IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i2d10.1007_s40258-021-00688-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Price Changes and Teaspoon Labelling on Intention to Purchase Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Vinh Vo

    (The Centre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland
    Monash University)

  • K.-H. Nguyen

    (The Centre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland)

  • J. A. Whitty

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Tracy A. Comans

    (The Centre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland)

Abstract

Introduction Childhood obesity is a major public health concern and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are a known contributor. SSB taxation and food labelling have been proposed as policies to reduce consumption by changing purchasing behaviours. The study aimed to analyse caregivers’ preferences on commonly purchased SSBs in Australia and to determine the effect of price increases and teaspoon labelling on their purchasing intentions. Methods We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to obtain data about choices between SSB and non-SSB alternatives. 563 caregivers, who had young children aged 3–7 years, completed the experiment online. 286 were randomly allocated to receive choice sets with plain labelling while 277 were assigned to teaspoon labelling. Each participant completed nine choice scenarios where they chose between six SSB and non-SSB beverage options or a no-beverage option, with beverage prices varying between scenarios. While hypothetical, price and teaspoon labelling for sugar content for each beverage was obtained from an informal market survey. Responses from the DCE were modelled using random parameters logit within a random utility theory framework. Household income and children’s consumption volumes of soft drink were used to explore preference heterogeneity. Results Using mixed logit as the final model, we found that higher reduction in intended purchases was observed for soft drink and fruit drink in teaspoon labelling than it was in plain labelling. Participants exposed to teaspoon labelling intended to purchase less of flavoured milk and fruit juice compared to those exposed to plain labelling. Compared to baseline prices, a hypothetical 20% increase in SSB prices and the presentation of ‘teaspoons of sugar’ labelling were predicted to reduce intentional SSB purchases and increase intentional non-SSB purchases. Within each labelling group, there were no significant differences of intentional purchases between the highest and the lowest income quintile, high and low consumers of soft drinks. However, compared to plain labelling, teaspoon labelling was predicted to strongly influence intentional purchases of SSBs and non-SSBs. Conclusion This study suggests that a policy to increase SSB price and include teaspoon labelling would lead to a reduced consumption of SSBs and increased consumption of non-SSBs.

Suggested Citation

  • Vinh Vo & K.-H. Nguyen & J. A. Whitty & Tracy A. Comans, 2022. "The Effect of Price Changes and Teaspoon Labelling on Intention to Purchase Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 199-212, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00688-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00688-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00688-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-021-00688-8?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    2. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    3. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    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. Caputo, Vincenzina & Aprile, Maria Carmela & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2011. "Consumers’ Valuation for European food quality labels: Importance of Label Information Provision," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114324, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2011. "Advances in Discrete Choice: Mixture Models," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Fanghella, Valeria & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim, 2023. "What's in it for me? Self-interest and preferences for distribution of costs and benefits of energy efficiency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Qi Feng & J. George Shanthikumar & Mengying Xue, 2022. "Consumer Choice Models and Estimation: A Review and Extension," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(2), pages 847-867, February.
    7. Blake, Miranda R. & Lancsar, Emily & Peeters, Anna & Backholer, Kathryn, 2019. "Sugar-sweetened beverage price elasticities in a hypothetical convenience store," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 98-107.
    8. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Llewellyn, Rick S., 2013. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of weed decision support tools," Working Papers 147031, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    10. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    12. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    13. Arthur Van Soest & Arie Kapteyn & Julie Zissimopoulos, 2006. "Using Stated Preferences Data to Analyze Preferences for Full and Partial Retirement," Working Papers WR-345, RAND Corporation.
    14. Clark, Andrew E. & Senik, Claudia & Yamada, Katsunori, 2017. "When experienced and decision utility concur: The case of income comparisons," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    16. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    17. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    20. repec:dpr:wpaper:0930 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Printezis, Iryna & Grebitus, Carola, 2018. "Marketing Channels for Local Food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 161-171.

    More about this item

    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:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00688-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.