Final answer:
Eating pizza or sweets when bored represents psychological behavior, possibly stress eating, while devouring pasta post-marathon shows physiological response for energy. The law of diminishing marginal utility describes why we don't eat only our favorite food, as satisfaction decreases over time. Pavlov's experiment exemplifies classical conditioning affecting our hunger, demonstrating psychological triggers can inspire hunger even without physiological need.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Steve eats pizza or something sweet every time he is bored, this action is an example of a psychological behavior that may be linked to emotional or stress eating. Whereas Marcus's consumption of a large quantity of pasta after running a marathon is an example of a physiological response to a high-energy-demand activity, reflecting an immediate nutritional need. Both cases illustrate different contexts of why we eat: one is driven by emotional cues and habitual responses, while the other is driven by the body's physical demand for energy replenishment.
The concept of the law of diminishing marginal utility is a principle from economics that has applications in understanding our dietary choices. While it explains why we don't engage in all-or-nothing behaviors with food, it also reflects the diminishing satisfaction we get from consuming the same food over and over again. In the context of eating, it supports the idea that variety is necessary for maintaining both nutritional balance and satisfaction from our diet.
Dr. Pavlov's experiment with dogs, which led to the discovery of classical conditioning, relates to the impact of psychological triggers on our physiological hunger responses. Commercials for enticing food can trigger hunger cues similar to Pavlov's bell, even if we do not have an actual physiological need for food at that moment. This suggests that not all hunger is driven by the body's energy requirements, but can also be influenced by psychological factors and conditioned responses.