Research indicates that our food ratings are shaped by a phenomenon called ‘serial dependence’, where our evaluations are influenced by what we’ve previously encountered.
A study from the University of Sydney reveals that our judgments about food are not made in a vacuum; rather, we are affected by the food we have just observed, a cascading effect known as ‘serial dependence’.
Conducted by Professors David Alais and Thomas Carlson at the University of Sydney’s School of Psychology, along with Professor David Burr from the University of Florence, the research was published in the esteemed journal Current Biology.
The findings show that when people assess the attractiveness and calorie values of food images, their evaluations are influenced by previous assessments, rather than being independent.
This serial dependence occurs when individuals make consecutive choices. For example, if someone rates a dish as very appealing, they are likely to rate the next food item more positively, regardless of its actual calorie count or attractiveness.
Conversely, if a previous item is deemed unappealing, it can negatively affect ratings of subsequent items.
The implications of this research could support psychologists in creating interventions for individuals struggling with eating disorders, guiding them to modify their food intake, and may assist marketers in designing menu displays more effectively.
According to lead author Professor Alais: “The conditions under which serial dependence occurs closely resemble our daily interactions with food images, such as when we look through a takeaway menu or peruse a digital menu on our phones. As a result, serial dependence could be impacting millions of food decisions daily.”
In their experiments, more than 600 participants rated various food images based on calorie content and attractiveness. The results demonstrated a distinct pattern of serial dependence, where participants’ ratings tended to align with their earlier judgments.
For instance, a high score for one food led to an enhanced rating for the next item, establishing a network of interconnected ratings rather than separate ones.
While the study showed that men rated high-calorie foods slightly higher than women, the serial dependence effect was consistent across genders.
“This research underscores the cognitive biases involved in how we assess food,” stated Professor Alais. “Our brains are designed to integrate information from previous experiences, similar to how we might be attracted to a specific dish after seeing a highly rated one before.”
Co-author Professor Carlson added: “Our previous research indicated that the visual part of the brain can process the perceived caloric content of foods in mere milliseconds. The interaction between these cognitive biases and visual understanding will be exciting to explore in future studies.”
Aside from its significance for visual neuroscientists studying image processing in the brain, this research has practical applications as well.
For food marketers and restaurant owners, insights on serial dependence could guide methods to enhance the attractiveness of their menu selections. By organizing high-appeal or calorie-dense items strategically, they could potentially sway customer perceptions and improve sales.
This study may also influence clinical practices, particularly in the context of addressing issues like obesity, excessive eating, bulimia, and related eating disorders.
By understanding how past food ratings can sway future choices, cognitive behavioral therapies might be tailored around these insights, aiding individuals in altering their perceptions and decision-making regarding food.
This strategy could encourage healthier eating patterns and provide effective support for those facing eating disorders.
Professor Alais and his colleagues have discovered similar visual patterns in individuals using dating apps or evaluating artwork.
