Appetite for destruction: Counterintuitive effects of attractive faces on people's food choices

Abstract

Faces in general and attractive faces, in particular, are frequently used in marketing, advertising, and packaging design. However, few studies have examined the effects of attractive faces on people's choice behavior. The present research examines whether attractive (vs. unattractive) faces increase individuals' inclination to choose either healthy or unhealthy foods. In contrast to the beliefs held by most marketing professors, but consistent with visceral state theories, exposure to attractive (vs. unattractive) opposite-sex faces increased choice likelihood of unhealthy foods. This effect was moderated by self-viewrelevant attributes and exerted a particularly powerful influence on individuals who were single (vs. in a relationship) and individuals rating themselves as unattractive (vs. attractive). Furthermore, the effect was mediated by arousal, was stronger for men than for women, but did not generalize after exposure to attractive (vs. unattractive) same-sex faces. As pictorial exposure is sufficient for the effect to occur, these findings have important implications for marketing, advertising, and public health.

How Can We Motivate People to Use Nutritional Warnings in Decision Making? Citizen Co-Created Insights for the Development of Communication Campaigns

“…In future research, it might be worthwhile exploring whether targeted communication campaigns might distinguish between groups of citizens who differ in these regards (cf. Godinho, Alvarez, & Lima, 2016; Otterbring, 2019a, 2019b; 2019; Tórtora & Ares, 2018).…”

Office types and workers' cognitive vs affective evaluations from a noise perspective

“…For doubly concrete constructs (i.e. constructs that are clear and easily understood), single-item scales are at least as valid as multi-item scales in predicting organizational outcomes and other aspects of relevance for managerial decision-making (Abdel-Khalek, 2006; Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007; Gardner et al ., 1998; Nagy, 2002; Otterbring, 2020; Wanous et al ., 1997). Following the perceived noise measure, participants replied to items from the Satisfaction with Travel Scale (STS; Ettema et al , 2011), which measures three separate dimensions of subjective well-being: cognitive evaluation, positive activation/negative deactivation and negative activation/positive deactivation.…”

Evolutionary psychology in marketing: Deep, debated, but fancier with fieldwork

“…Moreover, while people can be quite good at articulating the proximate reasons for their behavior, they usually underperform when it comes to realizing the ultimate motives for their actions, in part because they are not necessarily aware of them (Barrett & Kurzban, 2006; Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013). For example, the woman purchasing lipstick and wearing makeup and the man buying the Bentley may, at least partially, have been driven by sex‐specific mating strategies and sex differences in mate preferences (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Dunn & Searle, 2010; Griskevicius et al, 2007; Hill & Durante, 2011; Hill et al, 2012; Sundie et al, 2011; Walter et al, 2020), whereas consumers choosing a beast burger may have done so because it was adaptive for our ancestors to develop a preference for calorie‐dense foods when the availability of such foods was scarce (Durante & Griskevicius, 2016; Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013; Otterbring, 2020; Rozin, 2006; Saad, 2013). Thus, all these actions may have been inspired by motivating forces that these individuals were not consciously aware of, but that still exerted an impact on their behavior.…”