Research reportExamining evidence for behavioural mimicry of parental eating by adolescent females. An observational study☆
Introduction
Social context has been shown to have a strong influence on eating behaviour (Goldman et al, 1991, Herman et al, 2003). Social modelling research has shown that the eating behaviour of adults and children can be influenced by the amount of food other diners are eating; eating more when others are eating more, and less when they are eating less (Bevelander et al, 2012, Hermans et al, 2009). A variety of potential explanations of these effects have been suggested. For example, modelling may occur because the behaviour of one's peers sets a norm of what constitutes a socially appropriate amount to eat (Herman et al, 2003, Vartanian et al, 2013), or because it acts as an informational cue to guide behaviour (Robinson, Benwell, & Higgs, 2013).
Parents are thought to be one of the most important social influences on child and adolescent eating behaviour (Salvy, Elmo, Nitecki, Kluczynski, & Roemmich, 2011), influencing health beliefs, behaviours and dietary intake (Lau et al, 1990, Oliveria et al, 1992). Moreover, parental and child food consumption tend to be correlated in terms of the type and amounts of food that both eat (McGowan et al, 2012, Sweetman et al, 2011, Wroten et al, 2012). Likewise, research has shown that children are more likely to try a food if they observe their parent eating that same food (Harper & Sanders, 1975). More recent research has also shown, in an experimental setting, that the presence of a parent shapes the amount and types of food adolescents eat (Salvy et al., 2011). However, the mechanisms underlying the processes by which adolescents adapt their eating to match parental behaviour when eating has received less attention.
One possibility is that adolescents mimic or synchronise to their parents' eating behaviour when dining together. Behavioural mimicry refers to the process whereby a person imitates the behaviour of another person without conscious awareness. This is thought to occur due to a tight neural link between perception and action (Chartrand, Bargh, 1999, Chartrand et al, 2009), such that observing another person's movements may trigger one's own motor system to perform that same movement (Iacoboni et al, 1999, Lakin, Chartrand, 2003), e.g. taking a bite of food. Mimicry has been suggested to occur for a number of behaviours (Bernieri, 1988, Larsen et al, 2010, Neumann, Strack, 2000) and more recently the role of behavioural mimicry in social eating contexts has been examined. Hermans et al. (2012) found that when two female adults ate the same meal together, participants were more likely to pick up and eat the food if their eating partner had done so in the preceeding five seconds. Similarly, Bevelander, Lichtwarck-Aschoff, Anschutz, Hermans, and Engels (2013) found that when a young child (aged 6–11) picked up and ate a chocolate-covered peanut, this was associated with an increased likelihood that their eating partner would subsequently pick up and eat that food. Thus, previous studies have only investigated behavioural mimicry in child-only or adult-only groupings (Bevelander et al, 2013, Hermans et al, 2012). Since research supports that adolescents' eating behaviour may be affected by the eating behaviour of a present parent (Salvy et al., 2011), it will be important to understand whether mimicry of eating behaviour may occur between a parent and an adolescent. It may be the case that mimicry of parental eating is a mechanism explaining parental influence on adolescent eating behaviour.
In studies to date examining behavioural mimicry during social eating, participants have only been provided with a single food item to eat (Bevelander et al, 2013, Hermans et al, 2012). From these studies it is, therefore, not possible to infer whether participants were mimicking eating of a specific food type (if you take food x, I then take food x) or whether participants were simply synchronising the rate of their food intake in a more general/non-specific manner. For example, it may be that watching another person pick up a food item triggers an automatic reaction to reach for any food item (non-specific food item mimicry) or only the same food item (specific food item mimicry). Differentiating between these two possibilities is of importance because it may signal mechanisms that underlie mimicry. If automatic synchrony of gestures is of importance (Hermans et al, 2012, Iacoboni et al, 1999) then we may expect to see evidence for non-specific mimicry, because mimicry of the action of eating is key. Conversely, if mimicry occurs because an eating partner sets a norm about which foods are and are not appropriate to eat (Herman et al, 2003, Vartanian et al, 2013), then only mimicry of congruent food items may be observed. These questions are also of importance because in naturalistic social eating contexts such as family meal times, a variety of food items are likely to be available.
In the present study, we aimed to examine whether there is evidence that female adolescents mimic the eating behaviour of their parents when eating together. In order to assess mimicry, videos of parent–adolescent dyads eating a multi-item lunchtime meal were examined. We examined whether there was evidence of both ‘non-specific food item mimicry’ and ‘specific food item mimicry’. Based on previous studies of eating mimicry (Bevelander et al, 2013, Hermans et al, 2012), it was hypothesised that a parent placing a food item in their mouth would be associated with an increased likelihood that their female adolescent child would also place a food item in their mouth. However, we reasoned that if evidence of mimicry was observed, it may only be food item specific, as parental behaviour during a meal may primarily signal which foods are appropriate to eat and when.
Section snippets
Background
The videos analyzed were of adolescents and parents eating a multi-item lunchtime meal together, which were recorded as part of a test day for a larger study examining brain activations and responsiveness to food cues. In the larger study, participants arrived at the laboratory on the morning of their test day where they underwent an MRI scanning session, which was followed by a multi-item lunch. Participants were aware that their lunch time meal would be video-recorded. However, participants
Strategy of analysis for overall food consumption
Our first aim was to test whether there was evidence that parent and adolescent overall food intake was related. We did this by correlating the total amount of food adolescents ate (in kcals) with the amount of food their parent ate (kcals) using a Spearman's correlation.
Coding of video data
To test if adolescents mimicked the eating behaviours of their parents, we coded the video data by recording every time an adult or adolescent placed a food item into their mouth, the name of that food item (e.g. pizza), and
Total food intake
Parents ate a mean of 816.1 (±204.8) calories during the lunchtime meal, and adolescents ate a mean of 697.6 (±238.3) calories during the meal. A Spearman's correlation showed that the amount eaten by the parents and children was significantly correlated [r (38) = .49, p < .001], whereby a parent eating a larger number of calories was associated with their adolescent child also eating a larger number of calories.
Meal length and frequency of food being placed into the mouth
Mean meal length was 18 minutes and 13 seconds (SD = 6.37). The mean number of
Discussion
The present study examined whether there is evidence that female adolescents may mimic their parents when eating together during a lunchtime meal. In line with previous work (Story, Neumark-Sztainer, & French, 2002), there was evidence of a positive correlation between parent and adolescent food consumption; adolescents consumed more calories during their lunch when their parent consumed more calories. We also examined if behavioural mimicry may underlie the influence that parents can have on
References (32)
- et al.
Social norms in food intake among normal weight and overweight children
Appetite
(2012) - et al.
Is the effect of a social model attenuated by hunger?
Appetite
(1991) - et al.
To eat or not to eat; the effects of expectancy on reactivity to food cues
Appetite
(2014) - et al.
Effects of social modelling on young women's nutrient dense food intake
Appetite
(2009) - et al.
Peer influence in the micro-perspective. Imitation of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages
Addictive Behaviours
(2010) - et al.
Parent-child relationships in nutrient intake. The Framingham children's study
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
(1992) - et al.
Influence of social norms and palatability on amount consumed and food choice
Appetite
(2004) - et al.
Food intake norms increase and decrease snack food intake in a remote confederate study
Appetite
(2013) - et al.
Eating like you are overweight. The effect of overweight models on food intake in a remote confederate study
Appetite
(2014) - et al.
Self-presentational conflict in social eating situations. A normative perspective
Appetite
(2001)
Influence of parents and friends on children's and adolescents’ food intake and food selection
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Characteristics of family mealtimes affecting children's vegetable consumption and liking
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
Resemblance of dietary intakes of snacks, sweets, fruit and vegetables among mother-child dyads from low income families
Appetite
Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher-student interactions
Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour
Imitation of snack food intake among normal-weight and overweight children
Frontiers in Psychology
The chameleon effect. The perception-behaviour link and social interaction
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cited by (0)
- ☆
Funding: The current study was funded in part, by the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes (EFSD)/Novo Nordisk European Clinical Research Programme in Adolescents with Type 2 Diabetes. Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.