Almudena Claassen: Beyond the 200 Food Decisions Myth—Observing Behavior to Improve How We Eat

In this episode, Almudena Claassen challenges the widely cited claim that people make over 200 mindless food decisions every day. She highlights the methodological limitations of the ‘200 decisions’ estimate and discusses how such figures can shape perceptions of eating behavior. Instead of relying on vague numbers, Almudena advocates for measuring food decisions in concrete situations. She highlights the importance of defining the context (for example, a family meal), the specific decision being tracked (such as pieces of vegetables eaten), and who is actually making the decision (the person eating versus the person buying the groceries). By observing decisions as they happen, using tools like video recordings of family meals, grocery receipts, or digital trackers, researchers can get a more accurate picture of how people eat and why. The conversation also covers practical ways to improve children’s eating habits. Almudena shares research-backed tips such as making meals last longer, creating a positive and relaxed mealtime environment, and making healthier foods convenient to eat. This episode is perfect for anyone curious about the science behind food decisions and offers practical strategies to improve children’s nutrition in everyday life.   Access the full show notes for this episode at www.unravelingbehavior.org.    Timestamps (00:00) Introduction (01:10) Origin of the “200 food decisions a day” myth (05:30) Why the “200 decisions” estimate is misleading (08:58) Importance of debunking the myth (11:50) Defining food decisions beyond simply finding a better number (13:48) Almudena’s proposed research approach (15:43) Using objective methods to measure decisions (16:56) Study example: family meals and healthy eating (19:46) Technology and methods for observing food behavior (22:21) Practical advice for parents on healthy eating (27:09) Emphasizing context over daily decision counts

In this episode, Ralph Hertwig, Director at our institute, makes the case for a major shift in how policy makers approach behavior-related challenges—whether it’s preventing dooring accidents, reducing math anxiety, or countering misinformation. Rather than relying on the common paternalistic strategy of nudging people without their awareness, Ralph Hertwig advocates for a more empowering and transparent approach: boosting people’s competences so they can make informed decisions on their own terms. He argues that this shift, supported by regulations and incentives, is crucial for strengthening people’s agency in the face of global challenges like pandemics and climate change. Empowering citizens also helps protect our autonomy and supports informed choices in environments that are often addictive and manipulative, like the junk food industry or social media platforms. After exploring the limits of nudging, Ralph Hertwig introduces the idea of “boosting”—a behavioral science approach that fosters people’s agency, self-control, and decision-making skills. Boosting, he argues, provides a first line of response, especially since laws are often slow to change and vulnerable to outside influences. He shares some examples of boosting interventions, like the Dutch Reach, bedtime math stories, and lateral reading. He also talks about “self-nudging,” a strategy that helps individuals shape their own environments in ways that align with their personal goals. Our conversation highlights how boosts are transparent, non-manipulative, and designed for lasting impact—and how they can be implemented fairly and accessibly for everyone. Ralph Hertwig encourages policy makers to move beyond the narrow view that people are just error-prone, and instead invest in strategies that tap into our ability to learn and adapt. Join us for a forward-thinking conversation on how we can collectively empower citizens and equip them with the tools to live better lives—on their own terms.   Access the full show notes for this episode at www.unravelingbehavior.org.    Timestamps (00:00) Introduction (01:17) The need for competent and empowered citizens (05:57) Role of policy makers and scientists (08:01) Citizen agency during COVID-19 (12:02) Introducing nudging (16:36) Opt-in vs. opt-out defaults for organ donation (19:18) Concept of libertarian paternalism (21:40) Criticisms of nudging (24:32) Research behind nudging (27:40) Evidence suggesting citizen empowerment is feasible (31:51) Introducing boosting (33:48) Dutch Reach to prevent dooring accidents (36:09) Bedtime math stories to reduce math anxiety (39:15) Lateral reading to detect misinformation (43:23) Transparent nature of boosts (44:34) The potential of boosting for long-term change (45:58) Boosting through self-nudging (50:44) Core competences and interventions to boost them (55:30) Communication of boosts to the public (56:53) The trap of individualizing responsibility (58:42) Cognitive and motivational requirements (01:00:40) Message to policy makers and citizens (01:03:56) Conclusion

In this episode, I am joined by Simon Ciranka, a cognitive scientist and developmental psychologist, to explore why teens take risks. Dr. Ciranka explains that parts of the brain that pursue rewards develop early, while parts that control impulses develop later. This imbalance makes teens especially sensitive to rewards like positive feelings and experiences. We also discuss the role of environmental factors. Since severe consequences are rare, teens often experience the rewards of risky behavior without facing immediate negative outcomes. This can foster a false sense of security and diminish caution. Societal guardrails, such as legal age limits for driving or drinking, further shape when and how adolescents take risks. Our conversation extends to peer relationships, which can have both positive and negative effects. While peers can offer valuable lessons from others' mistakes, they can also push teens toward riskier decisions. Teens often think risky behaviors are more common among their peers than they really are, which can lead to more risk-taking. We also explore effective strategies for reducing dysfunctional risk-taking, such as early education and correcting wrong beliefs about how common risky behaviors are. By the end of this episode, listeners will better understand why teens take risks—not as a sign of recklessness, but as a complex interplay of developmental, social, and environmental factors. Access the full show notes for this episode at www.unravelingbehavior.org. Timestamps (00:00) Introduction (01:04) Brain development in teens and sensitivity to rewards (05:28) Adolescent risk-taking isn’t just about brain imbalances (06:14) Risk-taking in college students (07:15) Laboratory studies vs. real-world findings (10:08) Legal age limits and chances to take risks (13:05) The “Law of Effect” and its role in shaping future behavior (14:40) Teens can feel safer than they really are (18:27) Cumulative risks and severe harms (22:49) Brain imbalances and the environment (23:49) The purpose of risk-taking (27:38) The importance of early education (29:58) Learning from others’ mistakes (32:28) Teens misjudge how often their peers take risks (35:15) Correcting wrong beliefs through school interventions (36:28) Summary

In this episode, I sit down with Shahar Hechtlinger, a PhD candidate in Psychology, to explore transformative life decisions—choices that can change who we are, such as becoming a parent, changing careers, or moving to a new country. We discuss how much decision-making research focuses on idealized models but lacks insights into how people actually make these life-altering choices. We examine why the expected utility model—a traditional way of thinking about rational decisions—does not really work for these situations, largely because the future is uncertain and what matters to us can shift over time. Drawing on the work of philosopher L. A. Paul, we discuss how these experiences challenge conventional notions of rationality and require a different approach. Shahar Hechtlinger introduces a new conceptual framework from her research, offering simple strategies for navigating transformative life decisions, including imagining your ideal self, considering future regret, and taking incremental steps to manage irreversible choices. We also discuss findings from Shahar’s most recent study, showing that while people often rely on simpler strategies for themselves, they tend to recommend more complex approaches for others. This episode equips listeners with simple strategies and real-life examples to navigate transformative decisions, emphasizing the value of embracing uncertainty when facing life’s most significant choices.  The episode transcript is available at www.unravelingbehavior.org. Timestamps (01:03) Defining transformative life decisions and their significance (04:26) Differentiating between descriptive and normative approaches in decision-making research (06:21) Explaining the expected utility model and the challenge of uncertainty in decision outcomes (10:25) Laurie Paul’s distinction between epistemically and personally transformative experiences (14:16) Why transformative decisions conflict with the expected utility model (16:50) Is deciding to remain childless a transformative decision? (18:29) Key insights from Laurie Paul's appearance on the EconTalk podcast (19:25) Linking Laurie Paul’s insights to Shahar Hechtlinger’s descriptive approach to transformative decision making (21:03) Introducing a new conceptual framework for studying transformative life decisions (24:43) Choosing from the perspective of the current self versus the future self (28:00) The decision of Iranian athlete Saeid Mollaei to pursue his Olympic dream (29:06) The minimax inaction regret strategy, illustrated by Jeff Bezos (33:08) Minimizing irreversible consequences using the “testing the waters” strategy (36:16) Christine Blasey Ford’s gradual disclosure of her identity (38:44) Dealing with conflicting cues through a process of elimination (42:51) Overview of Shahar’s empirical study on transformative life decisions (45:36) The contrast between people’s use of simpler strategies and their recommendation of more complex ones (49:37) How research on transformative life decisions can empower decision makers

In this episode, I am joined by Tomás Lejarraga, a behavioral scientist working at the intersection of economics and psychology. We explore how birth order influences siblings' willingness to take risks. Our discussion begins by examining the long-held hypothesis that younger, laterborn children are more prone to taking risks than their older siblings. Dr. Lejarraga shares insights from a study on risk-taking behavior in adulthood, revealing surprising findings that challenge this belief. We also discuss a second study suggesting that while birth order effects cannot be entirely dismissed, they are primarily observable in younger ages and may not persist throughout life. Additionally, we delve into the various methods scientists use to assess individuals' willingness to take risks, the competitive dynamics among siblings, the implications of null results, and the influence of environment and culture on birth order effects. The episode will help listeners understand the complexities of sibling differences and how family environments shape our behavior.  The episode transcript is available at www.unravelingbehavior.org. Timestamps (01:33) How risk preferences form and develop (03:37) Family dynamics and their impact on personality traits and risk taking (08:42) Defining laterborns (10:40) Past research on birth order effects on personality and risk taking (16:25) Methodology used to study birth order effects in adulthood (19:51) Self-reported risk taking and exploring personal assessments (26:01) Lab experiments and analyzing risky choices in controlled settings (30:49) Real-life risks and the choices of notable explorers and revolutionaries (33:47) Interpreting null results and what they mean for birth order research (36:20) Could birth order effects be confined to family environments? (39:27) Investigating birth-order effects across different age groups (45:18) Parental strategies on whether to counteract or embrace the influence of birth order (48:09) Focus on Western samples in birth order research and the need for cross-cultural studies (50:13) Understanding common perceptions about birth order effects (51:25) Learning pathways with instruction vs. experience depending on birth order (53:10) The environment's influence in shaping risk-taking behavior

In this episode, I am joined by Lisa Oswald, a computational social scientist and expert on public discourse in online environments. We dive into an impactful study she coauthored in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, which examines the complex relationship between digital media and democracy. Our discussion covers how digital platforms can both empower political participation and contribute to political polarization. We clarify the differences between correlational and causal evidence, explaining why causal evidence is scarce and challenging to obtain when studying the effects of social media use on democracy. An important takeaway is the skewed nature of content production on social media—where a small number of users generate the majority of content, often amplifying extreme or biased viewpoints. We also explore the importance of political context, the role of corporate responsibility, and the necessity for transparency and content moderation policies to safeguard democratic institutions. Access the full show notes for this episode at unravelingbehavior.org. Timestamps (00:00) Introduction (01:46) The potential of digital media to erode democracy (06:33) Research question motivating the study (07:35) Importance of a systematic literature review (10:39) Types of digital media and political behaviors analyzed (14:13) Correlational vs. causal evidence (18:31) Selection of articles in the review (19:41) Scarcity of causal evidence and its alignment with correlational findings (21:03) Beneficial effects of digital media use on political participation (22:46) Increased digital media use linked to decreased trust in governments (24:11) Increased digital media use linked to greater political polarization (25:14) The skewed nature of content production on social media (28:43) The role of political context (31:57) Internet companies’ reactions to scientific findings (33:26) The need for data access for researchers and greater transparency for users (34:19) Balancing user awareness with corporate and governmental responsibility (37:15) Conclusion

Join Dr. Ana Sofia Morais on 'Unraveling Behavior' as she talks with leading researchers about the hidden patterns driving human behavior. Discover how people make decisions, how they handle risk, and how our environment and the online world shape our actions. New episodes are released every eight weeks. Available on all platforms, including YouTube!   Website: unravelingbehavior.org