Countries across the world have long been making a concerted effort to encourage healthier eating among citizens. Often, these campaigns encourage us to view our bodies as machines that need the right fuel in order to thrive. Research from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business suggests this approach may actually backfire.
“When people are exposed to comparisons between humans and machines,” the researchers say, “they naturally have this expectation that they’re supposed to think with their head, be cognitive, and approach food like machines—only picking food that is going to give them actual value and not looking for enjoyment.”
This approach has its limits, however, as while this mechanistic view of food can be effective for those who are already confident in their ability to select healthy food, it doesn’t work well for those who are more unsure about healthy eating.
Our body as a machine
The researchers conducted several studies to explore how the way we represent our bodies affects the food choices we make. The results suggest that comparisons between the human body and machines can actually prompt us to make less healthy choices.
“This finding is surprising because, in general, we tend to think that making decisions rationally, using our head, is a good thing,” the researchers say.
Comparisons between the human body and machines have crept into marketing campaigns in recent years, with the likes of Snickers and Heineken all playing on the symbolism to portray our craving for junk food and alcohol as very human things.
“Marketers are trying to tell people to indulge, feel like a human,” the researchers say. “This is based on the lay belief that choosing with your head means you choose something healthier, and choosing with your heart means you should enjoy that chocolate bar. We believe that, as humans, we gravitate toward fat and sugar, and as machines, which are ideal, we would choose the right food, just like we choose the right fuel for a car.”
Rational choices
The results highlight that while those with greater levels of eating self-efficacy are more likely to view eating in a functional way, and therefore choose low-calorie options, this was not the case for people who choose foods more on gut feel.
Indeed, the “body as a machine” metaphor actually made those with low levels of eating self-efficacy more inclined to eat unhealthier food as the awareness that they would not be able to eat in such a machine-like way led to a boomerang effect in which they ended up eating less healthy options.
“Whenever we feel like a standard is not possible for us, we tend to give up and disengage, and that’s very normal,” the researchers say. “That’s how we calibrate. We do more of the stuff we’re good at, and we move ourselves away from the things we’re not good at.”
The apparent difficulty of sustaining the machine-like standards made people feel less confident in their ability, so asserting that they take control of the freedom to eat healthily didn’t work well at all. This was often compounded by self-doubt, which encouraged a degree of comfort eating to overcome the nagging feelings of inadequacy.
The researchers are confident, however, that a solution can be found for this boomerang effect, as in a final experiment they found that when the human-as-machine message was combined with the suggestion that they could actually eat cognitively via statements such as “You CAN choose your food today with your head (not your heart)”, this appeared to result in healthier choices being made, even among those who previously would not have been swayed.
“What we found here is that it’s really about making the expectations seem doable,” the researchers conclude. “We cannot control the fact that when people are exposed to the stimuli, they think, ‘Oh I’m supposed to behave like a machine.’ But we can make it seem easier and more doable by reinforcing the message that you can actually choose food this way as well. By making it seem more approachable, we can alleviate this backfire effect.”
