1

Eating together and eating alone: meal arrangements in British households

Abstract: Sociology traditionally accounts for eating in terms of the social organisation of meals,

their provision and consumption. A recurrent public concern is that the meal is being subverted. This

paper examines meal arrangements in British households in 2012, drawing on an online survey in the

format of a food diary administered to 2784 members of a supermarket consumer panel. It charts the

organisation of contemporary eating occasions, paying attention to socio-demographic variation in

practice. Especially, it explores companionless meals, putting them in contexts of food provisioning

and temporal rhythms. Findings show that eating alone is associated with simpler, quicker meals, and

that it takes place most commonly in the morning and midday. Those living alone eat alone more

often, but at similar meal times, and they take longer over their lone meals. Comparison with a similar

study in 1955-6 suggests some fragmentation or relaxation in collective schedules. The implications

are not straightforward, and the causes probably lie more in institutional shifts than personal

preferences. Declining levels of commensality are, however, associated with a reduction in household

size and, especially in households with children, difficulties of coordinating family members’

schedules.

Keywords: commensality, eating alone, meal patterns, meal preparation, meal times, single person

households

Word count: Total 8802. Text (6951), Abstract (188), Footnotes (640), references (1003).

In addition 4 tables and 4 figures (which contain 378 words).

2

1. Introduction

The meal is central to the sociological analysis of food and eating (Holm 2001; Mäkelä 2009;

Rotenberg 1981). Commensality, the norms and procedures governing eating together, is accorded

great social significance. ‘Meals regulate social life and individual behaviour both at a social and

biological level’, observes Claude Fischler (2011: 534), and dominant norms in many societies

prescribe that meals ought to be shared, eaten simultaneously, and ideally face-to-face with family

members or other close and significant associates. In practice, arrangements are often more

complicated. If a meal occasion is, as Rotenberg (1981: 26) defines it, a ‘planned social interaction

centred on food’, the degree of planning, interaction, and sharing of food is empirically variable. The

ideal meal is only intermittently achieved. This is a source of popular disquiet; and for good reason

given the sociological evidence about how eating together cements family relationships, promotes

good health, social solidarity and collective identity (Mennell, Murcott and Van Otterloo 1992;

Sidenvall, Nydahl and Fjellstrom 2000; Pliner and Bell 2009; Fischler 2011; Julier 2013). Hence, the

subject has generated extensive social scientific research investigating the ‘de-structuration’ of meals

(eg Herpin 1988; Poulain 2002; Mestdag 2005; Brannen, O’Connell and Mooney 2013). The form

and degree of de-structuring remains subject to dispute, and there is little certainty regarding the

causes of perceptible shifts. Any change, nevertheless, is mediated by the operation of meal patterns

at the societal level which are, in turn, a function of personal and collective routines and their

institutional embeddedness.

The sociological story of the de-structuration of the meal has focused predominantly on domestic

meals eaten with family members (see for example DeVault 1991; Mestdag 2005; Cheng et al 2007;

Mäkelä 2009; Brannen, O’Connell and Mooney 2013). Research has generated insight and debate

about the importance of the family meal as an ideal, noting its centrality for the performance and

production of kinship, its gender and generational implications, the relationship between meal

3

occasions and meal content, and processes of scheduling and coordination. In the background lie fears

about the decline in family meals: in Britain these revolve around the moral sanctity of the family

form; in France it is more a question of manners, the potential elimination of opportunities for

sociability and the affirmation of a national culture which places high value on food (Warde 2009).

The encompassing nexus of issues has subsequently driven accounts of change in eating patterns

which show increase and diversification in eating out, decline in food preparation times, and a

tendency for decline in time spent eating with household members (Mestdag 2005; Warde et al 2007;

Cheng et al 2007; Marshall and Pettinger 2009; Mestdag and Glorieux 2009). Overlapping concerns

include: commodification and convenience food; hurried, unplanned and desynchronised eating; and

lone, lonely or anomic eating.

This paper investigates corresponding aspects of British meal patterns: provisioning and preparation,

timings, and commensality. It pays special attention to eating alone, a practice that ‘in many or most

cultures… is frowned upon’ (Fischler 2011: 539) and which is the most obvious threat to dominant

norms of commensality. It analyses the conditions conducive to companionless eating for both those

who live alone and those who live with others. Particular attention is paid to household structure and

changes in household size which have previously been identified as having significant impacts on

practices of eating (Mestdag and Glorieux 2009).

Average household size in the UK declined by a third between 1961 and 2001, and now appears

steady at around 2.4 persons (ONS 2012). Much is attributed to steep rises in one-person households -

from 12 per cent of households in 1961 to 29 per cent in the UK censuses of 2001 and 2011 - driven

by longer life expectancies, declines in fertility, and changes in mobility and work patterns (Jamieson

and Simpson 2013). The number of nuclear families, if defined as a pair of adults with dependent

children, has declined from 38 per cent of households in 1961 to only 21 per cent in 2011 (ONS

2012). Similar changes are underway in countries elsewhere in Europe and North America. In the UK

in addition, non-familial cohabitation appears resurgent with house-sharing common among young

4

adults and the numbers of lodgers rising (Heath and Cleaver 2004; Lewis 2012). Although many

people still live with children at some point in their lives, more than two thirds of households in

contemporary Britain include no children. These changes inevitably impinge upon meal patterns, but

as yet not enough is known about how often, when or where people eat alone, how and from where

food eaten alone is provided, how such food is ordinarily prepared, and the broader relationship of

eating alone with household type.

While commensality has long been an object of study for anthropologists and sociologists, the bulk of

existing research on eating alone has been conducted by psychologists and nutritionists. It is well-

established that eating in the presence of others is associated with longer eating times and increased

volumes of ingested food (Bell and Pliner 2003; de Castro and Brewer 1992). The identity and body

type of commensal partners introduces some variation to this pattern, and studies have also shown that

other activities such as watching television prolong eating occasions and spur increases in food intake

(Hetherington et al 2006). Other aspects of the eating environment, such as location, interact with

these effects (Bell and Pliner 2003). Experimental studies demonstrate effects on consumption volume

from various other situational cues in the contexts where food is consumed, such as the positioning,

arrangement and appearance of food (see Wansink 2004). In addition, the eating patterns of people

living alone are often thought to be less healthy (e.g. Sidenvall, Nydahl and Fjellstrom 2000; Sellaeg

and Chapman 2008). Most people describe feeling uncomfortable about eating alone in restaurants,

while there is ambivalence about doing so at home (Pliner and Bell 2009; Jamieson and Simpson

2013). In Pliner and Bell’s (2009) research, lone meals are associated with feelings of loneliness,

boredom and self-consciousness, and as costing more effort than is considered worthwhile. On the

other hand, for many participants the freedom from social constraints to cook and eat ‘their way’, the

ability to engage in other activities at the same time, and the absence of ‘negative aspects of sociality’

are advantages of lone meals (Pliner and Bell 2009). Jamieson and Simpson (2013: 125-31), in their

sociological study of living alone, mainly document practical difficulties in shopping and cooking for

one, and experiences appear for the most part somewhat cheerless. Those living alone who regularly

5

or often meet to eat with others are less preoccupied by eating alone – such people appear still to view

lone eating with little relish, but it is not invested with much importance. Some interviewees said that

they ate midday meals ‘out’, but most felt embarrassed to eat evening meals alone in restaurants.

Klinenberg’s (2012) account of one-person households in the USA includes no explicit discussion of

eating.

The following sections present detailed evidence about variation in eating together in Britain.1 We

address questions of the relationship between living alone and eating alone in the context of more

general empirical puzzles about the de-structuration of meals and the circumstances in which people

eat together: how, when and with whom people organise, provide and prepare food in contemporary

Britain and how this might have changed over time.

The next section introduces and describes our data. Subsequently, we discuss evidence of

commensality and companionship, exploring levels of eating alone and with others, which

companions are most common, and the content of what is eaten . We examine variation between

social groupings, particularly focusing on household type. Section 4 examines processes of

provisioning and preparation. It shows the sources of different meals and, for those sourced from the

home, what type of preparation and cooking takes place, and by whom. The fifth section presents an

analysis of meal timings and patterns. Comparisons are made between weekdays and weekends, and

between our 2012 data and a similar study carried out in the 1950s. Sections 6 and 7 discuss,

summarise and interpret the findings.

2. Data and methods

A small sample (5 per cent) was drawn from a consumer panel associated with a supermarket loyalty

card scheme. The members were invited to complete an online survey during September 2012, Those

who responded were rewarded with card points from the company’s loyalty scheme. Respondents

6

were asked to describe their eating over two 24 hour periods in a time-diary format. Socioeconomic

and demographic characteristics were obtained. The response rate was 45 per cent and the achieved

sample size was 2784, with 17,582 eating episodes recorded. As volunteers for the consumer panel

the sample is not exactly statistically representative of the UK population. Older, more affluent, better

educated respondents and respondents without children are somewhat over-represented. Nevertheless,

the data are copious, diverse, recent and rare.

Respondents were asked to report on their eating activities on the weekday prior to filling in the

questionnaire and for one day during the previous weekend. Each was asked to detail up to three

‘main meals’ for each day reported upon (N=14831), followed by up to four ‘additional meals or

snacks’ (N=2751), providing a description of the food in their own words and answering subsequent

questions about when, for how long, with whom and where it was eaten, as well as its origin and

manner of preparation.

Analysis pertains only to ‘main meals’ described by each respondent.2 Britons typically understand

there to be three ‘main meals’ each day (see Marshall 2005). The survey invited information in those

terms, but without applying any labels to them. For convenience of our reporting, the first meal of the

day, if taken between midnight and noon, is referred to below as a morning meal or ‘breakfast’. Those

meals taken between 12 and 5pm are called midday meals or ‘lunches’, and those between 5pm and

midnight are evening meals or ‘dinners’.3 4

Variables for gender, age, education, household structure, employment status and occupational class

of the chief earner were derived. Age differences, due to large numbers of middle-aged respondents,

were collapsed into four categories: those under 40 years of age, those aged 41-50, 51-60 and those

aged over 60 years. Household structure distinguished between adults living alone (15 per cent),

households with a mix of adults and dependent children (25 per cent), households of only adults (57

per cent, mainly couples, with some households containing adult children or parents of couples) and

7

single parent households. Single parent households were significantly underrepresented in the sample,

2.7 per cent of respondents compared with 12 per cent of the UK population; the low numbers mean

we comment sparingly on this group.5 Educational attainment distinguished between those

respondents with university degrees or higher qualifications, respondents with further qualifications or

‘A’ levels, and those whose attainments were equal or less than having completed secondary school

education. Respondents were also divided by employment into full-time employed, part-time, self-

employed, retired and not in work. Not every household had valid occupational class data, and

occupation was recorded for chief economic earners (CEEs), who often were not the respondents.

Hence, we mostly prefer education as a proxy for social position. Nonetheless, where adequate data is

available we distinguish between senior managers and upper/intermediate-level professionals (service

class), junior managers/professionals and clerical workers (intermediate), and manual and service

workers (working class). Where differences are quoted explicitly in the paper they are generally

statistically significant to at least the 95 per cent confidence level.

In section 5 we make use of a partially comparable survey conducted in in August 1955 and February

1956 by the market research division of an advertising agency, WS Crawford Limited. It addressed

eating habits through interviews carried out in town or village centres selected for their size and class

composition around the UK (Warren 1958). 4,557 interviewees, selected by quota to be

representative of the proportions of adults in each region of the country, in each age group and in each

social class, provided information on the food content and timings of eating events on the day prior to

interviews.

3. Companionship and eating alone

As anticipated, household members are the most common source of companionship. Household

members account for 75 per cent of weekday companions and 84 percent at weekends. 16 per cent of

weekday meals eaten with others are taken with work colleagues, and 5 per cent of weekend meals

8

with friends. Non-household family members and ‘others’ make up a small proportion of

companions.6

Figure I about here

About four in ten weekday meals and around one in four weekend meals are eaten alone (see Figure

I). 74 per cent of all the meals reported by people living alone are eaten alone, compared to only 27

per cent of those reported by people living with others. Holding household structure constant,

variation by sex, age, employment status and class is less dramatic. Men living alone report more

meals alone (76 per cent compared with 70 per cent of women). Older respondents are more likely to

eat in company if they live with others than are their younger equivalents. Conversely, the oldest

respondents living alone are least likely to eat with others and are especially reliant on household

members when meals are shared. Full-time, self-employed and unemployed respondents are slightly

less likely to eat with others than part-time and retired respondents, irrespective of whether they have

co-residents. Although there are no differences by education level, those in the service class who live

alone are significantly less likely to eat alone (66 per cent of their meals compared with about 78 per

cent of the intermediate and working class respondents). Affluent solos find more non-household

commensal companions.

Table I about here

Focusing on particular meals, companionship has a temporal pattern. For the sample as a whole,

evening meals are shared twice as often as breakfasts or lunches on weekdays. At weekends, the

majority of both afternoon and evening meals are eaten in company. Fewer than one in ten people

living with others eat their weekday evening, or weekend afternoon or weekend evening meals with

no-one else present. The most sociable meals for those living alone are weekday lunches, where they

9

are particularly likely to eat with work colleagues. At weekends, as on weekday evening meals, they

appear on average much less sociable than those living in bigger households.

Table II about here

Table II shows the proportion of meals for each main eating event that is eaten alone. People are more

likely to eat with others at meals taking place later in the day. While around half of breakfasts are

eaten alone, less than one-fifth of dinners are. Where companions are readily available, to eat alone is

highly unusual, particularly at meals taken later in the day, offering some support for the conclusions

of Mestdag and Glorieux (2009), who found that change in living arrangements is the most important

factor explaining reduction in family meals in Belgium between 1966 and 1999.7

Few foods are associated specifically with sociability. Cereals for breakfast and sandwiches for lunch

grace less sociable occasions.8 Meals eaten disproportionately with others include roasts (94 per cent),

curry (87 per cent) and fry-ups (84 per cent). Importantly, there are no significant differences in what

people who live alone eat. However, when solos eat alone they are less likely to have sandwiches or

snacks and more likely to have substantial dishes than those who live with others but eating alone.

4. Getting food on the plate: provisioning, preparation and the home

The rise and diversification of forms of eating out, and the increasing availability of a variety of pre-

prepared and ‘convenience’ foods have significant implications for the social context of eating and the

organisation of eating occasions (Warde and Martens 2000; Warde 1999).9 Studies of time-use have

shown that food preparation times have declined across the UK, France, the USA, Norway and the

Netherlands – suggesting increased use of pre-prepared products, ingredients or takeaways – and

eating with familial others has shifted away from the home in the UK, USA, Norway and the

Netherlands (Cheng et al 2007; Warde et al 2007). With household differences of particular interest,

10

one might hypothesise that smaller households compensate for having fewer co-residents available by

meeting others in restaurants more frequently. On the other hand, qualitative interviews seem to

indicate that people living alone are particularly averse to eating out alone (Pliner and Bell 2009;

Jamieson and Simpson 2013), and that the appeal of cooking is reduced when company is not

available (Sidenvall et al 2000; Pliner and Bell 2009, Jamieson and Simpson 2013).

Table III shows where main meals originate. A clear majority derive from home at every mealtime,

with the most common alternative sources being restaurants, takeaways, and shops (i.e. as deriving

directly from a shop and requiring no preparation). Workplaces are important only for weekday

lunches, accounting for 6 per cent of occasions. Eating out and takeaways are most common at

weekends, when around a quarter of meals are derived from outside the home; roughly half of these

were from restaurants and takeaways, the remainder coming from friends, family or a combination of

sources. Food is rarely prepared by friends and non-resident family – 1 per cent of weekday lunches

and dinners, increasing to 3 per cent at the weekend.

Table III about here

Although sourcing food from outside the home is not very common there is variation attributable to

household structure. Men are slightly more likely overall to eat meals originating from outside the

household (23 per cent overall compared with 17 per cent). Younger age cohorts eat more takeaways,

with under-40s eating four times more than over-60s (4 per cent compared with 1 per cent). Variation

by social class and education is limited, although the more educated and those in higher occupational

classes more often eat in restaurants on weekday evenings (those from ‘service class’ households

outstrip the working class by almost four times). Part-time workers and the retired are more likely to

eat weekday lunch in a restaurant, but least likely at evening and weekend meals. The most profound

differences in household structure are between those living alone on the one hand, and nuclear

families and adult-only households (predominantly couples) on the other.10 Nearly one in twelve

11

meals (8 per cent) eaten by solos, including breakfasts, are bought directly from shops (see above),

compared with an average of 4 per cent across the other household categories. Solos eat out in

restaurants and cafes neither more nor less than other types of household – with the exception of

nuclear families, which eat out slightly less frequently but compensate by consuming most takeaways.

Of those meals originating from the home, more detailed information was gathered about who

prepared the meals and how they were prepared. This showed striking differences both between

cooking methods used at different meals and in the participation of men and women. Very few

breakfasts require the use of a cooker, either on weekdays or weekends. Lunches are similar, with 80

per cent of those falling on weekdays and 50 per cent on weekends ready-to-eat or requiring only

warming or toasting. Most evening meals at home, in contrast, appear to be cooked using hob or oven

or both – 84 per cent on weekdays and 74 per cent at weekends.

Men are much more likely to have their household-derived meals prepared on their behalf than are

women – for example, men are over four times more likely than women to have their weekday lunch

prepared for them. Differences are greatest for those meals which involve most cooking: of those

where the oven is used, our best proxy for complexity in preparation, 43 per cent of men’s meals are

cooked by their partners compared with 14 per cent of women’s. Regarding this division of domestic

labour, educational attainment shows no statistically significant differences: male respondents with

only secondary schooling are about as likely to have their meals prepared by their partners as

graduates; degree-holding men are no more likely to cook for themselves; and women with different

levels of education cook on behalf of and are cooked for in similar proportions.

Table IV about here

Meals eaten alone and which originate from household food stocks are rarely cooked (see Table IV).

Main meals with others are twice as likely to have been cooked using the hob or oven than meals

12

eaten alone. Interestingly, however, those eating alone who also live alone are more than twice as

likely as people living with others and eating alone to have a cooked meal. The lone meals of solos

are more likely to be cooked for all meal occasions, weekday and weekend. The differences between

these lone meals are greatest proportionally for breakfasts and lunches – 12 to 18 per cent of solos’

lone morning meals are cooked compared with 7 to 8 per cent of those living with others, and 25 to 43

per cent of their lone midday meals are compared with 16 to 24 per cent of the lone meals of

respondents living with others (the ranges reflect variation between weekdays and weekends).

Proportionally, differences are less impressive when considering evening meals, but only because all

respondents are more likely to cook these meals. Solos cook between 58 and 71 per cent of their lone

meals compared with 45 to 61 per cent of co-resident respondents. Thus, evening and weekend meals

retain their significance irrespective of company. Both solos and people living with others continue to

mark more important occasions by more elaborate preparation. Differences in the propensity to cook

were not an effect of the solos being on average older than those living with others.

5. Temporal patterning of eating: Timings, duration and events

Debates about changing eating habits have been well served by analysis of time diaries (see Mestdag

2005; Mestdag and Glorieux 2009; Warde et al 2007; Cheng et al 2007; Hamrick et al 2011).

Accounts of de-structuration and of decline in commensal or family eating often assume that temporal

disruption is the mediating factor between meal arrangements and underpinning social or cultural

trends such as individualisation, informalisation and commodification. Analysis of the temporal

patterning in daily life has thus been pivotal for describing and interpreting eating habits. This section

considers the periodicity and frequency of meal occasions on a societal and individual level and meal

duration. It identifies the contexts in which eating alone takes place and how living alone intersects

with meal patterns.

13

Meal patterns and duration

A three-meal pattern is normal. Some respondents eat two meals, a practice which is slightly more

common at weekends. Across the entire sample, respondents eat an average of 2.75 ‘main meals’ on

weekdays, and 2.58 at weekends. ‘Other meals or snacks’ bring the average number of eating

occasions up to 3.37 and 2.94 for weekdays and weekends respectively. The most common (ie modal)

pattern reported on both days is three meals and no snacks. At the aggregate level, meals conform to a

tripartite system of breakfast, lunch and dinner (see below). Most respondents (90 per cent) claim to

have a typical pattern of eating, and less than a quarter report their eating behaviour on the day in

question as unusual. People living alone are least likely to have typical eating patterns – 84 to 86 per

cent compared with 90 to 91 per cent for the rest. Single parent households are most likely to report

having typical eating patterns, but are also most likely to record the day in question as unusual.

Meals are brief. Of all meals 71 per cent are eaten in under 20 minutes. Meals increase in average

length over the course of the day. Nine out of ten breakfasts (92 per cent) are eaten in less than twenty

minutes, but only half (50 per cent) of evening meals are so quick. Weekends are slightly more

leisurely. The biggest difference is for lunches: on weekdays only 6 per cent took longer than half an

hour, compared with 17 per cent at weekends (19 per cent on Sundays, of which 46 per cent are roast

dinners).

Figure II about here

Longer meals are more elaborate; those with more than one course, and those with all three of a

staple, centre and trimming, are significantly longer in duration. Meals based around a staple of

potatoes are afforded most time (58 per cent took over 20 minutes compared with 24 per cent of those

meals accompanied with other staples such as rice, pasta or bread). Those based on bread are fastest.

The quickest dishes – excluding breakfasts, which are all extremely rapid– are cereal (61 per cent

14

eaten in under 10 minutes), sandwiches (35 per cent eaten in under 10 minutes), soup (25 per cent)

and meals based around eggs (20 per cent). Those taking the longest included roast meals

(approximately one third took 30 minutes or longer), followed by stews, curries, steaks and fish.

Meals originating directly from shops are eaten most swiftly, followed by food obtained in the

workplace. Those taken in restaurants are slowest, with 52 per cent lasting over half an hour and 14

per cent taking over one hour.

Meals eaten alone are quicker than those eaten with others present: almost half of all meals (49 per

cent) eaten alone take under 10 minutes, whereas the proportion for those eaten with others is less

than a quarter (23 per cent). Morning meals, however, remain rapid even when others are present,

with half (50 per cent) eaten in under 10 minutes. By contrast, evening meals remain relatively

leisurely occasions even when eaten alone, and are similar in length to lunches eaten with others .

Even when others are present, meals taken earlier in the day are brief.

Duration exhibits socio-demographic differentiation. Respondents under 40 years of age report

quicker events, particularly breakfasts and lunches. Controlling for household type shows that part of

the difference is attributable to households with children eating more rapidly (formerly, households

with children appeared to eat for longer periods of time than their adult-only counterparts, as noted by

Marshall and Pettinger 2009). There may be a modest shift towards simplified meals and more hurried

eating, but it equally may be that young people have always eaten more quickly than older people (as

well as more often having young dependent children who put pressure on schedules). When

comparing all meals, different household types spend similar amounts of time eating, with the

exception of couples without children, who spend slightly more time eating even when controlling for

age. Households with children report less time allocated to morning and afternoon meals. People

living alone, by contrast, spend more time on average eating their breakfasts and lunches than

households with children, but less time on evening meals. This suggests that the availability of

companions is critical to explaining more leisurely and socially significant events, a finding suggested

15

by studies from psychology (see for example de Castro and Brewer 1992; Bell and Pliner 2003).

Evening meals, in general, are accorded more time, reflecting their greater social importance, and thus

may also resist simplification. People living alone tend to eat alone more often, as already mentioned,

even when controlling for their being older on average, and spend less time overall eating. However,

solos spend more time than do co-habitees when eating alone. A mere 37 per cent of the dinners of

unaccompanied solos are eaten in under 10 minutes, compared with about 60 per cent for respondents

living with others. When in company, solos and adult-only households spend more time over meals

than do nuclear families and single parent families; around 15 per cent of their meals last more than

half an hour compared with only 10 per cent for households with children.

Timing of meals

One hypothesis about de-structuration is that mutual coordination of the schedules of potential

companions has become problematic. Figures III and IV chart the times at which respondents reported

eating main meals, for both weekdays and weekends providing evidence of temporal de-structuration

and a potential explanation for patterns of eating alone. A study from the 1950s (Warren, 1958) also

reported aggregate meal times which, with some adjustments, permits rough comparison.11

Figures III and IV about here

In 2012, eating peaks three times on both days: 7-8am, 12-1pm and 6-7pm on weekdays, with

between 34 and 42 percent of the sample eating in each of these hour-long periods. At weekends, peak

eating times are less defined, with modal morning and afternoon eating taking place around an hour

later. On both days, smaller eating events, which we call ‘snacks’, take place between mealtimes,

peaking between 10-11am or 11-12am at weekends, 3-4pm and 8-10pm (not shown, see Author,

forthcoming12). It is debatable whether this is evidence of order or disorder; but peaks are less

pronounced than in some other European countries (Holm 2001; Southerton et al 2012).

16

Comparing with 1955-613, meal time peaks are slightly depressed by 2012, most dramatically for

weekend lunches. In 1955-6, 91 per cent of Warren’s sample ate a meal between 12pm and 2pm on

weekdays, compared with 78 per cent of those in 2012. Weekend midday meals were also more

pronounced in 1955-6, with 57 per cent eating between 1pm and 2pm, or 82 per cent between 12 and

2, compared with 36 per cent and 59 per cent respectively in 2012, apparently the effect of a more

rigidly observed Sunday dinner (in 2012 roast meat is common, but most is eaten as evening meals,

see Author 2015) Part of the difference in peak time eating between 1955-6 and 2012 is attributable to

respondents in the 1950s having eaten more frequently, particularly at weekends: if breakfast, midday

meals and principal evening meals were considered the only main meals of the day, Warren’s

respondents averaged 2.84 on weekdays and 2.81 on weekends, compared with 2.75 and 2.58 main

meals reported in 2012. Averaging across the population and considering other smaller eating events,

people now eat slightly less frequently with greater variation between weekdays and weekends. The

other key difference between 1950s and 2012 is that modal eating times for morning and midday

meals on weekdays have shifted forward one hour. Although the modal time remains 6-7pm, many

evening meals are also now eaten somewhat later. The weekend schedule in 2012 remains 8-9am, 1-

2pm and 6-7pm, suggesting that pressures associated with the working week may have been

exacerbated by increased commuting times and/or the negotiation of school and work timetables by

families with children.

This hypothesis is supported by examination of differences in eating times by different socio-

demographic and economic characteristics. Schedules vary most by employment status and household

structure, with minor differences for age after controlling for employment status. No significant

differences by gender, education or class are apparent. Those working are more likely to eat weekday

breakfasts and lunches at 7-8am and 12-1pm, whereas homemakers and those retired, unemployed

and self-employed are more likely to take these meals during the subsequent hour. Those in

employment also vary their schedules at the weekend, with full-time workers eating later than the rest

17

of the sample on both weekends and weekdays, and those working part-time and those self-employed

less likely to do so on Saturdays. Respondents aged over 50 tend to eat breakfast earlier, at the modal

time of 8-9am at weekends, whereas others tend to breakfast later. Perhaps predictably, respondents in

their 30s, those most likely to have young children, rarely eat breakfast after 9am. Households with

dependent children (nuclear and single parent families) tend to eat between 7-8am and 12-1pm,

whereas those without dependent children were more likely to eat morning meals at 8-9am and

lunches at 1-2pm, as was the norm for all days of the week in 1955-6. Those living alone are not

outliers, but have very similar patterns to adult-only households. There is no sign that solos, smaller

households or younger people have less structured eating patterns than the rest of the population, for

almost all variability appears attributable to employment status and the presence of children.

Similarly, the timings of meals eaten alone and those eaten with others show no significant

differences. Eating alone does not appear to be associated with distinct working schedules or meal

patterns. Notably, however, although solos and couples tend to eat breakfasts and lunches later on

weekdays, when eating with others they revert to the earlier timetable of the majority. The dominant

norm for times for eating appears determined by family households with children, which apparently

exert some force over even those who are free from the constraints of parenthood.

6. Discussion

The increase in solo living is not the only driver of lone eating in Great Britain. Many of those living

with others also often eat alone. The finding that households containing dependent children tend to eat

earlier breakfasts and lunches on weekdays, and that their meals overall are shorter in length, suggests

that the temporal pressures to coordinate around institutional rhythms of workplaces and particularly

schools hinder leisurely and sociable eating. More time is allocated to eating at the weekend, when

there is less time pressure from employment or schooling. The greater sociability at evenings and

weekends, and the use that solo dwellers make of work colleagues as companions, suggest that

18

company at meals is preferred when available, but that availability may be limited, often as a result of

practical pressures constraining synchronisation. Nevertheless, rapid eating, simple dishes and small

meals may be thought perfectly adequate when there is insufficient time to eat properly and

meaningfully with others (see Pliner and Bell 2009). It is even possible that interspersing commensal

occasions with shorter, more anonymous meal occasions would be considered not only more

convenient but preferable to sharing every meal with family members.

Explanation of change seems primarily a function of shifting social context rather than of personal

preferences or ideals, although preferences and ideals may subsequently shift to reflect normal

practice. Family meals may remain idealised, but be reserved for fewer occasions. At present, any

decline in eating together arises from the impracticability of getting families round a table, rather than

any general or reasoned aversion to eating with co-habitees (Brannen, O’Connell and Mooney 2013;

Southerton 2009). Since the middle of the 20th century, several factors have increased the difficulties

of intra-household coordination. People travel further to work and there are more dual earner

households. Smaller workplaces with more flexible hours of employment mean less uniform

collective schedules; since many people go home to eat soon after work, heterogeneity produces more

variable meal times. Half-day work on Saturdays (and weekday half-days) have disappeared, while

24/7 shopping and the expansion of service sector employment reduce collective temporal constraints.

Also, in the 1950s, Sundays were more subject to religious observance; thus with fewer people at a

place of employment, and with fewer leisure opportunities, people tended to be at home with time and

rationale for using the midday meal as a focal point. Indeed, comparison with the 1950s shows

important differences between weekdays and weekends. At weekends eating times are more dispersed

around midday than in the 1950s; 2012 sees many more meals out of the household and the ‘roast

dinner’ now commonly eaten as an evening meal (see Cheng et al 2007; Author 2015).

Many other social changes impinge on collective patterns and individual preferences and strategies.

Informalisation, changing gender roles, and new forms of engagement with food encouraged by mass

19

media modify structural change. Also, more alternatives to eating in exist, including takeaways,

restaurants and cafes. A greater variety of convenience foods – snack products, ready-meals and pre-

prepared ingredients – allow households to eat together in domestic settings when there is little time

for preparation, or at least help reduce the penalties associated with missing the family meal (for a

thoughtful discussion see Marshall and Pettinger 2009: 650-3). Household storage facilities,

refrigeration and microwaves also make it easier to shop infrequently and have meals quickly

available. Overall, the planning of meals is perhaps less necessary, with ‘emergency’ options more

readily available (because shop opening hours have extended and the number of restaurants has

increased).

Given the competing options, and the pressures and constraints that militate against eating

synchronously with co-residents, it is perhaps remarkable that the level of commensality is so high. In

the past, in the absence of alternative sources of cooked food, efficiency and economy may have

mandated the presence of all household members. Its current level, by contrast, seems more the

consequence of its ideological centrality in the organisation of households and eating patterns in the

UK (for further evidence see the Food Standards Authority and Kelloggs research, cited in Marshall

and Pettinger 2009, and much qualitative analysis). Although the rich and educated eat out slightly

more, there is no sense that their privileges reduce eating with household members overall, or in

domestic settings. Eating at home remains the default position and for many the most desirable,

although probably the variation offered by eating away from home with other companions is widely

welcomed.

7. Conclusions

When reviewed in the context of debates about the re-structuring or fragmentation of meal patterns,

the survey results suggest considerable commonality of pattern, a significant degree of collective

order, and much routinized behaviour. A very large majority of people (approaching 90 per cent)

20

claim to have a regular pattern, mostly of three meals per day. Only one person in ten report that on

the days of the survey they had diverged from their normal practice. At population level there are

pronounced peaks in the day when a substantial proportion of people are eating, although the pattern

is less homogeneous than in some other European countries. While no precise comparison is possible,

eating in Britain is a little less routine and has shallower peaks for meal times than other European

countries for which data are available (Boeker Lund and Gronow 2014; Díaz Méndez et al, 2013;

Lhuissier et al, 2013). Relatively regular mealtimes are interspersed with predictable times for snacks.

At both individual and population levels a sense remains that eating regularly punctuates and gives

temporal order to daily life.

As has been noted, around one-third of meals taken in Britain are eaten alone. Almost certainly this

has increased since the mid-20th century, although a paucity of historical data prevents precise

quantification of the shift. Lone eating is more rapid and requires less cooking. Eating alone appears

associated with, and is made more easily possible by, processes of commodification, informalisation

and the availability of convenience food. More lone meals are sourced directly from commercial

outlets outside the household, require less complicated preparation, and occur in brief eating episodes.

One cause of eating alone is the increase in the number of single person households, one of the most

prominent demographic shifts of the last century. Inevitably this has consequences for eating

behaviour. Solos eat alone three times more often than do those living with others; they are therefore

crucial to current high levels of lone eating. Solos compensate somewhat by eating with friends and

non-co-resident family slightly more often than others. Those living alone do eat more quickly on

average (apparently because they eat alone more often), and meal content is somewhat distinct, but

they observe similar meal-times to multi-person households.

Neither living alone nor eating alone is necessarily evidence of temporal disorganisation or de-

structuration, although it is probable that the prevalence of small meals eaten quickly will reduce the

number of occasions when people eat together (see Warde et al 2007). Living alone is neither a

21

feature nor a driver of temporally disordered eating patterns. To reiterate, there is no significant

difference in meal timings between those who live alone and those in larger households. Rather, the

major differences are between those with or without co-resident dependent children and between

those who are or are not employed. The identifiable forms of de-structuration are specific and rather

limited, and only partly relate to living alone.

Despite the disruptive potential of dual careers, more flexible working hours, greater out of the home

leisure activity and much increased opportunities to eat out, the evidence testifies to the continuing

joint strength of custom, preference and necessity surrounding the domestic family meal arrangement.

Grignon (1993) remains fundamentally correct in seeing work schedules and household composition

as the basic structuring features of the eating timetable. It appears that the more control a household

(or its members collectively) has over its work obligations, the more frequently it will eat together.

Also, the fewer the hours spent in employment and in extra-domestic leisure activities, the greater the

personal and collective time devoted to domestic eating. Eating is subject to institutional constraints,

some of which are local conventions;14 there are ways of going about, and ways not to go about

eating, and nutritional content is not necessarily paramount. Other major constraints arise from the

ways in which other practices are organised and scheduled, for eating is inevitably slotted into the

spaces between work, sleep, personal maintenance and leisure.

In making these general observations we advise caution because of the nature of our sample. Panel

members who respond to the missives of consumer research organisations are not the most likely to

live the most highly disorganised lives, and the sample contains disproportionately few young people

and a surfeit of the highly qualified. While a more thorough, comprehensive and illuminating account

might emerge from better data, comparison with existing evidence supports most findings (see

Marshall and Pettinger 2009). Much preferable would be longitudinal or panel data collected for

individuals over an extended period to disclose the degree of personal routinisation of eating

behaviour. For then multivariate analysis might be fruitfully employed to disentangle more exactly the

22

relationship of the sociability of eating events with variation in employment, household composition,

and the sequencing of other salient practices. Also careful and close analysis of the intersection of

content and occasion might clarify some of the health consequences of different patterns of meal

arrangement. In this paper we offer preliminary evidence of the effects of these factors, features also

previously identified in qualitative studies of eating habits. However, more sophisticated statistical

analysis would be inappropriate on the basis of this particular sample survey.

23

References

Bell, R. and Pliner, P.L. 2003 ‘Time to eat: the relationship between the number of people eating and

meal duration in three lunch settings’, Appetite, 41(2): 215–218.

Boeker Lund, T. and Gronow, J. 2014 ‘Destructuration or continuity: the daily rhythm of eating in

Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden 1997 and 2012. Appetite, 82(1): 143-153.

Brannen, J., O’Connell, R. and Mooney, A. 2013 ‘Families, meals and synchronicity: eating

together in British dual earner families’, Community, Work & Family, (April): 417-434.

Cheng, S.-L., Olsen, W., Southerton, D., and Warde, A. 2007 ‘The changing practice of eating:

evidence from UK time diaries, 1975 and 2000’. The British Journal of Sociology, 58(1): 39–61.

De Castro, J. M., and Brewer, E. M. 1992 ‘The amount eaten in meals by humans is a power

function of the number of people present’, Physiology & Behavior, 51(1): 121-125.

DeVault, M. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work,

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Díaz Méndez, C., García Espejo, Isabel, Gutiérrez Palacios, R., Novo Vázquez, A. (eds) 2013

Hábitos alimentarios de los españoles. Madrid: Ministerio de agricultura, alimentación y medio

ambiente.

24

Fischler, C. 2011 ‘Commensality, society and culture’. Social Science Information, 50(3-4): 528–

548.

Grignon, C. 1993 ‘La règle, la mode et le travail: la genèse social du modèle des repas français

contemporain’, in Aymard, M, Grignon C & Sabban, F (eds) Le Temps de Manger: alimentation,

emploi du temps et rythmes sociaux, Paris: Maison de Sciences de l’Homme: 275-324.

Hamrick, K. S., Andrews, M., Guthrie, J., Hopkins, D., and McClelland, K. (2011). How Much

Time Do Americans Spend on Food? United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information

Bulletin Number 86. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-

bulletin/eib86.aspx#.VCF3X3fx4Xk. Last accessed 23/9/14

Heath, S. and Cleaver, E. 2004 Young, Free and Single?: Twenty-somethings and Household

Change, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Herpin, N. 1988 ‘Le repas comme institution, compte rendu d’une enquête exploratoire’, Revue

française de sociologie, 29: 503–552.

Hetherington, M.M., Anderson, A., Norton N.M., Newson, L. 2006 ‘Situational effects on meal

intake: A comparison of eating alone and eating with others’. Physiology & Behavior, 88(4-5): 498–

505.

Holm, L. 2001. ‘Family meals’ in U. Kjaernes (ed.) Eating patterns: A day in the lives of Nordic

peoples, SIFO Report 7-2001.

Jamieson, L. & Simpson, R. 2013 Living Alone: Globalization, Identity and Belonging, Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

25

Julier, A. 2013 Eating Together: Food, Friendship and Inequality, Urbana, Chicago and Springfield:

University of Illinois Press.

Kjaernes, U. (ed) 2001. Eating Patterns: A Day in the Lives of Nordic Peoples, Oslo: SIFO Report

No. 7–2001.

Klinenberg, E. 2012 Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone,

New York: Penguin Group US.

Lewis, W. 2012 ‘Record number of UK homeowners take in lodgers in January’. Property Reporter,

[online] (15 February 2012). Available at http://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/view.asp?ID=9159 [Last

accessed 18/4/14]

Lhuissier, A., Tichit, C., Caillavet, F., Cardon, P., Masulo, A., Martin-Fernandez, J., Parizot, I.

and Chauvin, P. 2013 ‘Who still eats three meals a day?: findings from a quantitative survey in the

Paris area’, Appetite, 63: 59-69.

Mäkelä, J. 2009 ‘Meals: the social perspective’. In Herb Meiselman, ed. Meals in science and

practice: interdisciplinary research and business applications. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing,

37-49.

Marshall, D. 2005 ‘Food as ritual, routine or convention’. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 8(1):

69–85.

26

Marshall, D. and Pettinger, C. 2009 ‘Revisiting British meals’ in H. Meiselman (ed.) Meals in

science and practice: Interdisciplinary research and business applications. Cambridge: Woodhead

Publishing, 638–664.

Mennell, S., Murcott, A. and Van Otterloo, A.H. eds. 1992 The Sociology of Food: Eating, Diet

and Culture, London: Sage/International Sociological Association.

Mestdag, I. 2005. ‘Disappearance of the traditional meal: temporal, social and spatial

destructuration’. Appetite, 45(1): 62–74.

Mestdag, I., and Glorieux, I. 2009 ‘Change and stability in commensality patterns : a comparative

analysis of Belgian time-use data from 1966, 1999 and 2004’. Sociological Review, 57(4): 703-726.

ONS. 2012 ‘Measuring National Well-being - Households and Families’, 2012. Available at

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_259965.pdf. Last accessed 23/9/14.

Pliner, P. & Bell, R. 2009 ‘A table for one: the pain and pleasure of eating alone’ in H. Meiselman

(ed.) Meals in science and practice: Interdisciplinary research and business applications 2009,

Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 169–189.

Poulain, J. 2002 ‘The contemporary diet in France: “de-structuration” or from commensalism to

“vagabond feeding.”’ Appetite, 39(1): 43–55.

Rotenberg, R. 1981 ‘The impact of industrialization on meal patterns in Vienna, Austria’, Ecology of

Food and Nutrition, 11(1): 25–35.

Sellaeg, K. and Chapman, G.E. 2008 ‘Masculinity and food ideals of men who live alone’, Appetite,

51(1): 120–8.

27

Sidenvall, B., Nydahl, M. and Fjellstrom, C. 2000 ‘The Meal as a Gift – The Meaning of Cooking

Among Retired Women’, Journal of Applied Gerontology, 19(4): 405–423.

Southerton, D. 2009 ‘Re-ordering temporal rhythms: coordinating daily practices in the UK in 1937

and 2000’, in E. Shove, F. Trentmann and R. Wilk (eds.) Time, Consumption and Everyday Life,

London: Berg, 49-66..

Southerton, D., Díaz-Méndez, C. and Warde, A. 2011 ‘Behavioural Change and the Temporal

Ordering of Eating Practices: A UK – Spain Comparison’. International Journal of the Sociology of

Agriculture and Food, 19(1): 19–36.

Tuomainen, H. 2015 ‘Eating alone or together? Commensality among West Africans in London’,

Anthropology of Food, forthcoming

Wansink, B. 2004 ‘Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of

unknowing consumers’, Annual Review of Nutrition, 24(217): 455–79.

Warde, A. 1999 ‘Convenient food: space and timing’, British Food Journal, 101(7): 518-27.

Warde, A. 2009 ‘Globalisation and the challenge of variety: a comparison of eating in Britain and

France’, in Debra Gimlin and David Inglis (eds.) The Globalisation of Food, Oxford, Berg, 227-42.

Warde, A, Cheng S-L, Olsen, W and Southerton D. 2007 ‘Changes in the Practice of Eating: A

Comparative Analysis of Time-Use’, Acta Sociologica, 50(4): 363–385.

28

Warde, A. and Martens, L. 2000 Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warde, A., and Yates, L. forthcoming. ‘Snacks and the British meal pattern’.

Warren, G. (ed) 1958 The Foods We Eat: A survey of meal, their content and chronology by season,

day of the week, region, class and age, conducted in Great Britain by the Market Research Division of

W.S. Crawford Limited. London: Cassell.

Yates, L., and Warde, A. 2015 ‘The evolving content of meals in Great Britain: results of a survey in

2012 in comparison with the 1950s’. Appetite, 84: 299–308.

29

Figure I: Companions reported present at meals, weekday and weekend

23%

65%

4%

1% 1% 1%

5%

Weekend

Alone

Household members

Friends

Work colleagues

Non-household family members

Others

Combination of companions

39%

46%

2%9%

1% 1% 2%

Weekday

N= 7648 (weekday meals) and 7181 (weekend meals). Question text: “Who did you eat it with?”

Friend/s; work colleague; household member; non-household family member; acquaintance; other; I

ate alone

30

Table I: Episodes of eating alone, comparing one-person with multiple-person households

% of meals eaten alone –

one person households

% of meals eaten

alone – respondents

in shared households

All households

Weekday 75.0 32.5 38.9

Weekend 70.9 14.8 23.3

Total (weighted by day) 73.8 27.4 34.4

N (meals) 2238 12600 14838

31

Table II: Proportion of each ‘main meal’ where respondent is alone, entire sample (percentages)

Breakfast Lunch Dinner Total

Weekday 54.3 39.9 20.9 38.5

Weekend 32.2 19.3 15.5 22.8

Total (weighted by day) 49.5 33.9 19.3 34.4

N (meals) 5078 4590 4816 14484

Figures quote first or only ‘main meal’ considered in each time band. Day weights applied controlled

for greater proportion of weekend days (multiplying weekend day figures by two, weekday figures by

five, and dividing summed total by seven).

32

Table III: Origins of ‘main meals’, eaten with others or alone (entire sample). (Percentages by

column

Breakfast

Weekdays

Lunch Dinner Breakfast

Weekends

Lunch

Dinner

% from home 87.1 73.1 83.4 89.6 74.8 76.1

% from restaurant 0.8 4.3 3.1 1.7 8.5 6.0

% from takeaway 0.5 2.3 3.2 0.5 2.1 6.8

% friends/non-hh

family

0.2 1.2 0.9 1.1 3.2 2.6

% from shop 5.9 7.6 4.1 3.4 4.2 3.1

% other (inc. work)* 5.5 11.5 5.3 3.7 7.2 5.4

N (meals) 2585 2429 2461 2493 2191 2380

*Other includes where more than one origin was marked, where respondents marked ‘other’ or

‘work’. 6 per cent of weekday lunches originated from workplace facilities.

33

Table IV: Comparison of the preparation of home-sourced meals eaten alone by household

composition (all meals)

Entire sample Living alone Living w/ others

% meals eaten alone ready to eat 49.5 41.1 53.8

% eaten alone basic prep./ ‘warmed’ 27.3 21.7 30.2

% eaten alone complex prep./

‘cooked’

23.2 37.2 16.0

N 3689 1250 2351

N totals exclude 88 cases of missing data where household structure was not known

34

Figure II: Durations of meals and snacks, weekdays and weekends

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Breakfast Lunch Dinner

Weekdays

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Breakfast Lunch Dinner

Weekends

Less than 10 mins 10-19 minutes 20-29 minutes Over 30 mins

35

Figure III: Timing of weekday meals, 1955-6 and 2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

% eating meals

Time of day (24h)

Weekday meals (2012) Weekday meals (1955-6)

36

Figure IV: Timing of weekend meals, 1955-6 and 2012

1 We currently lack suitable analysis of Britain, although some evidence exists for Belgium, the Nordic

countries and Spain (Mestdag 2005, Kjaernes 2001, Díaz Méndez et al 2013).

2 We analyse snacks elsewhere (see Warde and Yates 2015)

3 Names allocated to particular eating events vary by region and class across the UK. The nomenclature adopted

is for convenience of reference and to avoid ungainly descriptors.

4 When we analyse all eating occasions together, rather than meal by meal, additional or ‘second’ morning,

afternoon and evening meals are included. N varies for this reason and also because data is missing for some

meals.

5 In our data adult-only households are particularly over-represented because children were not targeted, so there

was a disproportionate likelihood of members of adult-only households in the sample.

6 See section 2 for a breakdown of the sample by household type.

7 Comparison with other countries is possible, although variation in the form of data collection and sample

biases advise caution in their interpretation. In Spain, in 2010-11, 38%, 18% and 19% of the population are

reported eating alone at the three meals of the day (Díaz Méndez et al 2013). In the Nordic countries roughly

one-third of people in 1997 ate morning meals alone, and around a quarter at each of the afternoon and evening

meals (Holm 2001).

8 Cereal was eaten alone at breakfast on 62% of occasions compared with an average of 24% for meals other

than breakfast. It is the second least sociable breakfast, after yoghurt or fruit. Sandwiches were the most

commonly reported lunch item (47% of lunches on weekdays, 36% on weekends).

9 As many studies attest, a precise definition of convenience foods is elusive. Warde (1999) discusses the

difficulties involved.

10 Single parent families source meals from household food stocks in roughly equal proportions to other

household types; low numbers in the subsample prevent more fine-grained analysis.

37

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

% eating meals

Time of day (24h)

Weekend meals (2012) Weekend meals (1955-6)

11 While our questionnaire asked respondents to name an hour for each eating event, Geoffrey Warren’s (1958)

quota sample survey (N respondents = 4557) requested the times (but not the duration) for particular, named

meals – breakfast, midday meals and principal evening meals. Warren asked each respondent to classify each

into half-hour time slots (summed into hourly categories) or into open categories such as ‘After 11am’ (coded as

11-12am). Figures III and IV show meals in 2012 and those in 1955-6 on the same scale. Unfortunately,

Warren’s study did not ask with whom meals were taken, so comparison on commensality is not possible.

12 Reasons of space prevent analysis here. Respondents describe some eating occasions as snacks rather than

meals. We examined their frequency, scheduling, contents, duration and social context (see Warde and Yates

forthcoming). ‘Snacks’ are taken across all socio-demographic groups and in accordance with a common and

predictable schedule. Snacks are smaller and less structured than most meals. Most are not comprised of what is

generically described as ‘snack foods’. Snacks are shorter in duration, and less sociable than other eating events,

reflecting their size, simplicity and informality.

13 Hour-long categories and low duration times of most eating events mean these graphs indicate the numbers

eating within each time interval, but not necessarily precise synchrony.

14 It is worth noting that Spanish eating patterns are among the most sociable of those studied to date, with 62%

of morning meals, 82% of afternoon meals and 82% of evening meals eaten with others in 2009-2010 (Díaz

Méndez et al. 2013: 21). The Spanish routine is characterised by a working day split by significantly longer

lunch breaks, later evening meals and mid-afternoon siesta. Also the Spanish household is very rarely of only

one person (18% in 2010, Jamieson and Simpson 2013: 34). In debates about the productivity of the Spanish

working day, some have proposed a shift to a more ‘European’ work schedule, implying that what governments

or businesses now consider suitable work patterns might be at odds with very regular family meals.

38