An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
There’s an interesting new psych study out about the relationship between food and morality. The study, which was published in a peer-reviewed journal of social and personality psychology, comes to a rather provocative conclusion: When people are exposed to wholesome or organic foods, their levels of altruism decrease.
First, some context:
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.)?
Organic or wholesome foods are often branded in moral terms: Honest Tea, Smart Water, Purity Life, Back to Nature, etc. So researcher and professor Kendall J. Eskine wanted to know: Do people act more morally when they are exposed to them? Yes and no. Eskine, the author of the study, found that the subjects became more moralistic but less altruistic:
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.
This conclusion has its critics, but it could have been drawn straight out of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s new and well-praised book The Righteous Mind. Haidt’s thesis is that “morality binds and blinds.” In other words, our moral identities bind us to members of our moral group and they blind us to the perspectives of others.
That morality “binds and blinds” makes sense when we’re talking about touchy subjects like abortion, or stem cell research, or welfare programs, or sex–but does it really make sense when we’re talking about food? Can ethical eating be a moral identity? Or, at least, can ethical eating carry enough moral weight that it makes people “affirm their moral identities.” It certainly can (just watch the show Portlandia for a brilliant satire of this). In fact, the same impulse that makes, say, religious conservatives reject the culture of casual sex also draws spiritual liberals to organic and wholesome foods.
That impulse, as Haidt explains, is our desire for the sacred (or the pure):
The sanctity/degradation foundation evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore’s dilemma, and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioral immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array or symbolic objects and threats. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values–both positive and negative–which are important for binding groups together.
What he calls the “sanctity/degradation foundation” explains many religious or spiritual people prefer to treat their bodies as temples rather than playgrounds. For the Christian right, that means abstinence, among other things. For the Left, it means a certain type of eating:
The Sanctity foundation is used most heavily by the religious right, but it is also used on the spiritual Left. You can see the foundation’s original impurity-avoidance function in the New Age grocery stores, where you’ll find a variety of products that promise to cleanse you of “toxins.” … The Sanctity foundation is crucial for understanding the American culture wars, particularly over biomedical issues…
Though Haidt goes on to talk about issues like assisted-suicide and stem-cell research, there are food-related biomedical issues as well. The left in this country, for instance, is staunchly opposed to genetically modified foods because they seem unnatural. Part of the point of the organic movement–and the local foods movement–is a return to nature and the environment. To genetically modify foods or to pollute them with insecticides and preservatives “is a degradation of nature, and of humanity’s original nature.”
The ironic thing is that while our moral positions are supposed to make us better people, they often divide us into groups, cause us to erect walls of righteousness, and numb us to the opinions and needs of others. Almost every moral system in the world is based on the golden rule–i.e., altruism–yet, as Eskine’s study shows, moral judgments can lead people to be less empathetic and compassionate toward others. It’s just another humbling reminder that morality binds and blinds.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '12
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Luke 12:23 - "For life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment." Sound advice, whatever your persuasion.
Drawing your sense of moral purity from something that's headed to the toilet sooner rather than later has to be the saddest excuse for a creed ever.
Matt 15:11 - "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." True.
Probably best for these folks to give up eating and drinking all together. You know, for the sake of the planet. Those dirty little carbon footprints all over Gaia's clean carpet and all...
Edited on June 20, 2012 at 8:31pmJan '11
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Just a caution here. Correlation isn't causation.
In analyzing data, you look for correlations. When you're analyzing results, you check to see whether one attribute occurs more or less frequently along with another attribute. That's a correlation. But the number of correlations doesn't reveal how or why they're correlated.
Or, both of those attributes may have no relation to each other, but they do have a relationship to a third attribute.
For example, I'd bet that a statistically higher percentage of organic eaters are culturally liberal. In turn, I can imagine that the statistics for a small sample of moral decision makers may show that cultural liberals are less altruistic than others.
The statistics show a correlation between organic foods and altruism, but the real unifying attribute may be cultural liberalism.
Frankly, I'm skeptical that there's any real causation value between organic foods, liberalism, and altruism. It may just be an anomaly of the test set. But if there is some correlation, I'd be careful blaming it on any one attribute.
Just a caution.
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Why would cultural liberals be less altruistic? The point is that any heightened state of moralism causes the defenses to go up, which is inimical to altruism.
May '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
"The left in this country, for instance, is staunchly opposed to genetically modified foods because they seem unnatural."
They're opposed to them, in my experience, because they don't trust the people selling them. The people selling them don't perform long-term (or often short-term) health and safety testing on GMO foods, so skepticism is warranted.
The anti-GMO folks have decided that labeling GMO foods is a good compromise: that way the market can decide.
Caveat emptor, in other words. I'm good with that...
And the vendors of GMO foods claim that this is a violation of their Constitutional rights. That's not a joke.
Jan '11
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Agreed. But by that same argument, why would eating organic apples have anything to do with altruism?
If the real cause is heightened moralism, then eating organic apples isn't the cause. Which rebuts the original observation: " When people are exposed to wholesome or organic foods, their levels of altruism decrease."
May '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Can we just promote nice juicy, oily cheeseburgers?
Mar '11
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Other than fish and a few (very few) fruits and vegetables, everything you have ever eaten has been genetically modified -- but the vast majority of it was modified by people who had no idea what it was they were doing when they did it.
And what constitutes a "control food?" Free-range macaroni and cheese?
Feb '11
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
I disagree. Moralism is a requirement for altruism. Morality is the motivation to take action persuading people and changing the way things are. Think of people who are highly moralistic about abortion, sex, crime, drug abuse, etc. These same moralists are often the very ones donating time and money to help educate and persuade women considering an abortion, to help unwed parents handle the natural results of an out of wedlock dalliance, to provide outlets for people "at risk" of choosing crime because they think there aren't any other choices, to aid addicts in overcoming the effects of their addiction and recovering a worthwhile life. If other people aren't making poor choices (in our opinion), or if other people's poor choices are no business of ours, then there's no call for altruism at all.
Mar '12
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
You know, The City had a great interview with Mary Eberstadt where she made this observation without needing any study beforehand. See it in this issue.
Jul '11
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Anyone who has read the Bible is familiar with this phenomenon. Pharisees, anyone?
-E
Oct '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
CandE: Anyone who has read the Bible is familiar with this phenomenon. Pharisees, anyone?
-E · 2 minutes ago
Or anyone who knows the definition of "sanctimonious."
Yet another social scientist "proving" what people already know.
Aug '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
I have a tough time believing Haidt's notion that the Right uses the Sanctity foundation more than the Left. Consider:
I think Haidt just notices the sanctity/degradation distinctions of the Right more than those of the Left simply because we tend to take our own distinctions on these matters for granted, even when we're trained social scientists.
After all, to a Leftist, the sanctified categories I listed are obviously what any right-thinking person would prefer, and so don't register as things held sacred.
Edited on June 20, 2012 at 10:35pmAug '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
The golden rule isn't just about altruism and empathy. It's one of those "golden mean" style ideas, suggesting that having too much regard or pity for others is as bad as having too little.
As Ed G points out, it's difficult to get motivated enough to help or "reform" others without some form of moralism, even though a moralism that doesn't include compassion and gentleness is hollow.
Beyond a certain point, even feeling empathetic or compassionate becomes dysfunctional -- hence immoral. So moral rigidity can help keep the empathy and compassion of the more tender-natured among us within appropriate bounds. Not that people agree on where those bounds are.
Edited on June 21, 2012 at 12:49amNov '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
KC Mulville: Just a caution here. Correlation isn't causation.
In analyzing data, you look for correlations. When you're analyzing results, you check to see whether one attribute occurs more or less frequently along with another attribute. That's a correlation. But the number of correlations doesn't reveal how or why they're correlated.
Or, both of those attributes may have no relation to each other, but they do have a relationship to a third attribute.
For example, I'd bet that a statistically higher percentage of organic eaters are culturally liberal. . . .
Frankly, I'm skeptical that there's any real causation value between organic foods, liberalism, and altruism. It may just be an anomaly of the test set.
KC, this warning only makes sense in an observational study; this was a randomized controlled clinical trial. The subjects weren't people who expressed a preference for organic food, they were randomly selected subjects shown pictures of organic food, compared with people shown pictures of other kinds of food ("comfort" and "control" or neutral foods. It's looking at food considered healthful and labeled organic that results in selfishness, apparently.
So the message is "watch where you shop"?
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Emily referenced Mary Eberstadt's essay on food and morality in her post earlier this week here.
Jan '11
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Lucy: Disclaimer: I get paid to design and run databases. That's my job. I frequently have to present results of queries or from data-mining operations. And, after a few years of that, I've learned that I have to caution my audience not to jump to conclusions. There are often alternative explanations for why attributes occur in tandem. I'm probably giving this warning out of reflex, so I apologize.
When the test observers see the organic food, does the sight ...
The obvious check is to measure observers for their "altruism" before seeing anything, and then measuring whether their moral perspective causes them to see foods differently.
If it's true that food causes moralizing, then people who have already been measured for altruism should also reflect a change in the way they see food.
I looked at the link to see if they measured that, but you have to pay to see the results. Hey, I don't like to disagree with Emily in the first place ... I don't want to have to pay to do it!
Edited on June 21, 2012 at 1:12amApr '12
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
My thinking is that when people feel morally superior they often no longer feel the need to be decent. "Hey, I'm saving all life on the planet, I can't be bothered by petty details."
Nov '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
KC Mulville
The obvious check is to measure observers for their "altruism" before seeing anything, and then measuring whether their moral perspective causes them to see foods differently.
If it's true that food causes moralizing, then people who have already been measured for altruism should also reflect a change in the way they see food.
I looked at the link to see if they measured that, but you have to pay to see the results. Hey, I don't like to disagree with Emily in the first place ... I don't want to have to pay to do it!
My institutional subscription brought me to the original article--sorry that you can't see it. It's randomized. If the randomization was conducted appropriately, that should remove bias from the original samples. You can check for differences in the condition among the sample groups before you run the test in a randomized trial, but the statisticians will tell you that you shouldn't have to, because randomization should eliminate bias among the groups.
Nov '10
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
Lucy Pevensie
KC Mulville
The obvious check is to measure observers for their "altruism" before seeing anything, and then measuring whether their moral perspective causes them to see foods differently.
My institutional subscription brought me to the original article--sorry that you can't see it. It's randomized. If the randomization was conducted appropriately, that should remove bias from the original samples. Youcancheck for differences in the condition among the sample groups before you run the test in a randomized trial, but the statisticians will tell you that you shouldn't have to, because randomization should eliminate bias among the groups.
Oh, and in a randomized clinical trial, it's not an advantage to conduct two measurements (which they couldn't have done anyway, based on their study design). The second measurement introduces statistical noise. You only would do it as a check if you think that there could have been an error in your randomization technique.
Apr '12
Re: An Organic Apple a Day Keeps the Altruism Away
This is so true. My brother is a vegan whose moral superiority allows him to state that if parents really loved their children, they wouldn't feed them meat. He (childless) said this to my grandmother, my mom and dad, and me (all parents).
And with him, my concern is that when he feels so morally superior, he won't feel the need for God. "I am a good person, I am doing good, why do I need a Savior?"