An Introduction and Overview
(Brian Wansink 12-10-2019)
|
In 2017-19, about 18 of my research articles were retracted. These retractions offer some useful lessons to scholars, and they also offer some useful next steps to those who want to publish in the social sciences. Two of these steps include 1) Choose a publishable topic, and 2) have a rough mental roadmap of what the finished paper might look. That is, what’s the positioning, the study, and the possible contribution. The topics I’ve described here offer one set of roadmaps that could be useful. First, they were of interest to journals in medicine, behavioral economics, marketing, nutrition, psychology, health, and consumer behavior. Second, they each show what a finished paper might look like. They show the positioning, relevant background research, methodological tips, and key implications. I find all of these topics super interesting and of practical importance. This document provides a two-page template for each one that shows 1) An overview why it was done, 2) the abstract (or a summary if there was no abstract), 3) the reason it was retracted, 4) how it could be done differently, and 5) promising new research opportunities on the topic. I would strongly encourage anyone who’s interested in publishing in these areas to closely follow the principles of open science. You can start by preregistering hypotheses and planned analyses, and following the other steps along the road to publication. Making specific hypotheses and testing them followed by open science principles will be the best next way forward on these topics.[1] Academia can be a tremendously rewarding career both you and for the people who benefit from you research. Best wishes in moving topics like these forward, and best wishes on a great career. [1] A useful description of these principles can be found at Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Hofelich Mohr, Al, …. Frank, M. C. (2018). A Practical guide for transparency in psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 4 (1), 20. |
2-pagers for each paper
| ||||
| Retractions and Research Opportunities |
|
|
Organization of this Webpage
|
I. The Research Topics
II. Appendices A-C. Investigation into Possible Errors in Six JAMA Papers |
Pdf Version of Webpage (ResearchGate.net) |
| ||
Do Healthy Ingredients Make You Hate the Food?
|
Have you tried the meatless “Impossible” Whopper at Burger King?
If you hear that a snack has a healthy ingredient in it, does your mouth stop watering? Lots of products have tried to promote themselves as having a healthy ingredient. Yet this might be a big turn-off for a lot of people. Let’s see what would happen if we tell people a product has a healthy ingredient (even though it doesn’t). Are they going to hate it because of the fake ingredient that’s not even there? If they do, there’s important precautions to take. The Original Findings The paper investigated how sensory-suggestible people are when it comes to interpreting the flavors of things they are tasting. This was conducted in the context of soy-fortified products which were becoming more prevalent, but were receiving resistance because of the perception that soy "tasted bad." The abstract with the key findings are noted below. 
A similar version of this paper with the same data had been published in an agriculture journal in 2000, and this version was published in the Journal of Sensory Studies in 2002.[1] This paper was retracted due to major overlap with a previously published article: Wansink B, Park SB, Sonka S, Morganosky M (2000) How soy labeling influences preference and taste. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 3: 85–94. doi: 10.1016/S1096‐7508(00)00031‐8.[2]
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: Many sensory studies involving new or different ingredients have added a new ingredient (or ingredient replacement) to a product and then tested to determine if people can detect a difference between the old product and the reformulated one. An approach that seems to not be used before is to tell people there’s an ingredient in a food even though it isn’t there, and then run a taste test to see if they can “taste” this missing or phantom ingredient. This examines whether the suggestiveness of just thinking this ingredient is in the product is enough to make them think they taste it. Using this phantom ingredient approach worked well when this study was run back in 1998 because back then soy had a bad taste perception among most consumers. The same phantom ingredient test could be used to examine if there are unarticulated biases against other new project ingredients – such as meatless meat and Impossible Whoppers. There are dozens of new ingredients that could be influenced by this Phantom Bias. 2.New Methodology Ideas: Many sensory studies involve a small piece of a product in a labeled baggie, or in little labeled cups. Presenting foods in this way might be seen by some consumers as artificial, especially if they taste these in tasting cubicles. An environment like this could reduce the impact of this labeling. One way this could be eliminated is by having the person taste the product in a naturalistic environment, such as kitchen or kitchenette with other snacks that are sitting out. Additionally, another way to make the product seem more realistic is to print colored labels and to package it as close to a real project as possible. Many taste tests use a standard set of validated descriptors. If you are analyzing different ingredients that you fear might have a unique sensory property (such as gritty or fatty) or some unique perceived side-effect, try to include these adjectives as descriptors when asking for their evaluation. This may not be important for publishing the article, but it might be of particular interest to those companies, health agencies, or people who are thinking of using the results of the article. Summary. This research is quite fun to do. It’s easy to implement, and any extra effort to do it in a realistic and compelling context and with a realistically present product will make it a lot more useful. For instance, we’ve done taste tests at Halloween parties, progressive dinners, and at an Academy Award party. Many of these sensory articles are often conducted and targeted to sensory journals. Yet these issues are of huge interest to public health, parents, psychology, marketing, and food technology. Redirecting your research toward one of these new areas could be tremendously rewarding. [1] Wansink, Brian; Park, Se-Bum (November 2002). "Sensory Suggestiveness and Labeling: Do Soy Labels Bias Taste?". Journal of Sensory Studies. 17 (5): 483–491. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2002.tb00360.x. [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joss.12259 |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Park, Se-Bum (November 2002). "Sensory Suggestiveness and Labeling: Do Soy Labels Bias Taste?". Journal of Sensory Studies. 17 (5): 483–491. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2002.tb00360.x.
| ||
Can Taste Profiles Predict Food Preferences?
|
You know your new special friend loves red wine and hates sprouts. If you order the anchovy pizza, will this be your last date, or will you hear start to hear wedding bells?
Being able to predict what new foods people will love based what foods they currently love would be useful. You wouldn’t make a new recipe no one else eats, and you might be able to better predict whether you’d like a restaurant menu item before you order it. Being able to make these predictions would also be useful to food companies because they would know who might be most likely to try their new meatless meat product, or their pumpkin chutney canned soup. The Original Findings This was based on survey research and published 2003.[1] The abstract describes the findings: 
The paper was retracted at the request of the Editors on the grounds of unreliable data in Table 1 and duplication of text in the results and discussion sections from an earlier publication (B. Wansink and J. Cheong, Taste profiles that correlate with soy consumption in developing countries, Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 1: 276; 2002; DOI: 10.3923/pjn.2002.276.278).[2]
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1.Hypotheses and Extensions: This isn’t a hypothesis type of project as much as it is an empirical test of concept. In this particular case, let’s take people who really like a particular product (such as meatless meat, tofu, anchovies, or whatever our target food is), and see what other clusters of food these people might also tend to love. Large scale data bases can make this easier to accomplish. This process would also be beneficial for public health and nutrition. Say that people can be categorized into four quadrants: 1) People who love vegetables the most, 2) people who love fruit the most, 3) people who love them both, and 4) people who dislike both of them. Suppose you know what non-vegetable foods vegetable lovers (group 2) love more than fruit lovers. This can help one know what types of foods to direct toward vegetable lovers vs. fruit lovers so that everyone eats more produce, and everyone is healthier. If you knew your child was more of a vegetable lover than a fruit lover, you’d know what new foods you could direct them toward. Being able to have a basic understanding of food profiling would also be useful to a parent who is cooking for a picky child or spouse. That is, knowing what taste profile they might belong to would also give you an idea of what other foods tend to be eaten by similar people in their profile. In this way things can slowly be expanded past their current limited set of foods. 2.New Methodology Ideas: This is basically a statistical exercise, but it needs the right data to be able to categorize a person as a being a taste champion of the particular target food. The more fanatical of a fan a person is about the target food, the more they valuable their taste profile will be in helping generate insights. Because of this, a basic Likert scale for food liking may not be as discriminating as using multiple scales and combining it with food frequency questions, and selecting people based on the frequency they eat the target food you are focused on. Summary. There’s a lot of practical promise in being able to develop a common set of 6-8 different taste profiles for fanatics of a specific target food. It will give lots of insights about cross-promotions, recipe ideas, potential partners, and gateway paths to adoption. And by-the-way, if you order the anchovy pizza for your special friend who loves red wine but hates sprouts, start listening for wedding bells. [1] Wansink, Brian; Westgren, Randall (December 2003). "Profiling taste-motivated segments". Appetite. 41 (3): 323–327. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00120-X. [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566630300120X |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Westgren, Randall (December 2003). "Profiling taste-motivated segments". Appetite. 41 (3): 323–327. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00120-X.
| ||
Do Large Serving Bowls Make You to Eat More?
|
Suppose you’re at a Super Bowl party and you are surrounded by an endless supply of snacks. Will you serve and eat more if the snacks are in large bowls or would you eat more if the same volume of snacks were in twice as many bowls half that size? This has implications for dieters as well as for health conscious and thrifty hosts who don’t want to encourage too much festive overeating.
The Original Findings The original study was based on a field study involving MBA students at a Super Bowl party in a sports bar in Champaign, IL in 2000. It was published as a two-page research letter in JAMA.[1] Here’s what was found: 
The paper was retracted because JAMA asked Cornell to provide an independent evaluation of this and five other articles to determine whether the results are valid. In their retraction notice, JAMA wrote, “[Cornell’s] response states: ‘We regret that, because we do not have access to the original data [original coding sheets or surveys], we cannot assure you that the results of the studies are valid.’ Therefore, the 6 articles reporting the results of these studies that were published in JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA, and JAMA Internal Medicine, are hereby retracted”[2] (Appendices A-C).
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: Let’s say that people do eat more from bigger bowls. Do they know they are doing so? One extension of this would be to intercept people after they party was over and ask whether they believe the size of the serving bowl had any impact on how much they served and ate. Causal conversations with people after studies like this surprisingly seem to suggest they don’t think the size of a bowl could influence know much they ate, and even when it’s pointed out, they have alternative rationalizations why they might have eaten more than average (“I was hungry,” “I didn’t eat lunch,” and so forth). A second interesting extension of follow-up to this would be whether bowl size influences them more if they are in a bad mood or in a good mood. Major sporting events offer an opportunity to do this. Knowing which team, a person is cheering for can be used to see if happy winners celebrate more when given big bowls, or whether unhappy losers drown their sorrows in big buckets. 2. New Methodology Ideas: This particular study was conducted in a noisy sports bar under realistic conditions. Other than being randomly assigned to a serving table and inconspicuously led to that table, everything thing else was natural. Another approach would have been to more tightly test this as a lab study than as a field study in a bar. As a rough guideline, most of these field studies indicate that people serve and eat around 20% more from larger containers and plates. Seldom more than 30% and seldom less than 10%. But scholars have also hypothesized that bowl and plate size effects are less strong (or even nonsignificant) when conducted in lab settings, and systematic meta studies have also shown that this effect is much stronger in the field than the lab. Yet what has been missing to date is a very explicit test of a field study versus lab study comparison. An excellent study of this would be useful in resolving some of the effect size differences in these studies. Summary Bowl sizes and plate sizes have been a fertile ground for lots of useful studies that have led to new dinnerware lines, changes in hotel and restaurant chain buffet plates, and eating behavior changes among dieters. Things are now at a stage when it would be useful to learn what are the limitations and boundary conditions are around using dinnerware to perceptually change how much is served. Knowing the point at which smaller and smaller dinnerware backfires or the circumstances when it does and doesn’t work will provide a new level of impact. Additionally, there might be very practical situations where change dishware sizes clashes with a perception of quality or value. It would be important to identify these because they are a different type of boundary condition. For instance, serving a 10-oz steak on a 10-inch plate might make it seem huge compared to when it is served on a 12-inch plate. But is this something a restaurant should do. That is, does it make the steak look like a better value, or does it make it look cheap. Answering these questions would have immediate implications. [1] Wansink, B; Cheney, MM (13 April 2005). "Super Bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption". JAMA. 293 (14): 1727–8. doi:10.1001/jama.293.14.1727. PMID 15827310. [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2703492 |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, B; Cheney, MM (13 April 2005). "Super Bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption". JAMA. 293 (14): 1727–8. doi:10.1001/jama.293.14.1727. PMID 15827310.
| ||
Why Do Overweight People Underestimate How Much They Eat?
|
This is one topic that can help improve the bedside manner of some of the doctors and dieticians who work with overweight and obese patients. It can also help with one of the difficulties obese people face when being counseled about their weight.
To help people lose weight to eat better, doctors and dieticians often rely on food diaries to diagnose problem areas and make recommendations. Whereas most people are inaccurate about estimating the calories and portion sizes they eat, the heavier a person is, the more they underestimate what they eat. Some health professionals have alleged that these inaccuracies are due to heavy people being uninformed, in denial, lying, or other hurtful reasons. There may be a better and more empowering explanation. As things get larger, we tend to underestimate them. Heavy people may simply underestimate how much they eat because the quantities are large. Skinny people might be equally inaccurate if they ate huge amounts (like on Thanksgiving). If this is true, it’s meal size, and not body size that explains these inaccuracies. The Original Findings This 2006 paper involved both a lab study and a field study involving fast food restaurants.[1] Similar findings had been robust in a number of pilot studies, and here is the abstract which shows the results of the two studies that were finally published: 
The paper was retracted because . . . “Annals contacted the authors to inquire whether they had concerns about its validity. In his response, the coauthor, Pierre Chandon, reported that age was not a variable collected during the study. Yet, the article reports mean age for male and female participants. In addition, the editors identified no age variable in the data files nor on the sample paper data forms that Dr. Chandon provided in response to our query. In light of the reporting of a variable (age) that seems not to have been collected, the editors cannot be confident in the integrity of the work reported in this article.”[2]
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: This has been shown to be very robust in our prestudies and pilot studies. A powerful extension to this would be to show how this bias exists across a large range of populations and expertise. We might think that “education” would be one way to reduce this bias, but a couple pilot studies we did with this showed that it wasn’t that effective and that even dieticians significantly underestimated calories once the foods or portions got outside of a narrow range. One way to more convincingly show health professionals that “more education” is not the answer to this is to compellingly conduct a study that shows how even they – as educated experts – are biased in their estimates of large portions of food and calories. We also don’t know how this news, or a new counseling approach will influence heavy patients. Suppose a health professional tells an overweight person that everyone has these estimation biases, and they are not to be blamed. It might give them more resolve to eat better (and not give up), or it might deflect their sense of responsibility. Following-up will provide useful course correction. 2. Outreach Suggestions: What would make these findings even more useful would be if there were a reliable way to come up with some easy guidelines that could help a health professional or consumer self-correct their estimate. This would be an alternative to the seemingly ineffective reliance on “more education.” If these guidelines could be calibrated and tested, they could be very useful in a wide range of weight loss contexts – both with health practitioners and dieters. Summary. As mentioned earlier, the findings of this research could help improve the clinic or “bedside manner” of some of the doctors and dieticians who work with overweight and obese patients. It can also help with one of the difficulties obese people face when being counseled about their weight. The insights of how to improve weight counseling could be put into use immediately. [1] Wansink, Brian; Chandon, Pierre (2006-09-05). "Meal Size, Not Body Size, Explains Errors in Estimating the Calorie Content of Meals". Annals of Internal Medicine. 145 (5): 326–32. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-5-200609050-00005. ISSN 0003-4819. PMID 16954358. [2] https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2717783/notice-retraction-meal-size-body-size-explains-errors-estimating-calorie |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Chandon, Pierre (2006-09-05). "Meal Size, Not Body Size, Explains Errors in Estimating the Calorie Content of Meals". Annals of Internal Medicine. 145 (5): 326–32. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-5-200609050-00005. ISSN 0003-4819. PMID 16954358.
| ||
Can You Confirm the Sweet Tooth Hypothesis?
|
Being able to predict what a person likes to eat would be practical. A parent could guide kids to unfamiliar healthy foods they might like, and companies could advertise products to the most interested shoppers. One way to explore this is to see if we can predict whether people are more likely to prefer new fruit dishes more than vegetable dishes based on whether they prefer sweet snacks or salty snacks. Although some people love all foods, knowing whether a child or spouse has a natural leaning to one versus the other can prevent you from fighting an uphill battle to get them to eat broccoli if that’s not how their taste preferences are wired.
The Original Findings This paper included two studies. One study involved a large USDA database (similar to NHANES data), and the other study involved a mail survey we conducted at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The resulting paper was published as a four-page research note.[1] Here is the abstract of what was found: 
The paper was retracted “at the request of the editors and the authors due to substantive errors in the reported methods.”[2]
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: Given the practical value of this question, the most useful study that is needed is one that uses use large scale data bases to determine if there are reliable clusters of taste preferences. The first step in doing so would be to come up with some general food categorizations that make sense and are easy to operationalize or code. Sweet versus salty preferences would be one categorization, but it’s not the only categorization method in the original study. Although some people like both, a good percentage had leanings more toward one or the other. Other efforts to categorize food and look for cluster commonalities is by their bitterness, their calorie content, or their hardness. While none of these, I believe, has the appeal of the Sweet tooth, perhaps something else can explored like a supertaster bitterness scale. Another approach to this would be to make it purely empirically exploratory. Conduct statistical cluster analyses on consumption frequencies of certain categories of foods and see how they correspond with consumption frequencies of seemingly unrelated categories that actually do have an underlying explanatory relationship (fresh fruit consumption clusters and sweet snack clusters, for example). This could be followed up with a shorter questionnaire that explicitly asked people about the linkages between these different foods clusters by using attitude or preference scales. Something that would also be worth exploring is how these cluster preferences different between cultures. That is, what are the unexplained clusters of food preferences of Europeans vs. Asians vs. Middle Easterners, and so forth. 2. New Methodology Ideas: Using a large-scale data bases from the USDA is a great way to start this. Following up any promising findings by using a more confirmatory survey could take this research to the next level of contribution. In our pilot studies, a lot of general tastes appear more fixed than fluid by the time a person is a young adult. Because of this, if you decide to do a confirmatory study that explicitly asks people about the linkages between the food clusters they like, it would perfectly legitimate to do this with college students. One methodological caution is to try to make sure the analyses are done within homogeneous groups. If you are not explicitly making the comparisons between demographic subgroups (mentioned above), they’ll need to be controlled for in how they are sampled (or statistically analyzed). Summary. A compelling discovery in this area would have a very useful ripple effect across academia, practice, and everyday life. It would help academics control for noisy variance when analyzing taste (by asking control questions in the survey). It would help practitioners better determine what segments of people might most like a new product. And it would help us be savvier in how we feed our kids and how we explore new taste adventures. [1] Wansink, Brian; Bascoul, Ganaël; Chen, Gary T. (2006-07-01). " The sweet tooth hypothesis: How fruit consumption relates to snack consumption". Appetite. 47 (1): 107–110. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.07.011. ISSN 0195-6663. PMID 16574275. [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666306000250 |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Bascoul, Ganaël; Chen, Gary T. (2006-07-01). " The sweet tooth hypothesis: How fruit consumption relates to snack consumption". Appetite. 47 (1): 107–110. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.07.011. ISSN 0195-6663. PMID 16574275.
| ||
Do “Clean Plate” Kids Turn into Overeating Adults?
|
Kids can be really smart. That’s why some of our best ideas as parents back-fire. Take the Clean Plate Club, for example.
Some parent insist they kids clean their plate. Other parents are more relaxed about it. If a parent regularly insists their child clean their plate, will it alter the amount of food a child decides to serve themselves? Maybe they serve less of new foods because they don’t want to have to eat them if they don’t like them. Or maybe they serve themselves a lot more of the unhealthy and indulgent foods they love because they know that once they get on their plate, they’ll be able to eat them all. The Original Findings It was published in 2008 as a two-page letter in the Pediatric Forum of what is now JAMA Pediatrics.[1] It was based on a lab study with preschoolers. There’s no abstract to the paper, but here is what we found. 
The paper was retracted because JAMA asked Cornell to provide an independent evaluation of this and five other articles to determine whether the results are valid. In their retraction notice, JAMA wrote, “[Cornell’s] response states: ‘We regret that, because we do not have access to the original data [original coding sheets or surveys], we cannot assure you that the results of the studies are valid.’ Therefore, the 6 articles reporting the results of these studies that were published in JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA, and JAMA Internal Medicine, are hereby retracted”[2] (Appendix B).
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: Although a lot of people think they are members of the Clean Plate Club, when this article was first published there wasn’t a lot of research on it. One set of questions that would be promising to explore are those which would examine the long-term consequences be forcing kids to clean their plate. That is, maybe they learn to take smaller portions of healthier foods and larger portions of desserts. Maybe they grown up to be a heavier adult. Maybe they grown up to be less adventurous eaters because they are afraid to try new foods for fear that they would have to finish all of them (just like they did as a child). 2.New Methodology Ideas: Many of the basic questions asked above could be at least preliminarily examined by simply using surveys. It’s not always that compelling, but in an area as under-researched as this, it will give some toeholds for subsequent researchers who want to examine it more causally. To this end, there can be causal experiments done with children, and the one here represents a gateway into doing so. The idea would be to look for the behaviors that we think kids from Clean Your Plate households would demonstrate compared to those in normal households. After being able to determine what household a child was from, the study would examine how much new foods or how much of a favored food they served themselves and ate when their parents weren’t around. A good place to do this research would be in a daycare setting. Summary. The Clean Plate Club is something everyone knows about. Doing more research in this area would have a lot of appeal a lot of immediate applications. Looking at some of the long-term consequences would be great, but in the meantime, there’s a lot of useful insights that could be examined immediately. [1] Wansink, B; Payne, C; Werle, C (October 2008). "Consequences of belonging to the "clean plate club"". Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 162 (10): 994–5. doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.10.994. PMID 18838655. [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2703492 |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, B; Payne, C; Werle, C (October 2008). "Consequences of belonging to the "clean plate club"". Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 162 (10): 994–5. doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.10.994. PMID 18838655.
| ||
Have Classic Recipes Increased in Calories Over Time?
|
Fast food and restaurants have widely been blamed for the obesity problem: Increasing portion sizes and more calories. We wanted to know if the same thing was going on in homes. Are portion sizes of classic recipes getting larger and more caloric over time?
One way to investigate this would be to examine how the same recipes have changed over time. Have the recommended serving sizes of chili gotten bigger and do they have more meat or butter? If this is so, the obesity problem might not just be a problem with restaurants, but it might also be what we do in our homes. The Original Findings This was published in 2009 as a one-page letter to the editor in the Annals of Internal Medicine.[1] It was based on secondary analysis. There is no published abstract, and here is a summary of what was found: 
To make a historical comparison of the same recipes over time, the sample frame was all of the recipes in the Joy of Cooking that were in all seven editions and which did not change their name. The total calorie content was determined for each recipe, along with the calorie content per recommended serving size. The results showed the calorie density in these recipes increased by 35%, and that this was driven by the inclusion of more caloric ingredients (butter, nuts, sugar) and by larger serving sizes.
The paper was retracted because . . . “Annals contacted the authors to inquire whether they had concerns about its validity. The contact information we had for Dr. Payne was no longer current, and we were unable to locate current contact information. In response, Dr. Wansink reported that he was also unable to contact Dr. Payne, but Dr. Wansink provided a reanalysis of the data and reported that, “The files we reran gave the same conclusions, but different numbers in the table.” In fact, almost every number was different from those in the published article, many substantially so. In light of the inability to reproduce the published results, the editors cannot be confident in the integrity of the work reported in this article.”[2] Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. New Methodology Ideas: This is an interesting question with immediate implications for people who cook at home. There’s a number of other ways it can be tackled.
2. Carefully Coding and Estimating Calories: Three of the four method variations are focused on each recipe’s calories per serving. While serving sizes are usually stated in the recipes (such as “serves 6”), calorie counts per serving are not stated (except in some recent cookbook editions). For this reason, it will be important to hire two well-trained and credible people to do this and cross-reference their work. We used a dietetics intern and a nutrition major but using two Registered Dieticians would have been even better. Summary. This is a fun article and it has useful implications to a home cook: Using an older cookbook or serving half of the dish and freezing the other half would be two easy changes a food loving cook might want to try out for size. [1] Wansink, Brian; Payne, Collin R. (2009-02-17). "The Joy of Cooking Too Much: 70 Years of Calorie Increases in Classic Recipes". Annals of Internal Medicine. 150 (4): 291–2. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-4-200902170-00028. ISSN 0003-4819. PMID 19221391. [2] https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2717784/notice-retraction-joy-cooking-too-much-70-years-calorie-increases |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Payne, Collin R. (2009-02-17). "The Joy of Cooking Too Much: 70 Years of Calorie Increases in Classic Recipes". Annals of Internal Medicine. 150 (4): 291–2. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-4-200902170-00028. ISSN 0003-4819. PMID 19221391.
| ||
Will You Hate the Food You Eat During Bad Experiences?
|
You and the love-of-your-life used to eat Thai food every weekend . . . and then she dumped you. Do you still like Thai food? Perhaps a great experience or a horrible experience that is going on when your first exposed to a food, can engineer whether you will like the food in the long-term. If so, giving your kids carrot sticks at Disney Land and not cotton candy could be doing them a much longer-term favor if they associated vegetables with the “happiest place on earth.” This started out as hobby research. When I was growing up, there were a number of WWII veterans (US) in our neighborhood, and I always found it interesting to talk with them. In one set of conversations, I found it curious that some Pacific vets hated rice and others loved it. In contrast, European vets seemed to be basically indifferent about it. Hmmm . . . The Original Findings This study was originally published as a two-page research note.[1] It was based on a large-scale mail survey we did of WWII veterans (US) in August of 2000. Here’s the abstract of what we found: 
The paper was retracted “at the request of the Editors on the grounds of serious errors in the description of the method and duplication and errors in the raw data as identified by the authors.”[2]
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1.New Methodology Ideas: A useful context to look at this would be in the context of looking at foods that people really seem to hate. Doing a qualitative set of in-depth laddering interviews would help see if there are some of these reasons that might be connected to childhood experiences. The key in doing this research is you have to have them focus on something that they hate that most other people like. If you were to take this qualitative and narrative approach, the research could be really interesting and filled with great examples. It would probably necessitate you partnering with a qualitative researcher (like a cultural anthropologist) if you wanted it to make sure the details were nailed down. A second way to tackle this question would be to find a common event that people could very clearly code as either a good experience or a bad experience and where they are experiencing a new food for the first time. WWII and rice were one example, and something similar could be done with other veterans in other theatres (such as the Mideast). Still another context would be with vacationers who either had a great time or a terrible time on their vacation when they were being exposed to a different food. For instance, two different people on a cruise ship to the Caribbean or South American might have very different feelings about plantains depending on whether were seasick or weren’t. 2. Publishing and Outreach Suggestions: Being able to quantitatively show there are better situational memories associated with some favored foods and that there are worse situational memories associated with some unfavoredfoods could be easy if you only use a questionnaire However, this will be a whole lot more interesting if you can find a specific event that is interpreted either positively or negatively by the same people at the same time (e.g., military service, a seasick cruise, etc.). Also, getting lots of examples of where and how this is played out will give the article a lot more interest, or will at least give you useful examples when sharing your implications with others. Summary There’s interesting news-you-can-use here that may initially seem nonobvious. Suppose there is a tendency to get your feelings for food tangled up with how much you’re enjoying the moment when you eat them. If this is true, you might be able to orchestrate healthier food preferences for both you and your kids -- like making their annual birthday celebration be all-you-can-eat watermelon party instead of an ice cream sundae buffet. [1] Wansink, Brian; Van Ittersum, Koert; Werle, Carolina (2009-06-01). " How negative experiences shape long-term food preferences. Fifty years from the World War II combat front". Appetite. 52 (3): 750–752. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.001. ISSN 0195-6663. [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/appetite/vol/131/suppl/C |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Van Ittersum, Koert; Werle, Carolina (2009-06-01). " How negative experiences shape long-term food preferences. Fifty years from the World War II combat front". Appetite. 52 (3): 750–752. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.001. ISSN 0195-6663.
Brian Wansink, John Murphy, Koert van Ittersum, Matthew Cheney, John Hubbard, Brian McFarlane, Philip Kuramoto University of Illinois Food and Brand Lab Greatest Generation
| ||
Can Brand Logos Encourage Kids to Eat Heathy Foods?
|
Brand names and logos are used to sell cookies and candy. Can they also be used to sell more fruit by making fruit seem more hip, interesting, or tasty? If so, instead of banning branded products or logos in school cafeterias, it might be better to redirect the branding and logos to the healthier products.
The Original Findings This 2008 study was published as a two-page research note in what is now JAMA Pediatrics in 2012.[1] It involved a week-long study with Head Start preschoolers. There’s no published abstract, but here is what was found: 
This paper was retracted because “Following the notice of Retraction and Replacement, the funder of this study informed us of another important error. We had erroneously reported the age group as children ranging from 8 to 11 years old; however, the children were 3 to 5 years old. …
“Given this additional substantial error in reporting the correct ages of the children and the inadequate oversight of the data collection and pervasive errors in the analyses and reporting, the editors have asked that we retract this article. We regret any confusion or inconvenience this has caused the readers and editors of the journal.”[2] Other Ways to Answer this Question 1.Hypotheses and Extensions: One of the reasons that branding helps increase fruit selection so much more than cookie selection is that most kids naturally love cookies – even without a brand. Therefore, there’s not much higher their likelihood of selection can go. It’s reached a ceiling. From a nutrition or public health standpoint, one immediate set of studies that could be conducted would be to examine this with different ages of students (toddler, preschool, and elementary students) to see if this is differentially effective at some ages than others. Also, it could be examined whether different types of stickers or logos (familiar vs. unfamiliar; colorful vs. less colorful) are more effective with some ages or genders than with others. From a psychology standpoint, what would most interesting would be to better understand why we might expect results such as these. Seeing a brand – such as an Elmo logo – on an apple might make a child take it simply because it looks different or curious. But it might make someone take the apple because they think it might taste better than an unbranded apple. If taste expectations can bias real taste experiences, it might even end up being that seeing a brand sticker on a piece of fruit, not only leads more people to take the fruit, but it also makes them think it tastes better. 2.New Methodology Ideas: This study used a within-subject design and although within-subject designs can control for a lot of factors, they also come with another host of problems such as reactivity. This can be especially concerning if the experiment seems too artificial or fake. An opposite approach to this would be to use a between-subject design and to rotate the four different conditions (apple x cookie; branded x unbranded) across these schools. Yet this seems like it would be way too much overkill to answer a fairly simple question. In addition, it potentially suffers from the noise of a bandwagon effect. A child may be more likely to take the same item his friend ahead of him took, regardless of what the food or branded condition was. An alternative to either might be to rotate conditions within one school and to have children make their selection between the apple and the cookie alone as they came out of the lunch line (or during a break). On one day each week, the combination of choices could be rotated, and the spacing out would probably nullify reactance, but the context would still be very real. Setting up the study in this way would also allow to ask the child a couple quick questions after they selected the item. Summary. Over the last few years there have been some promising steps in this direction of trying to brand fruits. McDonald’s use of Cuties Mandarin Oranges is a one example of the promise that smart branding can have for fruit. In order for this to become more widespread, we can try and imagine what type of research would be most useful in helping inform this trend: • What ages and gender of kids are most influenced by branding? • Do colorful but unfamiliar brands or images work just as well as familiar ones? • Does branding make kids believe the branded food tastes better? Some of these questions are the ones already noted above. What we need to be mindful that the more realistically our studies are, the more they are likely to be compelling to the people making these decisions to brand healthy foods. [1] Wansink, Brian; Just, David R.; Payne, Collin R. (1 October 2012). "Can Branding Improve School Lunches?". Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 166 (10): 1–2. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.999. PMID 22911396. [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2659568 |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Just, David R.; Payne, Collin R. (1 October 2012). "Can Branding Improve School Lunches?". Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 166 (10): 1–2. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.999. PMID 22911396.
| ||
Do Short-Term Fasts Lead to Long-term Weight Loss?
|
Short-term food fasts popular weight loss rage. But what happens when they’re over – do you reset your diet down to a more mindful one, or do you binge like a 12-year-old on Halloween?
One of the interesting twists on this might not be the obvious question calorie replacement. Instead, a cool question is what types of foods is someone going to be most drawn to when they are coming off of a fast – sweets, meats, carbs, or treats? The Original Findings It was published as a two-page research note in 2012, and there is no abstract.[1] It was based on a lab study that observed what people ate at a buffet after they had been fasting for 18 hours. Here is what was found: 
The paper was retracted because JAMA asked Cornell to provide an independent evaluation of this and five other articles to determine whether the results are valid. In their retraction notice, JAMA wrote, “[Cornell’s]response states: ‘We regret that, because we do not have access to the original data [original coding sheets or surveys], we cannot assure you that the results of the studies are valid.’ Therefore, the 6 articles reporting the results of these studies that were published in JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA, and JAMA Internal Medicine, are hereby retracted: (See Appendices A-C).
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1.New Methodology Ideas: Using a limited buffet context worked really well for controlling what people could eat. Because we used only two types of vegetables, starches, and proteins (six total items), hidden scales could be put beneath each of the serving bowls (under the tablecloth), and how much each person takes can be no obtrusively recorded. Another pair of foods that could be included would be desserts and maybe even salads. How much people eat of a particular item can be determined by subtracting how much food is left on their plate from the initial amount they took. Using a between-subjects buffet study has disadvantages because it doesn’t control for lots of factors. There are lots of potentially interfering stimuli (such as how much the person ahead of you took), but it was a realistic intervention to see if anything notable would be worthy of further future investigation. Similar findings could be followed up using within-subject lab studies. Additionally, although measures of each diner’s preferences of the different foods was taken, these were not used as covariates in any analysis. That too would be useful to do in future studies. 2. Measurement and Compliance Suggestions. Asking someone to fast for 18-hours has compliance challenges. That is, people don’t like to do it. We had done some prestudies with this, and one key learning was that you need to be really thoughtful in the instructions you give to those people in the two conditions. You also have to be careful, so they don’t behave too unnaturally when they start eating. The concern would be that they are overly conscious of what they take and how much because they believe they are being closely observed. One way to decrease this potential reactivity is to give both groups an unrelated task to complete. In one case, we tried giving them a concentration test before lunch so they would focus more on the concentration test and not feel they were being as closely scrutinized during lunch. It’s important to get more accurate assessments of how both groups behaved in the prior 18 hours, including what they ate or drank and whether they exercised. There are a number of different ways to assess whether someone has eaten in the past 18-hours (or whether they followed the directions they were given). It’s good to include at least two converging measures to better ensure that the fasters actually fasted. In one of our prestudies we had people fast for 24 hours, but that was too long. We had too low of a compliance rate, and we aren’t convinced that someone who’s 6 hours hungrier is going to act dramatically different than someone who’s fasted for a more doable 18 hours. Last, some people believe a fast should involve no liquids, but we decided it was unnecessary for this research question. You can keep a fast limited to only water, but in another study, we’ve done, we found that allowing people to drink non-caloric drinks (such as coffee or diet soft drinks) seemed to increase compliance and happiness. Summary. This issue of fasting is hot. While much fasting research focuses on the calorie compensation, there is so many more rich and interesting questions that can be asked. Because of the prevalence of fasting, using a realistic research context and a useful research question would be of most value. From an immediate impact standpoint, this type of research would be widely welcomed by many people. [1] Wansink, B; Tal, A; Shimizu, M (25 June 2012). "First foods most: after 18-hour fast, people drawn to starches first and vegetables last". Archives of Internal Medicine. 172 (12): 961–3. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1278. PMID 22732752. [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2703492 |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, B; Tal, A; Shimizu, M (25 June 2012). "First foods most: after 18-hour fast, people drawn to starches first and vegetables last". Archives of Internal Medicine. 172 (12): 961–3. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1278. PMID 22732752.
| ||
Will Cool Names Lead Kids to Choose Healthy Foods?
|
Are kids more likely to choose and eat healthy foods when they’re named X-Ray Vision Carrots or Silly Dilly Green Beans? Even if they do, will the name make them like the food more and will it make them continue to select it and eat it after the name changes back?
Adding new words to restaurant menu items makes adults more likely to change their food order. If something like this could work with kids in cafeteria lines, it would be an easy and healthy change for schools to make. The Original Findings These two studies were published as a three-page Short Communication in Preventive Medicine In 2012.[1] It is based on a lab study and a 1-month field study in elementary schools. Here is what was found: 
The paper was retracted “at the request of the Editor and with the authors' agreement because additional corrections regarding funding attribution were brought to the journal's attention after it published a Corrigendum. The need for further amendments to an article whose contents are no longer a valid description of the methodology and findings of the original research record would have been detrimental to the opportunity for knowledge translation that the original 2012 article was intended to provide. The authors have been offered the opportunity to incorporate all necessary amendments and disclosures into the manuscript and resubmit it for consideration for eventual publication in Preventive Medicine, subject to peer review.”[2]
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1.Hypotheses and Extensions: Two of the bigger questions related to how this works with young children are these: 1) What ages and gender are most influenced by attractively named foods, and 2) Does the effectiveness of attractive names begin to wear off? There seems to be early evidence that this works even with preliterate kids (when the labels are read to them), but it’s not clear who these attractive names influence the most. Since many elementary schools have their children go through the lunch lines by grade, this would be an easy question to ask in field studies. Gender would be a bit more cumbersome to assess, but it could be accomplished using the Quarter Plate Waste Method of observation. The issue as to whether the effectiveness wears off is an interesting one that’s been raised a number of times in the past. Our general observations are that the effectiveness of an intervention like this drops off as much as 30-40% in 2-3 months. The good news, however, is that it seems to reset itself after summer break (and even after winter break to a lesser extent). 2.Methodology and Outreach Suggestions: Although this seems like it would be an easy intervention, there is still resistance by school cafeterias who believe it would be too difficult. An effective research project in this area could be one that not only show the promise of naming, but which also show that it can be easily implemented. One way to do so would be to conduct this study by having a high schooler do it (as an Eagle Scout project, or as a school project). By having them in charge of implementing and tracking the study, it would show that “it’s so simply a high schooler could do it.” If that person does a good job, they might also become an author on the paper (like the fourth author on this paper). Summary. Using attractive or cool names is also worth experimenting with at home with your own kids. Instead of dropping the vegetables in front of them and expecting them to clean the bowl, take 5 seconds to come up with an interesting or silly name for what you’re serving, or a description of where it came from, or how it was made. You can creatively do anything that builds anticipation, sensory suggestiveness, or engagement. At best, they’ll eat it and like it a little better. At worst, your teenager will roll their eyes and think to themselves, “At least my goofy dad tries.” [1] Wansink, Brian; Just, David R.; Payne, Collin R.; Klinger, Matthew Z. (October 2012). Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools". Preventive Medicine. 55 (4): 330–332. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.012. PMID 22846502. [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743512003222 |
Citation and Abstract
Wansink, Brian; Just, David R.; Payne, Collin R.; Klinger, Matthew Z. (October 2012). Attractive names sustain increased vegetable intake in schools". Preventive Medicine. 55 (4): 330–332. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.012. PMID 22846502.
| ||
Do Hungry Shoppers Buy More or Just Buy Worse?
|
The hungrier you are the more food you buy, right? Maybe not. Being hungry might lead you to buy ready-to-eat foods that you can quickly and conveniently eat – like in the car on your way home. However, it might not lead you to buy more total food (such as foods that can’t be eating quickly, like vegetables and meat). If true, the advice to dieters and fasters is not to avoid shopping when hungry so you’ll buy less. Instead, it’s to avoid shopping when hungry if you can’t discipline yourself to buy better foods (the non-ready-to-eat “junk” foods).
The Original Findings[1] This was published in 2013 as a two-page research letter, and there is no abstract. It was based on a lab study and a field survey conducted with shoppers after they completed their grocery store check-out. Here’s a summary of the findings: 
The paper was retracted because JAMA asked Cornell to provide an independent evaluation of this and five other articles to determine whether the results are valid. In their retraction notice, JAMA wrote, “[Cornell’s]response states: ‘We regret that, because we do not have access to the original data [original coding sheets or surveys], we cannot assure you that the results of the studies are valid.’ Therefore, the 6 articles reporting the results of these studies that were published in JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA, and JAMA Internal Medicine, are hereby retracted." (See Appendices A-C).
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: This notion that hungry shoppers want to buy the tastiest calories they can quickly buy and eat is compelling. It doesn’t seem like such a person would leisurely shop the aisles and price-compare frozen meat. At this point, I think there are two big extensions that can be made. One is to combine the hunger and time element. If people shop differently when hungry, then people shopping just before lunch (11:00) should shop differently than those shopping just after lunch (1:00), and those shopping mid-afternoons should shop better than those in the late afternoon. Now there are all sorts of other covariates to measure but using time as a surrogate for hunger will give a better process link and it has much broader implications for retailers and for informing health-minded consumers when to shop. The second extension would be to predict the specific types of foods that are most prone to be purchased by a hungry shopper. Is it cookies, chips, and breakfast cereal, or is prepared foods, or is it candy at the checkout? These results may not be important for theorizing, but they are important as implications for dieters. 2. New Methodology Ideas: We thought it was cool to have a lab study that showed that people didn’t eat more of everything when they were hungry, they just ate more of what was easiest to eat – carbohydrate-packed snacks. The best way to tackle this compellingly might be to forego any lab study and do a really great scanner data study in grocery stores. Taking multiple stores and analyzing shopping baskets content by time (11:00ish vs. 1:00ish or 2:00ish vs. 4:00ish) would be best. Then a field survey of shoppers could be done in one or two grocery stores as a manipulation check to confirm that their hunger corresponded to those time periods. In addition, some self-report process questions can help confirm whether they shopped differently than usual. 3. Publishing and Outreach Suggestions: The results of this are of great interest to shoppers who want to eat healthier, but they are also of interest to retailers. A scanner data study (combined with a small survey of exiting shoppers) would make this a useful public health article or marketing article. Adding the real-world advice of what categories are most important to avoid when hungry would make this a useful article to lots of different people. Summary Having some scanner data analysis prowess would make this a relatively easy hypothesis to examine by using shopping time as a surrogate for hunger. A short in-store survey for a second group of shoppers would take this from a useful effects article to a very useful and memorable recommendation. [1] Tal, A; Wansink, B (24 June 2013). "Fattening fasting: hungry grocery shoppers buy more calories, not more food". JAMA Internal Medicine. 173 (12): 1146–8. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.650. PMID 23649173. [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2703492 |
Citation and Abstract
Tal, A; Wansink, B (24 June 2013). "Fattening fasting: hungry grocery shoppers buy more calories, not more food". JAMA Internal Medicine. 173 (12): 1146–8. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.650. PMID 23649173.
| ||
Does Preordering Lead to Healthier Lunches?
|
You might heroically plan on eating a healthy salad for lunch, but when noontime rolls around, the French fries will smell too good to pass up. If you had to pre-order your lunch when you first got to work, would you eat better? If so, work cafeterias and school cafeterias could offer a preordering option. This way they could help their employees or students eat healthier and less indulgent lunches.
The Original Findings[1] The original field research was conducted in a public-school district in the Finger Lakes area of New York. It was published as a two-page research letter, and here’s a summary of the results: 
The paper was retracted because JAMA asked Cornell to provide an independent evaluation of this and five other articles to determine whether the results are valid. In their retraction notice, JAMA wrote, “[Cornell’s] response states: ‘We regret that, because we do not have access to the original data [original coding sheets or surveys], we cannot assure you that the results of the studies are valid.’ Therefore, the 6 articles reporting the results of these studies that were published in JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA, and JAMA Internal Medicine, are hereby retracted." (See Appendices A-C).
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: This was a small pilot study that has sizable promise. Two useful extensions would be to a) generalize it to other populations (such as employees in cafeterias), and b) determine if this only works in the short run (like for the first couple weeks) or if it can be sustained past the first three months. Some of our research with other interventions has shown a decay rate of up to 40% over a three-month period unless small variations are made to keep it fresh. 2. New Methodology Ideas: Using a before-after within-subject study would be one approach that eliminates some individual variation. However, it would also need a large control group to not run the risk that something else could influence the results (weather, midterm exams, other menu changes, and so on). One way to solve this problem this would be to split the group in two and reverse the order of the conditions in each group. That is, one group be a control-treatment group (no preordering during month1 but preordering during month2), and the other group be the treatment-control group (pre-ordering in month1 but no preordering in month2). It would be great to show how preordering influences how many calories kids eat, and how it influences whether the calories they eat vegetable calories or whether they are starch calories. This can be done on an individual level by using the Quarter-plate Method of measuring. Alternatively, if connecting a student’s plate waste with his student ID number is too difficult, this can be recorded in the aggregate. At this stage, knowing if preordering leads to healthier meals is the primary message that would need to communicate to health-minded cafeterias. Answering the follow-up issue of who it influences most can be done with more precision in a follow-up study. 3. Publishing and Outreach Suggestions: A wide range of journals would find different aspects of this interesting in different ways. Here’s two approaches: A) Publish a shorter “Effects” or “Outcome” article in a public health, nutrition, or medical journal, or B) Publish a longer “Process” paper – perhaps with a preceding lab study, and a follow-up study – in a consumer behavior, economics, psychology, or marketing journal. If this is as effective as these earlier studies suggest, I think publishing a shorter piece would get the word out and start getting these changes made in schools and cafeterias sooner rather than later. Summary This is a great research question and if the study’s done well, it will have directly relevant implications for whatever is found. There are two keys to making this an influential paper. The first key is to do it in a real cafeteria that is really trying to help people eat healthier. Schools and company cafeterias are two examples, and a hospital cafeteria would also be great. The second key is to set up a pre-ordering intervention that is simple and scalable and not overly complicated or artificial. If simple pre-ordering system is shown to be effective – even if it’s not 100% perfect – it is likely to make a much more compelling point. [1] Hanks, AS; Just, DR; Wansink, B (July 2013). "Preordering school lunch encourages better food choices by children". JAMA Pediatrics. 167 (7): 673–4. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.82. PMID 23645188. [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2703492 |
Citation and Abstract
Hanks, AS; Just, DR; Wansink, B (July 2013). "Preordering school lunch encourages better food choices by children". JAMA Pediatrics. 167 (7): 673–4. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.82. PMID 23645188.
Thanks to Waverly, NY schools for their help with this research.
| ||
Do Different TV Shows Influence How You Eat?
|
Eating while watching TV isn’t highly recommended because it’s believed to cause you to eat poorly. If this is indeed true, it could either be because something like TV is distracting or because the pacing and stimulation of it speeds up our eating. For instance, exciting shows with lots of cut scenes or noise might cause us to eat more because it’s really stimulating, or it might cause us to eat less than a boring news show because we are more engrossed and distracted.
If a dieter or food-loving person absolutely believes they must, must, must eat while they watch TV, they might like to know which types of TV shows don’t lead to regretful overeating. The Original Findings[1] This research was originally published in 2014 as a two-page research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine. It was based on a lab study conducted with undergraduates in Ithaca, NY. Here’s a summary of the findings: 
The paper was retracted because JAMA asked Cornell to provide an independent evaluation of this and five other articles to determine whether the results are valid. In their retraction notice, JAMA wrote, “[Cornell’s] response states: ‘We regret that, because we do not have access to the original data [original coding sheets or surveys], we cannot assure you that the results of the studies are valid.’ Therefore, the 6 articles reporting the results of these studies that were published in JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA, and JAMA Internal Medicine, are hereby retracted." (See Appendices A-C).
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: There are lots of directions to explore how far this could be generalized and what types of foods are most susceptible to being overeaten. As an initial exploration of this, we did this study with small groups of people rather individually, and this raises a number of key extensions. These people had a number of snacks sitting in front of them, and there’s a wide range of ways this could be varied. First, the size and gender composition of the groups could be varied, but it’s not clear what would happen: • Larger groups may lead people to eat less because they are self-conscious, or they might lead people to eat more if they feel anonymous. • A mixed gender group might lead women to eat less because they don’t want to be seen as piggish, but it might lead guys to overeat to show they are insatiably macho. • The study can also be conducted with individually where people watch their own programming, and the programming can then be coded and categorizing based on scene cuts and volume fluctuations. The figure shows how this varies across a wide range of programming: Second, a researcher could examine how the distance of the food influences how much is eaten. Although the general belief would be that food within arm’s length will be eaten more frequently, we noticed in pilot studies that the farther a person had to reach for food, the more of it they took. Also, food placed in front of where they are sitting might also be eaten more or less often than that on the side since it is more obvious to others that you are taking it. Furthermore, a useful twist has to do the types of snacks offered. If watching certain types of TV programming leads people to not pay much attention to what or how much they eat, this might be a great way to encourage people to mindlessly eat the boring healthy foods they don’t typically eat – like raw vegetables and fruit. This could be easily tested. 2. New Methodology Ideas: Many of the extensions noted above have different implications for who you recruit, and how you set the viewing environment up. To seem most natural, we arranged the furniture in a manner that was typical for fraternity and sorority TV rooms. This adds realism, but noise. Another way to set them up is to give everyone their own chair. Summary Distracting dining is becoming the norm for many people. Preaching snacking abstinence probably won’t work. Instead figuring out how to minimize the damage would be useful. An even better idea is to see if this can be used to turn around snacking in a way that encourages more people to eat healthier snacks instead. If people don’t pay any attention to what they eat as they watch TV, see if anybody notices when you switch a bowl of baby carrots for their bowl of Cheetos. [1] Tal, A; Zuckerman, S; Wansink, B (November 2014). "Watch what you eat: action-related television content increases food intake". JAMA Internal Medicine. 174 (11): 1842-3. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4098. PMID 25179157. [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2703492 |
Citation and Abstract
Tal, A; Zuckerman, S; Wansink, B (November 2014). "Watch what you eat: action-related television content increases food intake". JAMA Internal Medicine. 174 (11): 1842-3. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4098. PMID 25179157.
| ||
Do High Menu Prices Make You Regretfully Overeat?
|
Do you eat to get your money’s worth? A gazillion dollar restaurant industry would love to know how its menu pricing might change what you think of its food and how much you eat. This would also be very useful knowledge for savvy dieters who want to make sure they enjoy their food the most without overeating to the point of regret.
Yet take buffets, for instance. A high-priced buffet might cause you to overeat in order to “get your money’s worth.” But it might also make you believe the food is higher quality “because it’s more expensive.” In such a case, you could overeat, but not regret doing so. Especially when compared to eating the same amount of the same food at a lower-priced buffet. The Original Findings[1] This article was based on a multi-week lunchtime field study during the Fall of 2007 at Aiello’s Italian Restaurant (in Whitney Point, New York). Here’s the abstract of what was found: 
The paper was retracted by this journal because “concerns have been raised[2] after publication with respect to the analysis of the data reported. The authors have been offered the opportunity to submit a new manuscript for peer review. The authors do not agree with this retraction.”
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: The rationale is this: A high-priced buffet might cause you to overeat but also enjoy it more if you suggestively believed the food to taste better. In such a case, you could overeat, but still regret it less than if you believed the food to be less expensive and less subjectively tasty. One of many unanswered questions would be whether this will work with all people in the same way. You might think dieters would be less influenced, or that this has no influence on show-off men eating with women. Similarly, it should have more of an impact on younger people than on older people. What’s important to nail down is the process of why this happens. Although the outcome measures (intake and regret) are measured, those linkages are within the black box (measures of “getting my money’s worth” and “taste”). 2. New Methodology Ideas: Conducting this study at an all-you-can-eat buffet far away from a college campus gives it some real-world appeal. The fewer other foods the restaurant serves, the easier it will be to track how much is eaten. Although a plate waste method could be used (like the Quarter Plate Method), we found that with pizza people either eat it all or they leave only the crust. If any other method of plate waste measurement is too intrusive or impractical, simply noting how many crusts they leave would be worth piloting for practicality and accuracy. When deciding how to give the discount, there are two different ways to do so. It can be given as a promotion 50% off ($4.00 instead of $8.00), which might be less like to evoke the taste inferences than if you they think the real everyday price is always $4.00. It will also be important to tinker and test the pricing. This study was run in 2007, so $8 is unlikely to evoke the “high quality” inference it did back then. 3. Publishing and Outreach Suggestions: As noted in the intro, the answer to this question have immediate implications for both buffet restaurants and for dieters. We published this in a health journal, but a more detailed or multi-study version could go to a great economics journal. The notion of these non-optimal consumption consequences has tremendous implications in behavioral economics. Summary One little indicator of a worthwhile research question is whether it’s answer will resonate with multiple groups of different people. Really nailing down this research question of whether pricing influences eating, and regret are interesting to behavioral economists and buffet owners, as much as it is with us buffet lovers. [1] Siğirci, Özge; Wansink, Brian (19 November 2015). " Low prices and high regret: how pricing influences regret at all-you-can-eat buffets". BMC Nutrition. 1 (1). doi:10.1186/s40795-015-0030-x. [2] van der Zee T, Anaya J, Brown NJL. Statistical heartburn: an attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell food and brand lab. BMC Nutrition. 2017;3:54. |
Citation and Abstract
Siğirci, Özge; Wansink, Brian (19 November 2015). " Low prices and high regret: how pricing influences regret at all-you-can-eat buffets". BMC Nutrition. 1 (1). doi:10.1186/s40795-015-0030-x.
| ||||
Does Traumatic Violence Change Judgement and Choice?
|
How do traumatic experiences – such as combat, living in a war-torn nation, or experiencing a violent crime or natural disaster – change how a person makes decisions? If counselors or therapists better understood the answer to this, they might be more effective in dealing with people suffering from post-traumatic stress.
To begin exploring how trauma might influence routine decisions, risk-aversion, and the need for variety or stimulation, a nonthreatening way to do so is to ask about shopping behavior. Even though the context of shopping might seem pedestrian, it will give a glimpse into unconscious processing because it is an area that will not evoke defensiveness or artificial answers. The Original Findings[1] This research was conducted using an omnibus survey of WWII veterans that was collected in 2000. It compared the shopping habits of combat veterans with non-combat veterans. Here’s what it found: 
The paper was retracted because “Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding the validity of the article's findings. Adhering to our complaint’s procedure, Frontiers engaged an expert to assess the raw data for the study. The conclusion from this assessment, supported by the Specialty and Field Chief Editor, is that there is no empirical support for the conclusions of the article.”[2]
Other Ways to Answer this Question 1. Hypotheses and Extensions: There are different types of trauma, and it’s not clear that all influence people similarly. A useful first step would be to develop a more thorough taxonomy of trauma. Such a taxonomy would not just focus on the type of trauma (war vs. personal violence vs. etc.) but on the length, the centrality to one’s identity, the locus of control, and so on. There are a lot of important interpersonal questions that could related to traumatic events (such as trust, forgiveness, projection, and so on), and this area of decision making and judgment is so fertile that it will have implications for all sorts of general issues, as well as for some of interpersonal issues. For instance, a traumatic incident might have notable influences on whether one wants an exciting, stimulating life of variety (“Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die”) or whether they instead want a protected and insolated life. It might influence whether we have strong loyalties (“My band of brothers”) or no loyalties (“Every man for himself and God for us all”). Although it is difficult to hypothesize the outcome of these questions, what is important at this stage is to articulate different ways a trauma might bias a person’s big – and little – decisions and judgments. The little judgments are important because they can belie bigger biases that have gone undetected because of the way the questions are asked or how an apprehensive respondent might answer them. 2. New Methodology Ideas: There are tons of potential biases when you ask asking people about their retrospective memories. Asking about these biases directly could either retrigger bad memories or otherwise create the apprehension bias noted above. One way to look for these biases is to do so in an innocuous way or in an unrelated context. Looking for them in the context of how they shop is an innocuous way in a seemingly unrelated context. The key would be to ask them questions the showed how their behavior might have changed. One way is to ask agreement questions (“Are you more brand loyal than you were xx years ago?” (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree). These answers can be compared with a demographically similar sample who did not suffer the same type of traumatic experiences. Also, the questions need to be asked at different levels of abstraction – some specific and some more abstract. This is because we are not well yet calibrated to know which questions are too blunt and which are too overly sensitive or prone to error. Summary. While this might appear that it has implications for economics or consumer behavior, it is really a topic for psychology or sociology journal. It could have the most opportunity for impact in health psychology journal or a counseling related journal. |
Citation and Abstract
Siğirci, Ozge; Rockmore, Marc; Wansink, Brian (6 September 2016). "How Traumatic Violence Permanently Changes Shopping Behavior". Frontiers in Psychology. 7: 1298. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01298. PMC 5012201. PMID 27656152.
| ||
Appendix A & B. JAMA Request to Cornell for Research Validation
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix C. Cornell's Investigation into Possible Errors in Six JAMA Papers
|
|
|
|
A Pdf Version of this webpage (including 2-page tips for each paper) can be downloaded below.
| Retractions and Research Opportunities |