (1975) The effect of adults’ eating on young children’s acceptance of novel foods. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 206–14. Marinho, H. (1940) Social influence in the formation of enduring preferences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 37, 448–68. Mineka, S., Davidson, M., Cook, M. & Keir, R. (1984) Observational conditioning of snake fear in the rheusus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 355–72. Pelchat, M. L. & Pliner, P. (1994) “Try it. You’ll like it”: effects of information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite, 24, 153–165. Pliner, P. (1982) The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite, 3, 283–90. Pliner, P. (1994) The development of measures of food neophobia in children. Appetite, 23, 147–63. Pliner, P. & Hobden, K. (1992) The development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105–20. Pliner, P., Pelchat, M. & Grabski, M. (1993) Reduction of neophobia in humans by exposure to novel foods. Appetite, 20, 111–23.
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
113
Rozin, P. & Fallon, A. E. (1980) The psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: a preliminary taxonomy of food rejections. Appetite, 1, 193–201.
Received 1 June 1994, revision 16 January 1995
14-09-95 08:42:40
Appetite, 1995, 25, 101–114
Effects of a Model on Food Neophobia in Humans KAREN HOBDEN and PATRICIA PLINER Erindale College, University of Toronto, Canada
In study 1, subjects who were high and low in trait food neophobia made a series of choices between novel or familiar foods in the presence of no model, a neophilic model who chose mostly novel foods, or a neophobic model who chose mostly familiar foods and made another series of choices in private from foods which were not modeled. Subjects who were low (but not high) in trait neophobia behaved in accordance with the behavior of the neophilic (but not neophobic) model in the model’s presence (but not absence). Study 2 clarified the results of study 1, revealing that the phenomenon was modeling and not conformity, that even highly neophobic subjects can be influenced by a stronger modeling manipulation, that food neophobia can be both increased and decreased, and that the reduced neophobia induced by exposure to a neophilic model does not generalize to non-modeled foods. 1995 Academic Press Limited
Some recent research on food selection in humans by Pelchat, Pliner and their colleagues has focussed on food neophobia, an avoidance of/unwillingness to eat novel foods. The research has revealed that although there are stable individual differences in the tendency to be neophobic (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), there are also a number of situational factors which can increase or decrease willingness to ingest unfamiliar foods. Pliner, Pelchat and Grabski (1993) showed that exposure to novel foods increased subjects’ willingness to try a different set of novel foods. Pelchat and Pliner (1994) found that providing information that a novel food tasted good increased subjects’ willingness to taste it. Interestingly, both of these manipulations, exposure and positive information, have also been shown to have an effect on individuals’ reported liking for the taste of novel foods. Several studies (Birch & Marlin, 1982; Birch et al. 1987; Pliner, 1982) have shown that “mere exposure” to the taste of foods increases liking for the taste. Cardello and Sawyer (1992) found that subjects who received positive information about the taste of a novel juice rated the juice more positively after tasting it than controls. Thus, although willingness to eat a food and liking for the taste of a food are distinct responses, they appear to be sensitive to at least some of the same manipulations. Another general factor which has been shown to have strong effects on liking for food is social influence. Duncker (1938) demonstrated that children would imitate the food choices of both another child and a fictional hero. Marinho (1940), extending his work, showed that children who observed a peer model selecting a neutral food This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Address correspondence to either author at: Erindale College, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6, Canada. 0195–6663/95/050101+13 $12.00/0
1995 Academic Press Limited
102
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
exhibited an increased preference for this food, even as much as a year later and in the absence of the model. Birch (1980) paired preschool children, who ranked their liking for two vegetables in a specific order, with three or four peers having opposite preferences. After several days of exposure to the peers’ vegetable choices, target children showed a marked change in their selection patterns in the direction modeled. In addition, post-influence assessment of the target children’s rankings of their liking for the foods showed that they came to resemble those of the peers; the originally disliked food moved up in the order while the originally liked food moved down. The findings above, indicating that exposure to a model can influence an individual’s liking for the taste of a food, raise the question of whether exposure to a model could affect willingness to taste a particular food. Certainly, the other parallels between the two variables (liking for taste and willingness to try) suggest that might be the case. In fact, there is one study (Harper & Sanders, 1975) examining the effect of modeling on willingness to try. Young children were offered an unfamiliar food by their mothers or an adult visitor, who either ate or did not eat food before offering it to the child. More children were willing to taste the food if the adult model tasted it first than if it was only offered. The purpose of the studies reported in the present paper was to examine the effect of a modeling manipulation on the willingness of adult subjects to ingest novel foods. In two studies, we exposed some subjects to a neophilic model who expressed willingness to try a set of novel foods, expecting that such subjects would be more willing to try the same novel foods than would no model controls. We also exposed some subjects to a neophobic model who expressed unwillingness to try the novel foods, expecting to see decreased willingness (or increased neophobia) in these subjects. In addition, we examined subjects’ reactions to a set of novel foods to which the model had not been exposed, in order to address the issue of the generalization of the modeling effects. Finally, we measured subjects’ chronic levels of food neophobia (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) to enable us to determine whether this trait would interact with the modeling manipulation to affect subjects’ willingness to ingest novel foods in the laboratory.
S 1 Method Overview Subjects were required to select from each of ten food pairs the member of the pair they would taste and rate in a subsequent tasting session. Each pair consisted of one novel and one familiar food in the same general category. In the two modeling conditions subjects made their selections after observing those of a confederate (ostensibly another subject). In the neophilic model condition the confederate nearly always chose the novel member of each pair, while in the neophobic model condition s/he did the reverse. In the no model condition subjects made their choices in the absence of a confederate. After making selections from the first set of ten pairs, subjects chose from another set of ten pairs without knowledge of the model’s choices. The two main dependent variables were the proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects from the set of modeled foods and the proportion of novel foods
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
103
chosen by subjects from the set of non-modeled foods. Finally, all subjects completed the Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), a measure of trait food neophobia. Subjects Forty-three subjects participated in this study (22 males and 19 females). Of these, 33 were recruited through a local Canada Employment Centre for students and received $5.00 for their participation. The remaining ten subjects were Introductory Psychology students at the University of Toronto, who participated in this study as a part of a course requirement. Subjects were on the average 19·4 (SD=2·66) years of age. Other than Food Neophobia Scale scores, no individual difference measures were obtained. Procedure All subjects were tested individually by a female experimenter in a study supposedly examining people’s food preferences. They were randomly assigned to the neophilic model, neophobic model or no model condition. Subjects were told that they would be asked to select, from a number of foods, a subset of foods to taste and rate later in the session. Those in the modeling conditions were told that for convenience two subjects were being tested simultaneously, were introduced to a confederate posing as another subject, and were informed that they and the other “subject” would remain together while choosing the foods but would be separated for the tasting phase. Subjects and confederates were then presented with ten food pairs (described in more detail below), one pair at a time, and asked to select one food from each pair to taste later. They were assured that they would not be tasting the samples shown but would be given fresh samples in much smaller amounts. Modeling manipulation. In the modeling conditions, as each pair was presented, first the confederate and then the subject made his/her choice. The confederate selected either eight novel foods (neophilic model) or eight familiar foods (neophobic model), reversing his/her pattern of selection on the fourth and seventh pairs to reduce suspension. A specific script was followed wherein the confederate indicated that his/her choices were determined on the basis of the foods’ novelty or familiarity (e.g. “Well, I’ve never had cassava chips before. I’ll give them a try”, or “The cassava chips look kinda weird. I’ll stick with the potato chips”). The number of novel foods selected by the subject was recorded. Subjects were then given a list of the 20 foods they had just seen and were asked to rate their familiarity with each one (on a seven-point scale) and to estimate the number of times they had eaten it. Postinfluence assessment. Following this, the experimenter explained that the tasting phase of the experiment would be done separately (“. . . so that you won’t influence each other’s ratings . . .”) and led the confederate ostensibly to an adjoining room. Returning to the subject, she announced that before the tasting took place, she wanted him/her to make ten additional selections from another set of ten food pairs. These food pairs, again consisting of one novel and one familiar food, were not shown to the subject, but rather were presented on a written list. As before,
104
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
after making their selections, subjects rated their familiarity with the foods and estimated the number of times they had eaten them. Next, subjects completed the Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) and were then debriefed and dismissed. Foods Each food pair in the first set consisted of one novel and one familiar food of the same food type. Six types of food were represented: fruits, vegetables, fish, dairy products, breads/snacks and dips. Within pairs, order of presentation of novel and familiar foods was counterbalanced. The pairs (as ordered both within and between pairs) were: potato chips and cassava chips, hummus and onion dip, baked beans and black beans, drumsticks (an Indian vegetable) and green beans, tunafish and octopus, goat cheese and cream cheese, Ritz crackers and papads, taramasalata and pickle dip, cow’s milk and sheep’s milk, lychees and pears. The foods were presented in small clear plastic dishes, tightly covered with clear plastic wrap so they could be seen but not smelled. They were kept out of sight until they were presented, one pair at a time, and the experimenter named them as she presented them. The second set of foods also consisted of one novel and one familiar food in the various food groups. However, these foods were never seen by the subjects; rather, they were simply named on a list. The pairs on this list were as follows: kohlrabi and celery, carrot and lotus root, banana and plantain, gooseberry and strawberry, rice and kasha, flatbrot and white bread, cheddar cheese and liptauer cheese, cow’s milk and goat’s milk, quail and chicken, knish and beef pie. Confederates The confederates were two male and two female undergraduate students, similar in age to the subjects. Each confederate served approximately equal numbers of times in the two modeling conditions and with male and female subjects. Results Preliminary analyses Novel and familiar foods. In order to confirm empirically our intuitions about the novelty–familiarity of the “novel” and “familiar” foods used in the two choice tasks, we examined the ratings of familiarity and estimates of times eaten of the 20 foods in each of the two (modeled and non-modeled) sets. For each food pair we did a dependent t-test for both ratings and estimates; the novel foods in each set were rated as less familiar (all 20 ts ≥5·16, ps ≤0·0001) and had been eaten fewer times (all 20 ts ≥4·48, ps ≤0·0001) than the familiar foods. Confederates. In the two confederate conditions we examined the proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects as a function of condition and which of the four confederates had served in the session. Since there were no effects even approaching significance, we collapsed over confederates for all remaining analyses. Subject sex. We did preliminary analyses using sex of subject and condition as independent variables. Since no effects involving sex even approached significance, we combined male and female subjects for all further analyses.
105
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
T 1 Proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects in study 1 as a function of subject’s levels of trait neophobia and modeling condition Modeling condition Neophilic
None
Neophobic
Mean
Modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·76 0·24 4 0·31 0·21 8 0·46 12
0·44 0·15 7 0·41 0·18 6 0·43 13
0·31 0·08 10 0·26 0·30 8 0·29 18
0·44 0·17 21 0·32 0·23 22
Non-modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·80 0·40 4 0·38 0·23 8 0·52 12
0·56 0·29 7 0·44 0·20 6 0·50 13
0·48 0·14 10 0·34 0·31 8 0·42 18
0·57 0·27 21 0·38 0·24 22
Trait food neophobia. The mean Food Neophobia Scale score was 32·4, a value close to that (34·5) in a larger sample of 210 subjects obtained during the development of the FNS (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). Subjects were divided into groups high and low in trait neophobia based on a median split of their scores on the Food Neophobia Scale. Analysis of choice dependent variables A 2 (high/low trait food neophobia) ×3 (neophilic/neophobic/no model) ANOVA on the proportion of novel modeled foods chosen revealed significant main effects for both trait neophobia, F(1, 37)=6·25, p <0·02, and model condition, F(2, 37)= 4·95, p <0·02. However, these effects are qualified by a significant interaction between the variables, F(2, 37)=3·91, p <0·03. The means can be seen in Table 1. Contrasts indicated that subjects low in trait neophobia selected more novel foods after observing a neophilic model than did subjects in either of the other two conditions (which did not differ), ts (37)=2·26 and 3·56, ps <0·05. Subjects high in neophobia were not affected at all by the modeling manipulation. A similar 2×3 ANOVA on the proportion of non-modelled foods chosen showed a similar pattern of results, but variability was greater and the only significant effect was that of level of trait neophobia, F(1, 37)=5·07, p <0·05. Neither the main effect of modeling condition nor the interaction even approached significance. Discussion Although the results of the study appear to indicate an effect of modeling on individuals’ willingness to ingest unfamiliar foods, they are not without ambiguity.
106
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
First of all, exactly what form of social influence was operating is not clear. Indeed, it is often difficult to distinguish between various kinds of social influence in other contexts as well. Our intention was to examine the effects of modeling, in which one individual acquires via observation the responses of a model. Such observational learning is assumed to occur in the absence of reinforcement from the model or from any other source, and the modeled behavior is as likely to be performed in the absence as in the presence of the model. However, another widely studied form of social influence is conformity, which can be defined as “. . . a change in . . . behavior . . . as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people” (Aronson, 1988, p. 19). One of the important underlying motivations for conformity is the gaining of social acceptance or the avoidance of social rejection from those to whom one is conforming. This can be inferred from the fact that when subjects’ behavior can be concealed from the source(s) of social influence, the conforming behavior disappears. Since subjects in the present study made their choices of the modeled foods in the presence of the model, it is possible that their behavior really represents a conformity effect rather than a modeling effect. That is, perhaps subjects believed that the confederate would be more likely to like or approve of them if they made similar choices. Consistent with a conformity explanation is the fact that the effect disappeared on the second set of foods when the model was no longer present. In order to permit unambiguously an interpretation in terms of modeling rather than conformity, it would have been preferable to look for an effect on the modeled foods in the absence of the model. Even if the results do represent a modeling effect rather than a conformity effect, they seem rather limited in scope. Only those subjects generally low in trait food neophobia were influenced by the model’s behavior, and they, only in the direction of even greater food adventurousness. However, closer examination of the modeling literature suggests that our modeling manipulation may have been rather weak. According to Bandura (1977), modeling with observation of consequences to the model is more effective in fostering similar patterns of behavior than is modeling alone. That is, individuals who observe a model performing a particular behavior and then see the model rewarded/punished are more/less likely than individuals seeing the model without any consequences to perform the behavior themselves. In our study, there were essentially no consequences for the model of either choosing or rejecting novel foods. The experimenter purposely maintained a neutral expression following the food choices of both confederate and subject, and the confederate, too, maintained a neutral expression; thus, there were no social consequences. Perhaps more important, since the subjects did not observe the model ingest the foods selected, they observed no consequences of ingestion. Previous research on food selection has indicated that rejection of foods is frequently based on anticipated negative consequences of ingestion, including actual physical harm, but including also unpleasant taste (Rozin & Fallon, 1980). Furthermore, it has been shown that subjects assume that unfamiliar foods, to a greater extent than familiar foods, will be dangerous and will have an unpleasant taste (Pliner et al., 1993). Had subjects in the present study been able to observe positive consequences, or the absence of negative consequences, to the model of ingestion of unfamiliar foods, the modeling manipulation might have been more effective. There is one additional ambiguity in the present study. Unfortunately, modeled/ non-modeled foods was not only confounded with presence/absence of the model it
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
107
was also confounded with presence/absence of the foods themselves, since the first set of foods was actually shown to subjects while the second set was presented only as a list. Thus, the fact that no modeling effect appeared with the second set of foods could be attributed to at least three different factors: (1) the original “modeling” effect was not modeling effect at all but a conformity effect which disappeared when subjects could respond in private; (2) the modeling effect was too “weak” to generalize to a different set of foods; or (3) subjects respond differently to foods they can actually see than they do to foods presented only in hypothetical form on a list. Finally, there were two obvious methodological weaknesses in the study. The number of subjects was uncomfortably small, in particular, there were only four subjects in the low-neophobia–neophilic-model condition. Since this was the cell which differed most from the remaining cells, and which “produced” the interaction between the trait neophobia and modeling condition, the finding should be replicated before it is taken seriously. In addition, although the experimenter was blind to trait neophobia scores, she was not blind to modeling condition. The second study was designed to replicate and extend the first while addressing the issues described above. S 2 In Study 2 we strengthened the modeling manipulation in two different ways. Most important, we had the model appear to taste the foods she had chosen. Subjects watched a videotape of a model (posing as a previous subject) choose, from ten pairs of foods, either mostly novel foods (neophilic model) or mostly familiar foods (neophobic model). After watching the model make her selections, subjects then watched her (ostensibly) taste the foods she had chosen, maintaining a neutral facial expression. In addition, the model chose nine novel (neophilic model) or familiar (neophobic model) foods out of a possible ten as opposed to eight in the previous study. After observing the model, subjects made their own selections from the same set of ten food pairs, as well as from a set of five new pairs, all actually seen. The main dependent measures were the proportions of novel foods selected from the two sets. Subjects also completed a measure of trait food neophobia (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). In this study, unlike the first, any effects of the modeling manipulation on the number of novel foods chosen could not be attributed to conformity, since the model was never present during the subject’s food selections. It was expected that, compared to a no model (control) group, subjects in the neophilic model condition would choose more novel foods and those in the neophilic model condition would select fewer novel foods from the set of modeled foods. We were uncertain as to whether the modeling effect would occur for subjects high in trait neophobia and whether it would generalize to the non-modeled foods. However, since our modeling manipulation was “stronger” than that in the first study, in the two ways described above, we were inclined to expect that both would occur. Method Subjects Subjects were 69 (17 male and 52 female) University of Toronto undergraduate students who participated in the study as part of an Introductory Psychology course requirement. Ages were not obtained.
108
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
Procedure All subjects were tested individually by a female graduate student and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: neophilic model, neophobic model or no model (control). The study was described as examining people’s perceptions of their own and others’ responses in similar situations, in this case an eating situation. Subjects in the two model conditions watched a videotape of a model selecting (and later tasting) one food from each of ten food pairs. Each pair consisted of one novel and one familiar food in the same food category; the pairs were similar but not identical to those used in study 1. The neophilic model selected nine novel and one familiar food (Ritz crackers). The neophobic model selected nine familiar and one novel food (papads). The reversal in the model’s selection pattern was included to reduce suspicion. After making selections from all ten pairs, the model ostensibly tasted the ten foods she had selected and rated her liking for each. The same female confederate was used for both conditions. As in study 1, a specific script was followed wherein the confederate indicated that her preferences were determined by the foods’ novelty or familiarity. While the confederate was making her selections, subjects were unable to see the foods on the videotape; they simply heard the experimenter name the two foods in each pair and then heard the confederate make her choice. During the confederate’s tasting phase, she actually tasted small pieces of bread and apple, carefully maintaining a neutral expression following ingestion of each food. The subjects’ first task was to rate, on nine-point scales, how definite the model seemed of her choice of one versus the other food in each pair. Following this, as the model ostensibly tasted the foods she had selected, subjects rated her apparent liking for each. These two tasks were assigned to insure that subjects paid attention to the model’s selection behavior and to the consequences of ingestion. It should be noted that subjects in the neophilic model condition observed the model supposedly tasting (with no negative consequences) nine novel foods, while subjects in the neophobic model condition observed the model supposedly tasting (again with no negative consequences) nine familiar foods. The section of the videotape on which subjects observed the confederate tasting the foods was identical for both modeling conditions. In a no modeling control group, subjects received the same cover story as subjects in the two modeling conditions but were told they would first do a task involving perceptions of their own behavior and then do a task involving perceptions of another person’s behavior. Thus, subjects expected to see a videotape and make judgments about someone else after (instead of before) making judgments about themselves in an eating situation. The experimenter knew whether the subject had been assigned to the control group vs. one of the modeling groups; however, in the latter cases, she did not know which modeling condition the subject was in. The videotape had been coded, and the experimenter left the room while subjects viewed them. After watching the videotape (or not, if they were in the control group), subjects were shown 15 pairs of foods (in plastic dishes and covered with plastic wrap), one pair at a time, and were instructed to select one food from each pair to taste subsequently. The foods consisted of the ten pairs mentioned in the videotape and five new pairs. The order of presentation of the two blocks of food pairs was counterbalanced. In order to lend credence to our cover story, we asked subjects to
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
109
rate how definite they felt about their own choices for one versus the other food in each pair. Finally, subjects completed the Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) and were then fully debriefed and dismissed. Results Preliminary analyses The mean Food Neophobia Scale score was 31·4; subjects were divided into groups high and low in trait food neophobia, based on a median split of scores. A separate group of 32 subjects provided ratings of familiarity for the 30 foods. For both the modeled and nonmodeled sets of foods, the foods designated a priori as novel were significantly more novel than those designated as familiar, ts ≥27·05, ps ≤0·001. In order to ensure that subjects correctly perceived the model’s food choices, their ratings of the model’s preference for the novel versus the familiar member of each of the food pairs were averaged over the nine condition-consistent choices. Thus, a score of nine would indicate that the subject perceived the model as preferring extremely the novel foods, while a score of one would indicate that the subject perceived the model as preferring extremely the familiar tools. A 2 (high/low food neophobia) ×2 (neophilic model/neophobic model) ANOVA on these ratings found a highly significant main effect of model condition, F(1, 41)=413·96, p <0·0001. Thus, subjects correctly perceived the neophilic model as preferring the novel foods and the neophobic model as preferring the familiar foods Xneophilic model=6·27; Xneophobic model=2·50). There was no main effect of subject’s own level of neophobia on perceptions of the model’s preferences, nor was the interaction significant. It will be recalled that when subjects made their own food choices, some were presented first with the set of the ten modeled pairs while others were presented first with the set of the five non-modeled pairs. We checked to determine whether order of presentation had any effects on subjects’ choice behavior; since there were no such effects, the data were collapsed over the order variable. Analysis of choice dependent variables Since there were ten modeled and only five non-modeled food pairs, we converted number of novel choices to proportion of novel choices so that they would be comparable. We then analysed the proportion of novel foods chosen in a 2 (high/ low trait food neophobia)×3 (neophilic/neophobic/no model)×2 (female/male subjects)×2 (modeled/non-modeled foods) split plot ANOVA with the first three variables between subjects and the fourth, within subjects. There was a highly significant effect of trait food neophobia, F(1, 63)=22·74, p <0·001. The only other effect even approaching significance was an interaction between condition and food set, F(2, 63)=2·40, p=0·10. Examination of the means, appearing in Table 2, indicates that while the effect of condition appears to be substantial for the set of modeled foods, it is negligable for the non-modeled foods. In order to examine the effects of condition more closely, we did separate 2 (trait neophobia group)×3 (condition)×2 (sex) ANOVAS on the modeled and nonmodeled foods. The analysis of the proportion of novel foods chosen from the set of ten modeled pairs yielded significant main effects for model condition, F(2, 57)= 3·17, p <0·05, for level of trait food neophobia, F(1, 57)=29·70, p <0·001, and for
110
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
T 2 Proportion of novel foods chosen by subjects in Experiment 2 as a function of subjects’ levels of trait neophobia and modeling condition Modeling condition Neophilic
None
Neophobic
Mean
Modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·58 0·16 11 0·32 0·26 12 0·44 23
0·53 0·37 10 0·22 0·15 13 0·35 23
0·43 0·28 13 0·09 0·09 10 0·28 23
0·51 0·28 34 0·21 0·20 35
Non-modeled foods Low neophobia SD n High neophobia SD n Mean n
0·49 0·24 11 0·27 0·31 12 0·37 23
0·46 0·39 10 0·23 0·20 13 0·33 23
0·48 0·38 13 0·10 0·10 10 0·31 23
0·48 0·33 34 0·21 0·23 35
subject sex F(1, 57)=3·99, p <0·05; none of the interactions were significant. Notably, the interaction between condition and level of trait neophobia did not even approach significance; it is clear that the same pattern of results was obtained for subjects high and low in trait neophobia. The means are presented in Table 2. The subject sex main effect showed that males chose more novel foods than did females (Ms= 4·82 and 3·19). The trait neophobia main effect showed, not unexpectedly, that subjects low in the trait of food neophobia chose more novel foods than did those high in food neophobia. The means for the modeling main effect reveal that, as expected, subjects who observed a neophilic model chose more novel foods than controls, while subjects who observed a neophobic model chose fewer novel foods than controls. Contrasts reveal that neither the neophilic nor the neophobic model condition differed significantly from the no model condition, but the two model conditions differed significantly from each other, t(57)=2·39, p <0·05. A similar 2×3×2 ANOVA on the proportion of novel foods chosen from the set of the five non-modeled food pairs failed to yield a significant effect of condition, F(2, 63) <1, ns, but the effect of trait food neophobia was significant, F(1, 63)= 15·46, p <0·001, subjects low in trait neophobia choosing more novel foods than those high in the trait. There was no significant interaction. Correlations were computed, separately by condition, between FNS scores and number of novel foods chosen from the two sets. They were as follows: no model condition, rs=−0·52 and −0·37; neophobic model condition, rs=−0·63 and −0·55;
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
111
neophilic model condition, rs=−0·53 and −38. With n=23 for each correlation, all were significant at p <0·05. Discussion The results of this study replicate in several respects and clarify the results of the first experiment. First, it appears that the finding in the original study that subjects exposed to a neophilic model’s food choices chose more of the same novel foods than those exposed to the choices of a neophobic model was a modeling effect rather than a conformity effect. That is, in the second study, subjects made their own food choices in the absence of the model, who could, therefore, not have been perceived as a potential source of social reward/punishment, and we obtained a similar modeling effect. In the second study, unlike the first, highly food neophobic subjects were also influenced by the modeling manipulation, suggesting that in study 1, the manipulation may simply have been too weak to reduce inhibitions in these individuals. Finally, we found again that the modeling effects did not generalize to a new set of food stimuli. Why we obtained sex differences in one study but not the other is unclear, and we are not inclined to attach great importance to them.
G D The results of the second study indicate that social influence in the form of modeling affects food adventurousness in individuals both high and low in trait food neophobia. Although for much of the period of human evolution ingestion of novel foods was a risky behavior, for individuals living in modern twentieth century societies, nearly all novel foods likely to be encountered will not be dangerous. Given that, Pliner et al. (1993) have suggested that food neophobia be conceptualized as a phobia in the clinical sense, since it represents an inappropriate fear response to stimuli which are innocuous. The principles of social learning theory have been used in explaining the development of phobias as well as designing treatments for them. Researchers have produced phobias in previously non-phobic subjects by exposing them to a model behaving fearfully in the presence of a particular stimulus (e.g. Cook et al., 1985; Mineka et al., 1984). Reduction in phobic behavior has been induced by exposing subjects to models fearlessly interacting with a phobic stimulus (e.g. Bandura, Blanchard & Ritter, 1969; Bandura, Grusec & Menlove, 1967). Furthermore, the changes in behavior induced by modeling have been shown to generalize to stimuli not encountered in treatment (Bandura & Menlove, 1968; Bandura & Barab, 1973). In our own study the effect of the model failed to generalize to a different set of novel foods, a finding which is inconsistent with the previous research using modeling techniques to induce or reduce phobic responses. Yet this failure to generalize makes sense from an adaptive standpoint. If one observes someone eating a novel food without experiencing any negative effects, it would be reasonable to assume that that particular food is safe to eat. But, it would not necessarily be reasonable to conclude that all novel foods are safe. One might expect the effect to generalize to foods that are similar to the modeled food, but this is an issue for future research. The second of our studies improves on past research on modeling and food neophobia (including our own first study) by ruling out conformity effects, since the
112
K. HOBDEN ET AL.
model was not present when the subjects made their food selections, and by offering subjects the opportunity to choose between familiar or novel foods. Since we often select, prepare, and consume food in the presence of others, there is ample opportunity for our behaviour to be influenced by those around us. The results of this study indicate that food adventurousness can be increased or decreased through social influence. Thus, it is probably true that children’s levels of neophobia will be influenced by those around them—especially their parents. In fact, a recent study (Pliner, 1994) found a significant positive correlation between the levels of neophobia displayed by children and their mothers. Furthermore, if an individual is required to change his/her diet (e.g. for reasons of health or for reasons of availability) by adopting one or more novel foods, one way of promoting change might be to expose him/her to models consuming the target foods.
R Aronson, E. (1988) The social animal (5th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. & Barab, P. G. (1973) Processes governing disinhibitory effects through symbolic modelling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 1–9. Bandura, A., Blanchard, E. B. & Ritter, B. (1969) Relative efficacy of desensitization and modelling approaches for inducing behavioral, affective, and attitudinal change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 173–99. Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E. & Menlove, F. L. (1967) Vicarious extinction of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 16–21. Bandura, A. & Menlove, F. L. (1968) Factors determining vicarious extinction of avoidance behaviors through modelling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 99–108. Birch, L. L. (1980) Effects of peer models’ food choices and eating behaviors on preschoolers’ food preferences. Child Development, 51, 489–96. Birch, L. L. & Marlin, D. W. (1982) I don’t like it; I never tried it: effects of exposure on two-year-old children’s food preferences. Appetite, 3, 353–60. Birch, L. L., McPhee, L., Shoba, B. C., Pirok, E. & Steinberg, L. (1987) What kind of exposure reduces children’s food neophobia? Looking vs. tasting. Appetite, 9, 171–8. Cardello, A. V. & Sawyer, F. M. (1992) Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 253–77. Cook, M., Mineka, S., Wolkenstein B & Laitsch, K. (1985) Observational conditioning of snake fear in unrelated rhesus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 591–610. Duncker, K. (1938) Experimental modification of children’s food preferences through social suggestion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 37, 489–507. Harper, L. V. & Sanders, K. M. (1975) The effect of adults’ eating on young children’s acceptance of novel foods. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 206–14. Marinho, H. (1940) Social influence in the formation of enduring preferences. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 37, 448–68. Mineka, S., Davidson, M., Cook, M. & Keir, R. (1984) Observational conditioning of snake fear in the rheusus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 355–72. Pelchat, M. L. & Pliner, P. (1994) “Try it. You’ll like it”: effects of information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite, 24, 153–165. Pliner, P. (1982) The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite, 3, 283–90. Pliner, P. (1994) The development of measures of food neophobia in children. Appetite, 23, 147–63. Pliner, P. & Hobden, K. (1992) The development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105–20. Pliner, P., Pelchat, M. & Grabski, M. (1993) Reduction of neophobia in humans by exposure to novel foods. Appetite, 20, 111–23.
MODELING AND FOOD NEOPHOBIA
113
Rozin, P. & Fallon, A. E. (1980) The psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: a preliminary taxonomy of food rejections. Appetite, 1, 193–201.
Received 1 June 1994, revision 16 January 1995