Ask Onix
Why shared meals endure as a cornerstone of human connection
For millennia, humans have gathered around food-not just to eat, but to bond. From campfire feasts to modern dinner parties, the ritual of shared meals persists across cultures, defying time and technological change. But what drives this universal behavior, and why does it still matter today?
Ancient roots, modern echoes
While food-sharing traces back to primate ancestors like chimpanzees and bonobos, humans elevated it into a complex social act, explains Nicklas Neuman, a sociologist at Uppsala University. "Distributing food isn't the same as eating together," he notes. "We've layered meaning onto the act-turning sustenance into ceremony."
The earliest shared meals may have unfolded around campfires, where cooking required collective effort. Robin Dunbar, a biological anthropologist at the University of Oxford, speculates that firelight extended waking hours, creating opportunities for storytelling and bonding. "Those extra hours were likely pivotal for strengthening social ties," he says.
The science of shared plates
Research underscores the tangible benefits of communal eating. Dunbar's 2017 study found that frequent shared meals correlated with higher life satisfaction and stronger support networks. Statistical analysis suggested the meals themselves drove these effects-not the other way around.
The mechanism? Endorphins. "Eating triggers the brain's bonding system," Dunbar explains. "Group meals amplify this effect-like synchronized activities such as jogging-doubling endorphin output." Shared food even fosters trust: a University of Chicago study revealed people invested more money in strangers after eating identical snacks together, and negotiations concluded faster among those who'd shared a meal.
Power, tension, and the darker side of feasting
Yet shared meals aren't universally positive. Feasts often serve as staged displays of hierarchy-think landowners hosting workers or bosses scrutinized at office parties. "Meals can be tools of control," Neuman warns. "Criticism over food choices or appearance can turn them into sources of stress."
Surprisingly, some elderly Swedes in Neuman's research reported little distress over eating alone. "Most didn't mind solitude," he says, suggesting loneliness may heighten discomfort with solo meals. "But for those accustomed to company, occasional solitude can be a relief."
Evolutionary relic or enduring need?
Ayelet Fishbach, whose work links shared food to perceived trustworthiness, theorizes that similar tastes once signaled shared values-a survival advantage. Today, while food preferences may no longer predict alignment, the ritual persists. "Perhaps," Fishbach muses, "it's a vestige of when eating together meant safety in numbers."
"Eating together as a group ramps up the endorphin effect in the same way that jogging together does. This is because synchronised activity increases endorphin output by a factor of two."
Robin Dunbar, biological anthropologist, University of Oxford
