IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v85y2019icp15-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When are “Dish of the Day” nudges most effective to increase vegetable selection?

Author

Listed:
  • Saulais, Laure
  • Massey, Camille
  • Perez-Cueto, Federico J.A.
  • Appleton, Katherine M.
  • Dinnella, Caterina
  • Monteleone, Erminio
  • Depezay, Laurence
  • Hartwell, Heather
  • Giboreau, Agnès

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that featuring vegetable-rich dishes as “Dish of the day” (DoD) could be an operationally feasible and straightforward strategy to promote healthier food choices in restaurants. However, the available evidence regarding the effect of DoD on food choices is limited, and little is known about the conditions of its effectiveness in the field. This study investigates the effect of introducing DoD options in a real self-service restaurant setting on the selection of vegetable-rich options. The objectives are to (1) replicate and measure the DoD effect in this situation; and (2) investigate the moderating role of two features of the choice set: (i) the type of option set as DoD and (ii) the number of alternatives options to choose from. In a living lab experiment, 294 consumers came for lunch to a self-service restaurant and chose between a target vegetable-based dish (vg1) and respectively one, or two, alternatives: a meat-based dish (nvg) and another vegetable dish (vg2). Five choice task conditions were tested, in a between-subjects design: three conditions examined dish choices when two options were available (vg1 versus nvg): no DoD (T1-0); vg1 as DoD (T1a); or nvg as DoD (T1b). Two further conditions used three options (vg1 versus nvg versus vg2): no nudge (T2-0), or vg1 as DoD (T2a). In neutral conditions T1-0 and T2-0 respectively, 34.4% and 23.3% of consumers chose vg1. The DoD effect was observed in all conditions: choices in favour of vg1 increased by 25.2% when in was DoD by 25.2% in T1a vs. T1-0 and by 30% in T2a vs T2-0; while 7.6% more consumers chose nvg in T1b vs T1-0. Regarding the conditions of DoD effectiveness, the size of the DoD effect was larger for the initially less popular dish vg1 (T1a) compared with nvg (T1b). Introducing more options also increased the relative effect of DoD in favour of vg1, from 73% (T1a) to 129% (T2a). There were no effects of the condition on consumer satisfaction with the dish chosen, nor on the amount of food wasted. This research gives insight into the elements of the choice task to consider when setting up nudges, and could help choice architect to better design efficient and acceptable nudges in foodservice settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Saulais, Laure & Massey, Camille & Perez-Cueto, Federico J.A. & Appleton, Katherine M. & Dinnella, Caterina & Monteleone, Erminio & Depezay, Laurence & Hartwell, Heather & Giboreau, Agnès, 2019. "When are “Dish of the Day” nudges most effective to increase vegetable selection?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 15-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:15-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.04.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919216305449
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.04.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Appleton & Ann Hemingway & Laure Saulais & Caterina Dinnella & Erminio Monteleone & Laure Depezay & David Morizet & F. Armando Perez-Cueto & Ann Bevan & Heather Hartwell, 2016. "Increasing vegetable intakes: rationale and systematic review of published interventions," Post-Print hal-02118595, HAL.
    2. Reisch, Lucia A. & Sunstein, Cass R. & Gwozdz, Wencke, 2017. "Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-10.
    3. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    4. Jessica Wisdom & Julie S. Downs & George Loewenstein, 2010. "Promoting Healthy Choices: Information versus Convenience," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 164-178, April.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:323-332 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    7. Anestis Dougkas & Laure Saulais & Agnès Giboreau, 2019. "Studying natural meals: what are the benefits of a living lab approach?," Post-Print hal-02118506, HAL.
    8. Eran Dayan & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2011. "Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders," Discussion Paper Series dp581, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    9. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    10. Sen Geng, 2016. "Decision Time, Consideration Time, And Status Quo Bias," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(1), pages 433-449, January.
    11. Jeffrey P. Carpenter & Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2005. "Field Experiments In Economics: An Introduction," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Field Experiments in Economics, pages 1-15, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    12. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:333-342 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jayson L. Lusk, 2014. "Are you smart enough to know what to eat? A critique of behavioural economics as justification for regulation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(3), pages 355-373.
    15. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    16. Hagmann, Désirée & Siegrist, Michael & Hartmann, Christina, 2018. "Taxes, labels, or nudges? Public acceptance of various interventions designed to reduce sugar intake," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 156-165.
    17. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Joffre D. Swait, 2013. "Are Food Choices Really Habitual? Integrating Habits, Variety-seeking, and Compensatory Choice in a Utility-maximizing Framework," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 17-41.
    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. J. M. Bauer & L. A. Reisch, 2019. "Behavioural Insights and (Un)healthy Dietary Choices: a Review of Current Evidence," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 3-45, March.
    2. Kurz, Verena, 2018. "Nudging to reduce meat consumption: Immediate and persistent effects of an intervention at a university restaurant," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 317-341.
    3. Julie S. Downs & Jessica Wisdom & George Loewenstein, 2015. "Helping Consumers Use Nutrition Information: Effects of Format and Presentation," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(3), pages 326-344, Summer.
    4. Gabriela Michalek & Georg Meran & Reimund Schwarze & Özgür Yildiz, 2015. "Nudging as a new 'soft' tool in environmental policy. An analysis based on insights from cognitive and social psychology," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 21, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
    5. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2017. "The excessive choice effect meets the market: A field experiment on craft beer choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 8-13.
    6. Michalek, Gabriela & Meran, Georg & Schwarze, Reimund & Yildiz, Özgür, 2016. "Nudging as a new "soft" policy tool: An assessment of the definitional scope of nudges, practical implementation possibilities and their effectiveness," Economics Discussion Papers 2016-18, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Kurz, Verena, 2017. "Nudging to reduce meat consumption: Immediate and persistent effects of an intervention at a university restaurant," Working Papers in Economics 712, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    8. Braut, Beatrice & Zaccagni, Sarah, 2023. "Emotional reactions to food interventions: Evidence from an online survey," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 419-426.
    9. Deetlefs, A.M. Jeanette & Chalmers, Jenny & Tindall, Karen & Wiryakusuma-McLeod, Cindy & Bennett, Sue & Hay, Iain & Humphries, Jacqueline & Eady, Michelle J. & Cronin, Lynette & Rudd, Karl, 2021. "Applying behavioral insights to increase rural and remote internships: Results from two Randomized Controlled Trials," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    10. Beshears, John & Kosowsky, Harry, 2020. "Nudging: Progress to date and future directions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 3-19.
    11. Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Vandenbroele, Jolien & Slabbinck, Hendrik & Van Kerckhove, Anneleen & Vermeir, Iris, 2021. "Mock meat in the butchery: Nudging consumers toward meat substitutes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 105-116.
    13. Kirchgässner, Gebhard, 2012. "Sanfter Paternalismus, meritorische Güter, und der normative Individualismus," Economics Working Paper Series 1217, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    14. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
    16. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    17. Ortoleva, Pietro, 2010. "Status quo bias, multiple priors and uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 411-424, July.
    18. Ellen R. K. Evers & Yoel Inbar & Irene Blanken & Linda D. Oosterwijk, 2017. "When Do People Prefer Carrots to Sticks? A Robust “Matching Effect” in Policy Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4261-4276, December.
    19. Dolnicar, Sara, 2020. "Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    20. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-17, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:15-27. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.