Suchergebnisse

Hauptbeschreibung: Wir essen mehr als nötig ? nicht nur, weil wir Lust aufs Essen haben. Unsere Gewohnheiten spielen dabei genauso eine Rolle wie die Umstände, unter denen wir Nahrung zu uns nehmen. Und nicht zuletzt verführt uns die Lebensmittelindustrie mit subtilen Tricks. Dieses Buch vermittelt ganz praktisch, wissenschaftlich fundiert und mit vielen erstaunlichen Beispielen aus unserem (Ess-)Alltag, wie wir es schaffen können, bewusster zu essen und uns dadurch wohler zu fühlen. Biographische InformationenBrian Wansink ist Professor für Marketing und Ernährungswissenschaften und Geschä

Does the weight of a server have an influence on how much food diners order in the high-involvement environment of a restaurant? If people are paying for a full meal, this has implications for consumers, restaurants, and public health. To investigate this, 497 interactions between diners and servers were observed in 60 different full-service restaurants. Diners ordered significantly more items when served by heavy wait staff with high body mass indexes (BMI; p < .001) compared with wait staff with low body mass indexes. Specifically, they were four times as likely to order desserts ( p < .01), and they ordered 17.65% more alcoholic drinks ( p < .01). These findings provide valuable evidence in recent lawsuits against weight discrimination, and it suggests to consumers who decide what they will and will not order at a restaurant—such as a salad appetizer, no dessert, and one drink—than to decide when the waiter arrives.

Economists have traditionally viewed the behavioral response to risk as continuous and proportional. In contrast, psychologists have often contended that people have little control over their response to risk that is dichotomous, nonproportional, visceral, and fear based. In extreme cases, this automatic response results in the stigmatization of a product, technology, or choice, which seemingly cannot be eliminated or reduced. In resolving these contrasting perspectives, we review four recent studies that blend behavioral economics and psychology. Together, they provide evidence for a dual‐process decision model for risk that incorporates both reason and fear. They show consumers' responses to perceived risk as a mix of proportional and dichotomous (safe/unsafe) responses that are relatively more continuous in situations where deliberation is possible, and more dichotomous in emotional or stressful circumstances. These findings reconcile mixed results in past studies, and, more importantly, the dual‐process model allows a clear definition of stigma, and suggests new ways to mitigate stigma and to help manage potentially damaging overreactions to it.