Looks Good Enough to Eat

Abstract

Food is central to cross-cultural studies of behavior, thought, and symbolism. The way it is presented to people, however, can have a dramatic influence on how palatable it is perceived and what is eaten. Because of this, issues of food plating and presentation are of applied interest to anyone who wishes to influence the perceptions and consumption of prepared food. This includes chefs, marketers, and parents. This study examines two questions: (a) What are these visual preferences of plating, and (b) How do they vary across cultures? To explore these questions, we presented a wide range of meal photos to adults from the United States, Italy, and Japan to assess preferences for various plating arrangements. Across six visual dimensions of food, there was a consistent preference for the number of colors on a plate (three), components on a plate (three to four) and the fill level of a plate; however, there were diverging preferences regarding the preferred position of the featured main course, how the items should be organized, and whether they should be casually presented. We discuss the implications of our findings for cross-cultural researchers as well as those who wish to influence the perceptions and food consumption of others.

Keywords

food preferences food plating presentation aesthetics chefs

Questions concerning food are universally central to the traditional pursuit of cross-cultural studies. In fact, our knowledge of how different groups of people procure, process, consume, and waste myriad food products is often the basis for our understanding of cultural variation. Indeed, the fact that introductory anthropology textbooks (e.g., Ember, Ember, & Peregrine, 2010; Kottak, 2007; Relethford, 2010) regularly identify entire types of human communities (e.g., hunter-gatherers) on the basis of their subsistence methods is evidence of food’s centrality to our analysis of human cultural variation.

Most generally, there are two main threads of cross-cultural research that are related to food. First, it has long been a staple of ethnographic projects to catalogue or describe the specific foods that people within and across different communities prefer to consume. Second, there is a tradition among cross-cultural analyses to use our understanding of food-related behavior as a lens or window for exploring social questions such as the evolution of cooperation (e.g., Boehm, 2008), the emergence of social complexity (e.g., Roscoe, 2006), the degree of cohesion within families (e.g., Poggie, 1995), and the division of labor among men and women (e.g., Marlowe, 2007).

For our part, we aim to provide descriptive findings of cross-cultural variation in food preferences while analyzing patterns related to the visual appearance of food within our sample of communities. Certainly, there is a broad range of media and styles through which people have traditionally presented food to each other; however, we focus on exploring preferences for “food design” among members of three industrialized societies. Most specifically, we focus on preferences for how food is arranged on traditional dining plates.

In this article, we juxtapose previous cross-cultural analyses of the structure of meals alongside laboratory and field experiments that have demonstrated the relevance of microenvironmental cues (e.g., plate size) in relation to food consumption. Against this backdrop, we present the results of a cross-cultural study of three industrialized populations through which we can compare and contrast preferences for food presentation on plates. While this fine-scale level of detail is not routinely featured in ethnographic cross-cultural studies, we aim to contribute to the study of cross-cultural variation—and commonality—with regard to a basic aspect of human relationships with food.

Cross-Cultural Studies of Contemporary Food Presentation

Cross-cultural researchers have commonly recognized that food is consumed along with heavy servings of symbolic meaning. In The Raw and The Cooked, for example, Levi-Strauss (1969) discusses similarities between the way that people process food and the way that people in preindustrial cultures, at least, process each other through ritualistic “cooking.” In one set of cases, Levi-Strauss describes societies where people were literally placed inside ovens where they were figuratively “cooked” as a means of progressing from recent milestones (e.g., childbirth; 1969, pp. 335-336).

In a structural analysis that is more focused on symbolic interaction with food, Douglas (1972) offers a starting point for cross-cultural studies of visual presentation in her essay “Deciphering a Meal.” Similar to Levi-Strauss, Douglas is keen to categorize different kinds of food and discuss their relationship with corresponding categories of social relationships. Douglas proposes, for example, that intimacy among people can be measured partly as a function of whether they have (a) shared drinks, (b) shared cold food in a host’s home, and (c) shared warm or hot food in a host’s home. The presumption in this approach to studying food is that a drink, for example, is more than simply a physical liquid with a specific caloric content.

Building on Douglas’ original essay, researchers with interest in food consumption in contemporary cultures have worked to establish what constitutes a “proper meal.” Douglas and Nicod (1974), for example, analyzed the structure of British working-class meals and found clear patterns whereby it was important whether the meal was hot or cold, wet or dry, and savory or sweet. More recently, Murcott (1982, 1983, 1986) has found that a proper meal in Wales is popularly conceptualized to include variations on the theme of (a) cooked meat and (b) two vegetables, at least one of which is green, and (c) a finish of gravy that integrates the dish’s other components. Among Swedes, researchers (Ekstrom, 1990; Prättälä, 2000) have found that a proper meal is comprised of four elements: a main component that is usually animal protein; a primary side dish that serves as the meal’s starchy base; a secondary side dish that consists of vegetables; and “extra” sides that include more vegetables or different condiments.

Looking to other parts of the world, researchers have found that a proper meal often consists of more than one “course.” In Italy, for example, an everyday meal consists of a first course that is usually pasta and a second course that consists of meat or fish along with a side dish of vegetables. Similarly, in China, the proper evening meal consists of (a) a vegetable dish along with (b) rice or noodles and (c) several meat or meat-and-vegetable dishes as well as (d) one or two soups (Newman, 2000).

Among the Japanese, the lunch box (Bento) is popularly conceptualized as the most proper meal since it is intended to gather together familiar, everyday foods according to the season, and enhance their joint appeal (Ekuan, 1998). Ideal lunch boxes, which are organized in variable shapes with red, white, and green colors, are imagined to include food items from the sea and from the mountains; food that is boiled, fried, and sautéed; and, condiments that are sweet, spicy, and sour. On average, a lunch box contains five or six types of food in four squares and tends to present consumers with approximately 20 to 25 colors and flavors.

The Visual Relevance of Environmental Cues

Moving back from the specifics of food shape and color, it is clear and sensible that social relationships and food preferences interact with each other. It is just as clear that nation-based cultural communities are interactive and dynamic. In a study of soldiers who were in the U.S. army during World War II, for example, Wansink, Van Ittersum, and Werle (2009) find that veterans who were part of intense fighting in Asia returned from the war with lower preferences for food from the region compared with veterans who were not part of intense fighting. Similarly, Wansink (2002) observes that it was the successful outcome of U.S. participation in World War II in Europe that predated—and influenced—the popularity of Italian, French, and German foods in mainstream U.S. meals.

While World War II provides an illustration of the impact of experience on food preferences, there is a large body of research that has been conducted on the impact of more mundane experiences and environmental cues on people’s preferences for eating. Most generally, these researchers have found that people in contemporary industrialized societies, at least, do not tend to eat simply until their appetites are satisfied; instead, people appear to be significantly influenced by the size, shape, and visual appearance of the food that is presented to them (e.g., Wansink, Just, & Payne, 2009). The importance of these microenvironmental cues is underscored by the fact that people regularly underestimate the influence of traits such as package size when considering their own consumption patterns.

Research concerning the importance of environmental cues for eating has significance for increasing the consumption of healthy food just as it has relevance for food-related public health problems, such as obesity and anorexia. It should also help illuminate our understanding of cross-cultural preferences for food presentation. Given that most of the food that people consume in contemporary societies is presented through “intermediate containers” such as plates, bowls, or cups (Wansink, 1996), it is clear that environmental cues need to be central to any analysis of eating. In this vein, there is also a growing body of research that demonstrates a common preference for people to “mindlessly” eat (e.g., Wansink, 2006, 2010) if their environment permits them to consume more than their bodies require. To cite one example among many, if a random sample of people with random degrees of hunger is presented with variably sized buckets of popcorn, people who are given larger buckets of popcorn will eat more than people who are given smaller buckets (e.g., Wansink & Kim, 2005). As reviewed by Wansink (2006), the same pattern has been demonstrated for other popular foods, including cookies, potato chips, and chocolate candies.

Following on the French saying that “You taste first with your eyes,” one experiment that tested for the impact of visual environment on appetite helps make the connection between visual preferences and hunger. Specifically, a set of graduate students were invited to a Super Bowl party in a restaurant environment where they were offered free, unlimited chicken wings during the course of the National Football League’s annual championship game (Wansink, 2006, pp. 37-40). The independent variable, however, in Wansink’s experiment is that half of the tables were regularly cleaned by the restaurant’s waiters while the other set of tables were left uncleaned—and, consequently, they were left sitting with the remnants of their food consumption in front of them for the duration of the party. Predictably, if one accepts the importance of sight on food preferences, the group sitting at regularly cleaned tables ate significantly more than the group whose environment provided them with a consistent visual cue (i.e., chicken bones) that they had already eaten sufficient amounts of food to match their hunger. In this sense, we might modify the French saying to conclude that “you taste first, second, and last with your eyes.”

Pilot Study

There is no shortage of materials produced by popular culture concerning food. We drew on these kinds of materials from industrialized countries to develop a protocol for systematically comparing and contrasting preferences for the visual presentation of food across a sample of three cultures. Writing about the “plating styles” of seven selected chefs, Styler & Lazarus (2006), for example, describe interchef variation according to dimensions such as (a) the portion of the plate that is occupied by food versus the part that is left empty, (b) the degree to which ingredients are cooked or processed, and (c) the way in which different combinations of food yield different shapes.

Drawing on these kinds of popular representations of contemporary food design, we conducted a pilot study by asking 15 participants (13 females, 2 males) with an average age of 20 who were part of an undergraduate course at Cornell University to analyze and critique 100 pictures of professionally designed meals taken from a sample of the 10 top-selling magazines of 2009. Numbers were assigned to each picture and the enumerated pictures were randomly assigned in one of four sets of 25.

For each set of 25, participants were asked to (a) choose two pictures they liked, (b) choose two pictures they did not like, and (c) explain the reasons for their choices. Based on the responses that we gained through this pilot study, six common dimensions were identified along which the visual presentation of food appeared to vary:

Number and mixing of colors. The number of different colors in a dish that is visually more pleasing is considered.

Number of different components. The number of different types of food that is visually more pleasant is considered.

Position of the main component. The position of the main component on a round plate or an oval plate is considered. The main component is the item that represents the dish, such as a piece of meat or fish. This variable does not have any valence for dishes like stews or salads, where all of the ingredients are mixed together and where there is not a main item that stands out.

Crowded plate versus empty plate. This is the amount of food on the plate and how much of the plate surface should be covered by food to make the dish visually appealing. For this variable, the pictures represented dishes cooked by professional chefs that were plated to cover either the entire surface of the plate or only a small part of it.

Organized versus disorganized presentation. This is the relative position of all of the components on a plate. This variable also does not have any valence for dishes like stews or salads, where all of the ingredients are mixed together.

Figure design versus casual design. For this variable, we consider whether people have more hedonic responses with dishes that have been designed with a graphic reference or with a more casual arrangement of the ingredients. In a dish representing a figure design, food is used to create recognizable images such as faces, stylized animals, or natural elements.

Main Study

To explore the potential differences between Eastern and Western cultures, along with differences between the United States and Europe, we obtained samples from the United States, Italy, and Japan whom we solicited through targeted email requests. In the United States, we gained participation from 199 people who were students or employees at Cornell University. In Italy, we engaged 166 people who were students at the polytechnic university in Turin. And, in Japan, 204 subscribers to a Japanese newspaper web site were contacted by email and asked to participate in the survey. Among those who responded to our requests to participate, more than 90% completed the online survey. Participants were also offered the opportunity to win a cash award if they provided contact information on completion of the survey.

Our three samples were disproportionately comprised of females (with an average of 38% male participation); however, a G-test of independence found that the gender balance was consistent across samples—and not significantly different (G = .004, df = 2, p = .10). Likewise, each of our samples included representatives of eight age groups, starting with “16 to 20” and concluding with “65 or older.”

Procedure and Design

After agreeing to informed consent and answering basic demographic questions, participants in the survey were presented with a series of 24 web pages that featured variably organized plating arrangements. While each of the 24 web pages aimed to test different dimensions of preferences for food presentation, they commonly asked participants to choose “which of the plates do you find most aesthetically pleasing visually?” For 14 of the web pages, participants were asked to choose among a sample of images of professionally prepared food collected through Google Image searches while the other 10 web pages presented participants with variants of a single image for which we used Adobe Photoshop to alter the relative arrangement of plated items.

We operationalized each of the six visual dimensions of food presentation through subsets of the 24 web pages. In this section, we outline how we tested for preferences according to each of the dimensions:

Number and mixing of colors

Participants were presented a total of four web pages. Through one of the web pages, participants were asked to choose their favorite among a series of round plates that showed between one and six differently colored vegetables. And, through a complementary web page, participants were asked the same question for a series of round plates that showed between one and six differently colored fruits.

In addition, we presented participants with a web page that asked them to choose among three differently colored sets of mixed vegetables and another web page that asked them their favorite among three differently colored sets of mixed fruits. Through these web pages, we aimed to test whether preferences varied when differently colored items were mixed on a plate.

Number of different components

Participants were presented with two web pages that each showed an array of seven round plates. In one web page, participants were asked to choose their favorite from among plates with one through seven food elements of a traditional English breakfast (starting with eggs and gradually adding bacon, sausages, toast, tomatoes, mushrooms, and beans). In the other web page, participants were asked to choose their favorite from among plates with one through seven elements of another meal, starting with beef and gradually adding bread along with five different vegetables.

Position of the main component

Participants were presented with 6 web pages, half of which were on oval plates and half on round plates. We applied a set of three elements to both the oval and round plates and we used Adobe Photoshop to adjust the relative positioning of the three elements. In one pair of round and oval plates, we variably arranged rice, lamb chops, and mashed potatoes. In another pair of plates, we variably arranged broccoli, mashed potatoes, and a pork chop. And, in a third pair of plates, we variably arranged carrots, lasagna, and lettuce. More specifically, Figure 1 illustrates the nine sectors of a round plate that we used to variably arrange the relative position of each food element and Figure 2 depicts the three sectors of an oval plate that we used for the same purpose. As suggested by Figures 1 and 2, participants were asked to rate their favorite among 9 options for the round plates and favorite among 3 options for variably arranged oval plates.

Figure 1.

The nine different positions of the main component on a round plate

Figure 2.

Three different positions of the main component on an oval plate

Crowded plate versus empty plate

Participants were presented with four web pages that each showed a pairing of the same kind of food. Within each pairing, identical foods were prepared and plated in different ways so that one option provided significantly more “empty” space than the alternative.

Organized versus disorganized presentation

Participants were asked to choose their favorite among four pairs of food arrangements. For each of the four web pages, participants were presented a pair of options that depicted food that was prepared in (a) neat, geometrical patterns or (b) disorganized, random patterns.

Figure design versus casual design

Participants were presented a total of four web pages that each depicted a pair of options comprised of the same food. In the “figure” designs, bacon was arranged as a smile along the lower perimeter of a plate, peas were arranged in a heart-shape, and cupcakes and cakes were decorated with images. As a contrast to the “figure” designs, each web page depicting “casual” designs presented the same foods without any kind of special arrangement.

Results

To analyze our data for the presence of meaningful variation across the samples, we conducted chi-square tests to examine if participants’ choices differed significantly from the expected chance distribution. To do this, we first conducted a one-way chi-square test with specific df depending on the number of choices a participant could select for each variable (e.g., df = 6 for the number of different components on a plate). Then, to see if a majority of participants significantly preferred one choice over other choices for any given variable, we conducted a one-way chi-square test with 1 df comparing the number of participants who selected the most popular choice with the average number of participants who selected other choices.

Because our first analysis of each variable for each sample produced highly significant differences (p < .001) compared with the expected chance distributions, only results of the second analyses were reported (Table 1). The exception to our approach occurred for the last three variables (e.g., crowded vs. empty plate) for which there were only two choices. In these cases, we simply conducted a one-way chi-square test with 1 df comparing the number of participants who chose the more popular selection with the number of participants who chose the less popular selection.

Table 1.

How Visual Preferences of Food Plating and Presentation Differs Within U.S., Italian, and Japanese samples

	United States		Italy		Japan
	Most frequently chosen option	χ²₍₁₎	Most frequently chosen option	χ²₍₁₎	Most frequently chosen option	χ²₍₁₎
Number of colors (from 1 to 6)	3	17.06***	3	9.21**	3	51.25***
Number of colors—mixed components (from 2 to 4)	4	60.20***	4	46.75***	4	50.73***
Number of components (from 1 to 7)	3	72.73***	4	25.76***	3	106.44***
Position of the main component—round plate (from 1 to 9)	center-right	74.57***	lower-right	25.87***	lower-center	229.74***
Position of the main component—oval plate (from 1 to 3)	center	40.75***	center	37.42***	center	148.96***
Crowded versus empty plate	empty	15.76***	empty	3.21	empty	85.17**
Organized versus disorganized	disorganized	20.39***	disorganized	4.45*	organized	1.79
Figure design versus casual design	casual design	34.05***	casual design	34.3***	figure design	1.70

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We rely on this approach to measuring variation across the samples since our approach, which partly tests for consistency within each sample, is more conservative than tests for goodness of fit among the samples. To cite an example from Table 1, we can confidently state that there exists significant variation among the samples for any variable for which we find significant within-sample agreement. If we had conducted tests for goodness of fit among the samples for some of the variables for which we found significant agreement within only one or two of the national samples, we might have found more significant cross-sample differences; however, we opted for our more conservative approach to minimize the effect of spurious, within-sample differences on any analysis of meaningful cross-sample variation.

Number and mixing of colors. As indicated in Table 1, our results show that the preferred number of colors on a plate in each of our samples tended to be three (United States χ² ₍₁₎ = 17.06, p < .001; Italy χ² ₍₁₎ = 9.21, p < .01; Japan χ² ₍₁₎ = 51.25, p < .001). Similarly, when we explored the specific condition of mixing colors (e.g., in a salad), there tended to be consensus that four different colors were most attractive on a plate (i.e., one more than in the dishes where ingredients are not mixed; United States χ² ₍₁₎ = 60.26, p < .001; Italy χ² ₍₁₎ = 46.75, p < .001; Japan χ² ₍₁₎ = 50.73, p < .001). With regard to the number of mixed colors, it is notable that participants in each sample tended to choose the upper-limit (of four mixed colors) as their favorite and so it is possible that they would have chosen a number greater than four if it was provided as an option for mixed colors.

Number of different components. With regard to the number of elements on a plate, participants from the United States and Japan tended to prefer three components on their plates (United States χ² ₍₁₎ = 72.23, p < .001; Japan χ² ₍₁₎ = 106.44, p < .001) and Italian participants tended to prefer four components (χ² ₍₁₎ = 25,76, p < .001). While there is a lack of uniformity among the samples on this variable, it is notable that all three samples declined to choose any other option they were offered (e.g., five, six, or seven elements on a plate).

Position of the main component. With regard to the position of the main component on a round plate, there was no agreement among the samples; however, they did tend to choose sections in the lower- or right-sides of the plate while opting against upper- and left-side plating positions. More specifically, participants in the United States tended to prefer the center-right position (χ² ₍₁₎ = 74.57, p < .001), participants from Japan showed preferences for the lower-center position (χ² ₍₁₎ = 229.74, p < .001), and Italians preferred the main component to be positioned in the lower-right corner (χ² ₍₁₎ = 25.87, p < .001).

While we did not control for handedness, we would expect that our samples are large enough that they were dominated by right-handed individuals just like general populations (e.g., Corballis, 1993). In this light, it is sensible that participants across each sample tended to avoid left-sided options that are farthest from their dominant hands and our findings follow in a tradition of discovering preferences for rightmost objects that Nisbett and Wilson (1977) previously reported. Of course, future research on this topic should control for handedness in case left-handed participants might demonstrate significantly different preferences (e.g., for plates where the main component is situated on the left side). Future research also needs to control for cultural customs regarding which hand tends to control which utensils since, for example, it is the norm among Americans to switch which hand controls a fork when they are cutting meat while Europeans tend to keep their forks in one hand throughout whether they are cutting meat or not.

Interestingly, in light of the potential role of handedness in our finding with round plates, we found agreement among the samples when they were presented with oval plates. In this set of choices, participants from all three samples chose the option where a plate’s main component was centrally positioned rather than on the right or left (United States χ² ₍₁₎ = 40.75, p < .001; Italy χ² ₍₁₎ = 37.42, p < .001; Japan χ² ₍₁₎ = 148.96, p < .001).

4. Crowded plate versus empty plate. For two of the samples (United States and Japan), we found a preference for plates that included empty space, whereas there was not a significant preference for relatively empty plates within the Italian sample (United States χ² ₍₁₎ = 15.76, p < .001; Japan χ² ₍₁₎ = 85.17, p < .001).

5. Organized versus disorganized presentation. For two of the samples (United States and Italy), we found a preference for relatively disorganized plates, whereas there was not a significant preference for disorganized plates within the Japanese sample (United States χ² ₍₁₎ = 20.39, p < .001; Italy χ² ₍₁₎ = 4.45, p < .01).

6. Figure design versus casual design. For two of the samples (United States and Italy) that demonstrated a preference for relatively disorganized plates, we found preferences for casual designs compared with “figure” designs while we did not find a similar pattern within the Japanese sample (United States χ² ₍₁₎ = 34.05, p < .001; Italy χ² ₍₁₎ = 34.3, p < .001).

Discussion

While ethnographic studies do not typically pursue this degree of fine-scale preferences within and across cultures, our studies do follow in the tradition of interests to catalogue variation within and across cultural groups. In fact, our analysis of preferences for food presentation within and across three samples of people living on different continents in contemporary cultures generates (a) several clear patterns of commonality as well as (b) a number of areas where there appears to be cross-cultural differences. In this vein, our findings contribute new data that are complementary to earlier anthropological research concerning food preparation, eating, and utensils (Murdock, 2004). To take stock of our analysis, we find that people across the three cultures we studied

appear to prefer three colors per plate of food;

appear to prefer four colors per plate when ingredients are mixed;

tend to prefer that the main component of a meal on round plates be situated on the lower- or right-halves of round plates;

tend to prefer that the main component of a meal on oval plates be situated in the center; and,

tend to prefer three or four components on a given plate (as contrasted with five, six, or seven components).

In addition to preferences that we found within all three of our samples, we found that people in the United States and Italy tend to prefer disorganized and casual plate designs compared with very organized and “figurative” plate designs. Likewise, we found that people in the United States and Japan tended to prefer relatively empty plates compared with crowded plates.

While previous researchers have considered the degree to which artifacts (e.g., ceramic plates) might reflect the social structures of their creators and users (Dressler & Robbins, 1975; Fischer, 1961; Peregrine, 2007), it is interesting to consider our findings—concerning less-permanent variation in the arrangement of food on ceramic plates—in a similar way. For example, it seems plausible that the preference we found within our United States and Italian samples for disorganized and casual plate designs reflects societal preferences to “mix things up.” One basis for such speculation is that U.S. and Italian populations tend to be recognized as significantly more individualist than people in Japan (e.g., Hofstede, 1984, p. 158). Indeed, just as Hofstede (1984, p. 173) outlines a wide array of behavioral patterns that correlate with a nation’s degree of individualism, it seems plausible that people in individualist societies tend to prefer plates that are more casually arranged while people in collectivist societies might prefer plates that are more formally arranged. For example, if individualism within and across countries correlates with such symbolic patterns such as the use of idiosyncratic first names (Varnum & Kitayama, 2011), it seems very possible that the same trait—individualism—can help explain a preference for relatively disorganized and casual plate designs.

Similarly, we can speculate that the preference for relatively empty plates within our U.S. and Japanese samples is reflective of cultural ideals of open space (e.g., on the frontier). Indeed, while the Western frontier is well-known within the United States, Japan has a comparable history with their Northern frontier. As Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura, and Ramaswamy (2006) report, Japanese living in the Northern, “frontier” part of the country display a set of values (e.g., pride) and judgment biases that are similar to European Americans whose ancestors “voluntarily settled” in the United States. We consider this “frontier” speculation to be plausible partly because—while Italy is well-known to have regional differences (Putnam et al., 1993) that our study did not explore—modern Italy is not considered to have any recent frontiers. While we are not aware of previous studies that have tested for “open space” preferences among U.S., Japanese, and Italian samples, our finding suggests that aesthetic preferences might correlate across domains (e.g., plates and landscapes).

Of course, broader interpretations of cultural meaning from our results is limited by the breadth of our sample. Similarly, just as Austin (1977) reports that political differences within a culture can significantly influence preferences for art styles, future research should ask participants more demographic questions such as political orientations, age, and general dietary preferences (e.g., vegetarian). In addition, future research concerning cross-cultural preferences for food presentation would benefit from a broader array of stimuli. For example, while we forced choices among study participants for arrangements within round and oval plates, it is plausible that the Japanese sample, at least, would have responded differently than others if we asked for preferences in the context of “bento box” dishes that are designed with a set of variably sized wells or subcontainers. Indeed, the popularity of bento boxes in Japan—in contrast with, say, the United States—conceivably reflects a relatively traditionalist, hierarchical social structure.

As we acknowledge in the introduction to our studies, we appreciate that the participants in our samples occupy very different environments than the kinds of groups that have been traditionally described, for example, in the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF). Given, though, the commonality of preferences that we found for at least five aspects of food presentation within our three samples, it would seem worthwhile for future researchers working with people in less-industrialized environments to test for the same preferences. Such a test would help explore the extent to which any of these findings might reflect universal preferences. Such studies would also help us better understand—with clear implications for obesity and other health-related outcomes—the approach that humans take when presented with various arrangements of food.

When considered in the context of field and laboratory evidence for the relevance of small-scale environmental cues on human consumption of food and when the importance of food is recognized for human health, the value of our research should be clear. For example, while it is obvious that marketers would gain value from enhanced knowledge of cross-cultural preferences for food presentation on plates, if we know that people tend to place greatest salience on food that is positioned on certain parts of a plate, it might have microscale health benefits if healthful foods were presented to people in that position (e.g., within home environments) instead of food that is more hazardous to one’s health. Such an approach would be similar to the practical recommendation for eating at Chinese buffets that emerges from Wansink and Payne’s (2008) study in which they found that microscale variables such as using chopsticks instead of forks, facing away from the buffet table, and using smaller plates tended to correlate with healthier body types.

More conceptually, if we abstract our studies out of the domain of food, it is worthwhile to juxtapose our findings with those reported in other categorization tasks. Chick and Roberts (1987), for example, asked a sample of expert machinists and nonexpert nonmachinists to share their perceptions of engines and found (a) significant concordance among the machinists, (b) a lack of concordance among the nonmachinists, and (c) a general pattern whereby experts rated complex engines as most attractive while nonexperts tended to rate simple features as most attractive. To compare those findings with the results that we describe in this article, our nation-based samples each appear to have expert knowledge of normal food preferences for their cultural environments and we report evidence of differences and similarities among those “expert” populations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Guido Camps, Paris Harper, and Hannah Kirsch as well as comments on previous editions of the article from Garry Chick, Carol Ember, and two anonymous reviewers.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Austin

(1977). Visual symbols, political ideology, and culture. Ethos, 5, 306-325.

Boehm

(2008). Purposive social selection and the evolution of human altruism. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 319-352.

Chick

G. E.

Roberts

J. M.

(1987). Lathe craft: A study in “part” appreciation. Human Organization, 46, 305-317.

Corballis

M. C.

(1993). The lopsided ape: Evolution of the generative mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Douglas

(1972). Deciphering a meal. Daedalus, 101, 61-81

Douglas

Nicod

(1974). Taking the biscuit: The structure of British meals. New Society, 30, 744-747.

Dressler

W. W.

Robbins

M. C.

(1975). Art styles, social stratification, and cognition: An analysis of Greek vase painting. American Ethnologist, 2, 427-434.

Ekstrom

M. P.

(1990). Kost, klass och kon [in Swedish, Diet, class, and gender] (Umea Studies in sociology No 98). Umea, Sweden: Umea Universitet.

Ekuan

(1998). The aesthetic of the Japanese lunchbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Ember

C. R.

Ember

M. R.

Peregrine

P. N.

(2010). Anthropology (13th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

11.

Fischer

J. L.

(1961). Art styles as cultural cognitive maps. American Anthropologist, 63, 79-93.

12.

Hofstede

G. H.

(1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

13.

Kitayama

Ishii

Imada

Takemura

Ramaswamy

(2006). Voluntary settlement and the spirit of independence: Evidence from Japan’s “Northern Frontier.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 369-384.

14.

Kottak

C. P.

(2007). Window on humanity: A concise introduction to Anthropology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

15.

Levi-Strauss

(1969). The raw and the cooked ( Weightman

Weightman

, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1964-French version)

16.

Marlowe

F. M.

(2007). Hunting and gathering: The human sexual division of labor. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 170-195.

17.

Murcott

(1982). On the social significance of the “cooked dinner” in South Wales. Social Science Information, 21, 677-696.

18.

Murcott

(1983). It’s a pleasure to cook for him: Food, mealtimes and gender in some South Wales households. In Gamarnikow

(Ed.), The public and the private (pp. 78-90). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

19.

Murcott

(1986). Opening the “black box”: Food, eating and household relationships. Sosiaalilaaketieteellinen Aikakauslehti, 23, 85-92.

20.

Murdock

G. P.

Ford

C. S.

Hudson

A. E.

Kennedy

Simmons

L. W.

Whiting

J. W. M.

(2004). Outline of cultural materials (5th ed.). New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files.

21.

Newman

J. M.

(2000). Chinese meals. In Meiselman

H. L.

(Ed.), Dimensions of the meal. The science, culture, business and art of eating. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

22.

Nisbett

R. E.

Wilson

T. D.

(1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.

23.

Peregrine

P. N.

(2007). Cultural correlates of ceramic styles. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 223-235.

24.

Poggie

J. J.

Jr. (1995). Food resource periodicity and cooperation values: A cross-cultural consideration. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 276-296.

25.

Prättälä

(2000). North European meals: Observations from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In Meiselman

H. L.

(Ed.), Dimensions of the meal. The science, culture, business and art of eating (pp. 191-201). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

26.

Putnam

R. D.

Leonardi

Nanetti

R. Y.

(1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

27.

Relethford

(2010). The human species: An introduction to biological anthropology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

28.

Roscoe

(2006). Fish, game, and the foundations of complexity in forager society: The evidence from New Guinea. Cross-Cultural Research, 40, 29-46.

29.

Styler

Lazarus

(2006). Working the plate. The art of food presentation. New York, NY: John Wiley.

30.

Varnum

M. E. W.

Kitayama

(2011). What’s in a name? Popular names are less common on frontiers. Psychological Science, 22, 176-183.

31.

Wansink

(1996). Can package size accelerate usage volume? Journal of Marketing, 60, 1-14.

32.

Wansink

(2002). Changing eating habits on the home front: Lost lessons from World War II research. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21, 90-99.

33.

Wansink

(2006). Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think. New York, NY: Bantam-Dell.

34.

Wansink

(2010). From mindless eating to mindless eating better. Physiology and Behavior, 100, 454-463.

35.

Wansink

Just

D. R.

Payne

C. R.

(2009). Mindless eating and healthy heuristics for the irrational. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 98, 165-169.

36.

Wansink

Kim

(2005). Bad popcorn in big buckets: Portion size can influence intake as much as taste. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37, 242-245.

37.

Wansink

Payne

C. R.

(2008). Eating behavior and obesity at chinese buffets. Obesity, 16, 1957-1960.

38.

Wansink

Van Ittersum

Werle

(2009). How negative experiences shape long-term food preferences: Fifty years from the World War II combat front. Appetite, 52, 750-752.