Human beings like to think of themselves as paragons of rationality. We believe we follow sophisticated logical reasoning: selecting ingredients for specific dishes, choosing the products our children prefer, picking vegetables “because they’re healthy,” balancing sugar intake, ensuring enough protein, considering quantities.

Yet the myth of rational control over our choices was debunked by psychologists Tversky and Kahneman, who, starting in the late 1970s, conducted a series of experiments showing that our reasoning does not always follow the rules of logic. Instead, we rely on a series of shortcuts and approximations to make decisions quickly and with minimal cognitive effort—often leading to inaccurate conclusions or outright errors.

The human mind is an extraordinary energy saver. Whenever possible, it happily switches to autopilot. Building on these observations, Tversky and Kahneman laid the foundations for the interdisciplinary field of behavioral economics, which integrates psychology and economic principles. Their work ultimately led to Kahneman being awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002.

But that's not all. The naked truth of behavioral economics is that human beings—all of us—are aware of only a tiny fraction of the factors that guide our choices. Kahneman explains to us, in a highly successful essay published a few years later, that not only do we make reasoning errors, but we are also strongly influenced by unconscious mechanisms. There are, in fact, two systems of thought: System 1, intuitive, automatic, and fast; and System 2, analytical, conscious, and slow.

So, what are the factors that shape our decisions—both in food and beyond? In 1991, social psychologist Icek Ajzen proposed a theory to predict human behavior: the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). According to this model, the likelihood of performing a behavior increases the stronger the intention to do so. Intention, in turn, depends on the interaction of several factors: our perceived control over the behavior (Am I capable of doing this?), subjective norms (What do others expect of me?), and attitudes.

From a psychological perspective, attitudes can be defined as relatively stable positive or negative evaluations of people, situations, objects, or events. 

When it comes to food choices, attitudes play a central role, as they shape a person’s predisposition toward certain products or eating habits. If an individual perceives a food as both healthy and tasty, they are more likely to consume it. Conversely, if they associate it with a negative experience or an unfavorable belief, they will tend to avoid it.

https://onfoods.it/research-outputs/who-would-taste-it-exploring-decision-making-styles-and-intention-eat-insect-based

Attitudes come in two forms: explicit and implicit. Explicit attitudes are conscious and verbalizable. They are typically measured through questionnaires that directly ask respondents to express their opinions on various aspects—in this case, on food products. Another approach is conducting focus groups on specific topics to identify recurring themes. Interviews also serve as a valuable tool.

Francesca Di Napoli, a PhD candidate, shares her experience: "Interviews are an excellent investigative tool because they allow us to explore aspects of daily life and personal experiences that shape and guide Italians' feelings and behaviors regarding food sustainability. Speaking directly with participants helps capture the emotional nuances, family habits, and values associated with food".

However, while these methods are invaluable, they are not without challenges. For instance, a crucial question arises: Do people truly know what they think about certain products? Are they able to report their attitudes accurately and authentically? Moreover, can we measure people's spontaneous evaluations?

Let’s Take an Example. If I asked you to think about legumes and rate them on a scale from 1 (“negative”) to 7 (“positive”), you would likely evaluate them based on your own experiences and knowledge: their taste, versatility, possible downsides like bloating, the need for soaking (“what a hassle!”), or their advantages, such as variety, low cost, and health benefits (“so many options, affordable, and good for you—what else?!”).

But what if the same question involved a more uncomfortable or controversial topic—say, where people who follow a vegan diet fall on the spectrum between feminine and masculine? Would the response be just as spontaneous and honest? Likely, some respondents would try to give the “right” answer rather than their true opinion (assuming they even know what the real truth is!).

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5103855

To avoid such distortions and capture the associations we form instinctively, researchers have developed measures of implicit—or more precisely, automatic—attitudes.

Francesco Fedeli, a PhD candidate working on developing these measures to study reactions to novel foods, provides an overview: "Implicit measures typically rely on computer-based tasks that require participants to categorize certain objects with positive and negative adjectives. For example, if we ask participants to associate 'tofu sausage' and 'pork sausage' with the adjectives 'positive' and 'negative,' we notice that responses are not equally fast in both cases. Why does this happen? What is the underlying mechanism? Generally, the faster the response, the stronger the association between that food and a particular evaluative nuance. Typically, people take longer to associate 'tofu sausage' with 'positive' compared to the more traditional 'pork sausage'—even if only by milliseconds. By analyzing reaction times in these tasks, we can gain insights into individuals' implicit attitudes, revealing important information about their spontaneous reactions and evaluations".

This effect is not the same for everyone—it varies based on other psychological factors, such as personal values. For instance, someone with a strong attachment to traditional cuisine might have a negative reaction upon reading the word tofu. On the other hand, a person who is curious and open to new experiences is unlikely to react in the same way.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5087002

Psychologists studying food behavior are interested in understanding both levels of attitudes—the conscious and the automatic—to promote healthy and sustainable eating habits. Their goal is to identify the barriers and resistances to change, as well as the factors that facilitate it. In simple terms, what are the key aspects that can be leveraged to guide consumers toward more mindful eating choices?

This approach defines the working method of the team of psychologists at the University of Milano-Bicocca, particularly within the OnFoods Spoke 7 projects, including CHOEAT, PSYCHO, WASTIN, STRANGE, DIGITOOL, and UNICA. While these projects focus on different areas—such as schools, university cafeterias, or specific topics like food waste, novel foods, and plant-based products—they all share a common foundation: an in-depth analysis of both explicit and implicit attitudes.

Our contribution to the OnFoods project can be divided into two parts. In the first part, which is gradually coming to an end, we focused our efforts on designing and implementing the tools needed to measure explicit and automatic attitudes.

The second part of our research, which has already begun, will focus more on the practical application of this knowledge to promote change. Attitudes can indeed be modified by creating new associations.

In the explicit domain, this involves educational interventions, where certain content (messages, posters, leaflets, video clips) is produced and targeted at people to develop new knowledge or viewpoints. In these cases, the intervention occurs through Kahneman's “System 2”, the slow thinking process: it will take time for people to digest the information, develop new attitudes, and possibly modify their intentions and behavior.

The intervention on automatic attitudes does not engage analytical thinking, but rather automatic associations. It’s about creating associations that have a new emotional tint. For example, consider the presentation of a video showing a group of happy people, perhaps in good company, eating a product typically considered disgusting (such as insect cookies, vegan snacks, or cultivated meat steaks). In this case, the “System 1” is activated: less reasoning, more intuition.

Another strength of the team is personalization: capturing the unique individual characteristics of people to propose interventions tailored to them that are engaging and vary based on characteristics and interests.

To achieve this goal, we are conducting research interventions using both more traditional methods, such as the creation of informative/educational content, and more pioneering approaches, using web applications. With these tools, our participants receive daily notifications that vary according to our initial profiling, which we carry out using validated psychological scales.

This approach has led us to establish highly fruitful collaborations with colleagues from other fields and universities within the Onfoods project (research projects SUPERON and EDSUSDIETS), where various expertise intertwine and strengthen with the goal of addressing areas of the scientific literature that are still underexplored and sharing methodologies that can be applied by other researchers in various fields of intervention.