User:Seraphimeon/sandbox

Psychology of Human Food Sharing

Food has a unique and significant effect on sharing, from its features to the influence of hunger. Food is one of the most universally shared resources with a rich historical importance from hunter-gatherer societies. Current literature is lacking but some of the main theories that relate to sharing are; evolutionary explanations, social exchange theory, genuine altruism, social norms and the social identity approach.

Psychological Theories

There are several different mainstream theories for sharing, combining some may provide a more comprehensive explanation of food sharing.

Evolutionary explanations

Evolutionary models propose sharing behaviours are due to psychological adaptations shaped by evolution to aid survival and the continuation of genes, linking the behaviours of other primates and hunter-gatherer societies as evidence. Major evolutionary theories underpinning sharing are kin selection, tolerated theft, and reciprocal altruism (Dawkins, 1976).

Kin selection involves devotion to one's biological relatives (e.g., preferential sharing) as this ensures gene survival (Gurven, 2004; Jaeggi & Gurven, 2013). This suggests a potential biological instinct for parental sharing with their children in addition to an explicit motivation. Though this appears to only explain sharing in families, some evolutionary psychologists suggest kin selection may predispose ethnic ingroup favouritism and thus bias sharing (Myers et al., 2021, p. 398).

Tolerated theft is passively sharing by allowing others to take resources and occurs when the cost of defence is higher than the value of keeping or using all the resource (Gurven, 2004; Jaeggi & Gurven, 2013). This is common with food and is often directed at friends or family (Hallers-Haalboom et al., 2023).

Reciprocal altruism suggests individuals share or help others because they expect the same in return; a mechanism designed to facilitate cooperation. Reciprocity can explain sharing with unrelated individuals if they expect returns to eventually outweigh costs of initial sharing (Gurven, 2004). A return may not be physical as gaining trust and providing information about oneself through a prosocial act may be more beneficial than any materials exchange (Bird et al., 2018).

More recent theories emphasise the significance of sharing as a signal of cooperative intent and commitment to potential mates, co-operation partners, and even competitors (Jaeggi & Gurven, 2013; Bird et al., 2018). A study of male sharing on female attraction found donating a costly amount of money (£30) to a homeless man increasing ratings of attractiveness and long-term mate preferences regardless of descriptions of the men's wealth (Iredale et al., 2020). This supports the assertion sharing is an important signal for social relationships.

These evolutionary theories cannot explain sharing when individuals know they will not eventually benefit in some way. Strong reciprocity attempts to do this by suggesting some individuals show altruistic tendencies despite personal costs to protect groups from threats and sustain cooperation (Gintis, 2000). This evolutionary adaptation has shaped common notions of fairness, equity, and punishment and thus attitudes to sharing throughout history.

Lots of evolutionary theories and research are based on studies of non-human primate sharing as well as human, it is important to remember there are significant differences. Chimpanzees and bonobos (closest evolutionary relatives of humans) tend to monopolise and compete for resources whenever possible, meanwhile even 3-year-old human children easily initiate sharing, especially after collaborating on a task (Warneken et al., 2010).

Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory suggests behaviour, including decisions around sharing, are based on cost-benefit calculations. The monitoring of such costs and benefits do not have to be conscious to influence behaviour. Rewards may be external, for example through reciprocity (Gurven, 2004), attracting a partner (Iredale et al., 2020), and maintaining a positive reputation (Bird et al., 2018). Or internal, such as by reducing negative feelings like guilt and distress (van Rijn et al., 2019) and increasing positive feelings like happiness and pride (Paulus & Moore, 2016).

Genuine altruism

Genuine altruism suggests individuals share and help others for selfless reasons of wanting to benefit another person, without expectations to benefit personally (Feigin et al., 2014). This is often motivated by empathy but empathy can be influenced by the attributed cause of need (attribution theory). Zagefka et al. (2011) found more monetary donations were offered when crisis was due to natural events rather than victims. Empathic concern may be a greater motivation for sharing behaviours in females than men (van Rijn et al., 2019). It can be very difficult to disentangle self-serving and selfless motivations when the emotions of individuals affect each other and relationships, research that has attempted this has used a multilevel approach, manipulating several variables like aversive arousal, social evaluation, and rewards (Penner. et al., 2005).

Social norms

Social norms influence sharing by making norms into moral obligations and unconscious habits. The expectations of society surround individuals from childhood, explicitly and implicitly labelling what behaviours are perceived as generous, rude, or stingy in which circumstances (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Thus, sharing is influenced by the desires to maintain a positive reputation and feel morally correct. Two social norms suggested by researchers to motivate altruism and sharing are the reciprocity and social responsibility norms (Myers et al., 2021, p. 391).

The reciprocity norm is the expectation that people will help those who have helped them. For example friends reciprocate gifts more frequently than non-friends due to stronger norms of sharing and reciprocity among friends (Fujisawa et al., 2008).

The Social responsibility norm is the expectation that people will help (and share with) those who need it. Making social responsibility norms and moral obligations salient can induce others to share (Bicchieri & Chavez, 2010; Brañas-Garza, 2007).

People often try and promote sharing by strategically raising attention to specific norms through moral displays (Petersen et al., 2013). Although, grand gestures may fail to promote sharing and even damage one's reputation of trustworthiness and cooperativeness if perceived as prestige enhancing (Bird et al., 2018). This reduces occasions in which norms displayed by individuals, and especially companies, impact peoples' attitudes and behaviours around sharing.

Social identity approach

Norms can vary significantly between groups. The Social identity approach suggests people identify with numerous social groups which makes up their social identity, the tendency to unconsciously categorise themselves and others into social groups, favouring in-group over out-group members, often leads to stereotyping (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Children prefer sharing resources with those with similar preferences, but by 5-years they prioritise group membership in their own sharing behaviours and evaluations of others' sharing (Yang & Park, 2022). A more ecologically valid study by Uğurlar et al. (2023) examined the effect of naturally occurring mixed-group memberships rather than just arbitrarily assigned groups and found that sharing and cooperation increased with the number of group memberships. However, individuals have free will. The influence of norms and group memberships on actual sharing behaviour may be overstated since studies that test attitudes to sharing may just be measuring outward compliance. Gächter et al. (2017) found peers had a strong effect on what was perceived as fair but no influence on actual behaviour. The tendency to surround oneself with like-minded individuals who reinforce expectations and beliefs (Malti et al., 2021; McDonald et al., 2013) may also contribute to a more consistent set of internalised sharing tendencies that is not so easily influenced by others.

Food Sharing

Food is a crucial resource for survival but also eaten for pleasure, making it one of the most common cross-cultural manifestations of not just sharing but pro-social behaviour (Bird et al., 2018). Sorokowska et al. (2021) theorized that it should be easier to share food than other possessions because of its necessity for survival (people tend to self-sacrifice in non-monetary contexts if helping others in need) and because excess food has significantly less value (cost is low to share when you have too much food but may have high value to recipient).

Sorokowska et al. (2021) conducted natural experiments to test this and found that in multiple contexts the likelihood of sharing food was higher than money or other objects. However, the authors acknowledge that such differences in generosity may be due to another variable such as the marginal value (low value to owner, high value to receiver) or perceived urgency of object, rather than edibility. Natural experiments have higher ecological validity but less control over variables, the specificity of situations may unexpectedly influence outcomes. For example, one of the study scenarios included a confederate acting as a poor man asking for food or money. Willingness to share with individuals perceived as homeless may be lower due to negative stereotypes and desensitisation (Canham et al., 2021).

Other studies have found contrasting results. Warneken et al. (2010) showed that food (gummy bears) was equally distributed more often than non-edible rewards (stickers) by children. In contrast, Sorokowski et al. (2017) found money, food, and small, daily life objects were equally likely to be shared with an unknown partner by Polish and Tsimane’ people (Amazonian society). The cultures surrounding markets differ significantly between these groups so the results suggest generosity may not be influenced by the type of resource across cultures. However, both studies used economic games in which objects and food were arbitrarily assigned to participants, reducing their ecological validity and ability to generalise sharing of possessions. The inconsistencies in findings make it unclear whether food is a resource more generously shared and requires further research.

Hunger & Sharing

Hunger and low energy (including low blood glucose levels) has been linked to decreased self-control and impulse inhibition which is known to affect social behaviours and cognitions like prejudice, impression management, relationship maintenance, spending, and consumption (Gailliot & Baumeister, 2007; Hagger et al., 2010). These guide decisions on when individuals feel willing to share and who with. Higher blood glucose levels result in higher value being placed on future rewards while lower blood glucose levels result in more value being placed on current rewards (Wang & Dvorak, 2010). This adaptive mechanism shapes sharing behaviours using metabolic cues. A common use of sharing is to collaborate, increase goodwill, and signal friendliness, these often require the ability to consider the future and use long-term planning. Reduced self-control and future consideration result in behaviours associated with greed, but societies across the world have utilised peaceful food sharing practices and exchanges throughout history despite times of food scarcity (Gurven, 2004).

Petersen et al. (2013) hypothesised that both antisocial behaviours associated with greed and calls for active sharing would be displayed by hungry individuals as strategies that co-exist to obtain resources from others. They conducted a study on the effects of short-term hunger and found even the difference between before and after lunch can affect sharing. Hungry individuals verbally signalled support for sharing, to present themselves as more co-operative, while actually taking more and being less willing to share money. This extends to wider societal contexts such as political beliefs. Petersen et al. (2013) showed hunger increased supportiveness of social welfare and positive attitudes towards recipients, but only superficially as participants were unwilling to share real money. This is consistent with wider literature that depleted energy (low blood glucose) generally reduces willingness to help and share resources as self-regulating conflicting selfish and prosocial motivations is a metabolically expensive process (DeWall et al., 2008; Briers et al., 2006).

Additionally, desire for money may influence feelings of hunger (Briers et al., 2006). This indicates the complexity of sharing behaviour and the interacting effects of biological and environmental factors that unconsciously shape an individual’s self-control, long-term considerations, social judgements, and context-specific expectations for sharing behaviour.

Conclusion

Sharing is a type of prosocial behaviour that can be altruistic, obligatory, or a means of social attraction and collaboration. Food uniquely influences sharing behaviour through hunger as well as its cultural, biological, evolutionary and practical features. The cognitions, emotions, and behaviours around sharing are influenced by a variety of factors which evolutionary explanations, social exchange theory, genuine altruism, social norms and the social identity approach attempt to explain. Current literature on the psychological processes behind food sharing, unlike the sharing of other resources, is lacking and would benefit from a more unified theory.

References

Bicchieri, C., & Chavez, A. (2010). Behaving as expected: Public information and fairness norms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.648

Bird, R. B., Ready, E., & Power, E. A. (2018). The social significance of subtle signals. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(7), 452–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0298-3

Brañas-Garza, P. (2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.10.001

Briers, B., Pandelaere, M., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2006). Hungry for Money: The Desire for Caloric Resources Increases the Desire for Financial Resources and Vice Versa. Psychological Science, 17(11), 939–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01808.x

Canham, S. L., Moore, P., Custodio, K., & Bosma, H. (2021). Homeism: Naming the Stigmatization and Discrimination of Persons Experiencing Homelessness. Housing, Theory and Society, 39(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2021.2014558

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Depletion Makes the Heart Grow Less Helpful: Helping as a Function of Self-Regulatory Energy and Genetic Relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1653–1662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208323981

Feigin, S., Owens, G., & Goodyear-Smith, F. (2014). Theories of human altruism: a systematic review. Journal of Psychiatry and Brain Functions, 1(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.7243/2055-3447-1-5

Fujisawa, K. K., Kutsukake, N., & Hasegawa, T. (2008). Reciprocity of prosocial behavior in Japanese preschool children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407084055

Gächter, S., Gerhards, L., & Nosenzo, D. (2017). The importance of peers for compliance with norms of fair sharing. European Economic Review, 97, 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.06.001

Gailliot, M. T., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). The Physiology of Willpower: Linking Blood Glucose to Self-Control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307303030

Gintis, H. (2000). Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111

Gurven, M. (2004). To give and to give not: The behavioral ecology of human food transfers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x04000123

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486

Hallers-Haalboom, E. T., Vermande, M. M., van Leeuwen, E. J. C., & Sterck, E. H. M. (2023). Food sharing with friends and acquaintances: A study in preschool boys and girls. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1130632

Iredale, W., Jenner, K., Van Vugt, M., & Dempster, T. (2020). Giving Guys Get the Girls: Men Appear More Desirable to the Opposite Sex When Displaying Costly Donations to the Homeless. Social Sciences, 9(8), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9080141

Jaeggi, A. V., & Gurven, M. (2013). Natural cooperators: Food sharing in humans and other primates. Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews, 22(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21364

Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An Explication of Social Norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x

Malti, T., Galarneau, E., & Peplak, J. (2021). Moral Development in Adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1097–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12639

McDonald, K. L., Malti, T., Killen, M., & Rubin, K. H. (2013). Best Friends’ Discussions of Social Dilemmas. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9961-1

Myers, D., Abell, J., & Sani, F. (2021). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.

Paulus, M., & Moore, C. (2016). Preschoolers’ generosity increases with understanding of the affective benefits of sharing. Developmental Science, 20(3), e12417. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12417

Penner., L. A., Dovidio., J. F., Piliavin., J. A., & Schroeder., D. A. (2005). Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141

Petersen, M. B., Aarøe, L., Jensen, N. H., & Curry, O. (2013). Social Welfare and the Psychology of Food Sharing: Short-Term Hunger Increases Support for Social Welfare. Political Psychology, 35(6), 757–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12062

Sorokowska, A., Marczak, M., Misiak, M., Oleszkiewicz, A., Niemczyk, A., Wróbel, M., & Sorokowski, P. (2021). Humans tend to share food more generously than money and other objects: Preliminary evidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2747

Sorokowski, P., Oleszkiewicz, A., Niemczyk, A., Marczak, M., Huanca, T., Velasco, E. C., & Sorokowska, A. (2017). Money, Food, and Daily Life Objects Are Similarly Shared in the Dictator Game. A Study among Poles and Tsimane’. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00554

Uğurlar, P., Dorrough, A. R., Isler, O., & Yilmaz, O. (2023). Shared Group Memberships Mitigate Intergroup Bias in Cooperation. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231209788

van Rijn, J., Quiñones, E. J., & Barham, B. L. (2019). Empathic concern for children and the gender-donations gap. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 82, 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101462

Wang, X. T., & Dvorak, R. D. (2010). Sweet Future: Fluctuating Blood Glucose Levels Affect Future Discounting. Psychological Science, 21(2), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609358096

Warneken, F., Lohse, K., Melis, A. P., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young Children Share the Spoils After Collaboration. Psychological Science, 22(2), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610395392

Yang, L., & Park, Y. (2022). Group Membership Trumps Shared Preference in Five-Year-Olds’ Resource Allocation, Social Preference, and Social Evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866966

Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., de Moura, G. R., & Hopthrow, T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.781