Evolutionary Explanations for Food Preferences (AQA A Level Psychology)
Revision Note
Written by: Laura Swash
Reviewed by: Lucy Vinson
Evolutionary preferences for sweet, salt, fat
Evolutionary psychology argues that human behaviour reflects the evolutionary history of the species and how humans have dealt with adaptive problems such as avoiding predators and finding and eating the right types of food for survival
Human ancestors survived in the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA) where it made sense to develop individual food preferences for foods that gave the best chance of the survival of the species
Individuals with preferences for foods that gave more chance of survival would be more able to live to sexual maturity, reproduce and pass on their food preferences to their children
Human ancestors faced an unpredictable food supply, the threat of starvation, and a high need to store energy
Therefore, human ancestors’ preferred foods would be energy-dense non-poisonous food, such as sweet foods, fatty foods and salty foods
Sweet foods:
Sweet foods such as ripe fruit contain many calories and provide an easily accessible source of energy
Sweet foods are rarely poisonous so they would be perceived as safe to eat, while sour or bitter foods may be toxic (Simmen and Hladik, 1998)
Fatty foods
Foods that are high in fat are energy-dense, containing a high number of calories and releasing a lot of energy
Meat is high in fat and calories, allowing humans to survive for the long time there may be between one animal kill and another
Once fire was discovered, meat could be cooked or smoked to preserve it, make it easier to eat and destroy any harmful bacteria
Salty foods
Salt is important for conducting nerve impulses, contracting and relaxing muscles, and maintaining the proper balance of water and minerals
The concentration of salt in the blood must remain at a specific level and regularly needs topping up, as small amounts of salt are lost through sweat and the action of the kidneys
Preference and avoidance aid survival and are therefore inherited and become common behaviours that have lasted until the present day
Evolutionary psychologists explain our current preference for sweet, fatty and salty food, such as highly-processed fast food, as an evolutionary adaptation that now has a mis-match with our environment, as we are more sedentary and have less need for energy-dense food (Krebs, 2009)
Preference for fatty and sweet foods is an evolutionary adaptation that is no longer useful.
Neophobia & taste aversion
Neophobia is an innate tendency to avoid new or unfamiliar foods
Thus neophobia has a protective function as unknown foods could be toxic and it is better to go hungry than to die
Neophobia is found in babies as they move on from milk to solid food and this is when the evolutionary preference for sweet and salty foods can become obvious, as they will usually prefer these (Birch, 1998)
Neophobia may lead to toddlers refusing to eat foods that are new to them in favour of the foods they are used to
However, the neophobic reaction to new food will reduce with repeated exposure to the food and once a child gets used to the taste (Birch, 1998)
Taste aversion occurs when an individual becomes ill after eating a certain food, resulting in them avoiding that food in the future because they associate it with being ill
Taste aversion happens even if the individual knows it was not the food that made them ill and even if they became ill only once after eating it
Environmental psychologists explain taste aversion as biological preparedness, which entails being biologically predisposed through evolution to learn through experience to avoid foodstuffs that make us ill, as this has an adaptive survival value
Neophobia starts when babies begin to eat solid foods.
Research which investigates evolutionary explanations for food preferences
Bernstein & Webster (1980) investigated taste aversion in humans and found that adults given ice cream before receiving chemotherapy developed a taste aversion to eating ice cream as they had a biological preparedness to associate their nausea with the food they had eaten rather than the chemotherapy that had actually caused the nausea
Steiner (1987) showed that newborn babies’ facial expressions indicate pleasure over a sweet taste and disgust for a bitter taste, suggesting that this preference is innate rather than learned
Knaapila et al (2007) conducted a twin study and found that, using a standardised questionnaire to measure neophobia, the heritability of this behaviour was 67 per cent, supporting the evolutionary explanation that neophobia evolved from early humans because it protected them from eating harmful foods
Examiner Tips and Tricks
When describing evolutionary explanations for eating behaviour, remember to explain why the foods we eat now would be adaptive to our ancestors within the EEA. Also explain how and why neophobia and taste aversion are useful evolutionary adaptations, making sure to link past and present.
Evaluation of evolutionary explanations for food preferences
Strengths
The fact that there are only two taste receptors for sweet tastes but 27 for bitter tastes suggests an evolutionarily determined need to avoid bitter-tasting toxic foods
The idea of an evolutionarily determined preference for sweet tastes is supported by cross-cultural evidence using research on the Inuit people, who, although they had never tasted sweet food before, accepted it immediately (Bell, 1973)
Weaknesses
There are individual differences in taste experience, with some people more/less sensitive to bitterness and also taste for salty and sweet foods can be highly personal, which does not support the evolutionary explanation
Evolutionary explanations for food preferences, neophobia and taste aversion cannot explain cultural differences in food preferences and avoidance
Link to Issues & Debates:
Evolutionary explanations for food preferences are an example of biological determinism. They are also an example of hard determinism, as none of the explanations for preferences, neophobia or taste aversion allow any room for free will.
The evolutionary explanations are an example of biological reductionism, as they reduce the complexity of eating behaviour to an evolutionary adaptation, without considering the meaning of food in different societies and cultures, in a more holistic approach.
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?