Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Influencing the food choices of SNAP consumers: Lessons from economics, T

psychology and marketing
⁎
David R. Just1, , Gnel Gabrielyan
Cornell University, United States

A B S T R A C T

Behavioral economic based interventions have shown some promise in leading food consumers of all ages to
healthier diets. Such interventions face unique challenges in addressing the diets of SNAP recipients. First,
current law prohibits differential treatment of SNAP recipients and other grocery store customers. Thus, the
nudges cannot narrowly target those participating in SNAP. Second, SNAP participants make the majority of
their qualifying purchases in grocery stores which are already heavily loaded with behavioral nudges. Not only
must nudges compete for attention within the store, but they must be at least weakly beneficial to the store
owner. We discuss examples that demonstrate the possibility of meeting these seemingly strict criteria, and the
potential for using such nudge interventions as a part of SNAP.

1. Introduction
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients pur-
chase their foods using a mixture of money received from work or other
non-government sources and the SNAP benefit, most often in a food
retail setting. This SNAP benefit, designed to supplement the food
purchases of low income households, can only be used to purchase
food, and is generally distributed once a month. With an annual budget
of $85 billion in 2015 (USDA, 2016a,b) SNAP is the largest program in
the U.S. that provides assistance to families in need. It plays a vital role
in providing nutritional support to more than 46 million participants in
22 million households in 2015 (USDA, 2016a,b). Given its provision of
assistance to such a large population of low-income families, the impact
of SNAP on diet quality has long been the focus of many researchers.
As obesity and diet related diseases have come to the policy fore,
many have called for reforms to food aid programs such as SNAP, which
are designed to encourage more nutritious choices. Proposals have
largely focused on either disallowing certain items such as soda
(Anliker et al., 1992; Brownell and Ludwig, 2011; Hernandez, 2012) or
providing incentives for fruits and vegetables (Herman et al., 2008; Just
and Price, 2013; Payne et al., 2013). Indeed, the federal government
funded a pilot study to determine the effectiveness of such subsidies
(Klerman et al., 2014; Wilde et al., 2015; Grindal et al., 2016; Olsho
et al., 2016) 2. Often these policies can be controversial either due to
the potential cost, questions about cost effectiveness, or the potential to
increase the stigma associated with food aid. A comprehensive review
by Gordon et al. (2014) proposed six potential strategies for promoting
more nutritious food choices by SNAP participants. Several of their
proposed strategies involve providing small financial incentives, but it
also included two strategies that use behavioral and marketing tools to
promote better choices. Behavioral strategies are particularly attractive
because they may be effective tools to address both cost and stigma
concerns. Their review notes the real dearth of work examining the
impact of such behavioral interventions on SNAP recipients. The early
work of Just et al. (2007) highlighted the great potential for using be-
havioral interventions in a wide variety of food assistance programs,
setting the stage for the vibrant empirical literature that has to date
focused primarily on the National School Lunch Program. More gen-
erally, there is still a rather small but growing literature examining the
impact of nudging healthier choices in a retail setting (e.g., List et al.,
2015; Payne and Niculescu, 2012 among others) that is of central im-
portance when considering SNAP.
In this paper, we examine the range of potential behavioral tools
that could be used in a food aid setting to encourage low income
shoppers to improve their diet. We will focus mostly on the US
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides
low income households with monthly accounts that can only be used to
purchase food. In reviewing these tools, we will explore both the

⁎
Corresponding author at: 210C Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States.
E-mail address: drj3@cornell.edu (D.R. Just).
1
This work benefited from a cooperative agreement with Economic Research Service, USDA.
2
These articles evaluate different incentive programs under the USDA’s Healthy Incentives Pilot program, a yearlong randomized control trial conducted in Hampden County
Massachusetts.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.03.003
Received 19 February 2018; Accepted 2 March 2018
Available online 15 March 2018
0306-9192/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
possible benefits and challenges that various strategies might face.
Moreover, we will discuss the types of research that are necessary to
determine if such strategies would be feasible, effective and prudent.
2. Background on nudging
In the last 15 years, behavioral strategies have received a tre-
mendous amount of attention both from policymakers (Behavioural
Insights Team, 2010) and academic researchers (Shiv and Fedorikhin,
1999; Smith et al., 2011; Hanks et al., 2013). From early applications
suggested by Thaler and Sunstein (2003) many have noted the potential
importance of behavioral nudges in encouraging healthier eating be-
havior. Just et al. (2007) suggest food assistance programs are in many
ways an ideal setting to use a behavioral approach. These strategies
have a potential advantage over traditional policies in that they can be
both less contentious (Clark et al., 2007; Griffin et al., 2009; Just and
Price, 2013; Just and Hanks, 2015) and often have substantively larger
effects (Schwartz, 2007; Van Ittersum et al., 2012). However, the range
of applications for such behavioral interventions continues to be rela-
tively limited particularly when considering food policy. Despite the
limited number of settings in which interventions have been tried,
much of the evidence suggests that behavioral interventions have a
tremendous potential to change eating habits.
2.1. Behavioral interventions in food environments
A large number of behavioral interventions have found a place in
the school lunchroom (Just and Wansink, 2009; van Kleef et al., 2012;
Greene et al., 2017). In this context, the interventions primarily target
an increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables, or similar food
consumption goals. Simply rearranging the lunch line (Smith et al.,
2011; Wansink et al., 2011a), giving exciting names to healthier fare
(e.g., Turnwald et al., 2017), and increasing the convenience of fruits
and vegetables (Hanks et al., 2012; Wansink et al., 2013) has proven to
be an effective tool. Other simple interventions can increase vegetable
(Gabrielyan et al., 2016) or white milk (Smith et al., 2011; Hanks et al.,
2014) consumption, or even participation in the school lunch program
overall (Just and Wansink, 2009). The key to success of behavioral
interventions at the school level is that the tools are at once effective,
low or no cost, and do not engender backlash on the part of the stu-
dents. In many cases, something as small as placing fruit in an attractive
bowl can more than double selection by students (Wansink et al.,
2011b). A suite of behavioral strategies based on these concepts was
used to create the Smarter Lunchrooms Scorecard (https://
www.smarterlunchrooms.org/scorecard) which provided schools with
an easy guide to implementation. The concept has been adopted by
schools across the United States who are investigating how it can be
used to improve acceptance of healthy school meals. This includes
statewide efforts to train school lunch professionals in Michigan (Drzal
et al., 2017) and California (Reed et al., 2017). A statewide effort in
South Carolina saw a 69% decrease in per serving food waste, as well as
increases in fruit and vegetable serving sizes (Hoy et al., 2017). Several
other states and cities across the U.S. have made similar efforts.
Several interventions have found their way into restaurants or
workplace cafeterias (e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2004; Chandon and
Wansink, 2007; Ellison et al., 2013), often searching for opportunities
to reduce consumption while maintaining revenue. For example,
Schwartz et al. (2012) asked patrons at a quick-service restaurant if
they would be willing to save calories by forgoing a side dish for the
same price tag. About a third of patrons agreed to the deal, potentially
increasing the profits of the restaurant. Additional work has shown that
something as simple as the payment mechanism can influence how
much a cafeteria goer eats. Just and Wansink (2014b) find that patrons
in a cafeteria were more likely to select indulgent items such as
brownies or full calorie soda when paying for their lunch with a card
relative to those who are purchasing with cash—even though both
310
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
groups spent the same amount on average.
Just and Wansink (2014a) found that it is possible to substantially
reduce calories consumed by restaurant goers by simply giving dishes
names that suggest the portion is larger. Patrons at a college cafeteria
were served identical portions of pasta and salad. However, they were
randomly assigned to be told either that they were receiving a “Reg-
ular” portion, or a “Double” portion. Those receiving the “Double” left
approximately twice as much food on their plate, consuming an average
of 140 calories less. A separate experiment demonstrated that patrons
were willing to pay almost twice as much for the meal when it was
labeled as the “Double” portion, even when shown the portion and
provided serving size information.
Perceived quality can be influenced by simple changes in the en-
vironment such as using descriptive words on menus (Wansink et al.,
2007; Ellison et al., 2014), and this perception can in turn affect con-
sumption. In Just and Wansink’s (2011) simple experiment, they ran-
domly assigned patrons entering an all-you-can-eat pizza restaurant
into two conditions. Those in one condition would receive a free drink
with their meal, while those in the other condition would receive a free
drink and a 50% discount on the price of the meal. They found two
primary effects. First, those who paid more ate about one third more (or
approximately one extra slice). Secondly, they found that those who
reported disliking the pizza consumed significantly more than those
who liked the pizza. Essentially, patrons who determined the pizza was
of poor quality, decided to eat more in order to obtain their money’s
worth. Further work by Just et al. (2014), (2015) find similar results,
but show that the pricing impacts how the individual evaluates the taste
of the pizza. The taste ratings of those who are charged less tend to be
lower overall, and decline very rapidly after the first slice, while those
charged more actually increase their evaluations after the first slice.
Those who eat more due to price and those that eat more due to taste
both tend to feel they have overeaten, and regret their decision. To-
gether, these results demonstrate the importance of balancing taste and
quantity expectations around the price. They also show that nudges can
be designed to encourage healthier choices while addressing profit
concerns in environments where margins are extremely thin. These
same concerns are central to creating effective and sustainable nudges
in the choice environment of SNAP shoppers.
2.2. Conventional interventions to changing food behavior
More conventional approaches have faced significant challenges.
Several studies have found disappointing or mixed results when con-
sumers are given additional nutrition information (Wansink and
Chandon, 2006; Antonuk and Block, 2006). Even those finding some
impact on choice note that the impact is relatively small, and is likely to
be detrimental to the retailer (Faulkner et al., 2011; Cawley et al.,
2016). Price interventions have a similarly mixed history. Often studies
using secondary data with endogenous price variations will find sub-
stantive and promising impacts on the directly taxed foods (Miljkovic
et al., 2008). However, when substitution effects are taken into account
(Smed et al., 2007; Schroeter et al., 2008), or when experimental results
are examined (Cawley and Frisvold, 2015) the results are much less
promising. Much of the change is due to substitution within categories
rather than across, which results in substitutions that are rather close in
terms of nutrition. One bright spot in the experimental literature on
price is the Healthy Incentive Pilot (HIP) program. HIP was a large
randomized control trial incentivizing some SNAP participants to pur-
chase certain fruits and vegetables by giving them a 30% rebate (Olsho
et al., 2016; Klerman et al., 2014). The result was an increase of about
¼ cup of targeted fruits and vegetables consumed per day—a sub-
stantial achievement, but one that underscores just how difficult it is to
encourage low income households to meet dietary recommendations.
Nationwide implementation would cost between $0.8 billion and
$4.5 billion annually (Bartlett et al., 2014).
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
2.3. Consumer resistance to interventions
One of the reasons that traditional policies fail is due to en-
dogeneity. The individuals who purchase the most soda, for example,
likely do so because they enjoy drinking soda. This will mean they will
be more resistant to negative health information about soda than the
average consumer, and perhaps more resistant to price changes. Indeed,
in some circumstances negative health information can actually serve
as a simple decision rule for those seeking to splurge, and thus increase
less healthy consumption decisions (Downs et al., 2013).
An extreme version of this resistance has been dubbed “reactance”
by the psychology literature (Clee and Wicklund, 1980; Brehm, 1989;
Brehm and Brehm, 2013). Reactance is a rebellion against some per-
ceived threat to freedom. This effect was originally discovered in an
experiment attempting to discourage graffiti in bathrooms. It was found
that when authoritarian messages were used, graffiti actually increased,
while using more persuasive language reduced graffiti (Pennebaker and
Sanders, 1976). In the realm of food policy, we often see evidence of
reactance when paternalistic policies (such as barring the sale of large
sodas or taxing indulgent foods) are threatened (Debnam and Just,
2016). Just and Hanks (2015) find evidence of such an effect in re-
sponse to health based price policies. By directly confronting con-
sumers, reactance may be excited, potentially eroding the effectiveness
of the policy. Behavioral approaches that avoid such confrontation by
relying on the individual to select the targeted items may be both more
effective, and welfare improving (Just and Hanks, 2015).
In addition to potentially avoiding reactance, behavioral policies
can also make use of attribution (Kelley, 1967). Attribution is defined as
behavior that is designed to make one’s prior decisions conform to some
consistency or rationality. For example, Just and Wansink (2009) found
that 69% of children would eat carrots when given carrots with their
lunch. However, when given a choice of carrots or celery, more than
91% of children ate carrots. It seems counter intuitive that offering an
alternative could increase the consumption of carrots. However, celery
is a relatively inferior choice for most children. Additionally, giving
children the opportunity to choose forces them to evaluate carrots in
comparison to celery, perhaps reviving some latent preference for
carrots. Once children have chosen the carrots, they can then rationa-
lize this decision by eating the carrots they now profess to prefer. If
attribution effects are durable, then we might expect that such choices
might also have impacts on the selection of carrots or other healthy fare
in subsequent circumstances. These are open questions that should be
addressed with further research. Nonetheless, they offer a compelling
narrative of how policies that persuade may have a long-term edge in
terms of efficacy over policies that subvert choice in one way or an-
other.
Behavioral nudges in general frame decisions to alter which choice
seems most normal, natural or easiest. In the food environment, most
effective interventions work by taking advantage of the individual’s
passive food decisions. For example, an individual entering a cafeteria
will often immediately look around to see which foods are visible, and
consider these options as their choice set, rather than searching out
every possible option or reading entire menus. This means that making
healthier options more visible will increase selection primarily because
most consumers won’t consider the other less apparent options. Because
many of the nudges result in a shift in passive choices, they can avoid
the types of backlash that occur when consumers feel their sovereignty
is threatened. Moreover, the simple act of choosing an item may have
benefits on its own, in terms of laying the foundation for future choices
through attribution (Just and Wansink, 2009).
3. Considerations for nudging SNAP
One key policy debate surrounds the relationship between SNAP
and body mass index (BMI). Leung and Villamor (2011) and Leung et al.
(2012a), for example conclude that SNAP participation is positively
311
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
associated with the BMI of low income adults. The result is significant
primarily among women (Townsend et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2005;
Zagorsky and Smith, 2009; Fan, 2010). This association underscores the
potential value of SNAP interventions addressing nutrition and food
choice. However, the underlying cause of the association is murky. Ver
Ploeg and Ralston (2008) and Larson and Story (2011) argue that the
duration of SNAP participation increases the likelihood of obesity.
Gibson (2003), for example, finds that being a food stamp recipient
increases the predicted probability of current obesity by 9.3% for low
income women. She also finds that participation in a food stamp pro-
gram for 5 years compared to no participation increases the predicted
probability of current obesity by 20.5%.
Kaushal (2007) and Ross et al. (2007), on the other hand, do not
find any significant relationship between SNAP participation and BMI
once background differences in population are accounted for Schmeiser
(2012) and Kreider et al. (2012) even find that SNAP participation
decreases the BMI of participating children. The most common criticism
towards the literature analyzing the relationship between SNAP mem-
bership and participants’ BMI is that there might be non-observable
characteristics that differentiate participants and non-participants (Ver
Ploeg and Ralston, 2008) potentially accounting for increases in BMI. It
is very difficult to identify whether the SNAP participation is causing
the obesity or low income status itself is the primary cause. Ver Ploeg
et al. (2007) find that the relationship between food stamp participation
and BMI has weakened over the past several decades, as non-partici-
pants’ BMI has increased to match that of participants. Several studies
have demonstrated that even without considering BMI directly, there
are significant issues of dietary quality of those facing poverty generally
(Wilde et al., 1999) and among SNAP participants specifically (Leung
et al., 2012b). Even if the association between SNAP participation and
BMI is purely coincidental, SNAP presents a prime opportunity to in-
fluence the food decisions of a large population at elevated risk of
obesity and poor diet. The primary point of contact for SNAP recipients
is where they purchase food: the grocery store (Morrison and Mancino,
2015).
The correlation between BMI and SNAP participation has been used
to argue for drastic changes in SNAP to address this potential cause of
obesity. Some have argued that changing the policy to limit SNAP
purchases to a set of relatively healthy foods might work (Alston et al.,
2009). The call to limit SNAP purchases of high-calorie low-nutrient
foods (candy and soft drinks), however, have been highly controversial
(Guthrie et al., 2007b). For example, extra restrictions may discourage
participation in the program. Such policies may also have no impact.
For example, Todd and Ploeg (2015) show that a simple restriction of
sugary drinks may not have the intended effect since SNAP does not
provide all the financial resources of the household. Further, substitu-
tion effects are much smaller between different food categories than
within the same food category (Okrent and Alston, 2011) limiting the
impact of such bans.
Factors other than food costs might also be a reason for unhealthy
food choices (Just et al., 2007; Carlson and Frazão, 2012). It has been
argued that limited availability of retail options in neighborhoods that
offer healthier foods as well as nutrition knowledge might explain the
challenges that SNAP recipients face (Guthrie et al., 2007a; Gordon
et al., 2014).
Food retailing is notorious both for thin margins, and for being an
environment in which manufacturers and retailers use behavioral tools
intensively. In such a setting, many have argued that additional nudges
will be ineffective with consumers and perhaps detrimental to the food
retailer. We do not currently have enough information and research to
answer such questions. However, there is some suggestive evidence
from related contexts that provides hope. Because behavioral inter-
ventions have proven highly effective in restaurants and cafeterias,
settings which are also notorious both for thin margins and active (if
not intensive) use of behavioral tools, there is some basis to believe that
these same tools may be effective in a retail environment.
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
In this vein, Gordon et al. (2014) propose two specific behavioral
related interventions in the context of SNAP, citing evidence that both
strategies have been effective in retail settings in general. However, in
the context of the retail setting, we must be concerned both with the
change in consumer behavior and the impact on the retailer. Inter-
ventions that hurt retailers will either require compensation or will not
be sustainable. The first intervention suggested by Gordon et al. (2014),
called “MyCart”, would represent the proportions of various food
groups suggested under USDA’s MyPlate nutrition guide. These could
be represented as different colored sections of the cart, making it easy
to see how your shopping basket compares to the recommended pro-
portions. While prior work suggests this approach may be effective in
changing behavior, a priori, it is unclear if this intervention will have
positive or negative effects on the retailer. If the impact is positive,
there is a much greater chance the intervention could find widespread
use. An additional behavioral approach suggested by Gordon et al. in-
volves the use of product placement and attractive displays for healthier
fare, similar to the techniques currently used for branded products. This
may be harder to accomplish without providing grocers substantial
resources. Grocers make significant money from slotting fees charged
for product placement within the store. Thus significant incentives
would need to be provided in order to accomplish such a change.
4. How do nudges work?
One of the primary reasons that behavioral nudges work in the food
choice realm is that food consumers are overtaxed cognitively and not
able to make well thought out decisions. Wansink and Sobal (2007)
estimate that food consumers make more than 200 food related deci-
sions within in a day, or approximately one decision every five minutes
one is awake. Making a deep consideration of the financial and nutri-
tion tradeoffs of so many decisions would put a serious dent in the
amount of time that could be devoted to other activities. Thus, common
economic assumptions of full information and the ability to costlessly
determine the optimal consumption bundle may fail in important ways.
Instead, many may rely on rules of thumb, habit, or arbitrarily limit
their choice sets to determine what they eat and when. Falling back on
less rigorous decision-mechanisms has two implications. First, in-
dividuals may be less sensitive to traditional economic levers, like nu-
trition information or price changes, if they are difficult to process ef-
ficiently on a regular basis. Secondly, because rules of thumb and habits
will often rely on context and environment, an individual’s behavior
may be overly sensitive to small changes in the environment. This
provides one explanation for why we often see relatively large re-
sponses to seemingly innocuous changes in the food choice environ-
ment. For example, giving individuals a 34 oz rather than a 17 oz bowl
leads them to serve themselves an average of 31% more ice cream
(Wansink, van Ittersum and Painter, 2006). Large changes in sales of
fruit in the school lunchroom can be affected by placement of the fruit
in the lunch line (Wansink et al., 2011a) or whether the fruit is sliced or
not (Wansink et al., 2013). Recent work by Mani et al. (2013) suggests
that those in poverty may face a greater cognitive load in general,
potentially forcing them toward greater reliance on such rules of thumb
and perhaps increasing their sensitivity to the choice environment.
Roughly three-quarters of all SNAP redemptions occur in super-
markets or grocery stores (Castner and Henke, 2011). These stores offer
a particularly effective opportunity to nudge. An individual visiting the
grocery store will often be required to make dozens of food related
decisions in a relatively short span of time. To add to this complication,
the average grocery store offers more than 100,000 different products
to choose from Dunne et al. (2013). For this reason, many rely on
shopping lists to remember which items they need to purchase. Pur-
chasing an item on the list does not free one from making decisions in
the store. Even if the shopper knows they need to purchase bread, they
will still need to determine the type and brand of bread. Additionally,
the average shopper purchases many items that are not on their
312
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
shopping list (Drèze and Hoch, 1998; Wansink et al., 1998) often being
spurred to impulse buy based on the suggestive store displays (Kollat
and Willett, 1967; Abratt and Goodey, 1990; Massara et al., 2013) or
simply based on whim.
In such difficult choice environments, nudges may prove particu-
larly effective. At one level, it is widely acknowledged that grocers and
food manufacturers engage consumers using behavioral strategies
within the store (Roy et al., 2003; Turley and Ronald, 2000; Yalch and
Spangenberg, 2000). This is presumably because these methods have
proven effective and demonstrated their usefulness. Alternatively, the
use of behavioral strategies by retailers and manufacturers have been
used by some to argue against the use of such tactics as part of a policy
effort to encourage healthier food choices (Glanz et al., 2012;
Zimmerman, 2011). The argument is that the environment is so rife
with behavioral suggestions, it will be difficult to garner the attention of
the consumer, and even if you could, the result would likely be un-
sustainable as the grocery store may face diminished profits. While
much research remains to be able to demonstrate a robust ability to use
behavioral nudges in a grocery store environment, initial forays offer
some hope, and effectively counter these two arguments. For example,
Payne et al. (2014) find an increase of between 7.5% and 16% in
produce sales when grocery stores in New Mexico introduced placards
in shopping carts telling shoppers how many produce items are pur-
chased by the average shopper. Overall shoppers spent about the same
amount, but shifted spending to fresh produce, which often yields a
higher than average profit margin for the grocer.
In determining the types of interventions that may be of use, it is
instructive to consider the prevalent models of behavioral food choice.
While several models have been proposed for narrowly defined situa-
tions (e.g., Just and Wansink, 2009), a more general model of food
behavior is suggested by Lappalainen and Epstein (1990), based on the
dual process model (Kahneman, 2003). This model supposes that in-
dividual decision-makers can make decisions using either of two deci-
sion mechanisms. One of these decision mechanisms is a deliberative
system, which considers future implications and tradeoffs in nutrition,
health and cost. The other is reflexive, considering only the immediate
implications for pleasure and convenience. Health information is likely
to affect decisions when using the deliberative system. Such informa-
tion will have little effect when using the reflexive system. Several
studies suggest that the primary determinants of which decision system
is used are the level of cognitive stress experienced by an individual
(e.g., Zimmerman and Shimoga, 2014) and the presence of other visc-
eral influences, such as hunger or pain (Camerer et al., 2005). It is thus
likely that individuals who are under stress, pressed for time, or facing
acute hunger, are more apt to make decisions based on convenience,
taste or the desire to feel full. Stress and distraction may lead us to buy
more, choose foods that have lower nutritional value, and eat more
often.
Attempts to constrain one’s diet are typically rooted in deliberative
decisions and require cognitive effort. Resisting temptations thus be-
comes difficult specifically because of the cognitive effort required in
the face of constrained cognitive resources. In such a model of human
behavior, individuals have some preferences that are unexpressed or
latent. For example, an individual may plan to eat more fruit or vege-
tables, but may also have a hard time putting that plan into action when
cognitively taxed and subject to reflexive preferences.
The dual decision-mechanism approach suggests two broad classes
of potential interventions. Either we can attempt to lead decision-ma-
kers into a deliberative state where they can make better decisions on
their own, or we can change the environment so that the reflexive
decision-maker is led to naturally make decisions in line with the goals
of the intervention.
Attempts to lead consumers into a deliberative decision mode are
called behavioral interrupts. For example, consumers in quick service
Chinese restaurants typically purchase a meal that consists of one or
two main dishes accompanied by a side of rice or noodles. Because
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
these foods are offered as a bundle, few consumers ever intentionally
choose whether or not to include the side or not—they make this de-
cision passively. Consider again Schwartz et al. (2012) experiment in
which customers who had ordered and paid for the full meal were asked
if they would be willing to forgo the side dish in order to save calories.
Having this sort of verbal choice creates the opportunity for a delib-
erative decision where none had existed before, leading many to forgo
the side. Other behavioral interrupts have asked consumers to make
their decisions hours in advance (Hanks et al., 2013), or changed the
nature of the transaction by requiring cash instead of debit or credit
accounts to be used for some items (e.g., Just and Wansink, 2014b).
The advantage of the behavioral interrupt is that it operates in a
relatively transparent way, relying on the individual’s own deliberate
preferences. However, behavioral interrupts have their limits. While a
single verbal prompt in a quick service line may be feasible, multiple
prompts quickly become tedious and may deter customers altogether.
The reflexive system exists explicitly because given the numerous de-
cisions related to food that are made daily, making continual delib-
erative decisions is burdensome and probably not always feasible. Thus,
behavioral interrupts could at most be used on occasion to conserve
precious cognitive resources. In the realm of grocery shopping, such
interrupts could come in the form of notifications of particularly good
prices on various target foods, or mailers with specific recipes included
that highlight targeted foods along with coupons for included foods at a
participating store.
An alternative to behavioral interrupts makes use of the reflexive
system in order to encourage healthier choices. We refer to these as
environmental nudges. By engaging the reflexive system, an environ-
mental nudge may change behavior without consumers having to make
explicit choices. Indeed, consumers may not even be aware that such a
nudge has impacted them in any way. Nudges rely on the consumer
employing rules of thumb to make their decisions, rigging the decision
mechanism in favor of a particular outcome. Because it is not intended
to use up cognitive resources, such environmental nudges may be em-
ployed much more frequently and remain effective.
5. Healthy nudging in the store
Because grocery stores are where food buying decisions are made,
such stores are the prime candidates for the most effective place to
nudge food choices of SNAP participants. Any nudge strategy in this
environment must grapple with two challenges. First, by law stores
cannot discriminate in their treatment of SNAP participants relative to
non-SNAP participants. This means that any nudge placed to target
SNAP participants will actually catch all shoppers. This may not seem to
be much of a challenge on the surface. In practicality, however, this
makes such nudges potentially riskier for store owners and food man-
ufacturers. Rather than impacting only SNAP participants, all con-
sumers will be impacted by these nudges, potentially multiplying any
effect on profits. If these nudges are funded through public programs
with the aim of reaching SNAP consumers, providing them in stores
with low numbers of SNAP consumers may seem inefficient or even a
misuse of public funds. For that reason, USDA allows its SNAP-Ed nu-
trition education program to conduct activities in retail stores, but only
those that reach a qualifying level of monthly SNAP sales or are located
in census tracts that meet a low-income cut-off (Uslan et al., 2016).
Some targeting could be accomplished by the timing of nudges in the
store. For example, Gordon et al. (2014) and Just et al. (2007) both note
that SNAP participants tend to use their benefits early in the benefit
cycle. In some states the timing of benefits is coordinated such that
nudges early in the month may be more likely to impact SNAP shop-
pers, and nudges could be removed later in the month to reduce any
perceived risk by the retailer. SNAP participants also have other unique
demographic characteristics that could be used to target, such as a
higher prevalence of households with children (Gray, 2014).
The second challenge is related. In order for a nudge strategy to be
313
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
sustainable and effective, it must be of benefit to the store that imple-
ments it. While one could imagine a policy that required particular
nudges be implemented in order for stores to maintain SNAP eligibility,
unenthusiastic grocers are unlikely to be effective at implementing
nudges. Given the subtle nature of most such interventions, it is very
easy to undermine a nudge through similarly subtle means.
5.1. Principles to nudge food shoppers
We propose a series of principles that could be used to nudge
healthier choices among SNAP recipients. Our proposals are based
primarily on the behavioral principles that have proven successful in
the school lunch program (Just and Wansink, 2009) and in restaurant
settings discussed earlier. Because few empirical studies have specifi-
cally addressed nudging nutrition in this setting, future research will be
necessary to help determine the feasibility and effectiveness of each.
Due to the difficult nature of implementing behavioral interrupts within
the store, most of the strategies in this space will necessarily be en-
vironmental. The potential strategies include:
5.1.1. Convenience
Several studies have shown that very small differences in the level of
convenience can have a significant impact on selection. For example,
placing cabbage at waist height rather than in floor level bins can
nearly double the selection of cabbage in a food pantry setting (Swigert
and Just, 2016). Additionally, placing items near the checkout counters
makes it more convenient for those who have come to the store to pick
up only a small number of items. Of course, selection is only part of the
problem. Patrons must also decide to prepare and eat these foods. Im-
proving the convenience of preparation could be as simple as bundling
foods together (e.g., like the service provided by Blue Apron). Alter-
natively, it may involve presenting the foods in different formats. For
example, the introduction of baby carrots, which require no peeling and
are a convenient size for snacking, increased consumption of carrots by
28% during the first year of introduction (USDA, 2015).
5.1.2. Social norms
The suggestion of social norms also plays a large role in the selection
of foods. This can come in many forms. Suggestions such as “limit three
per person” can increase the number of items taken, by suggesting that
others would like to take more than the limit (Wansink et al., 1998).
Other social norms can be suggested by providing information on others
purchases (e.g., “most shoppers choose 2% or skim milk”). Messages
that address average consumption levels have proven effective in other
circumstances such as energy conservation (Schultz et al., 2007). Such
messages have also been shown to positively impact fruit and vegetable
selection in a grocery store (Payne and Niculescu, 2012). Social norms
can be created by increasing the shelf space devoted to a product
(Hanks et al., 2012). The more the grocery store environment suggests
that selection of healthy items is something normal and expected, the
more shoppers will behave as such.
5.1.3. Visibility and salience
While a large number of shoppers use a shopping list to ensure they
purchase the items they need, up to 30–50% of items that are purchased
are not on any list (Iyer, 1989; Hausman, 2000; Shoham and Brenčič,
2003; Stilley et al., 2010; Verhagen and van Dolen, 2011). Many of
these items are purchased on impulse. Simply put, the more visible an
item, the more likely one is to purchase the item. Applications in the
school lunchroom have shown that fruit is selected more than twice as
often when displayed where it is highly visible versus places where it is
less visible (Wansink et al., 2011b). Visibility can be achieved by the
height of a display, by placing items in high traffic areas (such as on the
perimeter of the store) or by placing items in multiple places in the
stores. For example, bananas could be placed in several locations in the
store (e.g., near cereal or milk) in addition to the produce section.
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
Related to visibility is salience. Salience can be created by drawing
attention to a specific item. Shelf tags, creative displays or placement
can all create salience. For example, McKinnon et al. (1981) found that
descriptive signs at the point of selection can increase sales, with de-
scriptive signs often being more effective than simple pricing signs.
Similarly, shelf tags can influence sales. The Guiding Stars program
displays a uniform nutrition rating system for a wide range of food
items on shelf tags throughout select grocery stores. Sutherland et al.
(2010) find that the introduction of the Guiding Stars shelf tags in-
creased the percentage of purchased foods that were rated as more
nutritious. Similarly, Hunt et al. (1990) finds that a majority of shop-
pers are effectively encouraged to select items with shelf tags indicating
either low fat or low sodium content.
5.1.4. Mindless walking
How shoppers make their way through the store is easily nudged by
relatively simple means, and can have a substantive impact on selec-
tion. While many shoppers may be looking for a few specific items in
known locations, most will spend at least some time either searching for
items or browsing a wide swath of the store looking for items they may
need. When engaged in such activities, the shopper can often be in-
fluenced to either spend more time in certain locations, or to naturally
gravitate towards specific parts of the store. Several have found that
narrow aisles lead shoppers to move more quickly leading many stores
to adopt a wider aisle structure (Figueroa, 2014; Lange and Velamuri,
2014). Thus, wider aisles in the produce section can encourage fruit and
vegetable purchases by giving the consumer more time in these areas.
Additionally, angling produce aisles in creative ways (like in a fishbone
pattern) could potentially enhance the effect (Gue and Russell (2009)).
Finally, it may be possible to angle other aisles so that shoppers are
naturally drawn to the produce section or other sections with relatively
healthy categories. This can be done, for example, by angling aisles at
intersections. Individuals naturally wish to continue making forward
progress. By angling intersections at other than 90 degree angles, one
direction will allow continued forward progress, while the other will
necessitate some degree of back-tracking. Such simple strategies can
increase sales of produce by leading consumers to spend more time in
produce aisles. However, there are even simpler strategies that appear
to be effective. Payne et al. (2014) find that simply placing arrows
pointing to the produce section can increase selection of produce by
nearly 10%.
5.1.5. Hedonic expectations
Consumer taste and preferences can also be significantly influenced.
For example, those told that an orange juice they are sampling was
rated highly by previous groups, also rate the taste and other attributes
more highly thank those given no information on the assessments of
previous groups (Cardello, 1994). Other ways to influence the ex-
pectation of taste include using high quality photos of foods (often
called “food porn”) (McBride, 2010), or other descriptive terms for
foods. Both of these strategies have been successful in influencing
consumer choice in other settings (Imram, 1999; Michel et al., 2014).
By applying such techniques to healthier food categories, and produce
items specifically, these foods can be made to appeal to the reflexive
decision-maker in the moment of decision. Images or other information
can be placed on shelf tags or other media within the aisles, encoura-
ging this hedonic view of the targeted food.
5.2. Motivating grocers to participate
The key to implementing nudges in a grocery store or superstore
setting, is to find ways to make the nudges not only harmless to profits,
but something that will be beneficial to the stores themselves.
Documenting these benefits through rigorous research can help to sa-
tisfy retailer concerns about efforts to encourage healthier food con-
sumption. We name four major considerations that can help create
314
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
sustainable behavioral interventions in a grocery store setting.
5.2.1. Increasing SNAP or WIC redemptions
SNAP and WIC recipients make up a significant share of shoppers in
the U.S. Grocers are often eager to increase traffic from beneficiaries
because it will increase sales. However, much of the SNAP and WIC
benefits goes unredeemed. In fact as much as 3% of SNAP benefits
(Castner and Henke, 2011) and 21% of WIC benefits (Esposito, 2013)
are unused every month. Finding ways to increase usage will not only
help grocery stores, but the beneficiary as well. From the point of view
of grocery stores, this is money left on the table. Strategies such as
mailers and notifications on prices targeted to outlets likely to reach
program recipients can help encourage greater beneficiary traffic in
participating stores, potentially producing the effect. More direct stra-
tegies targeting recipients while effective, may be challenging to in-
troduce given the laws that require that participants be treated iden-
tically to other shoppers.
5.2.2. Attracting new customers
Strategies that increase convenience or enhance taste expectations
may also be successful in attracting more customers overall. Using
strategies that include smart phone notifications of prices or mailers
could be targeted broadly rather than exclusively toward SNAP or WIC
participants. Notifications that highlight target foods could help bring
additional traffic and encourage purchases by both participants and
non-participants.
5.2.3. Targeting higher margin foods
While many nutrient dense foods carry relatively low margins, this
is not universally the case. Because fresh produce is perishable, it can
often carry a higher margin than the average good in the store
(McLaughlin et al., 1998). Additionally, private label goods often carry
a higher margin. Thus, canned or frozen produce carrying the private
label may carry higher margins. This opens the door for finding foods to
target that are both more nutritious than the average food item, and
profitable for the store overall.
5.2.4. Maintaining relations with manufacturers
Grocery stores of necessity maintain close relations with food
manufacturers and would shun anything that might threaten them.
Manufacturers often sponsor construction of facilities, provide coolers,
shelving, and other necessary hardware. Behavioral interventions
should be designed so that they do not interfere with the sale or pro-
motion of particular manufacturers goods. This can be achieved either
by encouraging consumption in ways that create additional spending,
or by identifying products from key manufacturers that may be both
profitable and nutritious. It is especially easy to encourage individuals
to substitute goods within categories, and many manufacturers will
market several goods within a category (e.g., bottled water or zero
calorie soda versus full calorie). Thus, there are opportunities to target
substitutions that would not undermine efforts by the manufacturer.
Some key behavioral factors are either controlled entirely by man-
ufacturers or controlled jointly through contractual agreements be-
tween the manufacturer and the retailer. Manufacturers entirely control
product formulation, as well as the packaging and marketing of a
product. Each of these features can have a direct impact on how con-
sumers interact with the food. Packaging can be designed either to
encourage more frequent or less frequent consumption, as well as
greater or lesser quantity consumption in a sitting (Wansink and Kim,
2005). Similarly, marketing of a good can influence social norms sur-
rounding the use of a good, as well as the frequency of purchase. In
some cases, it may be possible to work with manufacturers to introduce
packaging or marketing which encourages healthier consumption
norms when such will not threaten the manufacturer’s position in the
market, or their potential to reap profit from sales.
The grocery store is often limited in how they can display or
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
promote products within the store. For example, while end caps are a
prominent and visible place, often the grocer will make significant
money by selling end cap space. This means that end caps are probably
off limits to behavioral interventions such as those discussed in this
paper. Manufacturers often contract with stores providing either money
or other support in return for shelf space, limiting the options when
placing other target products. Product bundling and in store promotions
also represent contractual obligations that grocery stores must meet. It
is important to recognize that these contractual obligations must be
held inviolate. Behavioral interventions must find ways of navigating
around such relationships without stepping on the toes of either the
grocer or the manufacturer. Several early attempts appear to have
shown substantial promise in this regard. Wansink et al. (2012) find
that partitioning shopping carts in order to set social norms for produce
purchases can increase the amount of produce purchased. Payne et al.
(2015) finds similar results using placards to suggest social norms for
produce purchases. Floor space or cart placards can deliver normative
messages, capturing enough attention to change behavior, while not
interfering with other in-store marketing (Payne et al. 2014). Such in-
itial successes suggest there is room in the grocery store for additional
nudges to encourage healthier consumption, without harming any of
the parties involved.
6. Conclusion
Behavioral economic interventions hold significant promise for in-
fluencing SNAP participants to select and consume healthier fare.
Despite this, there are many challenges that must be addressed to make
interventions both sustainable and effective. Many have expressed
concerns that behavioral nudges would not be effective in a competitive
retail environment in which consumers are already potentially satu-
rated with nudges. Early evidence seems to indicate that we have not
yet reached such a saturation point (Payne et al., 2014). There is every
reason to believe that the same principles that appear to be effective in
other food choice environments (e.g., Just and Gabrielyan, 2016) will
work in grocery store environments.
Despite the encouraging evidence demonstrating the importance of
behavioral responses in the food choice environment, there are also
concerns and controversy. Many are concerned about the implications
of behavioral interventions on the role of government in shaping in-
dividual choices (if not preferences). Though the individual is free to
make their own choices under a behavioral intervention, in a public
policy setting, there may not be any potential for consent. Moreover,
there is no guarantee that a government will use these methods to
encourage behaviors that are in line with the individual’s own desires.
For these reasons, Sugden (2008) expresses significant ethical concerns
regarding behavioral policies that nudge individuals to make particular
choices.
Lusk (2014) argues that such policies are not easily justified on
merits using traditional welfare theory. Behavioral choice models di-
rectly conflict with the rational choice paradigm that serves as the
foundation for welfare theory, and which is used by economists to
measure desirability and efficiency of policies (Smith et al., 2010). The
proposed behavioral analogs to welfare theory are all highly specialized
and rely on non-verifiable assumptions about individual wellbeing re-
lative to observed choices (Kőszegi and Rabin, 2007; Douglas and
Rangel, 2009; Just and Hanks, 2015). Nonetheless, these controversies
must be considered within the particular policy context we are ex-
amining. In this case, behavioral nudges which preserve the possibility
of purchasing less healthy options at the same price using both gov-
ernment benefits or cash are being pitted against measures that would
either increase the price or limit the purchase of the same options using
government benefits. Though we have no well-developed welfare
theory to address this issue, it stands to reason that a nudge would
represent a welfare improvement relative to a more paternalistic policy
if otherwise the two had the same impact on potential externalities.
315
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
However, under nudging, outcomes are driven by passive choices or
responding to norms, rather than the individual’s own sincere desires.
To be sure, the approach is intended to allow those with strong pre-
ferences to select items other than those targeted by the nudge.
However, it is clear that the individuals determining which choices are
encouraged may have very different goals than the consumers. Such
ethical concerns about behavioral interventions cannot be easily settled
by economic science, but only by the morals and values of the gov-
erned. Policymakers and political constituencies must decide whether
subtle encouragement of healthier food selection is both justified and
acceptable from an ethical standpoint.
Setting aside these concerns, the key to creating lasting interven-
tions is to ensure that we can avoid resistance and pushback from all
parties involved (Just and Hanks, 2015). First and foremost, any be-
havioral intervention must be both effective in changing consumer
behavior, and seen positively (or at least neutrally) by the shopper. This
will likely require subtle nudges that change the behavior of passive
decision-makers. In addition, behavioral interventions must be seen to
increase or maintain the profits of both retailers and manufacturers.
Threatening either will upset the delicate balance that exists in the
grocery store environment—fueled by a large volume of thin margins.
Without buy-in by both retailers and manufacturers, behavioral inter-
ventions will not be sustainable.
Because grocery stores are filled with both SNAP and non-SNAP
shoppers, there is great opportunity for spill-over effects. In very few
cases will it be possible to encourage SNAP recipients to engage in se-
lection of healthier options without also encouraging the general po-
pulation to do the same. Close collaboration with retailers and manu-
facturers could help to recreate the retail space, reversing the decades’
long trend of more and more calorie dense foods in larger portions.
Moreover, past studies on the effect of behavioral nudges suggest that
this can be done with minimal public expenditure. While behavioral
techniques cannot be considered a silver bullet, early results suggest
that it is one essential tool in addressing a serious public health con-
cern.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.03.003.
References
Abratt, Russell, Goodey, Stephen Donald, 1990. Unplanned buying and in-store stimuli in
supermarkets. Manag. Decis. Econ. 11 (2), 111–121.
Alston, Julian M., Mullally, Conner C., Sumner, Daniel A., Townsend, Marilyn, Vosti,
Stephen A., 2009. Likely effects on obesity from proposed changes to the US food
stamp program. Food Policy 34 (2), 176–184.
Anliker, Jean Ann, Winne, Mark, Drake, Linda T., 1992. An evaluation of the connecticut
farmers' market coupon program. J. Nutr. Educ. 24 (4), 185–191.
Antonuk, Beth, Block, Lauren G., 2006. The effect of single serving versus entire package
nutritional information on consumption norms and actual consumption of a snack
food. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 38 (6), 365–370.
Bartlett, Susan, Klerman, Jacob, Olsho, Lauren, Logan, Christopher, Blocklin, Michelle,
Beauregard, Marianne, Enver, Ayesha, Wilde, Parke, Owens, Cheryl. Evaluation of
the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP): Final Report. Prepared by Abt Associates for the U.
S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 2014.
Behavioural Insights Team, 2010. Applying Behavioural Insight to Health. Cabinet Office,
London.
Bernheim, B. Douglas, Rangel, Antonio, 2009. Beyond revealed preference: choice-theo-
retic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Q. J. Econ. 124 (1), 51–104.
Brehm, Jack W., 1989. Psychological reactance: theory and applications. Adv. Consum.
Res. 16 (1), 72–75.
Brehm, Sharon S., Brehm, Jack W., 2013. Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom
and Control. Academic Press.
Brownell, K.D., Ludwig, D.S., 2011. The supplemental nutrition assistance program, soda,
and usda policy: who benefits? JAMA 306 (12), 1370–1371.
Camerer, Colin, Loewenstein, George, Prelec, Drazen, 2005. Neuroeconomics: how neu-
roscience can inform economics. J. Econ. Literature 43 (1), 9–64.
Cardello, A.V., 1994. Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. Springer
US, Boston, MA, pp. 253–297.
Carlson, Andrea, Frazão, Elizabeth, 2012. Are healthy foods really more expensive? It
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
depends on how you measure the price. In: It Depends on How You Measure the Price
(May 1, 2012). USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin, no. 96.
Castner, Laura, Henke, Juliette, 2011. Benefit Redemption Patterns in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program. edited by U.S Department of Agriculture and Food and
Nutrition Service. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
ARRASpendingPatterns.pdf, Mathematica Policy Research.
Cawley, John, Frisvold, David, 2015. The incidence of taxes on sugar-sweetened bev-
erages: the case of Berkeley, California. Natl. Bureau Econ. Res.
Cawley, John, Hanks, Andrew S., Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2016. Incentivizing
nutritious diets: a field experiment of relative price changes and how they are framed.
Natl. Bureau Econ. Res.
Chandon, Pierre, Wansink, Brian, 2007. The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant
health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. J.
Consumer Res. 34 (3), 301–314.
Chen, Zhuo, Yen, Steven T., Eastwood, David B., 2005. Effects of food stamp participation
on body weight and obesity. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87 (5), 1167–1173.
Clark, H.R., Goyder, E., Bissell, P., Blank, L., Peters, J., 2007. How do parents' child-
feeding behaviours influence child weight? Implications for childhood obesity policy.
J. Publ. Health 29 (2), 132–141.
Clee, Mona A., Wicklund, Robert A., 1980. Consumer behavior and psychological re-
actance. J. Consum. Res. 6 (4), 389–405.
Debnam, Jakina and Just, David R., 2017. Endogenous Responses to Paternalism:
Examining Psychological Reactance in the Lab and the Field. Working Paper. Dyson
School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University.
Downs, J.S., Wisdom, J., Wansink, B., Loewenstein, G., 2013. Supplementing menu la-
beling with calorie recommendations to test for facilitation effects. Am. J. Public
Health 103 (9), 1604–1609.
Drèze, Xavier, Hoch, Stephen J., 1998. Exploiting the installed base using cross-mer-
chandising and category destination programs. Int. J. Res. Mark. 15 (5), 459–471.
Drzal, Nicholas, Lelle, Mark A., Alaimo, Katherine, Henne, Becky, Dorman, Liz, Joseph,
Coleen, Donovan, Meghan, 2017. Michigan school nutrition programs team nutrition
smarter lunchroom initiative. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 49 (7S1), S126.
Dunne, Patrick, Lusch, Robert, Carver, James, 2013. Retailing. Cengage Learning.
Ellison, Brenna, Lusk, Jayson L., Davis, David, 2013. Looking at the label and beyond: the
effects of calorie labels, health consciousness, and demographics on caloric intake in
restaurants. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act 10 (1), 21.
Ellison, Brenna, Lusk, Jayson L., Davis, David, 2014. The impact of restaurant calorie
labels on food choice: results from a field experiment. Econ. Inq. 52 (2), 666–681.
Esposito, Martelle, 2013. From Wic to Table: using a journey map to identify policy and
programmatic innovations to increase cash value voucher redemption rates. In: Paper
presented at the 141st APHA Annual Meeting (November 2–6), 2013.
Fan, Maoyong, 2010. Do food stamps contribute to obesity in low-income women?
Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Am. J. Agric. Econ.
92 (4), 1165–1180.
Faulkner, Guy E.J., Grootendorst, Paul, Nguyen, Van Hai, Andreyeva, Tatiana, Kelly
Arbour-Nicitopoulos, M., Auld, Christopher, Cash, Sean B., et al., 2011. Economic
instruments for obesity prevention: results of a scoping review and modified Delphi
Survey. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity 8 (1), 109.
Figueroa, Hayley, 2014. Grocery store design. In: Thompson, Paul B., Kaplan, David M.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, 1141-47. Springer Netherlands,
Dordrecht.
Finkelstein, Eric, French, Simone, Variyam, Jayachandran N., Haines, Pamela S., 2004.
Pros and cons of proposed interventions to promote healthy eating. Am. J. Prev. Med.
27(3, Supplement), 163–171.
Gabrielyan, Gnel, Greene, Katherine, Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2016. Smarter
Lunchrooms: Environmental Changes That Increase Vegetable Selection. Cornell
University. Working paper.
Gibson, Diane, 2003. Food stamp program participation is positively related to obesity in
low income women. J. Nutr. 133 (7), 2225–2231.
Glanz, Karen, Bader, Michael.D. M., Iyer, Shally, 2012. Retail grocery store marketing
strategies and obesity: an integrative review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 42 (5), 503–512.
Gordon, Ericka, Dawkins-Lyn, Nicola, Hogan-Yarbro, Reid, Karpyn, Allison, Shore, Karen,
Weiss, Stephanie, Cash, Sean. Approaches for Promoting Healthy Food Purchases by
Snap Participants. edited by ICF International for the: United States Department of
Agriculture.
Gray, Kelsey Farson, 2014. Characteristics of supplemental nutrition assistance program
households: Fiscal Year 2013. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Proogram Report
No. SNAP-14-CHAR. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Greene, Katherine, Gabrielyan, Gnel, Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2017. Impacts of
fruit-promoting smarter lunchrooms interventions: results from a randomized con-
trolled trial. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52 (4), 451–458.
Griffin, Mary, Sobal, Jeffery, Lyson, Thomas A., 2009. An analysis of a community food
waste stream. (In English). Agric. Human Values 26(1–2), 67–81.
Grindal, Todd, Wilde, Parke, Schwartz, Gabe, Klerman, Jacob, Bartlett, Susan, Berman,
Danielle, 2016. Does food retail access moderate the impact of fruit and vegetable
incentives for snap participants? Evidence from Western Massachusetts. Food Policy
61, 59–69.
Gue, Kevin R, Meller, Russell D., 2009. Aisle Configurations for Unit-Load Warehouses.
IIE Trans. 41(3), 171–82.
Guthrie, Joanne F., Lin, Biing-Hwan, Ploeg, Michele Ver, Frazao, Elizabeth, 2007. Can
Food Stamps Do More to Improve Food Choices. Economic Information Bulletin:
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Guthrie, Joanne F., Elizabeth, Frazão, Andrews, Margaret, Smallwood, David, 2007.
Improving Food choices-can food stamps do more?“ (In English). Amber Waves 5,
46–52.
Hanks, Andrew S., Just, David R., Smith, Laura E., Wansink, Brian, 2012. Healthy
316
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
convenience: nudging students toward healthier choices in the lunchroom. J. Publ.
Health.
Hanks, Andrew S., Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2014. Chocolate milk consequences: a
pilot study evaluating the consequences of banning chocolate milk in school cafe-
terias. PLoS One 9 (4), e91022.
Hanks, Andrew S., Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2013. Preordering school lunch en-
courages better food choices by children. JAMA Pediatr. 167 (7), 673–674.
Hanks, Andrew S., Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2012. Trigger foods: the influence of
‘Irrelevant’ alternatives in School Lunchrooms. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.
Hausman, Angela, 2000. A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in im-
pulse buying behavior. J. Consum. Market. 17 (5), 403–426.
Herman, Dena R., Harrison, Gail G., Afifi, Abdelmonem A., Jenks, Eloise, 2008. Effect of a
targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among low-income women in the
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. Am. J.
Publ. Health 98 (1), 98–105.
Hernandez, Daphne C., 2012. Soda consumption among food insecure households with
children: a call to restructure food assistance policy. J. Appl. Res. Children: Informing
Policy Children Risk 3 (1), 16.
Hoy, Kathryn I., Waldrop, Krystal, Bowens-Seabrook, Juanita, PhD., 2017. Integrated
culinary skills and school food environment intervention training and plate waste in
school lunchrooms – a review of preliminary results from South Carolina’s team
nutrition efforts, J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 49 (7S1):S126.
Hunt, Mary K., Lefebvre, R Craig, Hixson, Mary Lynne, Banspach, S.W., Assaf, A.R.,
Carleton, R.A., 1990. Pawtucket heart health program point-of-purchase nutrition
education program in supermarkets. Am. J. Publ. Health 80 (6), 730–732.
Imram, Nazlin, 1999. The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a
food product. Nutr. Food Sci. 99 (5), 224–230.
Iyer, Easwar S., 1989. Unplanned purchasing: knowledge of shopping environment and.
(In English). J. Retail. 65(1), 40.
Just, David R., Gabrielyan, Gnel, 2016. Food and consumer behavior: why the details
matter. Agric. Econ. 47 (S1), 73–83.
Just, David R., Hanks, Andrew S., 2015. The hidden cost of regulation: emotional re-
sponses to command and control. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97 (5), 1385–1399.
Just, David R., Mancino, Lisa, Wansink, Brian, 2007. Could behavioral economics help
improve diet quality for nutrition assistance program participants? USDA-ERS Econ.
Res. Rep.(43).
Just, David R., Price, Joseph, 2013. Default options, incentives and food choices: evidence
from elementary-school children. Public Health Nutr. 16 (12), 2281–2288.
Just, David R., Price, Joseph, 2013. Using incentives to encourage healthy eating in
children. J. Human Resour. 48 (4), 855–872.
Just, David R., Sığırcı, Özge, Wansink, Brian, 2014. Lower buffet prices lead to less taste
satisfaction. J. Sens. Stud. 29 (5), 362–370.
Just, David R., Sığırcı, Özge, Wansink, Brian, 2015. Peak-end pizza: prices delay eva-
luations of quality. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 24 (7), 770–778.
Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2011. The flat-rate pricing paradox: conflicting effects of
“All-You-Can-Eat” buffet pricing. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93 (1), 193–200.
Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2014a. One man's tall is another man's small: how the
framing of portion size influences food choice. Health Econ. 23 (7), 776–791.
Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2014b. School lunch debit card payment systems are
associated with lower nutrition and higher calories. Obesity 22 (1), 24–26.
Just, David R., Wansink, Brian, 2009. Smarter lunchrooms: using behavioral economics to
improve meal selection. Choices 24 (3), 1–7.
Kahneman, Daniel, 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded ra-
tionality. Am. Psychol. 58 (9), 697–720.
Kaushal, N., 2007. Do food stamps cause obesity?: evidence from immigrant experience.
J. Health Econ. 26 (5), 968–991.
Kelley, H.H., 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. In: Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Klerman, Jacob A., Bartlett, Susan, Wilde, Parke, Olsho, Lauren, 2014. The short-run
impact of the healthy incentives pilot program on fruit and vegetable intake. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 96 (5), 1372–1382.
Kollat, David T., Willett, Ronald P., 1967. Customer impulse purchasing behavior. J.
Mark. Res. 4 (1), 21–31.
Kőszegi, Botond, Rabin, Matthew, 2007. Mistakes in choice-based welfare analysis. Am.
Econ. Rev. 97 (2), 477–481.
Kreider, Brent, Pepper, John V., Gundersen, Craig, Jolliffe, Dean, 2012. Identifying the
effects of snap (food stamps) on child health outcomes when participation is en-
dogenous and misreported. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 107 (499), 958–975.
Lange, Veit Gregor, Velamuri, Vivek K., 2014. Business model innovation in the retail
industry: growth by serving the silver generation. Int. J. Entrepreneurship Innov.
Manage. 18 (4), 310–329.
Lappalainen, Raimo, Epstein, Leonard H., 1990. A behavioral economics analysis of food
choice in humans. Appetite 14 (2), 81–93.
Larson, Nicole I., Story, Mary T., 2011. Food insecurity and weight status among U.S.
children and families: a review of the literature. Am. J. Prev. Med. 40 (2), 166–173.
Leung, Cindy W., Ding, Eric L., Catalano, Paul J., Villamor, Eduardo, Rimm, Eric B.,
Willett, Walter C., 2012. Dietary intake and dietary quality of low-income adults in
the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
Leung, Cindy W., Willett, Walter C., Ding, Eric L., 2012b. Low-income supplemental
nutrition assistance program participation is related to adiposity and metabolic risk
factors. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 95 (1), 17–24.
Leung, Cindy W., Villamor, Eduardo, 2011. Is Participation in food and income assistance
programmes associated with obesity in california adults? Results from a state-wide
survey. Public Health Nutr. 14 (04), 645–652.
List, John A., Samek, Anya Savikhin, Zhu, Terri, 2015. Incentives to Eat Healthy:
Evidence from a Grocery Store Field Experiment (September 1, 2015). CESR-
D.R. Just, G. Gabrielyan
Schaeffer Working Paper No. 2015-025 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2664818.
Lusk, Jayson L., 20914. Are you smart enough to know what to eat? A critique of be-
havioural economics as justification for regulation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., Zhao, J., 2013. Poverty impedes cognitive function.
Science 341 (6149), 976–980.
Massara, Francesco, Melara, Robert D., Liu, Sandra S., 2013. Impulse versus opportunistic
purchasing during a grocery shopping experience. Market. Lett. 25 (4), 361–372.
McBride, Anne E., 2010. Food Porn. Gastronomica: J. Crit. Food Stud. 10(1), 38–46.
McKinnon, Gary, F., Patrick Kelley, J., Doyle Robison, E., 1981. Sales effects of point-of-
purchase in-store signing. J. Retail. 57 (2), 49–63.
McLaughlin, E.W., Park, K., Perosio, D.J., Green, G.M., 1998. Marketing and Performance
Benchmarks for the Fresh Produce Industry. Research Bulletin 98-08, Dyson School of
Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Michel, Charles, Velasco, Carlos, Gatti, Elia, Spence, Charles, 2014. A taste of Kandinsky:
assessing the influence of the artistic visual presentation of food on the dining ex-
perience. Flavour 3 (1), 1–11.
Miljkovic, Dragan, Nganje, William, de Chastenet, Helene, 2008. Economic factors af-
fecting the increase in obesity in the United States: differential response to price.
Food Policy 33 (1), 48–60.
Morrison, Mentser, Rosanna, Mancino, Lisa, 2015. Most U.S. households do their main
grocery shopping at supermarkets and supercenters regardless of income. Amber
Waves, 1–8.
Okrent, Abigail M., Alston, Julian M., 2011. Demand for food in the United States: a
review of literature, evaluation of previous estimates, and presentation of new esti-
mates of demand. Giannini Found. Monograph 48.
Olsho, Lauren, E.W., Klerman, Jacob A., Wilde, Parke E., Bartlett, Susan, 2016. Financial
incentives increase fruit and vegetable intake among supplemental nutrition assis-
tance program participants: a randomized controlled trial of the usda healthy in-
centives pilot. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104 (2), 423–435.
Payne, Collin R., Niculescu, Mihai, 2012. Social meaning in supermarkets as a direct route
to improve parents' fruit and vegetable purchases. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 41 (1),
124.
Payne, Collin R., Niculescu, Mihai, Just, David R., Kelly, Michael P., 2014. Shopper
marketing nutrition interventions. Physiol. Behav. 136, 111–120.
Payne, Collin R., Niculescu, Mihai, Just, David R., Kelly, Michael P., 2015. Shopper
marketing nutrition interventions: social norms on grocery carts increase produce
spending without increasing shopper budgets. Prev. Med. Rep. 2, 287–291.
Payne, Holmes, Gayle, Wethington, Holly, Olsho, Lauren, Jernigan, Jan, Farris, Rosanne,
Walker, Klein, Deborah, 2013. Implementing a farmers' market incentive program:
perspectives on the New York City Health Bucks Program. Prevent. Chron. Dis. 10,
E145.
Pennebaker, James W., Sanders, Deborah Yates, 1976. American Graffiti: effects of au-
thority and reactance arousal. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2 (3), 264–267.
Reed, Heather, Tamannaie, Deborah, Young, Crystal, Young, Shannan, Mills, MaryAnn,
Pring, Leslie, 2017. California’s Smarter lunchrooms + nutrition education ¼ in-
creased youth connection with school cafeterias. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 49 (7S1):S126-
S127.
Ross, Nancy A., Tremblay, Stephane, Khan, Saeeda, Crouse, Daniel, Tremblay, Mark,
Berthelot, Jean-Marie, 2007. Body mass index in Urban Canada: neighborhood and
metropolitan area effects, Am. J. Publ. Health 97(3), 500-08.
Roy, Abhik, Tai, Susan.T.C., 2003. Store environment and shopping behavior: the role of
imagery elaboration and shopping orientation. J. Int. Consumer Market. 15 (3), 71.
Schmeiser, Maximilian D., 2012. The impact of long-term participation in the supple-
mental nutrition assistance program on child obesity. Health Econ. 21 (4), 386–404.
Schroeter, Christiane, Lusk, Jayson, Tyner, Wallace, 2008. Determining the impact of
food price and income changes on body weight. J. Health Econ. 27 (1), 45–68.
Schultz, P Wesley, Nolan, Jessica M., Cialdini, Robert B., Goldstein, Noah J., Griskevicius,
Vladas, 2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social
norms. Psychol. Sci. 18 (5), 429–434.
Schwartz, Janet, Riis, Jason, Elbel, Brian, Ariely, Dan, 2012. Inviting consumers to
downsize fast-food portions significantly reduces calorie consumption. Health Affairs
31 (2), 399–407.
Schwartz, Marlene B., 2007. The influence of a verbal prompt on school lunch fruit
consumption: a pilot study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity 4 (6), 5868–5874.
Shiv, Baba, Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of
affect and cognition in consumer decision making. J. Consumer Res. 26 (3), 278–292.
Shoham, Aviv, Brenčič, Maja Makovec, 2003. Compulsive buying behavior. J. Consumer
Market. 20 (2), 127–138.
Smed, Sinne, Jensen, Jørgen D., Denver, Sigrid, 2007. Socio-economic characteristics and
the effect of taxation as a health policy instrument. Food Policy 32 (5–6), 624–639.
Smith, Laura E., Just, David R., Wansink, Brian C., Wallace, Christine H., 2011. Disrupting
the default choice: the contentious case of chocolate milk. FASEB J. 25(1)
_MeetingAbstracts, 781.24.
Smith, Kerry, V., Moore, Eric M., 2010. Behavioral economics and benefit cost analysis.
Environ. Resour. Econ. 46 (2), 217–234.
Stilley, Karen M., Jeffrey Inman, J., Wakefield, Kirk L., 2010. Spending on the fly: mental
budgets, promotions, and spending behavior. J. Market. 74 (3), 34–47.
Sugden, Robert, 2008. Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Const.
Polit. Econ. 19 (3), 226–248.
Sutherland, Lisa A., Kaley, Lori A., Fischer, Leslie, 2010. Guiding stars: the effect of a
nutrition navigation program on consumer purchases at the supermarket. Am. J. Clin.
317
Food Policy 79 (2018) 309–317
Nutr. 91 (4), 1090S–1094S.
Swigert, J., Just, D.R., 2016. The Effect of Convenience in Food Selection among Food
Insecure Households. Working Paper. Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics
and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., 2003. Libertarian paternalism. Am. Econ. Rev. 93 (2),
175–179.
Todd, Jessica E., Ver Ploeg, Michele, 2015. Restricting sugar-sweetened beverages from
snap purchases not likely to lower consumption. (In English). Amber Waves, 30–39.
Townsend, Marilyn S., Peerson, Janet, Love, Bradley, Achterberg, Cheryl, Murphy,
Suzanne P., 2001. Food insecurity is positively related to overweight in women. The
J. Nutr. 131 (6), 1738–1745.
Turley, L.W., Ronald, E., Milliman, 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a
review of the experimental evidence. J. Bus. Res. 49 (2), 193–211.
Turnwald, Bradley P., Boles, Danielle Z., Crum, Alia J., 2017. Association between in-
dulgent descriptions and vegetable consumption: twisted carrots and dynamite beets.
JAMA Int. Med. 177 (8), 1216–1218.
U.S Department of Agriculture, 2015. Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Data. edited by
Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Vegetable_and_
Pulses_Yearbook_Tables/General/YRBK2015_Section%201_General.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Food and Nutrition Service, 2016. Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
34SNAPmonthly.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture: The Office of Budget and Program Analysis, 2016. Fy
2016: Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan. http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
budsum/fy16budsum.pdf.
Uslan, D., Soldavini, J., DeMarco, M., Hartman, T., Ammerman, A., 2016. Uses of
Behavioral Economics Nudges within Healthy Retail Interventions in the SNAP-Ed
Program: Research Opportunities. BECR Center.
Van Ittersum, Koert, Brian, Wansink, 2012. Plate size and color suggestibility: the del-
boeuf illusion’s bias on serving and eating behavior. J. Consumer Res. 39 (2),
215–228.
van Kleef, Ellen, Otten, Kai, van Trijp, Hans, 2012. Healthy snacks at the checkout
counter: a lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment
structure on consumer choices. BMC Publ. Health 12 (1), 1072.
Ploeg, Ver, Michele, Lisa Mancino, Lin, Biing-Hwan, Wang, Chia-Yih, 2007. The vanishing
weight gap: trends in obesity among adult food stamp participants (Us) (1976–2002).
Econ. Hum. Biol. 5 (1), 20–36.
Ver Ploeg, Michele, Ralston, Katherine, 2008. Food stamps and obesity: what we know
and what it means. (In English). Amber Waves 6(3), 16–21.
Verhagen, Tibert, van Dolen, Willemijn, 2011. The influence of online store beliefs on
consumer online impulse buying: a model and empirical application. Inf. Manage. 48
(8), 320–327.
Wansink, Brian, Chandon, Pierre, 2006. Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? J.
Market. Res. 43 (4), 605–617.
Wansink, Brian, Just, David R., Hanks, Andrew S., Smith, Laura E., 2013. Pre-sliced fruit
in school cafeterias: children's selection and intake. Am. J. Prev. Med. 44 (5),
477–480.
Wansink, Brian, Just, David R., Smith, Laura E., 2011. Move the fruit: putting fruit in new
bowls and new places doubles lunchroom sales. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 43(4,
Supplement 1), S1.
Wansink, Brian, Just, David R., Smith, Laura E., Wallace, Christine E., 2011. Lunch line
redesign: making school lunchrooms smarter. FASEB J. 25(1)_MeetingAbstracts,
342.8.
Wansink, Brian, Kent, Robert J., Hoch, Stephen J., 1998. An anchoring and adjustment
model of purchase quantity decisions. J. Market. Res. 35(1), 71-81.
Wansink, Brian, Kim, Junyong, 2005. Bad popcorn in big buckets: portion size can in-
fluence intake as much as taste. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 37 (5), 242–245.
Wansink, Brian, Payne, Collin R., North, Jill, 2007. Fine as North Dakota wine: sensory
expectations and the intake of companion foods. Physiol. Behav. 90 (5), 712–716.
Wansink, Brian, Sobal, Jeffery, 2007. Mindless eating: the 200 daily food decisions we
overlook. Environ. Behav. 39 (1), 106–123.
Wansink, Brian, Soman, Dilip, Herbst, Kenneth C., Payne, Collin R., 2012. Partitioned
Shopping Carts: Assortment Allocation Cues That Increase Fruit and Vegetable
Purchases. Cornell University Working paper.
Wansink, Brian, van Ittersum, Koert, Painter, James E., 2006. Ice cream illusions: bowls,
spoons, and self-served portion sizes. Am. J. Prev. Med. 31 (3), 240–243.
Wilde, Parke, Klerman, Jacob Alex, Olsho, Lauren E.W., Bartlett, Susan, 2015. Explaining
the impact of Usda's healthy incentives pilot on different spending outcomes. Appl.
Econ. Perspect. Policy.
Wilde, P.E., McNamara, P.E., Ranney, C.K., 1999. The effect of income and food programs
on dietary quality: a seemingly unrelated regression analysis with error components.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 81 (4), 959–971.
Yalch, Richard F., Spangenberg, Eric R., 2000. The effects of music in a retail setting on
real and perceived shopping times. J. Bus. Res. 49 (2), 139–147.
Zagorsky, Jay L., Smith, Patricia K., 2009. Does the U.S. food stamp program contribute to
adult weight gain? Econ. Hum. Biol. 7 (2), 246–258.
Zimmerman, Frederick J., 2011. Using marketing muscle to sell fat: the rise of obesity in
the modern economy. Annu. Rev. Public Health 32 (1), 285–306.
Zimmerman, Frederick, Shimoga, Sandhya, 2014. The effects of food advertising and
cognitive load on food choices. BMC Public Health 14 (1), 342.