Eyes on the fries: how our vision creates a food trend

How we rate food is influenced by the food we’ve just seen

University of Sydney

 

image: 

Lead author Professor David Alais from the School of Psychology at the University of Sydney.

view more 

Credit: The University of Sydney

KEY POINTS

• Human judgement of food images is influenced by judgements that precede it
• Experiment tested reactions of more than 600 people making food choices
• Highly relevant given widespread use of Uber Eats or phone-based menus
• Finding could assist treatments for eating disorders or assist with food marketing

Research at the University of Sydney has revealed that we don’t judge food simply on its merits but are influenced by what we have seen beforehand, a cascading phenomenon known as ‘serial dependence’.

The research, published today in the high-impact journal Current Biology, was conducted by Professors David Alais and Thomas Carlson in the School of Psychology at the University of  Sydney working in collaboration with Professor David Burr at the University of Florence.

Their study shows when people rate food images for appeal and calorie content, the evaluation is not made in isolation. Instead, it is subtly biased towards the judgement that preceded it.

Serial dependence arises when people make a series of sequential choices. In the context of food, if a person rates a food as very appealing, they are likely to rate the next food image more favourably, regardless of its calorie content or appeal.

It works the other way, too: a preceding unappealing food makes a current food less appealing.

The findings could assist psychologists to develop treatments for people with eating disorders to eat more or less food, and may help marketers in the presentation of food menus.

Lead author Professor Alais said: “The experimental conditions for serial dependence are not very different from our everyday experiences with food images, such as when we scan a food delivery menu or browse a menu on our phone. Serial dependence, therefore, might be affecting millions of food choices every day.”

The researchers conducted experiments with more than 600 participants who rated various food images for both calorie content and appeal. The results revealed a clear pattern of serial dependence: participants’ ratings tended to follow their previous rating.

For instance, a high rating for one food item led to a higher rating for the subsequent item, creating a chain reaction of evaluations that are interconnected rather than independent.

While the study found that men tended to rate high calorie food slightly higher than women, the overall serial dependence effect was not sex dependent and was similar for all.

“This study highlights the cognitive biases that come into play when we evaluate food,” Professor Alais said. “Our brains are wired to assimilate information from previous stimuli, just as we might be drawn to a particular dish after seeing a similar one rated highly.”

Co-author Professor Carlson said: “Our previous work has shown that the visual brain encodes the perceived caloric content of foods in just milliseconds. It will be fascinating to see the interplay between these cognitive biases and visual processing in future work.”

Beyond the immediate interest to visual neuroscientists exploring how our brain processes images, this research has potential useful applications.

For food marketers and restaurateurs, understanding serial dependence could inform strategies to enhance the appeal of their menu offerings. By placing high-appeal items or calorie-rich foods in a sequence, they could influence consumer perceptions and potentially drive sales.

This research also has potential to play a role in clinical settings, particularly in addressing obesity, compulsive eating, bulimia and related eating disorders.

By recognising how previous food ratings can affect subsequent choices, cognitive behavioural therapies could be tailored to leverage these findings, helping people reshape their perceptions and decision-making processes around food.

This approach could promote healthier eating habits and support effective interventions for those struggling with eating disorders.

Professor Alais and his team have previously found similar visual trends for people perusing dating apps, or assessing the beauty of art work.

## ENDS ##

RESEARCH

Alais, D. et al ‘Positive serial dependence in ratings of food images for appeal and calories’ (Current Biology 2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.09.012

DOWNLOAD photo of Professor Alais and PDF of research at this link.

INTERVIEWS

Professor David Alais | david.alais@sydney.edu.au | Download photo at this link.

MEDIA ENQUIRIES

Katie Spenceley | katie.spenceley@sydney.edu.au | +61 402 165 322

DECLARATION

The researchers declare no competing interests. Researchers received financial support from the Australian Research Council and the European Research Council.

---

Journal

Current Biology

DOI

10.1016/j.cub.2024.09.012 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Positive serial dependence in ratings of food images for appeal and calories

Article Publication Date

2-Oct-2024

Bill Gates calls for higher taxes on the rich — but warns against crushing the American dream

Theron Mohamed
Tue, October 1, 2024 

Bill Gates' ideal tax system would leave him worth 62% less, but still a billionaire.

Afolabi Sotunde / Reuters

Bill Gates' ideal tax system would leave him worth 62% less, but still a billionaire.


He warned that excessive taxes would deter people from starting businesses and curb economic growth.


The Microsoft cofounder said the rich should pay higher taxes and give the rest to good causes.

Bill Gates wants steeper taxes on the wealthy — but not so steep that he wouldn't be a billionaire, or that the founder of the next Microsoft wouldn't become one.

"I would set tax rates quite a bit higher for rich people," Gates said during a recent live recording of the "On With Kara Swisher" podcast.

He voiced support for a tax system that would take away 62% of his wealth — but not over 99% as one hardline critic, Sen. Bernie Sanders, called for on his new Netflix show: "What's Next? The Future with Bill Gates."

"You definitely do get to the point where ... you're killing the goose that lays the golden egg," Gates said, noting that North Korea has "unbelievable equality."

"We've created wealth, and I think that the system that does that has a few elements that we shouldn't throw out," he added.

The Microsoft cofounder ranks as the world's sixth-richest person with a $163 billion net worth, per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

He said America is the "envy of the world" as a place for creating hugely valuable companies, and the economy has to grow for the government to raise the social safety net as high as progressives like Sanders want.

Gates also said he's a "huge believer" in the estate tax, and eliminating it would be a mistake as that would protect dynastic fortunes — wealth that's inherited, not earned.

The tech billionaire and cofounder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation said the uber-wealthy should give more money to the government and commit the rest to help others. He said that "once you pay those taxes, whatever's left over, you should engage in philanthropy."

Gates' latest comments suggest he'd like to be about $100 billion less wealthy at around $62 billion. He's previously said he would have paid "tens of billions" more in taxes if he'd designed the US tax system.

Volvo leads 50 firms urging EU to stick to combustion-engine ban

They argue the sector needs certainty to invest and support to meet EU goals

Volvo Car AB and dozens of industrial manufacturers urged Brussels to stick to a plan to halt sales of new combustion-engine cars starting 2035. But Europe’s biggest automakers are keeping quiet.

Fifty companies called on the European Union to keep the policy, according to a declaration shared with Bloomberg News. They argued that the sector needs certainty in order to invest and support to meet EU goals, but no backtracking.

“Electrification is the single biggest action our industry can take to cut its carbon footprint,” said Jim Rowan, Volvo’s chief executive officer. “The 2035 target is crucial to align all stakeholders on this journey and ensure European competitiveness.”

Rivian Automotive Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc., as well as IKEA of Sweden AB and energy company Iberdrola SA, were among the companies pressing Brussels to stay the course.

The EU’s emissions targets for cars have come under fire in recent months as manufacturers grapple with a slowdown in sales, particularly of electric models. 

For the first time, Volkswagen AG is considering shuttering factories, while the industry lobby warned of multibillion-euro fines for missing 2025 carbon goals.

Volvo itself recently abandoned a target to sell only fully electric vehicles by the end of this decade, walking back its EV ambitions due to waning demand.

Transportation is the only sector to see its emissions grow in Europe during the last 30 years — a trend that needs to reverse rapidly if the bloc is to meet its objective of a 55% cut this decade and net zero by midcentury.

Europe vs China

Proponents of the effective ban on combustion engines say the EU is behind the likes of China in producing EVs — especially mass-market vehicles — and must catch up. They argue that European automakers have delayed shifting to new technologies for too long, relying instead on sales of traditional autos.

Europe’s largest carmakers — such as Volkswagen, BMW AG and Stellantis NV — didn’t sign the declaration to the EU.

Italy, meanwhile, has ramped up pressure on the bloc to review the target.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said this month the policy was symptomatic of the EU’s “self-destructive approach” to rule-making. The country wants Brussels to bring forward a planned 2026 review to early next year and allow an exemption for biofuels.

UK

Thousands of Bolt Drivers Fight for Worker Status and Compensation Over Unpaid Holiday Pay and Wage Discrepancies


Published by Laetitia at September 29, 2024
STUDENT LAWYER
Article written by Olga Kyriakoudi

More than 12,500 Bolt private hire drivers are contesting their employment status at the Central London Employment Tribunal, with hearings starting on 11 September. Represented by Leigh Day, a leading employment law firm, the drivers are pushing to be recognised as workers rather than independent contractors. Achieving this status would entitle them to crucial employment rights, such as holiday pay and the National Living Wage. They argue that Bolt exerts significant control over their working conditions, a situation comparable to Uber drivers who secured a landmark victory at the UK Supreme Court in 2021.

In the UK, employment law recognises three primary categories: employees, limb (b) workers, and independent contractors. While workers and employees are entitled to protections like holiday pay and the National Living Wage, employees enjoy broader rights, such as the ability to bring unfair dismissal claims. Independent contractors, however, fall outside these protections. Bolt, the Estonia-based ride-hailing app, treats its drivers as independent contractors, promoting flexibility and the ability to set their own hours. However, Leigh Day argues that Bolt’s drivers fit the legal definition of workers due to the company’s significant control over key aspects of their work, much like Uber’s drivers.

This legal action follows the pivotal Uber case in 2021, where the Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers were workers rather than independent contractors. That decision clarified that, despite having flexibility in their hours, Uber drivers were subject to the company’s control over payments and contracts, which eroded their independence. It also reinforced that actual working relationships should take precedence over contractual terms, a move aimed at preventing companies from misclassifying workers through sham contracts—a frequent issue in the gig economy.

Leigh Day contends that Bolt drivers should be similarly classified. They argue that Bolt’s recent decision to offer holiday pay and guarantee the National Living Wage, effective from August 2024, does not address years of unpaid entitlements. The firm seeks compensation for unpaid holiday pay and wage shortfalls from previous years, which remain unaddressed by Bolt. In response, Bolt maintains that its business model allows drivers the flexibility and independence to set their own hours and rates, a setup that many drivers prefer. However, Leigh Day asserts that Bolt’s control over work conditions and pay means drivers are entitled to worker protections under UK law.

The hearing, expected to last three weeks, will hear from drivers about their working conditions. If successful, the drivers could receive significant compensation, and the ruling could spark similar claims from other gig economy workers.

As this case unfolds, it highlights broader trends in the gig economy and the strategies used by platform companies to defend their business models. As noted by James Muldoon, a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Exeter and the Head of Digital Research at the Autonomy think tank, in his 2024 article, companies like Bolt often begin with regulatory activism, lobbying for legal interpretations that align with their interests when they enter new markets. Bolt’s announcement of offering holiday pay and the National Living Wage may be seen as an attempt to placate regulators and avoid larger legal consequences. However, strategic litigation, such as the one currently playing out at the Central London Employment Tribunal, remains a common defensive tactic for platform companies. Bolt, like Uber before it, is attempting to preserve its business model by contesting its classification of drivers as independent contractors.

Labour’s proposed employment reforms could further complicate the situation for companies like Bolt. With a focus on ending exploitative practices like zero-hours contracts and ‘fire and rehire’ tactics, Labour aims to establish clearer distinctions between employment categories in the gig economy. As Muldoon explains, platform companies often adapt their tactics as regulations evolve. If Bolt’s legal defences fail, it may have to consider compromises, such as negotiating with unions or subcontracting drivers, to maintain a degree of distance from its workforce while offering limited employment rights.

Globally, platform companies rarely shut down operations when faced with legal challenges instead opting to adapt or delay compliance. As seen in California, these companies use aggressive legal strategies to carve out exemptions and, if necessary, threaten to withdraw services. As Muldoon points out, such tactics allow companies to preserve their business models and serve as warnings to lawmakers in other jurisdictions to enact similar laws. The outcome of the Bolt case will not only affect UK drivers but also contribute to the growing international debate over how gig workers are classified and protected.

As the gig economy continues to evolve, this case could pave the way for further legal claims from drivers and other workers seeking employment protections. While this shift promises better safeguards for workers, it will undoubtedly increase pressure on both companies and the legal system to uphold these evolving standards, reshaping the landscape of worker rights across the sector.

To Secure Worker Rights, We Must Fix Our Democracy

Paul Sonn

 September 26, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Photo by Shaunak De

New waves of workers are standing up and demanding fair treatment on the job — from the fast food workers of the Fight for $15 to the workers at companies like Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, and Volkswagen that are fighting for a union and a fair contract.

But as these workers have made significant gains, they’ve simultaneously run into huge barriers: our broken democratic systems. That’s why one of the most important priorities for advancing worker power is democracy reform.

In particular, that means reforming the anti-democratic filibuster in the U.S. Senate and ending partisan and racial gerrymandering, which have made state legislatures unresponsive to worker needs.

Take the Fight for $15. Over the last decade, the brave workers driving this inspiring campaign have won wage increases in half the states and scores of cities. As a result, about half of our workforce will soon be covered by a $15 minimum wage — one of the highest among industrialized countries. But the other half languishes with one of the lowest minimum wages in the developed world. The federal minimum wage remains frozen at a paltry $7.25.

Despite the fact that more than 80 percent of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters want to raise the minimum wage, no Republican-led legislature has passed a genuine increase in decades. Many have not only blocked state wage increases, but also passed punitive “preemption” laws to prevent cities from stepping in to ensure fair wages. Not coincidentally, many of these are among the most gerrymandered.

At the federal level, there’s a similar dynamic: Republicans in the Senate have used the anti-democratic filibuster for years to block increases in the federal minimum wage despite strong voter support.

Workers fighting to form a union face similar roadblocks. Employees who demand a fair shake routinely face retaliation from their employers — and those who defy the odds and win a union election often endure years of stonewalling as corporations refuse to negotiate a contract.  Others, such as app-based workers at Uber and Doordash, have been denied the right to unionize at all.

The PRO Act would remove these roadblocks and modernize our broken labor laws to give workers a real opportunity to join a union and negotiate with their employers over fair pay and benefits, protection against extreme heat, how AI is deployed in their workplaces, and more.

But while 70 percent of voters, including a majority of Republicans, back the PRO Act, the threat of a Republican filibuster in the Senate prevents it from advancing.

Fortunately, there’s new and long overdue momentum for addressing these anti-democratic roadblocks. 

Senator Chuck Schumer announced recently that if they win this year, Democrats plan to prioritize key democracy reforms, including reforming the filibuster to empower a simple majority of the Senate to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act. These crucial voting rights bills include new limits on racial and partisan gerrymandering — the practices that have made many state legislatures so unresponsive to worker needs.

But safeguarding fair elections is only the first step. The next step must be removing the filibuster — which has a long and ugly history of being used to deny people of color basic rights in our nation — as an obstacle to restoring protections for workers. In an echo of Jim Crow, senators today are using the threat of a filibuster to protect a broken labor law system that denies all workers, and especially workers of color, a fair chance to join a union and earn a decent minimum wage.

The rights of workers to earn a living wage and have a voice in their workplaces are fundamental for our democracy. The key next steps for making those rights real is to restore our democracy by ending both gerrymandering and the filibuster.

Paul Sonn is the Director of National Employment Law Project (NELP) Action.