Cueing healthier alternatives for take-away: a field experiment on the effects of (disclosing) three nudges on food choices.

BACKGROUND: The current field experiment demonstrates the effectiveness of nudging to promote healthy food choices. METHODS: Three types of nudges were implemented at a take-away food vendor: 1) an accessibility nudge that placed fruits at the front counter; 2) a salience nudge that presented healthy bread rolls to be more visually attractive; and 3) a social proof nudge that conveyed yoghurt as a popular choice. We additionally assessed whether nudging effects would remain robust when a disclosure message was included. The field experiment was conducted over a seven-week period. The measured outcome was the sales of the targeted healthy food products. RESULTS: The accessibility nudge significantly increased the sales of the fresh fruits. The impact of the salience nudge was limited presumably due to existing preferences or habits that typically facilitate bread purchases. As the sales of the yoghurt shakes remained consistently low over the seven-week period the impact of the social proof nudge remained unexamined. Critically, disclosing the purpose of the nudges did not interfere with effects. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings suggest nudging as an effective strategy for healthy food promotion, and offer implications for topical debate regarding the ethics of nudges.

The Hunger Games: Using hunger to promote healthy choices in self-control conflicts.

The majority of existing research and conventional wisdom would advise against shopping on an empty stomach as hunger is assumed to encourage impulsive choices that typically lead to self-control failure (i.e., favouring short-term gratifications at the expense of long-term goals). Nonetheless, through two studies the current research aims to demonstrate that hungry consumers would not always be disadvantaged when encountering a self-control conflict involving a trade-off choice between a healthy vs. a more palatable but unhealthy choice. Particularly we posit that the choice outcome of the self-control conflict is dependent on contextual cues, such that hungry consumers with the tendency to make fast decisions could benefit from following a social proof heuristic promoting the healthy options. In Study 1, we indeed observed participants' self-reported hunger to be negatively associated with state self-control, but as most participants generally experienced low levels of hunger we did not observe apparent effects of hunger on food choice (DV), and correspondingly the potential influence of the social proof heuristic in moderating the choice outcome. However, in Study 2 where hunger was manipulated, we found hungry participants making significantly less healthy choices than satiated participants, but a social proof heuristic mitigated this effect (i.e., in the presence of social proof heuristic hungry participants made just as many healthy food choices as satiated participants; and hungry participants made more healthy choices in the social proof condition than in the no heuristic condition). These findings support our approach of providing contextual cues in the environment in order to work with, rather than against, the impulsivity triggered by hunger to promote successful self-control behaviours.

Under consumers' scrutiny - an investigation into consumers' attitudes and concerns about nudging in the realm of health behavior.

BACKGROUND: Nudging strategies have recently attracted attention from scholars and policy makers for their potential in influencing people's behaviors on large scales. But is the fact that nudges do not forbid any choice-options or significantly alter people's economic incentives sufficient to conclude that nudges should be implemented? While this is discussed amongst scholars from various disciplines the voices of consumers, the target-group of nudges, remain unheard. Since understanding their knowledge about nudging and their opinions on being nudged are crucial for the evaluation of the moral appropriateness of nudging, the current study examines consumers' knowledge of and attitudes toward nudging in general and the realm of health behavior. METHODS: In this qualitative investigation in-depth semi-structured interviews with UK consumers were conducted to examine consumers' attitudes to four domains of inquiry around which the scholarly discussions about nudging have revolved: consumers' approval of nudging, consumers' views on the origin of nudges, consumers' perceived effectiveness of nudging, and consumers' concerns about manipulative aspects of nudging. RESULTS: Interviews revealed that consumers are largely unfamiliar with the concept of nudging altogether. Once defined and explained to them most consumers approve of the concept, especially in the realm of health behavior, given particular conditions: 1. Nudges should be designed for benefiting individuals and society; 2. consumers comprehend the decision-making context and the reasoning behind the promotion of the targeted behavior. Interviews revealed very limited concerns with manipulative aspects of nudges. CONCLUSIONS: These findings call for better information-management to ensure consumers knowledge of nudges and awareness of their current implementation. Under that condition the findings encourage the implementation of nudges benefitting individuals and society in domains that consumers comprehend, such as health behaviors. Further research is required to clarify consumers' concerns and requirements for nudges in more complex domains such as financial decisions and retirement plans.

Why are people with high self-control happier? The effect of trait self-control on happiness as mediated by regulatory focus.

BACKGROUND: While self-control has often been related to positive outcomes in life such as higher academic achievements and better health, recent insights reveal that people with high trait self-control (TSC) may even experience greater life satisfaction or happiness. OBJECTIVE: The current study further scrutinizes this potential association between TSC and happiness, and examines how regulatory focus, defined as the way people frame and direct their goal pursuit strategies, plays a role in this relationship. Accordingly, the present study examines the mediating role of regulatory-focus (promotion and prevention focus) on the relationship between TSC and happiness. METHOD: Data was collected from 545 individuals (65.9% female, M age = 27.52 years) regarding their TSC, regulatory focus, and happiness. RESULTS: Mediation analyses demonstrate that TSC positively predicts happiness, while this effect was partially mediated by relatively more promotion focus and less prevention focus. CONCLUSION: RESULTS suggest that people with higher TSC are happier possibly because they are: (1) more promotion-focused on acquiring positive gains thereby facilitating more approach-oriented behaviors, and (2) less prevention-focused on avoiding losses thereby reducing avoidance-oriented behaviors. These findings are relevant for topical scientific debates regarding the underlying mechanisms of self-control regarding initiatory and inhibitory behaviors.