Can Behavioral Economists Nudge Young Hands Out of the Cookie Jar?

Nutrition, particularly as it relates to children’s overall wellbeing, has recently received quite a bit of attention. While research has highlighted the rise of obesity among low-income and food-insecure children, the question of how to influence children’s choices has been largely ignored. A study by John List from the University of Chicago and researcher Anya Savikhin from the University of Wisconsin examines the potential role behavioral economics may play in improving children’s food choices.

Using after school programs that provide children in low-income areas throughout Chicago with free, USDA-sponsored meals, List and Savikhin conducted a large-scale field experiment focusing on the choice children are given between a dried fruit cup and a cookie. According to previous research, only around one third of children eat the recommended daily serving of fruit in an average day. The dried fruit cup contains no added sugars, so, for the purpose of the study, it is considered the healthier choice compared to the cookie.

Using random assignment, researchers assigned children to one of four treatment groups. In one group, children were given incentives to take the fruit, emphasizing gains: children were told that if they chose and ate the fruit, they would be able to select a prize. Another group was given incentives set up as a loss situation in which children could select a prize as they were going through the food line. The prize was then put in a little clear box, and if children did not choose and then consume the fruit, it was taken away. Prizes in both of these treatment groups – such as wristbands, keychains, and pens – cost less than 50 cents. Furthermore, children in these treatment groups saw a picture of the prize options on a bulletin board.

The third treatment group was read a brief educational message about the benefits of fruit and was shown the USDA food pyramid. Nothing in the message explicitly recommended that children choose fruit instead of a cookie. A fourth treatment group was given a combination of both the second and third treatments – a loss-based incentive and a brief educational message.

Researchers found that all forms of treatment involving incentives significantly increased the number of children choosing the fruit. Without incentives, about 17 percent of children chose fruit instead of cookies, but, once incentives were introduced, almost 80 percent chose fruit. When educational messages were used without incentives, they did not significantly increase the chance that a child would choose fruit, but, when paired with a loss-framed incentive, they significantly increased the chance the child would both choose the fruit and consume it.

Consumption was observed visually by researchers, and, before any groups received the treatment, researchers observed that about 20 percent of children who chose fruit ate less than a quarter of it. Though all incentives, regardless of whether they were framed using loss or gain, made a difference in food choice, children in the loss-framed incentive group were significantly more likely to actually consume most or all of the fruit after choosing it.

Critics of using incentives to encourage certain choices often worry that rewards will decrease intrinsic motivation and lead to negative longer-term outcomes. In this study, List and Savikhin continued to monitor children’s food choices for a week after removing the treatment and found that children who had received an educational message paired with the incentive continued to be significantly more likely to choose fruit.

Limitations of this study should be carefully considered, particularly given the short follow-up period and the limited binary choice in food items. Also, given that the children’s eating habits outside of the program were not observed, broad claims about health cannot be made.

But, even with cautious interpretation, this study has important policy considerations regarding child nutrition. Given the large investment that the USDA makes to sponsor food programs, efforts to increase consumption, not just provision, of healthy foods could benefit from applying behavioral economics. Leveraging behavioral economics to impact behavior around food choice and consumption could be a catalyst for improving youth health outcomes.

Article Source: The Behavioralist as nutritionist: Leveraging behavioral economics to improve child food choice and consumption, Journal of Health Economics, 2015

Featured Photo: cc/(San José Library)