ArticlePloS one2026
Edible agents with perceptible minds: A psychological study of human perception in human-food interaction.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigating the psychological and cognitive mechanisms of eating living beings is important for understanding ethical judgments and decision-making in eating behaviors. For example, the meat paradox describes a conflict about harming animals for food. In addition, perceiving a mind in a target has been shown to influence ethical judgment. However, experimentally investigating such food-related ethical themes is difficult, particularly when using actual animals, due to ethical constraints. Therefore, this study proposes an experimental framework using edible agents. Previous research developed a movable edible robot and examined the psychological and cognitive effects of eating moving food. Building on this, we developed an edible agent capable of social interaction through vocalization and evaluated its psychological effects. We examined how people perceive the minds of edible agents with different vocalization types and behaviors, and how this perception influences reluctance to eat and guilt. In the experiment, participants (N = 1,094) viewed two videos in which edible agents exhibited different vocalizations and movements and evaluated their impressions. Factor analysis of 18 mind-perception items extracted two factors-Agency and Experience-with a cumulative contribution of 57.8% ([Formula: see text] and 0.862, respectively). Agency scores were significantly higher in Video 1 than in Video 2 (W = 481,686, p < .001, r = 0.800), whereas Experience scores were higher in Video 2 (W = 75,619, p < .001, r = 0.717). Reluctance to eat differed significantly (W = 32,018, p < .001, r = 0.270), whereas guilt showed no significant difference (W = 23,369, p = .103, r = 0.108). However, no significant relationship was observed between mind perception and either reluctance to eat or guilt. This study provides new insights into social interactions between humans and edible artificial objects, highlighting the potential of edible agents to deepen understanding of food culture and its ethical dimensions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.