Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives”
Judgments of naturalness of foods tend to be more influenced by the process history of a food, rather than its actual constituents. Two types of processing of a “natural” food are to add something or to remove something. We report in this study, based on a large random sample of individuals from six...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2009-10-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004010/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797697893862211584 |
|---|---|
| author | Paul Rozin Claude Fischler Christy Shields-Argelès |
| author_facet | Paul Rozin Claude Fischler Christy Shields-Argelès |
| author_sort | Paul Rozin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Judgments of naturalness of foods tend to be more influenced by the process history of a food, rather than its actual constituents. Two types of processing of a “natural” food are to add something or to remove something. We report in this study, based on a large random sample of individuals from six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK and USA) that additives are considered defining features of what makes a food not natural, whereas “subtractives” are almost never mentioned. In support of this, skim milk (with major subtraction of fat) is rated as more natural than whole milk with a small amount of natural vitamin D added. It is also noted that “additives” is a common word, with a synonym reported by a native speaker in 17 of 18 languages, whereas “subtractive” is lexicalized in only 1 of the 18 languages. We consider reasons for additivity dominance, relating it to omission bias, feature positive bias, and notions of purity. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T03:46:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-64ed9e8f728a4fea88773e9d9269d28d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T03:46:28Z |
| publishDate | 2009-10-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-64ed9e8f728a4fea88773e9d9269d28d2023-09-03T12:43:20ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752009-10-01447547810.1017/S1930297500004010Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives”Paul Rozin0Claude Fischler1Christy Shields-Argelès2University of PennsylvaniaCentre Edgar Morin, ParisAmerican University of ParisJudgments of naturalness of foods tend to be more influenced by the process history of a food, rather than its actual constituents. Two types of processing of a “natural” food are to add something or to remove something. We report in this study, based on a large random sample of individuals from six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK and USA) that additives are considered defining features of what makes a food not natural, whereas “subtractives” are almost never mentioned. In support of this, skim milk (with major subtraction of fat) is rated as more natural than whole milk with a small amount of natural vitamin D added. It is also noted that “additives” is a common word, with a synonym reported by a native speaker in 17 of 18 languages, whereas “subtractive” is lexicalized in only 1 of the 18 languages. We consider reasons for additivity dominance, relating it to omission bias, feature positive bias, and notions of purity.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004010/type/journal_articlenaturaladditivefoodmedicine |
| spellingShingle | Paul Rozin Claude Fischler Christy Shields-Argelès Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives” Judgment and Decision Making natural additive food medicine |
| title | Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives” |
| title_full | Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives” |
| title_fullStr | Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives” |
| title_full_unstemmed | Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives” |
| title_short | Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives” |
| title_sort | additivity dominance additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are subtractives |
| topic | natural additive food medicine |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004010/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paulrozin additivitydominanceadditivitesaremorepotentandmoreoftenlexicalizedacrosslanguagesthanaresubtractives AT claudefischler additivitydominanceadditivitesaremorepotentandmoreoftenlexicalizedacrosslanguagesthanaresubtractives AT christyshieldsargeles additivitydominanceadditivitesaremorepotentandmoreoftenlexicalizedacrosslanguagesthanaresubtractives |