| Lies and Statistics |
|
|
|
|
According to Australian Food News, where I read this account, research leader Gavan Fitzsimons, professor of marketing and psychology at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, calls the phenomenon “vicarious goal fulfillment.” Basically, Fitzsimons says, a person can feel they have met a goal if they have taken some small action—in this case, it would be considering ordering the salad. Having weighed the option, the person then chooses the least healthy item on the menu. “In this case, the presence of a salad on the menu has a liberating effect on people who value healthy choices,” AFN quoted Fitzsimons as saying. “We find that simply seeing, and perhaps briefly considering, the healthy option fulfills their need to make healthy choices, freeing the person to give in to temptation and make an unhealthy choice.” The researchers conducted a similar test with a menu that featured a bacon cheeseburger, chicken sandwich, fish sandwich and a veggie burger; and several types of Oreos against a 100-calorie pack of Oreos. The results, they said, were essentially the same.
“What this shows is that adding one or two healthy items to a menu is the worst thing you can do,” Fitzsimons said. In his report, Fitzsimons noted that although McDonald’s continues to report strong sales, they attribute their strength to the Quarter Pounder, not to healthy choices. Forgive my cynicism, but I know that in the right hands to can make statistics say whatever you want. And even if the data have not been manipulated, does that mean that McDonald’s healthy options aren’t making a difference?
My suggestion to Professor Fitzsimons is this: get a group of subjects together who say they want to eat more healthfully. Show them two menus, one with only less healthy choices and one with a variety of healthy and less healthy options. Note their choices from each menu, and see what you conclude from the data. Then let’s talk. |



