19 ms·
The buffet example is bad. You can't really go back in a buffet, so it's a gamble where the certain outcome those first things (which you can see). Furthermore
by Smithalicious 6y ago
The buffet example is bad. You can't really go back in a buffet, so it's a gamble where the certain outcome those first things (which you can see). Furthermore it doesn't factor in the cost of having to walk more to get the later items.
My only take away from it is that people don't really have as strong a preference for buffet food as they might think. I'd also wager that avoiding "bad" food is much more important than finding particularly "good" food.
- headmelted 6y agoI laughed at the analysis of the buffet because of this. I don’t want sausages and eggs, but if I get to the end of the line and find out Janine has made off with the last of the Cheerios and pastries again my whole day will be ruined and I’m not taking that chance.
- yellowapple 6y agoNot to mention that the way the article presents that "study" doesn't make it sound like they controlled for the very real possibility of "everything in the buffet is appealing to around 75% of buffet eaters, so any reordering will result in 75% grabbing the first thing they see". Plus, the point of a buffet (for me at least, being the fatass I am) is to try a little bit of everything, so unless it's something I already know I don't like, I'm probably gonna grab it.
- red_admiral 6y agoIn a breakfast buffet, I always go for savoury over sweet, so I'm immune to someone putting the muffins first. I'm probably "vulnerable" to croissants versus sliced bread first though. A friend of mine is a vegetarian; I don't imagine putting the ham first in the buffet line would affect her much either.
- markoman 6y agoI have a hard time accepting that had they placed cabbage or broccoli (or other unpopular items) at the head of the offerings, it would still be taken so often.