Chew on this: How we believe our meat is raised can influence how it tastes

Our beliefs about how farm ani­mals are raised can shape our meat-eating expe­ri­ence, according to a new study led by Lisa Feldman Bar­rett, Uni­ver­sity Dis­tin­guished Pro­fessor of Psy­chology at North­eastern University.

For the study, Bar­rett and co-author Eric Anderson, PhD’15, paired iden­tical meat sam­ples with dif­ferent descrip­tions and then reported on par­tic­i­pants’ eating expe­ri­ences. They found that meat sam­ples paired with descrip­tions of ani­mals raised on fac­tory farms looked, smelled, and tasted less pleasant to study par­tic­i­pants than meat sam­ples paired with descrip­tions of ani­mals raised on humane farms. Par­tic­i­pants’ beliefs also influ­enced their per­ceived flavor of the meat and the amount of meat they con­sumed, sug­gesting that beliefs can actu­ally influ­ence eating behavior.

The find­ings, pub­lished Wednesday in the sci­en­tific journal PLoS ONE, align with an emerging body of research that shows that our beliefs can influ­ence how we eval­uate food. Wine, for instance, tastes better if we think it’s expen­sive—even if the fine vin­tage we’ve been told we’re drinking is really a cheap knock-off from a corner store.

We show that what you feel very directly influ­ences not only how you inter­pret what you see but also very lit­er­ally what you see,” said Bar­rett, a pio­neer in the psy­chology of emo­tion and the director of Northeastern’s Inter­dis­ci­pli­nary Affec­tive Sci­ence Lab­o­ra­tory. “We call this ‘affec­tive realism’—the ten­dency of your feel­ings to influ­ence the actual con­tent of your per­cep­tual expe­ri­ence.” The find­ings, she said, sug­gest that anyone inter­ested in cre­ating things, from a chef to a film­maker to a designer, “should con­sider how beliefs influ­ence the user experience.”

Bar­rett and Anderson hypoth­e­sized that believing meat came from ani­mals that suf­fered would reduce the pleas­ant­ness of the eating expe­ri­ence as well as product con­sump­tion. The theory is based on a con­cept called grounded cog­ni­tion, which defines beliefs as instances of con­cep­tual knowl­edge that include affec­tive and sen­sory neural rep­re­sen­ta­tions. As the researchers noted in the paper, “beliefs that meat came from ani­mals that suf­fered would be rep­re­sented, in part, in regions of the brain that are asso­ci­ated with embodied sim­u­la­tion of ani­mals’ experience.”

To test their hypoth­esis, the researchers designed three dif­ferent exper­i­ments. For the first exper­i­ment, study par­tic­i­pants were asked to con­sume two iden­tical sam­ples of organic beef jerky, each of which was paired with a dif­ferent label describing a dif­ferent kind of farm on which cows were raised. The “humane farm” label described a farm where ani­mals lived freely, grazing out­doors. The “fac­tory farm” label described a farm where ani­mals were more like pris­oners, con­fined to indoor pens.

The researchers found that study par­tic­i­pants ranked the fac­tory farmed meat sample as less pleasant along all mea­sured con­sump­tion cat­e­gories, including appear­ance, smell, taste, and overall enjoy­ment. Par­tic­i­pants were willing to pay 22 per­cent less for a six-ounce package of the fac­tory farmed jerky com­pared to the humanely farmed jerky and con­sumed 8 per­cent less as well, showing, the researchers wrote, “that implicit con­sump­tion behavior was also influ­enced by beliefs.”

The second exper­i­ment was sim­ilar to the first, with a few key dif­fer­ences. This time, each study par­tic­i­pant sam­pled only one of four iden­tical roast beef sam­ples, each of which was paired with a newly cre­ated descrip­tion. To test whether the fac­tory farm label reduced enjoy­ment or the humane farm label increased enjoy­ment, they added a con­trol descrip­tion that did not men­tion how the ani­mals were raised. They also revised the orig­inal fac­tory farm and humane farm descrip­tions to focus on their dif­fer­ences with respect to animal wel­fare and added a so-called fac­tory farm+ descrip­tion that high­lighted the advan­tages of fac­tory farming to test whether it would offset the effects of animal suffering.

The results showed that posi­tioning fac­tory farms in a pos­i­tive light did not increase par­tic­i­pants’ enjoy­ment of the sample, as meat paired with the fac­tory farm+ descrip­tion was not more well liked than the meat paired with the gen­eral fac­tory farm descrip­tion. This experiment’s other big finding—beef paired with the humane farm descrip­tion and the con­trol descrip­tion were equally liked—suggested that the humane farm descrip­tion did not increase liking, but rather that the fac­tory farm descrip­tion reduced liking.

 

 Beliefs are really pow­erful. Words are really pow­erful. They influ­ence what you do, often in sur­prising ways.”
— Lisa Feldman Barrett

We were largely hypoth­e­sizing that labeling some­thing as raised on a humane farm would improve taste and appear­ance and other char­ac­ter­is­tics of the meat sample,” Bar­rett said. “But what we found instead is that explic­itly labeling some­thing as fac­tory farmed harms the per­cep­tual qual­i­ties of the food.”

The third exper­i­ment tested whether beliefs about how ani­mals are raised can influ­ence basic sen­sory prop­er­ties of flavor, including per­ceived salti­ness and sweet­ness. For this exper­i­ment, study par­tic­i­pants were asked to con­sume three iden­tical slices of thickly cut deli ham. First, they tasted ham that was paired with no description—the con­trol con­di­tion. Then, in random order, they sam­pled ham paired with the fac­tory farm and humane farm descrip­tions, both of which were revised to include evoca­tive text and pic­tures of the animals.

The researchers found that the descrip­tions influ­enced the flavor rat­ings of the ham sample. In par­tic­ular, par­tic­i­pants reported that fac­tory farmed ham tasted saltier, greasier, and less fresh than humanely raised ham, rein­forcing the study’s under­lying premise that expe­ri­ence is shaped by beliefs. “Beliefs are really pow­erful. Words are really pow­erful,” Bar­rett said. “They influ­ence what you do, often in sur­prising ways.”

Up next: Bar­rett hopes to con­duct a sim­ilar study about non-mammals, including chickens, ducks, and tuna.


In the Know

Important news once a day. NASA to Nano. Medicine to Muons. Environment to Energy.

 
 


The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.