IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235841.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Children’s purchase behavior in the snack market: Can branding or low price motivate a healthy choice?

Author

Listed:
  • Hartmann, Monika
  • Cash, Sean B.
  • Yeh, Ching-Hua
  • Landwehr, Stefanie C.
  • McAlister, Anna R.

Abstract

Background : Children’s dietary related diseases and their associated costs have expanded dramatically in many countries, making children’s food choice a policy issue of increasing relevance. As children spend a considerable amount of money on energy dense, nutrient‐poor (EDNP) food products a better understanding of the main drivers of children’s food purchase decisions is crucial to prompt this behavior towards a more health promoting diet. Objective: The objective of the study is to investigate the role of branding and price in motivating children to choose healthier snack options. Methods: The study investigates snack choices of children ages 8 to 11 based on a survey and a purchase experiment. The research took place in after‐school programs of selected schools in the Boston area. 118 children took part in the study. Products in the choice experiment differed on three attributes, namely, product type (chocolate chip cookie as less healthy, and apple slices and strawberry tube yogurt as more healthy snacks), brand (McDonald’s or generic), and price ($0.30, $0.50, or $0.70). Data was analyzed using aggregated logit models, random parameter logit model and latent class analysis. Results: The results show that children’s purchase deci¬sions are primarily determined by product type with most children showing a high and signifi¬cant pre¬ference for choco¬late chip cookies. Surprisingly, generic products are preferred over the McDonald’s products across the whole sample, though children stating that they like McDonald’s reveal this also in their purchase decision. Prices only prove significant after controlling for whether or not children obtain allowance. Conclusion: First, it is not simple brand awareness but a child’s liking of the brand what determines whether a brand is success¬ful in motivating a child to choose a product and potentially a healthier option. Second, the extent of chil¬dren’s experience with money influences their price responsiveness. To the extent that children who receive allowance are primarily the once buying food snacks, higher prices for EDNP snacks could be success¬ful in motivating children to choose the healthier option.

Suggested Citation

  • Hartmann, Monika & Cash, Sean B. & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Landwehr, Stefanie C. & McAlister, Anna R., 2016. "Children’s purchase behavior in the snack market: Can branding or low price motivate a healthy choice?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235841, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235841
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235841/files/Children_s%20purchase%20behavior%20in%20the%20snack%20market_AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235841?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. Charlene Elliott, 2008. "Marketing Fun Foods: A Profile and Analysis of Supermarket Food Messages Targeted at Children," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 34(2), pages 259-274, June.
    2. French, S.A. & Jeffery, R.W. & Story, M. & Breitlow, K.K. & Baxter, J.S. & Hannan, P. & Snyder, M.P., 2001. "Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: The CHIPS study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(1), pages 112-117.
    3. Lingas, E.O. & Dorfman, L. & Bukofzer, E., 2009. "Nutrition content of food and beverage products on Web sites popular with children," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(S3), pages 587-592.
    4. Lisa Farrell & Michael A. Shields, 2007. "Children as consumers: investigating child diary expenditure data," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 445-467, May.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Weible, Daniela & Salamon, Petra, 2018. "Youths’ Preferences for Milk Products at School: How Product Attributes and Perceived Body Image Affect Choices," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(2), March.

    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Rebecca Boehm & Hannah Kitchel & Selena Ahmed & Anaya Hall & Colin M. Orians & John Richard Stepp & Al Robbat, Jr. & Timothy S. Griffin & Sean B. Cash, 2019. "Is Agricultural Emissions Mitigation on the Menu for Tea Drinkers?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Owusu, Rebecca & Dadzie, Samuel Kwesi Ndzebah, 2021. "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for organic and genetically modified food products in Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(2), June.
    4. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    5. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    6. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    7. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 1-21.
    8. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. Nordmeyer, Eike Florenz & Danne, Michael & Musshoff, Oliver, 2023. "Can satellite-retrieved data increase farmers' willingness to insure against drought? – Insights from Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    11. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Ulrich, Volker, 2013. "You can't always get what you want - East and West Germans' attitudes and preferences regarding the welfare state," MPRA Paper 47240, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    13. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    14. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    15. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    17. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    18. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    20. Kevin W. Maina & Martin C. Parlasca & Elizaphan J. O. Rao & Matin Qaim, 2024. "Farmer‐friendly delivery of veterinary services: Experimental insights from the Kenyan dairy sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 829-846, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235841. 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/aaeaaea.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.