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

BMC Public Health

Hans CM van Trijp¹  Kai Otten¹  Ellen van Kleef¹ 

[1] Wageningen University, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Hollandseweg 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands

关键词: Choice architecture;    Food availability;    Food accessibility;    Snacking;    Environmental interventions;    Obesity prevention;    Nudging;   

Others  :  1162736
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-1072

 received in 2012-03-02, accepted in 2012-11-22,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 van Kleef et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 5.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [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.
• [2]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.
• [3]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 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/179.pdf webcite.
• [4]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.
• [5]Piernas C, Popkin BM: Snacking increased among U.S. Adults between 1977 and 2006. J Nutr 2010, 140:325-332.
• [6]Wansink B: Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu Rev Nutr 2004, 24:455.
• [7]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.
• [8]Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP: Judging nudging: Can nudging improve population health? BMJ 2011, 342:263-265.
• [9]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.
• [10]Thaler RH, Sunstein CR: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2008.
• [11]Brownell KD: Does a ‘toxic’environment make obesity inevitable? Obes Manag 2005, 1:52-55.
• [12]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.
• [13]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.
• [14]Wisdom J, Downs JS, Loewenstein G: Promoting healthy choices: information versus convenience. Am Econ J Applied Econ 2010, 2:164-175.
• [15]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.
• [16]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.
• [17]Just DR, Wansink B: Smarter lunchrooms: using behavioral economics to improve meal selection. Choices 2009. 24(3).
• [18]Meyers AW, Stunkard AJ: Food accessibility and food choice: a test of Schachter’s externality hypothesis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1980, 37:1133-1135.
• [19]Sela A, Berger J, Liu W: Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. J Consum Res 2009, 35(6):941-951.
• [20]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.
• [21]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.
• [22]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.
• [23]Chernev A: Product assortment and consumer choice: An interdisciplinary review. Found Trends Mark 2011, 6:1-61.
• [24]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.
• [25]Carter A, Hall W: Avoiding selective ethical objections to nudges. Am J Bioeth 2012, 12:12-14.
• [26]Verweij M, Hoven MVD: Nudges in public health: paternalism is paramount. Am J Bioeth 2012, 12:16-17.
• [27]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.
• [28]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.
• [29]Netherlands Nutrition Centre: Richtlijnen voedselkeuze 2011 (nutrition guidlines). Accessed at February 3, 2012 at http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/Documents/Voedingscentrum/Actueel/00_Richtlijnen%20voedselkeuze%202011.pdf webcite. 2011.
• [30]Health Council: Richtlijnen goede voeding 2006 (guidelines healthy nutrition 2006). Accessed at February 3, 2012 at http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/[e-mail] webcite 2006.
• [31]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.
• [32]Wilkinson JB, Mason JB, Paksoy CH: Assessing the impact of short-term supermarket strategy variables. J Mark Res 1982, 19:72-86.
• [33]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.
• [34]Lancaster K: The economics of product variety: a survey. Mark Sci 1990, 9:189-206.
• [35]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.
• [36]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.
• [37]Jensen JD: Can worksite nutritional interventions improve productivity and firm profitability? A literature review. Perspect in Public Health 2011, 131:184-192.