Adding a healthy option can actually get people to do the same even worse to choose, because of a problem that disturbs one’s mind.
In 2017, with much fanfare, calorie count menu labeling began to be mandated in national chain restaurants. Consumers should have the knowledge needed to make healthy food choices outside of the home, right? It makes sense that calorie information on menus will help people balance their food intake to stay within their daily energy needs. But it didn’t work. It turns out that calorie labels don’t work, shaving an average of eight unnecessary calories from each meal.
You could have totally predicted that. Why? Just as a person may be born value of front-of-the-pack robot labeling from the pain of the industry’s response against it, one might be able to gauge he asked of labeling calories in a way that is easily mandated by other laws. McDonald’s began voluntarily publishing calorie information nationwide back in 2012 after a labeling mandate in New York City was found to have no effect on consumer behavior. The study suggests that such labeling could increase “perceptions of the restaurant’s concern for consumer welfare” while carefully not downplaying any Big Mac attacks.
At the same time, McDonald’s announced plans to add seasonal produce to its menu. How rude do you have to be to not see it at least that as a good thing? Ironically, adding a healthy option can actually make people do the same even worse to choose. Ready for a blast?
As I discuss in my video Do Healthy Fast Food Options Lead to Healthy Choices?when people are given a choice of a side dish—something unhealthy like French fries or something neutral like a baked potato—only about 10% of them will binge on the fries. If a third healthy option—such as a side salad—is added, instead of choosing between a choice and a neutral baked potato, people will choose the indulgent choice, the neutral choice, or the healthier choice. Even if everyone doesn’t choose a salad, most will go for a medium baked potato on top of the fries, right? So, how far does French-fry-fancying fall by adding a salad option to the mix? It shoots uptripled to 33%. Without the salad option, only one in 10 chose fries, but that’s over a third of people when they see a salad.
The same thing happens when you give people a choice between a bacon burger, a chicken sandwich, or a veggie burger. In the “No Healthy Choice” condition, when people were offered a cheeseburger, chicken sandwich, or fish sandwich, 17% chose a burger. Swap the fish sandwich for a veggie burger, and the popular bacon cheeseburger doubles to 37%. Just seeing a healthy option can push people to act unhealthy choice?
The paper describing this series of experiments was titled “Dangerous Goal Fulfillment: When the Mere Presence of a Healthy Option Leads to a Paradoxical Indulgence Decision.” The idea is that by seeing a salad or a veggie burger, people make a mental note to choose that in the future, thus giving them an excuse to indulge now.
There is this problem of the human mind called self licensing. This is when we inadvertently excuse ourselves for doing something that takes us away from our goals after we have done something that brings us closer to them, like justifying eating a donut because of last week’s weight loss. We reward ourselves with indulgences that set us back.
If you give smokers “vitamin C” supplements, they later smoke more cigarettes than if you give smokers what you describe as “placebo” pills (even though both groups were given the same sugar pills). Smokers who thought they were taking supplements were almost twice as likely to smoke, perhaps thinking that since they had just done something good for their health, they could “live a little longer,” which may, in fact, cause them to live a little…slightly.
You can see how this can translate into other areas of life. Those who took placebo pills, which they believed to be dietary supplements, not only showed less desire to exercise later, but also followed through with less exercise. Compared to those who were told the placebo pills, the misled participants were more likely to choose the buffet than what was described as “healthy, natural food.” Would they eat more, too? A small study entitled “The Liberating Effect of Weight Loss Supplements on Dietary Control” put that to the test.
Participants were randomly assigned to take a well-known placebo or a weight loss supplement (which was actually the same placebo) and were later observed incognito at a buffet. Not only did the “supplement” subjects eat more food, but they chose less healthy items. They also ate 30% more candy in a fake “taste” test and ordered sugary drinks. “Thus,” the researchers concluded, “people who rely on dietary supplements for health protection may be paying a hidden price: the curse of licensed indulgence.”
In retrospect, what research on effective goal achievement has found is that not only does making progress toward a goal moderate negative decision-making, but even considering making progress can have a similar licensing effect. Note that the study participants were not only motivated to act unhealthyer a choice, but an unhealthy oneest to choose. One might think that even if people didn’t choose the salad or vegetarian option, the presence of a healthy alternative might encourage them to choose something in between—not the healthy option, but at least not the unhealthy choice. Instead, it took people in the opposite direction.
In one “No Healthy Option” condition of chocolate-covered Oreos, regular Oreos, or golden Oreos, researchers found that adding a “low-calorie” Oreo option doubled the likelihood that study participants would choose the chocolate-covered option to indulge. (See below and 6:10 in mine video.)
This is due to another irrational influence of the human mind, wrongly called “what is the result of hell.” This is where one forbidden cookie can lead to dieters eating the whole bag. If you’ve already deviated from your goals, why not go all the way? So, if people decide they’re going to get that salad next time and spoil it just once, they might choose to overindulge.
The halo of healthy eating can even distort our perceptions. Show weight-conscious people a burger and not anything else, and ask them to estimate the calories, and the average answer is 734 calories. Okay, now show people the exact same burger accompanied by three celery sticks, and they guess the total comes out to 619 calories. Did they think celery had bad calories? No, most people knew that celery had calories, too, but just the combination of burger and celery made the burger seem healthy. The same thing happens when you add an apple to a bacon-and-cheese waffle sandwich, a side salad to a beef chili, or carrots next to a cheesesteak—about a hundred calories seem to disappear, as shown here and at 7:27 in mine. video.
The effects of the health halo may explain why people are more likely to order a “healthy” dessert and drink at Subway compared to a Big Mac at McDonald’s, even though the small portion used in the study (filled with ham, salami, and pepperoni) had 50% calories at first.
Even referring to healthy food can do it. Show people a picture of a Big Mac, and people estimate that it has 646 calories. Just add the text “For your health, eat at least five fruits and vegetables a day,” and suddenly, the same burger in the same ad was thought to have only 503 calories. Just offering and promoting salads and fruit can earn McDonald’s an award and strengthen consumer loyalty without, ironically, helping their health.
Doctor’s Note
If you enjoyed this blog, you might also like the video I made about the optimist bias: Why Don’t People Eat Healthy?
For more on junk food, see How We Won the Battle to Ban Trans Fat again Highly Processed Junk Foods Examined.
