IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/117705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing the impact of overt and covert ordering interventions on sustainable consumption choices: a randomised controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Zhuo, Shi
  • Ratajczak, Michael
  • Thornton, Katie
  • Jones, Phil
  • Jarchlo, Ayla Ibrahimi
  • Gold, Natalie

Abstract

Food products have significant impacts on the environment over their life cycle. We investigated whether displaying products in ascending order of carbon footprint in an online supermarket environment can shift consumer choices towards more sustainable options. We examined whether the effect of the ordering intervention differs when the ordering is overt (information about the ordering is explicit), compared to when it is covert (participants not told about the ordering). We conducted a three-arm parallel-group randomised trial using 1842 online participants from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Participants shopped for a meal, choosing one product from each of six product categories in a simulated online supermarket. Six products were listed vertically on each product-category page. Products were randomly ordered for the control arm but ordered by carbon footprint in the covert and overt ordering arms. In the overt ordering arm, a statement was displayed at the top of each product page about the ordering of products. The primary outcome was whether one of the three most sustainable products was chosen in each product category. There was no effect of the covert ordering on the probability of choosing more sustainable products compared with the control arm (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07, p = 0.533). Furthermore, we did not find evidence that the effects of the covert ordering and overt ordering differed (p = 0.594). Within the control condition, products in different positions were chosen with similar frequencies, suggesting that product positioning does not have an impact on choices. This may explain why re-ordering products had no effect. In the overt condition, only 19.5% of people correctly answered that the products were ordered according to sustainability in a follow-up question, suggesting that they didn't notice the statement. Results suggest that choices for grocery products might be too ingrained to be changed by subtle rearrangements of choice architecture like the ordering interventions, and highlight the difficulty of conveying information effectively to consumers in the online grocery shopping environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhuo, Shi & Ratajczak, Michael & Thornton, Katie & Jones, Phil & Jarchlo, Ayla Ibrahimi & Gold, Natalie, 2023. "Testing the impact of overt and covert ordering interventions on sustainable consumption choices: a randomised controlled trial," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117705, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:117705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/117705/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maya Bar-Hillel, 2015. "Position Effects in Choice from Simultaneous Displays: A Conundrum Solved," Discussion Paper Series dp678, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    2. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    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. da Silveira, Jaylson Jair & Lima, Gilberto Tadeu, 2021. "Wage inequality as a source of endogenous macroeconomic fluctuations," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 35-52.
    2. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    3. Jacob LaRiviere & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Katherine Simpson, 2016. "What is the Causal Impact of Knowledge on Preferences in Stated Preference Studies?," Working Papers 2016-12, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    5. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    6. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    7. Dena Yadin & Inbal Yahav & Lior Zalmanson & Nira Munichor, 2024. "Resolving the Ethical Tension Between Creating a Civil Environment and Facilitating Free Expression Online: Comment Reordering as an Alternative to Comment Moderation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(2), pages 261-283, June.
    8. Paulo Oliva & Philipp Zahn, 2018. "Sorting and filtering as effective rational choice procedures," Papers 1809.06766, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    9. Pëllumb Reshidi & Alessandro Lizzeri & Leeat Yariv & Jimmy Chan & Wing Suen, 2021. "Individual and Collective Information Acquisition: An Experimental Study," CESifo Working Paper Series 9468, CESifo.
    10. Marek Hudik, 0. "Equilibrium as compatibility of plans," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    11. Pantelis P. Analytis & Amit Kothiyal & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Multi-attribute utility models as cognitive search engines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 403-419, September.
    12. Valentino Dardanoni & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti & Christopher J. Tyson, 2020. "Inferring Cognitive Heterogeneity From Aggregate Choices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1269-1296, May.
    13. Papi, Mauro, 2013. "Satisficing and maximizing consumers in a monopolistic screening model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 385-389.
    14. Helmers, Christian & Krishnan, Pramila & Patnam, Manasa, 2019. "Attention and saliency on the internet: Evidence from an online recommendation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 216-242.
    15. Matthew P. Taylor, 2020. "Liking the long-shot … but just as a friend," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 245-261, December.
    16. Sam Cosaert & Veerle Hennebel, 2023. "Parental Childcare with Process Benefits," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(357), pages 339-371, January.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:403-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Johnson, E.J. & Baker, T., 2019. "Choice Architecture for Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering and Partitioning Can Improve Decisions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2019-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
    20. Gerke, Rafael & Hauzenberger, Klemens, 2017. "The Fisher paradox: A primer," Discussion Papers 20/2017, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    21. Caplin, Andrew, 2014. "Rational inattention and revealed preference: The data-theoretic approach to economic modeling," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 295-305.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    disclosure; food choice; nudge; online supermarket; order effect; sustainable diet;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    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:ehl:lserod:117705. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.