ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
Television and eating: repetition enhances food intake.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Eating up cognitive resources: Does attentional consumption lead to food consumption?Appetite · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Psychometric properties of an arabic translation of the short boredom proneness scale (SBPS) in adults.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Validation of a German version of the Boredom Proneness Scale and the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- History of child maltreatment and excessive dietary and screen time behaviors in young adults: Results from a nationally representative study.Preventive medicine · 2020Article
- Does spending more time on electronic screen devices determine the weight outcomes in obese and normal weight Saudi Arabian children?Saudi medical journal · 2020Article
- Digital Commensality: Eating and Drinking in the Company of Technology.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- The Immediate and Delayed Effects of TV: Impacts of Gender and Processed-Food Intake History.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.