Social learning

Page 138
Black blue
138 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
Fig. 6-2 A developmental model of eating behaviour
to be greater in males than females (both adults and children), to run in families (Hursti
and Sjoden 1997), to be minimal in infants who are being weaned onto solid foods but
greater in toddlers, pre-school children and adults (Birch et al. 1998).
One hypothesized explanation for the impact of exposure is the ‘learned safety’ view
(Kalat and Rozin 1973) which suggests that preference increases because eating the food
has not resulted in any negative consequences. This suggestion has been supported by
studies which exposed children either to just the sight of food or to both the sight and
taste of food. The results showed that looking at novel foods was not sufficient to increase
preference and that tasting was necessary (Birch et al. 1987). It would seem, however,
that these negative consequences must occur within a short period of time after tasting
the food as telling children that a novel food is ‘good for you’ has no impact on neophobia
whereas telling them that it will taste good does (Pliner and Loewen 1997). The exposure
hypothesis is also supported by evidence indicating that neophobia reduces with age
(Birch 1989).
Social learning
Social learning describes the impact of observing other people’s behaviour on one’s own
behaviour and is sometimes referred to as ‘modelling’ or ‘observational learning’. An
early study explored the impact of ‘social suggestion’ on children’s eating behaviours
and arranged to have children observe a series of role models making eating behaviours
different to their own (Duncker 1938). The models chosen were other children, an
unknown adult and a fictional hero. The results showed a greater change in the child’s
food preference if the model was an older child, a friend or the fictional hero. The
unknown adult had no impact on food preferences. In another study peer modelling was
used to change children’s preference for vegetables (Birch 1980). The target children
were placed at lunch for four consecutive days next to other children who preferred a
Page 138
Black blue
Page 139
Black blue
EATING BEHAVIOUR 139
different vegetable to themselves (peas versus carrots). By the end of the study the
children showed a shift in their vegetable preference which persisted at a follow-up
assessment several weeks later. The impact of social learning has also been shown in an
intervention study designed to change children’s eating behaviour using video based
peer modelling (Lowe et al. 1998). This series of studies used video material of ‘food
dudes’ who were older children enthusiastically consuming refused food which was
shown to children with a history of food refusal. The results showed that exposure to the
‘food dudes’ significantly changed the children’s food preferences and specifically
increased their consumption of fruit and vegetables. Food preferences therefore change
through watching others eat (see Figure 6.3).
Parental attitudes to food and eating behaviours are also central to the process of
social learning. In line with this, Wardle (1995) contended that, ‘Parental attitudes
must certainly affect their children indirectly through the foods purchased for and
served in the household, . . . influencing the children’s exposure and . . . their habits
and preferences’. Some evidence indicates that parents do influence their children’s
eating behaviour. For example, Klesges et al. (1991) showed that children selected
different foods when they were being watched by their parents compared to when
they were not. Olivera et al. (1992) reported a correlation between mothers’ and
children’s food intakes for most nutrients in pre-school children, and suggested
targeting parents to try to improve children’s diets. Likewise, Contento et al. (1993)
found a relationship between mothers’ health motivation and the quality of children’s
diets. Parental behaviour and attitudes are therefore central to the process of
social learning with research highlighting a positive association between parents’ and
children’s diets.
Fig. 6-3 Social eating
Page 139
Black blue
Page 140
Black blue
140 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
There is, however, some evidence that mothers and children are not always in line with
each other. For example, Wardle (1995) reported that mothers rated health as more
important for their children than for themselves. Alderson and Ogden (1999) similarly
reported that whereas mothers were more motivated by calories, cost, time and availability for themselves they rated nutrition and long-term health as more important for
their children. In addition, mothers may also differentiate between themselves and their
children in their choices of food. For example, Alderson and Ogden (1999) indicated that
mothers fed their children more of the less healthy dairy products, breads, cereals and
potatoes and fewer of the healthy equivalents to these foods than they ate themselves.
Furthermore, this differentiation was greater in dieting mothers suggesting that mothers
who restrain their own food intake may feed their children more of the foods that they are
denying themselves. A relationship between maternal dieting and eating behaviour is
also supported by a study of 197 families with pre-pubescent girls by Birch and Fisher
(2000). This study concluded that the best predictors of the daughter’s eating behaviour
were the mother’s level of dietary restraint and the mother’s perceptions of the risk of her
daughter becoming overweight. In sum, parental behaviours and attitudes may influence
those of their children through the mechanisms of social learning. This association,
however, may not always be straightforward with parents differentiating between themselves and their children both in terms of food related motivations and eating behaviour.
The role of social learning is also shown by the impact of television and food
advertising. For example, after Eyton’s ‘The F plan diet’ was launched by the media in
1982 which recommended a high fibre diet, sales of bran-based cereals rose by 30 per
cent, wholewheat bread rose by 10 per cent, wholewheat pasta rose by 70 per cent and
baked beans rose by 8 per cent. Similarly, in December 1988 Edwina Curry, the then
junior health minister in the UK said on television ‘most of the egg production in this
country, sadly is now infected with salmonella’ (ITN, 1988). Egg sales then fell by 50 per
cent and by 1989 were still only at 75 per cent of their previous levels (Mintel 1990).
Similarly massive publicity about the health risks of beef in the UK between May and
August 1990 resulted in a 20 per cent reduction in beef sales. One study examined the
public’s reactions to media coverage of ‘food scares’ such as salmonella, listeria and BSE
and compared it to their reactions to coverage of the impact of food on coronary heart
disease. The study used interviews, focus groups and an analysis of the content and style
of media presentations (MacIntyre et al. 1998). The authors concluded that the media
has a major impact upon what people eat and how they think about foods. They also
argued that the media can set the agenda for public discussion. The authors stated,
however, that the public do not just passively respond to the media ‘but that they exercise
judgement and discretion in how much they incorporate media messages about health
and safety into their diets’ (MacIntyre 1998: 249). Further they argued that eating
behaviours are limited by personal circumstances such as age, gender, income and family
structure and that people actively negotiate their understanding of food within both
the micro context (such as their immediate social networks) and the macro social contexts (such as the food production and information production systems). The media is
therefore an important source for social learning. This study suggests, however, the
individuals learn from the media by placing the information being provided within the
broader context of their lives.
Page 140
Black blue