Context
In 2019, KFC advertised in this video that its Bucket Kongsi was “always better to share” and allowed to “share love, happiness and special moments with loved ones”. But food sharing is not just about congenial moments, it is also about sharing bacteria or calories… and facing the consequences of this caloric intake! In a paper published in 2020 in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, Taylor and Noseworthy explain that from a caloric intake point of view, food sharing is not necessarily the better option.
Research questions
The authors aim at explaining why food sharing may increase caloric intake by highlighting the role of perceived food ownership in the process. Taylor and Noseworthy intuitively believe that sharing food decreases the consumers’ perception of ownership of the shared food, which may lead them to minimize the caloric intake and its consequences on their health. Thus, they ask the following research questions:
– Does food sharing bias caloric estimates and fattening judgements?
– Can perceived food ownership explain this potential phenomenon?
Method
To answer these research questions, the authors devised 3 main studies (and 2 supplementary studies):
– In Study 1, 302 participants were randomly exposed to one out of three conditions: eating a plate of fries alone (control), eating with a friend – each person having their own plate of fries (non-sharing condition), eating with a friend – sharing a plate of fries (sharing condition). Each participant was then asked to imagine that they ate 10 fries. Measures of caloric estimate, perceived fattening potential and perceived ownership of the food were made.
– In Study 2, 209 participants were randomly exposed to four scenarios. The scenario manipulated the consumption context: sharing or no sharing condition. It also manipulated product category: some participants were assigned a healthy snack (almonds), others were assigned an unhealthy snack (M&Ms). All scenarios provided explicit caloric information.
– In Study 3, 208 participants were asked to imagine eating out at McDonalds with a friend and sharing a box of chicken nuggets. Some participants were told that the nuggets belonged to them (self-owned condition), while others were told that the nuggets belonged to their friend (other-owned condition). Informants were then asked to choose between two desserts to finish their meal: apple slices or sundae.
The authors chose to analyze their data thanks to a Bayesian method. Bayesian analysis allows a probabilistic approach of hypothesis validation by giving the degree of support for the effect model against the null model.
Results
– The perceived fattening potential of a dish is lower when consumers share the food than when consumers are assigned their own food or eat alone. However, caloric estimates do not vary across conditions.
– The effect of food sharing on the perceived fattening potential of a dish can be explained by perceived ownership of the food. Indeed, when consumers share food, they feel that they do not own the food as much as when each consumer is assigned his or her own dish. In turn, while consumers cannot deny the cold hard facts (ie the caloric intakes of the product), they tend to play down the consequences of this caloric intake (ie fattening potential). Similar mechanisms can be reported when individuals spend an individual or a shared budget: potential negative consequences of spending are usually downplayed when individuals do not spend their own money.
– These results hold when explicit caloric information is provided. They do not vary whether the shared food is healthy or unhealthy. The latter accounts for the fact that motivational mechanisms usually related to unhealthy food do not explain the effects of food sharing on perceived fattening potential. It gives further evidence that food sharing induces a decoupling between caloric intake and its consequences.
– The effect of perceived ownership on fattening judgement can affect subsequent food choices. When consumers were told that they owned the shared food, their caloric estimates were higher on average than those of consumers who were told that the shared food was their friend’s. In turn, consumers who believed they owned the shared food showed lower levels of preferences towards calorie-dense deserts than those who were told their friend owned the shared food when asked how they would like to finish their meal.
Why is this article relevant for researchers?
The authors provide researchers with multiple avenues for research in the food sharing area. They notably advise to confirm the results in a real setting and to study the potential impact of health-ambiguous options on fattening judgements, the consequences of food sharing on the potential choice of larger food options or the impact of the Covid crisis on collaborative consumption. Since this article highlights the role of perceived ownership in the biases induced by food sharing, future papers could try to explain why perceived ownerships results in downplaying consequences of caloric intake.
Moreover, future articles could verify the external validity of these results across sharing contexts: when sharing in a professional or private context, with a friend, a stranger, or in a seduction context, etc. An analysis across cultural contexts may also be relevant since all peoples do not have the same attitude towards food sharing.
Finally, while this article centers on food consumption, it could have implications in different types of collaborative consumption (for example flat-share) and explain how perceived ownership may influence perceived responsibility in case of positive or negative outcomes of consumption.
Why is this article relevant for professionals?
This article explains why food sharing does encourage excessive caloric intake. At a time when health-related information is crucial for consumers, this research may be useful for consumers themselves, policy makers and professionals.
First, this paper raises awareness among consumers of how food sharing biases their fattening judgements. When consumers are informed of this natural bias, they may pay more attention to their food consumption in a sharing context to correct it. This is why this article may also be useful for policy makers. From a healthcare viewpoint, policy makers and healthcare professional should inform consumers that, while popular and in fashion, food sharing in a potentially harmful practice for weight control. However, today’s prevention campaigns are usually oblivious of food sharing. For instance, this NHLBI campaign and this NHS campaign against obesity urge consumers to eat less, to eat better or to do more physical activities, but do not warn them against food sharing.
Finally, the present results help professionals better understand consumer behavior when sharing food. From a strictly commercial and unethical point of view, promoting food sharing options may be beneficial to increase consumption, by taking advantage of the consumers’ tendency to downplay the consequences of caloric intake in the context of food sharing. While policy makers may have tried to curb this effect by encouraging the display of nutritional information, this research shows that providing caloric information fails to un-bias fattening judgements. According to the present findings, policies should entice companies promoting food sharing options to explicit food ownership cues, such as individual serving size.