Discussion• The idea of comfort food effect reducing loneliness only for those from individualistic culture with strong independent self-construal was not supported

because there were no significant differences in the results. In fact, the exploratory correlation analysis suggested the opposite relationship. • People’s self-construal and cultural background may not significantly contribute to the activation of psychological comfort from consuming or thinking

about comfort food. As one experiences or re-experiences comfort food, the automatic association of positive relationships will occur regardless of one’s cultural values or image of self because “the emotional power of comfort food comes from its connection with relationships” (Troisi & Gabriel, 2011, p. 751).

• One’s concept of self, self-construal, may not always be perfectly in line with their culture type since there are within-culture differences among individuals (Singelis, 1994).

How to determine which self-construal is stronger (interdependent or independent)?

Independent subscale – Interdependent subscale = SCS single score

Supplementary Analysis

Figure 3. Correlation between SCS Single Scores and Comfort Food Effect. A small negative correlation between the two variables with a marginal effect.

New food loneliness score – Comfort food loneliness score = Comfort food effect(Comfort food effect: positive = comfort food reduces loneliness, negative = comfort food increases loneliness)

Comfort food effect means there is a difference in recalling new food and comfort food.It suggests that comfort food recollection reduces loneliness more than new food recollection.

Pearson’s correlation analysis between SCS single scores and loneliness change: Marginal effect: r(26) = -0.316, p = .101.

Individuals who were more interdependent (negative SCS single scores) had a greater comfort food effect, meaning recalling comfort food was more likely to reduce loneliness relative to recalling new food. This results run contrary to the research hypothesis.

Limitations & Future Directions• With a small total number of participants (N = 28), the further comparison between collectivist and individualist participants decreased statistical power. • Culture is ingrained early on in life so it is not possible to manipulate it and randomly assign participants to various levels of culture. Hence it is difficult to

make a causal claim with culture experiments. • Future research should include a larger diverse sample to provide stronger generalizable claims across various cultures and context of this comfort food

effect.

Results

Cross-Cultural Study of Comfort Food on LonelinessPhoebe Swe

Eastern Mennonite University BackgroundConsuming personalized comfort food when one is lonely, due to social exclusion, reduces the feeling of isolation (e.g., Locher et al., 2005; Scherschel, 2016; Troisi & Gabriel, 2011). The rationale is that the association between comfort food and positive relationships decreases the negative emotions of loneliness after consumption. However, this literature has not explicitly examined cultural differences in the effect of comfort foods. The present work seeks to replicate the comfort food effect on loneliness, but additionally examined culture and self-construal as moderators. Individualistic and collectivist cultures value things like self-control, choice, and interdependence differently (Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014). These cultural differences may moderate the use of comfort food such that it is more effective in reducing loneliness for those in individualistic cultures with independent self-construal compared to those in collectivist cultures with interdependent self-construal.

MethodologyAll 28 students (15 domestic, 13 international) participated in the following tasksin the given experimental sequence:

0

1

2

3

4

Collectivist Individualist Collectivist Individualist Comfort Food New Food

Lone

lines

s Sco

res

Culture Type(Individualism Dimension)

Figure 1. Loneliness Scores between Collectivist and Individualist. Comparison of loneliness scores between collectivist and individualist participants after recalling both comfort food and new food showed that there was no significant difference between conditions, contrary to predicted results ± 1 SD.

Participants were divided into individualist or collectivist culturegroup based on their reported countryof origin’s Individualism Dimension (Hofstede, 2019).

Mixed ANOVA: 2 (food-type: comfort & new) x 2 (culture: collectivist & individualist)

Does culture type moderate the effect ofcomfort food in reducing loneliness?

No significant interaction: F(1, 27) = 0.798, p = .380, np

2 = .030. Does recalling comfort food memory reduce loneliness?

No main effect: F(1, 26) = 0.200, p = .659,np

2 = .008. Does culture type effect loneliness reduction?

No main effect: F(1, 27) = 0.563, p = .460,np

2 = .021.

0

1

2

3

4

Interdependent Independent Interdependent Independent Comfort Food New Food

Lone

lines

s Sco

res

Self-Construal Scale(SCS Single Score)

Figure 2. Loneliness Scores between Interdependent and Interdependent Self-Construals. Comparison of loneliness scores between interdependent and independent participants after recalling both comfort food and new food showed that there was no significant difference between conditions, contrary to predicted results ± 1 SD.

Participants were divided via median split into independent or interdependent group based on their SCS single score(More than 0 = Independent, less than 0 = Interdependent).

Mixed ANOVA: 2 (food-type: comfort & new)x 2 (SCS: interdependent & independent)

Does self-construal type moderate theeffect of comfort food in reducing loneliness?

No significant interaction: F(1, 27) = 0.026,p = .872, np

2 = .001.Does recalling comfort food memory reduce loneliness?

No main effect: F(1, 27) = 0.134, p = .718,np

2 = .005. Does construal type effect loneliness reduction?

No main effect: F(1, 27) = 0.636, p = .432, np

2 = .024 No significant differences in loneliness after recalling comfort food

indicated that neither culture type nor self-construal were moderators of loneliness reduction.

Supplementary Analysis

Demographics QuestionnaireExample: “What is your country of origin?”

Self-Construal Scale (30 items)Example: “I act the same way no matter who I am with”

(Singelis, 1994)

Loneliness Task and Manipulation Check (4 items)

Comfort Food Recollection

“Provide a memory of comfort food. The term comfort food refers to those foods whose consumption provides consolation or feeling of well-being”

New Food Recollection

“Provide a memory of new food. The term new food refers to those foods that are unfamiliar to you whether in taste, smell, texture, and/or sight”

(Williams, 2019)

Block 1 Block 2(Order of food condition counterbalanced across participants)

Loneliness Form A (17 items)Example: “I feel isolated from others”

Comfort Food FamiliarityExample: “Are you familiar with the term comfort food?”

Loneliness Form B (17 items)Example: “No one really knows me well”

(Order of the loneliness forms was kept constant)

-2

-1

0

1

2

-2 -1 0 1 2

Com

fort

Foo

d E

ffec

t

SCS Single Scores

Example: “Generally, how much of a sense of belongingness did you feel you had with the other people in the game?”

(Williams et al., 2000)