ArticleFrontiers in psychology2017
Self-Other Differences in Perceiving Why People Eat What They Eat.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying Dietary Triggers Among Individuals with Overweight and Obesity: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Food and Nutrient Intake in Children and Adolescents with or without Overweight/Obesity.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Perspective: A Conceptual Framework for Adaptive Personalized Nutrition Advice Systems (APNASs).Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Development and Validation of the General Dietary Behavior Inventory (GDBI) in Scope of International Nutrition Guidelines.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Why We Eat What We Eat: Assessing Dispositional and In-the-Moment Eating Motives by Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- An Increase in Vigorous but Not Moderate Physical Activity Makes People Feel They Have Changed Their Behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The Eating Motivation Survey in Brazil: Results From a Sample of the General Adult Population.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Integrating Mindfulness Into Eating Behaviors.American journal of lifestyle medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People often view themselves more favorably than others, displaying unrealistic optimism. In the present study, we investigated whether people perceive their reasons for eating as better than those of others. Furthermore, we investigated which mechanisms of inaccuracy might underlie a possible bias when perceiving why people eat what they eat. In Study 1, 117 participants rated the social desirability of eating motives. In Study 2, 772 participants provided information on their own and others' motives for eating behavior. In Study 1, particularly desirable motives were eating because of hunger, health reasons, and liking. Particularly undesirable motives were eating to make a good impression, to comply with social norms, and to regulate negative affect. Study 2 revealed that for socially desirable motives, participants perceived their own motives to be stronger; for undesirable motives, the opposite pattern emerged, with others being attributed stronger motives. Moreover, the perception of others' emotional and social motives varied with participants' own healthy eating behavior. Since the perception of eating motives of others should be independent of one's own behavior, this pattern of results indicates a relative inaccuracy in the perception of others' eating motives. In conclusion, there is evidence for unrealistic optimism in eating motives. For social and emotional motives, this self-favoring view seems to be driven by a relatively inaccurate perception of others.
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.