Research paper
Maas J, de Ridder DTD, de Vet E, de Wit JBF. Do distant foods decrease intake? The effect of food accessibility on consumption. Psychology & Health. 2012;27(Suppl 2):59-73.
Why we cite it
Distinguishes effort from salience as the mechanism behind the proximity effect, by testing three distances (20/70/140 cm) and measuring perceived effort and visual salience separately. This is TWO studies, not one: Study 1 (n = 77) established that distance reduces snack intake; Study 2 (n = 54) replicated it AND carried the effort-versus-salience finding. The mechanism result — the reason this record matters — belongs to the 54, not the 77. Distance moved effort and left salience unchanged. Also showed no compensatory craving, so distance interventions do not appear to backfire. An independent, non-Wansink source for the proximity effect.
Whose confidence is whose (recorded 2026-09-02, card SP97Y7). This Contribution said the study ”established” the mechanism. Maas and colleagues did not claim that — their abstract says ”this suggests the effect operates through increased effort”, and calls distance ”a potentially effective strategy.” With Study 2 at n = 54, “suggests” is the right word for this paper alone. *(Corrected 2026-09-19. The ”suggests” sentence is the library’s restatement, line 34 of `RESTATEMENT-not-the-published-abstract.txt`, not the paper. The published abstract, filed 2026-09-10, makes no mechanism claim at all. It says Study 2 ”showed that distance affected perceived effort but not salience”, and that the ratings were examined ”to explore potential underlying mechanisms”. ”a potentially effective strategy” is verbatim. The conclusion of this note stands and is stronger: the authors never state the mechanism, so established was further from the paper than this note thought.)
The library’s higher confidence is nevertheless earned, and it comes from somewhere else: `cpi03` (Hunter 2018) measured the same two things and got the same answer — effort significantly higher at distance in both studies (p < 0.001), salience ratings not significantly different — in samples of 159 and 246, from a different group. So the effort-not-salience reading rests on two independent measurements, not one, and `kpi01`'s Sourcing block already says so correctly. Cite the pair for the mechanism; cite this paper alone only for what it measured.
The priority claim is dropped. "First study to formally distinguish…"* is not something the held abstract asserts, and nothing in this directory establishes precedence.
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2011.565341 · PubMed 21678172 · Publisher