Sharing food feeds trust, study reveals
Eating same dish promotes confidence in another person
Hoping your blind date leads to a love connection? Here’s a tip: share food. New research from the University of Chicago suggests that when people eat the same food, they’re more likely to co-operate better, resolve conflict faster and even trust a product testimonial more.
“When people eat the same food they feel closer and then are more trusting of another person,” said Kaitlin Woolley, co-author of the study and a PhD candidate in behavioural science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
The study, called “A recipe for friendship: Similar food consumption promotes trust and co-operation,” was published online in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in June and set for publication in the journal in January 2017. It consists of four smaller studies carried out between 2013 and 2016 by Woolley and her co-author Ayelet Fishbach, a professor of behavioural science and marketing at the Booth School of Business.
In the first sub-study, researchers paired 176 University of Chicago students together and gave them bowls of candy. Half of all pairs were told to eat the same candy and the other half told to eat different candies. Participants then played a trust game in which one person was assigned the role of fund manager and the other was assigned the role of investor. The investor received $3 and was told they could “invest” whatever amount they wanted in the fund manager. Those who ate the same candy invested more money — $2.40 on average — than those who ate different candy — who invested only $1.86 on average.
In the second sub-study, 124 students were paired together, assigned the roles of either union leader or manager and told to negotiate a bargaining dilemma over wages. For half the teams, the two participants ate the same three snacks and for the other half, the two ate different snacks. Researchers told participants a fake story that the study was evaluating if eating the same or dissimilar foods as another person affected taste or enjoyment of food over time. Then negotiation rounds began. Those who ate the same food came to a resolution in 3.63 strike rounds, nearly half the number of strike rounds it took dissimilar eaters to come to a resolution — 7.33.
The third mini study asked 96 people to eat a piece of Kit Kat while watching two product testimonials: one for a computer software product and one a stain remover. The person speaking in the videos was either eating a Kit Kat, grapes or no food. Researchers then asked participants to rate their level of trust in the testimonial information on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 being not at all and 6 being very much, and to evaluate how honestly or dishonestly the person in the video was communicating on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 being dishonestly and 6 being honestly. The video featuring a person eating a Kit Kat received an overall trust score of 3.21on average compared to 2.79 for grapes and 2.28 for no food.
In the fourth and only online study, researchers set out to test if the same trust levels could be duplicated in a study looking at clothing. Participants’ responses indicated they believed people who were eating the same food trusted each other more than those eating different food, while trust levels in pairs wearing the same or different shirts were not significantly different.
Laura Cavanagh, a professor of behavioural sciences at Seneca College who was not involved in the study, said the results make sense from an evolutionary perspective.
“We use a lot of mental shortcuts when deciding who to trust and not to trust,” she said. “We’re using the animal instincts in the back of the mind . . . I know that (the food) is safe, I know that you’re safe.”
“We’re using the animal instincts in the back of the mind . . . I know that (the food) is safe, I know that you’re safe.” LAURA CAVANAGH BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES PROFESSOR