The effect of context on children's eating behavior

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

14

Monica Laureati, Ella Pagliarini Department of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences (DeFENS), University of Milan, Milan, Italy

14.1

Introduction

Contextual factors may have a strong impact on food perception and liking, especially when children are involved in sensory and consumer testing. We would like to start this chapter by reminding readers of the definition of ecological validity reported in Chapter 1. “Ecological validity, in psychology, is a measure of how test performance predicts behaviors in real-world settings. Although test designs and findings in studies characterized by low ecological validity cannot be generalized to real-life situations, those characterized by high ecological validity can be. The usefulness of ecological validity as a concept, however, has been much debated, with some questioning the importance of psychological realism (that is, how much processes appearing in the experiment mirror those in everyday life).” The concept of ecological validity is essential when working with children as consumers, because during development, the individual shapes his/her personality, as well as food preferences, by interacting with the environment. It is evident that children are more easily influenced than adults are by extrinsic factors (e.g., the testing location and people present during the execution of the test). For this reason, it is especially important to consider the appropriate setting to conduct sensory testing with children in order to obtain ecologically valid results. Within this chapter, we will stress the importance of not considering context only as a “physical entity,” but rather as a multi-factor system, including the food and/or drinks consumed, and the social interaction with people. In this vein, according to review articles and empirical studies dealing with context effects on adults’ food preference and choice (King, Weber, Meiselman, & Lv, 2004; Meiselman, 2009), we have structured the chapter in three sections, each of which is dedicated to one of the main factors considered relevant to the food context (Fig. 14.1): (1) the meal, (2) the physical environment, and (3) the social environment. In this introductory section, it is wise to provide some indication about the use of the term “children,” which includes a somewhat wide age range. Based on the individual’s motor and cognitive skills, the ASTM guidelines (ASTM, 2013) categorizes children as infants (from birth to 18 months), toddlers (from 18 months to 3 years), preschoolers (from 3 to 5 years), early readers (5–8 years), pre-teens (8–12 years), and teenagers (12–18 years). It is well recognized that sensory and consumer science Context. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814495-4.00014-3 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

288

Context

The meal • Sensory properties • Portion and container size • Food variety • Appropriateness of the eating occasion

The physical environment

The social environment

• Appropriate location and setting (e.g., familiar environment) • Imaginative context and gamification

• People present at the experiment (e.g., modeling from peers, experimenter, parents, teachers)

Age and gender-related differences

Fig. 14.1 Schematic overview of contextual factors influencing children eating behavior.

procedures should be carefully used according to children’s developmental phase (Guinard, 2001; Laureati, Pagliarini, Gallina Toschi, & Monteleone, 2015), and that the perception of the food context and the factors connected to it may change considerably, depending on the child’s age. In this chapter, we review articles dealing with contextual factors that are most influential on children’s sensory and hedonic response, limiting the age range to 3–18 years. On one hand, we decided not to include infants and toddlers, because in this age range, the food context is limited to the parents and the family; while from 3 years old, children generally start attending kindergartens or recreational centers, and they start selecting the food they want to eat, and with whom. In other words, they start interacting with the food environment. Therefore, contextual factors that can contribute to shape their food preference and choice increase. On the other hand, although it is assumed that individuals aged 13–18 years start reasoning and performing sensory and consumer testing similarly to adults (Guinard, 2001; Laureati et al., 2015), we included teenagers in our review because in this period of life, social interaction is a highly influential factor when choosing what to eat and drink.

14.2

The meal

There are many factors associated with meal consumption that can influence children’s food acceptability and selection, including its sensory properties, the expectation that the meal can taste good or bad, the appropriateness of it for a certain period of the year or of the day, how it is served, and whether it is presented alone or in combination with other meal components (i.e., food variety). The influence of sensory properties on children’s food choice has been studied in a number of empirical and review articles (Laureati et al., 2015). It is widely known that children have an innate preference for sweet taste and an innate rejection for all that is bitter or sour (Mennella, 2014), and it is also widely recognized that texture is an important factor in children’s food acceptance and refusal (Szczesniak, 2002).

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

289

Although these topics are interesting, and important for developing healthy and wellliked food by children, they are not the focus of this chapter. Therefore, in this section, we will consider the factors most strictly related to the food context, that is, how and when a meal is presented. This translates into three main topics: (1) the portion and container size, (2) the food variety, and (3) the appropriateness of the eating occasion. In recent years, food portions size has been under discussion as larger portions are considered one of the causes of the increase in food and energy intake worldwide. The increase in portions served during meals is, unfortunately, the result of changes in the eating environment, as well as in eating behavior during the past century. These changes are a big issue in view of the increasing obesity epidemic that is being observed among children and adults (WHO, 2014). Systematic studies on adults have shown that providing individuals with larger portions leads to substantial increases in energy intake for both amorphous (e.g., pasta with cheese) and unit foods (e.g., sandwiches), as well as beverages (Rolls, 2014). These effects are partially explained by size-related visual cues and inflated consumption norms (Mathias et al., 2012). The effect of portion size on food intake (the bigger the portion, the more is eaten) has been shown also in children of different ages. In general, findings from current research reveal that serving large portions of palatable foods can increase food intake by 25% to 60% among 5- to 9-year-old children, regardless of whether the portions are served directly by the child or by the mother (see Birch, Savage, & Fisher, 2015 for review). Recently, these effects have been used in an attempt to increase consumption of healthy and often disliked foods, such as fruits and vegetables. For example, Mathias et al. (2012) found that when portions were doubled, children increased their vegetable (cooked broccoli) and fruit (peaches) intake by 37% and 70%, respectively. Effects were not seen in children who disliked the items, a finding that is in agreement with other research (Kral, Kabay, Roe, & Rolls, 2010), and suggests that optimization of food formulations, instead of portion size, should be used as a strategy to improve children’s acceptance of healthy food. In fact, serving larger fruit and vegetable portions at meals may also have important negative side effects, including substantial plate waste (Birch et al., 2015) and a distorted perception of meal portions that may even contribute to the opposite effect of increasing food intake overall. In view of these important limitations, we recommend focusing on more sustainable principles, such as experiential learning, repeated exposure, and modeling and reward to guide children toward healthy eating behaviors (Laureati, Bergamaschi, & Pagliarini, 2014). Another strategy for modifying children’s food selection and consumption that can be considered more sustainable than increasing meal portion is based on the modulation of the plate/container size in which the food is served. There is a growing belief that the size of dishware influences how much people serve and consume during a single meal occasion. A recent experimental study demonstrated that adults perceived a given food portion to be smaller when the plate size and the amount of empty space on the plate were increased (Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012). Similarly, DiSantis et al. (2013) found an effect of dishware size on children’s

290

Context

actual food serving and consumption, with larger plates and bowls increasing children’s self-served portions. Size-related visual cues are thought to be at the basis of the mechanisms underlying these effects. On one hand, larger dishware may indeed suggest inflated norms for consumption that translate into larger self-served portion sizes (Wansink, 2004). On the other hand, larger dishware may induce a size-contrast illusion, that is, the so-called Delboeuf illusion, and alter children’s visual perception of portion size. In other words, they perceive a similar amount of food to be smaller on a large plate or in a large container. A schematic representation of the Delboeuf illusion, which has been proposed by Van Ittersum and Wansink (2012) to explain dishware size effects on individuals’ eating behavior, is depicted in Fig. 14.2. Wansink and coworkers have also shown that the package or container size effect may affect the amount people consume, regardless of the sensory properties of food. In a study conducted in a movie theater, adult consumers were given a medium or a large

Fig. 14.2 The Delboeuf illusion: (A) two identical circles are perceived of different size when surrounded by a much larger and a slightly larger circle; (B) the same amount of food is perceived differently when served on a large vs small plate (B).

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

291

pack of popcorn that was either fresh or stale. People ate respectively 45.3% and 33% more of fresh and stale popcorn when it was given to them in large containers, indicating that perceived taste and quality had little impact on how much popcorn was eaten, while the package size was the best predictor for intake (Wansink & Kim, 2005). Interestingly, Aerts and Smits (2017) have recently replicated this experiment with children (age 3–7). In a first experiment, they presented children with either regular or large cups of salted or sugared popcorn while watching a movie. In a second experiment, they used a less palatable food (baby carrots) or a more palatable one (cookies) served in either regular or large packages during breaks at school. In both experiments, they found that children ate more from large packages compared with regular packages, and they ate more of the sugared food compared with the less tasty one. Furthermore, the package size effect was stronger for sugared foods in both experiments, an indication that for children, both sensory properties and container size play an important role in food intake. In view of the strong effect of portion, dishware and package size on consumer eating behavior and health, further research is needed, especially on children, in order to better understand the mechanisms behind the relationship of larger size and higher consumption, and to implement effective and efficient interventions to promote healthy growth and development. Another important aspect related to how the meal can influence food preference and selection is whether it is presented alone or in combination with other components (i.e., food variety). Most of the meals consumed in various contexts, for example, in a school canteen or at home, include several components, and rarely is a food served alone. Sensory evaluation of food performed in a laboratory context, which requires products being evaluated monadically, is, of course, an exception, but this situation is considerably far from being representative of habitual meal consumption. Previous research has shown that individual food item preferences are not predictive of the preference for item combinations (King et al., 2004). Despite this, very little information is available about acceptability of a food or beverage product presented within a complete meal, especially in children (e.g., Caporale, Policastro, Tuorila, & Monteleone, 2009; Pagliarini, Gabbiadini, & Ratti, 2005; Pagliarini, Ratti, Balzaretti, & Dragoni, 2003). Increasing the number of components of a meal or changing its appearance by modifying the shape and/or the color of these components may increase the perceived complexity and variety of the meal. Variety within a meal is known to be one of the most powerful ways to increase energy intake, with larger amounts of food being consumed in meals characterized by high variety (Bergamaschi et al., 2016). Seeking a variety of foods is considered an adaptive trait to protect the organism from nutritional deficiencies (Rolls et al., 1981; Wadhera & Capaldi-Phillips, 2014). At the same time, the effect of food variety can be explained by the mechanism of sensory-specific satiety (SSS). When a variety of foods is available, there is the tendency to switch from one food to another because of the decrease in palatability of the eaten food compared with the uneaten one (Rolls et al., 1981; Rolls, Rowe, & Rolls, 1982).

292

Context

Recently, variety has been used to increase children’s acceptance and consumption of healthy, low-energy dense food, such as fruits and vegetables. Using real food, Roe, Meengs, Birch, and Rolls (2013) tested several familiar fruits and vegetables as snacks with pre-school children, and found that providing more variety increased the amount they actually chose and ate. Relatively little is known about what food variety actually means for children. In a recent study (Bergamaschi et al., 2016), we investigated the effect of two different types of variety on fruit and vegetable snack intake and acceptance in primary school children (age 9–11 years): “classical variety,” that is, serving of different foods and “perceived variety,” that is, serving of the same food in different shapes. For each set, three levels of variety in the servings were tested: low, medium, and high (Fig. 14.3). We found that perceived variety was more effective than classical variety in increasing children’s liking, but, contrary to our expectation, in the classical variety set, the highest intake was observed in the serving with the lowest variety (Fig. 14.4). We explained this outcome by the fact that higher levels of classical variety were obtained by adding items (e.g., cranberry and white cabbage) that were less liked and less frequently consumed by children, suggesting that children’s intake is more affected by acceptability and familiarity of the single stimulus included in the meal than by variety. Other studies have found that shape of food can affect children’s liking. For example, using real food, van Kleef, Vrijhof, Polet, Vingerhoeds, and de Wijk (2014) found that presenting fun-shaped whole wheat bread rolls almost doubled consumption of whole wheat bread in children aged 8–12 years. Due to the strong effect that visual cues can have on children’s eating behavior, we believe it is of crucial importance to deepen the study on how children’s food choice might be impacted by small contextual cues. As such, findings from current research have implications for policies and practices within school meal programs, and suggest that instead of requiring children to eat certain foods, improving the attractiveness of healthier food options could be a promising route.

Classic variety (different food items) Low

Medium

Apple slices Carrot sticks

Apple slices Carrot sticks White cabbage Cranberries

Perceived variety (same foods in different shapes) High

Apple slices Carrot sticks White cabbage Cranberries Almonds Plum

Low

Apple chunks Carrot chunks

Medium

Apple chunks Apple slices Carrot chunks Carrot sticks

High

Apple chunks Apple slices Apple triangles Carrot chunks Carrot slices Carrot sticks

Fig. 14.3 Stimuli used to represent different types of snack variety among primary school children (Bergamaschi et al., 2016).

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

293

100 90 80 Intake (gr) %

70

a

60

b

c

cb

b

cb

med

high

low

med

50 40 30 20 10 0 low

CV

high

PV Variety

Fig. 14.4 Mean intake values (g) of classical variety (CV) and perceived variety (PV), and their variety levels (low, medium, high); (different letters denote significant differences for P < .05 between and within the different variety conditions (Bergamaschi et al., 2016).

Finally, we will consider the effect of eating occasion appropriateness on children’s food acceptance and selection. As already discussed, the appropriateness of a specific food/beverage for a specific eating context is probably one of the most powerful factors influencing the enjoyment of eating and drinking (K€oster, 2003; PiquerasFiszman & Jaeger, 2015). Bell and Meiselman (1995) reported that by simply changing the perception of the eating environment, the consumer can change what is deemed to be appropriate for that situation, and can substantially change her/his behavior. For example, in an elegant restaurant, it is usually considered less appropriate to order a hamburger, while this choice may be more appropriate in a fast food or informal eating setting. Although children are less influenced by these social norms, and probably would have no hesitation in ordering a pizza in a Michelin-starred restaurant, there is evidence that they master the concept of food-context. In a recent qualitative study, Waddingham, Shaw, Van Dam, and Bettiol (2018) showed that, among the reasons behind their food choice, primary school children reported examples of eating context (e.g., choosing ice-cream to cool down in a hot day or choosing a hot chocolate to warm up on a cold afternoon). The only other study on the effect of food-context appropriateness on the child’s acceptability and eating behavior of which we are aware is a dated article by Birch, Billman, and Salisbury Richards (1984). In this research, preschoolers were evaluated for changes in food acceptability within time of the day by providing, both in the morning and in the afternoon, familiar food appropriate for breakfast, for dinner, or for either mealtime. Despite their young age (3–4 years), most of the children showed significant preference shifts with time of the day, with breakfast items more preferred in the morning than the afternoon, while the reverse was observed for dinner items.

294

Context

The appropriateness of food-context is an important concept for children, as this association strongly depends on cultural background. Through repeated association of food and context, children learn what is appropriate and what is the most acceptable because it is familiar. Familiarity is known to be one of the most powerful determinants of children’s food acceptance and consumption. Based on the few data available in the literature, it seems that children, even the youngest ones, have already acquired information about mealtime appropriateness, and are reliable informants about factors that influence their food choice. However, data are scanty, and it would be interesting to deepen this topic in order to have a better insight on children’s perception of contextual factors’ appropriateness related to food consumption.

14.3

The physical environment

Previous research on adults has demonstrated that identical foods are perceived differently in different settings (King et al., 2004). For example, it is well-known that adult people expect food to be better and indeed rate them higher at home or at a restaurant versus a laboratory or an institutional cafeteria (Cardello, Bell, & Kramer, 1996; Meiselman, Johnson, Reeve, & Crouch, 2000). This consideration is valid also for children, for whom performing tests in laboratory settings is discouraged, as this context may be perceived as artificial by children, or they may even be intimidated by a formal and aseptic environment. If a laboratory setting is deemed necessary for the evaluation, then it is recommended that the test site is set to meet children’s needs. Tables may be lowered to suit the respondents, age appropriate pictures may be used to create a more relaxed and less sterile environment, and experimenters should avoid lab coats that can be perceived as overly authoritative (ASTM, 2013). For example, Kimmel, Sigman-Grant, and Guinard (1994) designed the testing room specifically for young children, providing round tables of different colors, and decorating the location with balloons and ribbons to create a relaxed atmosphere. In order to get more ecological results, it is advisable to conduct sensory and consumer testing with children in familiar environments, such as school, recreation centers, or home. However, in these settings, it is important to ensure that the evaluation is as rigorous as possible, for example, avoiding mutual influence among children, and performing the test in a quiet location, so the child can concentrate on the task (see also Section 14.4). In most European countries, children consume about half of their daily energy intake during school and afterschool activities (School lunch standards in Europe, 2012), thus school is an ideal place to influence children’s eating habits, and help them establish healthy dietary habits. Having lunch at school has an important educational function, because the meal implies a number of hidden significances, namely a physiological significance to learn to feed properly, a cultural significance to know different varieties and origins of foods, and a psychological significance to understand why a specific food product may evoke emotions (Pagliarini et al., 2005). However, previous research has shown that children are generally suspicious about food served at school, and report to prefer food eaten at home (Osowski, G€oranzon, & Fjellstr€om,

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

295

2012). Despite negative attitudes toward institutional food, which may be classified as stereotypes (Cardello et al., 1996), it is important to understand how to improve food context in order to reduce food waste and increase consumption of healthy food. Hedonic responses to school menus have been collected in a number of studies. For example, Pagliarini et al. (2005, 2003) evaluated liking for individual components of 22 school menus supplied to Italian primary school children. Their data provided useful indications to school refectories about the most, as well as the least, favorite food formulations by children. Moreover, they found strong age-related differences in hedonic responses, with children becoming increasingly aware of their preferences and critical in their choices with growing age (i.e., 8–9 years). Similarly, Caporale et al. (2009) studied liking and consumption of school meals provided to Italian pre-schoolers (4–5 years), and found that food waste was highly predicted by hedonic ratings (Caporale et al., 2009). More recently, in view of the high rate of leftovers, Laureati, Cattaneo, Bergamaschi, Proserpio, and Pagliarini (2016) investigated how different fish recipes were liked by Italian primary school children. They found that children’s liking was strongly dependent on cooking methods, and that improving texture was an important aspect for increasing acceptance also among neophobic children. Probably the best and most comprehensive study performed to investigate the effect of contextual factors on children’s food acceptance is by Tuorila, Palmujoki, Kyt€ o, T€ ornwall, and Vehkalahti (2015). In this study, the authors evaluated how aspects related to the sensory properties of the meal served in the school canteen, as well as a series of variables more directly related to the food environment are perceived by Finnish students aged from 8 to 15 years. In this study, students rated their overall meal experience, as well as the appropriateness of the temperature, spiciness, and saltiness of a series of meals. Contextual factors that were evaluated were noise in the dining hall, progress of the line, timing of lunch break, and kindness of the dining staff. All these variables were taken together, along with individual factors such as age, gender, and food neophobia to build a predictive model of food acceptance. A general positive attitude toward the school menu, perceived hunger prior to lunch, and appropriate queue timing predicted acceptance positively; whereas food neophobia and being older were negative predictors. Sensory characteristics promoting the acceptance of the school meal were related to recognizable sensory qualities, such as bright and colorful; while the least liked dishes evoked fatty and cheese sensations. As reported by previous research (Laureati et al., 2016; Pagliarini et al., 2005), the authors found age-related differences in food context evaluation. When approaching the teenage years (from approximately 9 years to 12 years of age), students became critical about the quality of meals, attributing their complaints to missing qualities of main dishes, such as inappropriate serving temperature and low spiciness. At the same time, negative attitudes toward school foods appeared (Tuorila et al., 2015). Gender was found to influence food context evaluation as well. In the youngest students, both genders answered equally, whereas with increasing age, boys became more critical or more willing to state their opinion than girls. Age- and gender-related differences in contextual factor perception are important considerations, as during this period of life,

296

Context

children undergo major physical and psychological changes, so their expectations and their needs for food also change (Tuorila et al., 2015). In addition to the physical environment per se, imaginative context and gamification are also important when performing sensory and consumer testing with children. Presenting an engaging context to the children by making the experiment game-like, or developing a story-based method, can be of help to overcome the tedious nature of the task, and keep the children’s attention high. For example, Vennerød, Hersleth, Nicklaus, and Almli (2017) measured taste sensitivity in very young children (age 3–4 years) using a fairy tale in order to engage children, thus increasing their interest and participation rate. The analytical nature of the task (i.e., a paired comparison test requiring, for example, children to indicate the sweetest sample) was converted into a game-like task by asking the child to identify the cups of “magic water,” defined as tasting different from plain water, and represented by different magical characters (e.g., a fairy represented sweet taste, an elf sour taste, a mermaid salty taste). Game-like procedures and imaginary contexts are especially important when testing a consumer group with a short attention span, and who is not motivated by contribution to science and/or monetary rewards (Vennerød et al., 2017). Other examples of task and context gamification to trigger children’s curiosity and interest can be found in Brard and L^e (2016) and Tatlow-Golden, Hennessy, Dean, and Hollywood (2013). To conclude, the analysis of the literature concerning the effect of the physical context on children’s food liking and choice seems rather poor. Although there are numerous articles dedicated to the optimization of the sensory properties of school meals, there is only one study in which several variables related to the school food context are considered simultaneously. Future perspectives of study should be directed to better understand the child’s perception of the school food context as a whole, especially in view of the fact that the optimization of eating environments, as well as meals, may be useful to set up guidelines for institutional caterers, and may help to predict children’s perception of meals in a real eating context, thus maximizing consumption while decreasing waste.

14.4

The social environment

Food consumption has implications that go beyond merely providing nutrients and energy needed for survival, as eating and drinking are also deeply connected to social interaction (Cruwys, Bevelander, & Hermans, 2015). The great majority of meals are indeed consumed in the company of someone else, and this is often perceived as an enjoyable part of our cultural experience (Rozin, 2005). Therefore, it should not be surprising that a major determinant of human eating behavior is social modeling (see also Chapter 2 for further information on social influence). Social modeling emerges in the very first years of life, and remains stable across development (Cruwys et al., 2015). A clear example is given by young children who learn which foods are palatable by observing other people eating (Marty, Chambaron, Nicklaus, & Monnery-Patris, 2018).

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

297

Social learning is indeed important for survival, as it plays an important role in guiding humans into what and how much to eat. Previous studies have shown that more food is consumed by individuals in a group than by individuals alone, the so-called social facilitation effect (Herman, 2015; Salvy, de la Haye, Bowker, & Hermans, 2012). In the same way, people eat less when they are in the company of individuals who eat less (Cruwys et al., 2015). Similar effects have been found also in young children who were observed to consume more food when eating in bigger, rather than smaller, groups of peers (Lumeng & Hillman, 2007). A different pattern has been observed in overweight children (6- to 10-year-olds), who ate much (31%) more when alone than when in a group of two overweight and two normal-weight children (Salvy, Coelho, Kieffer, & Epstein, 2007). This effect of “social suppression” of food selection (also observed in overweight adults) has been explained with overweight people’s concern about the negative inferences about them that might arise from overeating in public (Herman, 2015). In line with this assumption, Salvy, Howard, Read, and Mele (2009) found that overweight youths ate more when paired with other overweight youths than when paired with normal-weight youths. In many contexts, including the food context, modeling has been shown to be a very powerful process by which children of different ages acquire complex behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Children use food for many social purposes, for example, to construct their desired self-image, as a way to judge others, to emphasize friendships, and to live up to peer norms (Andersen et al., 2016). Models that have been shown to be effective in modulating children’s eating behavior include cartoon characters, peers, mothers, unfamiliar adults, and teachers (Laureati et al., 2014). In a study by Osowski et al. (2012) on children’s understanding of food context, children strived for social belonging to their peers in the canteens, and spoke of not liking to eat alone, probably because eating alone is seen as unusual and stigmatized. Children reported that at school it is important to eat with peers, but the presence of adults was also appreciated. In one of the first studies on the effect of social influence on children’s food preference, Duncker (1938) showed that target children exposed to a story hero with a strong preference for a bad-tasting food over a more pleasant one temporarily shifted their preference to the food preferred by the hero. Moreover, exposing target children to peers with different preferences produced a high percentage of choices of the peers’ preferred foods by the target children when asked about their favorite food in the presence of the peers (Duncker, 1938). Using a similar approach, Birch (1980) demonstrated that the same peer effect occurs even when the target children are asked to express their preference in the absence of their classmates, indicating that the child’s choice shift is not due to merely conforming to the majority’s choice, but rather to a change in preference that persists in the absence of direct peer influence. The fact that peers are important shapers of children’s eating behavior is not surprising, and some studies have even suggested that peers have more influence than adults on children’s food selection (Frazier, Gelman, Kaciroti, Russell, & Lumeng, 2012). Children do not wish to stand out from the crowd by making socially unacceptable food choices that may have social consequences, such as stigmatization and social exclusion. This is understandable because when growing up, children

298

Context

experience a period of uncertainty and, as a result, they try to seek acceptance by conforming to the norms of their peer group (Andersen et al., 2016). Moreover, peers and friends may be more influential during adolescence than during childhood, as social networks become increasingly important to motivations and behaviors, and seem to exert a stronger influence than parental norms (Salvy, Elmo, Nitecki, Kluczynski, & Roemmich, 2011; Salvy et al., 2012 for review). Recent evidence suggests that the effect of social modeling may be modulated by specific situations, and the food itself. For example, Andersen et al. (2016) showed that classmates influence children’s preference of a new type of school lunch, whereas preferences of familiar lunches (brought from home) were unaffected by peers. The authors speculated that this is probably because the lunch brought from home is an already negotiated system of preference; therefore, children do not need to look at their peers to decide if it is good or bad. Similar findings were reported by other studies (Greenhalgh et al., 2009; Hendy, 2002) in which it was found that children’s consumption of novel food increased after hearing positive statements from their peers. When an individual is faced with a novel food, social facilitation usually leads to a faster acceptance of the novel food (Visalberghi & Addessi, 2000), as it reduces the uncertainty of that specific eating situation, for example, ‘if a lot of people are doing this, it’s probably a wise thing to do’ (Cialdini, 2007). Therefore, social influences have been increasingly used to overcome food neophobia (i.e., the reluctance of trying novel food) in children. For example, children ate more of an unfamiliar food when an adult was eating it than when the food was merely offered (Addessi, Galloway, Visalberghi, & Birch, 2005). Similarly, enthusiastic teacher modeling was effective to encourage novel food acceptance in preschool children (Hendy & Raudenbush, 2000). Reward is another important principle related to social context that can be influential in modifying children’s eating behavior. A clear example is given by sweets, which are considered highly palatable, not only because they are closely linked with satisfaction of physiological needs, but also because they are frequently used by parents as rewards and treats, and are usually offered to children in positive socialaffective contexts such as parties and holiday celebrations (Birch, 1980). Reward and peer modeling have been explored quite extensively in past decades, in combination with other principles (e.g., repeated exposure), in order to develop strategies to change children’s eating behavior and guide them toward a healthy direction. For example, in a recent study by our group (Laureati et al., 2014), we investigated the effectiveness of a multicomponent school-based intervention based on peer modeling, reward, and repeated exposure to increase liking of fruits and vegetables and reduce food neophobia in a large cohort of children (age range 6–11 years). Children in the experimental group watched motivational videos consisting of episodes featuring the heroic “Food Dudes” who were a group of 12- to 13-year-old teenagers who were seen to eat and enjoy a variety of fruits and vegetables and to encourage all other children to do the same. The choice of using teenagers as models derived from previous evidence that children are more likely to imitate the behavior of individuals of the same age or slightly older than themselves or who they like or admire, especially if the behavior is rewarded (Lowe, Horne, Tapper, Bowdery, & Egerton, 2004). With this approach, we found a significant and long lasting effect of the intervention in reducing food neophobia and increasing liking of fruits, and partially, vegetables (Fig. 14.5A and B).

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

299

25

Control

Food neophobia score

Experimental

20

15 Preintervention (t0)

Follow-up (t2)

Intervention (t1)

(A)

Phases Fruit control Fruit experimental Vegetable control Vegetable experimental

7

6

Liking score

5

4

3

2

1

(B)

t0'

t0" Preintervention

t1

t2

Intervention

Follow-up

Fig. 14.5 Food neophobia (A) and liking scores for fruit and vegetables (B) registered in the study by Laureati et al. (2014) for experimental and control group of children at preintervention, intervention phase (t1) and follow-up (t2) ().

300

Context

14.4.1 Age- and gender-related differences in social learning Age- as well as gender-related differences are important to consider when studying how social mechanisms interact with children’s eating behavior. Research studies indicate that young children (preschoolers or younger) are more susceptible than the older ones to social learning (see, for example, Birch, 1980; Laureati et al., 2014), and this is why it is often suggested to start as early as possible with school-based educational programs in order to maximize health benefits. Moreover, a qualitative study by Osowski et al. (2012) reported gender stereotypes when interviewing and observing children eating in the school canteen. Girls and boys sometimes sat together in the canteen, but it became more common for them to sit separately with growing age. The reason that children reported for such behavior was that boys and girls like to talk about different things. Thus, it is essential to reflect on what effect gender and age interactions could have on children’s perception of food situations. Gender-related issues were also addressed in the study by Salvy et al. (2011), who found that adolescent females, but not males, consumed healthy foods more in the presence of their friends than in the company of their mothers. Conversely, female adolescents consumed less energy from unhealthy snacks in the presence of their friends than in the presence of their mothers. It is largely known that adolescence is a period during which gender differences in terms of body image and dieting concerns are likely to appear, and because dietary concerns are often associated with an increased desire to be popular and accepted, female adolescents may be more inclined to adjust their intake to convey an image of healthy eating in front of their peers and friends (Salvy et al., 2011).

14.4.2 Effect of social environment on children’s performance during sensory and consumer testing Due to the evident effect of social context on eating behavior, it is important to consider the people present during sensory and consumer testing with children. As previously mentioned, we recommend performing testing with children in familiar environments such as schools, recreational centers, or home, as it is crucial to ensure that the child feels comfortable in the test environment. Each of these contexts has potential influencers that have to be carefully taken into consideration. If the test is performed at home, or if they are present at the experiment, parents may occasionally interfere with the child’s responses. For example, in a study by Kimmel et al. (1994), some children looked to the parent for approval or attempted to show off. When the presence of the parents cannot be avoided (e.g., young children), having the parents at the perimeter of the room could be less distracting. The presence of the parents can be avoided if children are tested at school. However, in this case, peers and teachers can influence the effectiveness of the test. In order to obtain individual responses and avoid the bias coming with peers’ interaction, it can be of help to separate children who are friends, especially when the test is performed in a group setting (ASTM, 2013).

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

301

Finally, the effect of the experimenters should not be underestimated. Especially when children have to be tested individually (e.g., children under reading age), it is preferable that they are tested in the presence of a familiar adult, as they may feel uncomfortable with unknown people. Our experience suggests that if the experimenters has to test the child, a warm-up meeting can be of help to introduce the child to the experimenter and establish child’s involvement. It may also happen that, for the need of social acceptance, children can give an answer only because they believe it is the one the experimenter is requiring. In this sense, children may overestimate the liking of food that is usually not very much appreciated (e.g., vegetables) because they want to be indulgent with the evaluator. This fits well with unpublished results from our laboratory demonstrating that, keeping the testing location constant, and the stimulus and the procedure, the administration of the task by the experimenter produced significantly higher hedonic ratings for a fish formulation than when the task was administered by their teacher (Laureati & Pagliarini, 2018). In these cases, doubleblind testing should be conducted to ensure that the children are not involuntarily guided in their answers by the experimenter (Vennerød et al., 2017).

14.5

Conclusions and future perspectives of study

Three main contextual factors have been identified as being highly influential in children’s food decision-making: the meal, the physical environment, and the social environment. These factors are important to consider when performing sensory and consumer testing with children. The few studies available on this topic have highlighted the importance of taking into consideration age- and gender-related differences when studying the contextual factors on eating behavior, because children tend to become more critical about context and sensory properties when they grow up, and perception of food and factors related to the context may be different in girls and boys. As a conclusive remark, reviewing the literature on the effect of contextual factors on children’s food preference and choice has highlighted a lack of information. Therefore, further research is needed on this topic. Studying the contextual factors related to food consumption among children could provide a deeper understanding of their thoughts and expectations about food and food settings. Moreover, it could help in finding solutions to increase the acceptance of target products (e.g., fruits and vegetables), thus contributing to improvement of children’s health, and to reducing food waste, which is a critical issue, especially in institutional contexts, such as school.

References Addessi, E., Galloway, A. T., Visalberghi, E., & Birch, L. L. (2005). Specific social influences on the acceptance of novel foods in 2–5-year-old children. Appetite, 45(3), 264–271. Aerts, G., & Smits, T. (2017). The package size effect: How package size affects young children’s consumption of snacks differing in sweetness. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 72–80.

302

Context

Andersen, S. S., Vassard, D., Havn, L. N., Damsgaard, C. T., Biltoft-Jensen, A., & Holm, L. (2016). Measuring the impact of classmates on children’s liking of school meals. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 87–95. ASTM 2299. (2013). Standard guide for sensory evaluation of products by children and minors. American society for testing and materials. West Conshohocken, US: ASTM International. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bell, R., & Meiselman, H. (1995). The role of eating environments in determining food choice. In D. W. Marshall (Ed.), Food choice and the consumer (pp. 292–312). Bergamaschi, V., Olsen, A., Laureati, M., Zangenberg, S., Pagliarini, E., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2016). Variety in snack servings as determinant for acceptance in school-children. Appetite, 96, 628–635. Birch, L. L. (1980). Effects of peer models’ food choices and eating behaviors on preschoolers’ food preferences. Child Development, 51(2), 489. Birch, L. L., Billman, J., & Salisbury Richards, S. (1984). Time of the day influences food acceptability. Appetite, 5, 109–116. Birch, L. L., Savage, J. S., & Fisher, J. O. (2015). Right sizing prevention. Food portion size effects on children’s eating and weight. Appetite, 88, 11–16. Brard, M., & L^e, S. (2016). The ideal pair method, an alternative to the ideal profile method based on pairwise comparisons: Application to a panel of children. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31, 306–313. Caporale, G., Policastro, S., Tuorila, H., & Monteleone, E. (2009). Hedonic ratings and consumption of school lunch among preschool children. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 482–489. Cardello, A. V., Bell, R., & Kramer, F. M. (1996). Attitudes of consumers toward military and other institutional foods. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 7–20. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72, 263–268. Cruwys, T., Bevelander, K. E., & Hermans, R. C. J. (2015). Social modeling of eating: A review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice. Appetite, 86, 3–18. DiSantis, K. I., Birch, L. L., Davey, A., Serrano, E. L., Zhang, J., Bruton, Y., et al. (2013). Plate size and children’s appetite. Effects of larger dishware on self-served portions and intake. Pediatrics, 131, e1451–e1458. Duncker, K. (1938). Experimental modification of children’s food preferences through social suggestion. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 33, 489–507. Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., Kaciroti, N., Russell, J. W., & Lumeng, J. C. (2012). I’ll have what she’s having: The impact of model characteristics on children’s food choices. Developmental Science, 15(1), 87–98. Greenhalgh, J., Dowey, A. J., Horne, P. J., Fergus Lowe, C., Griffiths, J. H., & Whitaker, C. J. (2009). Positive- and negative peer modelling effects on young children’s consumption of novel blue foods. Appetite, 52, 646–653. Guinard, J. X. (2001). Sensory and consumer testing with children. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11, 273–283. Hendy, H. M. (2002). Effectiveness of trained peer models to encourage food acceptance in preschool children. Appetite, 39, 217–225. Hendy, H. M., & Raudenbush, B. (2000). Effectiveness of teacher modeling to encourage food acceptance in preschool children. Appetite, 34(1), 61–76. Herman, C. P. (2015). The social facilitation of eating. A review. Appetite, 86, 61–73. Kimmel, S., Sigman-Grant, M. J., & Guinard, J.-X. (1994). Sensory testing with young children. Food Technology, 48, 92–99.

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

303

King, S. C., Weber, A. J., Meiselman, H. L., & Lv, N. (2004). The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7–8), 645–653. K€ oster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 359–373. Kral, T. V., Kabay, A. C., Roe, L. S., & Rolls, B. J. (2010). Effects of doubling the portion size of fruit and vegetable side dishes on children’s intake at a meal. Obesity (Silver Spring), 18 (3), 521–527. Laureati, M., Bergamaschi, V., & Pagliarini, E. (2014). School-based intervention with children: Peer-modeling, reward and repeated exposure reduce food neophobia and increase liking of fruits and vegetables. Appetite, 83, 26–32. Laureati, M., Cattaneo, C., Bergamaschi, V., Proserpio, C., & Pagliarini, E. (2016). School children preferences for fish formulations: The impact of child and parental food neophobia. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31(5), 408–415. Laureati, M., & Pagliarini, E. (2018). New developments in sensory and consumer research with children. In: G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), vol. 2. Methods in consumer research: Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 322–355): Woodhead Publishing. Laureati, M., Pagliarini, E., Gallina Toschi, T., & Monteleone, E. (2015). Research challenges and methods to study food preferences in school-aged children: A review of the last 15 years. Food Quality & Preference, 46, 92–102. Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Tapper, K., Bowdery, M., & Egerton, C. (2004). Effects of a peer modelling and rewards-based intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 58, 510–522. Lumeng, J. C., & Hillman, K. H. (2007). Eating in larger groups increases food consumption. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 92, 384–387. Marty, L., Chambaron, S., Nicklaus, S., & Monnery-Patris, S. (2018). Learned pleasure from eating: An opportunity to promote healthy eating in children? Appetite, 120, 265–274. Mathias, K. C., Rolls, B. J., Birch, L. L., Kral, T. V., Hanna, E. L., Davey, A., et al. (2012). Serving larger portions of fruits and vegetables together at dinner promotes intake of both foods among young children. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112, 266–270. Meiselman, H. L. (Ed.), (2009). Meals in science and practice. Interdisciplinary research and business applications. Cambridge: Woodhead. Meiselman, H. L., Johnson, J. L., Reeve, W., & Crouch, J. E. (2000). Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite, 35, 231–237. Mennella, J. A. (2014). Ontogeny of taste preferences: Basic biology and implications for health. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99, 704S–711S. Osowski, C. P., G€oranzon, H., & Fjellstr€om, C. (2012). Children’s understanding of food and meals in the foodscape at school. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36 (1), 54–60. Pagliarini, E., Gabbiadini, N., & Ratti, S. (2005). Consumer testing with children on food combinations for school lunch. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 131–138. Pagliarini, E., Ratti, S., Balzaretti, C., & Dragoni, I. (2003). Evaluation of a hedonic scaling method for measuring the acceptability of school lunches by children. Italian Journal of Food Science, 15(2), 215–224. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. (2015). The effect of product–context appropriateness on emotion associations in evoked eating occasions. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 49–60.

304

Context

Roe, L. S., Meengs, J. S., Birch, L. L., & Rolls, B. J. (2013). Serving a variety of vegetables and fruit as a snack increased intake in preschool children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 98, 693–699. Rolls, B. J. (2014). What is the role of portion control in weight management? International Journal of Obesity, 38, S1–S8. Rolls, B. J., Rowe, E. A., & Rolls, E. T. (1982). How sensory properties of foods affect human feeding behavior. Physiology & Behavior, 29(3), 409–417. Rolls, B. J., Rowe, E. A., Rolls, E. T., Kingston, B., Megson, A., & Gunary, R. (1981). Variety in a meal enhances food intake in man. Physiology & Behavior, 26(2), 215–221. Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of food in our lives. A cross-cultural perspective on eating and well-being. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37, S107–S112. Salvy, S.-J., Coelho, J. S., Kieffer, E., & Epstein, L. H. (2007). Effects of social contexts on overweight and normal-weight children’s food intake. Physiology & Behavior, 92, 840–846. Salvy, S. J., de la Haye, K., Bowker, J. C., & Hermans, R. C. J. (2012). Influence of peers and friends on children’s and adolescents’ eating and activity behaviors. Physiology & Behavior, 106, 369–378. Salvy, S. J., Elmo, A., Nitecki, L. A., Kluczynski, M. A., & Roemmich, J. M. (2011). Influence of parents and friends on children’s and adolescents’ food intake and food selection. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93, 87–92. Salvy, S.-J., Howard, M., Read, M., & Mele, E. (2009). The presence of friends increases food intake in youth. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90, 282–287. School lunch standards in Europe (2012). Food Today, No. 83. European Food Information Council.http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FTARCHIVE. Szczesniak, A. S. (2002). Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 215–225. Tatlow-Golden, M., Hennessy, E., Dean, M., & Hollywood, L. (2013). ‘Big, strong and healthy’. Young children’s identification of food and drink that contribute to healthy growth. Appetite, 71, 163–170. Tuorila, H., Palmujoki, I., Kyt€o, E., T€ornwall, O., & Vehkalahti, K. (2015). School meal acceptance depends on the dish, student, and context. Food Quality and Preference, 46, 126–136. Van Ittersum, K., & Wansink, B. (2012). Plate size and color suggestibility: The Delboeuf Illusion’s bias on serving and eating behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 215–228. van Kleef, E., Vrijhof, M., Polet, I. A., Vingerhoeds, M. H., & de Wijk, R. A. (2014). Nudging children towards whole wheat bread: A field experiment on the influence of fun bread roll shape on breakfast consumption. BMC Public Health, 14, 906. Vennerød, F. F. F., Hersleth, M., Nicklaus, S., & Almli, V. L. (2017). The magic water test. An affective paired comparison approach to evaluate taste sensitivity in pre-schoolers. Food Quality and Preference, 58, 61–70. Visalberghi, E., & Addessi, E. (2000). Seeing group members eating a familiar food enhances the acceptance of novel foods in capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 60(1), 69–76. Waddingham, S., Shaw, K., Van Dam, P., & Bettiol, S. (2018). What motivates their food choice? Children are key informants. Appetite, 120, 514–522. Wadhera, D., & Capaldi-Phillips, E. D. (2014). A review of visual cues associated with food on food acceptance and consumption. Eating Behaviors, 15, 132–143.

The effect of context on children’s eating behavior

305

Wansink, B. (2004). Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual Review of Nutrition, 24, 455–479. Wansink, B., & Kim, J. (2005). Bad popcorn in big buckets. Portion size can influence intake as much as taste. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37, 242–245. WHO (2014). Limiting portion sizes to reduce the risk of childhood overweight and obesity. E-library of evidence for nutrition actions (eLENA). Retrieved from http://www.who. int/elena/bbc/portion_childhood_obesity/en/. Accessed 7 December 2017.