Literature DB >> 23994507

A lack of appetite for information and computation. Simple heuristics in food choice.

Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck1, Matthias Sohn, Emanuel de Bellis, Nathalie Martin, Ralph Hertwig.   

Abstract

The predominant, but largely untested, assumption in research on food choice is that people obey the classic commandments of rational behavior: they carefully look up every piece of relevant information, weight each piece according to subjective importance, and then combine them into a judgment or choice. In real world situations, however, the available time, motivation, and computational resources may simply not suffice to keep these commandments. Indeed, there is a large body of research suggesting that human choice is often better accommodated by heuristics-simple rules that enable decision making on the basis of a few, but important, pieces of information. We investigated the prevalence of such heuristics in a computerized experiment that engaged participants in a series of choices between two lunch dishes. Employing MouselabWeb, a process-tracing technique, we found that simple heuristics described an overwhelmingly large proportion of choices, whereas strategies traditionally deemed rational were barely apparent in our data. Replicating previous findings, we also observed that visual stimulus segments received a much larger proportion of attention than any nutritional values did. Our results suggest that, consistent with human behavior in other domains, people make their food choices on the basis of simple and informationally frugal heuristics.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Food choice; Heuristics; MouselabWeb; Process tracing; Rational choice

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23994507     DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appetite        ISSN: 0195-6663            Impact factor:   3.868


  9 in total

1.  Individual differences in the influence of taste and health impact successful dietary self-control: A mouse tracking food choice study in children.

Authors:  Alaina L Pearce; Shana Adise; Nicole J Roberts; Corey White; Charles F Geier; Kathleen L Keller
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2020-06-04

2.  Effects of Digital Food Labels on Healthy Food Choices in Online Grocery Shopping.

Authors:  Klaus L Fuchs; Jie Lian; Leonard Michels; Simon Mayer; Enrico Toniato; Verena Tiefenbeck
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 6.706

3.  Testing process predictions of models of risky choice: a quantitative model comparison approach.

Authors:  Thorsten Pachur; Ralph Hertwig; Gerd Gigerenzer; Eduard Brandstätter
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-09-27

4.  Effects of meal variety on expected satiation: evidence for a 'perceived volume' heuristic.

Authors:  Gregory S Keenan; Jeffrey M Brunstrom; Danielle Ferriday
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 3.868

5.  Use of nutritional information: analysing clusters of consumers who intend to eat healthily.

Authors:  Vincent J van Buul; Catherine A W Bolman; Fred J P H Brouns; Lilian Lechner
Journal:  J Nutr Sci       Date:  2019-04-29

6.  Investigating the Relationship between Perceived Meal Colour Variety and Food Intake across Meal Types in a Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Authors:  Laura M König; Julia E Koller; Karoline Villinger; Deborah R Wahl; Katrin Ziesemer; Harald T Schupp; Britta Renner
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 5.717

7.  Factors Influencing Repurchase Intention in Drive-Through Fast Food: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.

Authors:  Yogi Tri Prasetyo; Allysa Mae Castillo; Louie John Salonga; John Allen Sia; Thanatorn Chuenyindee; Michael Nayat Young; Satria Fadil Persada; Bobby Ardiansyah Miraja; Anak Agung Ngurah Perwira Redi
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2021-05-27

8.  Desired and Undesired Effects of Energy Labels--An Eye-Tracking Study.

Authors:  Signe Waechter; Bernadette Sütterlin; Michael Siegrist
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The intuitive use of contextual information in decisions made with verbal and numerical quantifiers.

Authors:  Dawn Liu; Marie Juanchich; Miroslav Sirota; Sheina Orbell
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 2.143

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.