Sweets and Social Bonding: Sharing, Ritual, and Belonging
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 29, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Sweets can become social objects because eating is never only a chemical event. A box of chocolates passed around a table, a cake cut after a song, candy shared between friends, a dessert made from a family recipe, or a sweet offered to a guest can carry signals about attention, reciprocity, celebration, memory, identity, and belonging. The same food eaten alone can be pleasant; shared inside a familiar social script, it can also become part of a relationship.
The strongest evidence supports a broad social-food explanation rather than a unique “sugar bonding” mechanism. A 2026 review in Nature Reviews Psychology argues that eating is fundamentally embedded in social contexts and serves central social functions; it is often studied too narrowly when treated as an isolated individual behavior. Jutta Mata’s review of eating in social context provides the current high-level evidence map.
Research on food sharing, shared plates, similar food consumption, social eating, ritual, and food-evoked nostalgia gives several plausible routes by which sweets can participate in bonding. Direct experiments proving that sweet foods are uniquely more bonding than savory foods are limited. The social effect usually belongs to the whole configuration: who is present, what is shared, how it is offered, whether everyone participates voluntarily, what the ritual means, and what memories the food already carries.
Quick answer: why can sharing sweets feel bonding?
Sharing sweets can feel bonding because the act can coordinate attention, create reciprocity, mark a relationship, and embed a pleasant sensory experience inside a shared event. Experiments show that food-sharing arrangements can change cooperation, similar food consumption can affect trust between strangers, and rituals can increase involvement and enjoyment. Other studies show that nostalgic foods can evoke social connectedness. These findings make social bonding around sweets psychologically plausible without requiring the claim that sugar itself chemically creates closeness.
In practical terms, the sweet may function as a medium. The relationship is carried by the offer, the acceptance, the timing, the repetition, the common plate, the shared recipe, the story around it, or the memory it reactivates. The calories and sweetness remain real properties of the food, but they do not explain its entire social meaning.
What “sweets and social bonding” means
Social bonding refers here to processes that support perceived closeness, trust, affiliation, belonging, coordination, or a sense of “we.” It does not mean that every shared dessert deepens a relationship, that people who decline sweets are less connected, or that a food preference reveals personality. Bonding is an interactional outcome shaped by context.
Commensality: eating together
Commensality simply means eating together. It is broader than food sharing because people can eat at the same table while consuming separate dishes. Observational work has linked more frequent social eating with greater self-reported happiness, life satisfaction, trust, community involvement, and supportive friendships, although cross-sectional associations cannot by themselves establish that shared meals caused those outcomes. Robin Dunbar’s “Breaking Bread” study is useful precisely because it shows both the social pattern and the limits of causal interpretation.
Food sharing: giving, taking, and eating from a common source
Food sharing adds a more specific relational act: one person offers food, two people divide it, or a group eats from a common serving arrangement. Relationship research describes food offering and sharing as behaviors associated with closeness. In three studies, Gregersen and Gillath found links between attachment-related processes and willingness to offer, accept, or share food. The findings do not prove that sharing dessert automatically creates secure relationships, but they support the idea that food behavior can express relational orientation.
Ritual: patterned action with meaning
A ritual is more than repetition. Rituals are patterned actions that acquire symbolic or regulatory meaning for participants. An integrative psychological review identifies emotion regulation, performance regulation, and social connection as major ritual functions. Hobson and colleagues’ ritual framework helps explain why the sequence around a sweet can matter: lighting candles, cutting equal slices, making a toast, exchanging a holiday candy, or serving a family recipe in a familiar way can organize attention and participation.
Social facilitation and social modeling are different mechanisms
Social bonding should also be separated from two well-established eating phenomena. Social facilitation concerns how the presence and familiarity of co-eaters can change how much people eat. Social modeling concerns how people use others’ eating as information about what or how much to consume. A review of 69 experiments found robust evidence for social modeling across diverse food and social contexts. Cruwys, Bevelander, and Hermans concluded that affiliation and perceived similarity are among the conditions that can strengthen modeling.
What the evidence actually supports
Established or well-supported at the broader food level
Eating is socially organized, and food behavior changes with social context. People often eat differently with friends, strangers, family members, or alone. Food sharing and common consumption can function as signals and coordination devices. Rituals can change attention, involvement, and evaluation of consumption. Food can evoke autobiographical nostalgia and social connectedness. These conclusions come from reviews, meta-analyses, experiments, and observational work across several research traditions.
Supported, but dependent on the situation
Shared food can increase cooperation or trust under specific experimental conditions. Woolley and Fishbach’s 2019 shared-plate experiments included 1,476 participants and found that eating from shared plates, compared with separate plates, increased perceived coordination and cooperative behavior in social dilemmas and negotiations. The effect was demonstrated even among strangers. That is evidence for the serving arrangement and coordination process, not evidence that a particular sweet ingredient has a bonding property.
In a separate set of experiments, Woolley and Fishbach found that assigned similar food consumption increased closeness, trust, and cooperation between strangers compared with dissimilar consumption. Again, the meaningful variable was similarity in what people were consuming, not sugar.
Evidence that is suggestive but indirect for sweets specifically
Many societies place sweet foods inside celebrations, hospitality, gifting, childhood routines, religious or seasonal festivals, and family traditions. That makes sweets highly available as objects through which general food-sharing and ritual processes can operate. Yet the literature is much stronger on social eating and ritual in general than on a universal “sweets cause bonding” hypothesis. The sensible conclusion is that sweets can become potent carriers of social meaning because of learned cultural and interpersonal associations.
Claims the evidence does not establish
The evidence does not establish that sucrose releases a special social-bonding chemical, that sharing candy proves intimacy, that refusing dessert signals rejection, that a “sweet tooth” predicts sociability, or that enjoying ritual sweets is a form of addiction. Reward, craving, habit, social belonging, and clinical addiction are different constructs. For the general psychology of sweet liking, see Why Do People Like Sweet Foods? Biology, Learning, and Reward; for learned cue-reward mechanisms, see Sugar and Reward Learning: How Sweet Foods Become Powerful Cues.
Mechanism 1: shared attention turns eating into a social event
A social event becomes more cohesive when participants attend to the same object and understand roughly what is happening. A dessert placed in the center of a table provides a visible focal point. Cutting it, passing it, choosing pieces, commenting on it, and waiting for others can synchronize attention and action. Synchrony does not guarantee intimacy, but it creates opportunities for coordination.
This helps explain why a sweet can carry more meaning when it is served ceremonially than when the same item is eaten from a wrapper while multitasking. The food is now part of a shared attentional episode. People notice each other noticing the same thing. They can anticipate turns, exchange reactions, and build a small common memory.
Mechanism 2: sharing can signal closeness, trust, and reciprocity
Offering food can communicate more than resource transfer. Depending on the relationship and culture, it can say “I thought of you,” “this is for us,” “you are welcome here,” or “take some of mine.” The meaning is inferred from the social act, not encoded in the food itself.
A cross-cultural study of participants in China and the United States found that people expected food sharing to have a more positive influence on intimacy and mutual trust than sharing non-food material, while also showing that beliefs about what foods are appropriate to share affect food choice. Wang, Huang, and Wan therefore provide evidence about shared beliefs and choice, rather than proof that all cultures or all relationships respond identically.
Reciprocity matters because repeated exchanges can create a history. One person brings sweets to a weekly meeting; another remembers a favorite flavor; a family member saves the last piece for someone; neighbors exchange holiday baking. Over time, the food can become a cue for the relationship itself. The bonding value lies in the pattern of mutual recognition.
Mechanism 3: common food can become a cue of similarity
People routinely use similarity as social information. Eating the same thing at the same time creates an unusually concrete form of similarity because it is embodied, simultaneous, and easy to observe. The experimental work on similar food consumption suggests that even incidental similarity can influence trust and cooperation between strangers.
For sweets, this can appear in small rituals: everyone takes the same holiday candy, friends split one dessert, coworkers try a new pastry together, or two people discover that they share a favorite confection. The moment can feel like evidence of common taste or common experience even when the underlying similarity is minor. That inference can support conversation and affiliation, but it should not be inflated into a measure of compatibility.
Mechanism 4: ritual amplifies involvement and meaning
Ritual changes how an experience is approached. A review specifically focused on food and drink rituals concluded that such rituals are related to social bonding, affective change, and consumer perceptions, while emphasizing that theoretical understanding and direct tests of mechanisms remain limited. Ratcliffe, Baxter, and Martin are especially useful here because their review prevents an easy overclaim: rituals matter, yet the field still has open questions about exactly how and when.
Laboratory evidence shows that ritual can also change the consumption experience itself. In four experiments, Vohs and colleagues found that ritualized actions increased enjoyment and perceived value of foods including chocolate, and that personal involvement was important. This does not mean every cultural ritual works through the same process, but it demonstrates that patterned action can alter the subjective experience of a sweet food without changing its recipe.
A ritual can therefore add value at several levels at once: it creates expectation before eating, directs attention during eating, coordinates participants, and gives the event a recognizable beginning and end. Repetition makes the pattern easier to remember. In time, the ritual itself can become part of what people look forward to.
Why sweets so often become social objects
Sweets are not the only foods that bond people. Bread, tea, coffee, savory dishes, fruit, alcohol, and entire meals can serve the same social functions. Sweets nevertheless have several features that make them convenient carriers of ritual in many settings.
They are already rewarding for many people
Sweet foods are commonly liked, which makes them useful for marking an event with something immediately pleasant. That does not mean sweetness has the same value for everyone. Preference varies, experience matters, and some people actively dislike very sweet foods. The broader mechanisms of liking and learning are covered in Why Do People Like Sweet Foods?.
They are easy to divide, pass, display, and personalize
Many sweets come in forms that make social allocation visible: slices, pieces, wrapped units, boxes, plates, trays, bowls, assortments. This is a practical property rather than a universal psychological law. It makes turn-taking, gifting, selection, and equal or intentionally unequal division easy to stage in front of other people.
They often sit outside ordinary meal structure
When a food is not required for basic meal completion, serving it can more easily signify “this occasion is special.” That interpretation depends on household norms and culture. In a home where dessert is routine, it may carry little exceptional meaning. In another setting, a particular confection may appear only once a year and therefore become a powerful temporal cue.
Celebration changes the meaning of sweetness
Celebrations concentrate several bonding ingredients at once: shared attention, repetition, symbolic timing, social recognition, photographs, stories, gifts, music, and a departure from ordinary routine. A sweet served inside that package can become part of the event’s identity.
Birthdays are an obvious example. The same cake can mean something different when it is connected to candles, singing, a named person, and a recurring annual sequence. Our dedicated article Birthday Sweets and Learned Reward: Why Celebration Changes Meaning explains the birthday-specific learning process without treating party excitement as evidence for a unique sugar effect.
Celebration and social bonding overlap, but they are not identical. A person can celebrate alone, and people can bond over sweets in ordinary contexts with no formal celebration. This article owns the social mechanism: sharing, coordination, trust, belonging, ritual, and common meaning.
Celebration has its own intent owner in the Sugar cluster. Sugar and Celebration: Why Sweet Foods Mark Special Occasions covers why sweet foods mark special occasions; the present article follows the next step, asking how sharing and ritual inside those occasions can support belonging.
Nostalgia: when a flavor carries people, places, and earlier selves
Food can function as a memory cue because taste and smell are embedded in autobiographical episodes. A sweet associated with a grandparent, school holiday, neighborhood bakery, migration story, childhood birthday, or former home can reactivate more than sensory memory. It can call up people and social roles.
In three studies, Reid and colleagues found that food can be a strong elicitor of nostalgia and that food-evoked nostalgia was associated with psychological functions including social connectedness and meaning in life. A later set of studies focused on food nostalgia and comfort found that nostalgic food experiences could increase comfort through greater social connectedness. The 2026 follow-up strengthens the case that social connection is one route by which nostalgic food can feel comforting.
This is why a recipe can belong to a relationship even after the people, place, or time around it has changed. The sweet becomes a retrieval cue for a social world. The memory can be warm, bittersweet, mixed, or painful; nostalgia is not always a simple happiness effect.
Family rituals teach more than taste
Children learn not only what sweets taste like but also when they appear, who gives them, what must happen first, what language surrounds them, and whether the food is ordinary, forbidden, earned, shared, or ceremonial. Repeated family practices can therefore give a sweet a place inside the household’s social grammar.
A major review of family routines and rituals distinguished routines as observable practices from rituals as symbolic representations of collective events. Fiese and colleagues found that family routines and rituals were associated with several dimensions of family functioning, while also noting methodological limitations and the difficulty of separating direct from indirect effects.
This distinction matters around sweets. “We make these cookies together every winter” is a shared ritual. “You get candy only if you finish your vegetables” is a contingent food-reward rule. Those two practices can both involve sweets while teaching very different relationships to food. For the second mechanism, see Using Sweets as Rewards: How Food Reward Shapes Learning. For the broader home environment, see Family Food Rules and Children’s Sweet Preferences.
No child’s enthusiasm for a family dessert diagnoses ADHD, addiction, emotional dysregulation, or any other clinical condition. Preference, anticipation, learned expectation, and clinical symptoms belong to different explanatory levels.
Identity and belonging: how a sweet becomes “ours”
Food can express identity, values, lifestyle, class, region, family history, and group membership. A review of social and cultural influences on food choice describes food as an expression of identity and values while emphasizing that choice is shaped by wider social and cultural conditions. Enriquez and Archila-Godinez provide a useful general framework for this identity layer.
A particular sweet can therefore become shorthand for “our family,” “our city,” “our holiday,” “our school,” “our generation,” or “the place we came from.” Provenance, recipe, brand, packaging, language, and preparation method can all become identity markers. Their importance is learned rather than inherent.
Group identity has a double edge. Shared food can create belonging, but any in-group signal can also create exclusion. Someone who cannot eat the canonical sweet because of allergy, health needs, religious practice, sensory preference, or simple dislike may be positioned as an outsider if the group treats consumption as a loyalty test. A robust ritual makes room for participation without requiring identical intake.
Social eating can change how much people eat
Feeling socially connected and eating more are different outcomes, but they can occur in the same setting. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies found strong evidence that people selected and ate more when eating with friends than when eating alone. The same meta-analysis found no clear social-facilitation effect across studies comparing eating alone with eating alongside strangers or acquaintances. Ruddock and colleagues identified meal duration and perceived appropriateness of eating as possible mechanisms in the limited studies that tested mediation.
That finding should not be turned into “friends make you overeat” or “sharing sweets is unhealthy.” It shows that familiarity and social context can alter intake. The amount eaten, the type of food, the person’s needs, and the meaning of the event are separate questions. Social connection is not reducible to portion size.
Consumer psychology: sharing can change perceived value
The social context around a sweet can change its perceived value even when the product itself is unchanged. A confection described as a family recipe, a regional specialty, a limited holiday item, a premium gift box, or something “made to share” arrives with expectations before it is tasted. Packaging and serving format can tell people how the product is supposed to be used socially.
Research showing that ritual can increase perceived value and that similar consumption can influence trust helps explain why marketers can build social narratives around confectionery. It does not show that every “share pack” creates connection. Marketing can borrow the language of belonging while the actual social experience depends on real relationships, norms, and use.
This is also where naturalness, provenance, price, branding, and nostalgia can interact. The strongest claim is psychological framing: labels and stories can shape expectations. The weaker claim is that a specific brand therefore causes belonging. That second step requires its own evidence.
For the broader consumer-psychology continuation—packaging, claims, cues, framing, and choice—see Sugar Marketing Psychology: Packaging, Claims, Cues, and Choice. Marketing can frame a sweet as shareable or socially meaningful, while the actual relationship effect still depends on use and context.
Are sweets uniquely bonding?
Current evidence does not justify saying that sweets are uniquely bonding. The best-supported mechanisms—commensality, sharing, reciprocity, common consumption, ritual, social modeling, memory, identity, and coordination—also operate with non-sweet foods and drinks.
Sweets may become especially visible social symbols because they are frequently used in celebrations, gifts, hospitality, childhood rituals, and portable sharing formats. That is a cultural and behavioral explanation. It does not require a special biochemical pathway from sucrose to trust.
When a sweet ritual includes—and when it excludes
A ritual supports belonging when people can understand the invitation and participate without coercion. Participation does not have to mean eating the same amount or even eating the same food. The shared act might be choosing, serving, baking, decorating, telling the story behind a recipe, making a toast, or simply being present.
Pressure changes the social meaning. “Have one if you want” communicates differently from “you must eat this or you are insulting us.” A person may decline because of preference, allergy, dietary restriction, medication, health goals, sensory sensitivity, eating-disorder recovery, or an ordinary lack of appetite. The relationship is better protected when refusal can coexist with belonging.
Inclusive rituals can preserve the symbolic function while changing the food. A family can offer multiple dessert options, include a non-sweet alternative, rotate recipes, serve smaller pieces without moralizing them, or let the meaningful action be the shared preparation rather than the final consumption. These are practical applications of the broader evidence, not prescriptions proven superior in every family.
Practical meaning: building connection around sweets without making sweets compulsory
The most useful principle is to design the social act around recognition rather than consumption. Share attention, choice, preparation, story, and time. Let the sweet support the relationship instead of becoming a test of loyalty.
Repeated traditions become memorable when they are recognizable but flexible. A familiar serving plate, a yearly recipe, a phrase, a shared baking task, or a small after-dinner ritual can create continuity. Flexibility lets the ritual survive changes in age, health, location, taste, and family structure.
Keep reward systems distinct from social gifts. Giving a friend chocolate because you thought of them is relational. Promising candy for obedience is instrumental reinforcement. The first is an act of affiliation; the second makes access to food contingent on behavior. They can overlap in real life, but they are psychologically different.
Finally, do not confuse intensity with meaning. A larger cake, sweeter recipe, more expensive box, or more elaborate display does not automatically create more connection. The strongest social signal may be the smallest one: remembering what someone likes, saving a portion, adapting a recipe so they can participate, or continuing a shared tradition.
Common misconceptions
“Sugar creates bonding because it releases dopamine”
This compresses several systems into one slogan. Sweet foods can participate in reward learning, but dopamine is not a synonym for pleasure, love, or social bonding, and evidence about food sharing does not reduce to a sugar-to-dopamine-to-relationship chain. Social effects are better explained through coordinated behavior, learning, context, meaning, and relationship processes.
“If I crave a family sweet, I am addicted to it”
Craving can be triggered by cues, memory, habit, hunger, emotion, anticipation, or learned reward. A nostalgic or ritual craving does not by itself establish addiction. Clinical addiction claims require a much stronger evidentiary standard than ordinary wanting.
“People who share food trust each other”
Food sharing can signal or facilitate closeness in some contexts, and experiments show effects on cooperation under specific conditions. It is not a trust test. People also share because of politeness, convention, scarcity, practicality, or role expectations.
“Declining a traditional sweet means rejecting the group”
That interpretation is a social rule, not a psychological fact. Belonging can be expressed through presence, preparation, conversation, storytelling, giving, or alternative foods. Groups decide how rigidly they tie identity to consumption.
Evidence map
Strongest evidence
Eating is fundamentally social; social context can change intake and choice; social modeling is robust; specific food-sharing and same-food arrangements can affect coordination, trust, and cooperation in experiments; rituals can alter consumption experience; and food can evoke nostalgia linked with social connectedness.
Moderate, context-dependent evidence
Social eating is associated with well-being and social integration, but much of that evidence is observational. Family rituals are associated with family functioning, but causal pathways are difficult to isolate. Food-sharing beliefs show some cross-cultural commonalities alongside meaningful differences.
Limited or indirect evidence
Direct evidence that sweets are more socially bonding than other foods is limited. Claims about particular candies, desserts, ingredients, brands, or cultural rituals require evidence specific to those contexts.
Unsupported simplifications
There is no established universal “sugar bonding” mechanism, no personality type defined by sweet-sharing behavior, and no basis for treating ordinary enthusiasm for social sweets as a clinical diagnosis.
Frequently asked questions
Why does sharing sweets bring people closer?
It can create shared attention, reciprocity, coordination, common sensory experience, and a small ritual. Experiments on food sharing and similar consumption show that these arrangements can affect cooperation and trust under specific conditions, while broader reviews show that eating is deeply social.
Is there something special about sugar that causes social bonding?
No unique sugar-to-bonding mechanism has been established. The strongest evidence concerns social eating, sharing, ritual, memory, and learned meaning. Sweets can carry those processes because they are often used in socially meaningful contexts.
Do people trust each other more when they eat the same food?
Some experiments found greater closeness, trust, and cooperation when strangers were assigned similar rather than dissimilar foods. That is a context-specific effect, not a general test of trustworthiness.
Does eating from a shared plate increase cooperation?
In a series of experiments involving 1,476 participants, shared-plate eating increased perceived coordination and cooperation compared with separate plates. The result applies to the tested serving arrangements and should not be generalized to every meal or culture.
Why are sweets common at celebrations?
Sweets are often pleasant, divisible, displayable, and easy to associate with special occasions. Repetition can make a particular sweet part of a celebration’s identity. Cultural practice, rather than a universal biological rule, determines which foods become ceremonial.
Why can a childhood sweet feel emotionally powerful years later?
Taste, smell, people, place, and event can be stored together in autobiographical memory. Research on food-evoked nostalgia shows that nostalgic foods can activate social connectedness and meaning, which helps explain why an old flavor can feel like contact with an earlier social world.
Does eating with friends make people eat more?
On average, a 2019 meta-analysis found greater food selection and intake with friends than when eating alone. The effect was not clearly present across studies involving strangers or acquaintances, showing that familiarity matters.
Is giving candy to a child the same as sharing sweets socially?
No. A shared family ritual and a contingent food reward are different learning structures. A sweet can be part of belonging without being payment for behavior.
Can sweet traditions exclude people?
Yes, when participation is treated as compulsory or when there is no accommodation for allergies, health needs, religious practices, sensory preferences, recovery needs, or ordinary dislike. A tradition can preserve its social meaning while allowing different forms of participation.
Are sweet-food rituals unhealthy?
A ritual is a social pattern, not a nutritional diagnosis. Health effects depend on the overall dietary pattern, frequency, quantity, individual needs, and specific food. This article addresses the psychology of sharing and belonging rather than blood-glucose targets or personalized medical management.
Does loving shared desserts mean someone has a sugar addiction?
No. Enjoyment, anticipation, habit, nostalgia, craving, and addiction are distinct concepts. Strong affection for a ritual dessert is not diagnostic evidence.
How can families keep sweet traditions meaningful without pressure?
Keep the shared attention, story, preparation, or timing while allowing choice about eating. Offer alternatives when needed, avoid turning consumption into a loyalty test, and let the ritual adapt as people and circumstances change.
Conclusion: sweetness becomes social through shared meaning
Sweets can help organize social life because they are easy to share, easy to ritualize, memorable, and frequently placed inside moments that already matter. Research on social eating, food sharing, ritual, nostalgia, family practices, and coordinated consumption shows multiple routes by which a food can participate in closeness and belonging.
The scientific center of gravity is clear: the social effect belongs to the interaction, not to a magical property of sugar. A sweet becomes socially powerful when people use it to recognize one another, coordinate, remember, welcome, celebrate, reciprocate, or say “this is ours.” That meaning can be preserved even when the recipe, portion, or food itself changes.
For the branch-level framework connecting social bonding with sweetness, reward, ritual, habit, culture, and consumer meaning, see Psychology of Sugar: Sweetness, Reward, Habit, Culture, and Meaning. For one specific form of sweet-food social exchange, Why Do We Give Sweets as Gifts? Reward, Affection, and Social Meaning examines gifting, affection, reciprocity, and the meaning of the offer.
Hospitality is one recurring context in which shared sweetness can become a social signal. Sugar and Hospitality: Why Sweetness Signals Welcome in Many Cultures focuses on welcome, host–guest reciprocity, cultural scripts, and the limits of treating those meanings as universal.
Related Articles
References
Cruwys, T., Bevelander, K. E., & Hermans, R. C. J. (2015). Social modeling of eating: A review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice. Appetite, 86, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.035
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2017). Breaking Bread: The Functions of Social Eating. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 3(3), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-017-0061-4
Enriquez, J. P., & Archila-Godinez, J. C. (2022). Social and cultural influences on food choices: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 62(13), 3698–3704. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1870434
Fiese, B. H., Tomcho, T. J., Douglas, M., Josephs, K., Poltrock, S., & Baker, T. (2002). A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: Cause for celebration? Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.16.4.381
Gregersen, S. C., & Gillath, O. (2020). How food brings us together: The ties between attachment and food behaviors. Appetite, 151, 104654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104654
Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734944
Mata, J. (2026). The psychology of eating requires social context. Nature Reviews Psychology, 5, 476–492. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-026-00581-y
Ratcliffe, E., Baxter, W. L., & Martin, N. (2019). Consumption rituals relating to food and drink: A review and research agenda. Appetite, 134, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.021
Reid, C. A., Green, J. D., Buchmaier, S., McSween, D. K., Wildschut, T., & Sedikides, C. (2023). Food-evoked nostalgia. Cognition and Emotion, 37(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2022.2142525
Reid, C. A., Green, J. D., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., McSween, D. K., & Buchmaier, S. (2026). Food nostalgia and food comfort: The role of social connectedness. Cognition and Emotion, 40(1), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2025.2479170
Ruddock, H. K., Brunstrom, J. M., Vartanian, L. R., & Higgs, S. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the social facilitation of eating. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 110(4), 842–861. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz155
Vohs, K. D., Wang, Y., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Rituals enhance consumption. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1714–1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613478949
Wang, C., Huang, J., & Wan, X. (2021). A cross-cultural study of beliefs about the influence of food sharing on interpersonal relationships and food choices. Appetite, 161, 105129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105129
Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2017). A recipe for friendship: Similar food consumption promotes trust and cooperation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.06.003
Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2019). Shared Plates, Shared Minds: Consuming From a Shared Plate Promotes Cooperation. Psychological Science, 30(4), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619830633