IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/u4v5c.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing the impact of subsidies and health prompts on choice process variables and food choice: The case of dietary fiber

Author

Listed:
  • Gustafson, Christopher R.

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

Abstract

Fiscal tools—taxes and/or subsidies—are increasingly used to address diet-related health problems. However, some studies have found that these tools are markedly more effective if attention is draw to the tax or subsidy, suggesting that the price change alone may go unnoticed in the complex food environments that consumers face. Interventions that prompt individuals to consider health during choice show promise for promoting healthy food choices in both simple laboratory settings and complex, real-world markets. In this pre-registered study, I examine the impact of dietary fiber health prompts and/or dietary fiber subsidies on the per-serving fiber content of foods chosen, the documented set of products considered, and (self-reported) nutrition information use by participants in an online supermarket setting. Participants were randomized to one of four conditions: 1) control, 2) subsidy, 3) fiber prompt, and 4) fiber prompt + subsidy. Results show that both the prompt and prompt + subsidy conditions significantly increase fiber content of foods chosen (with the latter having a larger effect). While all three interventions influence the probability of using nutrition information during food choice and affect the set of products that respondents consider relative to the control condition, the effects were larger for the prompt and prompt + subsidy conditions. A multiple mediation analysis illustrates that both direct and indirect (through the set of products considered and the use of fiber information during choice) pathways lead to the significant overall increase in fiber content of selected foods.

Suggested Citation

  • Gustafson, Christopher R., 2023. "Comparing the impact of subsidies and health prompts on choice process variables and food choice: The case of dietary fiber," OSF Preprints u4v5c, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:u4v5c
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/u4v5c
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/63d4494834869301010b49f7/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/u4v5c?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jo, Jisung & Lusk, Jayson L. & Muller, Laurent & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2016. "Value of parsimonious nutritional information in a framed field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 124-133.
    2. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    3. Wolfgang Habla & Paul Muller, 2021. "Experimental evidence of limited attention at the gym," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1156-1184, December.
    4. Lleras, Juan Sebastián & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2017. "When more is less: Limited consideration," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 70-85.
    5. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    6. Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
    7. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean, 2015. "Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2183-2203, July.
    8. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & John Leahy, 2019. "Rational Inattention, Optimal Consideration Sets, and Stochastic Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(3), pages 1061-1094.
    9. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Pimbucha Rusmevichientong & Wansopin Amatyakul & Harry M. Kaiser, 2014. "Taxes, Subsidies, and Advertising Efficacy in Changing Eating Behavior: An Experimental Study," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 146-174.
    10. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser, 2014. "Reply to Comment on Taxes, Subsidies, and Advertising Efficacy in Changing Eating Behavior: An Experimental Study," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 722-726.
    11. Christopher R. Gustafson & Travis J. Lybbert & Daniel A. Sumner, 2016. "Consumer sorting and hedonic valuation of wine attributes: exploiting data from a field experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 91-103, January.
    12. Mustapha Alhassan & Christopher R. Gustafson & Karina Schoengold, 2022. "Effects of information on smallholder irrigation farmers’ willingness to pay for groundwater protection," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 191-203, March.
    13. Babur De Los Santos & Ali Hortacsu & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2012. "Testing Models of Consumer Search Using Data on Web Browsing and Purchasing Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2955-2980, October.
    14. Daniel Read & Christopher Y. Olivola & David J. Hardisty, 2017. "The Value of Nothing: Asymmetric Attention to Opportunity Costs Drives Intertemporal Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4277-4297, December.
    15. Cornelsen, Laura & Mazzocchi, Mario & Smith, Richard D., 2019. "Fat tax or thin subsidy? How price increases and decreases affect the energy and nutrient content of food and beverage purchases in Great Britain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 318-327.
    16. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    17. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    18. Mert Kimya, 2018. "Choice, Consideration Sets, and Attribute Filters," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 223-247, November.
    19. Ashkan Afshin & José L Peñalvo & Liana Del Gobbo & Jose Silva & Melody Michaelson & Martin O'Flaherty & Simon Capewell & Donna Spiegelman & Goodarz Danaei & Dariush Mozaffarian, 2017. "The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    21. Campbell, Danny & Hensher, David A. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2014. "Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the ‘actual’ consideration set," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 4-15.
    22. Senia, Mark Christopher & Dharmasena, Senarath & Capps, Oral, 2019. "Can Dietary Fiber Intake Be Increased through Nutritional Education and through Subsidies on Selected Food Products?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 448-472, December.
    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. Gustafson, Christopher R., 2023. "Comparing the impact of targeted subsidies and health prompts on choice process variables and food choice: The case of dietary fiber," Staff Papers 330132, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    3. Caliari, Daniele, 2023. "Behavioural welfare analysis and revealed preference: Theory and experimental evidence," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2023-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    4. John D. Hey & Yudistira Permana & Nuttaporn Rochanahastin, 2018. "When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 5, pages 121-137, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    6. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2023. "Random utility and limited consideration," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 71-116, January.
    7. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    8. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    9. Helmers, Christian & Krishnan, Pramila & Patnam, Manasa, 2019. "Attention and saliency on the internet: Evidence from an online recommendation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 216-242.
    10. Dewan, Ambuj & Neligh, Nathaniel, 2020. "Estimating information cost functions in models of rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    11. S. Cerreia-Vioglio & F. Maccheroni & M. Marinacci & A. Rustichini, 2017. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: inside and outside the black box," Working Papers 615, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    12. Matias D. Cattaneo & Xinwei Ma & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2020. "A Random Attention Model," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(7), pages 2796-2836.
    13. Flynn, Joel P. & Sastry, Karthik A., 2023. "Strategic mistakes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    14. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Davide Carpentiere & Angelo Petralia, 2023. "Identification of consideration sets from choice data," Papers 2302.00978, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    16. Frank Huettner & Tamer Boyacı & Yalçın Akçay, 2019. "Consumer Choice Under Limited Attention When Alternatives Have Different Information Costs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 671-699, May.
    17. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2019. "Judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in choice?," MPRA Paper 93126, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Chen, Xiu & Kaiser, Harry M. & Rickard, Bradley J., 2015. "The impacts of inclusive and exclusive taxes on healthy eating: An experimental study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 13-24.
    19. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    20. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:u4v5c. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.