Those“Low-Calorie”sectionsthatareincreasinglypoppingupinrestaurantmenus,accordingtoanewstudyappeartohaveabackfireeffect.

“低卡”飲食在當(dāng)今的餐館里非常流行，然而最新的一項(xiàng)研究表明，它可能和人們想象的不太一樣。

InarecentstudypublishedintheJournalofConsumerResearch,placinglow-caloriedishesintotheirownlow-caloriecategorycancauseconsumerstoinsteadchoosehighercaloriemealsthatcouldbemakingthemfatter.

最近發(fā)表在《消費(fèi)者研究期刊》上的研究表明，將低卡菜肴單獨(dú)列出來(lái)可能會(huì)促使顧客購(gòu)買更高卡路里的餐點(diǎn)，而這非但對(duì)減肥無(wú)益，反而會(huì)增肥。

ToJeffreyParker,anassistantprofessorofmarketingatGeorgiaStateUniversity,therestaurantmenuprovidestheperfectconditionsfortestingdecision-making.WhentheBuildYourOwnSaladmenusinNewYorkbeganmakinganappearanceineverycornerdeli,hehadtowonderhowthatcouldaffectconsumerchoice.

對(duì)于美國(guó)佐治亞州立大學(xué)市場(chǎng)教授助理杰弗里·帕克來(lái)說(shuō)，餐廳菜單為測(cè)試顧客決策提供了極佳的條件。當(dāng)紐約的各個(gè)角落的餐廳都提供著“計(jì)劃你自己的沙拉”服務(wù)時(shí)，他開(kāi)始考慮是什么影響了消費(fèi)者的決策。

“Andeveryonewaswell,isthatactuallyhelpingpeoplemakechoices?”heasked.TogetherwithDonaldR.Lehmann,aColumbiaBusinessprofessor,Parkerhypothesizedthatplacingcaloriesnexttodishesdidn’treallyhelppeoplemakehealthierchoicesandplacingallthoselow-caloriedishesintheirownsectionhelpsevenless.

“大家都對(duì)這個(gè)服務(wù)反映良好，然而實(shí)際上是什么在幫助我們做決策呢？”他問(wèn)道。于是，和一位哥倫比亞商學(xué)教授唐納德·R·萊曼一起，帕克做出了假設(shè)。他認(rèn)為，將卡路里標(biāo)在食物旁邊實(shí)際上不能幫人們做出更健康的選擇，而把所有低卡食物都放在一起收效更微。

“Foralotofpeoplelow-cal,healthythingskindofsoundlikenotverybig,notveryfilling,doesn’ttasteverygood,”hesaid.“Evenifthat’snottrue,that’stheinferencetheyhavesotheyimmediatelygo,‘Idon’twantthat’andthentheychoosefromtherestofthemenuwhichmeansthey’regoingtochoosesomethingthat’srelativelyhighcalorie.”

“對(duì)于大部分人來(lái)說(shuō)，健康的食物聽(tīng)起來(lái)總像是吃不飽，也不好吃?！彼f(shuō)，“即使這并不是真的，但是基于自己的推斷，人們還是會(huì)直接忽略掉低卡食品。他們會(huì)覺(jué)得‘我才不想吃那個(gè)’，然后去從菜單剩下的食物中選擇，這就意味著他們會(huì)選擇一些相對(duì)來(lái)說(shuō)卡路里較高的食物。”

ParkerandLehmann’sstudywasfairlysimple.Participantswereaskedtoselectanitemfromanumberofmenus,whichwererandomlyassigned.Thefirst“traditional”menulookedmuchlikearegularrestaurantmenuwheredishesdidnotfeatureanyspecial“Chef’sChoice”flagsorcaloriccontent.Thesecond“calorie-posted”menuincludedcaloriccontentnexttodishes,whilethethird“calorie-organized”menutookitastepfurtherandcategorizedlow-caloriedishesinaseparatesection.

帕克和萊曼的研究相當(dāng)簡(jiǎn)單，參與者只需從菜單中隨機(jī)選擇一道菜肴即可，而這些菜單都是被隨機(jī)分發(fā)的。第一份“傳統(tǒng)”的菜單看起來(lái)很常規(guī)，沒(méi)有標(biāo)注“主廚推薦”或者卡路里含量；第二份菜單在每道菜旁邊都標(biāo)注了卡路里；而第三份則更進(jìn)一步，把所有的低卡菜肴都放在了單獨(dú)的一欄。

Overall,onaverage,whenlow-caloriedisheswereseparated,participantschosedishesthatcontained11percentmorecalories.Whencalorieinformationwaspostednexttothedish,participantsmusthavefoundtheinformationhelpfulbecausetheychosedishesthatwere15percentlowerincalories.Theaveragecalorieselectionforthetraditionalmenu,however,wasawhopping1,235calories—almosthalftheFDA’srmendeddailylimit.So,postingcaloriecontentcanhelp,butpostingitinitsowncategoryiscounter-productive.

總體來(lái)說(shuō)，當(dāng)?shù)涂ú穗缺环蛛x開(kāi)時(shí)，參與者會(huì)選擇包含多11%卡路里的菜肴；而當(dāng)卡路里被明確標(biāo)在菜肴旁邊時(shí)，由于受到這個(gè)信息的影響，參與者對(duì)卡路里的選擇低了15%。拿到傳統(tǒng)菜單的人們選擇的菜肴熱量則高達(dá)1235大卡——基本上達(dá)到了食品及藥物管理局（FDA）推薦的每日限量的一半。所以說(shuō)，把卡路里含量標(biāo)注出來(lái)是有益的，而把低卡菜肴單列一欄反會(huì)適得其反。

Thelow-caloriesectionwasmeanttomimicpopularchainrestaurantlow-calsectionsfromApplebee’s,RedRobinandChili’s.Forinstance,Applebee’scallsoutitshealthieroptionsinasectiontitled“Under550Calories”,whileChili’suses“LighterChoices”tocategorizeitsmorenutritiousoptions.MenuitemsalsotooktheircuefromplacessuchasCheesecakeFactory(whichboastsmorethan200menuitems),OliveGarden,RedLobsterandmore.

低卡菜單意在模仿如蘋果蜂、紅羅賓和小辣椒等生意紅火的連鎖餐廳的模式。例如，蘋果蜂有一個(gè)菜單叫做“低于550大卡”，小辣椒也用“更輕盈的選擇”菜單來(lái)標(biāo)注更有營(yíng)養(yǎng)的選項(xiàng)。菜單上的餐點(diǎn)同樣受了如芝士工廠、橄欖花園、紅龍蝦等餐廳的啟發(fā)。

Whattheyfoundwasthat,evenaftercontrollingforpriceandage,peoplearereallynotinterestedinhealthyoptions.Ifyou’reinarestaurantpressedfortimeyou’requicklylookingforwaystoeliminateoptions,andmoreoftenthannot,eliminatingthe“HealthyOptions”sectionisaneasychoice.

他們也發(fā)現(xiàn)，控制了價(jià)格和年齡之后，人們還是對(duì)健康選項(xiàng)不太感興趣；尤其是當(dāng)人們時(shí)間緊張時(shí)，他們快速瀏覽選項(xiàng)時(shí)還是會(huì)輕而易舉地過(guò)濾掉“健康之馴那一欄。

Surprisingly,whenalow-caloriedishisn’tseparatedfromthemenu,butplacedwithinitsappropriatesection(avegetariansandwichgoesunderSandwiches)ithasabetterchanceofbeingselected,saysParker.

帕克說(shuō)，出人意料的是，如果低卡菜肴沒(méi)有從菜單上分出來(lái)，而是正常排在菜單里的話，人們往往會(huì)更樂(lè)于選擇。

“Ifthisconsumerwantsabarbecuebaconcheeseburger,heisgoingtohavetoacceptthehighcaloriecountthateswithit,”writesParker.“Assumethatalow-calorieoptionisalsointheconsumer’sconsiderationset(perhapsaturkeyburger).Theconsumerknowsthathehastogiveupsomethingintastetogetfewercalories,butaturkeyburgerisstillaburger.Thus,thelikelihoodthatitwillbechosenincreasessimplyduetoitbeingincludedintheconsiderationset.”

“如果顧客想選擇培根芝士漢堡，那他就得接受隨之而來(lái)的高熱量。”帕克說(shuō)，“假設(shè)顧客也曾考慮過(guò)低卡選項(xiàng)（可能是火雞肉漢堡），那他就知道為了攝入少一點(diǎn)的熱量，他得放棄一點(diǎn)口感的追求。但是漢堡還是漢堡，因此，既然被考慮過(guò)了，那它被選擇的可能性還會(huì)增加?！?/p>

Surprisingly,Parkersays,ifcustomersweregivenmoretime,selectingalow-caloriemealwouldincrease.Thiswouldensuretheyhadmoretimetoperuseoptionsandkeepcustomersre-thinkingthatGrilledChickenSandwichwith610calories,versustheCaribbeanCrispyChickenSaladwith1375calories.

但是帕克也說(shuō)，如果顧客有更多的時(shí)間選擇，那他們點(diǎn)低卡餐點(diǎn)的幾率還會(huì)增加。有更多的時(shí)間意味著他們能夠更仔細(xì)考慮，這樣他們也會(huì)重新想想是選擇610大卡的烤雞三明治，還是1375大卡的加勒比脆皮雞沙拉。