The deli counter prevails, every single time. Place a tray of meat sliced by a person in a grocery store beside a vacuum-sealed packet from a production line, and shoppers gravitate towards the human-prepared option. They consider it more delicious. Fresher. In some way, more authentic. And almost none of them are contemplating listeria.<\/p>\n
This disconnect between perceived safety and actual safety lies at the core of a new research study conducted by a group of hospitality scholars in the United States. They refer to the instinct behind it as the handmade food halo.<\/p>\n
The reasoning, if you can call it that, goes something like this: A human handled it, which means a human cared about it, so it must be good. The halo serves as a cognitive shortcut where our positive feelings regarding human involvement affect every other evaluation we make about a product, including the one evaluation where human touch is arguably the risk factor. Because hands transmit things. Mainly, bacteria. Hand-sliced deli meat has been associated with a disproportionate number of listeriosis outbreaks, and the more a food item is touched, the greater the likelihood that something harmful gains a foothold.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the researchers aimed to dispel the illusion. Surely, they thought, if they inform people of the risk, the preference would shift.<\/p>\n
The Spell Doesn\u2019t Break as Anticipated<\/p>\n
In two online experiments, 344 US consumers viewed deli meat, rated its appeal and their likelihood of purchasing it, and then read an advisory stating that, according to research, counter-sliced meat has a significantly higher listeriosis risk compared to the prepackaged type. They then rated everything a second time. The research, led by Zixi (Lavi) Peng from the University of Massachusetts Amherst along with colleagues from Penn State and the University of Houston, was published in the International Journal of Hospitality Management.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe found that consumers typically favor handmade food or hand-sliced deli meat, automatically believing it to be cared for, more authentic, and of better quality,\u201d Peng states. \u201cHowever, from a food-safety standpoint, hand preparation doesn\u2019t always indicate that the food is superior.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here is the surprising aspect. The safety warning did diminish enthusiasm for the hand-sliced meat, indeed lowering its appeal as predicted. However, it didn\u2019t elevate the safer packaged choice at all. Participants left feeling less positive about the risky option without finding the sensible choice any more appealing, as if the warning had simply tainted the entire transaction rather than redirecting it, which is contrary to how an organized public-health initiative is meant to function. \u201cWe anticipated that once we informed participants that the hand-sliced deli meat might pose a risk, they would naturally find the safer alternative more attractive,\u201d Peng elaborates. \u201cHowever, that was not the result. The allure of the prepackaged option didn\u2019t increase.\u201d<\/p>\n
What Shoppers Truly Desire Is Not a Human Touch<\/p>\n
The second experiment is where it gets inventive. This time, the team reimagined the packaged product, adorning it with elements suggestive of human care: a farmer\u2019s likeness, phrases about meticulous preparation. Same factory item inside, different appearance. After the safety information was provided, this revamped package surpassed both the ordinary packet and the hand-sliced meat in appeal and willingness to purchase. The impact extended through perceived attractiveness, invoking the sense that someone, somewhere, genuinely cared.<\/p>\n
This highlights something slightly unflattering about all of us. We were never truly pursuing the human touch. We were seeking the emotions that the touch represents: care, attention, authenticity, and it turns out that conveying this sentiment is remarkably easy to achieve through labeling.<\/p>\n
There is a notable caveat. These were online surveys, with participants clicking through images rather than standing in line at a physical counter with a genuine craving, and the study focuses on deli meat specifically due to its well-established risks. Whether the same halo shines as brightly over supermarket sushi or street food is, for now, an unresolved question, though the researchers believe it likely does.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the practical takeaway is clear and runs counter to decades of food-safety messaging rooted in the belief that information alone can effect change in behavior. Most often, it does not. We decide on lunch in seconds, based on an emotion, not after conducting an extensive review. \u201cConsumers are unlikely to investigate every product before making a fast purchase,\u201d Peng notes. \u201cThis necessitates that safety information be evident at the point of sale, while marketers also need to ensure that the safer option feels attractive, reliable, and cared for.\u201d Roughly 1 in 6 Americans contracts a foodborne illness each year, at a national cost exceeding seventy billion dollars, highlighting that the stakes behind a shopper\u2019s brief glance are significant.<\/p>\n
The unsettling conclusion is that safeguarding people may involve creating the very warmth that initially misled them, employing the language of handmade to promote the safety of manufactured products. It appears that the halo is here to stay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The deli counter prevails, every single time. Place a tray of meat sliced by a person in a grocery store beside a vacuum-sealed packet from a production line, and shoppers gravitate towards the human-prepared option. They consider it more delicious. Fresher. In some way, more authentic. And almost none of them are contemplating listeria. This […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":373121,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[179],"class_list":["post-373120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-source-scienceblog-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373120","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=373120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373120\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/373121"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=373120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=373120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=373120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}