Food evaluations and eating decisions: are judgments contagious?

Abstract

Contagion studies have shown how attributes of one object can transfer to perceptions of another. Here, we extend that research by looking at how people think and feel about food, considering how contagion emerges (1) when attributes are treated as continuous rather than dichotomous; (2) when their distinctive value is positive, rather than negative; (3) with everyday objects, rather than stimuli designed for experimental purpose; and (4) for denotative, as well as connotative attributes. We examine the effects of these factors on attitudes (food evaluations) and behaviors (eating decisions), as a function of five attributes: being nutritious, being safe, being ethical, inducing craving, and causing disgust. The first two of these attributes were chosen to represent denotative judgments and the last three connotative ones. A sample of 274 Americans completed a 10-min online survey asking (1) about their eating decisions and food evaluations regarding 21 foods and (2) for their ratings on the five attributes. Our analyses examine both individual- and group-level relationships. The results suggest that the connotative attributes are more strongly related to food evaluations and eating decisions, revealed most clearly when the two kinds of attributes point in opposite directions. People generally ate and gave high evaluations to foods with high ratings on the positive connotative attributes, even if they believed them to be non-nutritious. Conversely, they did not eat or rate highly foods with negative connotative judgments, however nutritious and safe they seemed.