What are some consequences of eating too much fast food?
Weight gain? Check. Higher cholesterol? Check.
Increased reading speed?
Wait. Back up.
Yes – as it turns out, fast food can have consequences that reach far beyond the bigger-bellied symptoms that we already know to look out for. Those iconographic golden arches may be so inherently related to concepts of haste, time efficiency, and instant gratification that simply being exposed to them can influence more than just our eating behavior.
A recent paper published by Chen-Bo Zhong and Sanford E. DeVoe in Psychological Science reports that incidental exposure to fast food can alter behaviors related to speed, efficiency, and impulsivity across many different domains, even those unrelated to eating. In this series of studies, the researchers exposed half of the participants to fast food concepts by subliminally flashing six well-known fast food logos, asking the participants to recall a time they ate a meal at a fast-food establishment, or explicitly asking them to rate the visual appeal of two fast food logos. Zhong and DeVoe then compared these participants to others who were exposed to neutral images or wrote about non-fast food experiences and examined if the fast-food signals would activate the kinds of mental concepts that would influence various eating-irrelevant behaviors.
Are you reading faster yet?
What they found was that the participants who thought about fast food did, in fact, act differently. The ‘fast food’ participants showed a strong preference for time-saving products, rating items such as 2-in-1 shampoo, 3-in-1 skin care solution, and high-efficiency detergent more positively than control participants did, and also more positively than the “regular” versions of those products. When the participants were asked to choose between a small amount of money now or a larger amount of money in a week, the ‘fast food’ subjects were significantly more likely to accept the smaller payment now rather than wait for the larger payoff. Finally, the ‘fast food’ participants read a 320-word passage roughly 15 seconds faster on average. If that does not seem like a lot, keep in mind that 320 words is approximately the length of this blog post so far, and 15 seconds is about how long it takes to walk up two flights of stairs. Quite a difference to arise from seeing a few pictures of Colonel Sanders!
This paper is just one example in a long line of studies about the ways in which everyday exposure to different brands and products can influence our behavior in unanticipated ways. One of the first studies to really examine this was conducted by Grainne M. Fitzsimons, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons in 2008. In this study, the researchers demonstrated that participants who were subliminally primed with the Apple logo (a brand that consistently encourages its consumers to “Think Different”) were more creative in a standard laboratory creativity task than those who were exposed to the IBM logo. They also determined that participants who were merely exposed to the Disney Channel logo were more honest and sincere than those who saw logos for the E! Channel. More recently, Chen-Bo Zhong and Nina Mazar also showed that participants who were exposed to products that were branded as ‘green’ were more altruistic and charitable than those who just saw regular products.
What a concept! According to the implications of this research, working in a cafe surrounded by patrons on MacBooks might make you write more creatively. Driving by a McDonald’s on the way to work might make you pick up your speed and get more frustrated with the slow driver in the next lane. Using a ‘green’ coffee cup might make you more likely to hold the door open for a stranger. The important thing to note about these studies is that none of the participants consciously recognized the effect of the brands on their behavior – in several of the studies, they didn’t even realize that they had seen the logos. Any effect that these brands had on their behavior was subconscious and, as a result, largely uncontrollable. Also, the effect had nothing to do with the product itself – it was driven entirely by the brand name. When participants in the fast food study were prompted to think about diners – which are also fast, cheap food establishments – they did not show the same effects. Similarly, the participants in the Apple/IBM study specifically noted that they did not consider either computer to be superior in terms of quality or performance. The only difference, it seems, is the brand.
So what does this mean? Well, I can’t really tell you that buying McDonald’s will make you finish your reading faster, nor can I say that buying a MacBook will help you come up with better research ideas. But it certainly can’t hurt!
UPDATE 1: It should be noted that in the “preference for time-saving products” section of the study, high-efficiency detergent does not necessarily save more time than regular detergent – it is simply manufactured for high-efficiency laundry machines. However, this did not seem to make a difference in participants’ responses.
UPDATE 2: As a commenter points out, it should be noted that in the ‘green product’ study participants acted more altruistically when they were exposed to the green products, but less altruistically when they were given the chance to buy them. The explanation provided is that buying the products allowed them to feel like they had ‘done enough good’ and thus had license to act less moral in the future to make up for it. This is an important distinction to consider, especially when thinking about the implications of the studies (e.g. Would actually buying fast food lead people to be slower?)
Zhong CB, & Devoe SE (2010). You are how you eat: fast food and impatience. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 21 (5), 619-22 PMID: 20483836
Mazar N, & Zhong CB (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 21 (4), 494-8 PMID: 20424089
Fitzsimons, G., Chartrand, T., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Motivated Behavior: How Apple Makes You “Think Different” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 21-35 DOI: 10.1086/527269
Pingback: Tweets that mention Want to read faster, think more creatively, and be a better person? Buy more brand-name stuff. | ionpsych.com -- Topsy.com
I saw this linked from scienceblogs.com. Weird stuff, not sure what to make of it, but interesting.
That segment of the food industry is called “fast,” though, so I’d like to see whether the same effect applies when the subjects are prompted to think about something else: for example, brands like Quicken, Nestle Quik, or Quaker Instant Oatmeal, as compared to Microsoft Office, Kool-Aid, or Pilsbury Muffins.
Inflection,
Thank you for your comment! As background information (in case it is needed), these studies use a common experimental tactic called ‘priming,’ where psychologists will use different kinds of stimuli to activate various concepts in people’s minds and (ideally) influence their attitudes & behavior as a result. The thing about priming is that you don’t necessarily need to use the exact words ‘FAST FOOD’ to activate the thoughts that we have about fast food. That’s why these particular researchers were able to get their effects just by using the fast food logos, rather than making the participants actually think about the word “FAST.”
Getting back to your comment — one part of the rationale behind the authors’ logic that fast food should lead to speed and preference for time-saving was that the food itself is fast. In this regard, according to the logic of the study, the brands that you mentioned should have the same effect – you would think that just reading the word “Quick” or “Instant” would lead to faster movement and thought. However, part of their argument is also that the concept of “fast food” is largely cultural; fast food itself is symbolic of a society (typically American) where everything has to be NOWNOWNOW and full of instant gratification. In this sense, activating thoughts about McDonald’s doesn’t just make you think about the words “fast food,” nor does it just make you think about how your food is prepared really quickly. It could be that the effect exists because the participants were reminded of an entire societal stereotype that endorses speed and instant gratification. In this sense, there is very little else that would symbolize and activate this stereotype better than McDonald’s (or other fast food places). Brands such as Quicken, Nestle Quik, or Quaker Instant Oatmeal, while “fast,” aren’t necessarily so stereotypical.
So, my main point is, I would think that the effect of those brands could theoretically go either way. If they did show the same effect, that could demonstrate that the increased speed/efficiency is just the effect of seeing (or thinking about) the words “fast” or “quick.” If they didn’t, that would point to the idea that the fast food concepts worked because they were more closely linked to this cultural stereotype. It would be interesting to see how it worked!
It seems there is a difference between seeing the products and buying them, though. From the ‘green’ study’s abstract: ‘people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products than after purchasing conventional products.’
Perhaps there is a guilt bucket which gets filled up by desire and emptied by acquisition.
Thank you; added an update!
Pingback: Want to read faster, think more creatively, and be a better person? Buy more brand-name stuff. | PsySociety
Hello there, You have performed a great job. I will definitely digg it and in my opinion suggest to my friends. I’m sure they’ll be benefited from this website.