Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Interventions and public health nutrition

The effect of an intervention on schoolchildren’s susceptibility to a peer’s candy intake

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 67, pages 829–835 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/objectives:

The aim of the study was to pilot test two interventions designed to reduce children’s susceptibility to peers’ candy intake and to determine if interventions had different effects on boys and girls.

Subjects/methods:

In the standard intervention, peer modeling was explained while communicating the importance of not following other’s food intake by means of photos, video clips and interactive tasks. A second animated intervention was similar but added a monkey puppet as a (cue) reminder. A social modeling component was conducted 1 day after the intervention to test whether the interventions affected the extent to which children model their peers’ eating. During the modeling session, the participants’ (N=141; 78% boys, mean age=7.84±0.72 years) solved a puzzle with a same-sex ‘confederate’ who was instructed to eat chocolate candy when he/she was covertly signaled. The monkey puppet was put in sight to test whether the monkey served as a cue reminder in the animated intervention. Candy intake was compared across control and intervention conditions.

Results:

The standard intervention reduced candy intake in boys but not girls. Nevertheless, children still remained susceptible to a peer’s eating. There was no significant effect of the animated intervention on consumption.

Conclusions:

There are gender differences when children are exposed to an (over)eating peer. Although interventions are effective, social norms can be powerful. Social networks should be leveraged when possible. The study is registered at the Dutch Trial Register: NTR3459.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shaikh AR, Yaroch AL, Nebeling L, Yeh MC, Resnicow K . Psychosocila predictors of fruit and vegetable consumption in adults: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 2008; 34: 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Larson N, Story M . A review of environmental influences on food choices. Ann Behav Med 2009; 38: 56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bevelander KE, Anschutz DJ, Engels RCME . Social norms in food intake among normal weight and overweight children. Appetite 2012; 58: 864–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Herman CP, Polivy J . Normative influences on food intake. Physiol Behav 2005; 86: 762–772.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Herman CP, Roth DA, Polivy J . Effects of the presence of others on food intake: a normative interpretation. Psych Bull 2003; 129: 873–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Salvy SJ, de la Haye K, Bowker JC, Hermans RCJ . Influence of peers and friends on children's and adolescents' eating and activity behaviors. Physiol Behav 2012; 106: 369–378.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wansink B, Ittersum K . Portion size me: downsizing our consumption norms. J Am Diet Assoc 2007; 107: 1103–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bevelander KE, Anschutz DJ, Engels RCME . Social modeling of food purchases at supermarkets in teenage girls. Appetite 2011; 57: 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldman SJ, Herman CP, Polivy J . Is the effect of a social model attenuated by hunger? Appetite 1991; 17: 129–140.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hermans RCJ, Larsen JK, Herman CP, Engels RCME . Effects of social modeling on young women's nutrient-dense food intake. Appetite 2009; 53: 135–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vartanian LR, Herman CP, Wansink B . Are we aware of the external factors that influence our food intake? JHP 2008; 27: 533–538.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fletcher A, Bonell C, Sorhaindo A . You are what your friends eat: systematic review of social network analyses of young people's eating behaviours and bodyweight. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011; 65: 548–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hendy HM, Raudenbush B . Effectiveness of teacher modeling to encourage food acceptance in preschool children. Appetite 2000; 34: 61–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Horne PJ, Tapper K, Lowe CF, Hardman CA, Jackson MC, Woolner J . Increasing children's fruit and vegetable consumption: a peer-modelling and rewards-based intervention. Eur J Clin Nutr 2004; 58: 1649–1660.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lowe CF, Horne PJ, Tapper K, Bowdery M, Egerton C . Effects of a peer modelling and rewards-based intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children. Eur J Clin Nutr 2004; 58: 510–522.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hendy HM . Effectiveness of trained peer models to encourage food acceptance in preschool children. Appetite 2002; 39: 217–225.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Salvy SJ, Coelho JS, Kieffer E, Epstein LH . Effects of social contexts on overweight and normal-weight children’s food intake. Physiol Behav 2007; 92: 840–846.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Salvy SJ, Vartanian LR, Coelho JS, Jarrin D, Pliner P . The role of familiarity on modeling of eating and food consumption in children. Appetite 2008; 50: 514–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grogan SC, Bell R, Conner M . Eating sweet snacks: gender differences in attitudes and behaviour. Appetite 1997; 28: 19–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Croker H, Whitaker KL, Cooke LJ, Wardle J . Do social norms affect intended food choice? Prev Med 2009; 49: 190–193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kleinjan M, Strick M, Lemmers L, Engels RCME . The effectiveness of a cue-reminder intervention to reduce adolescents’ alcohol use in social contexts. Alcohol Alcohol 2012; 47: 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dal Cin S, MacDonald TK, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Elton-Marshall TE . Remembering the message: the use of a reminder cue to increase condom use following a safer sex intervention. JHP 2006; 25: 438–443.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cohen J . Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen J . A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112: 155–159.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hedges LV, Olkin L . Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cooke JJ, Wardle J . Age and gender differences in children’s food preferences. Br J Nutr 2005; 93: 741–746.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Torun B . Energy requirements of children and adolescents. PHN 2005; 8: 968–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher JO, Birch LL . Restricting access to foods and children's eating. Appetite 1999; 32: 405–419.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rolls BJ, Fedoroff IC, Guthrie JF . Gender differences in eating behavior and body weight regulation. JHP 1991; 10: 133–142.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Chaiken S, Pliner P . Women, but not men, are what they eat: the effects of meal size and gender on perceived femininity and masculinity. Pers Soc Psychol B 1987; 13: 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Salvy SJ, Elmo A, Nitecki LA, Kluczynski MA, Roemmich JN . Influence of parents and friends on children’s and adolescents’ food intake and food selection. Am J Clin Nutr 2011; 93: 87–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones DC . Social comparison and body image: attractiveness comparisons to models and peers among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles 2001; 45: 645–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hargreaves DA, Tiggeman M . Idealized media images and adolescent body image: "comparing" boys and girls. Body Image 2004; 1: 351–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wardle J, Haase AM, Steptoe A, Nillapun M, Jonwutiwes K, Bellisle F . Gender differences in food choice: the contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Ann Behav Med 2004; 27: 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lytle LA, Eldridge AI, Kotz K, Piper J, Williams S, Kalina B . Children's interpretation of nutrition messages. J Nutr Educ Behav 1997; 29: 128–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brehm JW . A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press: New York, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fisher JO, Birch LL . Restricting access to palatable foods affects children's behavioral response, food selection, and intake. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 69: 1264–1272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the teachers and schoolchildren of the primary schools and the students of the Hogeschool Arnhem and Nijmegen (HAN) for their help during the study. The present study was supported by a grant of the Behavioural Science Institute of the Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Julia Hastings-Black provided editorial assistance. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    K E Bevelander, R C M E Engels & D J Anschütz

  2. Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    B Wansink

Authors
  1. K E Bevelander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R C M E Engels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D J Anschütz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B Wansink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K E Bevelander.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bevelander, K., Engels, R., Anschütz, D. et al. The effect of an intervention on schoolchildren’s susceptibility to a peer’s candy intake. Eur J Clin Nutr 67, 829–835 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2013.122

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2013.122

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links