Social Facilitation and its influence on food intake

Social facilitation has shown to bee an attribute to the aspect that some people have a higher susceptible level to social influence; an individuals factors can make him/her more attentive of evaluation. This can have an effect on an individuals presence in front of observers, where the individual can be more greatly affected in presence of others. Esma is an individual of normal body weight who attends a social dinner consisting 12 other people, whereas two of whom she is familiar with. Considering this, I will firstly proceed to argue if social facilitation influences the amount of food intake as in Esmas situation, and secondly, evaluate the correlation if Esma has a low trait of empathy.

There has been shown to be three distinct effects on peoples behavior when consuming food among other people. The first one indicates that people usually eat more, when eating in a group (Herman et al, 2003). Research show that individuals eat up to 50% more while eating with others, than eating alone (De Castro & De Castro, 1989). There has also been shown that there is a significant correlation between social facilitation and meal duration (Bell & Pillner, 2003).However, another theory states that individuals have a tendency of mirroring the eating behaviors when eating in presence of other individuals who either eat a lot or little. Findings showed that individuals consume more when eating with individuals with a high consumption level than with individuals with a low consumption level (Howland et al, 2012).The third one is the theory of impression management. This effect is in social psychology best described as a unconscious or conscious goal directed attempt for individuals to shape other peoples perception about the individual. The impression management implies that when eating in the presence of others, who the individual perceive to be evaluating or obersving them, they tend to eat less than while eating alone. Leary and Kowalski explains that individuals have the need to control the impression others have of them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).

To fully understand the reason why the food intake would increase or decrease one has to evaluate the factors that influence the behavior. Hetherington and his colleges found that one significant influence on human eating behavior is by situational factors; from the presence of others to the availability and palpability of foods (Hetherington et al, 2006). One explanation states that the effect is ’time extension’. A meal companied by others tend to take longer because of verbal interactions, by that increasing exposure to the convenience to eat and food cues. This would indicate that Esma would eat less, since she do not know many of the people to have verbal interactions with. Another factor might proceed by ’producing disinhibit on’. The individual would release behavior from inhibition, if the people presence relaxes the individual. By observing someone else’s consumption, one would discard the constraints on intake, that otherwise would be the limit of the amount consumed. This notion would predict that the release of restraints on intake is an effect depending on the level of calmness with social meals. This indicates that the relaxation would be greater if better known the companions, hence the increased food intake (De Castro, 1997). This would indicate that in Esmas situation, she would most probably eat less, where she is only familiar with two of the twelve people she was dining with.

However, the situation would differ if Esma had low levels of trait empathy. Trait empathy is describes as; the individuals reaction to observed experiences of others. Empathy is seen as a trait, by which individuals have different levels of empathy brought to a situation, depending on the situation (Davis, 1983). A study done by Robinson show that empathy is associated with the mirroring of consumption (Robinson et al, 2011). This indicates that if Esma has low levels of trait empathy, she would not mirror her companions consumption. The mirror . It also indicates that the low trait of empathy would prevent her from the need to impress others. The consumption would be the same as if she ate alone.

It is easy to indicate the correlation between social facilitation and its influence on food intake. Esmas situation was of being of a normal body weight, eating in the presence of twelve others, where only two of whom she is familiar with. The food intake would increase according to the ’producing disinhibit on’ theory. The food intake would only increase if she known the companions that would lead to a greater relaxation. In Esmas case, she only knew two of the ten companions. According to the theory of impression management, the unfamiliar companions would activate Esmas need to impress. This is also seen as a factor that states that in Esmas situation, the food intake would decrease when eating in the presence of others. However, the situation would be opposite if Esma had low traits of empathy. This would lead to neither increased or decreased food intake. She would lack the need to both mirror the others or impress them.

(1)Herman, C.P., Roth, D.A., & Polivy, J. (2003). Effects of the presence of others on food intake: a normative interpretation. Psychological bulletin, 6, 873.

(2) De Castro, J.M., & De Castro, E. S. (1989). Spontaneous meal patterns of humans: influence of the presence of other people. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 50, 237-247.

(3)Bell, R., & Pliner, P.L., (2003). Time to eat: the relationship between the number of people eating and meal duration in three lunch settings. Appetite, 41, 215-218.

(4)Howland, M., Hunger, J., & Mann, T., (2012). Friends don’t let friends eat cookies: Effects of restrictive eating norms on consumption among friends. Appetite, 59, 505-9.

(5)Leary, M.R., & Kowalski, R. M., (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107, 34-47.

(6) Hetherington, M.M., Anderson, S.A., Norton, N.M., & Newson, L., (2006) Situnational Effects on Meal Intake: A Comparison of Eating Alone and Eating with others, Physiology and Behavior, 88, 498-505.

(7) De Castro, J.M., (1997). Socio-cultural Determinants of Meal Size and Frequency, British Journal of Nutrition, 77, 39-55.

(8) Davis, M.H., (1983). Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence of a Multidimensional Approach, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

(9)Robinson, E., Tobias, T., Shaw, L., Freeman, E. & Higgs, S., (2011). Social Matching of Food Intake and the need for Social Acceptance, Appetite, 3, 747-752