Everyone knows by now that the U.S. is in the midst of an obesity epidemic, but for all the hand wringing, nobody really knows why. Experts have offered many theories about why Americans eat too much, especially too much fattening food, but these remain theories. It's because Americans are ill-informed about diet and nutrition and simply do not understand that double cheeseburgers are loaded with fat and calories. Or it's because we're constantly bombarded with stimulating ads for tempting but unhealthful snacks. Or it's because we simply lack the self-discipline of earlier generations. Or all of the above.
Or perhaps something else entirely. Two University of Miami marketing experts, Juliano Laran and Anthony Salerno, are now offering a new and provocative idea about why Americans make poor food choices, along with some preliminary evidence to back it up. They contend that the news we're exposed to every day, specifically information about the economic crisis, adversity, and struggle in a harsh world, is triggering a live-for-today mindset that makes us shortsighted about diet. For reasons rooted deep in our evolutionary past, living in a harsh world makes us focus on immediate reproductive success, which makes us fiercely competitive for scarce resources. This sense of immediacy makes us dismiss the future and focus on the here and now, including a filling diet rich in calories. Once adaptive, this life strategy leads, in modern-day America, to too many French fries and helpings of chocolate mocha ice cream.
At least that's the theory, which the psychological scientists tested in a few experiments. In the first one they invited passers-by to join in a taste test for a new kind of M&M. Half the volunteers were given a bowl full of this new candy and were told that the secret ingredient in the new M&Ms was a new, high-calorie chocolate. The others, the controls, also got a bowl of M&Ms, but they were told that the new chocolate was low-calorie. All the volunteers were told that they could sample the product until the next part of the study.
This was a ruse. The scientists were actually measuring their consumption. But during this waiting period, some read a text that emphasized harshness and deprivation, with words like "survival," "persistence," "shortfall," and "adversity." The controls read a text with neutral words. The idea was that those who were subconsciously primed to think about scarcity and struggle would eat more if they were offered high-calorie food, more than if they were offered a low-calorie option. And they did. And as reported in a forthcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, they also ate more of the high-calorie candy than did controls, and less of the low-calorie candy. In other words, they were responding to their (perceived) world of deprivation by packing away the calories.
M&Ms will certainly make you obese if you eat enough of them. But isn't it possible that chocolate eaters are simply seeking pleasure, indulging themselves rather than coping with a scarcity of food? The scientists wanted to make sure that the high-calorie eating was related to perceived deprivation rather than mere indulgence, a possibility they addressed in a second study. They again primed some volunteers to think about a harsh world of scarce resources, while others were primed to think about comfort, enjoyment, pleasure, and indulgence. Then half the volunteers in each group were given a small amount of money, which was intended to satisfy their psychological need for resources and thus diminish their calorie seeking.
The scientists tested this by offering all the volunteers a choice between a garden salad and cupcakes. As predicted, those primed for a harsh world were less likely to choose cake if they were given monetary resources than if they were not, suggesting that they didn't need the calories to cope with deprivation. Those primed for pleasure seeking were, like the controls, just as likely to take the cake if they had been paid or not. In short, the deep psychic need for scarce resources is altogether different from mere indulgence in taste. Even a tiny amount of money appears to decrease calorie seeking.
So is there a way to put these findings to good use, to deliberately decrease calorie seeking? Perhaps so. In a final experiment Laran and Salerno tried to reverse the short-sightedness that leads to high-calorie eating. They again primed only some volunteers to think about scarcity. Then they used a second kind of priming to make some of these scarcity-minded volunteers, and some controls, focus on the slow passage of time; others were primed to think about the rapid passage of time. The idea was that taking the long view of time would undo the sense of urgency leading to unhealthful eating.
And that's what they found. When offered a choice of salad or a cheese-and-turkey sandwich, the scarcity-minded volunteers opted for the high-calorie sandwich only when mindful of fleeting time. If they were primed to think of time as slow and plentiful, they were much less likely to opt for the immediate calories, and more apt to eat salad. Looked at another way, reorienting people's distorted sense of time and urgency is a strategy that appears to help them make healthful food choices.
The world can seem like a competitive and unforgiving place these days, with so many people out of work and the economy struggling. All Americans have to do is turn on the TV to get daily reminders of the world's cruelty and suffering. While it's not clear just how these findings might translate into strategies to undo this unrelenting daily priming, these findings suggests that it may not be enough to simply inform people about the calories and nutrition in this or that food and expect them to make disciplined food choices.
Follow Wray Herbert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wrayherbert
America is not fat because of the types of foods they are eating. We face this epidemic because we eat too much -- we are distracted by how much our body is truly 'calling' us to eat.
Maybe they like the taste of them? Wild and crazy thought.
The reason we have that psychological response is that it helped people survive when there was real scarcity in the distant past. That response is inappropriate in today's world when we have abundance instead of scarcity. The result is obesity. That's the theory anyway.
What more likely was confirmed here was, that reality is what you perceive reality to be. And thus, the brain is only acting upon that perceived reality. That reaction might have been a rise in the subject's level of the stress hormone cortisol, based upon the types of controls that were used in the study. Cortisol tells your body to store more calories. But whatever the reason, if they can manufacture an impulse control disease in society by using research and neuroscience in order to increase sales, well guess what? They will.
Also consider, we are living in a culture of manufactured reality. One where, reality TV can become all the rage. And, part and parcel, is the sophisticated marketing and advertising that has aided in the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces. A sort of crack capitalism that is hell bent on selling you their brand of reality without regard to any of the neurobehavioral fallouts that might occur.
Synergistically working together are the following: Food Inc., media- who controls the memes, politics and it's propaganda techniques, along with similar types of marketing research described in this article. Together, these forces who are motivated by greed, aren't concerned with the byproduct of diabesity.