IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v8y2024i2p279-299_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cash incentives for weight loss work only for males

Author

Listed:
  • Yeung, Catherine
  • Ho, Teck-Hua
  • Sato, Ryoko
  • Lim, Noah
  • Van Dam, Rob M.
  • Tan, Hong-Chang
  • Tham, Kwang-Wei
  • Ali, Rehan

Abstract

When governments and healthcare providers offer people cash rewards for weight loss, an assumption is that cash rewards are versatile, working equally well for everyone – for example, for all genders. No research to date has tested for gender difference in response to financial incentives for weight loss. We show in an randomized controlled trial (RCT) (n = 472) that cash incentives for weight loss only worked for males. The RCT consisted of a 3-month, self-administered online weight loss program. Offering a US$150 incentive for a 5% weight loss more than tripled the proportion of males who were successful, compared with a no-incentive Control arm (20.9% vs. 5.9%). On average, males in the incentive arm lost 2.4% of weight over 3 months, compared with 0.9% in the Control arm. The same incentive had no such effect on females: The average weight loss in the incentive arm was not significantly different than in the Control (1.03% and 1.44%, respectively), nor was the proportion of participants meeting the 5% weight loss goal (8.6% and 8.7%, respectively). This study shows that males respond better than females to financial incentives for weight loss.

Suggested Citation

  • Yeung, Catherine & Ho, Teck-Hua & Sato, Ryoko & Lim, Noah & Van Dam, Rob M. & Tan, Hong-Chang & Tham, Kwang-Wei & Ali, Rehan, 2024. "Cash incentives for weight loss work only for males," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 279-299, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:8:y:2024:i:2:p:279-299_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X21000208/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:bpubpo:v:8:y:2024:i:2:p:279-299_5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    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.