review of the literature on use of behavioral economic ... · pdf fileof techniques for...

PHONE FAX WEB

SanfordSchoolofPublicPolicy,DukeUniversity (919)613-5907 (919)613-0539 www.BECR.org

ReviewoftheLiteratureonUseofBehavioralEconomicNudgesinFarmers’Markets

andMoreTraditionalRetailSettings

ByHannahPettus1

1Master’sStudent,DepartmentofHealthBehavior,GillingsSchoolofGlobalPublicHealth,UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill

AbstractBehavioralEconomicnudgesofferarangeoftechniquesforinfluencingfood-choicerelatedbehaviorsinretailsettings,includingconveniencestores,grocerystoresandfarmers’markets.Belowwesummarizetheresearchtodatethathasusedbehavioraleconomictechniquestonudgeconsumerstomakehealthierchoicesinplaceswhereweshopforfood.IntroductionHaveyoueverfoundyourselflookingatyourPSNCenergybillandcomparingyourenergyusetotheotherhousedepictionsthatrepresentconsumptionofanaveragehomeandanenergyefficienthome?Diditleaveyouthinkingaboutwaystoreduceyourownconsumptiontomatchtheothers?ThefieldofBehavioralEconomicsisusedtounderstandthecomplexityofchoiceforanindividual,incorporatingcognitive,socialnormativeandchoicearchitecturaltechniquestoinfluencechoice,evenifthechoicewasnotinitiallydeliberate(Thaler&Sunstein,2009;Heath&Heath,2010).

BehavioralEconomicnudgesofferarangeoftechniquesforinfluencingfood-choicerelatedbehaviorsinretailsettings,includingconveniencestores,grocerystoresandfarmers’markets.Adaptationshavebeenseeninphysicalenvironment,makingaspacemoreappealing,creatingahealthierdefaultoptionthroughconvenienceandincorporatingnormativebeliefstoanormallysolitarybehavior(Just&Payne,2009).

The Duke-UNC USDA Center for Behavioral Economics and Healthy Food Choice

Research (BECR)

Purpose: BECR facilitates new and innovative research on the application of behavioral economics theory to healthy food choice behaviors that would contribute to enhancing the nutrition, food security, and health of American consumers. BECR devotes a substantial portion of its efforts to factors that would facilitate healthy and cost-effective food choices by participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Vision: To use behavioral economics principles and triple win strategies to promote healthy, economical food choices among WIC and SNAP recipients and the general public through research, capacity building, and dissemination. Funding: The BECR Center is funded grant 59-5000-4-0062 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and cannot be attributed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, its Economic Research Service, or its Food and Nutrition Service.

PHONE FAX WEB


Belowwesummarizetheresearchtodatethathasusedbehavioraleconomictechniquestonudgeconsumerstomakehealthierchoicesinplaceswhereweshopforfood.Techniquesincorporateappealingdesign,noveltechnology,convenientplacementandnormativebeliefstoincreasehealthierfoodandbeveragechoices.Theresearchbelowprovidesaresourceofsuccessfulinterventionsthatcanbereplicatedinavarietyofretailsettings.FindingsTraditionalRetailSettingsBehavioralEconomicbehaviorchangetechniqueshavebeengrowinginpopularityamongtraditionalfoodretailoutlets,suchassupermarkets,smallgrocerystores,andcornerstores.Researchershaveattemptedmultipleinterventionsinthissettingproducingavarietyofresults,somesuccessfulandsomenot.Belowisareviewofsomeoftheinterventionsthatoffertangible,replicableandinnovativeapproachestonudgeconsumerstowardshealthierfoodchoicebehaviorsinstores.BrianWansink’s(2015)article,“ChangetheirChoice!ChangingBehaviorUsingtheCANapproachandActivismResearch”providesaframeworkoftechniquesusedinmultipleinterventions.Thisframeworkexplainsthatsuccessfulinterventionsfocusontechniquesthatmakefoodmore“convenient(physicallyorcognitively),attractive(comparativelyorabsolutely)andmorenormal(perceivedoractual)”.”Interventionsrelatedtoconvenienceoftenhighlighttheofferingofpre-cutfruit,suchasappleslices,duetotheinconvenienceorinabilitytobitedirectlyfromtheapplereportedbysomeadultsandchildren.Althoughthestudyfocusedonpre-cutfruitofferedincafeteriasforchildren,resultsshowingasignificant70%increaseofchildrenchoosingfruithasimplicationsforincreasingsalesoffruitinconvenientstores,whereindividualsarelookingforasnackthatisquickandeasytoconsumeinacar(Wansink,Just,Hanks,&Smith,2013).Anotherexamplecanbefoundin,“Usingacomputationalmodeltoquantifythepotentialimpactofchangingtheplacementofhealthybeveragesinstoresasaninterventionto‘nudge’adolescentbehaviorchoice”whereauthorslookedstrategicallyattheplacementofsugarsweetenedbeverages(SSB)incoolersinconveniencestorestonudgeadolescenttochoosethehealthierdrinkchoice(Wongetal.,2015).Understandingthiscomponentofconvenience,authorsrecognizedtheverticalandhorizontaleffectthatisoftentimesseeninplacementofasimilargroupingofitems(likebeveragesincoolersatconveniencestores).Theauthorsdescribethehorizontaleffectasthedistancetraveledfromtheentrancetothecoolersandtheverticaleffectreferencestheplacementoftheitemfrombottomshelftothetopshelf.Theauthorshypothesizethatconvenienceshoppers,withnospecificpreferenceforaSSB,willwalktotheclosestcoolerandchoosewhatcanbefoundateyelevel.Inthestudy,authorscreatedadecision-analyticmodelbasedondatafromacommunity-basedsurveyinBaltimoreandfindingsfrommarketliterature.Theyusedthisdatatosimulate

PHONE FAX WEB


1,000situationsbasedonadolescentchoicebehaviors,whichwerecategorizedintogroupsbasedonexistingSSBchoices,always,usually,sometimes,rarely/never.Themodellookedattheprobabilityofselectingnon-SSBwhenSSBwerestrategicallyplacedincoolersfurthestfromthedoor,aswellaslowershelves,whilehealthierbeverageoptionswereplacedinthefirstcooleratamoreconvenientverticallevel(completemapofthecoolerstrategymodelcanbefoundintheAppendix).Authorsfoundthelargesteffectonindividualscategorizedas“sometimes”SSBdrinkers,whichwere4.9timesmorelikelytopurchasenon-SSBwhenitwasplacedincooler1,andateyelevel.Ingeneral,non-SSBwere2.5timesmorelikelytobechosenwhenpositionedinthefirstcoolercomparedtoothercoolers(2thru6),and2.8timesmorelikelytobechosenwhenplacedonaneye-levelshelfincooleronethanthebottomshelfincoolersix(thefurthestcoolerfromtheentrance).Themodelshowednosignificantimpactonindividualsthatwerecategorizedas“always”SSBdrinkers,whichshowshowconvenientplacementofnon-SSBcannudgehealthierchoicebehaviorsofindividualswhoarenotyetfrequentconsumersofsugarsweetenedbeverages.

Anadditionalstudylookedatconvenienceandmiddle-choicepreferenceplacementofsnackbarstoshowadditionalsupportforrearrangementofsimilarsnackproductaislestonudgecustomersforhealthieroptions.NudgingProductChoice:theeffectofpositionchangeonsnackbarchoicelookedatchangesinplacementofthreetypesofgranolabars,apple,apple-chocolateandcoco-chocolate,eachadifferentcalorielevelandthelikelihoodofthehealthieroptionbeingchosenwhenitwasplacedinthemiddleoftheotheroptions(Keller,Markert,&Bucher,2015).Thestudylookedat120collegestudents,equaldistributionofmaleandfemales,whocompletedaquestionnaireonanunrelatedtopicandweretoldtheywouldreceiveagranolabarasareward.Twoconditionswereused,onewherethesnackswerepositionedinascendingcaloriclevel,apple,apple-chocolateandcoco-chocolate,andtheotherwherethelowestcaloriebarwasplacedinthemiddle,apple-chocolate,appleandcoco-chocolate.Whentheapplebarwasplacedontheleft,itwasonlychosen8/60times,or13.3%,howeverwhenitwasplacedinthemiddle,itwaschosen22outof60times,36.7%.AChi-squaredtestshowedasignificanteffectonselectionχ2(2)=14.953,p=.001.Furtheranalysistoensurethesignificancewasnotduetodifferenceinchoiceofcoco-chocolatebar(whichdidnotmoveinthetwoconditions)assessedtheprobabilityofchoosingtheapplebarversusnotchoosingtheapplebar,andstillshowedthepositioneffectwassignificantχ2(1)=8.71,p=0.003.Thepreviouslydescribedstudiespresentoptionsforeasilyreplicablepositioningofsnackproductswhensurroundedbysimilarproductsthateasilynudgeconsumerstohealthieroptionsbasedonlowercalorieorlowersugarcontent.BuildinguponWansink’sframework,influencingbehaviorchoicethroughnormativebeliefshasshowntobequickandmoreproductiveforchangingconsumerbehavior(Wansink,2015).Thefollowingstudieslookatspecificmethodsofincreasingbehaviorchangethroughnormativebeliefsinsupermarkets.

PHONE FAX WEB


PartitionedShoppingCarts:Assortmentallocationcuesthatincreasefruitandvegetablepurchasesdemonstratesaninexpensive,relativelyeasy-to-implementtechniquethatservesasareminderofhowmuchofyourfoodpurchasesshouldberepresentedbyfruitsandvegetables(F&V)andsuggestsasocialnormofwhattopurchase(Wansink,2011).Wansinkandcolleagues(2011),lookattwodifferentapproacheswithonefocusingonthepartitionincreasingF&Vpurchasesandtheotherfocusingonlargerpartitionsleadingtoincreasedspending.Thefirststudydividesatraditionalshoppingcartinhalf(frontvs.back)separatingthetwohalveswitha2.5-meterstripofyellowducttapethatisfoundonthebaseofthecart,aswellaswrapsaroundthetop,leavingtheinteriorofthecartclearforgroceries.Aflyerwascreatedandpositionedintheinteriorofthefrontofthecart,inclearviewforthecustomerpushingthecart.Thetopofthesignread,“Inthefrontofyourcart…pleaseputonlyhealthyfoodssuchasfruits,vegetables,dairy,meat.”Thebottomofthesignread,“Inthebackofyourcart…pleaseputeverythingelsesuchaschips,detergent,softdrinksandbreakfastcereal.”Customerswereapproachedastheyenteredthestoreandaskedtoparticipant;afollow-upsurveywascompletedaftertheyfinishedshoppingwithquestionsregardingtheirconsiderationforpurchasingmoreF&Vthantheytypicallydo,andiftheydidpurchasemoreF&Vthannormal.Surveyswerealsoconductedwithcustomersusingnormalcartsforcomparisonpurposes.ReceiptsfromcustomerswhousedthepartitionedcartandreceiptsfromcustomerswhodidnotweregatheredandmoneyspentonF&Vwascompared.Customerswithpartitionedcartsboughtmorefruit($3.65vs.$1.82;F(1,144)=8.76,p<.01)andvegetables($5.19vs.$2.17;F(1,144)=12.61,p<.01)thancustomerswhoshoppedwithanormalcart.Additionally,surveysshowedthatparticipantswithpartitionedcartsconsideredandbelievedtheyboughtmoreF&Vthantheytypicallydid;onlytheirbeliefofpurchasingmorewasfoundsignificant,forfruit(3.50vs.2.11;F(1,165)=22.02,p<.001)andforvegetables,(3.30vs.2.27;F(1,163)=10.80,p<.01).FurtheranalysisofsurveyresultsshowedthatdollarsspentonF&Vdidnotdifferbasedonshopperknowledge,noronsizeoffamilies.TheaggregatepercentofincreaseforF&Vpurchasedwhenusingthepartitionedcartwas121.6%orupfrom$3.99to$8.84.BuildinguponresultsfromtheinitialstudyregardingspendingonF&V,Wansinkandcolleagues(2011)lookedtoseeifalargersizeofpartitionledtoincreasedspendingwithsecondaryfindingsrelatedtoapromotionalflyerinthecartbasedoneitherhealthorpricemarketingtechniques.Thestudywasconductedwith169shoppersinanindependentlyownedandoperatedgrocerystoreinalargeNorthAmericancity.ThecartinterventionwasapapermatatthebottomofthecartthatreadFruitsandVegetablesononesideandMeatsandTreatsontheother.Thesizeofthesepartitionedsectionswere35-65(35%forF&V)foronegroupand50-50inanothergroup,withathirdgroupwithnomatforacontrol.Additionally,eachcarthadthepromotionalflyerwithoneofthetwopositions;thehealthpositionread,“Healthyfoodatgreatvalues.Researchshowsthateatingmorefruits&veggiesandlessmeats&treatsisgoodforhealth!Healthyfood.Greatvalues,”whilethecost

PHONE FAX WEB


positionread,“Superiorfoodatgreatvalues.Researchshowsthatpurchasinghigh-qualityfoodreducesspoilageandisoverallmorecosteffective!Superfood.Greatprices!”Researchassistantstargetedshopperswhoweredoingtheirweeklyshoppingandintendingtouseagrocerycart;theywererandomlyassignedtoeachcartbyselectingthenextoneavailable,whichhadbeenpositionedinrandomorder.Aftereachparticipantcompletedshopping,receiptswerecollectedandresearchassistantsquicklyascertainediftheshopperhadviewedtheflyerinthecart(allshoppersreportedyes).Specifically,thefollowingfiguresonthereceiptswereused,totalpre-taxamountspentonF&V,totalamountspentasawholeandtheproportionofF&Vspendingoutofallspending.Astheauthorsexpected,therewasasignificantincreaseinspendingonF&Vcomparedtothecontrolcart($10.36),withthe35%F&Vcartaveraging$11.85andthe50%F&Vcartwithanaverageof$13.40,F(2,163)=10.15,p<0.01.Furthermore,thehealthflyerwasfoundtoinfluencespendingmorethanthecost-savingsflyer,with$14.42versus$9.18(respectively),F(1,163)=72.66,p<0.01.DifferenceamonggroupsindollarsspentonF&Vwithinthecartinterventionwasnotsignificantwhenthecartincludedthecost-analysisflyer,representingaclearimpactofthehealthdirectedmessageonshoppers.Inanotherstudyfocusingonaninnovativeuseoftechnologytodemonstratesocialnormswithashoppingcartintervention,authorsVaivaKalnikaiteetal.(2011)considertheincorporationofsocialnormsaroundlocalandorganicfoodpurchasesin“Howtonudgeinsitu:designinglambentdevicestodeliversalientinformationinsupermarkets”.Specifically,authorssoughttounderstandtheeffectthatanelectronicdeviceofferinginformationaboutoriginandorganicstatusforscannedfoodproductshadonlocalandorganicfoodpurchasingbehaviors.Fooditemscouldbescannedwiththedeviceandwouldgivequick,simplefeedbackondistanceoforiginfromthestore,aswellasifitwasdesignatedorganicornot.Iftheitemwasorganic,thencoloreddotswoulddisplaygreen,whilenon-organicproductswoulddisplayasorange.Thefurtherthefooditemoriginatedfromthestore,thegreaternumberof16dotswouldlightup.Thedeviceallowedconsumerstocompareproductstomakeaquickdecision.Iftheitemwasnotselectedbytheconsumer,theycouldhit“cancel,”whereasputtingitinthecart,theinformationwasgatheredfortheirshoppingexperience.Astheshoppercontinuesthroughoutthestore,anemoticonindicatorwoulddemonstratewheretheindividual’saveragemileageoffoodcomparedtoothercartusers,byexpressingeitherahappy,neutralorsadface,withthesadfacerepresentinggoingovertheaverageamountoffoodmilesofanearbyshopper.Asemi-controlledwithin-subjectsstudywitheighteenparticipantswasconducted.Eachofthe18participantswasgiventwoshoppingscenariosthatincludedlistsofitemsvaryingfromsourcesandorganicchoices.Eachparticipantshoppedwiththenewdeviceandwithoutitaftercompletinganinitial20-itemquestionnaireaboutfoodchoice.Thefindingsshowedthatcustomersusedthedevicetocomparemultipleproductswhentheywereunabletotellwheretheproductcamefromoritsorganicstatusbasedsolelyonthelabel.Aninitialbinomialtestwasconductedfor16productsonthescenariogrocerylists

PHONE FAX WEB


providedfindingthatwhencustomersusedthelambentdevicetocompareproducts,theychosemorelocalproductswithoveralllowermeanmileagefor13oftheitems(p=0.05).Uponcloserlookateachoftheitems,thenudgehadalargereffectonmeanfoodmilestraveledwhentheorigincouldnotbedeterminedfromthelabeleasily,soiftheprintwassmallorifitwaswritteninanunobviousplace.Organicstatusofthefooddidnothaveasignificantimpactonanypurchasingbehaviors,whereasthesocialnormsaspectwasnotwellreceived.Customersreportedthattheydidnotlikethenormfeedbackbecauseoftentimestheycouldnotfindaproductthatwasoflocaloriginandthefacemadethemfeelbad.Theauthorscommentthat,“whatiskeyinnudgingshoppingdecisionsisbalancinginformationfrugalityandsimplicitywithenoughfeedbacktoenablepeopletochangetheirchoicesinawaythattheyfindrewardingandmotivating.” Creative,yetnotsignificantInfluencingshopperbehaviorcanbechallenging,withresearchersattemptingtocreateinnovativetechniquesthatareinexpensive,easilyreplicableandeffective.Twoadditionalstudiestestedtechniquesthatwhileinnovative,didnotproducesignificantresults.Aquickreferenceguidetothenutritionalcontentoffoodhasoftenbeensoughttonudgeindividualstochoosinghealthierfoodoptions.AuthorsGarySacks,MikeRayner,andBoydSwinburn(2009),lookattheimpactthat“traffic-light”nutritionlabelinghasonhealthierfoodpurchasesinthearticle,Impactoffront-of-pack‘traffic-light’nutritionlabelingonconsumerfoodpurchasesintheUK.”Thetraffic-lightnutritionlabelswereintroducedonatotalof23foodproductsinonestoreatvariousperiodsthroughout2007.Foodproductsofhealthierchoicewerecoloredgreen,withdescendinghealthvaluetoamberandthenred.Theauthorschosetoanalyzepurchasesfourweekspriorandfourweeksaftertheintroductionoflabelsontwospecificfoodproducts,chilled“readymeals”andfresh-packagedsandwiches.Theseitemswerechosenfortheirquantitytoincreasestatisticalpower,aswellasvarynutritionalcontent.Theauthorstookintoaccountvariouspotentiallyconfoundingeffects,suchasdiscountsonitems,andweeklydifferencesinsalesduetoseasonality,etc.Whenlookingateachitemseparately,therewasnoassociationbetweenthehealthinessofthepre-mademealsproductandsales,Spearman’srankcorrelation=0.21,p=0.69,withslightlybetterresultsfortheanalysisofsandwichsalesbasedonhealthiness,Spearman’srankcorrelation=-0.47,p=0.12.Authorsreportedpotentialofcustomersnotunderstandingthenewtraffic-lightlabels,indicatingthatacombinationofeducationandlabelsmayberequiredfortheinterventiontobemoreeffective. BrianWansinkandAnerTal(2015)focusmoreonaprimingstrategyin,“Anappleadaybringsmoreapplesyourway:healthysamplesprimehealthierchoices”withthehypothesisthatsamplingoffooditemscanbeusedtosupplementadvertisingclaimsandpromotefoodproductchoice.Foodsamplingisfoundfrequentlyinbothtraditionalretailsettings,aswellasFarmers’Marketsettings.Withmanyfoodpurchasesin-storebeingunplanned

PHONE FAX WEB


purchases,theauthorsbelievethatsamplingofhealthyfooditemscanprovideanudgeforhealthierfoodchoicesforadditionalunplannedspending.Onehundredandtwentyparticipantswererecruitedandrandomlydividedintothreeconditions,receivingeitherasampleofapple,cookieornosampleforcontrol.Participantswereofferedasampleoffofatrayuponenteringthestore,withallrespondents(eventhoseselected,butgivennosample)askedaboutthenumberofF&Vpurchasedduringtheirshopping.ToanalyzevolumeofF&Vproductspurchased,eachitemcountedasoneunit,sothatabunchofbananaswouldcountas4-5,insteadofjustoneitem.WhileindividualsofferedanamplesampledidpurchasegreateramountsofF&V(Mean=2.78,SD=215)thanthoseofferedacookie(M=2.17,SD=2.26)andofferednosample(M=2.22,SD=2.15),thep-valueshowedonlymarginalsignificancewithp=0.06.ImplicationsofthisstudyprovidesomeevidenceforitsreplicationinaFarmers’Marketsettingtoseetheimpactitmayhaveinanon-traditionalretailsetting.Farmers’MarketsResultswerelimitedwhensearchingforspecificbehavioraleconomicornudgeinterventionswithinfarmers’marketsettings.However,thefewresultsdidofferinterestinginsightintothislesstraditionalsettingforthisapproach.JasonGillilandandcolleagues(2015)reportfindingsfromtheirstudy,“Usingasmartphoneapplicationtopromotehealthydietarybehaviorsandlocalfoodconsumption,”focusingoninnovativeutilizationoftechnologyinaSmartphoneappcalled“SmartAPPetite”toovercomebehavioralandeconomicbarriersandnudgeconsumerstoincreaseconsumptionoflocal,healthyfoods.Theauthorsnotethateducationisnotsufficientwhenchangingbehaviorandsoitmustbecombinedwithbehavioralcues,focusingonmultiplelevelsoftipsandrecipesforhealthyeating,inadditiontolocalvendorspotlightsandcouponstonudgeparticipantstoseeklocal,healthyfoodoptions.Specifically,thestudytookplaceattwofarmers’marketsinLondon,Ontario,Canada.Patronsofthemarketswererecruited,withatotalof208participants(representingabouta10%samplepopulationoftotalmarketvisitors).Abaselinefoodsurveywascompletedtounderstandfoodvaluesforeachparticipant,takingintoaccountanydietaryrestrictionsorfood-relatedgoalstofurthertailortheirexperiencewiththeapplication.Additionally,itservedasabaselineforfoodrelatedpurchasingdecisions.Therewasamid-pointsurveytocheckonsatisfactionandanoutcomeevaluationuponcompletiontomeasuretheeffectonfoodpurchasingandbehaviorchangesrelatedtohealthy,localfood.Theinterventionlastedbetween8to10weeksforeachparticipant,duringwhichtheyreceived2-3dailymessagesregardingtipsandrecipesforhealthyeatingandinformationaboutlocalmarketvendors.Furthermore,participantscould“check-in”whileatthemarkettogatheradditionalcoupons.Duringtheparticipant’suseoftheapp,uniqueURLsforeachparticipanttrackedthefrequencyanddurationofpageviewsandotherfactorsthatinformedactualusageratesofeachparticipant.Throughouttheintervention,two-thirdsofparticipantsusedtheappto“checkin”tothefarmers’market,andinteractionwiththeappwasmostpopularon

PHONE FAX WEB


Saturdays,whichwasthedaythemarketwasheld.Theauthorsreportedanassociationbetweengreateruseoftheapplicationandincreasedhealthyfoodpurchasesandconsumptionofhealthyfooditems,anddecreasedconsumptionofunhealthieritems.SignificantPearson’sRcorrelations(2-tailed,0.05levelorless)werefoundbetweenactiveuseoftheappandincreasedconsumptionofvegetablesandhomemademeals,withdecreasedconsumptionoffruitjuices,softdrinks,dietsoftdrinks,andsugaryfoods(Gillilandetal.,2015).FurthersupportfortechniquestonudgeconsumerstopurchaselocalfoodsatFarmers’marketscanbefoundin“Examiningtheinfluenceofpriceandaccessibilityonwillingnesstoshopatfarmers’marketsamonglow-incomeeasternNorthCarolinawomen”(McGuirtetal.,2014).Althoughnotspecificallyaninterventionguidedbybehavioraleconomics,findingsfrompricescenariosranwith37low-incomewomenineasternNorthCarolinaprovidesupportforfuturemarketingapproachestoencouragefruitandvegetable(F&V)purchase.Specifically,scenarioswerepresentedtothewomenbasedontwodifferentstimuli,withmessagingfromonefocusingondiscountedpriceandtheotheronincreasedproducequantity.Inthediscountedpricescenario,thedollarvalueswouldbepresentedshowingthatthesamequantityoffoodthatcouldbepurchasedgiventhediscountatthefarmer’smarket,$6.40atthefarmers’marketratherthan$8.00atthegrocerystore.Thesecondstimulusfocusedonthedifferenceinamountofproduceaconsumercouldreceiveatthefarmers’marketforthesamepriceasthestore,withanimagethatshowedthatyoucouldpurchase15vegetablesatthefarmers’marketforthesameitwouldcostyoutobuy8vegetablesatthegrocerystore.Overall,consumer’swillingnesstoshopatthefarmer’smarketincreasedasthediscountpriceraisedfrom5%to20%,suggestingtheimportanceofpricefordrivingpurchasingbehavior.However,themajorityofconsumersweremoremotivatedtoshopatfarmer’smarketbythevisualdepictionofgreateramountofproduceforthesamecostthanthesolefinancialdepiction.Theauthorssuggestthatprinciplesofbehavioraleconomicscanhelpexplainthispreferencefortheimagerepresentationasanunderstandingofgreatervalue,avaluethatiseasiertounderstandwhencomparinganimagethatshowsquantityratherthandollaramount. ConclusionandimplicationsThestudiessummarizedaboveoffervaluableinsightintobehavioraleconomictechniquesthatcannudgebehaviorchangethroughtheframeworkofconvenience,appealandnormativebeliefs,choicearchitecture,andprovidingsalientinformationineasy-to-understandformats.Resultsvaryacrossinterventiontechniqueswithsomeseeminglesscomplexandlowereffectiveness.Allreflectlimitationsinthesensethatonlyproximaloutcomesareassessed,withnoneofthestudieslookingatsustainedbehaviorchangeafterinterventions.Throughreviewsofeacharticle,itisclearthatbehavioraleconomicsnudgetheoryoffersasolutionto

PHONE FAX WEB


encouraginghealthieroptionsforunplannedpurchasesinstores,aswellasprovidingacuetoincreaseF&Vpurchase,althoughthepurchasingresultsmaynottranslatetoconsumptionbehaviors.Itisrecommendedthatafutureapproachbetocombinein-storenudgetechniqueswitheducation-basedtheoreticalmodelsforbehaviorchangetoincreasebothpurchase,consumptionandcreatesustainable,individualchange.

References

Gilliland,J.,Sadler,R.,Clark,A.,O’Connor,C.,Milczarek,M.,&Doherty,S.(2015).Usinga

smartphoneapplicationtopromotehealthydietarybehavioursandlocalfood

consumption.BioMedResearchInternational,2015.

http://doi.org/10.1155/2015/841368

HeathC,HeathD.Switch:HowtoChangeThingsWhenChangeisHard.NewYork:Broadway

Books;2010

JustDR,PayneCR.Obesity:canbehavioraleconomicshelp?AnnBehavMed.2009;38Suppl

1:S47-55.

Kalnikaite,V.,Rogers,Y.,Bird,J.,Villar,N.,Bachour,K.,Payne,S.,…Kreitmayer,S.(2011).

HowtoNudgeinSitu:DesigningLambentDevicestoDeliverSalientInformationin

Supermarkets.InProceedingsofthe13thInternationalConferenceonUbiquitous

Computing(pp.11–20).NewYork,NY,USA:ACM.

http://doi.org/10.1145/2030112.2030115

Keller,C.,Markert,F.,&Bucher,T.(2015).Nudgingproductchoices:Theeffectofposition

changeonsnackbarchoice.FoodQualityandPreference,41,41–43.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.005

PHONE FAX WEB


McGuirt,J.T.,JilcottPitts,S.B.,Ward,R.,Crawford,T.W.,Keyserling,T.C.,&Ammerman,A.

S.(2014).Examiningtheinfluenceofpriceandaccessibilityonwillingnesstoshop

atfarmers’marketsamonglow-incomeeasternNorthCarolinawomen.Journalof

NutritionEducationandBehavior,46(1),26–33.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2013.06.001

Sacks,G.,Rayner,M.,&Swinburn,B.(2009).Impactoffront-of-pack“traffic-light”nutrition

labellingonconsumerfoodpurchasesintheUK.HealthPromotionInternational,

24(4),344–352.http://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dap032

Tal,A.,&Wansink,B.(2015).AnAppleaDayBringsMoreApplesYourWay:Healthy

SamplesPrimeHealthierChoices:HEALTHYSAMPLESPRIMEHEALTHIER

CHOICES.Psychology&Marketing,32(5),575–584.

http://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20801

ThalerR,SunsteinC.Nudge:ImprovingDecisionsAboutHealth,Wealth,andHappiness.Vol

ISBN978-0-14-311526-7.USA:PenguinBooks;2009.

Wansink,B.(2015).Changetheirchoice!ChangingbehaviorusingtheCANapproachand

activismresearch.PsychologyandMarketing,32(5),486–500.

http://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20794

Wansink,B.,&Dilip,S.(2011).Partitionedshoppingcarts:Assortmentallocationcuesthat

increasefruitandvegetablepurchases.JournalofNutritionEducationandBehavior,

45(4S),42.

PHONE FAX WEB


Wansink,B.,Just,D.R.,Hanks,A.S.,&Smith,L.E.(2013).Pre-SlicedFruitinSchool

Cafeterias:Children’sSelectionandIntake.AmericanJournalofPreventiveMedicine,

44(5),477–480.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.003

Wong,M.S.,Nau,C.,Kharmats,A.Y.,Vedovato,G.M.,Cheskin,L.J.,Gittelsohn,J.,&Lee,B.Y.

(2015).Usingacomputationalmodeltoquantifythepotentialimpactofchanging

theplacementofhealthybeveragesinstoresasaninterventionto“Nudge”

adolescentbehaviorchoice.BMCPublicHealth,15(1).

http://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2626-0

PHONE FAX WEB


Appendix:

review of the literature on use of behavioral economic ... · pdf fileof techniques for...

Documents