Recommendable book to boost your willpower: The Willpower Instinct of Kelly McGonigal

The best way to make sure you never again give in to temptation (such as eating another chocolate) is to beat yourself up, so that you will never do it again. Quite logical, isn't it? However, it turns out that this is not such a clever way to motivate yourself, because if you feel guilty, this negative feeling is most likely to disappear by eating more. As a result, cheating a little may lead to the infamous 'what the hell effect'.


This is one of the many self-control undermining processes discussed in the book 'The Willpower Instinct' of Kelly McGonigal. Recently, it has been translated into Dutch ('De kracht van wilskracht - Hoe zelfbeheersing werkt en wat je eraan kan doen').

Willpower is one of the hottest topics in research and studied in a diverse range of fields. This book clearly explains the science behind willpower, how it functions and what key problems are. Moreover, informed by numerous studies, the author offers useful strategies to deal with tempation in daily life. After reading this book, it is obvious that willpower is much more than a simple 'just do it' strength that you need to finish your 'to do'-list or drop a few pounds of overweight.

What I particularly like are the chapters about the role of dopamine in anticipation of rewards. When you expect, see or eat food, the brain releases dopamine and gets excited. You can override this automatic system by using your prefrontal cortex in the front of your brain, which is responsibe for more reflective and conscious decisions. Indeed, that is where willpower is located in your head. Unfortunately, this cortex has many things to worry about and gets easily distracted. Small changes or new habits that make you remind your goals and create awarenes such as meditating and exercising will build the foundation for more enduring change. They make your willpower system more efficient and fuelled to do its tasks.

This book is definitely a must-read, also because willpower is not presented as a miracle solution to life's challenges. Yes, you can get more of it, but it has its limits. That reminds me of a sentence I read in a paper of Hofmann, Friese and Wiers (2008): 'Human life would be less pleasurable without our propensity to act impulsively: An over-controlled life can be even psychologically and physically damaging.' So, train your willpower, but give yourself the occasional break.

Can health claims and symbols lead to healthier eating patterns? - CLYMBOL project has started

Last week, we had a kick-off meeting of Clymbol in Brussels. This is an EU-funded project to find out what really happens inside consumer minds regarding health claims and symbols at food packages.

At Wageningen University, we studied this topic before (see earlier posts about nutrition logos and eye tracking research). Now we will particularly focus on the purchase and consumption effects on health and nutrition information at food package.

We keep you updated about new study results!

This is the official press release:

A new EU funded (FP7) project kicks off today aiming to shed light on how consumers interpret health information on food labels, and how this affects their purchasing and consumption behaviour.
CLYMBOL (‘Role of health-related claims and symbols in consumer behaviour’) is a four year research project that will provide insights into consumer understanding and behaviour related to health information. Guidelines will be developed to evaluate the effects of health information on food labels.

The issue
Health claims are messages on food packages that state, suggest or imply a relationship between a certain food product (or one of its constituents) and health. ‘Vitamin A helps the proper functioning of the immune system’, is an example. Health symbols are awarded to food products which meet certain nutrient requirements and constitute the healthiest option within a product category (e.g. Choices logo, Swedish Keyhole).

A snack with visible front of pack logo and calorie info

“Health claims and symbols are aids to help consumers identify foods that are healthier options, but we know little on how they impact consumer behaviour”, says Prof Dr Klaus G. Grunert, partner in, and scientific advisor to, the CLYMBOL project.

The acceptance of food products with health information is influenced by many different factors. Familiarity with the product, health claim or functional ingredient used plus personal relevance appear as the most important determinants. But what is the actual effect of health information on consumer behaviour regarding food choices?

The research
CLYMBOL aims to understand better the effects of health information on purchase and consumption patterns. The CLYMBOL team will create a set of methodologies to measure the role of health claims and symbols in consumer behaviour, drawing on the latest developments in cognitive and behavioural science. The range of studies includes pan-European surveys, experiments in actual supermarkets and analysis of population data. By measuring consumers’ eye movements and reaction times, for example, researchers will be able to observe and analyse subconscious behaviour and link this to actual purchases. CLYMBOL will also develop guidelines directed towards health claims and symbols, taking into account the differences between consumers and EU member states.

The consortium
The CLYMBOL consortium gathers 14 partners from 9 countries who have proven outstanding expertise in various fields: cognitive consumer psychology, economics, marketing, nutrition and public health. A retailer is also part of the group, ensuring that the research can be carried out in real-life settings.

• Aarhus University (Denmark) – Scientific Advisor
• Agrifood Research and Technology Centre of Aragon, CITA (Spain)
• Corvinus University Budapest (Hungary)
• European Food Information Council (Belgium) – Coordinator
• Ghent University (Belgium)
• Globus SB-Warenhaus Holding GmbH &Co. KG (Germany)
• Saarland University (Germany)
• Schuttelaar & Partners NV (Netherlands)
• Swedish National Food Agency (Sweden)
• University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
• University of Oxford (UK)
• University of Surrey (UK)
• University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)
• Wageningen University (The Netherlands)

Satiety claims on food: consumers expect no magic bullet to weight loss

What would you think when you read a claim such as 'increases fullness''or 'keeps you going between meals' on your favourite box of cereals? Would you simply expect an enhanced feeling of fullness after breakfast or do you think that after repeated consumption it will help you lose weight?

Fictional package with satiety claim

In Europe, satiety claims on food packages are strictly regulated. Before a claim can be put on a package, evidence to substantiate the claim needs to be submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA has two key criteria that have to be met before approval: (1) any claim should not go beyond the demonstrated evidence, and (2) the average consumer must be able to understand the effects expressed in the claim.

But does the 'average' consumer understand a satiety claim? Research on this question is limited. Satiety experts, however, fear overinterpretation of satiety claims, in the sense that consumers infer more health benefits from claims than promised. Some even worry for the 'magic bullet effect' in that consumers expect to lose weight, without any other personal efforts such as restricting calories or exercising.

Together with Ellen van Kleef, David Mela, Toine Hulshof and Hans van Trijp, I conducted a study in which 1504 consumers from Italy, UK, France and Germany were questioned about the meaning of satiety claims. Results of this study are published in the journal 'Appetite'. The paper is called 'Consumer understanding, interpretation and perceived levels of personal responsibility in relation to satiety-related claims'.

We discovered that most consumers very well understand satiety claims and stay close to their literal meaning. There was one exception. Consumers who tend to chronically restrict their eating to avoid becoming fat (the so-called restrained eaters), expected more benefits than actually stated in the claim. 



For various claims, we asked consumers whether they expected that the product will do the work for them or they themselves have to put in some personal efforts as well. The answer depended on the type of claim. 'Feeling full for a longer time' is something that consumers expect a product to deliver. In contrast, consumers realize that losing weight is something that a product cannot do for them. Most consumers know that personal sacrifices are required, with or without a little help of a satiety enhancing food. 


This is a guest post, written by Els Bilman (PhD student).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Els M. Bilman, Ellen van Kleef, David J. Mela, Toine Hulshof, & Hans C.M. van Trijp (2012). Consumer understanding, interpretation and perceived levels of personal responsibility in relation to satiety-related claims Appetite DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.07.010

BNR Nieuwsradio - Interview over marketing technieken om kinderen meer groente te laten eten

Ouders weten dat het lastig is om kinderen te motiveren om meer groenten en fruit te eten. Recent onderzoek van Brian Wansink en collega's laat zien dat het geven van 'catchy' namen aan groenten, zoals Power Brocolli, kinderen meer laat eten.

Vanochtend werd ik geinterviewd door Humberto Tan van BNR Nieuwsradio over het gebruik van marketingtechnieken om kinderen aan de groente te krijgen.

Luister hier het fragment:

BNR Nieuwsradio - Kinderen eten twee keer zoveel groente als het een coole naam heeft

A nudge that did not work: a virtual supermarket study among children to promote healthier snacking

Nudging consumers towards healthier food choices is still a hot topic. Drawing on psychology and behavioural economics, nudges are simple intervention strategies to move consumers towards healthier choices. This is done without banning foods products or telling consumers what to eat or avoid.

There are quite a few examples of successful nudges that help consumers in making better food choices. For instance, if consumers were asked to downsize their side dish, they ended up eating less in the study of Schwartz and colleagues. Still, there is a lot of debate about the usefulness of nudging. Consumers need more than a nudge, is the argument put forward by Lucy Handley. Lord Krebs recently argued in the Guardian that nudging alone will not convince people to do important things like lose weight. They both might be right, but at the same time I think it very useful to collect empirical evidence on the effectiveness of nudging.

Last Summer, we carried out a nudge study among 113 primary school children (10-12 years old) to encourage them to go for a healthier snack. We were inspired by the proven marketing tactic to offer a free gift with purchase (think of McDonald's Happy Meal). Typically, children are confronted with these free gifts on energy dense snacks. But would it be effective to use this classic marketing tactic to encourage children to switch to something healthier? That was the key question in our virtual supermarket study on which Charlotte Petri graduated last August.

We asked children to do some groceries in the virtual supermarket and select their own snack and drink near the checkout counter. This simulated supermarket of Wageningen University looks like a real supermarket with various shelves which display three-dimensional images of a wide range of products. The children could walk through the aisles of the store and put products in their virtual shopping cart.

Participant chooses a snack in the virtual supermarket

Participants did not see the same snack shelf, however. One third of all participants were confronted with a shelf poster that promised them a free gift (a tattoo) when they would buy a product with a star. These 'star products' were all healthier options as indicated by the Dutch Nutrition Centre. Another group were similarly promised the same gift, but now the star was attached to relative unhealthy snacks. The third group was the control group who did not get to see any promise of a free gift.

Snack shelf with poster promising free tatto gift with healthy 'Star' purchase

Most children were very enthusiastic about 'shopping' in the virtual supermarket ('Where can I download this game?'). Less than half of all children selected a healthy snack and drink. They were, however, not influenced by the promised free gift, regardless of the type of product to which the star was attached. It could be that the gift was not attractive enough, although a pre-test indicated differently. Another explanation is that children might have been too focused on the shopping task. In other words, they were too 'busy 'walking' through the shop, impressed by the new experience.

About one fifth of all participants was overweight. This percentage is similar to the percentage Dutch children who is overweight. Although overweight children more often tended to go for unhealthy snacks, they were not more sensitive to the free gift than normal-weight children. Children chose snacks based on familiarity and preference. Health was less important in their choice.

Overall, although the nudge was not effective in its present form, we learned a lot about the possibilities of the virtual supermarket for choice experiments with children. Have a look at the video, in which a participant walks through the supermarket and makes her snack choice.

Watch 3-year-old Lukas grazing snacks all day: A confronting Dutch childhood obesity awareness campaign

'Also happy with this environment?' is the question posed by the Dutch Nutrition Center in their new campaign. The video of this campaign is definitely worth watching.

Many children have poor eating habits which may lead to overweight and obesity. Children are constantly bombarded with unhealthy, high-caloric snacks and meals. As a result, children nowadays live in a so-called 'toxic food environment', a term invented by obesity researcher Kelly Brownell. 

Successful obesity awareness campaigns require careful consideration of the target group and a key relevant message. On the one hand, they need to make parents aware of the seriousness of the problem. On the other hand, they need to provide useful information and not stigmatize or shame overweight children. This is not simple, as shown by a failed and controversial US childhood obesity campaign.

I particularly like the final scene of the video in which Lukas refuses the healthy meal cooked by his parents. It is a very familiar scene for many parents, including myself. Have a look yourself!

Just a bite or the full portion size? Dramatically smaller snack portion sizes satisfy hunger and cravings

A key reason we are getting overweight is because we eat too large portion sizes of food. But is this overeating giving us more satisfaction? Could eating smaller portions be similarly effective in decreasing food cravings or feelings of hunger as larger portions? That was the key question in the study that I conducted with Mitsuru Shimizu and Brian Wansink while visiting the Food and Brand lab. The paper is now published in Food Quality and Preference (see also full-text paper).



We presented 104 participants with either a small portion of three commonly craved snacks - chocolate, potato chips and apple pie - or substantial larger portions of the same snacks. For example, the small portion of chocolate was 10 grams, while the large portion was 100 grams. Feelings of hunger and craving were assessed just before participants started with the taste test, immediately after the taste test and about 15 minutes later. Secretly, we also measured how much participants ate.

Results show that although providing larger food portions increased snack calorie intake by 77% (103 calories), after 15 minutes, they do not reduce hunger or cravings any more than smaller portions. In other words, after 15 minutes, when all food was out of sight, everyone was equally happy.

A typical snack in the US contains about 264 calories (see Piernas and Popkin, 2010). This amount closely resembles the total calories consumed in the large portion size condition in our study (about 237 calories). Nevertheless, although participants in the small portion size condition ate considerably less (about 134 calories, which is about 51% of what people typically snack), they were equally tempted by the snacks. This shows that whereas large portions tend to increase food intake, smaller portions may make you equally satisfied. 

Going for the large portion size of their favourite food

How to stop eating when you are craving a food? One way is to make sure that there is less food in front of you in the first place. That is not simple. Large food portions are common in supermarkets, restaurants and even at home. Portion sizes of many foods have increased during the last decades and we are getting used to it. For example, snack foods and beverages are offered in increasingly large packages. Although many consumers find 'value for money' important, it would be better to stop the emphasis of getting more food for you money. Smaller portion sizes can help you limit the amount of food you eat.

sciseekclaimtoken-50250596151f0

3 surprising insights on how food cravings relate to other desires in everyday life

What is harder to resist? Checking your Twitter or Facebook account at work or eating a delicious, but fattening snack when you try to watch your calories? Both are inner conflicts, best described as 'I really want to do this, but I should not'.

In many food studies it is assumed that people have conflicting feelings when being confronted with tempting foods. But is that really the case in everyday life? What type of cravings are felt most strongly? And if people do crave foods, how often are they trying to resist their desire?

Wilhelm Hofmann, Kathlees Vohs and Roy Baummeister recently tried to answer these questions in their Everyday Temptation Study. They gave BlackBerrys to 205 participants and contacted them on 7 random times per day for one week. When they were contacted, they had to indicate what type of desire they experienced within the last 30 minutes, how conflicted they felt about this desire, whether they tried to resist the desire and how successful they were in this. The study included all types of everyday desires, including the desire to eat, drink, have sex, sleep, spend money and use media (such as social media). Here are 3 insights that I found most surprising.

1)   Food is not the hardest desire to resist
People feel some desire about half the time they are awake. In hours, this is about eight hours a day. Almost half of those desires are conflicting at least somewhat with other goals in life.
Interestingly, food is not the hardest desire to resist. It is much more difficult to fight the desire for sleep and fun leisure activitities (such as checking Facebook). These two were considered to be the hardest to resist. Only 23% of all conflicting desires go against some health goals (for example healthy eating or exercise). The majority of reported inner conflicts were related to goals such as saving money, achievements at work or study, social appearance and efficient time use.

In other words, it is harder to resist impulses to spend money, participate in sports, use (social) media and smoke than it is to resist eating.

2)   We spend three hours a day resisting desires
The majority of desires in everyday life are not resisted. We have to eat anyway, so why trying to resist it? When people do try to resist them, they are quite successful in it; in 83% of all inner conflicts, they succeed to not give in. Still, in 17% of all occasions, people do give in. They particularly fail to resist checking e-mail, Facebook, Twitter of other social media when they do not want to do that.

3)   Stop resisting the numerous cravings throughout a day
Besides that we spend about three hours per day resisting desires, we also spend half an hour giving in to desires that we initially resisted. The more often you try to resist a desire, the less willpower is left at the end of the day and the more likely it is that you go for the 'forbidden' food. This confirms the 'muscle model' of willpower, which states that willpower is like a muscle that needs refuel.

So, do not replete your willpower, stop reading this blog post and go back to work.



What is harder to resist; Twitter and Facebook at work or the temptation of an unhealthy snack?

Hofmann W, Baumeister RF, Förster G, & Vohs KD (2012). Everyday temptations: an experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102 (6), 1318-35 PMID: 22149456

Wanting to eat healthier, but little healthy foods sold at McDonalds

Most fast food restaurants do not share their sales data of healthy foods, but that did not stop Lyndall Wellard and colleagues to find out how many healthy items are actually sold at the biggest fast food chain in the world. They observed what people bought at 20 McDonalds restaurants in Australia. Of the 1449 meal purchases observed, only 1% could be considered healthy, 65% were unhealthy and 34% were take-away (so impossible to determine whether food is healthy or not).

Only 1% of all meals eaten in the restaurant! That is not much... Why would you sell healthy foods in a restaurant when hardly anyone is buying it? As a service to the 1% die-hard dieters who really do not want burgers and fries? Or to create a healthier image which may lead to higher overall sales?

According to a survey among Americans, 47% said they wanted restaurants to offer healthier items like salads. Even 23% said they tend to order those foods. Apparently many consumers like to have these items on the menu. Maybe as a license to indulge? Research of Wilcox and colleagues already showed that adding a salad or fruit to the menu makes you more likely to order fries. And to make it worse: consumers also tend to believe that adding a healthy item to a meal magically decreases the number of calories of the total meal.

In my previous blog post, I discussed the essay of Marion Nestle and David Stuckler on the influence of large food companies on public health. They are right, healthier foods are inherently less profitable. At least when eating out, most consumers seem to just want to indulge (without feeling too guilty).

Dealing with Big Food: Slow public health response to large food companies' influence

Recently, the world population exceeded 7 billion people. One billion of them is hungry, while at the same time two billion are overweight. This shows we have a huge problem in meeting people's dietary needs. As what people eat is increasingly determined by a few multinational food and beverage companies, this month a new series of articles on the influence of these companies ('Big Food') will appear in PLOS Medicine Magazine. Highly recommendable!

David Stuckler and Marion Nestle start off with their essay on Big Food's problematic influence on the global food system. The authors cite research that shows that the ten largest food companies control over half of all food sales in the United States. Unfortunately, what they successfully sell consists primarily of processed foods enriched in sugar, salt and fat. Frequent consumption of these foods is associated with excess weight and chronic diseases.

The decades-long fight against tobacco has provided us with insights on typical tactics used by industry to undermine public health measures such as taxation and regulation, they state. Basically, that is because food companies aim to maximize profits and not health. They do not like interventions that threaten their profits.

Public health professionals are slow in responding to the threat of Big Food and the authors therefore urge for more strong and conscious choices about how to deal with Big Food's influence. Dealing with the food industry involves more than partnering or waiting for self-regulatory initiatives. It requires a critical approach, recognizing the conflicts of interests that play a key role.

Stuckler and Nestle conclude by stating 'without taking direct and concerted action to expose and regulate the vested interests of Big Food, epidemics of poverty, hunger, and obesity are likely to become more acute'.  A strong plea for action...

Satiety enhancing food development: State of the art in the field of nutrition, food technology, consumer, marketing and technology

Developing foods that keep you feel full for longer is not a matter of simply adding extra fibers, water or air to a food. For many people, the signs of fullness that their body is giving them after eating are easily overridden by the temptations in our environment that trigger to continue eating. Think of the high visibility of delicious foods and large, convenient portion sizes. They all have substantial influence on the amount of food we eat and the resulting satisfaction.

Satiety is a complex interaction of physiological, social and psychological mechanisms.

Food providing enhanced satiety will have to function in the life of people surrounded by cues that stimulate excessive eating. This requires an integrated approach between various food-related disciplines.

This month, our new paper has been published: 'Successful development of satiety enhancing food products: Towards a multidisciplinary agenda of research challenges'. The paper presents the state of the art and key research challenges around satiety enhancings foods in the field of nutrition, food technology, consumer, marketing and communication.

My co-authors are Hans van Trijp, Joost van den borne and Charon Zondervan. Just click on the Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition-paper below to read it full-text.

 

Is there hope for a thinner future?

There is not much progress made in combatting the overweight and obesity epidemic. That is a conclusion drawn in a recent paper of the prominent researchers Peter Herman and Janet Polivy: 'Self-regulation and the obesity epidemic' (Social Issues and Policy Review).  I found it an inspiring paper. Both authors are highly influential and experienced in the field of experimental psychology of eating behaviour and obesity. Because of their outstanding track record, I recommend reading their paper and think about it. Their take home message is not a positive one, however.   

Picture: Rudd Center Image Gallery



The basic premise of the article of Herman and Polivy is that researchers should be sceptical about interventions, both at the individual and societal level. They state that many researchers suggest that progress is being made or just around the corner. But actually, this is not true. Their review of the literature coupled with the decades of  professional experience made them conclude the following: ‘Scrutiny of the statistics, however, suggest that not much progress has been made so far in combatting the problem; in fact, it is probably easier to make the case that things are continuing to get worse’.

The best interventions at an individual level (e.g. clinical interventions) are expensive or impossible to implement on a community-wide basis. Although the authors agree with many scientists that interventions at a societal level (e.g. reshaping of the environment) are needed, they are not optimistic. Basically, many ideas for interventions will not work or even backfire, they argue.



Obesity is a very serious problem. Herman and Polivy stress that it not ok to implement unproven interventions. They warn that scientists should be cautious about applying solutions that turn out to be ineffective as the little trust that the public has in social scientists should not be destroyed.

What do you think? Is there really not much progress made? Is there hope for a thinner future?

Have a look at the new virtual supermarket of Wageningen University

In the video below, Erica van Herpen (my colleague at the Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group) explains the advantages of doing research with the virtual supermarket. This simulated supermarket looks like a real supermarket with various shelves which display three-dimensional images of a wide range of products. As a consumer, you can walk through the aisles of the store and put products in your virtual shopping cart. The virtual supermarket allows us to easily manipulate various types of choice environments and promotion techniques. Interesting shopping patterns can be tracked, such as the time spent shopping or looking at a particular shelf, the number of products bought and the amount of money spent.

As reported in a previous blog post, we are currently working on a nudging project. Nudges are simple, low-cost interventions to move consumers towards healthier choices without banning food products or telling them how to live. According to what many consumer say themselves, health and sustainability are key reasons to select a certain product. In practice, however, this does not always appear to be the case. How can we best help these consumers in making the right choice by changing the shelf lay-out of healthy and sustainable products in supermarkets? Our new virtual supermarket is now used to study choice environments to stimulate healthier and more sustainable food choices.

Keep an eye on this blog, I will update you about new study results obtained with this exciting and innovative research tool.

The Oprah Paradox: why people with excellent self-discipline also have a hard time controlling their body weight

Willpower has typically been looked at as a trait that one has or has not. For decades, self-esteem was the concept that needed to be promoted while self-control was viewed as old-fashioned. But willpower is back in fashion as research has shown that it is a key positive factor predicting happiness and well-being.

I just finished reading the book 'Willpower' of Roy Baumeister and John Tierney (In Dutch: Wilskracht: De herontdekking van de grootste kracht van de mens). Roy Baumeister is a leading scientist in the field of willpower and self regulation and became widely known for the process of 'ego depletion'. Having too many choices will exhausten your self-control as we draw on the same source of willpower for various tasks, not just related tasks. That means that willpower is like a muscle which needs to be fuelled by sleep and food (glucose).

Wilskracht - Baumeister & Tierney

In chapter 10, Baumeister and Tierney discuss what they label the 'Oprah Paradox'. Oprah Winfrey must have had excellent self-discipline and willpower to achieve the success that she did. Nevertheless, even she has a hard time to consistently control her weight. The authors discuss this paradox by listing some reasons why dieters fail. In order not to eat, a dieter needs willpower. Willpower runs on glucose. So, to fuel willpower, a dieter needs to eat. In other words, dieters deprive themselves from what they need the most. Another big threat is that dieters often fall for the so-called 'what the hell effect'. A small slip in their diet will make them blow off the dieting rules entirely. Dieting is obviously not the solution. The authors argue for small manageble changes. Over time, these small changes will become habits and having good habits saves willpower.

Overall, this is a book absolutely worth reading as it clearly shows how important willpower is. In an entertaining way the authors offer advice on how to strengthen self-control and use willpower wisely. One of them is: never say never when it comes to dealing with tempting foods. It is better to tell yourself to eat a small portion later than forbid yourself to eat them at all. This postponement method allows the impulse to fade away and in this way encourages self-control.

'Would you like to downsize your dish?' - An easy strategy to nudge consumers towards more sensible portion sizes

New nudging papers keep on appearing in the literature. I just read a very interesting nudge experiment conducted by Janet Schwartz, Jason Riis, Brian Elbel and Dan Ariely. It is inspired by the sentence 'Do you want to supersize your order?’ that you could have heard at McDonalds before negative publicity (including the movie ‘Supersize me’) made an end to this practice. Such a verbal prompt, however, is still being used at station kiosks (‘Do you want something to eat with your coffee?’) and some other shops.

The basic idea behind their experiment is to simply ask consumers at a fast food restaurant if they would like to downsize their side dish (with and without a small incentive). Usually, less than 1% of the customers at fast food restaurants request a smaller portion size. The intervention was successful: between 13 and 44% of the consumer accepted the offer, regardless of whether they were also offered a discount of 25 cents.The authors also compared this intervention with a calorie labelling intervention and showed that only the offer to downsize had a signficant effect on the number of calories consumers ate.

This example of verbal encouragement can give consumers just that little push to make a different choice and exercise self-control. Consumers are likely to give in to such little pushes because they implicitly think that saying ‘yes’ is an appropriate response. When you ask people for an active response (always respond verbally or in writing) they are more likely to respond positively than when you ask for a passive response (only respond in case of yes).

A consumer perspective on the growing role of front-of-pack nutrition labelling



Wasa crackers with 'Ik Kies Bewust' (IKB)  logo



The future of front-of-pack nutrition labelling is still heavily debated. These small-sized nutrition logos aim to make your healthy food choice more intuitive and simple. Examples include the Choices logo, Guiding Stars system, Traffic Light systems and Guidelines Daily Amounts (GDA) systems. 

Recently, a paper written by Hans Dagevos and myself was accepted for publication in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (click here for full-text preprint paper). The paper is inspired by our Dutch book 'Gezondheidslogo's op eten' we edited almost three years ago. We felt that although a lot of attention is devoted to the nutritional foundation of profile systems (e.g. which criteria to use), less attention is given to the consumer perspective in the development of these logos. More insight is needed in the psychological issues surrounding the current debates. For example, various misinterpretations may occur with nutrition labels (see table 2 in paper). One concern is that nutrition information on packages makes consumers vulnerable to halo effects. So, if it looks healthy, you can eat more.

Proponents believe that these logos promote healthier choices and stimulate innovation of the food industry. Unfortunately, little empirical evidence exist showing that these labels will actually lead to healthier food choices and less nutrition-related diseases. Opponents even warn that logos may confuse and mislead consumers. Particularly positive framed nutrition labels may act as a kind of 'good for you' messages.  

Let's end with some fresh good news from the front-of-pack nutrition logos field! A few days ago, Marion Nestle blogged about a recent study showing the positive effects of traffic light labels in a cafeteria setting. This intervention study, published in the American Journal of Public Health found that traffic light labels led to decreases in sales of red-labeled items and increases in sales of those with green labels. Results were most striking for beverage sales. Overall, this shows that front-of-pack logos can play a vital role as part of a broader basket of interventions that encourage consumers to improve their eating habits.

My Top 3 of free apps that support you in sticking to your goals

We all know that it is very hard to stick to your goals. Here you find my Top 3 of free apps that help you stick to your New Year's resolutions.

1) The Eatery: Build on the honest real-time feedback of friends and strangers

My favorite one! Self-monitoring improves self-awareness of behaviour ('Am I really eating that much chocolate?'), but writing down everything you eat can also be quite boring and time-consuming. The Eatery promotes its free app with the slogan 'stop counting calories, start eating better'.

The idea is that you take a picture of everything that you plan to eat. Then you invite your friends to comment on the meals you are about to eat or just finished. Within a few minutes you will then receive a rating on a scale of 1 (very unhealthy) till 100 (extremely healthy). As you can see, my homemade oliebollen (Dutch treat) were not considered to be very healthy. I did not connect to Facebook, but still I received about 20 ratings per snapped food. So, by using crowdsourcing, other people evaluate the healthiness of your eating habits. 

This app is addictive and fun to do! However, I do not always agree with the crowd's healthiness ratings. I noticed that the crowd is also susceptible to biases such as health halos and the negative calorie illusion. Just put a salad next to your burger or state that it is fat-free, and the ratings go up substantially. And although you can indicate the portion size consumed, I have the impression that you do not include that information in your ratings of other people's food. But the idea is great and offers opportunities for interesting consumer studies.

2) Stickk: Make yourself accountable; pay when you do not reach your goals

Stickk is not an app, but a site that claims that your chances of success are higher when you put actual money on your goal. It is not obligatory, but you have the option to commit money to your goal and if you do not achieve it, Stickk will send the money to the person, charity or organisation that you indicated. The site is founded by Yale economists and based on two key principles of behavioural economics: (1) people do not always follow up what they intend to do and (2) incentives motivate people to do things. I did not commit money to my goal, so I guess that is the reason that it was not that motivating. I think I am going to commit myself again, but then with serious money....

3) My Weight App and MyNetDairy: track your weight loss progress
A recent study of Barbara Cunningham showed that people do not lose more weight when they track their diet using smart phones compared to the traditional pen and paper method. But still, if you have a smartphone, it is convenient to try an app.

These apps help you to track you weight day by day (My Weight App) and calories/exercise (MyNetDiary). I used the free versions, and they are easy to use. The progress bar of the My Weight app gives a view on how far you progressed with your weight loss.