食品决策的（错误）测量。

IF 4.6 2区医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Appetite Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2025.107928

Maria Almudena Claassen , Jutta Mata , Ralph Hertwig

{"title":"食品决策的（错误）测量。","authors":"Maria Almudena Claassen , Jutta Mata , Ralph Hertwig","doi":"10.1016/j.appet.2025.107928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Humans have a fascination with quantifying behaviors. While numbers can provide intriguing insights, they can also distort public perceptions and misguide policy design. This article deconstructs the popular belief that individuals make 200 mindless food-related decisions a day, offering alternative perspectives on the conceptualization and measurement of food decisions. Specifically, we argue that existing decision-making theories offer limited guidance in defining and measuring such decisions, and advocate for more precise operationalizations. We emphasize the need for contextual understanding over simplistic numerical representations, propose a comprehensive working definition of food decisions, and consider alternative methods that may be better suited to capturing the complexity and nuance of food decisions. To conclude, we advocate for methodological pluralism in studying food decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":242,"journal":{"name":"Appetite","volume":"209 ","pages":"Article 107928"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The (mis-)measurement of food decisions\",\"authors\":\"Maria Almudena Claassen , Jutta Mata , Ralph Hertwig\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.appet.2025.107928\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Humans have a fascination with quantifying behaviors. While numbers can provide intriguing insights, they can also distort public perceptions and misguide policy design. This article deconstructs the popular belief that individuals make 200 mindless food-related decisions a day, offering alternative perspectives on the conceptualization and measurement of food decisions. Specifically, we argue that existing decision-making theories offer limited guidance in defining and measuring such decisions, and advocate for more precise operationalizations. We emphasize the need for contextual understanding over simplistic numerical representations, propose a comprehensive working definition of food decisions, and consider alternative methods that may be better suited to capturing the complexity and nuance of food decisions. To conclude, we advocate for methodological pluralism in studying food decisions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Appetite\",\"volume\":\"209 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107928\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Appetite\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666325000819\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appetite","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666325000819","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The (mis-)measurement of food decisions

Humans have a fascination with quantifying behaviors. While numbers can provide intriguing insights, they can also distort public perceptions and misguide policy design. This article deconstructs the popular belief that individuals make 200 mindless food-related decisions a day, offering alternative perspectives on the conceptualization and measurement of food decisions. Specifically, we argue that existing decision-making theories offer limited guidance in defining and measuring such decisions, and advocate for more precise operationalizations. We emphasize the need for contextual understanding over simplistic numerical representations, propose a comprehensive working definition of food decisions, and consider alternative methods that may be better suited to capturing the complexity and nuance of food decisions. To conclude, we advocate for methodological pluralism in studying food decisions.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Appetite 医学-行为科学

CiteScore

9.10

自引率

11.10%

发文量

566

审稿时长

13.4 weeks

期刊介绍： Appetite is an international research journal specializing in cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks. It covers normal and disordered eating and drinking and welcomes studies of both human and non-human animal behaviour toward food. Appetite publishes research reports, reviews and commentaries. Thematic special issues appear regularly. From time to time the journal carries abstracts from professional meetings. Submissions to Appetite are expected to be based primarily on observations directly related to the selection and intake of foods and drinks; papers that are primarily focused on topics such as nutrition or obesity will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution to the understanding of appetite in line with the journal's aims and scope.