Abstract
We leverage behavioral economics to explore new approaches to tackling child food choice and consumption. Using a field experiment with >1500 children, we report several key insights. We find that incentives have large influences: in the control, 17% of children prefer the healthy snack, whereas introduction of small incentives increases take-up of the healthy snack to ∼75%. There is some evidence that the effects continue post-treatment, consistent with a model of habit formation. We find little evidence that the framing of incentives (loss vs. gain) matters. Educational messaging alone has little effect, but we observe a combined effect of messaging and incentives: together they provide an important influence on food choice. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Generated Summary
This research investigates the impact of behavioral economics on children’s food choices and consumption patterns. The study employs a large-scale field experiment conducted in after-school programs (Kids Cafes) in the Chicago area. The methodology revolves around the concept of reference-dependent preferences and loss aversion, a key tenet of behavioral economics. The study’s design involves offering children choices between a healthier option (dried fruit cup) and a less healthy option (cookie), while manipulating factors such as incentives and educational messaging to observe their effects on food selection. The study aims to infer the causal effects of different interventions, including gain-framed incentives, loss-framed incentives, educational messaging, and combinations thereof, with the goal of informing strategies to improve child nutrition. The experiment considers the effect of delivering the intervention for varying lengths of time to analyze potential policy implications, and also examines the impact of the interventions on both immediate choice and post-treatment behavior.
Key Findings & Statistics
- In the control group (BASELINE), only 17% of children chose the healthy snack (dried fruit cup).
- When small incentives were introduced (GAIN and LOSS), the take-up of the healthy snack increased to approximately 75-80%.
- Children meeting the RDA for fruit: 30-39% (fruit juice excluded and included, respectively).
- The study involved over 1600 children and adolescents across 24 sites, with participation lasting several weeks.
- The percentage of children choosing fruit in the GAIN treatment was 78%, while in the LOSS treatment it was 76% (compared to 16% in BASELINE).
- The EDU treatment did not increase fruit selection (11%).
- The EDU + LOSS treatment increased fruit selection to 86%.
- In the long treatment sessions, the proportion of children selecting fruit in EDU + LOSS post-treatment (26%) relative to BASELINE (13%)
- The average number of children participating per treatment was 323, but only 186 and 160 in each treatment on days 1 and 2, respectively.
- Among the children, 21% selected fruit on day 1 (pre-treatment) and 16% on day 2 (treatment) in BASELINE.
- Proportion of fruit consumption: 12% (BASELINE), 66% (GAIN), 74% (LOSS), and 82% (EDU + LOSS)
- Rate of waste: 23% (BASELINE), 9.6% (GAIN), 4.9% (LOSS), 9.9% (EDU), 6.7% (EDU + LOSS).
- The ratio of r and s (when linearity is assumed) have found −s(−x)/r(x) ∼= 2 (see Tversky and Kahneman, 1991).
Other Important Findings
- Incentives have a significant influence on food choices, with a substantial increase in healthy snack selection when incentives are introduced.
- There is little evidence that loss-framed incentives are more effective than gain-framed incentives.
- Educational messaging alone has a limited impact on food choice.
- The combination of educational messaging and incentives yields a combined effect that significantly improves food choice, with a higher proportion of children selecting and consuming the healthy snack.
- The effects of the interventions, particularly the combined approach of education and incentives, appear to persist beyond the treatment period, suggesting a potential for habit formation.
- The study found that the gain and loss treatments are equally effective in moving children to choose the healthy option.
- Children in the gain treatment choose healthier options than those in the loss treatment.
- The study indicates that the long-term impact could be positive in the health domain.
- Consumption is generally high in incentivized treatments, and LOSS leads to higher consumption than GAIN
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s randomization was conducted at the site level (Kids Cafe), not at the individual child level, which could affect the generalizability of findings.
- The study’s reliance on self-reported data and visual observations of consumption may be subject to some degree of inaccuracy.
- The choice of a dried fruit cup as the healthier option, while contributing to fruit RDA, may not be ideal due to the higher sugar content compared to fresh fruit.
- The study did not have a stark difference between the relative healthfulness of the cookie and the dried fruit cup.
- The study did not observe food choices outside of the Kids Cafe, therefore, they could not make a direct link from food choice in the school cafeteria to weight.
- Due to limitations placed on the researchers by the Kids Cafes, the randomization was done at the site level, which may have caused contamination.
- The differences in the number of observations per treatment are due to the fact that some treatments were conducted only during the “Short” session (Gain Incentive) while the remaining treatments were conducted in both “Short” and “Long” versions.
Conclusion
The study’s findings highlight the effectiveness of behavioral economics in shaping children’s food choices. The research underscores the significant impact of incentives, particularly when framed as gains or losses, in promoting healthier snack selections. The observation that educational messaging, while not effective on its own, becomes more impactful when combined with incentives suggests a synergistic effect. The persistence of these effects beyond the treatment period indicates the potential for habit formation, supporting the use of such interventions for long-term behavioral change. The study provides evidence that the combination of education and loss incentives is a better solution. The use of incentives has a significant influence on children’s food choices, with students being drawn to the healthier choice at a high rate. The results suggest that there is an important place for educational messages, and that they have their greatest impact when combined with a small individual incentive.The findings have important implications for not only immediate choice, but also suggest that longer-term impacts can be achieved with the correct mix of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives.The research also highlights the importance of considering factors beyond immediate choice, such as consumption patterns and waste, to fully understand the effectiveness of interventions. While the study acknowledges limitations such as the reliance on visual observations and the constraints imposed by the study environment, the overall results point to the potential of behavioral economics to improve child nutrition and promote healthier eating habits. As Just and Price (2013) define the “rate of waste” as the average proportion of whole servings of items that were not consumed in each treatment. Rate of waste for our desserts, on average, is only 9% – a small waste rate in comparison to ∼40% waste rates in school lunchrooms.