Literature DB >> 29137968

Food bundling as a health nudge: Investigating consumer fruit and vegetable selection using behavioral economics.

Kathryn A Carroll1, Anya Samek2, Lydia Zepeda3.   

Abstract

Displaying bundles of healthy foods at the grocery store is a health nudge that simplifies shopping and may have the potential for increasing fruit and vegetable (F&V) purchasing. To evaluate the impact of food bundling, we conduct an artefactual field experiment with community participants in a laboratory set up as a grocery store. Dual-self theory suggests that food choices may differ depending on whether shoppers are under cognitive load - in our experiment, we exogenously vary whether bundles are displayed (with and without a price discount) and whether shoppers are under cognitive load. Our findings align with prior studies that suggest unhealthy options are more likely to be selected when cognitive resources are constrained. When bundles are displayed, we observe increased F&V purchasing. We also observe a significant interaction between cognitive load and price discounting. We find discounted bundles are more effective in the absence of cognitive load, but non-discounted bundles are more effective when shoppers are under cognitive load. Although more research is warranted, our findings suggest that when shopping under cognitive load, it is possible that discounts impose additional cognitive strain on the shopping experience. For retailers and policymakers, our results point to the potential power of bundling as a strategy for increasing healthy food purchasing.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Behavioral economics; Cognitive load; Dual-self theory; Food choice; Fruit and vegetable selection; Grocery shopping; Health concerns; Product bundling

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29137968     DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appetite        ISSN: 0195-6663            Impact factor:   3.868


  7 in total

1.  The East Side Table Make-at-Home Meal-Kit Program is feasible and acceptable: A pilot study.

Authors:  Melissa L Horning; Terese Hill; Christie L Martin; Abdirahman Hassan; Anna Petrovskis; Laura Bohen
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 3.868

2.  Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; Patrice Carter; Sumayya Anwer; Sarah E King; Susan A Jebb; David Ogilvie; Ian Shemilt; Julian P T Higgins; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-09-04

3.  Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; Patrice Carter; Sumayya Anwer; Sarah E King; Susan A Jebb; David Ogilvie; Ian Shemilt; Julian P T Higgins; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-08-27

4.  Healthy and sustainable diets for future generations.

Authors:  Hilary Green; Pierre Broun; Douglas Cook; Karen Cooper; Adam Drewnowski; Duncan Pollard; Gary Sweeney; Anne Roulin
Journal:  J Sci Food Agric       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 3.638

Review 5.  Improving Healthy Food Choices in Low-Income Settings in the United States Using Behavioral Economic-Based Adaptations to Choice Architecture.

Authors:  Emma Anderson; Ruobin Wei; Binkai Liu; Rachel Plummer; Heather Kelahan; Martha Tamez; Abrania Marrero; Shilpa Bhupathiraju; Josiemer Mattei
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2021-10-06

6.  Consumer Preference for Food Bundles under Cognitive Load: A Grocery Shopping Experiment.

Authors:  Kathryn A Carroll; Anya Samek; Lydia Zepeda
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2022-03-27

7.  Proposal of a New Orange Selection Process Using Sensory Panels and AHP.

Authors:  Amparo Baviera-Puig; Mónica García-Melón; María Dolores Ortolá; Isabel López-Cortés
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 3.390

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.