IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/346709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Healthier Food Choices Made Easy: a Nudging Experiment in a Restaurant Targeting Millennials

Author

Listed:
  • Vecchio, Riccardo
  • Cavallo, Carla
  • Del Giudice, Teresa
  • Caso, Gerarda
  • Cicia, Gianni

Abstract

The current food environment exposes individuals to continuous unhealthy signals. The present study investigates the effectiveness of a default option nudge - framed as a Dish of the Day - in guiding healthier food choices of Millennials (aged between 19 and 30 years old), a demographic particularly vulnerable to unhealthy eating. A between-subjects field experiment with two opposite treatments (i.e.: healthy and unhealthy default option) and a control group (no default) was performed on a random, convenience sample (N=341). Results show a limited impact of the healthy default option (3.9%) and suggest that this nudging intervention has a stronger influence on individuals who already prioritize health in their everyday lifestyle. Similarly, the default option is more effective on subjects who do not believe that health and taste are conflicting.

Suggested Citation

  • Vecchio, Riccardo & Cavallo, Carla & Del Giudice, Teresa & Caso, Gerarda & Cicia, Gianni, 2023. "Healthier Food Choices Made Easy: a Nudging Experiment in a Restaurant Targeting Millennials," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 14(03), September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:346709
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.346709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/346709/files/HEALTHIER%20FOOD%20CHOICES%20MADE%20EASY%20A%20NUDGING%20EXPERIMENT%20IN%20A%20RESTAURANT%20TARGETING%20MILLENNIALS.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.346709?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles Courtemanche & Garth Heutel & Patrick McAlvanah, 2015. "Impatience, Incentives and Obesity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 1-31, February.
    2. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2005. "Passive Decisions and Potent Defaults," NBER Chapters, in: Analyses in the Economics of Aging, pages 59-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    4. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    5. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    7. Just, David R. & Gabrielyan, Gnel, 2018. "Influencing the food choices of SNAP consumers: Lessons from economics, psychology and marketing," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 309-317.
    8. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    9. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen & Øydis Ueland, 2008. "Consumer attitudes toward low stake risk in food markets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(23), pages 3039-3049.
    10. Stacey R. Finkelstein & Ayelet Fishbach, 2010. "When Healthy Food Makes You Hungry," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 357-367, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dogbe, Wisdom & Gil, José M., 2019. "Linking risk attitudes, time preferences, and body mass index in Catalonia," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 73-81.
    2. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    4. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    5. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.
    6. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    7. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    8. Erich Renz & Marvin M. Müller & Kim Leonardo Böhm, 2023. "When nudges promote neutral behavior: an experimental study of managerial decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(8), pages 1309-1354, October.
    9. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    10. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    11. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    12. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Yoshio Kamijo & Teruyuki Tamura, 2023. "Risk-Averse and Self-Interested Shifts in Groups in Both Median and Random Rules," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, February.
    14. Dorner, Zach & Brent, Daniel A. & Leroux, Anke, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences for Intrinsic Attributes," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236644, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Alexis H. Villacis & Jeffrey R. Alwang & Victor Barrera, 2021. "Linking risk preferences and risk perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 863-877, September.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:282-291 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Kavitha Ranganathan, 2018. "Does Global Shapes Of Utility Functions Matter For Investment Decisions?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 341-361, October.
    18. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. Fred Schroyen & Karl Ove Aarbu, 2018. "Attitudes Towards Large Income Risk in Welfare States: An International Comparison," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(340), pages 846-872, October.
    20. Yoshio Kamijo & Teruyuki Tamura, 2016. "Altruistic and risk preference of individuals and groups," Working Papers SDES-2016-12, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2016.
    21. Lisa Anderson & Beth Freeborn & Jason Hulbert, 2012. "Risk Aversion and Tacit Collusion in a Bertrand Duopoly Experiment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 40(1), pages 37-50, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:346709. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/centmde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.