4.7 Article

I Eat Healthier Than You: Differences in Healthy and Unhealthy Food Choices for Oneself and for Others

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages 4638-4660

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu7064638

Keywords

fake food buffet; food choice; self-other bias; optimism in eating behavior

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01EA1326, 01EL1420A]
  2. Committee on Research (AFF) of the University of Konstanz within Excellence Initiative of the German Federal Government
  3. Committee on Research (AFF) of the University of Konstanz within Excellence Initiative of the German State Government
  4. University of Konstanz

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study investigated self-other biases in actual eating behavior based on the observation of three different eating situations. To capture the complexity of real life food choices within a well-controlled setting, an ecologically valid fake food buffet with 72 different foods was employed. Sixty participants chose a healthy, a typical, and an unhealthy meal for themselves and for an average peer. We found that the typical meal for the self was more similar to the healthy than to the unhealthy meal in terms of energy content: The mean difference between the typical and healthy meals was M = 1368 kJ (327 kcal) as compared to a mean difference between the typical and unhealthy meals of M = 3075 kJ (735 kcal). Moreover, there was evidence that people apply asymmetrical standards for themselves and others: Participants chose more energy for a peer than for themselves (M = 4983 kJ or 1191 kcal on average for the peers' meals vs.M = 3929 kJ or 939 kcal on average for the own meals) and more high-caloric food items for a typical meal, indicating a self-other bias. This comparatively positive self-view is in stark contrast to epidemiological data indicating overall unhealthy eating habits and demands further examination of its consequences for behavior change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available