1

Eating Healthy or Feeling Empty?

How the “Healthy = Less Filling” Intuition Influences Satiety

Jacob Suher*

Raj Raghunathan

Wayne D. Hoyer

September 2015

Accepted at the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research

(* indicates corresponding author)

Jacob Suher (jacob.suher@phd.mccombs.utexas.edu) is a doctoral student, Raj Raghunathan

(raj.raghunathan@mccombs.utexas.edu) is a professor of Marketing and a Fellow of the Institute

on Asian Consumer Insight, Singapore, and Wayne D. Hoyer

(wayne.hoyer@mccombs.utexas.edu) is the James L. Bayless/William S. Farish Fund Chair for

Free Enterprise and professor of Marketing at the McCombs School of Business, University of

Texas at Austin, 2110 Speedway Stop B6700, Austin, TX 78712. The authors acknowledge the

financial support of the Bonham Fund.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2705002

 2

Abstract

To help understand the unconscious drivers of overeating, we examine the effect of

health portrayals on people’s judgments of the fillingness of food. An implicit association test

and two consumption studies provide evidence that people hold an implicit belief that healthy

foods are less filling than unhealthy foods, an effect we label the “healthy = less filling”

intuition. The consumption studies provide evidence that people order greater quantities of food,

consume more of it, and are less full after consuming a food portrayed as more versus less

healthy. In addition, we demonstrate a novel tactic for reversing consumers’ intuitions:

highlighting the nourishing aspects of healthy food mitigates the belief that it is less filling.

Taken together, these findings add to the burgeoning body of work on the psychological causes

of weight-gain and obesity and points to a way of overturning the pernicious effects of the

“healthy = less filling” intuition.

Keywords: Satiation; Intuitions; Health; Obesity

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2705002

 3

INTRODUCTION

Obesity is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States (Hennekens

and Andreotti 2013) and globally more than two billion adults and children are overweight (Ng

et al. 2014). Although there are several causes of obesity, the most important reason is the

overconsumption of food (McFerran and Mukhopadhyay 2012; U.S. DHHS and USDA 2010).

Therefore, to combat the obesity epidemic, it is critical to understand the drivers of how much

people eat. Wansink and Chandon (2014, p. 413) summarize the significance of this topic as

follows: “Consumer psychologists and health psychologists have often focused on understanding

the mechanisms that influence food choice more than on understanding what influences food

consumption quantity. Yet at a time of increasing obesity, understanding what influences how

much we eat is as relevant as understanding what we eat.” Wansink and Chandon (2014) thus

suggest that there is a gap in our understanding of the drivers of food overconsumption.

We address this research gap by investigating the effect of health portrayals on how

filling a food item is perceived to be, which has been found to be a significant driver of how

much people eat (Brunstrom and Rogers 2009). The increasing popularity of health portrayals in

marketing communications makes this topic particularly pertinent. From 2001 to 2010, the

percentage of new food and beverage products with health-related claims has increased from 25

to 43% (Martinez 2013). While this may appear to be a boon for the fight against obesity,

psychologists have uncovered a paradoxical phenomenon whereby people tend to overeat foods

that are portrayed as healthy (Wansink and Chandon 2006). The most popular explanation for

this phenomenon is that people underestimate the caloric content of such foods (e.g., Chandon

and Wansink 2007).

 4

However, we propose an alternative—and hitherto unexplored—reason why people

consume greater quantities of the same food when it is portrayed as healthy (vs. unhealthy). We

posit that people subscribe to the “healthy = less filling” intuition, that is, they hold an implicit

belief that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy foods and, as a result, believe that they

need to eat larger quantities of it to feel equally full. In the process of documenting evidence for

this mechanism, we make two main contributions.

First, we provide direct and indirect evidence that the healthy = less filling intuition is

held implicitly, and therefore, influences the judgments and decisions of even those who do not

agree with the intuition at an explicit level. We document evidence of the implicit nature of the

intuition with multiple dependent variables, including reaction times, post-consumption hunger

levels, and the amount of food ordered and consumed. Second, we document that, even as

consumers subscribe to the healthy = less filling intuition, they also subscribe to belief that

healthy food is more nourishing. We use this finding to test whether the tendency to consume

greater quantities of food portrayed as healthy can be mitigated by highlighting the greater

nourishment-value of such food. We document support for these predictions while controlling

for the independent impact of calorie estimations of food and thereby rule out the alternative

explanation for the finding. In the general discussion, we highlight both the theoretical and

substantive implications of our research.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Past Research on Health Portrayals and Overconsumption

 5

Past research on health portrayals has established that people tend to consume more of a

food when it is portrayed as healthy (Wansink and Chandon 2006; Chandon and Wansink 2007;

Provencher, Polivy, and Herman 2009). The popular explanation for this finding is that people

underestimate the caloric content of food portrayed as healthy and thus believe that they should

eat larger portions of the food. For example, Chandon and Wansink (2007) find that people are

more likely to underestimate the calorie content of foods from a restaurant that claims to be

healthy (e.g., Subway) and subsequently are more likely to choose higher calorie side-dishes.

Likewise, Wansink and Chandon (2006) find that presenting M&M candies with “low-fat” labels

leads people to overconsume the candy and underestimate the amount of calories that they

consume. However, because participants in the aforementioned studies were not provided with

caloric content information before consumption, it is unclear whether, or to what extent, their

findings were mediated by calorie estimates of the options.

Another pool of research suggests that health portrayals can impact people’s post-

consumption hunger levels. In particular, portraying a food as healthy as opposed to tasty leads

to higher self-reported hunger levels (Finkelstein and Fishbach 2010; Vadiveloo et al. 2013) and

higher physiological measures of hunger (Crum et al. 2011). Taken together, these studies

converge on the idea that people’s psychological associations with foods impact their food

choices. However, similar to the research on health portrayals and overconsumption (e.g.,

Wansink and Chandon 2007), these studies either explicitly or implicitly implicate a calorie

underestimation mechanism. Crum et al. (2011) explicitly provide their participants with

inaccurate calorie information. Finkelstein and Fishbach (2010) and Vadiveloo et al. (2013) infer

that people are motivated to change their hunger levels because of inaccurate calorie perceptions.
 6

To summarize, past findings have found that portraying a food as healthy leads people to

consume larger quantities of food and report increased hunger levels after consumption. The

important research gap that remains is why do people overconsume food portrayed as healthy or

believe that they are hungrier after consumption. Whereas past research has implicated calorie

underestimation either explicitly (Chandon and Wansink 2007; Crum et al. 2011; Provencher et

al. 2009) or implicitly (Finkelstein and Fishbach 2010; Vadiveloo et al. 2013), extant research

cannot demonstrate that calorie estimates fully explain the effects of health portrayals.

In contrast to past research, we propose that an implicit belief that healthy foods are less

filling than unhealthy foods underlies the tendency to consume larger quantities of, and feel

hungrier after consuming, foods portrayed as healthy. Our theory is unique from the calorie

underestimation explanation because it predicts that the effect of health portrayals will persist in

the presence of accurate calorie perceptions and that the most effective means for reducing the

overconsumption of foods portrayed as healthy is to influence people’s implicit beliefs about the

fillingness of foods.

The Healthy Equals Less Filling Intuition

Past research defines fillingness as the subjective judgment of whether a food will satisfy

hunger (Oakes 2006, 227). It is considered a subjective judgment because actual nutritional

content, such as the caloric content of a food, can be a poor predictor of hunger satisfaction. For

instance, Brunstrom, Shakeshaft, and Scott-Samuel (2008) find that participants judge 200

calories of pasta to be just as filling as 900 calories of cashew nuts. Thus, in this paper, we

consider the fillingness of a food to be a subjective judgment that might be influenced by

psychological factors such as health perceptions.

 7

The negative relationship between healthy and filling. There are at least two sources for

the belief that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy foods. The first source is exemplar

generation. When thinking of “healthy” foods, people are likely to bring to mind items such as

salads or soups that are literally light in terms of weight and density. In contrast, when thinking

of unhealthy food items, people are likely to bring to mind food items such as fries or pizza that

are literally more dense or heavier. As a result of the difference in the types of exemplars that

represent healthy and unhealthy food, people may expect healthy food to be less filling than

unhealthy food.

The second source is past experiences with consuming healthy versus unhealthy food.

Because people believe that unhealthy foods are tastier (Raghunathan, Walker, and Hoyer 2006)

or because such food is often served in larger portion sizes (Wansink 2006; Young and Nestle

2012), it is likely that people frequently consume unhealthy food to the point where they feel

full. As a result, they may have developed an implicit association between “healthy” and “less

filling”—or conversely, between “unhealthy” and “more filling.” The idea that past consumption

experiences can influence perceived fillingness of food items is consistent with past research. For

example, Irvine et al. (2013; see also Brunstrom et al. 2008) have found that eating a food item

to satiation increases its perceived fillingness.

Note that both sources for the healthy = less filling intuition—namely, exemplar

generation and past post-consumption experiences—suggest that the association between

healthiness and lack of fillingness is likely to be implicit. Specifically, the process by which

people generate exemplars is often sub-conscious (e.g., Ward 1994) and, likewise, learned

associations tend to become implicit over time (Fiske and Pavelchak 1986). As such, not only do
 8

we expect people to subscribe to the healthy = less filling intuition, we also expect its influence

on judgments and decisions to be implicit. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H1: People implicitly believe that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy foods.

The effect of health portrayals on perceived fillingness, self-selected portion size, and

actual consumption amount. If people believe that healthy food is less filling, they should judge

a food to be less filling when it is portrayed as more (vs. less) healthy. As such, we predict that

people will feel hungrier after consuming a food that is portrayed as healthy as opposed to

unhealthy. Further, in contrast to past research, we expect that this pattern will emerge even after

controlling for caloric content information—since the mechanism underlying our predictions (the

healthy = less filling intuition) is not affected by calorie estimations.

The effect of health portrayals on fillingness judgments should also manifest in people’s

self-selected portion sizes because fillingness judgments are a significant predictor of the amount

of food people order (Brunstrom, Collingwood, and Rogers 2010). Specifically, we expect that

people will select a larger portion size of the same food when it is portrayed to be more (vs. less)

healthy and that this effect will be obtained even controlling for people’s calorie estimations.

Our final prediction concerns actual consumption amounts. As past findings have shown

(e.g., Wansink, Painter, and North 2005), people have the tendency to finish whatever food is in

on their plate. Thus, because people are likely to order a greater amount of food that is portrayed

as more (vs. less) healthy, we also expect the quantity of food consumed to be greater when a

food item is portrayed as more (vs. less) healthy.

In summary, we predict that:

Controlling for calorie content information, when the same food is portrayed as healthy as

opposed to unhealthy:
 9

H2a: consuming the same amount of food will lead to greater hunger levels,

H2b: self-selected portion size will be larger, and

H2c: people will consume greater quantities of food in a self-selected portion size context.

Mitigating overconsumption. The healthy = less filling intuition suggests that correcting

people’s calorie estimations will not be sufficient to mitigate the influence of the intuition on

consumption quantity. Instead, to do so, it may be necessary to impact the extent to which people

believe that healthy food is less filling than unhealthy food. One way of doing so is to highlight

another implicit association that people are likely to have with healthy food—namely, that it is

more nourishing than unhealthy food.

Nourishing refers to the extent to which a food item provides the ingredients necessary

for maintaining and improving physical and mental health. We expect that people will believe

healthy (vs. unhealthy) food to be more nourishing. This expectation follows from the logic that

healthy food is, by definition, more nourishing. Some past findings provide support for the

notion that people associate healthy (vs. unhealthy) food with greater nourishment. For example,

Carels, Harper, and Konrad (2006) and others (e.g., Kozup, Creyer, and Burton 2003; Wansink

2003) find that “nourishment” is positively related to the healthiness of a food.

We believe that there are at least two reasons to expect that highlighting the nourishing

aspect of healthy food will mitigate the tendency to overconsume such food. First, we expect that

people will believe that they need to consume lower quantities of food that is portrayed as

nourishing in order to maintain good physical and mental health. This follows from the

assumption that people will infer nourishing food to be more nutrient rich. Second, highlighting

the nourishing aspect of a food item may reduce the salience of the other associations (including

the “less filling” one) that may otherwise be activated. For these two reasons, we expect that
 10

making the nourishing aspect of healthy food more salient will decrease the tendency to infer

that food portrayed as healthy is less filling and, as such, predict that:

H3: The tendency to order and consume more of a food item portrayed as healthy (vs.

unhealthy) will be mitigated among those reminded of the nourishing value of healthy food.

Study Overview

We test our hypotheses in three studies. Study 1 tests for H1—the prediction that people

hold implicit associations between healthiness and fillingness. We test this hypothesis using the

well-established Implicit Association Test (IAT). As part of the study, we also test whether

people implicitly hold an association between healthiness and nourishing. Then, in Study 2, we

test for the impact of health portrayals on fillingness judgments after consumption (H2a). The

third study tests for the impact of health portrayals on both self-selected portion size (H2b) and

consumption amounts (H2c), and also examines whether making the nourishing association of

healthy food more salient mitigates the influence of the healthy = less filling intuition on food

consumption decisions (H3).

STUDY 1: IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST

We use the Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998;

Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji 2003) to investigate implicit associations between healthiness,

fillingness, and nourishment. The IAT is especially useful in this situation because it is a robust

measure of relationships that exist in people’s heads (Rozin et al. 2012). Participants completed

two IATs to examine whether they hold a dual-belief that healthy foods are less filling and more

nourishing than unhealthy foods.

 11

Participants and Procedure

Fifty undergraduate students at a large public university who spoke English as a first

language participated in this experiment (which was conducted using DirectRT software) for

extra course credit. Participants were instructed to correctly categorize stimuli shown on the

middle of their screens into the categories presented on sides of the screen. Stimuli were

presented one at a time from the following four categories: (1) pictures of unhealthy foods, (2)

pictures of healthy foods, (3) words associated with either satiation or nourishing aspects of

fillingness (e.g., heavy, strengthening) and (4) words associated with either not satiating or not

nourishing aspects of fillingness (e.g., light, weakening). Appendix A contains a full list of

stimuli. The stimuli were selected to be obvious examples of the concepts they represent because

the IAT requires an objectively correct classification of each stimulus. As we will explain, the

result of interest is participants’ reactions times rather than their classification of the stimuli.

In line with established protocol (Greenwald et al. 1998), participants completed seven

blocks of trials, five of which were practice blocks designed to familiarize participants with the

target stimuli and the categorization labels (see Appendix A). During the critical blocks for

analysis, category labels are paired together in a manner that is either congruent or incongruent

with our predictions. The critical blocks were Block 4, in which the category labels were

“Healthy Foods and Filling” versus “Unhealthy Foods and Not Filling,” and Block 7, in which

the category labels were “Unhealthy Foods and Filling” and “Healthy Foods and Not Filling.”

Participants completed two versions of the IAT. While both versions used the same food

stimuli, the first version used the words associated with satiation (e.g., heavy, light) and the

second version used the words associated with nourishment (e.g., strengthening, weakening).

However, regardless of whether the words reflected nourishment or hunger, the category headers
 12

for word stimuli were “Filling” or “Not Filling.” Our prediction for the first IAT is that people

will be faster at making categorizations when unhealthy foods and satiating words are paired

together as category labels as opposed to when healthy foods and satiating words are paired

together. In the second IAT, we expect a reversal of reaction times: people will be faster when

healthy foods are paired with nourishing words as opposed to when unhealthy foods are paired

with nourishing words.

The use of two IATs with opposite predictions accounts for potential confounds with the

food stimuli. For instance, perceptions of portion size differences or subjective experiences with

particular foods might lead to biases in participants’ reaction times. However, if a characteristic

besides the healthiness of a food was driving the results, then reaction times would remain

unchanged when the conception of fillingness (i.e., satiation vs. nourishment) changes. Thus, the

predicted reversal in reaction times is a robust test for the implicit belief that healthy foods are

less satiating and more nourishing than unhealthy foods.

Data Preparation

Following the revised IAT scoring algorithm (Greenwald et al. 2003), the data were

subjected to the following criteria: (1) elimination of trial response latencies greater than 10,000

milliseconds (of the 1,824 trials in the critical blocks, 1 trial was above this threshold and thus

was eliminated); (2) exclusion of participants whose response times were less than 300

milliseconds on more than 10% of the critical trials (1 participant’s responses were eliminated);

(3) inclusion of all response latencies, even those for false responses; and (4) computation of the

IAT D Effect ([unhealthy food + filling and healthy foods + not filling] – [healthy foods + filling

and unhealthy foods + not filling] divided by the pooled standard deviation of response latencies
 13

across both blocks) (Greenwald et al. 2003). The difference in seconds between critical blocks

was also calculated, this measure is called the “critical difference.”

Results and Discussion

To accommodate the two versions of the IAT, we used a mixed model to regress the IAT

D effect and the critical difference measure on the version of the IAT as a within-subjects

variable (i.e., satiation vs. nourishment words). Our main result was that the version of the IAT

had a significant effect on response times for the IAT D Effect and the critical difference

(F(1,48) = 83.70, p < .01; F(1,48) = 84.98, p < .01). Figure 1 plots this finding. Participants

simultaneously believe that healthy foods are less filling and more nourishing than unhealthy

foods. We used spotlight analyses (Irwin and McClelland 2001) to test for the direction of

people’s beliefs within each version of the IAT. In the satiating words IAT, the model intercept

indicated that people were faster at categorizing stimuli when unhealthy foods and satiating

words were paired together than when healthy foods and not satiating words were paired together

(IAT D effect model: t(1,48) = -1.96, p = .06; critical difference model: t(1,48) = -2.02, p = .05).

On the other hand, in the nourishment words IAT, people were faster when healthy foods and

nourishment words were paired together than when unhealthy foods and nourishment words

were paired together (IAT D effect model: t(1,48) = 8.44, p < .01; critical difference model:

t(1,48) = 8.51, p < .01).

Figure 1 – IAT Results

 14

Healthy Foods Are Less Filling and More

Nutritious than Unhealthy Foods
300 1
200
Average 0.5
Critical 100
D Stat
Difference 0
0
(seconds) -100 Satiating Words Nourishing Words
-200 -0.5

Critical Difference D Stat

The IAT results support our hypothesis that people hold an implicit belief that healthy

foods are less filling than unhealthy foods. We also found that people simultaneously believe that

healthy foods are more nourishing than unhealthy foods. This dual-belief provides a practical

implication: the effect of one association might be mitigated by highlighting the existence of the

other. We will revisit this possibility in Study 3. In the next study, we investigate the effect of

health portrayals on hunger levels after actual consumption.

STUDY 2: THE EFFECT OF HEALTH PORTAYAL ON ACTUAL SATIETY

The purpose of Study 2 is to test how health portrayals affect people’s hunger levels after

actual food consumption. We chose hunger levels as the dependent variable because past

research has shown that hunger levels after consumption reflect the perceived fillingness of a

food (e.g., Finkelstein and Fishbach 2010; Vadiveloo et al. 2013). Our main prediction is that

people who consume an item portrayed as healthy will report being less full after consuming it

than those who consume the same item portrayed as unhealthy (H2a). A secondary prediction is

that this effect is implicit, such that even those who do not report explicit agreement that healthy

food is less filling report feeling less hungry after eating an item that is portrayed as unhealthy
 15

(vs. healthy). Finally, we provide people with accurate caloric content information before

consumption and expect the aforementioned effects to be obtained even after controlling for

people’s calorie estimations.

Participants and Procedure

Forty students from a large southern university participated in our study at the start of a

graduate level class. The study employed a two-factor design, with health portrayal (healthy vs.

unhealthy) serving as a categorical and manipulated predictor with two levels and explicitness of

belief serving as a measured continuous variable. Upon arriving at the classroom, students were

asked if they would like to eat a cookie and then provide their opinions about the product. Those

who chose to participate were asked to choose a cookie from a selection of three flavors

(chocolate chip, oatmeal raisin, and cocoa espresso) of the same brand. All cookies were in their

original packaging, which included detailed nutritional information (see Appendix B). After

selecting a cookie, participants received a plastic bag containing a sheet of paper that provided

the randomly assigned health portrayal manipulation and a short survey.

In the healthy condition, participants read that they were about to eat a “healthy cookie”

which had received a “NuVal Score” of 74 and contained “high levels of protein, fibers and

vitamins.” Participants in the unhealthy condition read that they were about to eat an “unhealthy

cookie” which had received a “NuVal Score” of 24 and contained “high levels of sugars, fats and

carbohydrates” (see Appendix B for stimuli). The survey measured participants’ hunger levels

immediately after consuming the cookie and their perceptions of the cookie’s healthiness and

tastiness. Hunger was measured using the question “How hungry are you at the present

moment?” on a scale of 1 = not at all hungry to 7 = very hungry. Healthiness and tastiness were

measured on similar seven-point scales. We measured healthiness as a manipulation check for

 16

the health portrayal manipulation. Tastiness is measured so that we can test whether the health

portrayal affects people’s hunger levels above and beyond the effect of taste perceptions

(Raghunathan et al. 2006). The survey and any unfinished cookie were collected by the

administrator 15 minutes after the cookies were distributed. While we encouraged all participants

to eat the entire cookie, consumption was not mandatory and we recorded the amount of

unfinished cookie.

Forty-five minutes later, a second survey measured hunger levels again, using the same

question as the first survey. The second survey also measured participants’ explicitness of belief

in the healthy = less filling intuition, familiarity with the cookie, and calorie estimations. To

measure the explicitness of belief, participants rated their agreement with the statements that

“Unhealthy/Processed/Fattening/High sugar content food is more filling” on a one to nine scale

of “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” These four items were averaged to create a single

measure of explicitness of belief (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.82). Familiarity with the cookie was

measured on a one to nine scale from “not at all familiar” to “very familiar.” We measured

familiarity with cookie since we felt that it could independently affect fillingness perceptions.

Participants were also asked to estimate the number of calories in one whole cookie using an

open-ended question. All independent variables were mean-centered in the analyses.

Of the forty participants, one had an incomplete exit survey and three participants were

eating other food during the study; the data from these participants was excluded, leaving 36

participants in our analyses.

Results and Discussion

The health portrayal manipulation worked as intended. Participants in the healthy

condition rated the cookies to be healthier than those in the unhealthy condition (Mhealthy = 4.79;
 17

Munhealthy = 2.76; F(1, 34) = 21.48, p < .01). Because all participants were requested to eat the

entire cookie, we did not expect a difference in consumption quantity across the health portrayal

conditions, and our results confirmed this; health portrayal was a nonsignificant predictor of the

percentage of cookie consumed (Mhealthy = 57%; Munhealthy = 52%; F(1, 28) = 0.23, p = .64). Also,

the type of cookie did not have an effect on perceptions of tastiness, healthiness, or calorie

estimations (all p values > .25). We include cookie type in the following analyses; however, the

significance or interpretation of the results is unchanged if cookie type is removed. In addition,

to get a sense whether the participants explicitly agreed with the “healthy = less filling” intuition,

we checked the summary statistics of the explicitness of belief variable. The difference between

the average explicit belief and the scale median was nonsignificant (Mexplicitbelief = 5.30; (F(1,68)

= 1.00, p = .33) indicating that on average participants neither strongly explicitly agreed nor

disagreed that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy foods. A roughly similar number of

participants strongly disagreed with the intuition as those that strongly agreed (i.e., 6 participants

in bottom third of scale and 10 in top third of scale).

The focal dependent variable was participants’ hunger levels, collected immediately after

consuming the cookie and again after a 45-minute delay. Participants’ hunger levels were

regressed on the health portrayal, explicitness of beliefs, and the interaction between the health

portrayal and explicitness of beliefs. Since hunger levels were measured twice, we used a mixed

regression model where measurement time was treated as a within-subjects variable. In addition,

tastiness, familiarity, the amount of cookie consumed, and dummy variables for cookie type were

included as covariates in the regression.

Results revealed a main effect of the health portrayal (F(1, 27) = 8.33, p < .01).

Participants in the healthy condition reported being hungrier than those in the unhealthy
 18

condition (Mhealthy = 5.10, Munhealthy = 3.67). As can be seen in Figure 2, the difference between

the health portrayals was greater after the 45 minute delay (Munhealthy = 3.70, Mhealthy = 5.42;

F(1,27) = 7.65, p = .01) than immediately after consumption (Munhealthy = 3.64, Mhealthy = 4.77;

F(1,27) = 5.09, p = .03). This pattern is consistent with research showing that the effects of

perceived consumption become stronger with delay (Brunstrom et al. 2012).

Figure 2 – Study 2 Results

People Are Hungrier After Eating Cookie

Portrayed as Healthy
6
5
4
Self-Reported
3 Unhealthy Portrayal
Hunger
2
Healthy Portrayal
1
0
Immediately after After delay
consumption

Turning to the implicit impact of the intuition, we found support for the prediction that

the influence of the intuition takes place implicitly. Specifically, explicitness of belief did not

have a significant main effect on hunger levels (F(1,27) = 0.09, p = .77), nor did it moderate the

effect of the health-portrayal manipulation (F(1,27) = 1.37, p = 0.25). This suggests that the post-

consumption hunger levels of participants who did not agree that healthy food is less filling was

similar to those who did agree with the healthy = less filling intuition.

Of the covariates, participants who found the food to be tastier were hungrier after

consumption (F(1,27) = 8.97, p < 0.01), presumably because perceived tastiness independently

whetted the participants’ appetite. The effect of the quantity of cookie actually consumed was

not significant (F(1,27) = 1.03, p = 0.32) suggesting that the amount of cookie consumed is not

an independent determinant of post-consumption hunger. Familiarity with the cookie was also
 19

nonsignificant (F(1,27) = 1.47, p = 0.23) suggesting that the effect generalizes to people who are

unfamiliar with the food item. In addition, the effect of cookie type was nonsignificant (F(2,27)

= 1.61, p = .22). This was expected because the cookies were extremely similar and participants’

perceptions did not significantly differ between cookies.

Our final set of analyses revealed that calorie estimations did not mediate the relationship

between health portrayal and post-consumption hunger levels. Specifically, when calorie

estimations were regressed against health portrayal, a non-significant effect emerged (F(1,26) =

0.02, p-value = .89) showing that, regardless of whether the cookie was portrayed as healthy or

not, it was inferred to contain a statistically similar number of calories (Mhealthy = 216, Munhealthy =

211). A second analysis, in which we added calorie estimations to our main regression model for

hunger levels, revealed that calorie estimations did not have a significant impact on hunger levels

(F(1,26) = 0.06, p = .82) and the pattern and significance of all other results were unaffected by

the inclusion of calorie estimates.

To summarize, post-consumption hunger levels provide evidence that healthy foods are

judged as less filling than unhealthy foods. People were hungrier after consuming a cookie

portrayed as healthy as opposed to unhealthy. Further, the fact that this pattern was not

moderated by explicitness of belief in the healthy = less filling intuition suggests that the effect

of the intuition on food consumption decisions is implicit—a finding that replicates the results

obtained in Study 1 (the IAT study). A question that remains, however, is whether the healthy =

less filling intuition is powerful enough to influence portion-size choices and consumption

amounts.
 20

STUDY 3: THE EFFECT OF HEALTH PORTRAYALS ON SELF-SELECTED

PORTION SIZE AND CONSUMPTION

The purpose of Study 3 is to test whether health portrayals affect self-selected portion

size (H2b) and consumption amount (H2c), and whether these effects are mitigated when the

association between healthiness and nourishment is made salient (H3). We chose self-selected

portion size as a dependent variable because past research has shown that fillingness judgments

are a significant predictor of the amount of food people order (Brunstrom et al. 2010). We

hypothesized that participants would choose a larger portion when the same food item (popcorn)

is portrayed as healthy as opposed to unhealthy. And, because people tend to eat the entirety of

the food placed in front of them (Wansink et al. 2005), we expect people to consume more when

the food item is portrayed as healthy. In addition, we expected that reminding people of the

nourishing value of healthy foods would mitigate the tendency to order larger quantities and

consume more food when it is portrayed as healthy. Finally, we expect the effects of health

portrayals on portion size and consumption to be obtained even when people do not explicitly

agree with the healthy = less filling intuition.

Participants and Procedure

Seventy students at a large public university who spoke English as a first language

participated in a “video viewing task” as part of a research study to earn extra course credit. The

study employed a two-factor design, with health portrayal (healthy vs. unhealthy vs. nourishing)

serving as a categorical and manipulated predictor with three levels and explicitness of belief

serving as a measured continuous variable. After completing twenty minutes of unrelated

 21

surveys, the students were informed that they would receive popcorn to eat while watching a

video.

Before learning about the popcorn, the participants indicated their current hunger levels

as they did in Study 2. The hunger level question was embedded in a general mood assessment.

Then, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three health portrayal conditions. In the

healthy condition, the popcorn was portrayed as “healthy” and that it had received a “NuVal

Score” of 74. In the unhealthy condition, the popcorn was portrayed as “unhealthy” and that it

had received a “NuVal Score” of 26. The nourishing condition was identical to the healthy

condition except that the word “nourishing” replaced “healthy” in the following two sentences:

“As you know, popcorn is one of the snacks that is both tasty and healthy (nourishing)” and “The

popcorn we are about to serve you is a relatively healthy (nourishing) version of the snack.”

Similar to the healthy condition, participants in the nourishing condition were informed that the

popcorn had received a “NuVal Score” of 74. Thus, the association between healthiness and

nourishing was evoked in a relatively subtle manner that marketers could easily mimic in the

marketplace. Finally, participants in all three conditions were informed that a one cup serving of

popcorn contained approximately 50 calories (see Appendix C for stimuli).

Immediately after the health portrayal manipulation, participants were asked to “order the

amount of popcorn that [they] need to eat to not be hungry until [their] next meal” from a

selection of zero to 10 cups in one cup increments. In order to mask the true purpose of this

study, participants were told that they would be watching a video while consuming the popcorn

that they ordered. Participants were asked to choose the amount of popcorn that they wished to

order by clicking on one of 10 icons, each representing a certain serving size (from 0 to 10 cups;

see Appendix C). It should be noted that even the largest amount that a participant could order
 22

(10 cups) was smaller than the smallest order at typical movie theaters (11 cups) and half the size

of a large order (20 cups; Barrow 2009).

We attempted to reduce the social pressure that might affect portion size by informing

participants that “all orders are anonymous and will be placed in identical paper boxes and no

one else will know how much you ordered.” All portion sizes were served in identical opaque

theater-style boxes with closed lids to hide the amount of popcorn ordered and to make the

popcorn-eating experience more realistic. After ordering the popcorn, participants received their

prepackaged ordered amounts one at a time from an adjacent room.

Upon returning to their seats, participants were given 15 minutes to freely eat their

popcorn while watching a popular TED talk (i.e., “How to make stress your friend” by Kelly

McGonigal). At the end of the video, participants were asked to place the remaining popcorn

behind the computer monitor. Once they did this, participants were asked to respond to the

following two questions (1 = “not at all” to 9 = “very much”): “How much did you enjoy the

video?” and “How much did you agree with the message of the video?” These two questions

were included to lend support to the video-viewing cover story. Participants then reported their

perceptions of the popcorn’s healthiness, tastiness, and nourishing value, explicitness of belief in

the healthy = less filling intuition, estimated calorie content, and familiarity with popcorn using

the same items used in Study 2. The perceived nourishing value of the popcorn is a manipulation

check for the nourishing food portrayal. The explicitness of belief items (Cronbach’s Alpha =

0.87) were averaged to create a single measure.

The two focal dependent variables in this study were: 1) the portion size ordered by

participants, and 2) the actual consumption amount. We measured consumption in ounces by

weighing the boxes of popcorn before and after the experiment. The dependent variables were
 23

log-transformed and the independent variables were mean-centered. We report the results

relevant to our hypotheses (complete model results are in Appendix D).

Results and Discussion

The health portrayal manipulation worked as intended: participants in the healthy and

nourishing conditions viewed the popcorn as significantly healthier than those in the unhealthy

condition (Mhealthy = 5.86; Mnourishing = 5.26; Munhealthy = 3.32; F(2,67) = 28.60, p < .01). Perceived

healthiness was not significantly different between the healthy and the nourishing conditions

(F(1,68) = 0.66, p = .51). In addition, participants’ ratings of the popcorn’s nourishment value

were as expected; the nourishing condition was rated most nourishing followed by healthy and

unhealthy (Mnourishing = 5.19; Mhealthy = 4.38; Munhealthy = 3.41; F(2,67) = 7.52, p < .01). In

particular, participants in the nourishing condition rated the popcorn as more nourishing than

other two conditions combined (F(1,68) = 3.25, p < .01). In addition, to get a sense whether

participants explicitly agreed with the “healthy = less filling” intuition, we checked the summary

statistics of the explicit belief variable. The average explicit believe was significantly lower than

the scale median (Mexplicitbelief = 4.21; (F(1,68) = -3.50, p < .01) indicating that on average the

participants explicitly disagreed with the belief that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy

foods. Over six times as many participants strongly disagreed with the intuition than those that

strongly agreed (i.e., 25 participants in bottom third of scale and 4 in top third of scale).

Turning now to our main prediction, we expected that participants would order larger

portion sizes and consume more of a food when it is portrayed as healthy as opposed to

unhealthy. Further, to the extent that highlighting the nourishing qualities of a food makes people

believe that food portrayed as healthy is more filling and also lowers the salience of the healthy-

filling association, we expected participants in the nourishing condition to order and consume an
 24

amount less than those in the healthy condition. That is, we expected the following decreasing

trend in portion size and consumption: healthy > nourishing > unhealthy.

To test for this trend, we regressed portion size and consumption amount on the linear

health portrayal trend (i.e., healthy = 1, nourishing = 0, unhealthy = -1), explicitness of belief,

and the interaction between the health portrayal and explicitness of belief. The analysis included

pre-consumption hunger levels, tastiness of the food, and the familiarity with it as covariates.

The results from this analysis are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Study 3 Results, Health Portrayal Linear Trend

Panel A: Portion Size Panel B: Consumption Amount

4 0.8
Consumption (ounces)
Portion Size (cups)

3 0.6

2 0.4

1 0.2

0 0
Healthy Nourishing Unhealthy Healthy Nourishing Unhealthy
Health Portrayal Condition Health Portrayal Condition

With regard to portion size as the dependent variable, a main effect of the health portrayal

emerged (F(1,63) = 6.57, p = .01), revealing that the predicted trend (healthy > nourishing >

unhealthy) was significant (see Figure 3, Panel A). While the main effect of explicitness of belief

was non-significant (F(1,63) = 1.78, p = .19), a moderately significant healthy portrayal ×

explicitness of belief interaction also emerged, (F(1,63) = 3.01, p = .09), suggesting that the

impact of health portrayal on the amount ordered depended on the extent to which participants

explicitly believed that healthy food is filling. Results with consumption as the dependent

variable revealed a broadly similar pattern. Specifically, a main effect of health portrayal
 25

emerged (F(1,63) = 2.18, p = .03), revealing that the predicted trend (healthy > nourishing >

unhealthy) was significant (see Figure 3, Panel B). Further, neither the main effect of

explicitness of belief (F(1,63) = 0.24, p = .62) and the health portrayal × explicitness of belief

interaction (F(1,63) = 1.05, p = .31) impacted consumption amount.

We now report results from a set of follow-up analyses with planned contrasts to address

our focal predictions. First, to test whether portion size and consumption amount increased in the

healthy as opposed to unhealthy condition (H2b and H2c), we regressed portion size and

consumption amount on the contrast between healthy versus unhealthy, the contrast between

healthy versus nourishing, explicitness of belief, and the interaction between the contrasts and

explicitness of belief. The analysis used the same set of covariates mentioned earlier.

There was a significant main effect of the healthy versus unhealthy contrast on portion

size (F(1,61) = 8.97, p < .01), and consumption amount (F(1,61) = 6.78, p = .01). Participants

ordered a larger portion size and consumed more popcorn when it was portrayed as healthy as

opposed to unhealthy. Results from the healthy versus unhealthy contrast × explicitness of belief

interaction were nonsignificant, both for portion-size (F(1,61) = 0.64, p = .43), and for

consumption amount (F(1,61) = 0.04, p = .84). Thus, the results from the contrast between

healthy and unhealthy conditions are consistent with results from prior studies. Specifically, they

replicate two main findings obtained earlier: 1) people believe healthy (vs. unhealthy) food is

less filling and 2) the healthy = less filling intuition impacts participants who do not explicitly

agree with the intuition.

One of the main objectives of this study was to assess whether the influence of the

healthy = less filling intuition on food consumption decisions can be mitigated by making salient

the nourishing association with healthy foods (H3). To test for this, we regressed portion size and
 26

consumption amount on the contrast between healthy versus nourishing, the contrast between

unhealthy versus nourishing, explicitness of belief, the interaction between the contrasts and

explicitness of belief, and the same set of covariates.

There was a significant main effect of the healthy versus nourishing contrast on portion

size (F(1,61) = 8.78, p < .01) and consumption (F(1,61) = 4.57, p = .04). Participants ordered a

smaller portion size and consumed less popcorn when it was portrayed as nourishing as opposed

to healthy. This provides evidence that making the nourishing association of healthy food salient

mitigates the tendency to order and consume more of a food when it is portrayed as healthy (vs.

unhealthy). Results also revealed that, while the main effect of explicitness of belief was non-

significant (both ps > .30), the healthy versus nourishing contrast × explicitness of belief

interaction was significant for portion size (F(1,61) = 8.90, p < .01) and moderately significant

for consumption (F(1,61) = 3.56, p = .06).

To further explore the healthy versus nourishing contrast × explicitness of belief

interaction, we conducted spotlight analyses at one standard deviation above and below the mean

of explicitness of belief. For low levels of explicitness of belief, people ordered larger portion

sizes (F(1,61) = 12.93, p < .01) and consumed more popcorn (F(1,61) = 5.91, p = .02) in the

healthy as opposed to nourishing condition. However, for high levels of explicitness of belief,

the effect of health portrayal was non-significant both for portion size (F(1,61) = 1.07, p = .31)

and for consumption (F(1,61) = 0.04, p =.85). Therefore, the nourishing intervention is more

successful at mitigating the effect of the healthy portrayal for participants who do not have

strong explicit beliefs in the healthy = less filling intuition. However, the significant main effect

of the healthy versus nourishing contrast reported earlier provides evidence that a subtle

reminder of the nourishing value of healthy foods reduces overconsumption of foods portrayed
 27

as healthy for participants with average beliefs. We elaborate on the theoretical and managerial

implications of this result in the general discussion.

Finally, calorie estimations were not significantly different between the healthy,

nourishing, and unhealthy conditions (Mhealthy = 62.59 calories; Mnourishing = 66.30 calories;

Munhealthy = 88.86 calories; F(2,67) = 0.83, p = .44). Specifically, the unhealthy condition was not

significantly different than the healthy condition (F(1,68) = 1.38, p = .24) or the nourishing

condition (F(1,68) = 1.10, p = .30). More importantly, calorie perceptions did not have a

significant effect when added to any of the self-selected portion size or consumption amount

models described above and the same pattern of results remained statistically significant.

In addition, to understand the source of the changes in participants’ consumption

amounts, we investigated the percent of the order consumed. To compare the differences

between the healthy and unhealthy conditions, we regressed the percent of popcorn consumed

(i.e., amount consumed divided by portion size) on the linear health portrayal trend (i.e., healthy

= 1, nourishing = 0, unhealthy = -1), explicitness of belief, the interaction between the health

portrayal and explicitness of belief, and the same covariates as earlier analysis in this study. In

summary, the results replicated those for portion size and consumption amount. Participants in

the healthy condition ate a greater percentage of the popcorn they ordered than those in the

unhealthy condition. We found a significant main effect of the health portrayal condition

(F(1,63) = 2.59, p = .01), the main effect of explicit belief was nonsignificant (F(1,63) = 1.02, p

= .31), and its interaction with the health portrayal was nonsignificant (F(1,63) = 0.60, p = .55).

As in the other analyses, the only significant covariate was tastiness (F(1,63) = 3.41, p < .01).

Overall, this analysis demonstrates that overconsumption of popcorn in the healthy condition is

attributable to both increasing the portion size and eating more of the popcorn once it is ordered.
 28

Results from Study 3 are noteworthy for three main reasons. First, they replicate the two

main findings to emerge from the prior studies, namely: 1) people believe that healthy (vs.

unhealthy) food is less filling and 2) the healthy = less filling intuition can operate implicitly.

Second, we find that highlighting the nourishing value of healthy food can help mitigate the

tendency to order and consume more of a food when it is portrayed as more (vs. less) healthy—at

least among those who do not have a strong explicit belief that healthy food is less filling.

Finally, none of these results appear to be driven by calorie-estimates, which rules out an

alternative explanation for the results.

General Discussion

The concurrent obesity epidemic and rapid increase in health-related food claims has led

to the discovery of an ironic phenomenon whereby people overconsume foods portrayed as

healthy (Wansink and Chandon 2006). We contribute to this area of research by providing

evidence that people hold an implicit belief that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy

foods, which we refer to as the “healthy = less filling” intuition (e.g., Chandon and Wansink

2007). Our theory is distinct from past research that has implicated calorie underestimates as the

cause of overconsumption. An implicit association test and two consumption studies provide

evidence that people hold an implicit belief that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy

foods. Importantly, this intuition impacts fillingness judgments, self-selected portion sizes, and

actual consumption amounts even when consumers are provided with caloric content information

and for people with an average explicitness of belief in the intuition. Finally, we demonstrate a
 29

novel tactic for mitigating the overconsumption of healthy foods: highlighting the nourishing

aspects of foods.

Theoretical Implications

The main theoretical contribution of our research is the conceptual and empirical

evidence for an implicit belief that healthy foods are less filling than unhealthy foods. While past

research has documented that people overconsume foods portrayed as healthy (e.g., Wansink and

Chandon 2006), the mechanism underlying this effect has remained relatively unexplored. The

most popular extant explanation is that people underestimate the caloric content of healthy foods.

In contrast, we find that health portrayals affect people’s consumption patterns through

perceptions of fillingness. An important implication of the healthy = less filling intuition is that

biased calorie estimates may be a symptom of the drivers of overeating rather than the root

cause. In addition, although implicit intuitions may be difficult to consciously control (e.g.,

Raghunathan et al. 2006), our results show that a relatively simple and straightforward tactic

reduces the effect of the healthy = less filling intuition. Highlighting another association that

people have with healthy food, that it is more nourishing than unhealthy food, mitigates

consumers’ tendencies to order larger portion sizes and consume more when a food is portrayed

as healthy.

Our research also suggests that “healthy” labels have implications beyond their literal

meaning (e.g., Pham, Mandel, and Morales 2016). In particular, we find that highlighting the

nourishing qualities of a food reduces people’s tendency to over-order and overconsume a food

portrayed as healthy without directly impacting perceptions of the food’s healthiness. Since

perceptions of healthiness did not change, it appears that the beliefs surrounding the concept of

healthiness, such as fillingness judgments, are driving the results. Conceptually, this
 30

distinguishes the healthy = less filling intuition from alternative explanations such as a general

desire to eat healthy or that people feel licensed to eat more food when it is portrayed as healthy

(e.g., Finkelstein and Fishbach 2010; Vadiveloo et al. 2013). One implication of our research is

that the perceived fillingness of foods provides an additional explanation for the balancing

phenomenon in consumption episodes (Dhar and Simonson 1999). People may be motivated to

balance the satiating qualities of foods when making multiple choices within a consumption

episode.

Managerial Implications

Promoting healthy eating has become a hot topic for marketers, consumers, and

regulators. The sales of health foods have reached record highs (Whole Foods 2013) and front-

of-package health labeling may soon be required on packaged-foods (National Research Council

2011). For example, Nikolova and Inman (2015) find that the introduction of simplified health

information to the point-of-sale in a regional grocery store chain led customers to increase their

selection of healthy foods. Our research suggests that the influx of health information may

ironically abet the obesity epidemic.

While it is preferable for people to choose healthy food over unhealthy food, if people

tend to over-consume foods labeled as healthy then the proliferation of health foods and nutrition

labels could actually lead to an increase in calorie intake. Accordingly, the effects of this

phenomenon would be especially detrimental if unhealthy foods are portrayed as healthy. Based

on our stimuli of cookies and popcorn, we believe it is highly likely that health portrayals could

lead to overconsumption of relatively unhealthy foods. This point stresses the fact that portraying

a food as healthy does not equate to lower calories. For example, Chipotle claims to be a healthy
 31

restaurant because they use natural ingredients however their burrito has 800 to 1,000 calories,

similar to a large burger at other fast-food restaurants (Quely, Cox, and Katz 2015).

Our research also supports past findings suggesting that calorie information is often

ineffective in changing food choices (e.g., Howlett et al. 2009). In addition to posting calorie

information (FDA 2014), food establishments could reduce overconsumption by using subtle

reminders of the nourishing value of healthy foods. In particular, this tactic should be

implemented in situations when food is widely believed to be healthy despite its high caloric

content (Chandon and Wansink 2007). This recommendation is consistent with research on

fighting obesity by highlighting the positive rather than negative attributes of foods (Block et al.

2011; Cornil and Chandon 2015).

From a consumer, marketer, and policy maker point-of-view, it is important to recognize

the double-edged nature of the healthy = less filling intuition. For consumers, emphasizing the

unhealthy characteristics of foods could be a useful tactic for decreasing the amount of food

needed to feel full. From a food marketer’s perspective, when opportunities to eat are limited by

time or money, portraying a food as unhealthy could lead to a differential advantage. While it

seems counterintuitive, portraying a low calorie food as unhealthy might increase the acceptance

of low calorie foods, such as salads, among people who believe it is important to feel full. For

policy makers, the healthy = less filling intuition can be used to address the pernicious effects of

ordering and consuming too much food. In addition to overconsumption, food quantity decisions

may also impact the important issue of household and restaurant food waste (e.g.,Block,

Williamson, and Keller 2016; Porpino 2016). In summary, consumers, marketers, and policy

makers need to be aware of the negative relationship between healthiness and filling to better

serve their respective interests.

 32

Limitations and Future Research

We demonstrate the generalizability of the healthy = less filling intuition by using

multiple dependent variables. However, the diversity of real-world food choices makes it

important for future research to examine whether different food types, eating contexts, or

individual differences moderate the effect of health portrayals on food choices. In addition, other

types of health portrayals might affect fillingness judgments. For example, in a pilot study with

197 undergraduates students, we found that foods with a higher ratio of “good” to “bad” fats

were rated to be less filling than the unhealthy foods despite equivalent calorie content (t(195) =

-6.41, p < .01). Other types of health portrayals that could be investigated include the differences

between nutritionally enhanced foods (e.g., fiber and vitamins added) and calorie-reduced foods

or organic and gluten-free foods.

Another fruitful area of research is the effect of satiation versus hedonic eating goals in

everyday consumption decisions. The demographics of the participants (i.e., college students)

and eating contexts (e.g., eating between class) in our studies may have led to strong satiation

goals. It is unclear whether people with hedonic eating goals (e.g., Vadiveloo et al. 2013) would

behave in a manner consistent with the healthy = less filling intuition. Encouraging people to

focus on pleasure while making foods choices (Cornil and Chandon 2014; Raghunathan et al.

2006) might mitigate the overconsumption of foods portrayed as healthy.

Another limitation of our research is that we did not directly test the sources of the health

= less filling intuition. In an ancillary study, we found that participants from the same subject

pool as Study 3 rated healthy food exemplars as lighter and reported eating them to fullness less

frequently than unhealthy food exemplars (all p-values < .01). These results are consistent with

exemplar generation and post-consumption experience sources for the healthy = less filling
 33

intuition. Further understanding the origins of people’s implicit beliefs is an important area for

future research (Rozin et al. 2012).

THE LARGER THEME: ADDRESSING THE UNCONSCIOUS DRIVERS OF

OVERCONSUMPTION

Research on the behavioral science of eating has demonstrated that eating is largely a

“mindless” activity (Wansink 2006). The hundreds of food decisions that people make every day

(Wansink and Sobal 2007) are often guided by factors outside of conscious control. Rather than

deciding what to eat based on internal factors such as hunger or health, consumption decisions

are affected by external factors such as packaging, social influence, and the eating environment

(e.g., Davis, Payne, and Bui 2016; Peters et al. 2016; Szocs and Biswas 2016; Zlatevska, Holden,

and Dubelaar 2016). While unconscious decisions are not inherently bad, the rising trend of

obesity suggests that there is a fundamental gap between people’s food choices and what is

necessary to maintain good health. This reveals a much larger topic that is central to the issue of

food consumption: how to combat the unconscious drivers of overconsumption?

In light of this larger theme, the “healthy = less filling” intuition highlights three

important aspects of the unconscious drivers of overconsumption. First, the unconscious drivers

of overconsumption are notoriously difficult to control. Because they operate below the level of

consciousness, even people who believe that they are unaffected may be susceptible to influence.

Supporting this idea, our study finds that people’s behaviors can contradict their explicit beliefs.

To date, efforts to reduce obesity have mainly focused on using explicit education to combat

obesity (Wansink and Chandon 2014). If eating is a mindless activity, interventions that require
 34

conscious thought may be inadequate to alter consumers’ food decisions. For instance, calorie

labels only change behavior for consumers who are highly motivated to pay attention to nutrition

information (Howlett et al. 2009). Thus, it is critical to identify novel tactics to reduce food

overconsumption that operate at an unconscious level. For example, we find that changing the

description of a food from “healthy” to “nourishing” mitigates overconsumption. In this issue,

Reimann, MacInnis, and Bechera (2016) identify another novel tactic that operates at an

unconscious level to reduce portion sizes: people choose smaller portions sizes when they are

paired with a non-food based incentive, such as toy.

Second, the healthy = less filling intuition emphasizes the importance of investigating

people’s food choices in realistic consumption contexts. Food consumption studies often employ

research paradigms that eliminate critical steps in consumers’ food choices. For example, people

commonly choose a portion size before a meal begins, yet relatively little is known about the

basis on which portion size decisions are made (Brunstrom et al. 2011). Study 3 in this paper

demonstrates that portions size decisions are a critical antecedent to consumption amount.

Furthermore, studies often use food stimuli that are devoid of its normal packaging or presented

in an unfamiliar context. Without a realistic consumption context, we would not have identified

the healthy = less filling intuition nor a tactic for mitigating overconsumption. Thus, the best way

to understand and identify the unconscious drivers of overconsumption is to study food

consumption in real-world settings.

Third, consumers’ mindsets can have significant and unexpected effects on physiological

states. We found that even when controlling for actual consumption and perceived caloric intake

people felt hungrier after consuming a cookie that was portrayed as healthy as opposed to

unhealthy. This result is supportive of an emerging stream of research on the pervasive, yet often
 35

unexpected, effects of psychological factors on physiology (e.g., Crum et al. 2011). In other

words, what people believe about a food has a significant influence on the biological impact of

food. In this issue, Gal (2016) finds that feelings of hunger predict differences in post-meal blood

glucose levels, a physiological measure of health. These findings challenge the prevailing idea

that there are objective nutritional qualities to foods that always behave in the same manner. One

implication of this viewpoint is that weight maintenance may not be as simple as balancing

energy intake with energy expenditure. Consumer mindsets, including unconscious beliefs, may

tip the scales towards losing or gaining weight.

The key lessons from our research reveal several opportunities for future research on the

unconscious drivers of overeating. Wansink and Chandon (2014) review three powerful drivers

of consumption quantity: sensory drivers, emotional drivers, and normative drivers. We believe

that exploring these three drivers of unconscious influences in real-world settings (e.g.,

restaurants) would be useful—both from practical and theoretical perspectives. In addition, a

promising avenue for future research is to examine how consumers’ unconscious beliefs differ

across food consumption contexts. For example, making food choices in a retail setting with

nutrition labels (e.g., Elshiewy, Jahn, and Boztug 2016) or food pantries (e.g., Wilson 2016) may

be influenced by different unconscious intuitions than decisions at restaurants (e.g., Peters et al.

2016; Reimann et al. 2016). Finally, future research on the unconscious drivers of overeating

should examine win-win-win solutions for consumers, companies, and policy makers.

Addressing all stakeholders in consumption decisions will provide new perspectives and increase

the potential impact of future research.

In summary, addressing the unconscious drivers of overconsumption is one of the largest

challenges in combating the obesity epidemic. If we are to be successful in this effort, it is

 36

important to keep in mind three key lessons from our research. First, the unconscious drivers of

overeat must be addressed with changes that also operate unconsciously. Second, food

consumption should be investigated in the natural eating environment to discover the actual

antecedents of overeating. Third, research is needed to better understand the effect of

psychological factors on the physiology of food consumption. Taken together, these ideas

support the larger point that the behavioral science of eating is well-suited for study by

psychologists and marketers (Wansink and Chandon 2014).

 37

References

Barrow, Karen (2009), “Popcorn’s Dark Secret,” The New York Times, November 19, 2009.

Block, Lauren G. et al. (2011), “From Nutrients to Nurturance: A Conceptual Introduction to Food Well-

Being,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 5-13.

Block, Lauren, Sara Williamson, and Punam Keller (2016), “Of Waste and Waists: The Effect of Plate

Material on Food Consumption and Waste,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), in-

press.

Brunstrom, Jeffrey M., Steven Brown, Elanor C. Hinton, Peter J. Rogers, and Stephanie H. Fay (2011),

“Expected Satiety Changes Hunger and Fullness in the Inter-Meal Interval,” Appetite, 56(2), 310-315.

Brunstrom, Jeffrey M., Jeremy F. Burn, Nicola R. Sell, Jane M. Collingwood, Peter J. Rogers, Laura L.

Wilkinson, Elanor C. Hinton, Olivia M. Maynard, and Danielle Ferriday (2012), “Episodic Memory and

Appetite Regulation in Humans,” PLoS ONE, 7(12), 1-7.

Brunstrom, Jeffrey M., Jane Collingwood, and Peter J. Rogers (2010), “Perceived Volume, Expected

Satiation, and the Energy Content of Self-Selected Meals,” Appetite, 55, 25-29.

Brunstrom, Jeffrey M. and Peter J. Rogers (2009), “How Many Calories Are on Our Plate? Expected

Fullness, Not Liking, Determines Meal-size Selection,” Obesity, 17(10), 1884–1890.

 38

Brunstrom, Jeffrey M., Nicholas G. Shakeshaft, and Nicholas E. Scott-Samuel (2008), “Measuring

‘Expected Satiety’ in a Range of Common Foods Using a Method of Constant Stimuli,” Appetite, 51(3),

604–614.

Carels, Robert A., Jessica Harper, and Krista Konrad (2006), “Qualitative Perceptions and Caloric

Estimations of Healthy and Unhealthy Foods by Behavioral Weight Loss Participants.” Appetite 46(2),

199–206.

Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink (2007), “The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health

Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 34, 301–314.

Cornil, Yann and Pierre Chandon (2015), “Pleasure as a Substitute for Size: How Multisensory Imagery

Can Make People Happier with Smaller Food Portions,” Journal of Marketing Research, in-press.

Crum, Alia J., William R. Corbin, Kelly D. Brownell, and Peter Salovey (2011), “Mind over Milkshakes:

Mindsets, Not Just Nutrients, Determine Ghrelin Response,” Health Psychology, 30(4), 424–429.

Davis, Brennan, Collin R. Payne, and My Bui (2016), “Table Diameter Changes the Effect of Unit Size on

Food Choice,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), in-press.

Dhar, Ravi and Itamar Simonson (1999), “Making Complementary Choices in Consumption Episodes:

Highlighting Versus Balancing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 29-44.

 39

Elshiewy, Ossama, Steffen Jahn, and Yasemin Boztug (2016), “Seduced by the Label: How the Serving-

Size Specification on Nutrition Labels Affects Food Sales,” Journal of the Association of Consumer

Research, 1(1), in-press.

Finkelstein, Stacey R., and Ayelet Fishbach (2010), “When Healthy Food Makes You Hungry,” Journal of

Consumer Research 37(3), 357–367.

Fiske, Susan T. and Mark A. Pavelchak (1986), "Category-Based Versus Piecemeal-Based Affective

Reasoning: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect," Handbook of Motivation and Cognition:

Foundations of Social Behavior, 167-203, New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Food and Drug Administration (2014), Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in

Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments, College Park, MD:

http://ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-27833_PI.pdf.

Gal, David (2016), “Is Regulating Food Intake According to Hunger Healthy? The Relation Between Pre-

Meal Hunger and Post-Meal Blood Glucose,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, in-press.

Greenwald, Anthony G., D. E. McGhee, and J. L. Schwartz (1998), “Measuring Individual Differences in

Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6),

1464–1480.
 40

Greenwald, Anthony G., Brian A. Nosek, and Mahzarin R. Banaji (2003), “Understanding and Using the

Implicit Association Test: An Improved Scoring Algorithm,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

85(2), 197–216.

Hennekens, Charles H. and Felicita Andreotti (2013), “Leading Avoidable Cause of Premature Deaths

Worldwide: Case for Obesity,” The American Journal of Medicine, 126(2), 97-98.

Howlett, Elizabeth A., Scot Burton, Kenneth Bates, and Kyle Huggins (2009), "Coming to a Restaurant

Near You? Potential Consumer Responses to Nutrition Information Disclosure on Menus," Journal of

Consumer Research, 36(3), 494-503.

Irvine, Michael A., Jeffrey M. Brunstrom, Philip Gee, and Peter J. Rogers (2013), “Increased Familiarity

with Eating a Food to Fullness Underlies Increased Expected Satiety,” Appetite 61(1), 13–18.

Irwin, Julie R. and Gary H. McClelland (2001), "Misleading Heuristics and Moderated Multiple Regression

Models," Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 100-109.

Kozup, John C, Elizabeth H. Creyer, and Scot Burton (2003), "Making Healthful Food Choices: The

Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on Consumers' Evaluations of Packaged Food

Products and Restaurant Menu Items," Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 19-34.

Martinez, Steve W. (2013), Introduction of New Food Products with Voluntary Health- and Nutrition-

Related Claims, 1989-2010, EIB-108, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,

February 2013.
 41

McFerran, Brent, and Anirban Mukhopadhyay (2013), “Lay Theories of Obesity Predict Actual Body

Mass,” Psychological Science, 24(8), 1428-1436.

National Research Council (2011), Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Promoting

Healthier Choices, Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.

Ng, Marie et al. (2014), “Global, Regional, and National Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity in

Children and Adults during 1980-2013: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

2013,” The Lancet, 384, 766-81.

Nikolova, Hristina Dzhogleva and J. Jeffrey Inman (2015), “Healthy Choice: The Effect of Simplified POS

Nutritional Information on Consumer Choice Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, forthcoming.

Oakes, Michael E. (2006), “Filling Yet Fattening: Stereotypical Beliefs About the Weight Gain Potential

and Satiation of Foods,” Appetite, 46(2), 224–133.

Peters, John C., Jimikaye Beck, Jan Lande, Zhaoxing Pan, Michelle Cardel, Keith Ayoob, and James Hill

(2016), “Using Healthy Defaults in Restaurants to Improve Nutritional Choices,” Journal of the

Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), in-press.

Pham, Nguyen, Naomi Mandel, and Andrea C. Morales (2016), “Messages from the Food Police: How

Food-Related Warnings Backfire Among Dieters,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1),

in-press.
 42

Porpino, Gustavo (2016), “Household Food Wate Behavior: Avenues for Future Resaerch,” Journal of the

Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), in-press.

Provencher, Véronique, Janet Polivy, and C. Peter Herman (2009), “Perceived Healthiness of Food: If It’s

Healthy, You Can Eat More!” Appetite, 52(2), 340–344.

Quealy, Kevin, Amanda Cox, and Josh Katz (2015), “At Chipotle, How Many Calories Do People Really

Eat?” The New York Times, February 17, 2015.

Raghunathan, Rajagopal, Rebecca Walker Naylor, and Wayne Hoyer (2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty

Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of

Marketing, 70(4), 170–184.

Reimann, Martin, Deborah MacInnis, and Antoine Bechara (2016), “Motivating Smaller Portion Choice:

Behavioral, Neurophysiological, and Psychological Evidence,” Journal of the Association for Consumer

Research, 1(1), in-press.

Rozin, Paul, Julia M. Hormes, Myles S. Faith, and Brian Wansink (2012), “Is Meat Male? A Quantitative

Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3),

629–643.
 43

Szocs, Courtney and Dipayan Biswas (2016), “Healthier with a Spoon? The Effects of Mode of

Consumption on Food Perception and Consumption Decisions,” Journal of the Association for Consumer

Research, 1(1), in-press.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and USDA (2010), 2010 Dietary Guidelines for

Americans, 7th Ed., Washington DV: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vadiveloo, Maya, Vicki Morwitz, and Pierre Chandon (2013), “The Interplay of Health Claims and Taste

Importance on Food Consumption and Self-Reported Satiety,” Appetite, 71, 349-356.

Wansink, Brian (2003), “Overcoming the Taste Stigma of Soy,” Journal of Food Science, 68(8), 2604-2606.

Wansink, Brian (2006), Mindless Eating, Bantam Books, New York, NY.

Wansink, Brian and Pierre Chandon (2006), “Can ‘Low-fat’ Nutrition Labels Lead to Obesity?” Journal of

Marketing Research ,43, 605–617.

Wansink, Brian and Pierre Chandon (2014), "Slim By Design: Redirecting the Accidental Drivers of

Mindless Overeating," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 413-431.

Wansink, Brian, James E. Painter, and Jill North (2005), “Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion

Size May Influence Intake,” Obesity Research, 13(1), 93-100.

 44

Wansink, Brian and Jeffrey Sobal (2007), “Mindless Eating: The 200 Daily Food Decisions We Overlook,”

Environment and Behavior, 39(1), 106-23.

Ward, Thomas B. (1994), “Structured Imagination: The Role of Category Structure in Exemplar

Generation,” Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1-40.

Whole Foods (2013), 2012 Annual Report.

Wilson, Norbert Lance Weston (2016), “When the Cupboards are Bare: Nudging Food Pantry Clients to

Healthier Foods,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1 (1), in-press.

Young, Lisa R. and Marion Nestle (2012), “Reducing Portion Sizes to Prevent Obesity: A Call to Action,”

American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 43(5), 565-568.

Zlatevska, Natalina, Stephen S. Holden, and Chris Dubelaar (2016), “Whether Smaller Plates and Bowls

Reduce Consumption Depends on Who’s Looking: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of the Association for

Consumer Research, 1(1), in-press.

 45

Appendix A
Stimuli for Study 1 – Implicit Association Test
Study 1: Stimuli Used in IAT

Unhealthy Foods Healthy Foods Word List

Satiating Not Satiating

Heavy Light
Full Hungry
Stuffed Starved

Nourishing Not Nourishing

Nourishing Less Nourishing
Strengthening Weakening
Wholesome Unwholesome
 46

Study 1 - Sequence of Trial Blocks in IAT

Sequence of Trial Blocks in IAT - Incongruent First Order

Number of Items Assigned to Left-Key Items Assigned to Right-Key

Block Function
Trials Response Response

1 20 Practice Healthy food images Unhealthy food images

2 28 Practice Filling words Not filling words

Healthy food images + filling Unhealthy food images + not

3 24 Practice
words filling words

Healthy food images + filling Unhealthy food images + not

4 48 Critical Test Block
words filling words

5 40 Practice Unhealthy food images Healthy food images

Unhealthy food images + Healthy food images + not

6 24 Practice
filling words filling words

Unhealthy food images + Healthy food images + not

7 48 Critical Test Block
filling words filling words
 47

Appendix B
Stimuli for Study 2 – Health portrayal manipulation

Example of Cookie and Packaging

 48

Appendix C
Stimuli for Study 3 – Health portrayal manipulation for “Popcorn” study and portion size depiction
Healthy Condition:

As you know, popcorn is one of the snacks that is both tasty and healthy. Corn has
relatively high levels of protein and good (complex) carbohydrates with a relatively low
glycemic index. Popped corn does not contain any oil, sugars, or salt – providing these
things are not added later – thus making popcorn a healthy snack.

Indeed, NuVal, which is an organization that rates the healthiness of various foods, has
provided an overall rating of 74 to popcorn.

The popcorn we are about to serve you is a relatively healthy version of the snack. Note
that the total amount of calories per cup of the popcorn we are about to serve you is
about 50 calories.

Click >> when you are done reading.

Nourishing Condition (without image):

As you know, popcorn is one of the snacks that is both tasty and nourishing. Corn has
relatively high levels of protein and good (complex) carbohydrates with a relatively low
glycemic index. Popped corn does not contain any oil, sugars, or salt – providing these
things are not added later – thus making popcorn a healthy snack.

Indeed, NuVal, which is an organization that rates the healthiness of various foods, has
provided an overall rating of 74 to popcorn.

The popcorn we are about to serve you is a relatively nourishing version of the snack.
Note that the total amount of calories per cup of the popcorn we are about to serve you
is about 50 calories.

Click >> when you are done reading.

 49

Unhealthy Condition (without image):

As you know, popcorn is a tasty snack, but it can also be unhealthy. Corn has relatively
low levels of protein and high levels of simple carbohydrates with a relatively high
glycemic index. Further, popped corn is usually served with butter and salt, thus making
it even less healthy.

NuVal, which is an organization that rates the healthiness of various foods, has provided
an overall rating of 26 to popcorn.

The popcorn we are about to serve you is the regular version of the snack. Note that the
total amount of calories per cup of the popcorn we are about to serve you is about 50
calories.

Click >> when you are done reading.

 50

Popcorn Portion Size Selection

Appendix D
Study 3 - Complete Results
Linear Trend Healthy vs. Unhealthy Healthy vs. Nourishing
Portion Size Consumption Portion Size Consumption Portion Size Consumption
Parameter Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
Intercept 1.0305** 0.3903** 1.0695** 0.0365** 1.0695** 0.0365**
Healthy vs. Unhealthy 0.2334* 0.1016* 0.0996** 0.0522**
Healthy vs. Unhealthy * Explicitness -0.0817^ -0.0247 -0.0503 -0.0264
Healthy vs. Nourishing 0.0925 -0.0486 0.1073** 0.0564*
Healthy vs. Nourishing * Explicitness -0.051* -0.0267^ -0.0574** -0.0301^
Unhealthy vs. Nourishing -0.0995** -0.0523*
Unhealthy vs. Nourishing * Explicitness 0.0503 0.0264
Explicitness of Belief 0.0491 0.0093 0.0368 0.0193 0.03683 0.0193
Hunger Levels 0.0444 0.0215 0.0266* 0.0139^ 0.0266* 0.0139^
Tasty 0.1156** 0.0652** 0.0372** 0.0195** 0.0372** 0.0195**
Familiar 0.0304 0.0055 0.0284 0.0149 0.0284 0.0149
Significance reporting: ^p < .10; *p <.05; **p < .01
Note: DV is log(y+1) for all regressions
Contrast code details:
Healthy vs. Unhealthy (Healthy = 1; Unhealthy = -1; Nourishing = 0)
Healthy vs. Nourishing (Healthy = 1; Unhealthy = 0; Nourishing = -1)
Unhealthy vs. Nourishing (Healthy = 0; Unhealthy = 1; Nourishing = -1)