Perceived food value depends on display format, preference strength, and physical accessibility.

In everyday life, dietary decisions are made in response to real foods, such as at the grocery store or cafe. In stark contrast, decision-making studies in the laboratory typically measure responses to food stimuli presented as two-dimensional pictures or computer images, with the assumption that artificial displays are adequate substitutes for their real-world counterparts. Yet accumulating evidence challenges this view, including studies showing that willingness-to-pay (WTP) is higher for foods displayed as real objects versus images -a phenomenon known as the "real object advantage" in valuation. Here, we examined whether the "real object advantage" is modulated by accessibility to the stimuli, subjective food preference, or interactions between these factors. Participants placed monetary bids on snack foods displayed as real objects or computer images. Critically, on half of the trials, a transparent barrier was positioned between the participant and the stimulus. Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that, overall, WTP was ∼7 % higher for foods displayed as real objects versus images; however, this effect emerged only for foods of moderate (but not strong) preference strength. WTP was also higher when the stimuli appeared unoccluded versus behind the barrier, but this was equally so for real objects and images, suggesting that the barrier's effect on valuation was not related to stimulus actability. Our findings suggest that while eliminating perceived barriers to a good can bolster valuation regardless of display format, presenting real foods may nevertheless increase valuation and encourage healthy dietary choices.