Marketers frequently style food to look pretty (e.g., in advertising). This article investigates how pretty aesthetics (defined by classical aesthetic principles, such as order, symmetry, and balance) influence healthiness judgments. The author proposes that prettier food is perceived as healthier, specifically because classical aesthetic features make it appear more natural. In a pilot, six main studies and four supplemental studies (total N = 4,301) across unhealthy and healthy, processed and unprocessed, and photographed and real foods alike, people judged prettier versions of the same food as healthier (e.g., more nutrients, less fat), despite equal perceived price. Even given financial stakes, people were misled by prettiness. In line with the proposed naturalness process, perceived naturalness mediated the effect; belief in a “natural = healthy” connection moderated it; expressive aesthetics, which do not evoke naturalness, did not produce the effect (despite being pretty); and reminders of artificial modification, which suppress perceived naturalness, mitigated it. Given that pretty food styling can harm consumers by misleading healthiness judgments for unhealthy foods, managers and policy makers should consider modification disclaimers as a tool to mitigate the “pretty = healthy” bias.
AakerJennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347–56.
2.
BeckerGordon M.DeGrootMorris H.MarschakJacob (1964), “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method,” Behavioral Science, 9 (3), 226–32.
3.
ChandonPierreWansinkBrian (2007), “The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-dish Consumption Intention,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (3), 301–14.
4.
De HoogeIlona E.OostindjerMarijeAschemann-WitzelJessicaNormannAnneLooseSimone MuellerAlmliValérie Lengard (2017), “This Apple Is Too Ugly for Me! Consumer Preferences for Suboptimal Food Products in the Supermarket and at Home,” Food Quality and Preference, 56 (Part A), 80–92.
5.
EvansPeggy C. (2003), “‘If Only I Were Thin Like Her, Maybe I Could Be Happy Like Her’: The Self-Implications of Associating a Thin Female Ideal with Life Success,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27 (3), 209–14.
6.
FechnerGustav T. (1871), Zur Experimentalen Aesthetik. Leipzig, Germany: Hirzel.
7.
FinkelsteinStacey R.FishbachAyelet (2010), “When Healthy Food Makes You Hungry,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 357–67.
8.
FinnertyJohn R. (2005), “Did Internal Transport, Rather than Directed Locomotion, Favor the Evolution of Bilateral Symmetry in Animals?” BioEssays, 27 (11), 1174–80.
9.
GreenChristopher D. (1995), “All that Glitters: A Review of Psychological Research on the Aesthetics of the Golden Section,” Perception, 24 (8), 937–68.
10.
GrewalLaurenHmurovicJillianLambertonCaitReczekRebecca Walker (2019), “The Self-Perception Connection: Why Consumers Devalue Unattractive Produce,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (1), 89–107.
11.
GriffinAngela M.LangloisJudith H. (2006), “Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or Is Ugly Bad?” Social Cognition, 24 (2), 187–206.
12.
HagenLindaKrishnaAradhnaMcFerranBrent (2017), “Rejecting Responsibility: Low Physical Involvement in Obtaining Food Promotes Unhealthy Eating,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (4), 589–604.
13.
HagtvedtHenrikPatrickVanessa M. (2008), “Art Infusion: The Influence of Visual Art on the Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (3), 379–89.
14.
HartWilliamAlbarracínDoloresEaglyAlice H.BrechanIngeLindbergMatthew J.MerrillLisa (2009), “Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information,” Psychological Bulletin, 135 (4), 555–88.
15.
HassenzahlMarcMonkAndrew (2010), “The Inference of Perceived Usability from Beauty,” Human-Computer Interaction, 25 (3), 235–60.
16.
HawsKelly L.ReczekRebecca WalkerSampleKevin L. (2017), “Healthy Diets Make Empty Wallets: The Healthy = Expensive Intuition,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 992–1007.
17.
HerrPaul M. (1989), “Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 67–75.
18.
International Food Information Council Foundation (2015), Food & Health Survey 2015, https://foodinsight.org.
19.
IrmakCaglarVallenBethRobinsonStefanie Rosen (2011), “The Impact of Product Name on Dieters’ and Nondieters’ Food Evaluations and Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 390–405.
20.
JacobsonThomasHöfelLea A. (2002), “Aesthetic Judgments of Novel Graphic Patterns: Analyses of Individual Judgments,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95 (3), 755–66.
21.
JohnsonPaul-Alan (1994), The Theory of Architecture: Concepts, Themes, and Practices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
22.
KenwardBenjaminWachtmeisterCarl-AdamGhirlandaStefanoEnquistMagnus (2004), “Spots and Stripes: The Evolution of Repetition in Visual Signal Form,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 230 (3), 407–19.
23.
LavieTaliaTractinskyNoam (2004), “Assessing Dimensions of Perceived Visual Aesthetics of Web Sites,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269–98.
24.
LordCharles G.TaylorCheryl A. (2009), “Biased Assimilation: Effects of Assumptions and Expectations on the Interpretation of New Evidence,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3 (5), 827–41.
25.
LuchsMichael G.NaylorRebecca W.IrwinJulie R.RaghunathanRajagopal (2010), “The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 18–31.
26.
MaiRobertHoffmannStefan (2015), “How to Combat the Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition: The Influencing Role of Health Consciousness,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34 (1), 63–83.
27.
MandelbrotBenoît B. (1982), The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman.
28.
McFerranBrentMukhopadhyayAnirban (2013), “Lay Theories of Obesity Predict Actual Body Mass,” Psychological Science, 24 (8), 1428–36.
29.
McLarenLindsay (2007), “Socioeconomic Status and Obesity,” Epidemiologic Reviews, 29 (1), 29–48.
30.
MichelCharlesVelascoCarlosFraemohsPaulSpenceCharles (2015), “Studying the Impact of Plating on Ratings of the Food Served in a Naturalistic Dining Context,” Appetite, 90, 45–50.
31.
MitchisonGraeme (1977), “Phyllotaxis and the Fibonacci Series,” Science, 196 (4287), 270–75.
32.
NealPaul R.DafniAmotsGiurfaMartin (1998), “Floral Symmetry and Its Role in Plant-Pollinator Systems: Terminology, Distribution, and Hypotheses,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29 (1), 345–73.
33.
NikolovaHristina DzhoglevaInmanJ. Jeffrey (2015), “Healthy Choice: The Effect of Simplified Point-of-Sale Nutritional Information on Consumer Food Choice Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (6), 817–35.
34.
NisbettRichard E.WilsonTimothy D. (1977), “The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (4), 250–56.
35.
OakesMichael E.SlotterbackCarole S. (2004), “Prejudgments of Those Who Eat a ‘Healthy’ Versus an ‘Unhealthy’ Food for Breakfast,” Current Psychology, 23 (4), 267–77.
36.
OkadaErica M. (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 43–53.
37.
PalmerStephen E.SchlossKaren B.SammartinoJonathan (2013), “Visual Aesthetics and Human Preference,” Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107.
38.
PatrickVanessa M.PeracchioLaura A. (2010), “‘Curating’ the JCP Special Issue on Aesthetics in Consumer Psychology: An Introduction to the Aesthetics Issue,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 393–97.
39.
RaghunathanRajagopalNaylorRebecca WalkerHoyerWayne D. (2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 170–84.
40.
RaoAnitaWangEmily (2017), “Demand for ‘Healthy’ Products: False Claims and FTC Regulation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (6), 968–89.
41.
ReimannMartinZaichkowskyJudithNeuhausCarolinBenderThomasWeberBernd (2010), “Aesthetic Package Design: A Behavioral, Neural, and Psychological Investigation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 431–41.
42.
RozinPaul (2005), “The Meaning of ‘Natural’: Process More Important Than Content,” Psychological Science, 16 (8), 652–58.
43.
RozinPaulSprancaMarkKriegerZeevNeuhausRuthSurilloDarleneSwerdlinAmyWoodKatherine (2004), “Natural Preference: Instrumental and Ideational/Moral Motivations, and the Contrast Between Foods and Medicines,” Appetite, 43 (2), 147–54.
44.
RozinPaulAshmoreMicheleMarkwithMaureen (1996), “Lay American Conceptions of Nutrition: Dose Insensitivity, Categorical Thinking, Contagion, and the Monotonic Mind,” Health Psychology, 15 (6), 438–47.
45.
SchuldtJonathon P. (2013), “Does Green Mean Healthy? Nutrition Label Color Affects Perceptions of Healthfulness,” Health Communication, 28 (8), 814–21.
46.
SevillaJulioTownsendClaudia (2016), “The Space-to-Product Ratio Effect: How Interstitial Space Influences Product Aesthetic Appeal, Store Perceptions, and Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (5), 665–81.
47.
SherifMuzaferTaubDanielHovlandCarl I. (1958), “Assimilation and Contrast Effects of Anchoring Stimuli on Judgments,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55 (2), 150–55.
48.
ShivBabaFedorikhinAlexander (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 278–92.
49.
SimmonsKyleMartinAlexBarsalouLawrence W. (2005), “Pictures of Appetizing Foods Activate Gustatory Cortices for Taste and Reward,” Cerebral Cortex, 15 (10), 1602–08.
50.
Smith-SpanglerCrystalBrandeauMargaret L.HunterGrace E.BavingerJ. ClayPearsonMarenEschbachPaul J., et al. (2012), “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 157 (5), 348–66.
51.
SpeharBrankaCliffordColin W.G.NewellBen R.TaylorRichard P. (2003), “Universal Aesthetic of Fractals,” Computers & Graphics, 27 (5), 813–20.
SuherJacobRaghunathanRajHoyerWayne D. (2016), “Eating Healthy or Feeling Empty? How the ‘Healthy = Less Filling’ Intuition Influences Satiety,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1 (1), 26–40.
54.
SumerH. CananKnightPatrick A. (1996), “Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Performance Ratings: Effects of Rating the Previous Performance on Rating Subsequent Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (4), 436–42.
55.
ThorndikeEdward L. (1920), “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 (1), 25–29.
56.
TownsendClaudiaShuSuzanne B. (2010), “When and How Aesthetics Influence Financial Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 452–58.
57.
TractinskyNoamShoval-KatzAdiIkarD. (2000), “What Is Beautiful Is Usable,” Interacting with Computers, 13 (2), 127–45.
58.
TsayChia-Jung (2016), “Privileging Naturals over Strivers: The Costs of the Naturalness Bias,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42 (1), 40–53.
WuFreemanSamperAdrianaMoralesAndrea C.FitzsimonsGavan J. (2017), “It’s Too Pretty to Use! When and How Enhanced Product Aesthetics Discourage Usage and Lower Consumption Enjoyment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (3), 651–72.
62.
YeNingMorrinMaureenKampferKristina (2020), “From Glossy to Greasy: The Impact of Learned Associations on Perceptions of Food Healthfulness,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (1), 96–124.
63.
ZellnerDebra A.LossChristopher R.ZearfossJonathanRemolinaSergio (2014), “It Tastes as Good as It Looks! The Effect of Food Presentation on Liking for the Flavor of Food,” Appetite, 77, 31–35.
64.
ZhengXianjun SamChakrabortyIshaniLinJames Jeng-WeeiRauschenbergerRobert (2009), “Correlating Low-Level Image Statistics with Users’ Rapid Aesthetic and Affective Judgments of Web Pages,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1–10.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
