Psychological Science - Indiana University Bloomington

Psychological Science
http://pss.sagepub.com/
Leaving a Flat Taste in Your Mouth : Task Load Reduces Taste Perception
Reine C. van der Wal and Lotte F. van Dillen
Psychological Science published online 30 May 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0956797612471953
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/29/0956797612471953
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Psychological Science
Additional services and information for Psychological Science can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 30, 2013
What is This?
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
471953
research-article2013
PSSXXX10.1177/0956797612471953van der Wal, van DillenTask Load Reduces Taste Perception
Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on May 30, 2013 as doi:10.1177/0956797612471953
Research Article
Leaving a Flat Taste in Your Mouth: Task
Load Reduces Taste Perception
Psychological Science
XX(X) 1­–8
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797612471953
pss.sagepub.com
Reine C. van der Wal1 and Lotte F. van Dillen2
1
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, and 2Social and
Organizational Psychology Unit, Leiden University
Abstract
In recent years, people have tended to pay less attention to their meals, often consuming them while engaging in other
activities. At the same time, foods have become increasingly sweet and salty. We therefore investigated how performing concurrent activities affects taste perception and how this relates to actual consumption. Participants tasted sour,
sweet, and salty substances in various concentrations under differing task loads. Our results demonstrated that under
high task load (relative to low task load), participants rated the substances as less intense, consumed more of the substances, and preferred stronger tastants. Our findings suggest that increased task load reduces people’s taste perception
by limiting attentional capacity to assess taste intensity and that people adjust their consumption accordingly.
Keywords
taste perception, task load, eating behavior, attention, self-control, food
Received 7/1/12; Revision accepted 11/26/12
One of the very nicest things about life is the way
we must regularly stop whatever it is we are doing
and devote our attention to eating.
—Luciano Pavarotti and William Wright, 1981
Contrary to Pavarotti’s assertion, research suggests that
people in contemporary Western society are devoting
less and less attention to their meals. For instance, almost
half of all weekly meals are reportedly consumed in a
room with a television switched on (Gore, Foster, DiLillo,
Kirk, & Smith West, 2003). Moreover, people have become
increasingly dependent on fast-food chains (Nielsen,
Siega-Riz, & Popkin, 2002), with almost half of U.S. food
spending going toward such establishments (Clauson &
Leibtag, 2011). Foods consumed away from home are
typically higher in fat, sugar, and salt than foods prepared
and consumed at home (Drewnowski, 2003). Further, the
average U.S. citizen now consumes about 355 calories of
sugar and 3,436 mg of sodium per day (Hobson, 2009).
The decreased attention directed to meals, on the one
hand, and increases in fat, salt, and sugar consumed, on
the other hand, may not be independent phenomena. We
propose that when attention is limited, the concentration
of tastants in food has to be augmented to maintain similar levels of taste experience as when attention is
unrestrained.
Several findings suggest that the environment in which
food is consumed influences people’s taste perception
(e.g., Marks & Wheeler, 1998; Wansink, 2010) and, most
important, that attention may play a key role in how
these signals are interpreted (Elder & Krishna, 2010).
Although a physiological response (the stimulation of the
taste buds) underlies taste perception, taste perception is
ultimately ambiguous. It is the complex integration of
data from all the senses through which food is identified
(e.g., Wansink, Park, Sonka, & Morganosky, 2000). For
example, people experience tastants as less intense when
there is loud background noise (Spence & Shankar,
2010), and blue and green room lights make wine appear
spicier (Oberfeld, Hecht, Allendorf, & Wickelmaier, 2009).
Corresponding Author:
Lotte F. van Dillen, Social and Organizational Psychology Unit,
Institute for Psychological Research, Leiden University, P. O. Box
9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
van der Wal, van Dillen
2
Environmental factors not only influence taste perception, but they also may play a role in actual eating
behavior. For example, people tend to eat more while
watching TV and listening to music (e.g., Blass et al.,
2006; Hetherington, Foster, Newman, Anderson, & Norton,
2006). It seems that if people cannot devote their full
attention to the food they are consuming, they are less
responsive to sensory cues that, for example, signal satiation (Wallis & Hetherington, 2004). Similarly, an attentionabsorbing activity may dishabituate taste perception,
which then provides a mechanism for increased energy
intake (Temple, Giacomelli, Kent, Roemmich, & Epstein,
2007).
In the current research, we proposed that people’s
activities, on the one hand, and sensory input, on the other
hand, arouse continuous competition over limited attentional resources (Yantis, 2000). Research has shown, for
example, that task load attenuates the intensity of negative
and positive feelings (Kron, Schul, Cohen, & Hassin, 2010;
van Dillen & Koole, 2007), such that the more resources
are taxed, the less intense people’s affective experiences
are. Similar effects of task load have been reported on
subjective ratings of and brain responses to painful stimuli
(Bantick et al., 2002; Frankenstein, Richter, McIntyre, &
Remy, 2001). We therefore reasoned that task load may
likewise attenuate people’s taste perception and that this
consequently increases consumption.
To examine the generalizability of our effects, we
tested our hypotheses in four studies on both aversive
tastants (i.e., sourness; Rosenstein & Oster, 1988; Steiner,
1977) and pleasant tastants (i.e., sweetness and saltiness;
Desor, Maller, & Turner, 1977). We used the same basic
design in the first three studies. Participants tasted various concentrations of sour (Study 1), sweet (Study 2),
and salty (Study 3) substances while we varied their task
load in a memory-span manipulation (Sternberg, 1966).
In a final study (Study 4), participants created their own
preferred concentration of a sweet drink under high or
low task load.
We expected participants to rate the tastants as less
intense while under high task load than while under low
task load. In addition, we predicted that, to obtain similar
levels of taste intensities under both types of load, participants would consume more of a substance (Study 3)
and increase the concentration of the tastant (Study 4)
while under high than under low task load.
Study 1: Sourness
Method
Participants and design. Twenty students (15 women,
5 men; mean age = 21 years, SD = 1.88) participated in the
study in exchange for €3.1 The study had a 2 (concentration: strong vs. weak) × 2 (task load: high vs. low)
within-participants design. The main dependent variable
was participants’ sourness ratings.
Procedure. Participants were instructed to rate the
sourness of a strong and a weak lemon juice solution.
The pretested solutions consisted of water mixed with
30% lemon juice (strong solution) and 10% lemon juice
(weak solution). Before each tasting, participants were
instructed to memorize either a seven-digit number (high
load) or a one-digit number (low load), a well-validated
manipulation to tax people’s attentional resources (Sternberg, 1966). Next, participants received 20 ml of one of
the solutions in a cup and were asked to consume it all
at once. Participants then wrote down the number they
had memorized. Finally, participants rated how sour they
thought the drink was on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7
(very much). This procedure was repeated four times so
that all participants tasted the strong and weak lemon
juice solution under high and low task load, in random
order. To neutralize their taste, participants took a sip of
water between each tasting.
Results
A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
concentration and task load as within-participants variables and taste ratings as the dependent variable yielded
a significant main effect of concentration, F(1, 19) =
21.41, p < .001, ηp2 = .53, and a marginally significant
main effect of task load, F(1, 19) = 3.95, p = .062, ηp2 =
.17. Participants perceived the strong lemon juice solution as sourer than the weak lemon juice solution, and
they perceived the lemon juice solutions as less sour
under high load than under low load (Fig. 1). The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between concentration and task load for sourness ratings, F(1, 19) =
4.93, p = .039, ηp2 = .21. Simple contrasts revealed that
participants perceived the strong lemon juice solutions as
less sour under high load than under low load, F(1, 19) =
8.40, p = .009, ηp2 = .31. Task load did not affect sourness
ratings of the weak lemon juice solutions, F < 1.2
Discussion
Participants tasted varying concentrations of a lemon
juice solution while holding seven digits (high task load)
or one digit (low task load) in working memory. We
found that participants rated the sourness of strong
lemon juice solutions as less intense while under high
than under low task load. Even though participants were
instructed explicitly to rate the tastes of the sour solutions, it thus seems that the digit-span task distracted
attention away from the taste sensations. Accordingly,
participants were not able to fully perceive the tastes of
the sour solution.
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
Task Load Reduces Taste Perception3
7
High Task Load
Low Task Load
6
Taste Rating
5
4
3
2
1
0
Weak
Strong
Study 1 (Sour)
Control
Weak
Strong
Study 2 (Sweet)
Control
Strong
Study 3 (Salty)
Fig. 1. Mean taste ratings in Studies 1, 2, and 3 as a function of the strength of the
drink and task load. Ratings ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Error bars
indicate ±1 SE.
The fact that the task-load manipulation affected the
taste ratings of only strong concentrations may suggest a
linear effect of task load on taste perception. More specifically, similar to the finding that strongly negative information captures more attention than mildly negative
information (Schimmack & Derryberry, 2005), strong tastants may occupy more attention than weak tastants.
Accordingly, the stronger the concentration of a certain
tastant, the more competition there will be over attentional resources between task load and taste perception
(for a similar explanation of the effects of task load on
the intensity of negative feelings, see van Dillen & Koole,
2007).
perception (Zverev, 2004). We again reasoned that the
more attentional capacity is used to perform a task, the
less attention is devoted to taste perception.
Study 2: Sweetness
Procedure. The procedure was the same as in Study 1,
with the following exceptions. The pretested drinks consisted of water mixed with a specific amount of grenadine syrup (strong, weak, or none). The strong solution
consisted of 30% grenadine syrup; the weak solution
contained 10% grenadine syrup. We used red cups to
ensure that participants could not visually determine any
differences in concentrations. The task-load manipulation this time consisted of consonant series instead of
digits (high load: seven consonants vs. low load: one
consonant). Furthermore, the experimenter unobtrusively
measured, by means of a stopwatch, the time interval
between the moment participants started memorizing the
consonants and the moment participants provided the
In Study 2, participants tasted sweet solutions of varying
concentrations and memorized letters rather than digits.
In this study, we controlled for several factors that may
have affected the results of Study 1. For example, in Study
1, task load did not attenuate participants’ taste ratings of
the weak lemon juice solution. Perhaps participants did
not perceive the weak solution as particularly sour (i.e.,
a floor effect). We therefore added water as a baseline
control condition in Study 2. Additionally, we controlled
for task duration, as memorizing a multiple-digit number
takes more time than memorizing a single-digit number,
and thirst levels, because deprivation may influence taste
Method
Participants and design. Eighteen students (16
women, 2 men; mean age = 22 years, SD = 2.85) participated in the study in exchange for €3. The study had
a 3 (concentration: strong vs. weak vs. control) × 2
(task load: high vs. low) within-participants design. The
main dependent variable was participants’ sweetness
ratings.
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
van der Wal, van Dillen
4
first taste rating. Finally, participants indicated how thirsty
they were on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Results
A repeated measures ANOVA with concentration and
task load as within-participants variables revealed a main
effect of concentration, F(1, 17) = 420.51, p < .001, ηp2 =
.96, and a main effect of load, F(1, 17) = 8.61, p = .009,
ηp2 = .34, on sweetness ratings. Participants perceived
strong solutions as sweeter than weak solutions, and they
perceived the solutions as less sweet under high than
under low task load (Fig. 1). We again observed an interaction of concentration and task load on sweetness ratings, F(1, 17) = 7.59, p = .014, ηp2 = .31. Simple contrasts
further revealed that participants perceived the strong
grenadine solutions as significantly less sweet under high
than under low task load, F(1, 17) = 11.33, p = .004, ηp2 =
.40, whereas the effects of task load were much weaker
for ratings of the weak grenadine solution, F(1, 17) =
2.69, p = .119, ηp2 = .14, and nonsignificant for water, p =
.331. Including task duration or thirstiness as covariates
in the analysis did not affect the pattern of results.
Discussion
The results of our second study further supported the
hypothesis that task load attenuates taste perception.
Participants perceived sweet solutions as less intense
under high than under low task load. It thus seems that
the effects of task load on taste perception not only apply
to aversive tastants, such as sourness (Rosenstein & Oster,
1988), but also to more pleasant tastants, such as sweetness (Desor et al., 1977). In addition, differences in task
duration and thirst levels were ruled out as alternative
explanations for the reported findings.
Note that the task-load manipulation again had a
larger influence on taste ratings of strong than weak concentrations, whereas the effect was absent in the control
condition (water). This is in line with our reasoning that
the sensory processing of strong tastants should be more
affected by task load than the sensory processing of
weak tastants, as a result of greater competition between
the two activities.
Study 3: Saltiness and Consumption
In our third study, we wished to further extend our limitedresources account of taste perception by examining taste
ratings of various salt concentrations. In addition, we
measured the effects of task load on actual consumption.
We aimed to demonstrate that taxing the mind with a
demanding task not only influences participants’ capacity
to assess taste intensity of a substance, but also affects
how much of that substance the participant consumes.
That is, we reasoned that under high task load, participants need to consume more of a substance to obtain the
same preferred taste levels as when under low task load.
To test this hypothesis, we varied task load while participants ate crackers with salty or salt-free butter. We examined both participants’ saltiness ratings of the crackers
and the amount of crackers they consumed.
Method
Participants and design. Seventeen students took
part in the experiment (11 women, 6 men; mean age = 21
years, SD = 2.44) in exchange for €3. The study had a 2
(concentration: strong vs. control) × 2 (task load: high vs.
low) within-participants design. The main dependent
variables were saltiness ratings and the amount of cracker
consumed.
Procedure. The procedure of Study 3 was identical to
that of Study 2, with two modifications. Instead of consuming drinks, participants this time ate crackers with
either salty or salt-free butter. The salty butter contained
0.43 grams of salt (per 100 grams of butter); the salt-free
butter contained 0.01 grams of salt (per 100 grams of butter). Participants were instructed to eat as much of the
cracker as they thought was necessary to perceive a reliable taste. After each tasting, the experimenter measured
the amount of cracker that was left over. The percentage
of cracker consumed was then computed using the following formula: percentage of cracker consumed = (total –
leftover)/total × 100. Because we examined actual food
consumption, we assessed individual differences in general saltiness preference and hunger state (Zverev, 2004).
Again, we also assessed task duration.
Results
Saltiness. A repeated measures ANOVA with concentration and task load as within-participants variables
revealed a main effect of concentration, F(1, 16) = 95.50,
p < .001, ηp2 = .86, and a main effect of task load, F(1, 16) =
4.56, p = .049, ηp2 = .22, on saltiness ratings. Participants
perceived the salty cracker as saltier than the salt-free
cracker, and they perceived the crackers as less salty
under high load than under low task load (Fig. 1). Moreover, there was again an interaction between concentration and task load on saltiness ratings, F(1, 16) = 10.91,
p = .004, ηp2 = .41. We observed that participants perceived the salty buttered cracker as less salty under high
task load than under low task load, F(1, 16) = 19.46, p <
.001, ηp2 = .55. There was no effect of task load on the
taste ratings of the salt-free crackers, F(1, 16) = 2.48, p =
.135, ηp2 = .13. The same analysis with task duration or
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
Task Load Reduces Taste Perception5
70
load. These findings suggest that task load not only
affects taste perception, but also actual consumption. To
have an optimal taste experience, people may need to
increase their intake of a substance when engaged in
demanding activities.
High Task Load
Low Task Load
60
Percentage
50
Study 4: Creating the Preferred
Lemonade
40
30
20
10
0
Salt-Free Butter
Salty Butter
Study 3 (Salty)
Grenadine
Study 4 (Sweet)
Fig. 2. Mean percentage of crackers consumed as a function of type of
butter and task load (Study 3) and mean percentage of grenadine syrup
added to a drink to reach preferred sweetness as a function of task load
(Study 4). Error bars indicate ±1 SE.
self-reported hunger as covariates did not change the
pattern of results.
Consumption. The amount of cracker that participants
consumed was analyzed in a repeated measures ANOVA
with concentration and task load as within-participants
variables. We observed a main effect of concentration,
F(1, 16) = 11.52, p = .004, ηp2 = .42. Participants ate more
of the salty buttered crackers than of the salt-free buttered crackers (Fig. 2). Moreover, we found a marginally
significant interaction of concentration and task load on
consumption, F(1, 16) = 4.36, p = .053, ηp2 = .21. As predicted, simple contrasts showed that participants consumed more of the salty buttered cracker while
performing a high-load task than while performing a
low-load task, F(1, 16) = 5.00, p = .040, ηp2 = .24. There
was no effect of task load on consumption of the salt-free
buttered crackers, F < 1. The same pattern of results was
found when task duration, saltiness preference, and selfreported hunger were added as covariates.
Discussion
Study 3 replicated and extended the findings of Studies 1
and 2. We again found that task load attenuated taste
perception, such that participants perceived salty buttered crackers as less salty while memorizing seven consonants rather than one consonant. Participants consumed
more of the salty cracker under high than under low task
The goal of Study 4 was to extend the findings of Study
3. We instructed participants to create their preferred
lemonade by adding as much grenadine syrup as they
liked. We again varied concurrent task load, this time
between participants. After creating their optimal lemonade, participants rated how sweet and pleasant they
thought their drink was. We aimed to demonstrate that
participants would create sweeter drinks when under
high than under low task load. Note, though, that we did
not expect task load to affect participants’ taste ratings.
To obtain a similar taste experience, participants under
high task load were expected to add greater amounts of
the sweet grenadine syrup than participants under low
task load.
Method
Participants and design. Forty-two students took part
in the experiment (32 women, 10 men; mean age = 19
years, SD = 2.12) in exchange for course credit. Task load
(high vs. low) was a between-participants factor, and the
grenadine syrup concentration of participants’ self-created lemonade and participants’ taste ratings were our
dependent variables.
Procedure. Participants were instructed to create their
own lemonade by pouring water (maximum of 150 ml)
and grenadine syrup (maximum of 50 ml) into an empty
cup. We applied the same task-load manipulation as in
Study 1. Participants created lemonade while memorizing
either a seven-digit number (high load) or a one-digit
number (low load). Participants tasted their lemonade to
make sure it contained the preferred mixture of water
and grenadine syrup. If it did not, participants could start
over a maximum of two times (participants memorized a
new number each time). After creating their lemonade,
participants reported the digits they had memorized and
then rated the sweetness and pleasantness of their drink.
Finally, participants indicated their general sweetness
preference and thirst level. The experimenter then measured the amount of grenadine syrup that was left over.
We also measured the amount of lemonade participants
consumed and the number of times participants took to
create their lemonade to ensure that any differences in
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
van der Wal, van Dillen
6
added grenadine concentration could be attributed to
our task-load manipulation. For our analyses, we computed the percentage of grenadine syrup that participants
added using the following formula: (total amount of
grenadine syrup – leftover amount)/(total amount of
grenadine syrup plus water that was used) × 100. We
thus assessed the relative concentration of grenadine
syrup.
Results
A generalized linear model with task load (high vs. low)
as a between-participants variable and grenadine syrup
concentration as the dependent variable yielded a main
effect of task load, F(1, 40) = 8.89, p = .005, ηp2 = .19.
Participants added more grenadine syrup under high
than under low task load (Fig. 2). We found no effects of
task load on participants’ taste ratings, Fs < 1. That is,
whereas participants created sweeter lemonade when
under high than under low task load, they did not perceive their drink as sweeter or more pleasant. When
entered as covariates, the amount of lemonade participants consumed, the number of times participants took
to create their lemonade, participants’ general sweetness
preference, and thirst levels did not account for the
effects of task load on taste ratings. In sum, the findings
of Study 4 further suggest that task load may result in the
increased intake of a substance while attenuating taste
perception of that substance.
General Discussion
In four studies, we shed light on the role of task load in
taste perception. We hypothesized that taste perception
relies on the limited capacity of attention, such that the
more attention is used to perform a certain task, the less
is devoted to taste perception. In line with this idea, four
studies showed that task load reduces the perception of
sour (Study 1), sweet (Studies 2 and 4), and salty (Study
3) substances. Participants rated strong tastants and, to a
lesser extent, weak tastants as less intense while performing a high-load task than when performing a low-load
task. Moreover, to experience the same taste intensities
under both types of task load, participants consumed
more of a salty substance (Study 3) and created higher
concentrations of sweet lemonade (Study 4) under high
than under low task load. It thus seems that task load
attenuates taste perception and, accordingly, increases
consumption.
In Study 3, we demonstrated that participants consumed more of a salty buttered cracker while performing
a high-load task than while performing a low-load task.
These findings are consistent with previous research on
task load and food consumption (e.g., Boon, Stroebe,
Schut, & Ijntema, 2002; Friese, Hofmann, & Wänke, 2008;
Ward & Mann, 2000), which demonstrated that situational
reductions in cognitive resources elicit less self-controlled
behavior (such as overeating; e.g., Andrade, Greene, &
Melanson, 2008). The current findings provide an additional but novel confirmation of the assumption that
limited self-regulation capacity leads to impulsive, uncontrolled eating. Specifically, our results suggest that limited
attentional resources reduce sensory experience, which
may be an important cause of overeating. When people’s
attention is burdened by a demanding activity, they will
need to consume more of a certain food to obtain an
optimal taste experience.
The present findings also fit well with research on
the neural pathways underlying taste perception. For
example, it has been demonstrated that reward systems
in the brain (i.e., ventral striatal opioids) respond specifically to sweet and salty foods and promote associated behaviors such as increased food intake, most
likely because sugar and salt are crucial building blocks
for the body and brain (Berridge, 1996; Kelley et al.,
2002). Our findings seem to underline this mechanism,
in that participants consumed more of salty but not of
salt-free buttered crackers (Study 3) and added more
sweet grenadine syrup (Study 4) when concurrent task
load attenuated their taste perception. Given that we did
not directly assess the relationship between taste perception and consumption, future research using more
direct measures of reward processing, such as neuroimaging, may provide better insight into the causal
pathways.
To conclude, the current work highlighted the cognitive limitations of taste perception. When attention is
allocated to a concurrent task, the ability to perceive tastants is significantly impaired. These results are highly
relevant in today’s society, in which multitasking is common. When cognitively engaged, such as while watching
TV or driving a car, people’s taste perception is likely
attenuated, which may contribute to unhealthy eating
behaviors, such as increasing the intake of certain foods
or adding more of certain flavorings. Conversely, the current findings also suggest that abstaining from any activities during one’s meals should enhance taste perception.
Recent work on mindfulness meditation indeed suggests
that paying more attention to food cues can be a helpful
tool in obtaining healthier eating patterns (Alberts,
Mulkens, Smeets, & Thewissen, 2010; Papies, Barsalou, &
Custers, 2012). Thus, in keeping with Luciano Pavarotti:
Devote your full attention to your meal, or the food will
only leave a flat taste in your mouth.
Author Contributions
L. F. van Dillen developed the study concept. L. F. van Dillen
and R. C. van der Wal both contributed to the study design.
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
Task Load Reduces Taste Perception7
Testing and data collection were performed by R. C. van der
Wal. The authors performed the data analysis together. R. C.
van der Wal drafted the article, and L. F. van Dillen provided
critical revisions. Both authors approved the final version of the
article for submission.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Johan C. Karremans for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this article and thank Johan C.
Karremans and Wilco W. van Dijk for providing us with the
time to continue working on this set of studies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This research was supported by Grant 400-08-128 from
the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
award­ed to Wilco W. van Dijk.
Notes
1. If participants reported cold symptoms or food allergies in
any of the studies, they could not participate.
2. To rule out the possibility that the observed effects of task
load were due to contrast effects, we replicated the findings
of Study 1 using a between-participants design. Fifty-four participants rated the sourness of a strong and weak lemon juice
solution while holding either a seven-digit number (high-load
condition: n = 28) or a one-digit number (low-load condition, n = 26) in memory. Results were in line with the findings
of Study 1, demonstrating a main effect of concentration, F(1,
51) = 16.91, p < .001, ηp2 = .25, and an interaction between
concentration and task load, F(1, 51) = 4.47, p = .039, ηp2 =
.08. Simple contrast analyses again revealed that participants
rated the sour lemon juice solution as relatively less sour under
high task load than under low task load, F(1, 51) = 4.33, p =
.043, ηp2 = .08. Task load did not affect sourness ratings of the
weak lemon juice solution, F < 1. Hence, task load affected participants’ taste ratings regardless of whether it was manipulated
between or within participants.
References
Alberts, H. J. E. M., Mulkens, S., Smeets, M., & Thewissen, R.
(2010). Coping with food cravings: Investigating the potential
of a mindfulness-based intervention. Appetite, 55, 160–163.
Andrade, A. M., Greene, G. W., & Melanson, K. J. (2008). Eating
slowly led to decreases in energy intake within meals in
healthy women. Journal of the American Diet Association,
108, 1186–1191.
Bantick, S. J., Wise, R. G., Ploghaus, A., Clare, S., Smith, S. M., &
Tracey, I. (2002). Imaging how attention modulates pain in
humans using functional MRI. Brain, 125, 310–319.
Berridge, K. (1996). Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting
and liking. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 20, 1–25.
Blass, E. M., Anderson, D. R., Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A.,
Price, I., & Koleini, M. F. (2006). On the road to obesity:
Television viewing increases intake of high-density foods.
Physiological Behavior, 88, 597–604.
Boon, B., Stroebe, W., Schut, H., & Ijntema, R. (2002). Ironic
processes in the eating behavior of restrained eaters. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 1–10.
Clauson, A., & Leibtag, E. (2011). Food expenditures, Table 3:
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://
www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/
Data/Expenditures_tables/table3.htm
Desor, J. A., Maller, O., & Turner, R. E. (1977). Preference for
sweet in humans: Infants, children, and adults. In J. W.
Weiffenbach (Ed.), Taste and development: The genesis
of sweet preference (pp. 161–172). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Drewnowski, A. (2003). Fat and sugar: An economic analysis.
The Journal of Nutrition, 133, 838–840.
Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2010). The effects of advertising
copy on sensory thoughts and perceived taste. Journal of
Consumer Research, 36, 748–756.
Frankenstein, U. N., Richter, W., McIntyre, M. C., & Remy,
F. (2001). Distraction modulates anterior cingulate gyrus
activations during the cold pressor test. NeuroImage, 14,
827–836.
Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Wänke, M. (2008). When impulses
take over: Moderated predictive validity of implicit and
explicit attitude measures in predicting food choice and
consumption behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychol­
ogy, 47, 397–419.
Gore, S. A., Foster, J. A., DiLillo, V. G., Kirk, K., & Smith West, D.
(2003). Television viewing and snacking. Eating Behaviors,
4, 399–405.
Hetherington, M. M., Foster, R., Newman, T., Anderson, A. S.,
& Norton, G. (2006). Understanding variety: Tasting different foods delays satisfaction. Physiology & Behavior, 87,
263–271.
Hobson, K. (2009, October 30). Can Americans change their
taste for the sweet and salty? U.S. News & World Report.
Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/dietfitness/articles/2009/10/30/can-americans-change-theirtaste-for-the-sweet-and-salty
Kelley, A. E., Bakshi, V. P., Haber, S. N., Steininger, T. L., Will,
M. J., & Zhang, M. (2002). Opioid modulation of taste
hedonics within the ventral striatum. Physiology & Behavior,
76, 365–377.
Kron, A., Schul, A., Cohen, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2010). Feelings
don’t come easy: Studies on the effortful nature of feelings.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 520–
534.
Marks, L. E., & Wheeler, M. E. (1998). Attention and the detectability of weak taste stimuli. Chemical Senses, 23, 19–29.
Nielsen, S. J., Siega-Riz, A. M., & Popkin, B. M. (2002). Trends in
energy intake in U.S. between 1977 and 1996: Similar shifts
seen across age groups. Obesity Research, 10, 370–378.
Oberfeld, D., Hecht, H., Allendorf, U., & Wickelmaier, F. (2009).
Ambient lighting modifies the flavor of wine. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 24, 797–832.
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013
van der Wal, van Dillen
8
Papies, E. K., Barsalou, L. W., & Custers, R. (2012). Mindful
attention prevents mindless impulses. Social Psychological
& Personality Science, 3, 291–299.
Pavarotti, L., & Wright, W. (1981). Pavarotti: My own story.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Rosenstein, D., & Oster, H. (1988). Differential facial responses
to four basic tastes in newborns. Child Development, 59,
1555–1568.
Schimmack, U., & Derryberry, D. (2005). Attentional interference effects of emotional pictures: Threat, negativity, or
arousal? Emotion, 5, 55–66.
Spence, C., & Shankar, M. U. (2010). The influence of
auditory cues on the perception of, and responses to,
food and drink. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 406–
430.
Steiner, J. E. (1977). Facial expressions of the neonate infant
indicating the hedonics of food-related chemical stimuli. In
J. M. Weiffenbach (Ed.), Taste and development: The genesis of sweet preference (pp. 173–188). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Sternberg, S. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory.
Science, 153, 652–654.
Temple, J. L., Giacomelli, A. M., Kent, K. M., Roemmich,
J. N., & Epstein, L. H. (2007). Television watching increases
motivated responding for food and energy intake in
children. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85,
355–361.
van Dillen, L. F., & Koole, S. (2007). Clearing the mind: A working memory model of distraction from negative feelings.
Emotion, 7, 715–723.
Wallis, D. J., & Hetherington, M. M. (2004). Stress and eating: The
effects of ego-threat and cognitive demand on food intake in
restrained and emotional eaters. Appetite, 43, 39–46.
Wansink, B. (2010). From mindless eating to mindlessly eating
better. Physiology & Behavior, 100, 454–463.
Wansink, B., Park, S. B., Sonka, S., & Morganosky, M. (2000).
How soy labeling influences preference and taste. Inter­
national Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3,
85–94.
Ward, A., & Mann, T. (2000). Don’t mind if I do: Disinhibited
eating under cognitive load. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 753–763.
Yantis, S. (2000). Goal-directed and stimulus-driven determinants of attentional control. In S. Monsell & J. Driver
(Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 18, pp. 73–103).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zverev, Y. P. (2004). Effects of caloric deprivation and satiety
on sensitivity of the gustatory system. BMC Neuroscience,
5(5). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712202/5/5
Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Peter Todd on June 18, 2013