I'm not sure what, exactly, to make of this abstract of a recent social sciences study (the article itself is paywalled, and I have little interest in actually trying to read it). But to control-c-control-v the abstract here:
Recent research has revealed that specific tastes can influence moral processing, with sweet tastes inducing prosocial behavior and disgusting tastes harshening moral judgments. Do similar effects apply to different food types (comfort foods, organic foods, etc.)? Although organic foods are often marketed with moral terms (e.g., Honest Tea, Purity Life, and Smart Balance), no research to date has investigated the extent to which exposure to organic foods influences moral judgments or behavior. After viewing a few organic foods, comfort foods, or control foods, participants who were exposed to organic foods volunteered significantly less time to help a needy stranger, and they judged moral transgressions significantly harsher than those who viewed nonorganic foods. These results suggest that exposure to organic foods may lead people to affirm their moral identities, which attenuates their desire to be altruistic.
On the one hand, I want to say that there was always something about the organic-foods-only people that got on my nerves, and now I have proof. On the other hand, I want to ask, if crappy food promotes "prosocial" behavior, why is everyone so antisocial when everyone eats so badly in, e.g., the USA? It depends on how one defines a term like "prosocial," I suppose. Lastly, I wonder, what is this broader purpose of this research? What is their broader social hypothesis? Where are the researchers going with this?
[Daily log: walking, 3 km]
