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.

The office candy dish: proximity's influence on estimated and actual consumption

International Journal of Obesity volume 30, pages 871–875 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective and purpose:

Although there is increasing interest in how environmental factors influence food intake, there are mixed results and misunderstandings of how proximity and visibility influence consumption volume and contribute to obesity. The objective of this paper is to examine two questions: first, how does the proximity and salience of a food influence consumption volume? Second, are proximate foods consumed more frequently because they are proximate, or are they consumed more frequently because people lose track of how much they eat?

Research methods and procedures:

The 4-week study involved the chocolate candy consumption of 40 adult secretaries. The study utilized a 2 × 2 within-subject design where candy proximity was crossed with visibility. Proximity was manipulated by placing the chocolates on the desk of the participant or 2 m from the desk. Visibility was manipulated by placing the chocolates in covered bowls that were either clear or opaque. Chocolates were replenished each evening, and placement conditions were rotated every Monday. Daily consumption was noted and follow-up questionnaires were distributed and analyzed.

Results:

There were main effects for both proximity and visibility. People ate an average of 2.2 more candies each day when they were visible, and 1.8 candies more when they were proximately placed on their desk vs 2 m away. It is important to note, however, that there was a significant tendency for participants to consistently underestimate their daily consumption of proximately placed candies (−0.9) and overestimate their daily consumption of less proximately placed candies (+0.5).

Discussion:

These results show that the proximity and visibility of a food can consistently increase an adult's consumption of it. In addition, these results suggest that people may be biased to overestimate the consumption of foods that are less proximate, and to underestimate those that are more proximate. Knowing about these deviation tendencies is important for those attempting effectively monitor their consumption of fat and sugar.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1

References

  1. Thomas PR . Improving America's Diet and Health: From Recommendations to Action. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, Snyder D . Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. J Am Diet Assoc 1998; 98: 1118–1126.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sporny LA, Contento IR . Stages of change in dietary fat reduction social psychological correlates. J Nutr Educ 1995; 27: 191–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gould SJ . An interpretive study of purposeful, mood self regulating consumption: the consumption and mood framework. Psychol Marketing 1997; 14: 395–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Patel KA, Schlundt DG . Impact of moods and social context on eating behavior. Appetite 2001; 36: 111–118.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Oliver G, Wardle J, Gibson L . Stress, food choice: a laboratory study. Psychosomatic Med 2000; 62: 853–865.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Berry SL, Beatty WW, Klesges RC . Sensory, social influences on ice cream consumption by males, females in a laboratory setting. Appetite 1985; 6: 41–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Birch LL, Fisher JO . Mother's child-feeding practices influence daughters' eating, weight. Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 71: 1054–1061.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Terry K, Beck S . Eating style, food storage habits in the home: Assessment of obese, non-obese families. Behav Modification 1985; 9: 242–261.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Painter JE, Wansink B, Hieggelke JB . How visibility, convenience influence candy consumption. Appetite 2002; 38: 237–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chandon P, Wansink B . Does stockpiling accelerate consumption. A convenience-salience framework of consumption stockpiling. J Marketing Res 2002; 39: 321–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bauer PJ, Wewerk SS . One- to two-year-old's recall of events: the more expressed, the more impressed. J Exp Child Psychol 1995; 59: 475–496.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hearn MD, Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Doyle C, Smith M, Lin LS, et al. Environmental influences on dietary behavior among children: availability and accessibility of fruits and vegetables. J Health Educ 1998; 29: 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Baron RM, Kenny DA . The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personality Social Psychol 1986; 51: 1173–1182.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Collier G, Hirsch E, Hamlin PH . Ecological determinants of reinforcement in rats. Physiol Behav 1972; 9: 705–716.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Levitsky DA . Putting behavior back into feeding behavior: a tribute to George Collier. Appetite 2002; 38: 143–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee AY, Sternthal B . The effects of positive mood on memory. J Consumer Res 1999; 26: 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wansink B . Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Ann Rev Nutr 2004; 24: 455–479.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wansink B, Sudman S . Consumer Panels, 2nd edn. American Marketing Association: Chicago, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wansink B, Cheney MM . Super bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption. JAMA 2005; 293: 1727–1728.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Paula for her help in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    B Wansink

  2. Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA

    J E Painter

  3. Kyungpook National University, South Korea

    Y-K Lee

Authors
  1. B Wansink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J E Painter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y-K Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B Wansink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wansink, B., Painter, J. & Lee, YK. The office candy dish: proximity's influence on estimated and actual consumption. Int J Obes 30, 871–875 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803217

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803217

Keywords

  • consumption
  • proximity
  • convenience visibility
  • candy
  • estimation
  • salience
  • food intake

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links