Meat, traditionally associated with bloodthirstiness and aggression, may actually have a calming effect, according to a new Canadian study that measured the psychological response of men to images of meat. McGill University researchers initially hypothesized that aggression would increase at the sight of meat, in accordance with an evolutionary point of view that links food with hunting and protective instincts.
Yet their experiment on the subject, which involved gauging the reactions of 82 men to various photographs of meat, found the opposite: The men became less aggressive at the sight of meat.
The results of the study, released yesterday, turn on its head accepted research saying that just looking at an object that has been associated with violence, such as a gun, can make someone more likely to behave aggressively.
"I wanted to know if we might respond aggressively to certain stimuli in our environment not because of learned associations, but because of an innate predisposition," said Frank Kachanoff, a researcher with McGill's psychology department. "I wanted to know if just looking at the meat would suffice to provoke an aggressive behaviour."
Researchers asked 82 men to sort photos -- some were given images of meat that was ready to eat while others had more neutral images -- as actors read from a script. Every time an actor made a mistake, the men were told to "punish" the actor by raising various volumes of sound, the highest levels believed by the subjects to be painful.
The results showed that men were less likely to attempt to inflict pain on the reader if they were looking at an image of meat while the mistake was made.
Mr. Kachanoff said our ancestors' survival instincts might have helped develop a calmer attitude around the family dinner table.
"It wouldn't be advantageous to be aggressive anymore because you would've already used your aggression to acquire the meat, and furthermore, you'd be surrounded by people who share ... your DNA.
"One of the basic principles in evolution is to want to preserve not only your DNA, but also that of your next of kin," he said.
He said it's difficult to say what practical applications could result from the study's findings. Before speculating, he would like to see similar results replicated with other variables thrown in, possibly using images of whole animals -- dead or alive -- rather than those of meat that is almost ready for consumption. As well, he said, he would like to see what would happen if women were tested and whether they would be targets of the aggression.
"It would be great if there are stimuli that would make someone less likely to aggress," Mr. Kachanoff said.
Bruce Friedrich, vice-president of policy for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), called the study's results "interesting."
"Clearly, eating meat does support horrible violence, but apparently somebody seeing meat that is not directly relatable to the animal does not cause people to become more aggressive," he said.
He speculated that the study revealed a Pavlovian response that partially simulated the physiological effects of eating meat, such as slower cognitive functions and blood flow.
That might be a valid point, Mr. Kachanoff said, adding that his group tried to account for it by having some vegetarians in the test group, and no major differences were found in their responses.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/soothed+sight+meat+study+finds/3797967/story.html
Yet their experiment on the subject, which involved gauging the reactions of 82 men to various photographs of meat, found the opposite: The men became less aggressive at the sight of meat. The results of the study, released yesterday, turn on its head accepted research saying that just looking at an object that has been associated with violence, such as a gun, can make someone more likely to behave aggressively.
"I wanted to know if we might respond aggressively to certain stimuli in our environment not because of learned associations, but because of an innate predisposition," said Frank Kachanoff, a researcher with McGill's psychology department. "I wanted to know if just looking at the meat would suffice to provoke an aggressive behaviour."
Researchers asked 82 men to sort photos -- some were given images of meat that was ready to eat while others had more neutral images -- as actors read from a script. Every time an actor made a mistake, the men were told to "punish" the actor by raising various volumes of sound, the highest levels believed by the subjects to be painful.
The results showed that men were less likely to attempt to inflict pain on the reader if they were looking at an image of meat while the mistake was made.
Mr. Kachanoff said our ancestors' survival instincts might have helped develop a calmer attitude around the family dinner table. "It wouldn't be advantageous to be aggressive anymore because you would've already used your aggression to acquire the meat, and furthermore, you'd be surrounded by people who share ... your DNA.
"One of the basic principles in evolution is to want to preserve not only your DNA, but also that of your next of kin," he said.
He said it's difficult to say what practical applications could result from the study's findings. Before speculating, he would like to see similar results replicated with other variables thrown in, possibly using images of whole animals -- dead or alive -- rather than those of meat that is almost ready for consumption. As well, he said, he would like to see what would happen if women were tested and whether they would be targets of the aggression.
"It would be great if there are stimuli that would make someone less likely to aggress," Mr. Kachanoff said.
"Clearly, eating meat does support horrible violence, but apparently somebody seeing meat that is not directly relatable to the animal does not cause people to become more aggressive," he said.
He speculated that the study revealed a Pavlovian response that partially simulated the physiological effects of eating meat, such as slower cognitive functions and blood flow.
That might be a valid point, Mr. Kachanoff said, adding that his group tried to account for it by having some vegetarians in the test group, and no major differences were found in their responses.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/soothed+sight+meat+study+finds/3797967/story.html
Pfff I doubt women would become more aggressive by looking at pictures of meat, maybe if they were hungry enough...
ReplyDeleteAnd ew imaging having to look at 'whole animals - dead or alive', that's disgusting. However overall interesting article choice Zsof, well done!
jus lookin at those pictures made me soo hungry i had run downstairs and fry me up a steak!
ReplyDeleteand i was extremly soothed by the way...