Research paper
Hunter JA, Hollands GJ, Couturier DL, Marteau TM. Effect of snack-food proximity on intake in general population samples with higher and lower cognitive resource. Appetite. 2018;121:337-347.
Why we cite it
A non-Wansink replication of the proximity effect in general population samples (not just university students), which also tests whether the effect depends on cognitive resource. The authors’ own conclusion is the standard, and it is hedged three times where this section previously was not: ”an effect unlikely to be moderated by cognitive resource. This indicates potential for interventions altering food proximity to contribute to addressing health inequalities, but requires testing in real-world settings.” (Corrected 2026-09-19. The sentence quoted here until then, ”…suggesting it operates via nonconscious processes. This supports the potential for environmental interventions…”, is not in the paper. It came from the library’s restatement, which held the name `pubmed-abstract.txt` until 2026-09-10, and the paper’s third hedge, but requires testing in real-world settings, had dropped with it. The authors’ non-conscious reading is in their Discussion, hedged: the proximity effect ”may not rely on conscious engagement to affect behaviour”.) This section had it as ”it doesn’t” and ”supporting equity implications” — a non-significant interaction reported as a demonstrated absence. And the replication is partial: Study 1 (n = 159) had a non-significant primary comparison (63.3% vs 53.8%, d = 0.22); significance in that study came only after excluding the 23% of participants who moved the bowl. Study 2 (n = 246) did reach significance on its primary comparison (70.7% vs 57.7%, p = 0.020). Both are recorded in full in Extracted knowledge below. From the same Cambridge BHRU team that produced the `cpi01` Cochrane review.
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.101 · PubMed 29183701 · Publisher