Concluding Remarks

Abstract

The preceding chapters have surveyed a vast literature documenting social influences on eating . These influences are not only numerous and varied but powerful. As we have seen, social influences on eating are among the most potent factors driving (or inhibiting) eating that we know of. For example, the behavior of an eating companion can even override the effect of hunger, as when an experimental confederate who eats minimally suppresses the intake of someone who has been food-deprived for 24 h (Goldman, Herman, & Polivy, 1991). Numerous studies reviewed in Chap. 6 have shown that the behavior of an eating companion can also override the effect of palatability, as when an eating companion who eats minimally suppresses the intake of someone who has unlimited access to highly preferred food. John de Castro, who explored the social facilitation of eating —the phenomenon whereby people eating in groups eat more than do people eating alone (see Chap. 11)—claimed that social facilitation was the strongest influence of all on food intake —certainly stronger than hunger and satiety. It is not always a simple matter to compare the relative power of competing influences on behavior, but this book has certainly provided ample evidence that social influences are powerful. There are some limits to the power of social influence , however. Although social influences can suppress the intake of highly palatable food, it’s not necessarily the case that social influences can increase the intake of highly unpalatable food (Pliner & Mann, 2004); and although social influences can suppress food intake in people who haven’t eaten for 24 h, it’s not necessarily the case that social influences can suppress food intake in people who are literally starving. On balance, though, a strong case can be made that social influences are at least as powerful as any other influence on eating , certainly in the everyday circumstances in which most of us eat. Our Theory of Normal Eating suggests that for the most part, social influences are more powerful than is hunger in the control of eating ; and social influences are arguably as powerful as is palatability.