candy an violence study, Summaries of Psychology

study done for candy and correlation with violence

Typology: Summaries

2025/2026

Uploaded on 05/02/2026

sofia-montano-12
sofia-montano-12 🇺🇸

2 documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Sugar Rush... to Prison? Study Says Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence
LONDON (AP) Willy Wonka would be horrified.
Children who eat too much candy may be more likely to be arrested for violent behavior as adults, new
research suggests.
British experts studied more than 17,000 children born in 1970 for about four decades. Of the children
who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69 percent were later arrested for a violent offense by the
age of 34. Of those who didn't have any violent clashes, 42 percent ate sweets daily.
The study was published in the October issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry. It was paid for by
Britain's Economic and Social Research Council.
The researchers said the results were interesting, but that more studies were needed to confirm the
link. "It's not that the sweets themselves are bad, it's more about interpreting how kids make decisions,"
said Simon Moore of the University of Cardiff, one of the paper's authors.
Moore said parents who consistently bribe their children into good behavior with candies and
chocolates could be doing harm. That might prevent kids from learning how to defer gratification,
leading to impulsive behavior and violence.
Even after Moore and colleagues controlled for other variables like different parenting skills and varying
social and economic backgrounds, they found a significant link between childhood consumption of
sweets and violent behavior in adulthood.
Previous studies have found better nutrition leads to better behavior, in both children and adults.
Moore said his results were not strong enough to recommend parents stop giving their children candies
and chocolates. "This is an incredibly complex area," he said. "It's not fair to blame it on the candy."
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download candy an violence study and more Summaries Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

Sugar Rush... to Prison? Study Says Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence

LONDON (AP) Willy Wonka would be horrified. Children who eat too much candy may be more likely to be arrested for violent behavior as adults, new research suggests. British experts studied more than 17,000 children born in 1970 for about four decades. Of the children who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69 percent were later arrested for a violent offense by the age of 34. Of those who didn't have any violent clashes, 42 percent ate sweets daily. The study was published in the October issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry. It was paid for by Britain's Economic and Social Research Council. The researchers said the results were interesting, but that more studies were needed to confirm the link. "It's not that the sweets themselves are bad, it's more about interpreting how kids make decisions," said Simon Moore of the University of Cardiff, one of the paper's authors. Moore said parents who consistently bribe their children into good behavior with candies and chocolates could be doing harm. That might prevent kids from learning how to defer gratification, leading to impulsive behavior and violence. Even after Moore and colleagues controlled for other variables like different parenting skills and varying social and economic backgrounds, they found a significant link between childhood consumption of sweets and violent behavior in adulthood. Previous studies have found better nutrition leads to better behavior, in both children and adults. Moore said his results were not strong enough to recommend parents stop giving their children candies and chocolates. "This is an incredibly complex area," he said. "It's not fair to blame it on the candy."

ANOTHER TAKE ON THIS…

Can sweets turn you sour?

Sweet enough already? “Lots of sweets makes kids thuggish adults,” said The Mirror today. The newspaper reports that research has found that more than two in three people (69%) with a violent record by the age of 34 had “scoffed confectionery every" day when they were 10 years old. The newspaper quoted experts who think that this aggression comes from not learning patience in childhood. The research, involving 17,500 people, is the first to look at adult violence in relation to childhood diet. However, there are other possible explanations for this link including the fact that difficult children might be given more sweets. It should be noted there was a high proportion of people who ate sweets every day in both the violent and non-violent groups. Also, it appears that less than 0.5% of children (about 81) in this study became violent offenders. Overall, this study on its own does not provide strong enough evidence to support media explanations for the supposed link, which would need more study through dedicated research. Regardless, common sense tells us that eating too many sweets is not good for children’s health.

Where did the story come from?

Dr Simon Moore and colleagues from Cardiff University carried out this research. The study was funded by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council, and published in the peer- reviewed British Journal of Psychiatry.

What kind of scientific study was this?

This was a retrospective analysis of data from a prospective cohort study, the British Cohort Study. This research collected data on newborns at regular intervals from 1970 onwards. It followed 17,415 babies born in the UK in one particular week in April that year, and also

What does the NHS Knowledge Service make of this study? This analysis of the British Cohort Study has the advantage of a large sample size. As it is designed prospectively, it also avoids the chance of reverse causation, i.e. the possibility that in some way violent offending might determine dietary habit. However, there are limitations to this study, some of which are mentioned by the authors:

  • As a general population cohort study it was not designed to specifically examine the nature of diet and how it might be related to behaviour in the long-term. This increases the chance that the original study did not include questions about aspects that later became important. For example, the study does not appear to have asked about family income.
  • The researchers collapsed the responses about how much confectionery was consumed into two categories, known as a binary variable (every day or less often/never). Analyses using this method means that important links between the amount or type of confectionary eaten may have been lost. The approach increased the chance of finding a statistical link for the rare event, (e.g. offending), but at the expense of useful information.
  • The absolute number of children who became violent offenders is not reported in this publication and this also makes it difficult to be sure that the difference in eating habits between a small number of violent offenders and a large number of normal adults is statistically significant.
  • The detail of questions asked by the self-reported computer-assisted interview are not reported and the context of how such sensitive information is collected should be considered when assessing how reliable the responses might be. The accuracy of information provided could have been checked against other records or by face-to-face interview. The number of people choosing not to respond to these questions was not published. Overall, this study on its own does not provide strong enough evidence to guide childhood dietary advice, although common sense says that eating too many sweets is probably not good for children. Before the newspapers’ explanation for a link can be believed there must be studies specifically designed to investigate the issue from the outset.