That Time My Psych Class Judged Fast Food… And Things Got WEIRD
“So,” Professor Davies announced, leaning against the podium with a mischievous glint in her eye. “We’ve been discussing perception, social norms, and judgment. Let’s put some theory into practice. Quick anonymous poll: which major fast-food chain represents the absolute nadir of culinary choices? The place that, deep down, maybe makes you question humanity a little? Winner gets… well, bragging rights for being the collective ‘worst’.”
Hands shot up. Phones appeared. A low buzz of conversation erupted in our Intro to Psychology class. McDonald’s? KFC? Burger King? Taco Bell? The contenders were obvious. The reasons people started shouting out, however, were… fascinating. It wasn’t just about taste anymore.
“McDonald’s! It’s just… sad plastic food!” yelled someone near the front.
“Burger King! Those ads are creepy!” countered another.
“Taco Bell? Seriously? That’s not even real food!” argued a third.
“KFC! The grease factor is off the charts!”
Votes were cast. Tensions, albeit playful ones, rose. When the professor revealed the “winner” (Burger King, for the record, clinched the dubious honor that day), the reaction was a mix of cheers, groans, and a surprising number of genuinely scandalized expressions. One classmate half-jokingly muttered, “Honestly? Choosing any of those places… do we all deserve to be publicly executed?”
The room laughed. It was absurd hyperbole. Yet, that throwaway comment stuck with me. Why did a simple vote about hamburger chains suddenly feel like we were assigning moral failing grades? Why did the energy shift from playful debate to something resembling mild outrage? It was a perfect, messy little psych experiment playing out in real-time.
Beyond the Bun: Why We Judge the Drive-Thru So Harshly
Professor Davies seized the moment. “Notice anything?” she asked. “What started as a preference poll – ‘I like X fries better than Y fries’ – quickly escalated into judgments about quality, authenticity, and even implied character.” She was right.
We weren’t just saying we disliked Burger King’s Whopper; we were implying that choosing Burger King reflected poorly on the chooser. This taps into several psychological concepts:
1. Social Identity Theory: We define ourselves, in part, by the groups we belong to (and those we don’t). “Healthy eaters” might distance themselves from “fast-food junkies.” Choosing a “lesser” chain becomes a marker of being in an “out-group.” Our class vote created instant, arbitrary tribes: Team McDonald’s vs. Team Taco Bell, etc.
2. Moralization of Preferences: This is where things get sticky. It’s the process of taking something neutral (like preferring a Quarter Pounder over a Whopper) and attaching moral significance to it (“Choosing Burger King shows poor taste and maybe weak willpower”). When preferences become moral judgments, disagreement feels like a personal attack. Suddenly, your choice of chicken nuggets isn’t just a choice; it’s a statement about your values.
3. Fundamental Attribution Error: When we see someone eating fast food (especially the “wrong” kind!), we tend to attribute their choice to internal flaws (“They’re lazy,” “They don’t care about health,” “They have bad taste”) rather than external factors (“They’re broke and it’s cheap,” “They have 10 minutes for lunch,” “It’s literally the only thing open,” “They genuinely enjoy it”).
4. Projection & Self-Justification: Sometimes, our harshest judgments about others’ choices reflect our own insecurities. Someone who constantly battles cravings for fries might judge fast-food eaters more harshly as a way to reinforce their own (perhaps difficult) restraint. “If they are bad for eating it, then my struggle not to eat it is righteous.”
The Executioner’s Mindset: From Judgment to Exaggeration
So, how do we get from “I don’t like their fries” to the hyperbolic “public execution” comment? Professor Davies pointed out the escalation:
Dehumanization (Subtle Edition): Assigning extreme negative labels (“garbage,” “disgusting,” “poison”) to the food or the choice subtly dehumanizes the person making that choice. It frames them as making an irrational or animalistic decision.
Moral Grandstanding: Expressing outrage, even humorously, about something perceived as a moral failing can signal virtue to our peers. “Look how above this I am!” The more extreme the condemnation, the stronger the signal. Saying “public execution” is an obviously ridiculous escalation meant to highlight the perceived gravity of the “crime” (choosing poorly) within the context of our little classroom bubble.
Group Polarization: When like-minded people discuss an issue (e.g., “Fast Food X is terrible”), they tend to become more extreme in their shared view after talking about it. Our class discussion likely pushed some towards stronger negative judgments than they held individually before the vote.
French Fry Morality: Why This Matters Beyond the Classroom
This silly classroom exercise wasn’t really about burgers. It was a microcosm of how we navigate a world saturated with choices and judgments:
1. The Tyranny of “Healthy” vs. “Unhealthy”: Food choices are intensely moralized. Choosing a salad can feel virtuous; grabbing a Big Mac can feel like a moral lapse. This binary thinking ignores nuance, accessibility, mental health, enjoyment, culture, and socioeconomic realities. It fosters guilt and shame unnecessarily.
2. The Social Media Amplifier: Online, where context disappears and outrage generates clicks, the tendency to moralize preferences and jump to extremes is amplified exponentially. Debates about pineapple on pizza or the “correct” way to load a dishwasher become bizarrely heated, mirroring our fast-food judgment but on a global, often anonymous, scale.
3. Empathy Erosion: When we quickly assign character flaws based on simple choices (food, clothes, music, hobbies), we lose sight of the complex individual behind that choice. We stop asking “Why?” and start assuming “They’re flawed.”
Beyond the Vote: Cultivating Choice Without Condemnation
Professor Davies wrapped up our session not with condemnation of our judgmental streak, but with a challenge: “Notice it. Notice when you’re turning a preference into a judgment. Notice when you’re attaching moral weight to someone’s lunch. Ask yourself: What purpose does this judgment serve? Does it make me feel superior? Does it help me understand them? Does it reflect an insecurity I have?”
That psych class vote was a lightbulb moment. It revealed the surprisingly complex machinery whirring beneath the surface of our everyday opinions. We judge quickly, often harshly, and frequently without realizing the psychological shortcuts we’re taking. We turn chicken nuggets into character assessments.
Do we deserve public execution for choosing a Whopper? Obviously not. But maybe we deserve a gentle nudge to examine why the thought even crosses our minds. The next time you feel a wave of judgment about someone’s seemingly “questionable” choice – whether it’s fast food, fashion, or something far more significant – pause. Remember the absurd escalation in that classroom. Challenge the fundamental attribution error. Consider the context. Separate the choice from the character. You might just find the world feels a little less harsh, and the fries taste a little better, without the weight of unnecessary judgment. Understanding the why behind our snap judgments is perhaps the most valuable takeaway – far more nourishing, in the long run, than any drive-thru meal.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » That Time My Psych Class Judged Fast Food