Scientists say this is a misleading number
By Max Planck Institute for Human Development
 |
| What counts as a food decision? Food decisions only make sense when you know the context in which they were made. Credit: Pietro Nickl |
Numbers often drive health advice. They are meant to inform, motivate, and guide behavior. But not every widely shared statistic rests on solid scientific ground. One long repeated claim says people make more than 200 food-related decisions every day without realizing it.
According to Maria Almudena Claassen, a postdoctoral fellow
at the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human
Development, that figure gives a misleading impression. “This number paints a
distorted picture of how people make decisions about their food intake and how
much control they have over it,” she says.
Claassen, along with Ralph Hertwig, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, and Jutta Mata, an associate research scientist at the Institute and Professor for Health Psychology at the University of Mannheim, published research examining how this number became so influential. Their work shows how questionable measurement methods can shape public understanding of eating behavior in inaccurate ways.
The Origin of the 200 Food Decisions Claim
The widely cited estimate dates back to a 2007 study by U.S.
scientists Brian Wansink1 and Jeffery Sobal. In that study, 154 participants
were first asked to estimate how many decisions they made each day about eating
and drinking. The average response was 14.4 decisions.
Participants were then asked to break down their choices for
a typical meal into categories such as “when,” “what,” “how much,” “where,” and
“with whom.” Researchers multiplied these estimates by the number of meals,
snacks, and beverages participants said they consumed in a typical day. When
combined, this calculation produced an average of 226.7 daily decisions.
The difference between the initial estimate and the larger total, 212.3 decisions, was interpreted as evidence that most food choices are unconscious or “mindless.”
Why Researchers Question the Number
Claassen and her colleagues argue that this conclusion is
flawed. They point to both methodological and conceptual weaknesses in the
original design and say the discrepancy can be explained by a well known
cognitive bias called the subadditivity effect.
The subadditivity effect describes a tendency for people to
give higher numerical estimates when a broad question is divided into several
specific parts. When food decisions are counted piece by piece, totals
naturally rise. According to the researchers, the large number of supposed
“mindless” choices reflects this cognitive pattern rather than an observed
reality about how people eat.
They also warn that repeating simplified claims can shape
public perception in harmful ways. “Such a perception can undermine feelings of
self-efficacy,” says Claassen. “Simplified messages like this distract from the
fact that people are perfectly capable of making conscious and informed food
decisions.”
Defining Food Decisions in Real Life
The research team argues that food choices should be
examined in context rather than reduced to a single headline number. Meaningful
questions include what is being eaten, how much is consumed, what is avoided,
when the choice occurs, and the social or emotional setting surrounding it.
Food decisions happen in specific situations, such as
choosing between salad and pasta or deciding whether to skip a second helping.
The most important choices are those that connect to personal goals. For
someone trying to lose weight, that may mean selecting a lighter option at
dinner. For someone focused on sustainability, it may involve choosing a
vegetarian meal over a meat-based one.
Why Multiple Research Methods Matter
To better understand everyday eating behavior, the
researchers advocate methodological pluralism. This approach combines
qualitative observation, digital tracking tools, diary studies, and cross
cultural research to create a more accurate and nuanced picture of how food
decisions are made.
Ralph Hertwig emphasizes that attention-grabbing statistics
can distract from deeper insights. “Magic numbers such as the alleged 200 food
decisions do not tell us much about the psychology of eating decisions, even
more so if these numbers turn out to be themselves distorted,” he says.
“To get a better understanding of eating behavior, we need
to get a better grasp of how exactly decisions are made and what influences
them.”
How Self-Nudging Supports Healthy Choices
Understanding how food decisions work can help people build
healthier habits. One practical strategy highlighted by the researchers is
self-nudging. This means arranging your surroundings so that healthier options
are easier to choose.
For example, placing pre-cut fruit at eye level in the
refrigerator or storing sweets out of sight can support long-term goals without
requiring constant willpower. Self-nudging is part of the boosting approach,
which focuses on strengthening personal decision-making skills rather than
depending on external cues (Reijula & Hertwig, 2022).
In Brief
- The
claim that people make more than 200 unconscious food decisions per day
has circulated widely, but it stems from a methodologically problematic
study and creates a distorted view of decision-making.
- Oversimplified
statistics can weaken self-efficacy and falsely suggest that eating
behavior is largely beyond conscious control.
- Researchers
at the MPI call for methodological pluralism when studying food decisions.
- Practical
strategies such as self-nudging can support informed, health-promoting
choices.
Notes
- While
Brian Wansink was removed from his academic position and had 18 of his
articles retracted, the study discussed here has not been retracted. Our
critique focuses not on misconduct but on methodological and conceptual
shortcomings inherent in the study’s design.
References:
“The (mis-)measurement of food decisions” by Maria Almudena
Claassen, Jutta Mata and Ralph Hertwig, 25 February 2025, Appetite.
DOI:
10.1016/j.appet.2025.107928
“Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect” by SAMULI
REIJULA and RALPH HERTWIG, 26 March 2020, Behavioural Public Policy.
DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2020.5
