Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France)

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij

Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France) Anne Lhuissier a,∗ , Claudia Giacoman b , Coline Ferrant c , Denisse Devilat b , Daniella Leal b , Pamela Ayala b , Giselle Torres b , Pierre Chauvin d a

CMH, CNRS, EHESS, ENS, INRA-Usc, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, Paris 75014, France Instituto de Sociología Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile — Avenida Vicu˜ na Mackenna 4860, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Macul, Santiago, Chile c Northwestern University & Sciences Po (Center for Studies in Social Change) OSC — Sciences Po/CNRS, 27, rue Saint-Guillaume, 75337 Paris Cedex 07, France d Institut Pierre Louis d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, INSERM & Sorbonne Université, UMRS 1136, 27 rue de Chaligny, 75571 Paris Cedex 12, France b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 25 October 2018 Received in revised form 22 February 2019 Accepted 23 February 2019 Available online xxx Keywords: Meal schedules Cross-metropolitan comparison Everyday life Economic organizations Food and eating norms Time synchronization

a b s t r a c t This paper investigates the temporal dimension of meals. Specifically, it compares meal schedules and their social determinants in two metropolises, Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). Our empirical material is drawn from two comparable data sources: Encuesta de Comensalidad en Adultos de la Región Metropolitana (Santiago, Chile) and Santé, Inégalités et Ruptures Sociales (Paris, France). Our research highlights cross-metropolitan similarities and disparities between Santiago and Paris regarding meal times and synchronization. Both metropolises share a similar and marked three-meal pattern. Three major peaks distributed throughout the day correspond to breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Both in Santiago and Paris, lunch is more synchronized than dinner, for reasons pertaining to professional and school rhythms. Dinner, however, demonstrates an important coordination effort towards the synchronization of social time within the family. However, this comparison also highlights important disparities between the two metropolises regarding meal schedules, the amplitude of synchronization, and sociodemographic patterns that express a different relationship to food and eating norms: negotiated in Santiago and rigid in Paris. These differences not only refer to nutritional requirements (content, frequency, pace of the meals, place and commensality) but also to familial and educational purposes. They express cultural norms regarding food and eating according to economic organizations and level of development. © 2019 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Lhuissier), [email protected] (C. Giacoman), [email protected] (C. Ferrant), [email protected] (D. Devilat), [email protected] (D. Leal), [email protected] (P. Ayala), [email protected] (G. Torres), [email protected] (P. Chauvin).

The sociology of food and eating has long demonstrated how, beyond the biological necessity – eating to satisfy hunger – human eating is socially regulated (Fischler, 1993) and reflects cultural and social values. Satisfying body energetic needs follows rules other than physiological. As such, food and eating are “elements of a veritable

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007 0362-3319/© 2019 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

2

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

collective imagination showing the outlines of a certain mental framework” (Barthes, 2013 (1961), p. 24Barthes, 2013Barthes, 2013 (1961), p. 24). In this framework, meal occupies a major place as it has long attracted the attention of sociologists who have analysed it as a primordial social institution. The time of the day when the meal occurs is one dimension that helps identifying each meal combined with the room where it takes place, the menu and the composition of the dishes, the concomitant activities, and the people met on the occasion (Douglas, 1972). Simmel, 1997 for instance emphasized the relationship between commensality and meal times, showing how having meals together leads to temporal regularity, because a given group of people can only gather at previously fixed hour (Simmel, 1997 (1910); Simmel, 1997; Simmel, 1997. The temporal dimension of meals reflects and participates in the structuring of social time: “Food practices make the greatest contribution to the structuring of social time and the practices are in turn strongly influenced by the place reserved for them in daily routines as well as by the role they play in the organization of the latter” (Aymard, Grignon, & Sabban, 1996, p. 161). Days are marked by the rhythm of social life and eating is a central part of time organization across societies (Shove, Trentmann, & Wilk, 2009). As Southerton, DiazMéndez, and Warde (2012) state: “eating events punctuate activities – daily, weekly and annually – such that they establish routines and rhythms” (Southerton et al., 2012). Conversely, the time and duration of eating events have historically varied according to changes in the organization and conditions of social life (Aymard et al., 1996). Studies in several countries demonstrate that meal practices still take place within a collective temporality, even across different national schedules. Longitudinal studies conducted in France (Saint Pol (de), 2007; Southerton et al., 2012), Belgium (Mestdag, 2005), and the Scandinavian countries (Lund & Gronow, 2014) show a relatively stable structure of food rhythms: in three main breaks, and with an important synchronicity (Saint Pol (de) & Ricroch, 2012). The United Kingdom still shares a relative collective timing (Southerton et al., 2012; Yates & Warde, 2017). By contrast, in the United States eating events are more spread out over the day (Hamrick & McClelland, 2016). All in all, empirical evidence highlights the existence of national differences in dietary rhythms. The comparative analysis of feeding practices has proven to be a useful tool for understanding national specificities (Darmon & Warde, 2014, 2016; Fischler & Masson, 2007; Lhuissier, 2014; Sobal, 1998). Comparative research on meal schedules and duration has mostly been conducted within Europe or between European countries and the United States, excluding the global South (DíazMéndez & Callejo, 2014; Diaz-Méndez & Garcia-Espejo, 2014; Huseinovic et al., 2016; Jarosz, 2016; Lund & Gronow, 2014; Warde, 2009; Warde, Cheng, Olsen, & Southerton, 2007). To our knowledge, no study has compared Europe and the Southern hemisphere with regard to meal schedules. On this front, this paper develops a cross-national, cross-metropolitan comparison of meal schedules in Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). Extant investigations based on time-use surveys show that both countries share collec-

tive meal schedules (Giacoman, Leal, & Rivera, 2017; Saint Pol (de), 2007). In comparing a Latin American metropolis to a European metropolis, and two capitals whose cultural and economic influence transcends national borders, we investigate meal schedules and their social determinants in order to question to what extent mealtimes are still socially shared events, and what social institutions still shape national eating schedules. 2. Background Numerous sociological studies have been devoted to the temporal dimension of food (for a literature review on the topic of time and eating see Southerton et al., 2012). Specifically, social science research on food practices in contemporary societies has been fostered by two main concerns in which time and schedules occupy a major place: the question of the effects of modernity and homogenization on meal practices and food schedules. It was first suggested that contemporary societies face weakening collective rules for food practices, leading individuals to eat without any structure with increased snacking and meal skipping (Fischler, 1993; Poulain, 2002, 2017), as well as the decline of collective rhythms and the individualization of personal time management (Garhammer, 1995). Other authors referred to the homogenization of food practices within national societies as well as on a global scale (Ritzer, 2004). Due to the consolidation of a mass culture and the emergence of a postmodernist diet, differences in classbased consumption patterns would weaken. At the same time, globalization would erase differences in consumption patterns across national contexts. However, empirical evidence shows that these positions lack consistence, at least when it comes to mealtimes in countries of the northern hemisphere (Diaz-Méndez & Garcia-Espejo, 2014; Lund & Gronow, 2014; Mestdag & Glorieux, 2009; Riou, Lefèvre, Parizot, Lhuissier, & Chauvin, 2015; Warde et al., 2007). The analysis of time-use provides a useful framework for comparing practices in different countries and advancing the understanding of national food cultures (Warde, Cheng, Olsen, & Southerton, 2007). These differences also touch on meal schedules. While most of the French have lunch in the 12:00–13:00 timeslot (Saint Pol (de) & Ricroch, 2012), Spaniards eat later (Diaz-Méndez and Garcia-Espejo, 2014). These differences even appear in societies with similar dietary habits such as the Scandinavian countries (Kjærnes, 2001). Norwegians and Finns have lunch earlier than Danes and Swedes, but Danes dine earlier (Lund & Gronow, 2014). In addition to national and historical characteristics that have shaped country-specific dietary habits, studies have also found out a series of social determinants for eating rhythms. Characteristics sensitive to the stages of the life cycle determine the hourly setting of meals; such as, sex, age, marital structure, and employment status (Meiselman, 2009). Most recent studies on meal schedules and duration come from European countries, among which the French case is the most striking. In France, the meal is a strong cultural trait. In this respect, France occupies a special position in relation to its European neighbors and the United States. Among many dimensions of the meal, these stud-

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx Table 1 Santiago and Paris: some socio-economic indicators.

Inhabitants (at the time of the surveys) Part of the national population GDP per capita (2014) Obesity rate of the adult population (2017)

3

differ in term of health issues. For example, the obesity rate in Santiago is nearly as twice as in Paris (OECD, 2017).

Santiago

Paris

6,507,000 (in 2015) 33%

6,500,000 (in 2010) 10%

$23,929 (PPP) 25,10%

$57,241 (PPP) 15,30%

3. Material and methods 3.1. Study design, samples, and analytical procedures

ies emphasize that the French distinguish themselves from Americans and Britons by a regular meal pattern, the promotion of the social aspects of eating together à table, taking time to eat, a pride in national-traditional food culture, cooking from raw ingredients (Holdsworth, 2008), as well as a more relaxed attitude regarding health and food (Fischler & Masson, 2007; Pettinger, Holdsworth, & Gerber, 2006; Rozin, Fischler, Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski, 1999). It is the only country where time spent on meals has not decreased in the late twentieth century and remains relatively high. It increased from 95 to 96 min per day between 1974 and 1998, and by 5 min between 2005 and 2010, ultimately corresponding to 122 min a day in 2010 (Ricroch & Roumier, 2011). By contrast, in the early 2000s, the daily time spent on meals is 66 min in the Netherlands, 54 in the United Kingdom, 50 in Norway, and 42 in the United States (Warde et al., 2007). There is no such contemporary research in Latin America, with the exception of Chile, in which information on the temporal dimension of food is available. Specifically, a study conducted on the structure of meals in Osorno (south) has identified a three-meal pattern (Montecino Aguirre, 2006); a more recent research shows that eating meals at a set time is a social norm between Santiguinos (Giacoman, 2018). These findings are consistent with recent surveys on food consumption carried out by the University of Chile on behalf of the Ministry of Health (Universidad de Chile, 2011, 2014), as well as the first timeuse survey conducted in Santiago (Giacoman et al., 2017) and commensality survey (Giacoman & Devilat, 2019). These studies show that Santiaguinos eat according to similar timetables (morning, midday, and evening) and that socio-demographic variables have limited influence on the meal synchronization between Monday and Friday. We elaborate a comparison based on variables specifically constructed to measure food practices with similar characteristics. Besides, unlike most comparative studies working at the national level, we select a narrower scale: we compare two metropolises. In doing so, we assume that the comparative inquiry has greater consistency when focusing on urban populations with fewer disparities than national populations. That being said, these two metropolises differ on several indicators (Table 1). Santiago is the capital of a country considered to be at the threshold between the developing and the developed world. Its population represents one third of the total Chilean population and it is one of the wealthiest cities in Latin America. With a population of 6.5 million inhabitants, Paris and its four suburban départements represent one tenth of the total French population. The two cities also

Our empirical material is drawn from two data sources (Table 2). The first source is Encuesta de Comensalidad en Adultos de la Región Metropolitana [Survey of Commensality in Adults of the Metropolitan Region], a survey representative of the adult (≥18) population living in the Santiago metropolitan region. The second source is Santé, Inégalités et Ruptures Sociales [Health, Inequalities and Social Ruptures], a cohort study representative of the adult (≥18) population living in the Paris metropolitan area. The Santiaguino material is based on a cross-sectional analysis of data collected in 2016. The sampling was probabilistic stratified by districts [comunas], with random selection in 3 stages: block, house and individual. The sample frame used was for 30 districts of the Metropolitan Region belonging to the National Institute of Statistics (INE) and built with information from the 2002 Population and Housing Census. A semi-structured questionnaire applied face-to-face collected opinions and declared practices on commensality. In addition, respondents filled a diary of food intakes for 7 consecutive days, detailing all eating events and their characteristics (schedule, company, place, type, use of technology, and content). Respondents were to decide whether to classify these eating events as types of meals, snacks, or drinks. The sample size is 1,177 for the questionnaire; the response rate is 70% among which 54.1% (637 respondents) returned the diary. To allow the comparison with the Parisian dataset, we only kept the meals mentioned as such by respondents (those intakes classified as “snacks” and “drinks” were not considered in the analysis). Additionally, we use only the first weekday declared, upon checking that it was the day with more frequency and with the most complete information. If the first day was not reported, the second day was used and so on. Among the 637 respondents, we discarded 22 participants who did not report any weekdays. In total, 615 respondents were taken into account for the analysis. To draw inferences about the target population, we performed analyses using population weights constructed considering size of the districts, sex, age, occupation of the head of household and education of the head of the household. We introduced this weight using “pweight” Stata’s option. We set the alpha level at 0.05. The Parisian material is based on a cross-sectional analysis of data collected in 2010. SIRS sample design is a three-stage cluster random sample of 3,006 respondents representative of the French-speaking adult population in Paris and the inner suburbs. Stratification is done on an indicator of IRIS’s (French census tracts1 ) socioeconomic status constructed from a typology of socioprofessional

1 IRIS is an acronym for Îlots Regroupés pour l’Information Statistique (Aggregated Units for Statistical Information). Residential IRIS have between 1,800 and 5,000 inhabitants.

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

4 Table 2 Data collection.

Year Population Sample size Collecting tools Period of time Content

Chile Encuesta de Comensalidad en Adultos de la region Metropolitana

France SIRS — Santé, Inégalités, Ruptures Sociales (Health, Inequalities, and Social Ruptures)

2016 Adult (=18) population in the Santiago metropolitan region from Chile 1177 (questionnaires) and 637 (diaries) Questionnaire (face to face) and Diary (self-reported) For 7 consecutive days (diary) Questionnaire: opinions and practices on commensality

2010 French-speaking adult (=18) population in the Paris metropolitan area 3006 individuals Questionnaire (face to face)

Diary: food events and their characteristics (schedule (30-min slots), company, place, type, content, and activity) Response rate

70%

composition2 and a binary indicator of neighborhood disadvantage.3 50 IRIS are randomly selected as primary sampling units, with oversampling of low-SES IRIS. 60 households are randomly selected from each IRIS; one adult is randomly selected from each household (for further methodological details see Martin-Fernandez, Grillo, Tichit, Parizot, & Chauvin, 2012). To draw inferences about the target population, we perform analyses specifying SIRS strata, primary sampling units, and population weights, through Stata’s survey (svy) commands. We set the alpha level at 0.05. Information was collected on eating events which respondents were to consider as meals, with their associated rank and context (time, company, place, and use of technology). Unlike the Santiaguino survey, the Parisian survey did not collect information for seven consecutive days. We did not use a single 24-h recall nor a single day food diary. Rather, respondents were asked to recall and declare their main meals according to their rank and time one weekday which they were to consider as ordinary (For more details, see Lhuissier et al., 2013), as we know how much routine is part of eating practices (Jastran, Bisogni, Sobal, Blake, & Devine, 2009). In both cases, surveys deal with the time and social organization of eating (where and with whom respondents usually have meals) and what kind of activity they have at the same time. However, the two surveys differ regarding sampling and data collection on meals. These differences motivate methodological decisions in variables construction, to allow a comparable analysis and to minimize differences between the two samples. 3.2. Variables We create two dependent variables indicating: (1) meal synchronization during the whole day, that is, the number of meals taken in delimited timeslots; (2) whether respondents have any, one, two, or three meals within these timeslots. Synchronization was defined using the observable highest proportion of respondents in the distribution

2

Specifically, the typology of Préteceille (2003). Specifically, whether the IRIS is classified as a Zone Urbaine Sensible (Sensitive Urban Zones) as defined by the French urban policy. 3

One week day that respondents were to consider as ordinary Opinions and practices on food with regard time, health and enjoyment Frequency of eating events and meals, with their associated rank and context (time (30-min slots), company, place, and activity) 71%

as reference point. We define timeslots throughout the day based on the frequency of respondents who declared they were starting a meal in the same 30-min slot. The slot that concentrates the largest number of cases is determined as a relevant timeslot. However, to allow working on sufficient cases, we had to extend these timeslots. On this basis, 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the intake percentages of adjacent segments: at those points at which significant differences were produced with respect to the confidence interval of the next descending segment, the time segment was cut, defining it as synchronized at each relevant. The resulting timeslots differ in the two metropolises (Table 3). From the identification of these timeslots, we elaborate two approaches to analyze meal synchronization. On the one hand, we seek to document synchronization in the aforementioned slots through three dichotomous variables that distinguish between those who are or are not synchronized in each of the three main timeslots of the day (morning, afternoon, and evening). From the above, we create an ordinal variable that defines four levels of meal synchronization: (1) “fully synchronized,” wherein three meals are taken in the timeslots described above; (2) “two synchronized meals,” wherein two meals are taken in these timeslots; (3) “one synchronized meal,” wherein one meal is taken in one of these timeslots; and (4) “no synchronized meal,” wherein no meal is taken in these timeslots. In order to work with comparable data, we eventually keep five independent variables (Table 4): gender, age groups [18–30; 31–44; 45–59; ≥60], currently employed [dummy variable: Y/N], education [dummy variable: higher education/no higher education], and household structure [single, adults without children, adults with children]. We drop indicators of income and social class, the former being incomplete in the Santiaguino survey, and the latter being too dissimilar from one survey to another to make any appropriate use of it (Table 4). Our analysis is broken down as follows. We describe the timeslots in which respondents have meals. Next, we estimate binary (i.e., the probability of being or not being synchronized at the peak of the morning, afternoon or night) and multinomial (i.e., the conditional probability of being synchronized in none, two or three peaks, vs. only one) logistic regressions.

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

5

Table 3 Decomposition of peaks into timeslots. Santiago

Paris

Timeslots

%

Confidence intervals

Timeslots

%

Confidence intervals

9:00–9:29 9:30–9:59 10:00–10:29 Subtotal

19.3 11.4 15.5 46.2

16,32 8,91 12,61

22,58 13,94 18,32

7:00–7:29 7:30–7:59 8:00–8:29 Subtotal

13.5% 13.3% 14.2% 41.0%

12,29 12,07 12,97

14,74 14,5 15,47

13:00–13:29 13:30–13:59 14:00–14:29 Subtotal

16.7 16.5 25 58.2

13,75 13,65 21,75

19,65 19,54 28,61

12:00–12:29 12:30–12:59 13:00–13:29 Subtotal

21.9% 26.0% 27.5% 75.5%

20,44 24,47 25,94

23,4 27,61 29,14

19:00–19:29 19:30–19:59 20:00–20:29 Subtotal

16.4 9.8 21.6 47.7

13,62 7,51 18,21

19,49 12,23 24,7

19:30–19:59 20:00–20:29 20:30–21:00 Subtotal

18.0% 30.8% 14.5% 63.3%

16,62 29,1 13,25

19,37 32,4 15,77

Reading: 19.3% of Santiaguinos have a meal between 9:00 and 9:30. Table 4 Descriptive characteristics of the study samples. Santiago

Sex Male Female Age 18–30 31–44 45–59 60 and over Employment status Inactive In employment Educational level No higher education Higher education Household structure Single Adults with children Adults without children Total sample

Paris

N

%

N (unweighted)

% (weighted)

285 329

46% 54%

1 187 1 819

47% 53%

173 135 170 136

28% 22% 28% 22%

435 814 837 920

24% 29% 23% 23%

301 314

49% 51%

1 384 1 596

43% 57%

384 231

62% 38%

1 563 1 443

44% 56%

68 153 394 n = 615

11% 25% 64%

870 1 076 1 060 n = 3006

19% 43% 38%

4. Results 4.1. Cross-metropolitan similarities: Santiago and Paris share a three-meal pattern The share of eating time is relatively high over the day in both metropolises. Santiago and Paris share a similar pattern with three peaks corresponding to the three main meals of the day: in the morning, at midday, and in the evening (Fig. 1). These findings are consistent with other studies based on time-use surveys in Santiago (Giacoman, 2016; Universidad de Chile, 2011) and France (Poulain, 2002; Saint Pol (de) & Ricroch, 2012). The first timeslot fits into the breakfast time. Indeed, just over 40% of people in Santiago (46.2%) and Paris (41.0%) report taking a meal in this morning slot (Table 3). The second peak corresponds to the midday meal. The percentage of respondents engaging in this meal is the highest: 58.2% in the timeslot 13:00–14:29 for Santiago and 75.5% in the timeslot 12:00–13:29 for Paris. Lunch is thus the most synchronized meal of the day in the two metropolises. In this regard,

Paris does not differ from France in general: an analysis of the 2010 national time-use survey shows that at 13:00, half of the French population is eating (Saint Pol (de) & Ricroch, 2012). The third timeslot falls into the evening dinner hours: 47.8% of respondents in Santiago and 63.3% in Paris declare having a meal in this evening timeslot. However, given the proportion of people engaging in this meal, dinner appears to be less synchronized than lunch. 4.2. Cross-metropolitan disparities: time and synchronicity Despite a shared three-meal schedule, we find crossmetropolitan disparities in meal times and synchronization. Firstly, meals are taken later in Santiago than in Paris, especially for the first two meals of the day (Fig. 1). The morning meal is the one with the most marked differences. In Santiago, it is eaten two hours later than in Paris. We find fewer differences for the midday meal: there is just a one-hour difference between the lunch of Parisians and the lunch of Santiaguinos. Comparing the evening meal is trick-

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

6

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Mealtime distribution in Santiago and Paris.

ier. In both metropolises, the proportion of respondents is the highest between 20:00 and 20:29, but with different proportions. More people in Paris have dinner in this timeslot than in Santiago, where the overall eating events are spread over a larger time window. This is the second main difference between the two metropolises: meals are more synchronized in Paris than in Santiago. In the Chilean capital, the distance between highest and lowest proportions of people eating in the timeslots is less pronounced. Especially in the evening, they split into several sub-timeslots. In Santiago, we find three sub-timeslots within the dinner timeslot, instead of a single marked timeslot. These sub-timelots correspond to the three different kinds of evening meal coexisting in Chile respectively called the “once”, “cena” and “once comida”. The content of the first is similar to the English Tea Time: a hot drink with a cake or a sandwich. The second is a proper evening dinner. These two eating events partly overlap in terms of schedule. The third is eaten a bit later. It corresponds to a meal that mixes tea with dinner. In Chile, people usually choose one of this different types of evenings meals, but “cena” is more consumed by service social class than “once” (Giacoman & Devilat, 2019). These findings converge towards those highlighted in time-use surveys. While the Encuesta de Consumo Alimentario groups these two meals under a single “once” category, it seems pertinent to distinguish them. Although partly overlapping, they nevertheless correspond to different schedules and may not be considered as one single meal. They refer to practices that are yet to be determined. In order to better understand these differences in the organization and types of meal, we also analyze meal schedules according to their rank over the day. As apparent on Figs. 2 and 3, in Paris, the distance between the top two points in the distribution is more marked, and the meal synchronization is stronger. A second major difference lies in the ranks of meals according to meal time. In Santiago, the midday meal mostly appears to be the second meal of the day, and to a lesser extent, the third meal. Dinner time thus mostly corresponds to the third meal of the day, and to a lesser extent, to the fourth and even the fifth. In Paris,

it rather corresponds to the third, or, to a lesser extent, the second meal of the day. We find a similar difference, but a slighter one, for the midday meal: the second or third meal of the day in Santiago, the second or first in Paris. 4.3. Meal synchronization: disparities between and within countries Descriptive statistics allow us to document the similarities and disparities of meal schedules and synchronization between the two metropolises. These differences can be further specified by investigating the associations between inhabitants’ sociodemographic characteristics and meal synchronization: first, the synchronization of each meal taken separately, and second, the total number of meals synchronized within the three main timeslots highlighted above. In the Santiaguino case, two sociodemographic characteristics are significant: age and employment. People aged 45–60 years old are more likely to have their dinner synchronized and to have two synchronized meals (vs. 1) (Tables 5 and 6). Older adults (60 and over) are more likely to have their morning meal synchronized and to have two or three synchronized meals (vs. 1). Of note is that employed people are more likely to have all their meals synchronized (3 vs. 1). By contrast, the Parisian case shows more specificities. First, Parisians are more synchronized than Santiaguinos in the sense that, overall, they have a higher number of synchronized meals. 27% have three meals in the synchronized timeslots, 40% have two meals, and 25.5% have one meal; in Santiago, these proportions are, respectively, 16.3%, 32%, and 38.8%. Second, we find a higher number of significant differences according to sociodemographic characteristics, with the exception of the employment situation. Like in Santiago, age is of particular significance: meals are more synchronized among older people. Adults aged 45-50 years old are more likely to have their breakfast synchronized, and also to have all their meals (vs. 1) taken in synchronized timeslots. Females and individuals with higher education are more likely to be synchronized in the morning meal

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

Paris

No synchronized meal

Meal taken between 9:00–10:29

Meals taken between 13:00–14:29

Meals taken between 19:00–20:29

No synchronized meal

Meal taken between 7:00–08:29

Meals taken between 12:00–13:29

Meals taken between 19:30–21:00

1.045 (0.347)

0.894 (0.220)

1.104 (0.268)

0.801 (0.195)

1.429 (0.248)*

1.452 (0.094)***

1.118 (0.125)

1.232 (0.132)

0.823 (0.314) 1.169 (0.407) 2.012 (0.718)*

1.175 (0.428) 1.071 (0.363) 1.417 (0.508)

1.406 (0.490) 2.014 (0.682)** 1.020 (0.347)

1.170 (0.287) 2.145 (0.532)** 5.008 (1.372)***

1.435 (0.232)* 1.734 (0.279)*** 2.211 (0.383)***

1.028 (0.186) 1.110 (0.197) 2.482 (0.544)***

1.222 (0.204) 1.779 (0.272)*** 1.757 (0.285)***

1.239 (0.316)

1.162 (0.296)

1.243 (0.317)

1.268 (0.244)

1.051 (0.126)

1.045 (0.151)

1.036 (0.127)

0.697 (0.193)

1.343 (0.366)

0.844 (0.224)

1.485 (0.306)

1.805 (0.174)***

1.232 (0.137)

1.333 (0.158)*

0.573 (0.268) 0.619 (0.250) 1.380 (0.906) −408.8 8 0.0360

1.010 (0.456) 1.133 (0.446) 0.801 (0.518) −415 8 0.00701

1.797 (0.820) 1.762 (0.689) 0.559 (0.346) −413.7 8 0.0278

1.875 (0.331)*** 1.419 (0.324) 2.316 (0.556)***

1.424 (0.234)* 1.051 (0.131) 0.220 (0.038)***

1.566 (0.167)*** 1.368 (0.158)** 1.500 (0.262)*

1.377 (0.193)* 1.506 (0.152)*** 0.702 (0.118)*

G Model

SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

Santiago

Sex (ref: male) Female

0.740 (0.348) 1.300 45–59 (0.609) 0.808 60 and over (0.412) Employment status (ref: inactive) 0.923 In employment (0.335) Educational level (ref: no higher education) 0.744 Higher education (0.273) Household structure (ref: single) 0.333 Adults with children (0.284) 0.651 Adults without (0.530) children 14.35 Constant (18.38)** −228.5 Log likelihood 8 gl 0.0290 Pseudo R2 31–44

Odds ratios are shown. For Paris, unweighted sample size is 2,980. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. For Santiago, sample size is 615. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. * Indicates significance at the 0.05 level. ** Indicates significance at the 0.01 level. *** Indicates significance at the 0.001 level.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Age (ref: 18–30)

A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

Table 5 Probabilities of having synchronized meals (binary logistic regressions).

7

G Model SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

8

Fig. 2. Meals distribution over the day in Santiago according to the rank of the meal (%, weighted).

Fig. 3. Meals distribution over the day in Paris according to the rank of the meal (%, weighted).

and also to have more synchronized meals (2 or 3 vs. 1 for the former, 3 vs. 1 for the latter). Couples with children are more likely to have synchronized meals, and more specifically, for the midday meal. 5. Discussion Although hunger is a physiological fact, eating is an eminently social phenomenon, especially when it comes to mealtimes. From this perspective, our findings highlight that Santiaguinos and Parisians share a common three-meal pattern expressing a collective activity. Beyond individual idiosyncrasies, meal times are shaped by social times and constraints. Specifically, two institutions shape eating schedules: employment and family. Paid work

imposes schedules, durations, and rhythms (Lesnard & de Saint Pol, 2009) on which eating schedules are partly set. In our study, employed people are more likely to have their meals synchronized. Conversely, studies in other contexts have demonstrated that unemployed people are more often “de-synchronized” (Lund & Gronow, 2014; Riou et al., 2015). Work intervenes in distinct ways on meal schedules and rhythms, especially in cities where rapid urbanization has generated significant transportation times. It is quite difficult to have accurate and comparable transportation times since people working in capital cities can commute from places more or less remote and according to their means of transportation (private car or public transportation). Anyway, according to the literature, Santiaguinos and Parisian people share similar commuting times. In Santi-

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

9

Table 6 Probabilities of having no, one, two, or three synchronized meals with reference to one meal (multinomial logistic regressions). Santiago

Paris

No meal vs. 1

2 meals vs. 1

3 meals vs. 1

No meal vs. 1

2 meals vs. 1

3 meals vs. 1

0.875 (0.317)

0.897 (0.248)

0.772 (0.305)

0.083 (0.149)

0.344 (0.115)**

0.448 (0.115)***

1.781 (0.688) 1.884* (0.717) 2.031* (0.797)

1.734 (1.170) 1.972 (1.233) 3.409** (2.102)

−0.090 (0.243) −0.430 (0.229) −0.838 (0.268)**

0.277 (0.246) 0.324 (0.209) 0.861 (0.217)***

0.340 (0.257) 0.635 (0.219)** 0.931 (0.221)***

1.050 (0.306)

2.174* (0.863)

−0.293 (0.188)

0.0008 (0.149)

−0.295 (0.190)

1.080 (0.327)

0.997 (0.452)

0.068 (0.186)

0.174 (0.134)

0.698 (0.139)***

1.728 (0.884) 1.399 (0.613) 0.419 (0.291) −772.3 24 0.0269

2.259 (1.511) 1.400 (0.761) 0.148* (0.146) −772.3 24 0.0269

−0.400 (0.192)* −0.190 (0.200) −0.166 (0.227)

0.312 (0.150)* 0.081 (0.139) −0.507 (0.268)

0.502 (0.205)* 0.266 (0.144) −1.576 (0.281)***

Sex (ref: male) Female Age (ref 18–30) 1.818 (0.905) 1.087 45–59 (0.547) 2.001 60 and over (1.099) Employment status (ref: inactive) 1.272 In employment (0.502) Educational level (ref: no higher education) 1.386 Higher education (0.543) Household structure (ref: single) 4.286 Adults with children (3.920) 1.853 Adults without (1.591) children 0.104* Constant (0.139) Log likelihood −772.3 24 Gl 0.0269 Pseudo R2 31–44

Odds ratios are shown. For Paris, unweighted sample size is 2,980. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. For Santiago, sample size is 615. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. * Indicates significance at the 0.05 level. ** Indicates significance at the 0.01 level. *** Indicates significance at the 0.001 level.

ago, a trip to the city has a mean duration of 30.2 min, but this time is longer in public transportation than with private vehicles (Observatorio social, 2014). Surprisingly – as Paris seemed to us as a less extended city – transportation time in Paris is no shorter: 32 min to go from home to work (Zilloniz, 2015). The difference regarding breakfast may be understood by the fact that in France, breakfast remains massively a domestic meal. According to the most recent national French survey on food consumption, 94,3% of the breakfasts are taken at home (ANSES, 2017), whereas in Chile, figures tend to show that breakfast is the least meal taken at home (51% of the breakfasts are said to be taken at home or at the restaurant, vs 65,5% for lunch and 69,9% for dinner) (Giacoman & Devilat, 2019). In both cities, due to transportation time, an important part of the metropolis inhabitants do not go back home for lunch, nor in Paris, neither in Santiago. For example, in Paris, trips to go back home for lunch are significantly fewer than in the province and smaller cities (Hubert, Madre, Meissonnier, & Roux, 2012). In both metropolises, lunch time may thus follow social rhythms, with regulated pauses in workplaces. In both countries the law states how much time employees are allotted for lunch time. In addition, lunch is more synchronized than dinner for reasons pertaining to professional and school rhythms. For example, figures of the “Nordic survey” show that meal synchronization is less prevalent at the weekend, “where coordination with work is unimportant, than it is during the working week” (Lund & Gronow,

2014, p. 151). Dinner, however, suggests a coordination effort towards the synchronization of social time within the family. As such, the synchronization of the evening meal is rather to be understood in reference to the institution of family (Meiselman, 2009; Riquelme & Giacoman, 2018). As our findings show, couples with children have the most synchronized meals, especially in Paris. For dual-earner couples, “spouses” time together spent in daily activities is logically transformed into parents-child time: this is especially true for meals, which become the family time par excellence (Lesnard, 2005). However, meal synchronization is not only a consequence of external constraints, such as those related to work and school times. Santiago and Paris differ regarding meal schedules, amplitude of synchronization, and sociodemographic patterns. These differences can be linked to the findings of other research that highlight specific norms regarding food, health, and eating habits in both countries. In Santiago, the relationship to this norm has been described as “negotiated” (Giacoman, 2018); conversely, in Paris, the importance of this norm is more “rigid” (Lhuissier et al., 2013; Riou et al., 2015). In Santiago, mealtime is not necessarily followed when “the individual is alone or upon the emergence of compelling bodily, family and productive demands” (Giacoman, 2018). When hunger overcomes the planned meals, the norm of eating at timed schedules competes with biological needs. That being said, the norm of eating time is also negotiated

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

10

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

with the individual’s other activities. While the norm of timed eating exists in Santiago because individuals name it, our findings suggest that fulfilling this social expectation can be deemed difficult. The picture is clearly different in Paris where meals are significantly more synchronized. In France, the three-meal pattern has long been institutionalized, is socially shared, and recommended by nutritional public policies. Our findings show that females and individuals with higher education are more likely to have three synchronized meals. This finding is consistent with extant evidence that the elderly, females, and people with higher education are more likely to adopt dietary practices congruent with nutritional recommendations (Régnier & Masullo, 2009). However, these findings must be nuanced according to some methodological limitation. We first checked whether the response rate in Santiago data collection could introduce some sampling bias and affect cross-metropolitan comparisons. An attrition analysis of the Santiago data was conducted to observe difference between those who returned the diary answered (at least one day) and those who did not answered the diary at all. Tests of means or proportions were carried out according to the following variables: sex, age (continuous), age (grouped), educational level, occupation, social class (Goldthorpe classification), socioeconomic status (SES) and composition of household. Statistically significant differences were observed in the age (continuous) between those who completed the diary and those who did not: the average age of those who answered the diary is 50.27 while the average age of those who did not is 47.50. Evaluating the age by groups also revealed significant differences: there is higher proportion of older adults in the group of those who completed the diary. The proportion of high SES (ABC1) is higher among those who did not answered the diary. Regarding social class, there are significant differences between the intermediate categories and the class of services. There were also significant differences in the composition of the household, since the proportion of single-person households is higher among those who did not answered the diary. The time widow raises another limitation. Because there is no commonly agreed time window for capturing eating events, this study used 30 min, but findings may be different with another time window. At last, another question pertains to the logistic regressions which are only one method to examine whether we can predict one (binary) outcome given a set of features. Nevertheless, our method findings remain consistent with regard other studies on collective mealtimes.

6. Conclusions This research highlights cross-metropolitan similarities and disparities between Santiago and Paris regarding meal times and synchronization. We find meals to be highly structured events. Both metropolises share a similar and marked three-meal pattern. Three major timeslots distributed throughout the day correspond to breakfast, lunch and dinner, like in numerous other countries (Meiselman, 2009). Both in Santiago and Paris, lunch is more synchro-

nized than dinner, for reasons pertaining to professional and school rhythms. However, this comparison also highlights important disparities between the two metropolises regarding meal schedules and synchronization. These differences in collective mealtimes can be partly understood with regard national specificities. For example, in France, the threemeal pattern has long been institutionalized, is socially shared, and recommended by nutritional public policies. All in all, three meals a day is an institution linked to a historically grounded and shared norm, although allowing social differences especially in meal content. A similar pattern holds for France’s obesity rate: while differentiated along lines of social class, it is overall one of the lowest in Europe. Conversely, despite the strong social inequalities persisting in Chile, Santiago’s eating rhythms show less social differentiation. At the same time, we find specific habits regarding dinner, split into three different eating events. Further research is needed to explore what is at stake in these eating events in terms of meal content and sociodemographic patterns. We have not looked into meal duration, meal content, places, and commensality. In addition, the contribution of our comparative approach is to highlight national specificities beyond internal differences. That being said, the search for internal and national variations should not stop at this stage. If meal time is tied to the constraints of social and professional life, it also expresses many other dimensions of the meal, including commensality (Fischler, 2011; Giacoman, 2016; Grignon, 2001), and whether eating is a primary or secondary activity, which has been proven to be essential to understanding American eating patterns (Jarosz, 2016). These dimensions also include duration, content, and places — all of which future research can explore. Funding This work was supported by the ECOS-Sud-Chile programme (grant no. RES-143-25-0002) and the FONDECYT (grant no. 11140407). The FONDECYT also made possible the use of the Santiaguino data set and the French National Research Agency made possible the use of the Parisian data set (convention no.ANR-07-PNRA-0002). Declarations of interest None. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Emily Feng and Molly Sheridan who provided help with proofreading the article. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. References ANSES. (2017). Troisième étude individuelle nationale des consommations alimentaires (Etude INCA 3). Actualisation de la base de données des consommations alimentaires et de l’estimation des apports nutritionnels des individus vivant en France. Maison Alfort: ANSES. https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/NUT2014SA0234Ra.pdf

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007

G Model SOCSCI-1585; No. of Pages 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Lhuissier et al. / The Social Science Journal xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Aymard, M., Grignon, C., & Sabban, F. (1996). Introduction. Food & Foodways, 6(3–4), 161–185. Barthes, R. (2013). Toward a psychology of contemporary food consumption. In C. Counihan, & P. Van Esterik (Eds.), Food and culture. A reader (third edition, pp. 23–30). New York: Routledge. Darmon, I., & Warde, A. (2014). Introduction: Towards dynamic comparative analysis. Anthropology of Food, (S10). Darmon, I., & Warde, A. (2016). Senses and sensibilities: Stabilising and changing tastes in cross-national couples. Food, Culture, and Society, 19(4), 705–722. Díaz-Méndez, C., & Callejo, J. (2014). Homogenization of eating times in the United Kingdom and Spain. British Food Journal, 116(5), 734–752. Diaz-Méndez, C., & Garcia-Espejo, I. (2014). Eating practice models in Spain and the United Kingdom: A comparative time-use analysis. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 20(10), 1–21. Douglas, M. (1972). Deciphering a Meal. Daedalus, 101(1), 61–81. Fischler, C. (1993). L’homnivore: le goût, la cuisine et le corps. Paris: O. Jacob. Fischler, C. (2011). Commensality, society and culture. Social Science Information, 50(3–4), 528–548. Fischler, C., & Masson, E. (Eds.). (2007). Manger: Franc¸ais, Européens et Américains face à l’alimentation. Paris: O. Jacob. Garhammer, M. (1995). Changes in working hours in Germany: The resulting impact on everyday life. Time & Society, 4(2), 167–203. Giacoman, C. (2016). The dimensions and role of commensality: A theoretical model drawn from the significance of communal eating among adults in Santiago, Chile. Appetite, 107, 460–470. Giacoman, C. (2018). Eating time in Santiago, Chile: A trade-off between norms and biological and social requirements. Time & Society. Giacoman, C., & Devilat, D. (2019). La estructura y las características sociodemográficas de los eventos alimentarios en Santiago de Chile. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, 46(2), 113–120. Giacoman, C., Leal, D., & Rivera, V. (2017). Daily rythms of eating in Santiago, Chile. British Food Journal, 119(6), 1–15. Grignon, C. (2001). Commensality and social morphology: An essay of typology. In P. Scholliers (Ed.), Food, drink and identity. Cooking, eating and drinking in Europe since the middle ages (pp. 23–33). Oxford: Berg. Hamrick, K., & McClelland, K. (2016). Americans’ eating patterns and time spent on food: The 2014 eating & health module data. Economic Information Bulletin, 158, 51. Holdsworth, M. (2008). How important are differences in national eating habits in France? Dialogues in Cardiovascular Medicine, 13(3), 200–208. Hubert, J.-P., Madre, J.-L., Meissonnier, J., & Roux, S. (2012). La pause méridienne: un facteur clé de l’évolution de la mobilité en France depuis 35 ans. Économie et Statistique, 457(1), 35–55. Huseinovic, E., Winkvist, A., Slimani, N., Park, M., Freisling, H., Boeing, H., & Forslund, H. B. (2016). Meal patterns across ten European countries — results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) calibration study. Public Health Nutrition, 1–12. Jarosz, E. (2016). Food for thought: A comparative analysis of eating behavior in the United States, Poland, and Armenia. Food, Culture and Society, 19(4), 655–679. Jastran, M. M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., Blake, C., & Devine, C. M. (2009). Eating routines. Embedded, value based, modifiable, and reflective. Appetite, 52(1), 127–136. Kjærnes, U. (2001). Eating patterns: A day in the lives of Nordic peoples. Oslo: National Institute for Consumer Research. Lesnard, L. (2005). The effects of the family work day on family time. Paris: CREST. Lesnard, L., & de Saint Pol, T. (2009). Patterns of workweek schedules in France. Social Indicators Research, 93(1), 171–176. Lhuissier, A. (2014). Anything to declare? Questionnaires and what they tell us. A comparison of ‘eating out’ in national food surveys in France and Britain (1940–2010). Anthropology of Food, (S10). Lhuissier, A., Tichit, C., Caillavet, F., Cardon, P., Masullo, A., MartinFernandez, J., & Chauvin, P. (2013). Who still eats three meals a day? Findings from a quantitative survey in the Paris area. Appetite, 63, 59–69. Lund, T. B., & Gronow, J. (2014). Destructuration or continuity? The daily rhythm of eating in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden in 1997 and 2012. Appetite, 82, 143–153. Martin-Fernandez, J., Grillo, F., Tichit, C., Parizot, I., & Chauvin, P. (2012). Overweight according to geographical origin and time spent in France: A cross sectional study in the Paris metropolitan area. BMC Public Health, 12(937).

11

Meiselman, H. L. (2009). Meals in science and practice: Interdisciplinary research and business applications. Woodhead Publishing. Mestdag, I. (2005). Disappearance of the traditional meal: Temporal, social and spatial destructuration. Appetite, 45(1), 62–74. Mestdag, I., & Glorieux, I. (2009). Change and stability in commensality patterns: A comparative analysis of belgian time-use data from 1966, 1999 and 2004. The Sociological Review, 57(4), 703–726. Montecino Aguirre, S. (2006). Identidades, mestizajes y diferencias sociales en Osorno, Chile: lecturas desde la antropología de la alimentación. Leiden: Leiden University, Department of Latin American Studies, Faculty of Arts. Observatorio social. (2014). Actualización y recolección de información del sistema de transporte urbano, Etapa IX (Encuesta Origen Destino Santiago 2012, informe final, volumen II). Santiago de Chile: Universidad Alberto Hurtado. OECD. (2017). Obesity Update. , 13. Pettinger, C., Holdsworth, M., & Gerber, M. (2006). Meal patterns and cooking practices in Southern France and Central England. Public Health Nutrition, 9(8), 1020–1026. Poulain, J. P. (2002). The contemporary diet in France: “De-structuration” or from commensalism to “vagabond feeding”. Appetite, 39(1), 43–55. Poulain, J.-P. (2017). The sociology of food: Eating and the place of food in society. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Préteceille, E. (2003). La division sociale de l’espace francilien. Typologie socioprofessionnelle 1999 et transformations de l’espace résidentiel 1990–1999. Paris: CNRS-FNSP. Régnier, F., & Masullo, A. (2009). Obésité, goÛts et consommation. Revue franc¸aise de sociologie, 50(4), 747–773. Ricroch, L., & Roumier, B. (2011). Depuis 11 ans, moins de tâches ménagères, plus d’Internet. Insee Première, 1377. Riou, J., Lefèvre, T., Parizot, I., Lhuissier, A., & Chauvin, P. (2015). Is there still a French eating model? A taxonomy of eating behaviors in adults living in the paris metropolitan area in 2010. PLoS One, 10(3), 59–69. Riquelme, O., & Giacoman, C. (2018). La comida en familia: La idealización de un evento social. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, 45(1), 65–70. Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society (Revised new century ed). London, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge press. Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999). Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible implications for the diet–health debate. Appetite, 33(2), 163–180. Saint Pol (de), T. (2007). Le dîner des Franc¸ais: un synchronisme alimentaire qui se maintient. Économie et Statistique, 400, 45–69. Saint Pol (de), T., & Ricroch, L. (2012). Le temps de l’alimentation en France. Insee Première, 1417. Shove, E., Trentmann, F., & Wilk, R. R. (Eds.). (2009). Time, consumption and everyday life: Practice, materiality and culture. Oxford: Berg. Simmel, G. (1997). Sociology of the meal — “Soziologie der Mahlzeit”, Berliner Tageblatt, 10 October 1910, English translation by Mark Ritter and David Frisby. In D. Frisby, & M. Featherstone (Eds.), Simmel on culture: Selected writings (pp. 130–136). London: SAGE. Sobal, J. (1998). Cultural comparison research designs in food, eating, and nutrition. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 385–392. Southerton, D., Diaz-Méndez, C., & Warde, A. (2012). Behavioural change and the temporal ordering of eating practices: A UK–Spain comparison. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(1), 19–36. Universidad de Chile. (2011). Informe final. Encuesta de Consumo Alimentario 2010–2011. Santiago: Universidad de Chile. Universidad de Chile. (2014). Presentación Encuesta de Consumo Alimentario 2011. Santiago: Universidad de Chile. Retrieved from. Warde, A. (2009). Globalisation and the challenge of variety: A comparison of eating in Britain and France. In D. Gimlin, & D. Inglis (Eds.), The Globalisation of Food (pp. 227–242). Oxford: Berg. Warde, A., Cheng, S.-L., Olsen, W., & Southerton, D. (2007). Changes in the practice of eating: A comparative analysis of time-use. Acta Sociologica, 50(4), 363–385. Yates, L., & Warde, A. (2017). Eating together and eating alone: Meal arrangements in British households. The British Journal of Sociology, 68(1), 97–118. Zilloniz, S. (2015). Les temps de déplacement entre domicile et travail. Des disparités selon l’organisation des horaires de travail. DARES Analyses, 081, 8.

Please cite this article in press as: Lhuissier, A., et al. Meal times and synchronization: A cross-metropolitan comparison between Santiago (Chile) and Paris (France). The Social Science Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.007