↓ Skip to main content

Effect of snack-food proximity on intake in general population samples with higher and lower cognitive resource

Overview of attention for article published in Appetite, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
13 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of snack-food proximity on intake in general population samples with higher and lower cognitive resource
Published in
Appetite, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.101
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A. Hunter, Gareth J. Hollands, Dominique-Laurent Couturier, Theresa M. Marteau

Abstract

Placing snack-food further away from people consistently decreases its consumption ("proximity effect"). However, given diet-related health inequalities, it is important to know whether interventions that alter food proximity have potential to change behaviour regardless of cognitive resource (capacity for self-control). This is often lower in those in lower socio-economic positions, who also tend to have less healthy diet-related behaviours. Study 1 aims to replicate the proximity effect in a general population sample and estimate whether trait-level cognitive resource moderates the effect. In a stronger test, Study 2 investigates whether the effect is similar regardless of manipulated state-level cognitive resource. Participants were recruited into two laboratory studies (Study 1: n = 159; Study 2: n = 246). A bowl of an unhealthy snack was positioned near (20 cm) or far (70 cm) from the participant, as randomised. In Study 2, participants were further randomised to a cognitive load intervention. The pre-specified primary outcome was the proportion of participants taking any of the snack. Significantly fewer participants took the snack when far compared with near in Study 2 (57.7% vs 70.7%, β = -1.63, p = 0.020), but not in Study 1 (53.8% vs 63.3%, X2 = 1.12, p = 0.289). Removing participants who moved the bowl (i.e. who did not adhere to protocol), increased the effect-sizes: Study 1: 39.3% vs 63.9%, X2 = 6.43, p = 0.011; Study 2: 56.0% vs 73.9%, β = -2.46, p = 0.003. Effects were not moderated by cognitive resource. These studies provide the most robust evidence to date that placing food further away reduces likelihood of consumption in general population samples, an effect unlikely to be moderated by cognitive resource. This indicates potential for interventions altering food proximity to contribute to addressing health inequalities, but requires testing in real-world settings. Both studies were registered with ISRCTN (Study 1 reference no.: ISRCTN46995850, Study 2 reference no.: ISRCTN14239872).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 6 9%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 19 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2019.
All research outputs
#627,255
of 16,073,105 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
#448
of 3,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,284
of 412,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
#14
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,073,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 412,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.