Food Bundling As A Health Nudge - Investigating Consumer Fruit and Vegetable Selection Using Behavioral Economics

Accepted Manuscript
Food bundling as a health nudge: Investigating consumer fruit and vegetable

selection using behavioral economics
Kathryn A. Carroll, Anya Samek, Lydia Zepeda
PII: S0195-6663(17)30846-2
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.082
Reference: APPET 3679
To appear in: Appetite
Received Date: 14 June 2017

Revised Date: 5 October 2017
Accepted Date: 3 November 2017
Please cite this article as: Carroll K.A., Samek A. & Zepeda L., Food bundling as a health nudge:
Investigating consumer fruit and vegetable selection using behavioral economics, Appetite (2017), doi:
10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.082.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 Food Bundling as a Health Nudge:

2 Investigating Consumer Fruit and Vegetable Selection
3 Using Behavioral Economics
4
5
PT
6 Abstract
7 Displaying bundles of healthy foods at the grocery store is a health nudge that simplifies
RI
8 shopping and may have the potential for increasing fruit and vegetable (F&V) purchasing. To
9 evaluate the impact of food bundling, we conduct an artefactual field experiment with
community participants in a laboratory set up as a grocery store. Dual-self theory suggests that
SC
10
11 food choices may differ depending on whether shoppers are under cognitive load – in our
12 experiment, we exogenously vary whether bundles are displayed (with and without a price
13 discount) and whether shoppers are under cognitive load. Our findings align with prior studies
U
14 that suggest unhealthy options are more likely to be selected when cognitive resources are
15 constrained. When bundles are displayed, we observe increased F&V purchasing. We also
AN
16 observe a significant interaction between cognitive load and price discounting. We find
17 discounted bundles are more effective in the absence of cognitive load, but non-discounted
18 bundles are more effective when shoppers are under cognitive load. Although more research is
M
19 warranted, our findings suggest that when shopping under cognitive load, it is possible that
20 discounts impose additional cognitive strain on the shopping experience. For retailers and
21 policymakers, our results point to the potential power of bundling as a strategy for increasing
D
22 healthy food purchasing.

TE
23
24
25 Keywords: food choice; fruit and vegetable selection; product bundling; cognitive load; dual-self
EP
26 theory; behavioral economics; health concerns; grocery shopping

C
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 Food Bundling as a Health Nudge:

2 Investigating Consumer Fruit and Vegetable Selection
3 Using Behavioral Economics
4
5 INTRODUCTION
PT
6 Nearly 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, putting them at risk for a range of health
7 problems including early mortality, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (Flegal et al., 2012). A
RI
8 major component of this problem is the habitual consumption of large quantities of low-nutrient,
SC
9 high-calorie foods (NIH, 2012). Recent research on increased fruit and vegetable (F&V)
10 consumption has been linked to obesity prevention (He et al., 2004) and the reduced risk of
11
U
cardiovascular disease (Hung et al., 2004; He et al., 2007). For many Americans however, a gap
AN
12 exists between the amount of F&Vs actually consumed and the amount recommended. In the
13 U.S., approximately 23% of adults report consuming vegetables less than 1 time per day, while
M
14 the recommendation is with every meal (CDC, 2013).

D
15 One explanation for low F&V consumption is that consumers often shop for food under
TE
16 cognitive load; that is, while mentally strained (Park et al., 1989). The average number of items
17 in U.S. supermarkets exceeded 39,000 per store in 2015 (FMI, 2015). Grocery shoppers then
EP
18 regularly search through a large number of products before making a purchasing decision, yet
19 routinely shop under time pressures (Aylott and Mitchell, 1998). Grocery shopping is often
C
20 cognitively stressful, especially when required to perform in-store information search activities
AC
21 (Park et al., 1989). The effect of cognitive load on food choice then is particularly relevant when
22 examining consumers’ grocery selections. Prior studies have shown that cognitive load increases
23 exertion of the reasoning system, and can impact preferences and decision making (Hinson et al.,
24 2003; Greene et al., 2008; Benjamin et al., 2013; Deck and Jahedi, 2015). This can lead to a
25 ‘dual-self’: where different decisions are made when cognitively impaired than when not
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
26 (Kahneman, 2002; 2011; Fudenberg and Levine, 2006; Mukherjee, 2010).
27 Studies looking specifically at the effect of cognitive load on food choice suggest
28 individuals are more likely to choose unhealthy options when under cognitive load. Shiv and
29 Fedorikhin (1999) found lessening cognitive resources made individuals more likely to select an
PT
30 unhealthy snack option, as did Ward and Mann (2000) and Zimmerman and Shimoga (2014).
RI
31 Similarly, Antonides and Cramer (2013) found that constraining cognitive resources resulted in a
32 stronger endowment effect for hedonic (often unhealthy) versus utilitarian (often healthy) foods.
SC
33 Although statistically insignificant, Deck and Jahedi (2015) also found that more unhealthy
34 snack options were selected under cognitive load. All of these studies however focused solely on
35
U
snack foods, using limited choice sets. While these studies indicate that cognitive load does
AN
36 influence food choice, no study has yet to examine this in the context of grocery shopping
behavior, using an expanded product set and taking into account dietary restrictions.
M
37
38 It is important then to identify ways to alleviate the potential effects of cognitive load on
D
39 grocery shopping behavior. We propose that one option is to simplify the shopping experience
TE
40 through the use of healthy food bundles, which consist of primarily F&V items. Work by Gordon
41 et al. (2014) has discussed healthy product bundling as a potential approach to encourage
EP
42 healthier food purchasing among SNAP recipients. Prior work has also shown that bundles may
43 be preferred over individually priced options (Harris and Blair, 2006) and may increase purchase
C
44 likelihood (Iyengar and Lepper, 2000). While Harris and Blair suggest that bundle preference is
AC
45 motivated by a desire to lessen mental strain, they did not directly manipulate cognitive load nor
46 investigate food products. If bundled choices in a grocery store were to include primarily F&V
47 items, and individuals under cognitive load are more likely to choose bundled options as a means
48 of lessening cognitive effort, then food bundles could be an effective health nudge to improve
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
49 food choice. As grocery shopping can be cognitively stressful, exploring the effect of a potential
50 health nudge in the presence of cognitive load could also yield more accurate and meaningful
51 results. No study has yet examined preference for healthy food bundles when individual items
52 are also in the choice set, and none have directly manipulated cognitive load.
PT
53 From a mental accounting perspective, Johnson et al. (1999) suggests that a consumer will
RI
54 exhibit more positive evaluations for a bundle of items, as opposed to the same items
55 individually, in part because of the bundle’s single stated price. Similarly, Sharpe and Staelin
SC
56 (2010) found consumers tended to rate bundled goods as being of an increased value due to the
57 reduction in cognitive effort needed to mentally account for a single price versus several prices.
58
U
By bundling F&V items together, in the long run, it may be possible to change consumers’
AN
59 taste preferences, and thus increase consumer demand for F&V items. Work by Liu et al. (2015)
on ‘vice-virtue’ bundles has already examined preference between bundles with varying
M
60
61 proportions of vice (unhealthy) and virtue (healthy) foods, using a choice set comprised of only
D
62 bundles. We propose here that adding food bundles to an existing mix of grocery items might
TE
63 particularly appeal to consumers wishing to constrain their choice set, and reduce the cognitive
64 overload that comes from comparing and selecting numerous individual products.
EP
65 Retail promotion of healthy food bundles could be an effective and inexpensive display
66 strategy to implement at the store level. Bundles may also reduce consumers’ cognitive load by
C
67 simplifying the shopping experience, and ultimately promote increased purchases of F&Vs. Prior
AC
68 work in behavioral economics has already been used to explore potential health nudges designed
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
69 to encourage the consumption of nutritious foods1. Further research is needed to understand
70 whether bundling can serve as a health nudge that helps consumers ‘overcome’ poor food
71 choices induced by cognitive load. Bundled products in the marketplace typically also offer a
72 price discount. However, such discounts may be unnecessary if there is a perceived value from
PT
73 the bundle itself.
RI
74 The objectives of this research are to determine: 1) whether cognitive load influences
75 healthy versus unhealthy grocery selection, 2) if displaying healthy food bundles influences F&V
SC
76 selection, and 3) whether such bundles need to offer a price discount. To answer these questions,
77 we conduct an artefactual field experiment with over 350 community participants in a laboratory
78
U
set up as a grocery store. In the experiment, we exogenously vary whether bundles are displayed
AN
79 (with and without a price discount) and whether shoppers are under cognitive load. We also use a
richer product set than previous studies, which included limited snack item selections. Our
M
80
81 product set more closely mimics the products people may select in a grocery store, including
D
82 three product categories: Fruits and Vegetables, Junk Food/Snacks, and Protein/Dairy/Grains.
TE
83 To the knowledge of the authors, no known work has yet to examine grocery food bundling as a
84 potential behavioral intervention to increase overall sales of F&V items.

EP
1
Previous efforts by the USDA, the U.S. DHHS, and others have included providing advice about healthful
food choices, and requiring nutritional labeling of packaged foods (Welsh et al., 1993). Evidence however is
C
inconclusive on whether such information actually improves food choice (for a few see Barreiro-Hurle et al.,
2010; Roberto et al., 2010; Thorndike et al., 2012; Kiesel and Villas-Boas, 2013). Concepts from behavioral
economics can be used to guide individual decision-making, ultimately improving diet and health (Just, 2006;
AC
Just et al., 2007; Cawley and Ruhm, 2011), and can be used to suggest in-store promotional approaches to
encourage healthier food purchases (Gordon et al., 2014). External cues including food presentation,
expectation of how the food tastes, or even the context of the meal have been examined (Wansink and
Deshpande, 1994; Wansink, 1996; Tuorila et al., 1998; Wansink, 2004). Behavioral economics has also made
inroads in understanding the link between present-biased time preferences and health behaviors (e.g., Bradford
et al., 2014; Courtemanche et al., 2015), and has explored the role that incentives, linked to healthier choices,
can play in food purchases (for an overview see Price and Riis, 2012). Solutions such as increasing or “taxing”
the price of unhealthy foods have also been proposed; however, such solutions may decrease the welfare of
lower-income populations, and changes in food prices would have to be large to have any significant effect
(Kuchler et al., 2005; Duffey et al., 2010).
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
85
86 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
87 One might assume that individuals who recognize the negative health consequences of eating
PT
88 low-nutrition, high-calorie food would then improve their diet. However, individuals often
89 contradict this assumption. An explanation is that food selection is perhaps a self-control
RI
90 problem, influenced by the amount of cognitive resources available at the time of purchase. One
91 way to lessen the cognitive load of the food selection process may be to offer food bundles as
SC
92 part of the choice set, and thus improve the convenience and cognitive ease of healthy item
U
93 selection. AN
94 We use a dual-system framework first developed by Kahneman (2002, 2011) to explain
95 how cognitive load directly impacts food choice behavior. This dual system is composed of an
M
96 intuitive (impulsive) system and a thoughtful reasoning system. Prior studies have shown that
97 subjecting individuals to cognitive load increases the exertion of the reasoning system, thus
D
98 restricting the system’s ability to regulate decision making (Fudenberg and Levine, 2006;
TE
99 Mukherjee, 2010).
100 In particular, Fudenberg and Levine suggest this ‘dual-self’ influences self-regulation by
EP
101 making it easier to select impulsive choices when subjected to cognitive load. We extend
C
102 Fudenberg and Levine’s dual-self theory by predicting that under cognitive load, individuals may
AC
103 be more likely to select unhealthy foods, and more likely to select a food bundle. We argue that
104 increased bundle selection may occur if selecting a bundle requires less cognitive resources
105 compared to selecting individual items. We test whether food bundling can serve as a healthy
106 nudge designed to lessen cognitive processing, and thus increase the likelihood that healthier
107 food options are selected when cognitively strained.
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
108
109 Hypotheses
110 Independent of bundling, cognitive load is expected to have a significantly negative effect
111 on the proportion of healthy (F&V) items selected, and a significantly positive effect on
PT
112 Junk/Snack food items, compared to selections made under no load. We also hypothesize that
RI
113 displaying healthy food bundles will result in greater selection of F&V items, compared to
114 displays without bundles. We anticipate more bundles will be selected by consumers under high
SC
115 cognitive load compared to selections under no load. This would indicate that bundle selection
116 may serve to alleviate the potential effects of cognitive load on food choice. If more bundles are
117
U
selected under high load, displaying healthy food bundles may be able to nudge cognitively
AN
118 stressed consumers towards higher levels of F&V selection.
Whether or not bundles need to be discounted in order to effectively increase F&V

M
119
120 selection is indeterminate. If no significant differences are uncovered between discounted versus
D
121 non-discounted bundle treatments, it could be that consumers perceive value just from the
TE
122 bundles’ one stated price, and that no discount is necessary. The interaction between price
123 discounted bundles and cognitive load is also indeterminate.

EP
124
125 METHODOLOGY
C
126 Experimental Design

AC
127 To explore the influence of cognitive load and product bundling on food choice, we conducted
128 an artefactual field experiment using grocery store shoppers. An artefactual field experiment is
129 similar to a standard laboratory experiment, but different in that it uses participants from the
130 ‘market of interest’ (Harrison and List, 2004; List, 2011); in our case, grocery store shoppers.
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
131 This allows us to use a sample that is more representative of the target population. The
132 experiment was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison BRITE Lab during fall 2015
133 through summer 2016.
134 A total of 367 participants were recruited for a single session each lasting approximately 60
PT
135 minutes; on average 9-16 participants were present for any individual session. Participants were
RI
136 recruited through advertisements in local newspapers, online community bulletin boards, at local
137 community centers, public libraries, and at grocery stores within a 20-minute driving radius to
SC
138 the college campus. The advertisements referred to the experiment as a ‘consumer study’ in
139 order to avoid sample selection bias; that is, we did not want only participants with a particular
140
U
interest in food signing up. Participants were prescreened, and excluded from the study if they:
AN
141 1) had not shopped for groceries within the past two months, 2) were under the age of 18, 3)
were full time undergraduate students, 4) had not resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years, and/or
M
142
143 5) had any known food allergies. The prescreen criteria was designed to enroll only adult
D
144 participants who routinely shopped for groceries in the U.S., and who would not be allergic to
TE
145 any of the study food items.
146 The laboratory was set up to resemble a small grocery store, with a display that featured 30
EP
147 different food items, each sized for retail pricing at $1. This allowed for ease of comparison
148 across foods. To ensure that this $1 price closely reflected the marketplace, average retail prices
C
149 for each item were obtained from three different stores in the surrounding area, for the duration
AC
150 of the study period. The average retail price for each of the 30 items ranged between $0.89 and
151 $1.08.
152 To better simulate a store environment and preserve product quality, the grocery display
153 featured store shelving, as well as a commercial display freezer and cooler. Another benefit to
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
154 this physical display is that it enabled participants to observe the actual food items. Work by
155 Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999) suggests this is important as food choices may differ depending on
156 whether the item is physically present or symbolically represented, such as on a computer screen.
157 They found that individuals selected an unhealthy snack option less often when a picture was
PT
158 displayed, as opposed to the actual item. Another benefit of participants viewing the grocery
RI
159 display is that it helped further convey that the choice task was non-hypothetical.
160 Individual food items and product bundles were pretested for general appeal with a focus
SC
161 group of 22 consumers prior to conducting the experiment. Pretest participants were asked to rate
162 their preference for the various items and bundles. They were also invited to share their opinions
163
U
concerning the study items. Items and bundles that were poorly rated by the majority of the focus
AN
164 group were excluded from the study. Figure 1 displays the final 30 food items featured in the
study.
M
165
166 Upon arriving at the lab, participants were informed of the study purpose and protocol, and
D
167 provided their signed informed consent to participate. The study protocol was approved by the
TE
168 university’s Institutional Review Board for research on human subjects. Participants received $5
169 in cash for showing up for the study, plus any food items that they selected. They could also
EP
170 receive up to an additional $8, based on their study performance during the experiment.
171 Participants were first read the instructions, and then practiced each type of task featured in
C
172 the study. The practice section served to ensure that participants understood the instructions. For
AC
173 example, the practice food tasks would not allow participants to continue unless they spent their
174 entire budget. The study tasks included a food choice task, memorization tasks, and arithmetic
175 tasks. The memorization tasks were always completed in conjunction with either the food choice
176 task and/or arithmetic tasks, and served to induce cognitive load.
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
177 After the practice tasks, participants next completed a food choice task. They were given a
178 $10 budget with which to shop the grocery display. Participants were told to use their entire
179 budget as no change would be given, and were not permitted to use any personal money.
180 Participants were instructed to first walk through the grocery display privately and view each
PT
181 product.
RI
182
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
183
184 FIGURE 1. Individual Items Featured in the Food Choice Task, by Item Category
AC
185
186 Each participant was randomly shown one of three different versions of the display. The
187 Control display consisted of the 30 different individual food items. The Bundles-No Discount
188 display consisted of Control plus six different preassembled food bundles. The bundles featured
189 primarily F&V items, all of which were also sold individually in the grocery display, and were
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
190 priced at “5 items for $5”. The Bundles-Discounted display was a version in which bundles were
191 discounted 20%; “5 items for $4”. The food bundles used in the study can be viewed in Figure 2;
192 all six bundles consist of half or more fruits and/or vegetables, similar to USDA MyPlate
193 recommendations (Post et al., 2011).
PT
194 To simulate a more mentally straining shopping experience, half of participants were
RI
195 randomly assigned to complete the food choice task while simultaneously completing a
196 memorization task to induce cognitive load. Deck and Jahedi (2015) note that the most
SC
197 commonly used technique to simulate cognitive load involves an individual keeping a 6-or-more
198 digit number in their memory, while concurrently completing a separate decision task. Therefore,
199
U
participants were shown and asked to memorize a 7-digit number before starting the food choice
AN
200 task. They were later asked to recall the number after they had made their selections. This
resulted in a between-subjects design of six different treatments for the experiment: 3 Displays X
M
201
202 2 Cognitive Load Conditions.

D
203 Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six treatments upon arrival to the lab;
TE
204 this resulted in 58-66 participants per treatment. After privately viewing the grocery display,
205 participants next made their shopping selections privately on a computer. Participants usually
EP
206 received the food items they selected immediately at the end of their session. However, if not
207 going home right away, they could also arrange to pick up their food items at an alternate
C
208 day/time.
AC
209 After the food choice task, participants were given a five-minute break. They then
210 completed a set of eight arithmetic tasks. These arithmetic tasks were adapted from the
211 manipulation check used by Deck and Jahedi (2015), who suggest that participants successfully
212 under cognitive load should exhibit a drop in arithmetic performance. For these tasks,
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
213 participants were asked to multiply m1 x m2, where integer m1 ~ U (13…19) and integer m2 ~ U
214 (5….9), following Deck and
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
215
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
216 FIGURE 2. Preassembled Product Bundles Featured in the Food Choice Task
217
218 Jahedi. The eight arithmetic tasks were evenly split into two sections, with a five-minute break
219 between sections. In one of the sections, the tasks were completed under cognitive load. Half of
PT
220 participants were randomly selected to complete the section under cognitive load first, so that we
221 could later check for order effects.
RI
222 After the arithmetic tasks, participants completed a brief post-experiment questionnaire.
SC
223 The questionnaire asked about eating habits, dietary restrictions, food preferences, shopping
224 behaviors and future shopping plans, and standard demographics. Participants next received the
U
225 food items they had selected earlier in the session. They also received additional payments based
AN
226 on study performance. To incentivize memorization of the 7-digit number, at the end of the
227 session, one of the tasks the participant completed under cognitive load was randomly selected
M
228 for payment. They received an additional $5 if they correctly recalled the 7-digit number; else
D
229 they received an additional $0. In order to incentivize arithmetic performance, at the end of the
TE
230 session one arithmetic task was also randomly selected for payment. Participants received an
231 additional $3 if they answered the math problem correctly; else they received an additional $0.
EP
232 The order of study tasks is presented in Table 1.
233
C
234 Outcome Measures and Econometric Model

AC
235 The 30 food items featured in the study were evenly selected from three categories: Fruit and
236 Vegetable Items, Junk Food/Snack Items, and Protein/Dairy/Grain Items. While our study
237 focuses specifically on increasing the selection of Fruit and Vegetable items, many items in the
238 Protein/Dairy/Grain category were generally also higher in nutritional content. However, items
239 from the Junk Food/Snack category tended to be high in calories but low in nutritional content.
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
240 Each category consisted of the same proportion of refrigerated and frozen foods relative to more
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
241
1
242 Memorization tasks served to induce high cognitive load
2
243 Participants randomized to 1 of 6 treatments upon arrival; treatments can be viewed in Table 1.
3
244 Arithmetic performance serves as a manipulation check for high cognitive load, following Deck and Jahedi (2015).
4
245 Order of tasks randomized within section
5
246 Half of participants randomly selected to complete Section B first; the 7-digit numbers employed were 4319162;
247 8568379; 5862413; 2856979
248
249 TABLE 1. Order of Study Tasks

14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
250
251 shelf-stable foods.
252 To determine the effect of cognitive load, independent of bundling, differences in the
253 percentage of foods selected from each category are compared for the two control-display
PT
254 treatments (T1: Control, No Load; T4: Control, High Load). To determine the effect of displayed
RI
255 food bundles and discounted bundles on F&V selection, differences in the percentage of foods
256 selected from each category are compared between treatments. For the four treatments that
SC
257 feature bundles, differences between treatments in the percentage selecting one or more bundle
258 are examined. These four treatments are: T2: Bundles-No Discount, No Load; T3: Bundles-
259
U
Discounted, No Load; T5: Bundles-No Discount, High Load; T6: Bundles-Discounted, High
AN
260 Load. Non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-sample tests are used for the comparisons. In
addition, the effects of the various treatment components, as well as other explanatory variables,
M
261
262 on the proportion of items selected from each food category are modeled using a multivariate
D
263 fractional regression model.

TE
264 Following Papke and Wooldridge (1996), and Murteira and Ramalho (2014), we use a
265 fractional multinomial logit model fit by quasi-maximum likelihood. Our dependent variable is a
EP
266 vector of proportions such that Y ≡ ( yf, yj, yn ) ′ , the proportion of consumers’ baskets bundles
267 that are allocated to each of the three categories k = f, j, n. These three categories are exhaustive
C
268 and mutually exclusive for purposes of this study. Thus, we are interested in their joint behavior,
AC
269 estimated simultaneously as the three categories are correlated and their selection is inherently
270 bounded between zero and one. This joint behavior is explained by a set of explanatory variables
271 X ≡ (x1, x2,.…xn).
272 Murteira and Ramalho (2014) note that in estimating multivariate fractional response
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
273 models, quasi-maximum likelihood estimation based on the Bernoulli distribution often handles
274 boundary observations well. This is particularly useful in this case, as it is plausible that one may
275 select all food items from a single category. Therefore, a final fractional multinomial logit
276 generalized from Papke and Wooldridge (1996) is estimated using Stata 14.1:
PT
277 Bki = X/ βk + ik (2)
RI
278 where Bki = {proportion of items purchased}, and 0 ≤ Bki ≥ 1, with ∑Bki=1. The food category
279 equations then are identically specified, estimated simultaneously, and the omitted category for
SC
280 estimation purposes is n; X/ = { Tik, Qik, Zik}, with i representing each individual consumer, and
U
281 ik is the error term with a zero mean across consumers. Tik consists of treatment component
AN
282 dummy variables HighCognitiveLoad, BundlesDisplayed, and BundlesDiscounted, which are 1
283 if the participant was in a treatment that featured that particular component, 0 otherwise. Also
M
284 included are interactions HighCognitiveLoad*BundlesDiscounted and

D
285 BundlesDisplayed*Female. Qik includes additional explanatory variables for consumer i, which
TE
286 are obtained from the consumer’s post-experiment questionnaire. These include
287 AlreadyPlannedToPurchase, (M=83.9%; SD=36.7%) which is 1 if the participant had already

EP
288 been planning to buy items featured in the study, 0 otherwise, and FollowingSpecialDiet,
289 (M=22.6%; SD=41.9%) which is 1 if the participant indicated following a special dietary
C
290 restriction, 0 otherwise. No significant differences within these explanatory variables were
AC
291 observed between treatments.
292 Lastly, Zik consists of demographic variables. Dummy variables Female (M=63.9%;
293 SD=47.5%), ChildrenUnder18 (M=10.5%; SD=30.5%), and NonCaucasian (M=29.4%;
294 SD=45.6%) are 1 if the participant represents the demographic, 0 otherwise. Age in years (M=31;
295 SD=12) and HouseholdIncome10K in tens of thousands of dollars (M=5.67; SD=4.84), are both
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
296 mean centered. No significant differences within participant demographics were observed
297 between treatments. All model variables except Age and HouseholdIncome10K are dummy
298 variables where the value is 0 otherwise. Qik and Zik enable us to identify heterogeneous
299 treatment effects; of particular interest are gender differences, as females are often the primary
PT
300 household grocery shopper (FMI, 2016). Our baseline treatment (T1: Control, No Load) is
RI
301 captured by the intercept term, thus represented by setting model variables HighCognitiveLoad,
302 BundlesDisplayed, BundlesDiscounted, HighCognitiveLoad*BundlesDiscounted, and
SC
303 BundlesDisplayed*Female equal to zero.
304
305 RESULTS
U
AN
306 Treatment Comparisons
307 The average and median percentage of items selected from each food category, by treatment, is
M
308 presented in Table 2. The highest percentage of F&Vs is selected when participants are under no
309 cognitive load and view discounted bundles (T3): 63.51% of these selections contain F&V items.
D
310 In contrast, when participants view discounted bundles under high cognitive load (T6), the
TE
311 lowest percentage of F&Vs (48.19%) and the highest percentage of junk food items (23.3%) are
selected.
EP
312
313 Comparing the three different display versions, overall more junk food items are selected
C
314 when choices are made under cognitive load. This result aligns with prior studies (Shiv and
AC
315 Fedorikhin, 1999; Ward and Mann, 2000; Zimmerman and Shimoga, 2014) examining the effect
316 of cognitive load on food choice, which suggest individuals are more likely to select an
317 unhealthy option when cognitive resources are lessened.
318 Differences between treatments for all three food item categories can be viewed in Table
319 3. Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality are first performed on the percentage of items selected for
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
320 each category. Results indicate the rejection of normality for all categories at better than the 1%
321 level; therefore, non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-sample tests are performed.
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
322
323 NOTE: This table presents the average and median percentage of grocery items selected by participants from each of
324 the three food item categories. as part of their choice set, by treatment. Standard deviations and interquartile ranges
C
325 in parentheses as noted.

AC
326
327 TABLE 2. Average and Median Percentage Selected, by Item Category and Treatment
328
329 A 9.58% increase (p=0.0398) in Junk Food/Snack Items is observed in the discounted
330 bundle display when participants are under high load (T6) compared to no load (T3). As
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
331 previously mentioned, this finding is similar to prior studies that suggest more unhealthy items
332 are selected when under cognitive load. Although not statistically significant, for Junk
333 Food/Snack Items, a 3.05% increase is also observed in the Control display under high load (T4)
334 compared to no load (T1), and a similar 2.91% increase is observed in the non-discounted bundle
PT
335 display under high load (T5) compared to no load (T2).
RI
336
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
337 1
338 p-values in bold are significant at the 10%*, 5%** and 1%*** level respectively
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
339 NOTE: This table presents the average difference in the percentage of grocery items selected by participants from
340 each of the three food item categories, as part of their choice set, using pairwise comparisons between treatments. p-
341 values obtained from non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-sample tests. Standard deviations in parentheses.
342
343 TABLE 3. Comparison Statistics for Food Item Category Percentages, by Treatment
344
PT
345 We find that under certain conditions, displaying healthy food bundles is associated with
RI
346 an increase in F&V selection, as earlier hypothesized. We first compare treatment conditions
347 where participants are not subject to high cognitive load. When non-discounted bundles are
SC
348 displayed (T2), a 5.86% increase in F&V items is observed compared to Control (T1), although
349 not statistically significant. Displaying discounted bundles (T3) compared to Control (T1) results
350
U
in a 14.87% increase (p=0.0003) in F&V selection, a 3.06% decrease (p=0.0628) in Junk
AN
351 Food/Snack Items, and an 11.79% decrease (p=0.0007) in Protein/Dairy/Grain Items.
352 Displaying discounted bundles (T3) results in 9.01% more (p=0.0584) F&V items compared to
M
353 when non-discounted bundles are displayed (T2).

D
354 We next compare treatment conditions where participants are subject to high cognitive
TE
355 load. When non-discounted bundles are displayed (T5), a 6.88% increase (p=0.0359) in F&V
356 items is observed compared to Control (T4). This increase in F&V selection appears to come at
EP
357 the expense of Protein/Dairy/Grain Items. A 6.29% decrease (p=0.0560) in Protein/Dairy/Grain
358 items is observed when non-discounted bundles are displayed (T5) compared to Control (T4).
C
359 No significant differences in F&V selection are uncovered when participants discounted bundles
AC
360 are displayed (T6) compared to Control (T4). Interestingly, displaying discounted bundles (T6)
361 results in 8.17% less (p=0.0118) F&V items compared to when non-discounted bundles (T5) are
362 displayed.
363 We compare next treatments between high and no cognitive load conditions. When non-
364 discounted bundles are displayed, subjecting participants to high cognitive load (T5) does not
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
365 have a significant effect on F&V selection, compared to selections made in the absence of load
366 (T2). However, we do observe an effect of cognitive load for selections made when discounted
367 bundles are displayed. Under high load (T6), 15.32% less (p=0.0002) F&V items are selected
368 compared to no load (T3). Junk/snack food items account for 9.58% of this shift (p=0.0398).
PT
369 Although only observed when discounted bundles are displayed, this shift towards unhealthier
RI
370 choices while subjected to cognitive load is in line with our earlier hypotheses.
371 When faced with a price discount for bundles, we wonder if subjecting participants to
SC
372 cognitive load could compound the overall cognitive effort of selection. If so, this could lead to
373 overall less healthy choices. This could also possibly negate any cognitive ease associated with
374
U
bundle selection (which we discuss further below). It may be that the amount of cognitive
AN
375 resources available at the time of selection influences whether bundles need offer a price
discount in order to effectively increase F&V selection, although more research in needed in
M
376
377 actual store environments.

D
378 For the displays that feature bundles, the percentage of participants selecting bundles, by
TE
379 treatment, is reported in Table 4.
% Selecting Any
EP
Treatment Bundles
(std dev)
1 Bundle 2 Bundles
C
T2 45.00
36.67 8.33
AC
(Bundles-No Discount, No Load) (50.17)
T3 81.03
25.86 55.17
(Bundles-Discounted, No Load) (39.55)
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T5 66.67
37.88 28.79
(Bundles-No Discount, High Load) (47.50)
T6 56.06
19.70 36.36
PT
(Bundles-Discounted, High Load) (50.01)
380
RI
381 NOTE: This table presents the percentage of participants selecting 1, 2, and any bundles as part of their choice set,
382 by treatment. T1 and T4 are omitted as the treatments did not contain product bundles. Standard deviations in
383 parentheses.
SC
384 TABLE 4. Percentage of Participants Selecting Bundles, by Treatment
385 In the absence of cognitive load, 81.03% of participants select at least one bundle when
386
U
discounted bundles are displayed (T3). The second highest percentage of participants (66.67%)
AN
387 select bundles when under high cognitive load and non-discounted bundles are displayed (T5).
M
388 When non-discounted bundles are displayed, over 20% more participants select multiple bundles
389 when subjected to high cognitive load (T5 compared to T2). This suggests that bundle selection
D
390 may lessen mental strain, as Harris and Blair (2006) have earlier suggested, so long as selecting
TE
391 the bundle itself does not cause additional strain. When discounted bundles are displayed,
392 although more participants selected bundles under no load (T3) compared to high load (T6), in
EP
393 both treatments a greater number of participants select two bundles rather than one, suggesting
394 preference for the bundles’ associated price savings.

C
395 Differences in bundle selection between treatments can be viewed in Table 5. We

AC
396 examine whether subjecting participants to cognitive load influences bundle selection. When
397 non-discounted bundles are displayed, 21.67% more participants (p=0.0147) select bundles
398 when subjected to high cognitive load. However, the opposite is observed when discounted
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
399 bundles are displayed: 24.97% less participants (p=0.0031) select a bundle when under high load
400 (T6) compared to no load (T3).
401 It is important to note that when not subjected to cognitive load, 36.03% more
402 participants (p=0.0001) select at least 1 bundle when bundles are discounted (T3) compared to
PT
403 non-discounted (T2). Those looking to use bundles as a nudge to increase retail F&V selection
RI
404 should consider exploring the effect that cognitive resources have on bundle selections made in
405 actual store environments.
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
406
1
407 p-values in bold are significant at the 10%*, 5%** and 1%*** level respectively
AC
408 NOTE: This table presents the average difference in the percentage of participants who selecting 1 or more bundle
409 as part of their choice set, using pairwise comparisons between treatments. T1 and T4 are omitted as the treatments
410 did not contain product bundles. Standard deviations in parentheses.
411
412
413 TABLE 5. Comparison Statistics for Percentage of Participants
414 Selecting 1 or More Bundle, by Treatment
415
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
416 Prior studies such as Park et al. (1989) and Aylott and Mitchell (1998) have noted the
417 mental strains associated with grocery shopping; our results obtained under high cognitive load
418 may give a more accurate picture of how bundles could be successfully implemented at the retail
419 level. Although additional research using actual grocery store shopping is needed, our results
PT
420 suggest that when shopping under cognitive load, food bundles may not need to be discounted to
RI
421 effectively increase F&V selection.
422
SC
423 Marginal Effects
424 Marginal effects are computed from the estimated coefficients of the fractional multinomial
425
U
logit, and presented in Table 6. The results of the estimated fractional multinomial logit model
AN
426 can be viewed in Appendix A.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
427
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
428 NOTE: values in bold are significant at the 10%*, 5%** and 1%*** level respectively
429
430 TABLE 6. Marginal Effects for Determinants of Grocery Selection, by Item Category
431
432 For F&V items, displaying non-discounted product bundles is estimated to increase
PT
433 selection by 4.37%, compared to F&V selection when bundles are not displayed, regardless of
RI
434 cognitive load. However, discounted product bundles are influenced by cognitive load. In the
435 absence of load, displaying discounted bundles is estimated to have an additional 10.16%
SC
436 increase on proportion of F&V items selected. When selections are made under high cognitive
437 load though, displaying discounted product bundles results in a 16.33% decrease in the
438 proportion of F&V items selected.

U
AN
439 For Junk Food/Snack items, we find a possible gender effect of displaying product
440 bundles on item selection. Although displaying bundles increases Junk Food/Snack item
M
441 selection by 7.38%, it actually decreases Junk Food/Snack selection by 9.01% for females.
D
442 Interestingly, only one of the bundles features a Junk Food/Snack item; this particular bundle is
TE
443 ranked third out of the six displayed bundles in terms of selection preference ranking. Those who
444 had already planned to buy items featured in the study, prior to attending the study, select 8.42%
EP
445 less Junk Food/Snack items. Likewise, participants who indicate following a special diet select
446 10.33% less Junk Food/Snack items. For every year older in age beyond the mean age of 29,
C
447 participants select 0.73% less Junk Food/Snack items. Lastly, for every $10,000 increase in
AC
448 household income beyond the mean income of $56,644, participants select on average 0.58%
449 less Junk Food/Snack items.
450
451 Manipulation Check for Cognitive Load
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
452 For participants who complete the food choice task under high cognitive load (T4, T5, or T6),
453 recall accuracy for the displayed 7-digit number is assessed. Across treatments, recall accuracy is
454 over 90%, with no significant differences in accuracy observed between treatments. Following
455 Deck and Jahedi (2015), we also assess participants’ arithmetic performance under both high and
PT
456 no cognitive load. If high load is successfully manipulated by recalling a 7-digit number, then
RI
457 participant performance should be significantly worse under high load. On average, participants
458 are 9.79% less accurate (p=<0.001) when performing arithmetic under high cognitive load,
SC
459 compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for matched pairs. No significant
460 order effects are observed between the high cognitive load and no cognitive load arithmetic
461 sections.
U
AN
462
CONCLUSIONS
M
463
464 Our findings align with prior studies (Shiv and Fedorikhin, 1999; Ward and Mann, 2000;
D
465 Zimmerman and Shimoga, 2014) that suggest unhealthy options are more likely to be selected
TE
466 when cognitive resources are constrained. In all three versions of the grocery display, higher
467 percentages of junk food items were selected when under cognitive load, although only one of
EP
468 the comparisons is statistically significant. We also observe an interesting significant interaction
469 between cognitive load and displaying discounted bundles. We find the largest percentage of
C
470 F&V items (63.5%) are selected when bundles are discounted, and participants are not subjected
AC
471 to cognitive load. In comparison, when bundles are discounted and participants are subjected to
472 cognitive load, the lowest percentage of F&V items (48.2%) are selected. In the absence of
473 cognitive load, displaying discounted bundles led to healthier choices. Yet under cognitive load,
474 displaying non-discounted bundles results in healthier selections.
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
475 As prior research suggests that grocery shoppers often shop under cognitive strain (Park
476 et al., 1989) and under time pressures (Aylott and Mitchell, 1998), it is interesting that we find a
477 price intervention offered through discounted product bundles fails to achieve the desired effect
478 of increased F&V selection for high load consumers. To appeal to mentally strained shoppers,
PT
479 whether or not retailers should display discounted or non-discounted healthy food bundles to
RI
480 increase F&V selection warrants additional research. Our results here indicate that displaying
481 healthy food bundles can lead to healthier selections overall under certain shopping conditions.
SC
482 Overall our results seem to suggest that healthy food bundles may not need to offer a
483 price discount to effectively increase F&V selection. This is perhaps helpful information for
484
U
retailers, who could implement product bundles into existing store displays at little to no cost.
AN
485 We further find evidence that suggests product bundles may be preferred by consumers as a way
to lessen their cognitive strain while grocery shopping. When non-discounted bundles are
M
486
487 displayed, 21.7% more participants select bundles when under high load compared to no load.
D
488 Another interesting result is that while product bundling seems to have a relatively stable
TE
489 effect on F&V selection across cognitive load conditions, price discounts for bundles in this
490 study do not. Comparing no load and high load consumers, when discounted bundles are
EP
491 displayed, high load consumers selected 15.3% less F&V items and 9.6% more junk food items.
492 It may be that the added effect of a price discount, when already operating with limited cognitive
C
493 assets, further depletes one’s cognitive resources, although additional research is needed to test
AC
494 the robustness of this finding in the field. Our findings may be particularly relevant for those
495 shopping on a fixed grocery budget, such as the budget we imposed on our study participants.
496 It is reasonable to assume that lower income consumers may already be under cognitive
497 strain before even reaching the grocery store. While one might initially assume that discounted
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
498 food bundles would appeal to such consumers, our results suggest that this might not be the case.
499 This is particularly relevant as prior research reported by the USDA’s Economic Research
500 Service has indicated that low-income households eat on average less F&Vs compared to higher
501 income households (Blisard et al., 2004). Our study was conducted using a participant pool from
PT
502 a Midwestern U.S. city and surrounding (who were not low income). Therefore, it would be
RI
503 interesting to extend this work to understand how these interventions affect low-income
504 shoppers. Healthy food bundles may be an effective nudge to encourage F&V selection among
SC
505 for those who may also be at a higher risk for food related health problems. It is important to
506 note that we do not seek to improve overall health from this study alone. Rather, our goal is to
507
U
provide guidelines about the kinds of health nudges that may improve food selection. We find
AN
508 the use of food bundling as a behavioral nudge may ultimately improve health by facilitating the
selection of healthier foods.

M
509
510 Our research has insights for both academia and for policy and practice. For academics,
D
511 we provide evidence of the role of cognitive load, and its interaction with health nudges, on
TE
512 choice. For policy and practice, our research suggests that product bundles are one way to
513 increase F&V selection by consumers. Cognitively stressed consumers may not necessarily
EP
514 require a price discount in order to purchase bundles that improve the healthfulness of their
515 choices. This study also provides interesting implications for better understanding potential
C
516 marketing techniques designed to increase F&V selection and sales. Such an increase in F&V
AC
517 sales could help combat high levels of obesity and diets of poor nutritional quality. An additional
518 benefit includes the potential for increased profitability among grocery retailers, who are often
519 faced with high perishability and low profit margins for produce items, compared to other food
520 products.
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
521 It warrants mentioning that our study is not without limitations. Our design required
522 participants to exhaust their shopping budget during the food choice task, and all of the food
523 items were equally priced. We recognize that in an actual grocery store, consumers often face a
524 variety of prices and can choose whether or not to exhaust their budget. Participants under
PT
525 cognitive load in our study may also have been motivated to complete the choice task quickly,
RI
526 given the incentive for recalling the 7-digit number. It may be that when under cognitive load,
527 selecting non-discounted bundles allowed participants to quickly complete the task, but that
SC
528 discounted bundles instead served as an impediment to task completion. Future research is
529 needed to test the robustness of our findings in an actual grocery store shopping scenario,
530
U
particularly when non-discounted bundles are displayed and decisions are made under cognitive
AN
531 load. Potential study designs in the future could also examine selections made when price
discounted bundles are displayed in grocery stores, and could even test a range of possible
M
532
533 discounts. Another idea for future research would be to look at preference for healthy item price
D
534 discounts separate from bundling, when shopping under cognitive load in an actual grocery store.
TE
535 In conclusion, our results suggest that food bundles may not need to offer a price discount
536 in order to effectively increase F&V selection. Busy consumers may perceive greater value from
EP
537 the effort-saving convenience and cognitive ease associated with bundle selection. Product
538 bundles may also be preferred by consumers as a means through which to lessen the cognitive
C
539 strain of the shopping process. It is important to note that the bundles included in this study were
AC
540 preassembled for the consumer; again, future work is needed to explore the practical application
541 of food bundles in an actual grocery store. Our results indicate that food bundles (consisting
542 primarily of F&V items) could potentially increase retail F&V sales, provided such bundles are
543 preassembled for the shopper.
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCES
Antonides, G., & Cramer, L. (2013). Impact of limited cognitive capacity and feelings of guilt
and excuse on the endowment effects for hedonic and utilitarian types of foods. Appetite, 68, 51-
55.
Aylott, R., & Mitchell, V. W. (1998). An exploratory study of grocery shopping
PT
stressors. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 26(9), 362 - 373.
Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Gracia, A., & de-Magistris, T. (2010). Does nutrition information on food
products lead to healthier food choices?. Food Policy, 35(3), 221-229.
RI
Benjamin, D. J., Brown, S. A., & Shapiro, J. M. (2013). Who is ‘behavioral’? Cognitive ability
and anomalous preferences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(6), 1231-1255.
SC
Blisard, W. N., Stewart, H., & Jolliffe, D. (2004). Low-income households' expenditures on fruits
and vegetables. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
U
Bradford, W. David, Charles Courtemanche, Garth Heutel, Patrick McAlvanah, and Chris Ruhm,
AN
2014. “Elicited Time Preferences and Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Health, Energy, and
Financial Decisions.” NBER working paper:
http://www.nber.org/authors_papers/charles_courtemanche.
M
Cawley, J., & Ruhm, C. J. (2011). The Economics of Risky Health Behaviors. NBER Working
Paper, (w17081).
D
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2013). “State Indicator Report on Fruits and
Vegetables, 2013.” Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department
TE
of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/state-

indicator-report-fruits-vegetables-2013.pdf
Courtemanche, C., Heutel, G., & McAlvanah, P. (2015). Impatience, incentives and obesity. The
EP
Economic Journal, 125(582), 1-31.
Deck, C., & Jahedi, S. (2015). The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A
C
survey and new experiments. European Economic Review, 78, 97-119.

AC
Duffey, K. J., Gordon-Larsen, P., Shikany, J. M., Guilkey, D., Jacobs, D. R., & Popkin, B. M.
(2010). Food price and diet and health outcomes: 20 years of the CARDIA Study. Archives of
internal medicine, 170(5), 420-426.
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution
of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. Journal of the American Medical Association.
2012; 307(5):491–97.
Food Marketing Institute (FMI). (2015). “Supermarket Facts- Industry Overview 2015”.
Available online at: http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts. (Accessed Feb.
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2017).
Food Marketing Institute (FMI). (2016). “U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2016”. Food Marketing
Institute Report: Arlington, VA.
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2006). A dual-self model of impulse control. The American
Economic Review, 1449-1476.
PT
Gordon, E., Dawkins-Lyn, N., Hogan-Yarbro, R., Karpyn, A., Shore, K., Weiss, S., & Cash, S.
(2014). “Approaches for Promoting Health Food Purchases by SNAP Participants”. Prepared by
RI
ICF International for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of
Policy Support; July 2014.
SC
Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive
load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144-1154.
Harris, J., & Blair, E. A. (2006). Consumer preference for product bundles: The role of reduced
U
search costs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,34(4), 506-513.
AN
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 1009-
1055.
M
He, F. J., Nowson, C. A., Lucas, M., & MacGregor, G. A. (2007). Increased consumption of fruit
and vegetables is related to a reduced risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of cohort
studies. Journal of human hypertension, 21(9), 717-728.
D
He, K., Hu, F. B., Colditz, G. A., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Liu, S. (2004). Changes in
intake of fruits and vegetables in relation to risk of obesity and weight gain among middle-aged
TE
women. International journal of obesity, 28(12), 1569-1574. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802795
Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L., & Whitney, P. (2003). Impulsive decision making and working
EP
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(2), 298.
Hung, H. C., Joshipura, K. J., Jiang, R., Hu, F. B., Hunter, D., Smith-Warner, S. A., Colditz,
G.A, Rosner, B., Spiegelman, D., & Willett, W. C. (2004). Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of
C
major chronic disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(21), 1577-1584.
AC
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much
of a good thing?. Journal of personality and social psychology,79(6), 995.
Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Bauer, H. H. (1999). The effects of price bundling on
consumer evaluations of product offerings. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 16(2), 129-142.
Just, D. R. (2006). Behavioral economics, food assistance, and obesity. Agricultural and
resource economics review, 35(2), 209.
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Just, D., Mancino, L., & Wansink, B. (2007). Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet
Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report,
(43).
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and

choice. Nobel prize lecture, 8, 351-401.
PT
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
RI
Kiesel, K., & Villas-Boas, S. B. (2013). Can information costs affect consumer choice?
Nutritional labels in a supermarket experiment. International Journal of Industrial
Organization, 31(2), 153-163.
SC
Kuchler, F., Abebayehu, T., & M. Harris. (2005) “Taxing Snack Foods: Manipulation Diet
Quality or Financing Information Programs.” Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 4-
20.
U
List, J. A. (2011). Why economists should conduct field experiments and 14 tips for pulling one
AN
off. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 3-16.
List, J. A., Samek, A.S., & Zhu, T. (2015). Incentives to Eat Healthy: Evidence from a Grocery
Store Field Experiment. CESR-Schaeffer Working Paper, (2015-025).
M
Liu, P. J., Haws, K. L., Lamberton, C., Campbell, T. H., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2015). Vice-virtue
bundles. Management Science, 61(1), 204-228.
D
Mukherjee, K. (2010). A dual system model of preferences under risk. Psychological

TE
review, 117(1), 243-255.
Murteira, J. M., & Ramalho, J. J. (2014). Regression analysis of multivariate fractional

data. Econometric Reviews, 1-38.
EP
National Institute of Health (2012) “How are Overweight and Obesity Treated?”. Available
online at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/treatment.html. (July 13,
C
2012).
AC
Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response
variables with an application to 401 (k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied
Econometrics, 11(6), 619-632.
Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S., & Smith, D. C. (1989). The effects of situational factors on in-store
grocery shopping behavior: the role of store environment and time available for
shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 422-433.
Post, R. C., Haven, J., & Maniscalco, S. (2011). Setting the table with a healthy plate: Make half
your plate fruits and vegetables. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 111(11), 1644-
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1647.
Price, J., & Riis, J. (2012). Behavioral economics and the psychology of fruit and vegetable
consumption. Journal of Food Studies, 1(1), 1-13.
Roberto, C. A., Larsen, P. D., Agnew, H., Baik, J., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). Evaluating the
impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2),
PT
312.
Sharpe, K. M., & Staelin, R. (2010). Consumption Effects of Bundling: Consumer Perceptions,
RI
Firm Actions, and Public Policy Implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(2), 170-
188.
SC
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278-292.
Thorndike, A. N., Sonnenberg, L., Riis, J., Barraclough, S., & Levy, D. E. (2012). A 2-phase
U
labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage
choices. American journal of public health, 102(3), 527-533.
AN
Tuorila, H.M., et al. (1998) “Effect of Expectations and the Definition of Product Category on
the Acceptance of Unfamiliar Foods.” Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9, pp. 421-430.
M
Wansink, B. (1996) “Can Package Size Accelerate Consumption Volume?” Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 1-14.
D
Wansink, B. (2004) “Environmental Factors That Increase the Food Intake and Consumption
Volume of Unknowing Consumers,” Annual Review of Nutrition, Vol. 24, pp. 455-479.
TE
Wansink, B., and R. Deshpande. (1994) “‘Out of Sight Out of Mind’: The Impact of Household
Stockpiling on Usage Rates.” Marketing Letters, Vol. 5, pp. 91-100.
EP
Ward, A., & Mann, T. (2000). Don't mind if I do: disinhibited eating under cognitive
load. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(4), 753.
C
Welsh, D., C. Davis, and A. Shaw. (1993) USDA’s Food Guide: Background and Development.
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1514. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition
AC
Information Service.
Zimmerman, F. J., & Shimoga, S. V. (2014). The effects of food advertising and cognitive load
on food choices. BMC public health, 14(1), 1.
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
APPENDIX A. Fractional Multinomial Logit Estimates for Determinants of Grocery

Selection, by Item Category
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
1
p-values in bold are significant at the 10%*, 5%** and 1%*** level respectively
NOTE: The share of Protein/Dairy/Grain Items is the excluded category
C EP
AC
A1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
APPENDICES B – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
TABLE B1. Treatments, Food Choice Task
Cognitive Load
PT
Treatment Grocery Display # of Participants
Condition
Individual Items Only
RI
T1 No Load 59
(Control)
T1 plus “5 for $5” Bundles
SC
T2 No Load 60
(Bundles-No Discount)

T3 No Load 58
U
(Bundles-Discounted)
AN
Individual Items Only
T4 High Load 58
(Control)
M

T5 High Load 66
(Bundles-NoDiscount)
D

T6 High Load 66
TE
(Bundles-Discounted)
Total: 367
C EP
AC
A2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE B2. Food Tasks: Recall Accuracy for High Cognitive Load Manipulation, by Treatment
Memorization
Accuracy1 7-Digit
Treatment
% Number
(std dev)
T4 93.10
PT
5186348
(Control, High Load) (25.56)
T5
93.94
RI
(Bundles-No Discount, High Load) 6217457
(24.04)
T6
SC
90.91
(Bundles-Discounted, High Load) 7491248
(28.97)
1
no significant differences observed between treatments using non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-
U
sample tests
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
A3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE B3. Manipulation Check for High Cognitive Load: Arithmetic Performance Tasks
% Accurate
(std dev)
Treatment1
No Load High Load Signed-rank
PT
Difference3
Section Section2 p-value4
94.46 83.02 11.44

T1 (Control, No Load)
RI
<0.001***
(23.98) (26.34) (20.33)
SC
89.37 81.52 7.85
T2 (Bundles-No Discount, No Load) 0.0038***
(23.17) (25.08) (16.53)
U
92.63 85.28 7.35
T3 (Bundles-Discounted, No Load) 0.0267**
(22.92) (25.43) (20.10)
AN
95.26 83.62 11.64
T4 (Control, High Load) <0.001***
(15.14) (19.62) (14.97)
M
94.17 86.45 7.72

T5 (Bundles-No Discount, High Load) 0.0178**
(21.46) (19.49) (19.16)
D
94.33 81.56 12.77

TE
T6 (Bundles-Discounted, High Load) <0.001***

(14.54) (21.37) (17.05)
93.37 83.58 9.79

EP
Aggregate <0.001***
(21.38) (19.88) (20.49)
1
Within each treatment, half of participants completed the High Load Section prior to the No Load Section. Non-
parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-sample tests were used to test for order effects in accuracy both within and
C
between treatments. No significant order effects were observed. For all participants, each Section consisted of 4
arithmetic problems, for a total of 8 arithmetic tasks.
AC
2
No significant differences in high load accuracy observed between high load treatments, and between high versus
no load treatments, using non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-sample tests
3
No significant differences in accuracy difference observed between high load treatments, and between high versus
no load treatments, using non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-sample tests
4
p-values obtained from non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for matched pairs
NOTE: values in bold significant at the *10%, **5% and ***1% level respectively
NOTE: in the high load arithmetic condition, the 7-digit numbers employed were 4319162; 8568379; 5862413;
2856979
A4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
FIGURE B1. Layout of Grocery Store Display
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
A5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
FIGURE B2. Prescreen Questionnaire for Potential Study Participants

Thank you for your interest in the Consumer Study. Please answer each of the questions below
so that we can determine if you are eligible to participate in this study.
1) In the past two months, how often have you shopped for grocery items?
1-2 times
PT
3 or more times
I have not shopped for grocery times in the past two months
2) Are you 18 years of age or older?
RI
YES
NO
SC
3) Are you currently a full time undergraduate student (enrolled in 12 or more credits)?
YES
NO
4) How long have you been a U.S. resident?

U
AN
Less than 5 years
5 years or more
5) Do you have any known food allergies?

M
YES (please list):____________________

NO
D
TE
C EP
AC
A6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
FIGURE B3. Instructions Script and Practice Tasks
Welcome to the Study.

You will receive a $5 show-up payment today. You will also receive $10 worth of food items that
you will select. You can earn additional money based on your responses during today's tasks.
Therefore, it is important that you read the directions carefully.
PT
Today's session will last approximately 60 minutes.
If you have questions, please raise your hand and wait for a researcher to come to you. Please
RI
do not talk or communicate with other participants, and no cell phone use.
You will be paid in cash immediately following the end of today's session. You will also receive
SC
your $10 worth of selected food items at the end of today's session.
Click to the next page
U
Some items need to be refrigerated - note that you can choose to pick up your food items at a
AN
later time today or tomorrow if you are not able to take them with you; please notify the
researchers of this when you receive your payment.
M
You will see 3 different types of tasks in today's study:

D
1. A Food choice task,

TE
2. Memorization tasks, and

3. Math tasks.
EP

C
1) Food choice task: The first task today will be a food choice task. For the food choice task, you
will be given a set budget of $10 at the start of the task. You should use your entire $10 budget
AC
by selecting food items from those displayed. No change will be given if you do not use the entire
$10. You will receive the food items that you select. Select food items by entering the quantity of
each that you would like to purchase with your $10 budget.
Next practice some food choice tasks.
A7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
THIS IS A PRACTICE TASK
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
A8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
A9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2) Memorization tasks: Some tasks today also include a memorization task. You will be asked to
memorize and then recall a 7-digit number. You will be shown the number for 10 seconds before
asked to complete a separate task. You will have 10 seconds to re-type the number immediately
PT
after the task.
Next practice a memorization task. For now, there is no separate task, just the memorization
task.
RI
Click to the next page.
SC
Wait here
U
Remember the number: 3485192
AN
If you remember the number correctly you will receive $5; else you will receive $0.
M
Next page
D
Enter the number you were asked to memorize: ___________________

TE
Click to the next page.

EP
At the end of the session, 1 memorization task will be randomly selected. The randomly selected
task is the one that will 'count' towards today's payment. You will receive an additional $5 if you
C
recalled the number correctly in the selected task. You receive an additional $0 if you did not
memorize the number correctly.
AC
3) Math tasks: The last set of tasks will be math tasks. You will complete 8 math problems. You
will have 30 seconds to complete each. At the end of the session, 1 problem will be randomly
selected to count towards today's payment. You will receive $3 if you correctly answered the
selected problem, else you will receive $0 for this task.
Next practice some math tasks.
A10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

If you answer the math problem correctly you will receive $3;
PT
Otherwise you will receive $0
47
+4
RI
Next page
SC
U
If you answer the math problem correctly you will receive $3;
AN
Otherwise you will receive $0
13
x6
M
D
Next page
TE
You have now completed the Practice Tasks.

EP
C
AC
A11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
FIGURE B4. Post-experiment Questionnaire Items
1) What is your gender?

Male
Female
PT
Other
2) How many children less than 18 years of age live in your household?
RI
# of children (<18 yrs of age):____________
3) In what year were you born? (Enter only last 2 digits of year):
SC
I was born in....................... 19_____
U
4) Before taxes, what was your total household income level this past year?
Less than $19,000
AN
$19,001 - $36,000
$36,001 - $59,500
M
$59,501 - $96,000
$96,001 or more
D
5) Were any of the food items you selected today items that you were ALREADY planning on
TE
buying soon?
YES
NO
EP
6) I currently follow a.............(select one or more):

vegetarian diet
C
vegan diet
AC
raw foods diet

Paleo diet
low-sodium diet
diabetic (reduced sugar) diet
gluten-free diet
low-carb diet
none of the above
A12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7) What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Less than High School Graduate
High School Graduate/GED
Some college, no degree
Associate's degree
PT
Bachelor's degree
Graduate or Professional degree
RI
8) What is your race? (Select 1 or more):
SC
White
Black or African American
U
Asian American
American Indian or Alaska Native
AN
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Other (Specify):
M
9) Are you Chicano/a, Hispanic and/or Latino/a?

D
Yes
TE
No
C EP
AC
A13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
FIGURE 1. Individual Items Featured in the Food Choice Task, by Item Category
Category Individual Food Items
PT
RI
SC
1 Bag Baby Carrots
2 Gala Apples 3 Bananas 2 Navel Oranges 2 Cucumbers (16 oz)
U
Fruit &
Vegetable Items
AN
M
1 Bag Frozen 1 Bag Frozen
Sweet Corn Broccoli Cuts 1 Can Green Beans 1 Can Tomatoes 1 Can Bartlett Pears
D
(12 oz) (12 oz) (14 oz) (14.5 oz) (15 oz)
TE
EP
1 Box Frozen
C
2 Bags Cheez-Its 2 Bags Potato Chips 2 Bags Doritos 6 Oreo Cookies French Fries
AC
(1 oz/bag) (1 oz/bag) (1 oz/bag) (2 oz pack) (4.75 oz)
Junk Food/
Snack Items
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 Bag Peanut M&Ms 1 Rice Krispie Treat 1 Bag Skittles 1 Twix 1 Snickers
(1.74 oz) (1.3 oz) (2.17 oz) Ice Cream Bar Ice Cream Bar
(1.93 oz) (1.93 oz)
PT
RI
U SC
1 Container Cheerios 6 English Muffins 1 Bottle 2% Milk 1 Strawberry Yogurt 4 Oatmeal Packets
AN
(1.3 oz) (12 oz bag) (8 oz) (6 oz container) (0.98 oz/packet)
Protein/Dairy/
M
Grain Items
D
TE
1 Box Elbow 1 Can Chunk 1 Can Cream of 1 Can Kidney
Macaroni 1 Box White Rice Light Tuna Mushroom Soup Beans
EP
(16 oz) (16 oz) (5 oz) (10.5 oz) (15.5 oz)
C
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
FIGURE 2. Preassembled Product Bundles Featured in the Food Choice Task
Bundle Bundled Items
PT
RI
Bundle A
(5 F&V Items)
SC
1 Bag Frozen
2 Gala Apples 3 Bananas Sweet Corn 1 Can Green Beans 1 Can Tomatoes
(12 oz) (14 oz) (14.5 oz)
U
AN
M
Bundle B
(5 F&V Items)
D
1 Bag Frozen
2 Navel Oranges 1 Bag Baby Carrots Broccoli Cuts 1 Can Tomatoes 1 Can Bartlett Pears
TE
EP (16 oz) (12 oz) (14.5 oz) (15 oz)
Bundle C
C
(4 F&V Items,
AC
1 Protein/
Dairy/Grain 1 Can Kidney
Item) 3 Bananas 2 Cucumbers 1 Bag Baby Carrots 1 Can Tomatoes Beans
(16 oz) (14.5 oz) (15.5 oz)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PT
Bundle D
(4 F&V Items,
RI
1 Junk Food/
Snack Item) 1 Bag Frozen 1 Box Frozen
SC
2 Navel Oranges 3 Bananas Sweet Corn 1 Can Green Beans French Fries
(12 oz) (14 oz) (4.75 oz)
U
AN
Bundle E
M
(3 F&V Items,
2 Protein/
Dairy/Grain
D
1 Bag Frozen 1 Box Elbow
Items) 2 Cucumbers 1 Bag Baby Carrots Broccoli Cuts 1 Box White Rice Macaroni
TE
EP (16 oz) (12 oz) (16 oz) (16 oz)
C
Bundle F
AC
(3 F&V Items,
2 Protein/
1 Container
Dairy/Grain
3 Bananas 2 Navel Oranges 1 Can Bartlett Pears Cheerios 1 Bottle 2% Milk
Items) (15 oz) (1.3 oz) (8 oz)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE 1. Order of Study Tasks
Task Sub-Task
1. Obtain informed consent
PT
2. Review session
instructions
RI
3. Practice tasks: i. Food choice practice
ii. 7-Digit number memorization and recall practice1
SC
iii. Arithmetic practice
4. View all products in

grocery display
U
AN
5. Food choice task2
6. 5-Minute break
M
7. Eight arithmetic tasks3: i. Section A (4 tasks)4:

Multiply m1 x m2, where integer m1 ~ U (13…19) and
D
integer m2 ~ U (5….9)
TE
ii. 5-minute break
iii. Section B (4 tasks)5:

Multiply m1 x m2, where integer m1 ~ U (13…19) and
EP
integer m2 ~ U (5….9) concurrently with a

memorization task (7-digit number recall at the end of
each task)
C
8. Post-experiment
AC
questionnaire
i. $5 show-up payment
ii. Receive food choice task items (valued at $10)

9. Receive study
incentives:
iii. Memorization task payment ($0-$5)
1 of 7 tasks randomly selected; receive additional $5 if
correctly recalled 7-digit number, else receive
additional $0
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
iv. Arithmetic Task payment ($0-$3)

1 of 8 tasks randomly selected; receive additional $3 if
correctly answered problem, else receive additional $0
PT
1
Memorization tasks served to induce high cognitive load
2
Participants randomized to 1 of 6 treatments upon arrival; treatments can be viewed in Table 1.
3
Arithmetic performance serves as a manipulation check for high cognitive load, following Deck and
RI
Jahedi (2015).
4
Order of tasks randomized within section
5
Half of participants randomly selected to complete Section B first; the 7-digit numbers employed were
4319162; 8568379; 5862413; 2856979
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE 2. Average and Median Percentage Selected, by Item Category and Treatment
PT
Fruit & Vegetable Junk Food/Snack Protein/Dairy/Grain
Items Items Items
RI
Avg. Median Avg. Median Avg. Median
Treatment
SC
(std dev) (IQR) (std dev) (IQR) (std dev) (IQR)
U
48.64 50.00 16.78 20.00 34.58 30.00
T1 (Control, No Load)
AN
(21.77) (30 to 60) (16.96) (0 to 30) (20.11) (20 to 50)
M
54.50 50.00 16.33 10.00 29.17 30.00
T2 (Bundles-No Discount, No Load)
(27.58) (40 to 70) (25.11) (0 to 25) (22.57) (10 to 40)
D
63.51 66.70 13.72 9.10 22.79 25.00
TE
T3 (Bundles-Discounted, No Load)
(20.34)
EP (45.5 to 75) (20.67) (0 to 18.20) (15.23) (10 to 33.33)
49.48 50.00 19.83 20.00 30.69 20.00

T4 (Control, High Load)
(24.09) (40 to 70) (21.56) (0 to 30) (21.35) (10 to 40)
C
56.36 60.00 19.24 20.00 24.40 20.00

AC
T5 (Bundles-No Discount, High Load)

(27.66) (40 to 80) (26.56) (0 to 30) (21.49) (10 to 40)
48.19 50.00 23.30 18.20 28.51 27.30

T6 (Bundles-Discounted, High Load)
(24.16) (30 to 63.63) (28.27) (0 to 40) (22.10) (10 to 41.70)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
NOTE: This table presents the average and median percentage of grocery items selected by participants from each of the three food item categories. as part of
their choice set, by treatment. Standard deviations and interquartile ranges in parentheses as noted.
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE 3. Comparison Statistics for Food Item Category Percentages, by Treatment
Baseline Comparison Fruit & Vegetable Junk/Snack Food Protein/Dairy/

Treatment Treatment Items Items Grain Items
Avg. % Avg. % Avg. %

Rank- Rank- Rank-
Difference Difference Difference
sum sum sum
PT
over Baseline over Baseline over Baseline
p-value1 p-value1 p-value1
(std dev) (std dev) (std dev)
RI
T2
5.86 -0.45 -5.41
(Bundles-No Discount, No 0.1928 0.1994 0.1180
(4.14) (0.32) (3.83)
SC
Load)
T3
T1 14.87 -3.06 -11.79
(Bundles-Discounted, No 0.0003*** 0.0628* 0.0007***
U
(Control, No Load) (10.51) (2.16) (8.34)
Load)
AN
T4 0.84 3.05 -3.89
0.9846 0.7187 0.2857
(Control, High Load) (0.59) (2.16) (2.75)
M
T5
6.88 -0.59 -6.29
D
T4 (Bundles-No Discount, 0.0359** 0.4601 0.0560*
(4.86) (0.42) (4.45)
(Control, High Load) High Load)
TE
T6
-1.29 3.47 -2.18
(Bundles-Discounted, High 0.9719 0.9959 0.4084
(0.91) (2.45) (1.54)
EP
Load)
C
T2 T3
9.01 -2.61 -6.38
AC
(Bundles-No (Bundles-Discounted, No 0.0584* 0.6964 0.1662

(6.37) (1.85) (4.51)
Discount, No Load) Load)
T5
1.86 2.91 -4.77
(Bundles-No Discount, 0.4575 0.4383 0.1786
(1.32) (2.06) (3.37)
High Load)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T3
T6 15.32 -9.58 -5.72
(Bundles-Discounted, No 0.0002*** 0.0398** 0.2480
(Bundles-Discounted, (10.83) (6.77) (4.05)
Load)
High Load)
T5
8.17 -4.06 -4.11
(Bundles-No Discount, 0.0118** 0.4209 0.3307
(5.78) (2.87) (2.91)
High Load)
PT
1
NOTE: This table presents the average difference in the percentage of grocery items selected by participants from each of the three food item categories, as part of their choice set, using
RI
pairwise comparisons between treatments. p-values obtained from non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum 2-sample tests. Standard deviations in parentheses.
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE 4. Percentage of Participants Selecting Bundles, by Treatment
% Selecting Any
Treatment Bundles
(std dev)
1 Bundle 2 Bundles
T2 45.00
36.67 8.33
PT
(Bundles-No Discount, No Load) (50.17)
RI
T3 81.03
25.86 55.17
(Bundles-Discounted, No Load) (39.55)
SC
T5 66.67
37.88 28.79
(Bundles-No Discount, High Load) (47.50)
U
AN
T6 56.06
19.70 36.36
(Bundles-Discounted, High Load) (50.01)
M
NOTE: This table presents the percentage of participants selecting 1, 2, and any bundles as part of their choice set, by treatment. T1 and T4
are omitted as the treatments did not contain product bundles. Standard deviations in parentheses.
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE 5. Comparison Statistics for Percentage of Participants Selecting 1 or More Bundle, by Treatment
Avg. %
Difference
Rank-sum
Baseline Treatment Comparison Treatment over
p-value1
Baseline
(std dev)
PT
T3
36.03
(Bundles-Discounted, No Load)
T2 (25.48) 0.0001***
RI
(Bundles-No Discount, No Load)
SC
T5
21.67
(Bundles-No Discount, High Load) 0.0147**
(15.32)
U
AN
T6
T3 -24.97
(Bundles-Discounted, High Load)
(Bundles-Discounted, No Load) (17.66) 0.0031***
M
D
T5 T6
-10.61
TE
(Bundles-No Discount, High Load) (Bundles-Discounted, High Load) 0.2126
(7.50)
EP
1
NOTE: This table presents the average difference in the percentage of participants who selecting 1 or more bundle as part of their choice set, using pairwise comparisons between
C
treatments. T1 and T4 are omitted as the treatments did not contain product bundles. Standard deviations in parentheses.
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TABLE 6. Marginal Effects for Determinants of Grocery Selection, by Item Category
Fruit & Vegetable Items Junk Food/Snack Items
Variable Estimated Delta-Method Estimated Delta-Method
Marginal Effect Standard Error Marginal Effect Standard Error
HighCognitiveLoad 0.0281 0.0329 0.0031 0.0289
PT
BundlesDisplayed 0.0437** 0.0509 0.0738** 0.0441
BundlesDiscounted 0.1016** 0.0396 -0.0528 0.0403
RI
HighCognitiveLoad*BundlesDiscounted -0.1633*** 0.0505 0.0644 0.0491
SC
BundlesDisplayed*Female 0.0124 0.0540 -0.0901** 0.0460
U
AlreadyPlannedToPurchase 0.0423 0.0407 -0.0842*** 0.0325
AN
FollowingSpecialDiet 0.0515 0.0311 -0.1033*** 0.0315
Female 0.0196 0.0433 0.0375 0.0354
M
ChildrenUnder18 0.0060 0.0412 -0.0149 0.0377
D
NonCaucasian -0.0080 0.0272 -0.0039 0.0239
TE
Age 0.0042 0.0012 -0.0073*** 0.0015
HouseholdIncome10K 0.0054 0.0029 -0.0058* 0.0027

EP
NOTE: values in bold are significant at the 10%*, 5%** and 1%*** level respectively
C
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
APPENDIX A. Fractional Multinomial Logit Estimates for Determinants of Grocery Selection, by Item Category
Fruit & Vegetable Items Junk Food/Snack Items
Variable Robust Robust
Estimated Estimated
Standard z-statistic Pr > |z|1 Standard z-statistic Pr > |z|1
Coefficient Coefficient
Error Error
HighCognitiveLoad 0.1649 0.1439 1.15 0.252 0.1299 0.2231 0.58 0.560
PT
BundlesDisplayed 0.5030 0.2204 2.28 0.022** 0.8551 0.3357 2.55 0.011**
RI
BundlesDiscounted 0.3670 0.1685 2.18 0.029** -0.1365 0.3111 -0.44 0.661
SC
HighCognitiveLoad*BundlesDiscounted -0.6628 0.2183 -3.04 0.002*** 0.0256 0.3811 0.07 0.947
BundlesDisplayed*Female -0.2535 0.2428 -1.04 0.296 -0.8060 0.3618 -2.23 0.026**
U
AlreadyPlannedToPurchase -0.0696 0.1740 -0.40 0.689 -0.6460 0.2428 -2.66 0.008***
AN
FollowingSpecialDiet -0.0877 0.1350 -0.65 0.516 -0.7938 0.2478 -3.20 0.001***
M
Female 0.2415 0.1926 1.25 0.210 0.4253 0.2749 1.55 0.122
ChildrenUnder18 -0.0204 0.1842 -0.11 0.912 -0.1195 0.2976 -0.40 0.688
D
NonCaucasian -0.0575 0.1273 -0.45 0.652 -0.0652 0.1939 -0.34 0.737
Age -0.0029
TE
0.0046 -0.63 0.529 -0.0536 0.0110 -4.87 <0.001***
EP
HouseholdIncome10K 0.0088 0.0114 0.77 0.439 -0.0355 0.0201 -1.77 0.076*
Intercept 0.3474 0.2273 1.53 0.126 1.1470 0.3713 3.09 0.002***
C
Observations 367 367

AC
Wald chi2(24) 92.18

Prob > chi2 0.0000
1
NOTE: The share of Protein/Dairy/Grain Items is the excluded category
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Food Bundling As A Health Nudge - Investigating Consumer Fruit and Vegetable Selection Using Behavioral Economics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Food Bundling As A Health Nudge - Investigating Consumer Fruit and Vegetable Selection Using Behavioral Economics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Bundling As A Health Nudge - Investigating Consumer Fruit and Vegetable Selection Using Behavioral Economics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

Food bundling as a health nudge: Investigating consumer fruit and vegetable

Kathryn A. Carroll, Anya Samek, Lydia Zepeda

To appear in: Appetite

Received Date: 14 June 2017

1 Food Bundling as a Health Nudge:

22 healthy food purchasing.

26 theory; behavioral economics; health concerns; grocery shopping

1 Food Bundling as a Health Nudge:

14 the recommendation is with every meal (CDC, 2013).

26 (Kahneman, 2002; 2011; Fudenberg and Levine, 2006; Mukherjee, 2010).

69 to encourage the consumption of nutritious foods1. Further research is needed to understand

84 potential behavioral intervention to increase overall sales of F&V items.

89 contradict this assumption. An explanation is that food selection is perhaps a self-control

107 food options are selected when cognitively strained.

Whether or not bundles need to be discounted in order to effectively increase F&V

123 discounted bundles and cognitive load is also indeterminate.

126 Experimental Design

133 through summer 2016.

145 any of the study food items.

193 recommendations (Post et al., 2011).

202 2 Cognitive Load Conditions.

214 (5….9), following Deck and

221 could later check for order effects.

232 The order of study tasks is presented in Table 1.

234 Outcome Measures and Econometric Model

249 TABLE 1. Order of Study Tasks

251 shelf-stable foods.

263 fractional regression model.

271 X ≡ (x1, x2,.…xn).

284 included are interactions HighCognitiveLoad*BundlesDiscounted and

287 AlreadyPlannedToPurchase, (M=83.9%; SD=36.7%) which is 1 if the participant had already

291 observed between treatments.

293 SD=47.5%), ChildrenUnder18 (M=10.5%; SD=30.5%), and NonCaucasian (M=29.4%;

302 BundlesDisplayed, BundlesDiscounted, HighCognitiveLoad*BundlesDiscounted, and

317 unhealthy option when cognitive resources are lessened.

325 in parentheses as noted.

353 when non-discounted bundles are displayed (T2).

357 the expense of Protein/Dairy/Grain Items. A 6.29% decrease (p=0.0560) in Protein/Dairy/Grain

377 actual store environments.

379 treatment, is reported in Table 4.

(Bundles-No Discount, No Load) (50.17)

394 preference for the bundles’ associated price savings.

395 Differences in bundle selection between treatments can be viewed in Table 5. We

400 (T6) compared to no load (T3).

405 actual store environments.

438 proportion of F&V items selected.

449 less Junk Food/Snack items.

451 Manipulation Check for Cognitive Load

474 displaying non-discounted bundles results in healthier selections.

selection of healthier foods.

543 preassembled for the shopper.

Aylott, R., & Mitchell, V. W. (1998). An exploratory study of grocery shopping

of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/state-

Economic Journal, 125(582), 1-31.

survey and new experiments. European Economic Review, 78, 97-119.

women. International journal of obesity, 28(12), 1569-1574. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802795