Babies may have a more complex perception of their environment than previously understood, picking up on visual and audible cues to make judgements about the people around them. Babies are also making decisions about their own actions. For example, babies who bounced rhythmically and in sync to music with a dance partner were highly likely to help that partner with small tasks, like picking up an object out of reach.

Results from a recent study indicate 21-month-old infants may be able to differentiate a bully from a leader. Francesco Margoni and colleagues assessed babies’ reactions to different scenarios involving two types of authority figure: either a respected or feared character. The respected character represented a leader, and the feared character represented a bully.

All of the infants first watched two scenes involving characters playing ball before an authority figure arrives. These scenes were used to familiarize the babies with the two types of authority. In one scene, the characters bow to a leader and hand over the ball, which the leader takes and leaves. The second scene featured the characters being hit by a bully and having their ball stolen by that bully.

Babies were then randomly assigned to two different groups, and watched test scenes in which the authority figures return. For one group, that authority figure was the leader; for the other group, the authority figure was the bully. At the beginning of these test scenes, the authority figure first commands the characters to go to bed and they obey. The authority figure leaves. Then, the babies watch two further scenarios: in one, the characters continue to obey the command to stay in bed, and in the second, the characters disobey the command and leave bed.

Given that the researchers could not ask the infants to verbally express which character they think is the bully and which is the leader, they watched the babies’ eyes. They measured how long the infants observed the obey and disobey scenarios.

Infants who watched the leader looked at the disobey scene longer than the obey scene. The researchers took this to mean the babies expected the characters to stay in bed, even after the leader left. Since the disobey scene did not match their expectations, the babies looked at it for longer than the obey scene.

The babies who watched the bully stared at obey and disobey scenes for similar amounts of time, indicating they may have considered both outcomes plausible. The babies watched the characters stay in bed, presumably out of fear of the bully returning. They watched equally as long when characters disobeyed the command, and the absent bully no longer had power over them.

According to the researchers, these results provide a basis to further explore the way infants recognize power structures in their environment. Prior research has found that babies may expect smaller characters to give into larger ones in situations of conflict, but not much was known about babies identifying different types of power. Margoni and colleagues suggest combining their findings with this previous research, to observe whether the relative sizes of authority figures influence the way infants distinguish leaders from bullies.

Feature image: Nattanon Kanchak/iStock

Images in article:”Infants distinguish between leaders and bullies, Francesco Margoni, Renée Baillargeon, and Luca Surian, PNAS September 18, 2018 115 (38) E8835-E8843; published ahead of print September 4, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801677115. Fig. 1. (detail) Schematic depiction of the character-familiarization trials in the different conditions (A–E) of experiments 1 to 3. Fig. 2. (detail) Schematic depiction of the order-familiarization and test trials in the leader condition of experiment 1. Trials in other conditions were identical, with two exceptions. First, in each condition, the character was that shown in the character-familiarization trials for that condition (Fig. 1). Second, in the bully-present condition, the character remained in the scene after giving her order.

Over the past few years, some global health experts have started using the term commercial determinants of health to describe “the strategies and approaches used by the private sector to promote products and choices that are detrimental to health.” In particular, food and beverage corporations have come under scrutiny for their aggressive techniques that contribute to the global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as obesity, cardio-vascular diseases, and hypertension.

Tackling NCDs is one of the major public health challenges of the 21st century. In 2016, NCDs accounted for 72% of deaths globally. While many factors contribute to the rise of the NCD pandemic, the link between consumption of highly processed food and sugar-sweetened beverages and a number of  NCDs is well-established. Despite the mounting evidence, the food and beverage industry took a page from the tobacco companies’ playbook and adopted strategies to increase consumption of their products, especially in low- and middle-income countries (Figure 1). These strategies pay off. In 2013, the industry represented 10% of the global economy and was valued at 7 trillion U.S. dollars. The ten biggest corporations each generate at least $1.1 billion a day. The numbers continue to grow by the year.

The soft power of marketing

Food and beverage corporations invest heavily in marketing. For example, in 2013, Unilever’s advertising expenditure was $7.4 billion and Coca-Cola’s was $3.3 billion. Such advertisements rarely honor voluntary guidelines for ethical marketing and often target vulnerable populations. In China, Hello Kitty, a popular cartoon character, is used to advertise beer (figure 2). In the United States, about a quarter of the food industry’s advertising budget targets children. In 2012, on average, preschoolers daily viewed 2.8 fast food ads. Children age 6–11 viewed 3.2 ads, and teens viewed 4.8 ads per day. Moreover, when compared to their Caucasian counterparts, African American children and teens were targeted by at least 50 percent more fast food advertisements.

To counter increasingly negative perceptions about processed food and sugar-sweetened beverages, corporations rely on ambiguous advertisements to deceive consumers such as using the word  “fruit” to advertise products with very little fruit content. Investing in such marketing techniques is effective. Evidence shows that beer brands that violate voluntary guidelines are more popular than brands that obeyed the guidelines, especially among youth. Moreover, exposure to advertisements increases food intake, especially among children.

Influencing policies on local, national and global levels

While the impact of marketing is impressive, corporations invest even more to ensure the industry remains under-regulated. Such tactics include funding biased research, organizing public opinion campaigns to encourage voters to oppose regulations, and boosting campaigns that appeal to “personal freedom” in making purchasing decisions and emphasize “individual responsibility.”

Most importantly, corporations lobby politicians and high-level officials to influence the policy making process. Leaked emails from Coca-Cola show methodical and coordinated efforts to identify and attack policies that affect the company’s profit margin (figure 3). Coca-Cola is not alone in adopting these efforts. Similar tactics are employed by the industry around the world, in high, low- and middle-income countries alike.

Figure 3: Leaked graphic of Coca-Cola Europe “Radar Screen of EU Public Policies”. The company identified “increased soda taxes” as most likely to materialize and impact sales returns.

Corporations are not shy about doing all they can to protect profits. Yet, policy makers and public health practitioners continue to give deference to the industry without setting clear guidelines to identify and minimize conflicts of interest. In 2003, the Sugar Association threatened to lobby the United States’ government to withdraw funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) over a healthy eating guideline. In 2011, several personnel from the same Sugar Association were present during the United Nations (UN) high level meeting on NCD risks. Some even gave keynote speeches. Recently, corporations succeeded in softening the language on corporate responsibility in the final WHO Montevideo 2018-30 roadmap on NCDs. The next meeting to watch is the UN third High-level meeting on NCDs which will be held later in 2018.

Lately, the UN and WHO have been advocating for product taxation as one of the most effective policies to reduce processed food and sweetened beverages consumption. Such efforts are commendable. However, as history has shown, they will be met with aggressive push back. It is time for the global community to adopt regulations that limit the role of corporations in creating policies.

Feature image: Lorena Cupcake, french-fries-wallpaper-1, used under CC BY 2.0