ArticlePDF Available

Smarter Lunchrooms: Using Behavioral Economics to Improve Meal Selection

Authors:
3rd Quarter 2009 | 24(3)
SMARTER LUNCHROOMS: USING BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS TO IMPROVE
MEAL SELECTION
David R. Just and Brian Wansink
Rising obesity rates among children have led many to lay the blame for this situation at the feet of the school
lunch program. Local school lunch administrators experience tremendous pressure from parents and activists
to drop higher calorie items from the menu. Proponents of these measures argue that if children can’t buy
items of this type, they will not consume the items, thus reducing the child’s total intake of calories. Additional
pressure has pushed for healthier fare in the USDA subsidized school lunches. Here proponents have
pushed to replace the familiar pizza, hot dogs, and burgers with items involving words such as “whole grain,”
“organic,” “vegetarian,” and “raw.”
A
t the same time, strong demands are placed on district school lunch programs to be financially solvent. With
declines in property values and other income, school budgets are declining. While not run for profit, school
lunch programs must keep participation levels high and must meet costs in order to preserve the education
budget of the school district. Thus, school lunch administrators must also worry about what will sell. It may be
possible to replace the standard cheese pizza on white flour crust with pizza smothered in spinach, artichoke
hearts, and other vegetables on a whole wheat flaxseed crust. But the healthier pizza is more expensive, and
fewer children may want to eat it. Hence many school districts walk a tightrope. School districts must
increase the health content of their sales while trying to avoid any reduction in their financial viability.
Eliminating the less nutritional items often means eliminating the meal budget’s highest margin items.
Further, child patronage of the school lunch program is understandably dependent upon schools offering
foods that students are familiar with and that they like, and that will satisfy their appetites.
Economists and psychologists are developing a new set of tools that promise to help relax the tension
between these two competing views of school lunches. These new tools are based in the emerging discipline
of behavioral economics. Behavioral economics combines the behavioral models of psychology with the
decision models of economics to help highlight how biases in perception, memory, or thought processes may
influence purchasing decisions. This new approach helps us to identify the behavioral triggers that lead to the
selection and consumption of healthier foods and healthier quantities of food. As well, we can determine the
subtle and inadvertent signals that school cafeterias may send that trigger less nutritional eating. Moreover,
many of the factors identified by behavioral economics can be exploited with very little investment.
Much of the apparent tension between health and cost is due to the particular approaches taken to each
problem. Introducing ultra-nutritious products into the lunchroom requires a significant increase in spending
while risking reductions in unit sales and total participation levels. Banning popular items for their content
also directly reduces sales. But suppose that instead of these drastic measures, we could simply rearrange
items that are currently offered within the school to encourage children to buy more of the more nutritional
items and less of the less nutritional items. Such a strategy costs very little, has a negligible impact on overall
revenue, and may provide a way for school districts to show a demonstrable increase in the nutritional
content of their meals. By using tools that will both increase the sales of more nutritional foods and decrease
the sales of less nutritional foods, behavioral tools can achieve nutritional goals while having a minimal
impact on the bottom line.
What Is Behavioral Economics and Why Is It in My Child’s Lunch?
With obesity rates on the rise among all age cohorts, policy has increasingly focused on the youngest among
us. The reasons for this focus on childhood obesity are relatively clear. While childhood obesity rates are no
greater than adult rates, it is generally believed that it is much easier to prevent obesity than to combat it
once it takes hold. To do this, we need to help children develop healthy eating habits. Two very simple
principles from psychology tell us something about how this can be accomplished. The first is called
reactance. When people feel coerced into doing something, they often react to this coercion by intentionally
rebelling. Thus, forcing kids to abstain from a lunchtime cookie or brownie every day may unintentionally
pave a direct afterschool path to the convenience store or their home where they can find cookies or
brownies thus avoiding the heavy hand of the school lunch administrator. In fact, there is some evidence that
students try to compensate for the more heavy-handed actions by schools. Moreover, when people are
coerced through elimination of choices or through undue incentives being placed on specific choices, long-
term behavior is unlikely to change. Once the heavy restrictions are no longer there, individuals will return to
the equilibrium of the foods they like.
The second principle is self-attribution. When people feel as if they have freely and consciously made a
decision, they take ownership of that decision and tend to have a greater enjoyment of the outcome. As a
simple example, consider a small child being asked to go to bed. If told that bedtime is at 8:30 p.m., the child
may be irritated and angry because he or she is being forced to go to bed. If—instead of dictating the bed
time—a parent lets the child choose between going to bed at either 8:00 or 8:30, the child may willingly
choose 8:30 and go happily to bed—glad to have had the choice. Such ownership in an environment where
all options are available can lead to habit formation. Thus, the measure of success may not be the health of
the items offered in the school, but the health of the items eaten at school. If children can be presented
healthy and unhealthy items and be led to willingly choose the good, they will be better prepared for the food
choices they will face in an open and competitive food market.
Thus, the object of using behavioral economics in school lunch rooms is to guide choices in a way that is
subtle enough that children are unaware of the mechanism. These subtle changes often have the advantage
of being relatively cheap and easy to implement. This is a clear advantage given the financial climate.
However, behavioral economic instruments cannot achieve 100% compliance. For example, the only way to
eliminate soda consumption in a school is to eliminate the soda. If we instead approach the problem by
allowing choice but place the soda at some disadvantage in the marketplace, we can reduce soda
consumption substantially but not eliminate it. To preserve choice, we will necessarily have to allow some
individuals to purchase items that are less nutritious. But we can make these choices less convenient or less
visible, by moving the soda machines into more distant, less visited parts of the school.
Smarter Lunchrooms: Examples from the Innovators
To illustrate how behavioral economic concepts can help increase the nutritional content of foods without
harming the bottom line, a few examples from the field may be helpful. Some of the tools are extremely
simple to implement and can provide a big bang for the buck. For example, simply closing the lid on the
freezer that contains ice cream can reduce the number choosing ice cream from 30% to 14%. Similar results
can be obtained by simply moving vending machines farther from the cafeteria (Meyers, Stunkard and Coll,
1980).
Move the Fruit
There are unexpectedly large responses to moving food or to moving traffic flow patterns. In one Minnesota
school, we found that cash registers were one of the bottlenecks in the system. While students waited to pay,
they were faced with a wide array of grain-based snacks, chips, granola bars, and desserts. This appeared to
generate a number of impulse purchases. While one option would have been to move these temptations, this
option would have almost assuredly decreased revenue. A better option was to replace these snacks with an
array of fruits. This way, when students were waiting to check out, the impulse temptations were healthier
options. Fruit sales increased, snack food sales decreased, and total revenue did not significantly decrease.
Part of the increase in fruit sales may have also been aided by the inclusion of a wider variety of fruits, plums
and peaches, in addition to the standard trio of apples, bananas, and oranges.
In order to obtain the USDA subsidy for a school meal, the meal must contain at least three separate food
items and at least one must be from the protein food group. Being aware of this financial incentive, the food
service staff person operating the cash register will often inspect a meal and if the meal has only two items,
will suggest that the student take an extra item. In many schools, because milk is kept right next to the cash
register, it is often suggested as a nutritious option to complete the meal. When visiting one school where this
setup prevailed, we quickly noticed that a number of the students taking milk were taking it because they had
been asked to do so. They did not intend to consume it. As a result, the trash bins had many unused milk
cartons that had been thrown away.
Instead of milk, suppose this school placed fruit next to the cash register and milk at the front of the line.
Several studies have shown that suggesting a student take fruit will increase the number of students eating
(not just taking) the fruit by as much as 70% (Schwartz, 2007). Further, while milk can go bad or become
unappetizing when warm, fruit may be easily carried out of the lunchroom and eaten later in the day. Finally,
most fruit costs substantially less than a lunch-sized carton of milk. Thus, it could be that placing fruit at the
end of the lunch line would maintain the level of USDA subsidy, increase the health content of the food
consumed, and reduce the costs of providing the foods. Such simple solutions can make a nice addition to
both health and financial goals.
Surprising Salad Sales
Consider the problem of a middle school in the Corning, New York, area. Their lunchroom consists of two
lunch lines feeding into two cash registers. A portable salad bar was initially introduced and situated against
the wall just three feet to the east of the easternmost lunch line, and parallel to that line. Purchasing a salad
would require a student to walk to the salad bar, place their salad on a plate, and then go to the end of the
lunch line to wait for the cash register. Sales of salad were rather sluggish. By rotating the salad bar 90
degrees and moving it to the middle of the lunch room (see Figure 1), it became something students had to
walk around, not something they could mindlessly walk by. Sales immediately increased the week after the
move and continued to increase as it became a part of the lunchtime routine for students.
Rather than gutting sales as many measures aimed at promoting better nutrition may tend to do, this move
increased overall sales and profitability. Visibility of food has been found to increase desire (Volkow et al.,
2002) and thus sales. Additionally, the level of convenience to select salad was increased as one could walk
through the line while getting their salad. Most importantly children chose the salad without prodding or heavy
handed measures. This move makes it much more likely that children will begin to develop a healthy habit of
choosing the salad at lunch when it is available. Indeed in one high school of 1000 students, simply
introducing a salad bar increased average reimbursable lunch participation by 21% from one year to the next
(see Figure 2, sales data collected from the Corning School District, Corning, NY).
Choose Your Own Vegetable
In general, when schools require students to take vegetables, only about 35% of the students actually
consume the vegetables, resulting in substantial waste of food and resources (see, for example, Price and
Just, 2009). In fact, a recent study suggests that requiring students to take vegetables rather than allowing
them to control this choice by selecting or rejecting vegetables has virtually no impact on vegetable
consumption, while nearly doubling the waste from vegetables (Price and Just, 2009). Alternatively, consider
what might happen if students were given the choice between carrots and celery. In a recent experiment we
conducted at Cornell, 120 junior high participants in a summer 4H program were told they must take carrots
with their lunch, while another 120 were given the choice of carrots or of celery (103 of 120 selected the
carrots). Of those required to take the carrots, 69% (83 of 120) consumed the carrots, while 91% (94 of 103)
of those choosing between carrots or celery consumed their vegetable. Such results suggest that requiring a
vegetable, while offering an active choice between at least two options substantially reduces the waste from
vegetables, and increases the nutritional content of the foods consumed.
Keep Your Tray?
The type of tray used for carrying the food can also play heavily into the food decisions of the individual.
Relevant to some high schools, there is a recent trend in college dining halls that might be of interest. In
order to reduce waste, many colleges are phasing out the use of trays—especially in all-you-can-eat buffet-
style cafeterias—forcing students to carry individual plates and glasses. This move was made in the hopes
that they might reduce waste. That is, people might take less and eat more of what they do take. One key
question remains: if students take fewer foods, what do they leave behind—salads or desserts?
In our investigation of trayless cafeterias, we found not having a tray made students much more reluctant to
take side dishes. Unfortunately, most of the fruit and vegetable content of meals are in these side dishes. Our
matched-meal study of a 1200 person dining hall at Cornell, found that 26% fewer salads were taken, but
only 8% fewer bowls of ice cream. Strangely, there was even more waste without the trays. Without trays,
students took larger portions of things they liked. With larger portions and less variety, we found they tended
to take more than they ended up eating. Cafeterias with fixed portion-sizes may have less waste.
Nevertheless, trayless serve-yourself cafeterias reduced nutrition without reducing waste.
The Limitation of Changing Defaults
One inspiration for many of our insights and recommendations comes from watching adolescents and high
school students order their meals at fast food restaurants and food courts. In these contexts, the default
options offered in the meal—soft drinks and fries—tend to be what most order, even though milk, salads or
apple slices are also available at no added cost. The potential power of these options leads us to question,
what if restaurants—or school lunchrooms—were to change the defaults. What if instead of putting tater tots
on a tray they put peas on the tray and gave students the option of substituting tater tots for peas if they
wanted?
In one study of 4-H elementary school aged students in a summer 4-H program, we examined how changing
food defaults would work. On one day we gave these students a lunch where they were given French Fries
as the default but asked if they wanted to trade their French Fries for apple fries (prepealed, presliced
apples) with caramel dip, commonly available at fast food restaurants. Of the 21 students, 20 (95%) wanted
to stay with the French Fries default. Two days later we did the reverse, we gave these students a lunch
where they were given apple fries as a default but asked if they wanted to trade them for French Fries. Of the
22 students in class that day 21 (96%) wanted to switch to French Fries. What initially appeared to be a
strong case for food defaults, ended up being overwhelmed by an overriding preference for French Fries.
While defaults might work well in cases where preferences are ambiguous or where people don’t care, they
might not be the solution in the school lunch room.
Cash for Desserts
Of all of the different food psychology and behavioral economic tactics we’ve so far introduced into schools,
the one that may have the largest success at the lowest cost is requiring high school students to pay cash for
desserts and soft drinks. We don’t take their desserts away, we just say, “If you want that cookie bad enough,
you can pay cash for it.” They can’t mindlessly put it on their debit card or on their pin account, they have to
take out the dollar they might otherwise spend on an iTune and ask themselves how bad they want the
cookie. In our experiments and in our analysis of the USDA’s School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA)
data, we find this change does not hurt revenue or participation and it leads to greater sales of more
nutritious items and lower sales of the less nutritious items. Figure 3 presents some summary statistics for
sales of nutritious foods from the SNDA national sample of schools offering different payment methods.
Those in the schools allowing cash purchases see higher sales of nutritious foods.
A
seemingly modest adjustment to the existing school lunch payment systems could have a sizable influence
on food choice. Over the years, this could significantly impact the weight and health of children. Restricting
the use of prepaid debit cards to healthier foods allows parents to reclaim some control over their child’s food
choice set, without unfairly restricting them or without decreasing the revenue for school cafeterias. Lunch
debit accounts are prepaid by parents, who often have the option of using an online payment system and a
credit card. Changing the system to accommodate wide-scale restrictions to healthier foods could be done
simply and could be built into the software that codes the meal cards. Restricting the use of debit cards to
healthier items is a default change that could be made with all cards at the beginning of the year. Any parent
wishing to change the card to an unrestricted card could do so on-line.
Every school district that participates in the National School Lunch program is required to have a local school
wellness policy—this is a tool that can be used to promote healthier eating and physical activity through
changes in school environments. These nascent wellness policies are to be determined by, monitored by,
and altered by a school district wellness board comprised of local citizens. Many of these boards are
uncertain of the steps they can take to make a positive difference in their schools. Being able to champion a
restricted debit card system would be an easy, high visibility initiative for a wellness board.
Designing Smarter Lunchrooms
We shouldn’t judge the quality of a school lunch by what leaves the lunch line. We should judge it in terms of
what foods a child eats. Overly restricting a student’s options is like forcing a child to eat their vegetables. In
the end, we might win the in-school battle but lose the after-school war. We might condition them for food
choices as a high school student, but leave them unprepared for the battle of the Freshman-15 or the fast
food establishment near or at a worksite that awaits them afterward.
To help savvy school lunch directors and wellness boards think about how they can design smarter
lunchrooms, we’ve developed a website SmarterLunchrooms.org. It shares recent research findings and
case studies. Further, it provides a forum for practitioners to share the creative, inexpensive new ways they
are helping students eat healthier—without the students even knowing. Through careful thought and simple
innovations, great changes can be made—even in the school lunchroom.
For More Information
Just, D.R., Mancino, L., and Wansink, B. (2007, June). Could behavioral economics help improve diet quality
of nutrition assistance program participants? Economic Research Report Number 43. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service.
Meyers, A.W., Stunkard, A.J., and Coll, M. (1980). Food Accessibility and Food Choice. A Test of
Schachter’s Externality Hypothesis. Archives of General Psychology, 37(10), 1133-1135.
Price, J.P. and Just, D.R. (2009). Getting Kids to Eat Their Veggies. Presented at the International
A
ssociation of Agricultural Economists 27th Triennial Conference, Beijing, China.
Schwartz, M.B. (2007). The Influence of a Verbal Prompt on School Lunch Fruit Consumption: A Pilot Study.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4(6), 5.
Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge. New York: Knopf.
Volkow, N.D., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J.S., Logan, J., Jayne, M., Franceschi, D., Wong, C., Gatley, S.J.,
Gifford, A.N., Ding, Y.-S. and Pappas, N. (2002). “Nonhedonic” Food Motivation in Humans Involves
Dopamine in the Dorsal Stiatum and Methylphenidate Amplifies this Effect. Synapse, 44(3), 175-180.
Wansink, B. (2006). Mindless eating—Why we eat more than we think. New York: Bantam-Dell.
Wansink, B., Just, D.R., and Payne, C.R. (2009). Mindless eating and healthy heuristics for the irrational.
A
merican Economic Review, 99(2, May), 165-169.
David R. Just (drj3@cornell.edu) is Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics and
Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Brian Wansink (wasink@cornell.edu) is the John S.
Dyson Professor of Marketing, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
The research appearing in this study was sponsored by multiple grants from the Economic Research Service
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
© 1999-2010 Choices. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as
attribution to Choices and the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association is maintained.
... 'Involving children in choosing and packing their lunch' is supported by studies that found when students are more actively involved in food choice and preparation, they are more likely to eat it (Perry et al. 2004;Just and Wansink 2009). 'Bringing leftovers home' was included based on the practical experience from WWS staff. ...
... While we do not discount this possibility, such a situation would contradict the on-the ground experience of WWS staff and several peer-reviewed studies (Perry et al. 2004;Just and Wansink 2009), as described in the Methods section. Additionally, it is well-established that respondents typically give a better reporting of their behaviours in surveys than what might be happening in reality (Shiely et al. 2013;Kormos and Gifford 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Waste is an inherent part of the global food system, with significant environmental, social and economic impacts. Rather than simply managing its disposal, addressing the food waste challenge in Australia requires engagement with consumers to encourage behaviours that reduce wastage. This exploratory case study utilised a behavioural approach to identify and prioritise food waste reduction behaviours in Western Australian schools and then analysed these behaviours from the perspective of key target audiences. This enabled appropriate interventions to be proposed for testing. It offers a targeted approach to tackle food waste in schools and the wider community.
... This approach has not been previously tested in NSLP school lunchroom settings. During the intervention, children made their own decisions, hence there was selfattribution which involves greater satisfaction (Just & Wansink, 2009). In this study, children could choose the foods they wanted to eat from the five items offered as the schools used Offer versus Serve. ...
... The current NSLP legislation guarantees increased availability of F/V on school menus. However, NSLPs have to remain financially solvent while complying with legislation (Just & Wansink, 2009;Ralston, Newman, Calauson, Guthrie & Buzby, 2008). A plate waste study conducted in Boston Middle Schools participating in the NSLP found students waste of served meals resulted in an estimated $432,349 of food discarded annually (Cohen et al., 2013). ...
... De manera similar, Just y Wansink (2009) diseñaron una serie de cambios simples en la distribución física de las cafeterías (y de la ubicación de la comida dentro) que podría utilizarse para promover una alimentación más saludable entre los estudiantes. Por ejemplo, mover la barra de ensaladas a una posición más obvia y conveniente o estableciendo una "mesa de servicio rápido" más conveniente para comidas amigables con el medio ambiente (Just y Wansink, 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this paper is to assess existing evidence on how nudge (gentle push) interventions can lead people to a plant-based diet. In December 2017 a systematic literature search of articles published with PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science was carried out. The following search strategy was used: plant-based OR vegetarian OR vegan OR semi-vegetarian OR pro-vegetarian AND nudging OR choice architecture OR behavioral change OR behavioral intervention. Due to heterogeneous outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis, so the results are presented in a narrative style. A total of 425 articles were found, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were rated as of good quality. All the articles, except one, suggest that the push in general exerts a positive effect on the consumption of foods of vegetable origin. The nudge, to provide a predetermined option, seems to be the most promising for the promotion of plant-based consumption in food service operations. Nudging appears to be effective in promoting a plant-based diet by facilitating healthier choices. Interventions that use predetermined options (for example, previously weighed portions, option without meat, etc.) seem to be particularly effective. However, future studies should provide the size of the actual effect of their interventions and the long-term effects at the consumer level
... On the contrary, some studies suggest that reducing the plate size and increasing the consumers' awareness do not impact food waste. For example, Just et al. (2009) show that the removal of trays in dining facilities leads to a reduction of meal nutritional value without any decrease in food waste. The research by Qi and Roe (2017) and Whitehair et al. (2013) show the effectiveness of raising awareness about food waste through informative and educational interventions in food waste reduction. ...
Article
Full-text available
Food waste is a substantial contributor to environmental change and it poses a threat to global sustainability. A significant portion of this waste accounts for plate waste and food surplus from food-service operations such as restaurants, workplace canteens, cafeterias, etc. In this work, we seek to identify potential strategies to optimize food consumption in all-you-can-eat food-service operations, in terms of minimizing food waste while ensuring quality of service (i.e., maintaining low wait-time, unsatisfied-hunger, and walk-out percentages). We treat these facilities as complex systems and propose an agent-based model to capture the dynamics between plate waste, food surplus, and the facility organization setup. Moreover, we measure the impact of plate size on food waste. The simulation results show reducing plate size from large to small decreases plate waste up to 30\% while ensuring quality of service. However, total waste as the sum of food surplus and plate waste is lower with large plates. Our results indicate the need for optimizing food preparation along with designing choice environments that encourage guests to avoid taking more food than they need.
... Behavioral economics provides a number of tools that can be used to encourage children to consume more fruits and vegetables at school. Many of these tools fall under the category of nudges, as described by Thaler and Sunstein (2008), and the Healthy Lunchroom Initiative provides an even more expanded list of these approaches (Just and Wansink 2009). Possible interventions can be based on incentives, default options, choice architecture, competition, messaging, and pre-commitment. ...
Article
Full-text available
Schools provide a unique opportunity to influence healthy eating decisions in children. Field experiments provide a practical tool for evaluating the types of interventions that can have the largest impact on these decisions in the short and long run. This article provides some insights on conducting field experiments in schools; the issues it covers are related to data collection, randomization, heterogeneous treatment effects, and statistical inference.
... A nudge (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) describes an intervention that changes neither prices, choice sets nor the information that is given to influence a decision, such as what to have for lunch. While there is evidence that nudging can encourage people to make healthier food choices under some circumstances (Just, 2009;Wisdom et al., 2010;Ellison et al., 2014;Policastro et al., 2015), the evidence on the effectiveness of nudges for promoting sustainable food choices is limited (Carlsson et al., 2019). Our study is one of the first to test whether a behavioral intervention can be used to increase the consumption of vegetarian food. ...
Article
Global food consumption threatens climate stability and ecosystem resilience. Because hard regulation of food choice through taxes and bans is politically difficult, behavioral approaches provide a promising alternative, given that they influence food choice to a meaningful extent. We test the effect of framing of a menu on the choice of ordering climate-friendly dishes in a randomized controlled experiment. Rearranging the menu in favor of vegetarian food has a large and significant effect on the willingness to order a vegetarian dish instead of meat. Our results demonstrate that small, inexpensive interventions can be used toward decreasing carbon emissions from food consumption.
... Finally, originating from thoughts of behavioral economics, an increasing number of studies supports that food-related behavior is not only determined by personal and social factors but as well by situational determinants and aspects of the physical environment (Just & Wansink, 2009;Just, Wansink, Mancino, & Guthrie, 2008;Story, Kaphingst, Robinson-O'brien, & Glanz, 2008). Two situational aspects of food that are relatively straightforward in their direct effect on plate leftovers are ratings of portion sizes (H-E1) and ratings of palatability (H-E2) (Betz et al., 2015;Göbel et al., 2014). ...
Article
To contribute to a better understanding of consumer food leftovers and to facilitate their reduction in out-of-home settings, our study analyzes the effects of two common intervention strategies for reducing leftovers in a holistic behavioral model. Based on a quasi-experimental baseline-intervention design, we analyzed how the display of information posters and the reduction of portion sizes take an effect on personal, social and environmental determinants in a structural equation model. Applying data from online surveys and observations among 880 guests (503 baseline, 377 intervention) during two weeks in a university canteen, the suggested model allows to assign effects from the two interventions on plate leftovers to specific changes in behavioral determinants. Portion size reductions for target dishes are found to relate to lower levels of plate waste based on conscious perception, represented in smaller portion size ratings. Effects from seeing information posters are found to base on changed personal attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. However, depending on how an individual reacts to the information (by only making an effort to finish all food or by making an effort and additionally choosing a different dish in the canteen) there are opposite effects on these determinants and consequently also on plate leftovers. Overall, the differentiated results on intervention effects strongly support the benefits of more holistic and in-depth analyses of interventions to reduce plate leftovers and therefore to contribute to more sustainable food consumption in out-of-home settings.
... Choice architecture is closely linked to the concept of behavioral economics, which takes all the factors that influence consumer's choices (including price, appearance, state of mind, and habit) and attempts to create an environment that will encourage a better choice [26,27]. As champions in the choice architecture movement, research conducted by the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs (BEN Center) has shown that choice architecture and behavioral economics can impact food choice in school lunchrooms [28]. Since 2009, researchers at the BEN Center have studied how choice architecture and behavioral economics influence student's choice in school lunchrooms. ...
Article
Full-text available
School meals are a primary source of nutrition for many adolescents. Determining factors that influence the selection of various foods can provide insight on strategies to improve students’ cafeteria choices. This evaluation and observation was conducted at three Appalachian high schools to assess the cafeteria environment. The study developed and implemented an assessment tool created using principles of choice architecture and behavioral economics building on the work of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs (BEN Center). The assessment tool scored eight components of the lunchroom—the exterior, hot serving area, cold serving area, salad bar, beverage area, payment station, dining area and grab-n-go, where a higher score equals healthier components offered. High school (HS) #1 earned 73/128 points (57%), HS #2 earned 69/128 (54%), and HS #3 earned 53/102 (52%). HS #3 did not have a grab-n-go option and the final score was out of 102. Video observation was used to collect data on lunchroom activity during mealtimes. Each school received reports that highlight the results and suggest improvements to raise their score. The scoring tool represents a novel way to assess the health of school lunches, provide insights on how to improve the healthfulness of students’ lunch choice, and improve overall nutrition status.
... Therefore, our findings are particularly surprising because in South Carolina, enrollment in HCP is the default option for all dually eligible individuals, and occurs unless a Medicare-Medicaid dual eligible enrollee takes the extra effort to opt out of HCP. Indeed, existing literature in behavioral economics shows that individuals often passively "choose" the default presented to them because faced with complex decisions, simple heuristics and rules of thumb are easier to follow than elaborate problem-solving [32][33][34][35][36][37]. Fig. 2 Event studies. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage are among the sickest patients in the United States. Prior literature has identified a lack of care coordination or even conflicts of interest between the two programs as barriers to more efficient care and better health outcomes among dual-eligibles. The purpose of this study is to assess characteristics of dual eligibles who participated in South Carolina’s 2015 voluntary Medicare-Medicaid financial alignment demonstration project, and to evaluate whether their participation led to better observable health outcomes. Methods We obtained all inpatient and emergency department visits, and all Medicaid outpatient visits of individuals identified as Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibles from 2011 to 2016 from South Carolina’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office. We employed logistic regressions to assess the characteristics of participants and quitters in the Medicare-Medicaid financial alignment demonstration project. To evaluate the impact of participation on health outcomes, we used an event study analysis that examines trends in outcomes over time, with participation in the demonstration project as the triggering event, and a difference-in-differences methodology that compares changes in health outcomes before and after participation in the demonstration project compared with a control group. Results Urban patients, female patients, and patients with heart problems, social and mental disorders, and importantly, patients with multiple comorbidities (as indicated by a higher Charlson comorbidity index) are less likely to join South Carolina’s demonstration project. Once having joined, female patients and patients with a higher Charlson index appear to be more likely to quit. Those who joined did not appear to enjoy better health outcomes in the short time frame. Conclusions Policy makers should explore and address reasons why dual eligibles with complex health problems hesitate to join the alignment project, and continue to monitor whether such a program improves health given that a prolonged period of exposure to the program may be required to achieve better health among the nation’s most vulnerable patients.
... Activities that take up time during the slotted school lunchtime include time for students to travel to and from the cafeteria and time for students to choose their food when in the serving lane. Despite evidence of feasibility, there are few studies on how student decisions are affected by modifying the serving lane environment in school foodservice facilities (Economos et al. 2009;Ishdorj, Crepinsek, and Jensen 2013;Just and Wansink 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
Loss aversion has been extensively studied in economics, but there is less discussion of it in the context of time. Results from a field experiment conducted in a U.S. public school lunch cafeteria suggest that students could be loss averse to time and that interventions, such as a pre-plated service lane could increase the speed of service and guide students to make better food choices. Faster, pre-plated service lanes may leverage loss aversion bias, be beneficial for larger schools, reduce wait time for students, and thereby increase their satisfaction with the service process.
Getting Kids to Eat Their Veggies
  • J P Price
  • D R Just
Price, J.P. and Just, D.R. (2009). Getting Kids to Eat Their Veggies. Presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists 27 th Triennial Conference, Beijing, China.
) is Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management
  • R David
  • Just
David R. Just (drj3@cornell.edu) is Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Brian Wansink (wasink@cornell.edu) is the John S.
Mindless eating-Why we eat more than we think
  • B Wansink
Wansink, B. (2006). Mindless eating-Why we eat more than we think. New York: Bantam-Dell.
Just (drj3@cornell.edu) is Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management
  • R David
David R. Just (drj3@cornell.edu) is Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Brian Wansink (wasink@cornell.edu) is the John S.
Article
Full-text available
Food choice decisions are not the same as intake volume decisions. The former determine what we eat (soup or salad); the latter determine how much we eat (half of the bowl or all of it). Large amounts of money, time, and intelligence have been invested in understanding the physiological mechanisms that influence food choice (James O. Hill, forthcoming). Much less has been invested in understanding how and why our environment influences food consumption volume. Yet environmental factors (such as package size, plate shape, lighting, variety, or the presence of others) affect our food consumption volume far more than we realize (Wansink 2006). Whereas people can acknowledge that environmental factors influence others, they wrongly believe they are unaffected. Perhaps they are influenced at a basic level of which they are not aware. A better understanding of these drivers of consumption volume will have immediate implications for research, policy, and personal interventions. There are three objectives of this paper: (1) explain why environmental factors may unknowingly influence food consumption; (2) identify resulting myths that may lead to is specified models or misguided policy recommendations; and (3) offer clear direction for future research, policy, and personal dietary efforts.
Article
Full-text available
This study evaluated an environmental intervention intended to increase consumption of the fruit serving among elementary school children participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Children's fruit consumption was measured in two schools by observation. In the intervention school, cafeteria workers provided the verbal prompt, "Would you like fruit or juice with your lunch?" as the children stood in line in front of the fruit serving options. The control school had the same fruit and 100% juice options available, but the cafeteria workers did not provide a verbal prompt to take a fruit serving. Two variables were assessed: (1) Did children leave the lunch line with a fruit serving on their trays? and (2) Did they subsequently eat the fruit serving? The average percentage of children who took a fruit serving was 60% in the control school and 90% in the intervention school. In both schools, approximately 80% of children ate the fruit on their tray. As a result, nearly 70% of the children in the intervention school consumed a fruit serving at lunch, while fewer than 40% did so in the control school. A simple verbal prompt appears to have a significant impact on the likelihood that children will take, and subsequently consume, a fruit serving as part of their purchased school lunch. If these findings are replicated, policymakers may consider adding verbal prompts to the serving policy of the NSLP in an effort to increase fruit consumption among school children.
Article
A set of naturalistic observations was conducted to examine Schachter's theory that obese individuals are more responsive to external food cues than persons of normal weight. During six days of observation at a large hospital cafeteria, experimenters manipulated the accessibility of high- and low-calorie desserts. No differences in selection by obese, overweight, and normal-weight individuals of meals or desserts were observed. All weight groups were equally responsive to the experimental manipulation of food cues.
Article
The drive for food is one of the most powerful of human and animal behaviors. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved with motivation and reward, its believed to regulate food intake in laboratory animals by modulating its rewarding effects through the nucleus accumbens (NA). Here we assess the involvement of dopamine in "nonhedonic" food motivation in humans. Changes in extracellular dopamine in striatum in response to nonhedonic food stimulation (display of food without consumption) were evaluated in 10 food-deprived subjects (16-20 h) using positron emission tomography (PET) and [11C]raclopride (a D2 receptor radioligand that competes with endogenous dopamine for binding to the receptor). To amplify the dopamine changes we pretreated subjects with methylphenidate (20 mg p.o.), a drug that blocks dopamine transporters (mechanism for removal of extracellular dopamine). Although the food stimulation when preceded by placebo did not increase dopamine or the desire for food, the food stimulation when preceded by methylphenidate (20 mg p.o.) did. The increases in extracellular dopamine were significant in dorsal (P < 0.005) but not in ventral striatum (area that included NA) and were significantly correlated with the increases in self-reports of hunger and desire for food (P < 0.01). These results provide the first evidence that dopamine in the dorsal striatum is involved in food motivation in humans that is distinct from its role in regulating reward through the NA. In addition it demonstrates the ability of methylphenidate to amplify weak dopamine signals.