Many restaurants now post basic nutrition information on their menus so you can easily determine how many calories are in their dishes. That’s part of a federal law now for chain restaurants…and many independent restaurants are voluntarily putting calorie information on their menus, too.

But did you know that how the menu is organized affects how meaningful the calorie information becomes when you’re making a choice? In fact, according to a fascinating series of new experiments, a menu design that’s intended to be helpful is actually backfiring…and causing people to eat more calories than they otherwise would!

Here’s what you need to know to avoid getting sucked into your own “reverse psychology” trap—and sabotaging your diet—when you dine out…

FOOD SEGREGATION?

For the first experiment, participants were asked to imagine that they were eating for the first time at a restaurant. They were randomly assigned to receive one of three menus and asked to place an order. All the menus had the exact same food choices, but the information and organization differed…

• The traditional version of the menu organized the dishes by category, such as Salads or Sandwiches. Calories were not listed.

• The second version, the calorie-posted menu, was organized the same way as the traditional menu, but the description of each dish included calorie information.

• The third version, the calorie-organized menu, contained the exact same information as the calorie-posted menu. However, the menu was arranged so that all of the lower-calorie dishes were grouped together in one special section that was labeled as being lower in calories. (You often see such sections on menus, typically called something along the lines of Lighter Choices or Under 500 Calories.)

What people ordered: As expected, participants who were given the traditional menu without the calorie counts tended to choose the highest-calorie dishes, at an average of 1,235 calories. Listing the calories on the calorie-posted menu made a significant difference—participants with that version of the menu ordered items containing 15% fewer calories, or 1,048 on average. But here’s the rub: Participants given the calorie-organized menu with the “lighter” options listed in their own separate, easy-to-spot section chose dishes with 1,160 calories, on average—or 11% more calories than those chosen by the calorie-posted group.

Ironic: In other words, “segregating” the lighter dishes backfired, nearly negating the beneficial effects of listing the calories in the first place!

What explains the surprising findings? The researchers believe that many consumers automatically assume that lower calorie means less tasty and/or less filling. So when perusing a menu, they immediately eliminate those dishes as options without even considering whether they might enjoy them.

That same point was illustrated in a separate experiment in which participants viewed food categories on a computer, then clicked on the various categories to reveal the specific food choices within each category. In that experiment, 71% of participants did not even look at any meals listed in the category called Under 500 Calories.

TESTING THE TIME CRUNCH

Another experiment added a new element—time restrictions—while using various menu versions organized similarly to those in the first experiment. One group of participants was compelled to make a choice from the menu in less than 20 seconds…while a second group had to look at the menu for 40 seconds before being allowed to make their selections. In addition, participants were asked to rate how hungry they were and to provide their height and weight so that their body mass index (BMI) could be calculated.

Timely results: Neither age, hunger levels, nor BMI affected the participants’ orders. What did make a difference? Time. Participants who had twice as much time to consider their meal choices selected lower-calorie options from both the calorie-posted menu and the calorie-organized menu, but not from the traditional menu. For example, participants viewing the calorie-organized menu selected dishes with an average of 1,123 calories if they had 40 seconds to deliberate…but calorie count rose to 1,347 among those who had just 20 seconds to make up their minds.

It makes sense. When we’re rushing to make a decision, we need to quickly eliminate entire sections of the menu from consideration to narrow down our choices (especially if the restaurant has a huge mega-menu)—so the “light but boring” section is likely to get passed over. However, when we have more time to read the descriptions and weigh each dish’s attributes, including calorie count, we tend to make wiser choices.

In a rush? I’ll take the fried shrimp with chips, please. Got more time? Hey, that roast chicken with shaved parmesan and field greens sounds pretty good!

Takeaway message for diners: When a restaurant lists calories on the menu, take your time, look at the calorie numbers, and lean toward the lowest-cal dish that you’ll enjoy. If there’s a section devoted to lower-cal fare, don’t gloss over it—there could be some wonderful dishes there. And remember, there’s typically no need to hurry in making your selection. It’s fine to tell the waiter that you need another moment. Those few extra seconds of deliberation could keep you from sabotaging your diet.

Related Articles