Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Study Finds Fast-Food Logos Make You Impatient 122

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-got-the-cowboyneal-jitters dept.
A study conducted by the University of Toronto has found that exposure to fast-food logos can cause people to feel impatient and make them more likely to buy things. Subjects in the study were exposed to nearly imperceptible flashes of images (for 12 to 80 milliseconds) which included fast-food logos for some. The subjects were then asked to read about and choose between two different kinds of skin-care treatments, one of which was a three-in-one. Those who had the logos flashed before them read "significantly faster" and chose the more time-saving skin product. From the article: "The researchers concluded 'fast food, originally designed to save time, can have the unexpected consequence of inducing haste and impatience' and 'preference for time-saving products when there are potentially other important aspects upon which to choose a product.' So, basically, driving past a McDonald's on the highway has the potential to not only make you drive faster, it will make you more likely to buy two-for-one Pantene Pro-V Shampoo and Conditioner the next time you go to Duane Reade. One, it seems, is considerably less ominous than the other." I guess this explains why my nephews will chew on their seat belts and try to get out the windows just to be first into the McDonald's Playland.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Finds Fast-Food Logos Make You Impatient

Comments Filter:
  • by characterZer0 (138196) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @11:44AM (#31911124)

    It would have been interesting to do the study for two different groups - those who eat fast food and those who do not.

  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2012@virtual-estates.net> on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @12:08PM (#31911618) Homepage

    Could it be, that simply flashing anything colorful — be it a McDonald's logo, or Obama's "Hope" poster — will make a person impatient?

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @02:29PM (#31913714) Homepage Journal

    Man, you're post is choke full of nutrient ignorance.

    First off, you can get a ham sandwich with a ton of veggies and no Mayo. It's pretty healthy. Sure you could also get the 12" meatball mariners with extra cheese. But as the poster pointed out, it's not hard to eat healthy at Subways..or any of those place listed. Subway is the best of the bunch.

    "those prewashed bags of salad, and a plastic fork."
    Many of hem are not terrible healthy. They are mostly iceberg lettuce, which is water barely being held together. Be sure to get the ones with darker greens, like spinach... and don't put any dressing on it. So, yeah that will be tasty~

    " are marinated in pure corn syrup."
    And...? There isn't anything inherently bad in that. Unless you eat too much of it.

    "Because not only is the dressing also packed with sugar for no good reason, "
    yeah, they spend money to put sugar in it for no reason what so ever~

    "But, it IS their healthiest salad."
    no it isn't. The veggie delight salad is, and the Subway club is the worse one. But so what? a salad is just a type of meal preparation. not some magical diet food. No salad there has 1.25 g of sodium. The highest is 800mg. It's a lot, but no where near what you claim.

    You're whole rant on the food pyrmid is just plain wrong.
    A) it was created in ther 1960s. well before fast food took off. IN fact, fast food didn't take off until the 1980s boom.

    "high fat diets make you fat, because those studies fail, l"
    many good studies show that in fact, high fat diets does contribute to obesity. as does putting too many calories in your mouth.

    " Those who chose A, as I said, run out of the profession on a rail.

    That is a common and wrong logical fallacies. Scientist who do good pier reviewed studies that are contrary to common conceptions are supported and rewarded in the scientific community. They need to be good and repeatable studies. That argument infuriates me because it perpetuates a fallacy with he scientific community, and it always indicate the person spouting off is full of shit.

    Fast food can be fast.
    I can get a hamburger fries and soda in 5 minutes. Good luck doing that at home.
    Not that I would anymore.

    Who the hell waits 10 minutes for fast food? next time, time yourself. Plus it has the added bonus that I walk an extra 6 blocks.

    You're time is a fallacy anyways since most people have a set time for lunch. Even if your example was correct, what would you do with the extra few minutes during lunch?

    You are a product of lies spread buy 'nutritionist' and people who write diet books.

    Try studying the actual science some time.

  • by jfengel (409917) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @03:57PM (#31914710) Homepage Journal

    They did control a bit for that; the control group saw a "blank square", according to the actual journal article [sagepub.com].

    Not entirely sure what "blank" means, but they were generally being shown a screen full of flashing lights: "participants reported that they had seen color blocks without any meaningful pattern".

    Seems to me that they should at least have controlled for ANY logos, perhaps for a car rental company or just random corporate logos. It's not at all clear to me whether they've actually proven anything about "fast food logos" rather than complicated shapes in general.

    I'm generally suspicious about subliminal programming experiments, and their failure to control for something that seems obvious to me makes me skeptical.

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...