Healthy snacks at the checkout counter: a lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices

Ellen van Kleef, Kai Otten, Hans C M van Trijp, Ellen van Kleef, Kai Otten, Hans C M van Trijp

Abstract

Background: The essence of nudging is to adapt the environment in which consumers make decisions to help them make better choices, without forcing certain outcomes upon them. To determine how consumers can effectively be guided to select healthier snacks, we examine the effect of manipulating the assortment structure and shelf layout of an impulse display including both healthy and unhealthy snacks near the checkout counter of a canteen.

Methods: Both a lab and field study applied a two-factor experimental design manipulating snack offerings both in an on-screen choice environment and a natural environment (hospital staff restaurant). Shelf arrangement (i.e. accessibility) was altered by putting healthy snacks at higher shelves versus lower shelves. Assortment structure (i.e. availability) was altered by offering an assortment that either included 25% or 75% healthy snacks. Participants in the lab study (n = 158) made a choice from a shelf display. A brief survey following snack selection asked participants to evaluate the assortment and their choice. The field experiment took place in a hospital canteen. Daily sales data were collected for a period of four weeks. On completion of the field study, employees (n = 92) filled out a questionnaire about all four displays and rated their attractiveness, healthiness and perceived freedom of choice.

Results: The lab study showed a higher probability of healthy snack choice when 75% of the assortment consisted of healthy snacks compared to conditions with 25% healthy snack assortments, even though choices were not rated less satisfying or more restrictive. Regarding shelf display location of healthy snacks, no significant differences were observed. There was also no significant shelf arrangement by assortment structure interactive effect. The field study replicated these findings, in that this assortment structure led to higher sales of healthy snacks. Sales of unhealthy and total snacks were not impacted by manipulations (no main or interaction effects). Employees preferred shelf displays including a larger healthy snack assortment located at top shelves. Employees also felt more freedom in choice when healthy snacks were displayed at top shelves compared to lower shelves.

Conclusions: Overall, results suggest that increasing the prominence of healthy snacks by enlarging their availability, while permitting access to unhealthy snacks, is a promising strategy to promote sales. These results point to the importance of nudging strategies to encourage healthier snack patterns.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screenshot of one of the virtual shelves (75% healthy, on bottom).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Shelf display in front of checkout counters.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Choices made by participants from online shelf displays (lab study).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Total number of snacks sold in four conditions (field study).

References

    1. Berghofer A, Pischon T, Reinhold T, Apovian CM, Sharma AM, Willich SN. Obesity prevalence from a European perspective: A systematic review. BMC Publ Health. 2008. 200.
    1. Calza S, Decarli A, Ferraroni M. Obesity and prevalence of chronic diseases in the 1999–2000 italian national health survey. BMC Publ Health. 2008. 140.
    1. House of Lords. Behaviour change. 2nd Report of session 2010–12. UK: Science and Technology Select Committee ed; 2011. Accessed at March 2, 2012 at .
    1. Hendriksen MA, Boer JM, Du H, Feskens EJ, Van der DL A. No consistent association between consumption of energy-dense snack foods and annual weight and waist circumference changes in dutch adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94:19–25. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.014795.
    1. Piernas C, Popkin BM. Snacking increased among U.S. Adults between 1977 and 2006. J Nutr. 2010;140:325–332. doi: 10.3945/jn.109.112763.
    1. Wansink B. Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu Rev Nutr. 2004;24:455. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.012003.132140.
    1. Bodor JN, Ulmer VM, Futrell Dunaway L, Farley TA, Rose D. The rationale behind small food store interventions in Low-income urban neighborhoods: insights from New orleans. J Nutr. 2010;140:1185–1188. doi: 10.3945/jn.109.113266.
    1. Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP. Judging nudging: Can nudging improve population health? BMJ. 2011;342:263–265.
    1. Ratner RK, Soman D, Zauberman G, Ariely D, Carmon Z, Keller PA, Kim BK, Lin F, Malkoc S, Small DA, Wertenbroch K. How behavioral decision research can enhance consumer welfare: From freedom of choice to paternalistic intervention. Mark Lett. 2008;19:383–397. doi: 10.1007/s11002-008-9044-3.
    1. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2008.
    1. Brownell KD. Does a ‘toxic’environment make obesity inevitable? Obes Manag. 2005;1:52–55. doi: 10.1089/obe.2005.1.52.
    1. Maas J, de Ridder DT, de Vet E, de Wit JB. Do distant foods decrease intake? The effect of food accessibility on consumption. Psychology & Health. 2012;27(sup2):59–73. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.565341.
    1. Thorndike AN, Sonnenberg L, Riis J, Barraclough S, Levy DE. A 2-phase labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:527–533. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300391.
    1. Wisdom J, Downs JS, Loewenstein G. Promoting healthy choices: information versus convenience. Am Econ J Applied Econ. 2010;2:164–175. doi: 10.1257/app.2.2.164.
    1. Hanks AS, Just DR, Smith LE, Wansink B. Healthy convenience: nudging students toward healthier choices in the lunchroom. J Public Health. 2012;34(3):370–376. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fds003.
    1. Rozin P, Scott S, Dingley M, Urbanek JK, Jiang H, Kaltenbach M. Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake. Judg Decision Making. 2011;6:323–332.
    1. Just DR, Wansink B. Smarter lunchrooms: using behavioral economics to improve meal selection. Choices. 2009. 24(3).
    1. Meyers AW, Stunkard AJ. Food accessibility and food choice: a test of Schachter’s externality hypothesis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1980;37:1133–1135. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780230051007.
    1. Sela A, Berger J, Liu W. Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. J Consum Res. 2009;35(6):941–951. doi: 10.1086/593692.
    1. Curhan RC. The effects of merchandising and temporary promotional activities on the sales of fresh fruits and vegetables in supermarkets. J Mark Res. 1974;11:286–294. doi: 10.2307/3151144.
    1. French SA, Hannan PJ, Harnack LJ, Mitchell NR, Toomey TL, Gerlach A. Pricing and availability intervention in vending machines at four bus garages. J Occup Env Med. 2010;52:S29–S33. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181c5c476.
    1. Dinner I, Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG, Liu K. Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. J Exp Psychol Applied. 2011;17:332–341.
    1. Chernev A. Product assortment and consumer choice: An interdisciplinary review. Found Trends Mark. 2011;6:1–61.
    1. Gold A, Lichtenberg P. Don’t Call Me “nudge”: the ethical obligation to Use effective interventions to promote public health. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:18–20.
    1. Carter A, Hall W. Avoiding selective ethical objections to nudges. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:12–14.
    1. Verweij M, Hoven MVD. Nudges in public health: paternalism is paramount. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:16–17.
    1. Brehm JW, Mann M. Effect of importance of freedom and attraction to group members on influence produced by group pressure. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1975;31:816–824.
    1. Glanz K, Hoelscher D. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake by changing environments, policy and pricing: restaurant-based research, strategies, and recommendations. Prev Med. 2004;39(Supplement 2):88–93.
    1. Netherlands Nutrition Centre. Richtlijnen voedselkeuze 2011 (nutrition guidlines) Accessed at February 3, 2012 at . 2011.
    1. Health Council. Richtlijnen goede voeding 2006 (guidelines healthy nutrition 2006) Accessed at February 3, 2012 at 2006.
    1. Farley T, Rice J, Bodor J, Cohen D, Bluthenthal R, Rose D. Measuring the food environment: shelf space of fruits, vegetables, and snack foods in stores. J Urban Health. 2009;86:672–682. doi: 10.1007/s11524-009-9390-3.
    1. Wilkinson JB, Mason JB, Paksoy CH. Assessing the impact of short-term supermarket strategy variables. J Mark Res. 1982;19:72–86. doi: 10.2307/3151532.
    1. Chandon P, Hutchinson JW, Bradlow ET, Young SH. Does in-store marketing work? effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J Mark. 2009;73:1–17.
    1. Lancaster K. The economics of product variety: a survey. Mark Sci. 1990;9:189–206. doi: 10.1287/mksc.9.3.189.
    1. Wilcox K, Vallen B, Block L, Fitzsimons Gavan ÂJ. Vicarious goal fulfillment: when the mere presence of a healthy option leads to an ironically indulgent decision. J Consum Res. 2009;36:380–393. doi: 10.1086/599219.
    1. Seymour JD, Lazarus Yaroch A, Serdula M, Blanck HM, Khan LK. Impact of nutrition environmental interventions on point-of-purchase behavior in adults: a review. Prev Med. 2004;39(Supplement 2):108–136.
    1. Jensen JD. Can worksite nutritional interventions improve productivity and firm profitability? A literature review. Perspect in Public Health. 2011;131:184–192. doi: 10.1177/1757913911408263.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir