Trial reportPloS one2014
Watching TV and food intake: the role of content.
Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Watching Television While Eating Increases Food Intake: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Eating up cognitive resources: Does attentional consumption lead to food consumption?Appetite · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Associations between screen time and dietary intake among early adolescents: a prospective cohort study.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Article
- The use of internet-based smartphone apps consistently improved consumers' healthy eating behaviors: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Review
- Obesity prevalence, nutritional status, and physical activity levels in Turkish adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Snacking Behavior and Association with Metabolic Risk Factors in Adults from North and South India.The Journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Article
- Exploring Psychosocial Determinants of Eating Behavior: Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Brazilian Adolescents.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
- Using Smartphones When Eating Increases Caloric Intake in Young People: An Overview of the Literature.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- Article
- Digital Commensality: Eating and Drinking in the Company of Technology.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- Comparison of body image perception, nutrition knowledge, dietary attitudes, and dietary habits between Korean and Mongolian college students.Nutrition research and practice · 2018Article
- Frequency of TV viewing and prevalence of overweight and obesity among adult women in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2017Article
- The Immediate and Delayed Effects of TV: Impacts of Gender and Processed-Food Intake History.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- What Is a Snack, Why Do We Snack, and How Can We Choose Better Snacks? A Review of the Definitions of Snacking, Motivations to Snack, Contributions to Dietary Intake, and Recommendations for Improvement.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2016Review
- Exploration of the Dietary and Lifestyle Behaviors and Weight Status and Their Self-Perceptions among Health Sciences University Students in North Lebanon.BioMed research international · 2016Article
- Television and eating: repetition enhances food intake.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
- Independent and combined associations of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, TV viewing, and physical activity with severe depressive symptoms among 59,402 adults.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obesity is a serious and growing health concern worldwide. Watching television (TV) represents a condition during which many habitually eat, irrespective of hunger level. However, as of yet, little is known about how the content of television programs being watched differentially impacts concurrent eating behavior. In this study, eighteen normal-weight female students participated in three counter-balanced experimental conditions, including a 'Boring' TV condition (art lecture), an 'Engaging' TV condition (Swedish TV comedy series), and a no TV control condition during which participants read (a text on insects living in Sweden). Throughout each condition participants had access to both high-calorie (M&Ms) and low-calorie (grapes) snacks. We found that, relative to the Engaging TV condition, Boring TV encouraged excessive eating (+52% g, P = 0.009). Additionally, the Engaging TV condition actually resulted in significantly less concurrent intake relative to the control 'Text' condition (-35% g, P = 0.05). This intake was driven almost entirely by the healthy snack, grapes; however, this interaction did not reach significance (P = 0.07). Finally, there was a significant correlation between how bored participants were across all conditions, and their concurrent food intake (beta = 0.317, P = 0.02). Intake as measured by kcals was similarly patterned but did not reach significance. These results suggest that, for women, different TV programs elicit different levels of concurrent food intake, and that the degree to which a program is engaging (or alternately, boring) is related to that intake. Additionally, they suggest that emotional content (e.g. boring vs. engaging) may be more associated than modality (e.g. TV vs. text) with concurrent intake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.