↓ Skip to main content

Television and eating: repetition enhances food intake

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Television and eating: repetition enhances food intake
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01657
Pubmed ID
Authors

Utsa Mathur, Richard J. Stevenson

Abstract

Some studies find that eating with TV increases food intake while others do not. Some of this variability may reflect the engagingness of what is being watched (i.e., content). To test this we varied engagingness by manipulating content familiarity. Female participants undertook two sessions. In the "Different" session they watched two different episodes of the comedy Friends, with snack food presented during the second episode. In the "Same" session they viewed another episode of Friends twice in succession, with snack food presented during the second repeat showing. The three episodes of Friends used here were fully counterbalanced, so overall the only difference between the "Same" and "Different" sessions was whether the content of the second show was familiar or novel. As expected, 14% less was eaten in the "Different" session, suggesting that novel and presumably more engaging content can reduce intake relative to watching familiar and presumably less engaging content. These findings are consistent with the idea that the engagingness of TV can differentially affect food intake, although boredom or irritability resulting from repeat viewing might also explain this effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 27%
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Other 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 24%
Psychology 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 08 April 2024.
All research outputs
#922,048
of 25,660,026 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,953
of 34,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,864
of 297,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#32
of 491 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,660,026 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 34,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 297,042 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 491 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.