Understanding Unitized Food Choice: The Role of Social Context and Marketing Factors in Mitigating Overconsumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unit bias, which asserts that consumption decreases as a food unit size decreases, is a prominent effect studied in psychology, health, and obesity research domains, yet little is known about when or why this effect occurs, or how marketing plays a role in the effect. To address this gap in the literature, this research extends the current understanding of the unit bias by proposing the social unitization effect, which posits that consumers’ selection of discrete unitized foods is dependent on impression management motives. That is, when impression management motives are low, consumers choose a greater number of small (vs. large) food units; however, in social (public) settings, when impression management motives are higher, this difference between numbers of small and large food units selected is attenuated. This effect is driven by a reduction in the number of small units selected when consumers are with others (vs. when they are alone). The research then demonstrates how the social unitization effect manifests in various marketing contexts via marketing-related factors like servicescape design (e.g., in-store surveillance), food branding (e.g., branding food as “mini”), and food design (i.e., the shape of food units). These findings offer novel and actionable implications for marketers, health advocates, and consumers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".