(2008), this varied effect can be examined through the framework of the avoid-excess and minimal-eating norms of the normative model. All of the participants ate less than the model/confederate when consuming M&Ms, with the slim-bodied model producing the most restriction in participants. The participants in the normal-weight modeling scenario still consumed less than the confederate, but more than the other participants. The act of eating less than what would be acceptable to eat does not entirely fit with the avoid-excess norm, however, it is consistent with the minimal-eating norm, with a stronger influence within the slim model group. The decrease in consumption between the normal-weight and the slim-figured models could insinuate that the strength of the minimal-eating norm increases depending on body type. Herman, Polivy, and Roth (2003) propose that those affected more strongly by minimal-eating norms are consistently eating minimally or affected by chronic disordered eating, while the typical human behavior is more closely associated with the avoid-excess norm. However, that does not necessarily fit with the conclusions drawn in this study. One could argue that as the strength of impression-management pressure increases, such as with slim-figured models, the minimal-eating norm emerges causing a decrease in consumption. So, it is not necessarily due to a predisposition for minimal eating, as the situation could dictate which norm is more prominent. Overall, the normative model provides a strong basis for explaining social effects on food consumption, but lacks nuance when understanding the relationship between the minimal-eating and avoid-excess
(2008), this varied effect can be examined through the framework of the avoid-excess and minimal-eating norms of the normative model. All of the participants ate less than the model/confederate when consuming M&Ms, with the slim-bodied model producing the most restriction in participants. The participants in the normal-weight modeling scenario still consumed less than the confederate, but more than the other participants. The act of eating less than what would be acceptable to eat does not entirely fit with the avoid-excess norm, however, it is consistent with the minimal-eating norm, with a stronger influence within the slim model group. The decrease in consumption between the normal-weight and the slim-figured models could insinuate that the strength of the minimal-eating norm increases depending on body type. Herman, Polivy, and Roth (2003) propose that those affected more strongly by minimal-eating norms are consistently eating minimally or affected by chronic disordered eating, while the typical human behavior is more closely associated with the avoid-excess norm. However, that does not necessarily fit with the conclusions drawn in this study. One could argue that as the strength of impression-management pressure increases, such as with slim-figured models, the minimal-eating norm emerges causing a decrease in consumption. So, it is not necessarily due to a predisposition for minimal eating, as the situation could dictate which norm is more prominent. Overall, the normative model provides a strong basis for explaining social effects on food consumption, but lacks nuance when understanding the relationship between the minimal-eating and avoid-excess