ArticlePDF Available

Vice and Virtue Food: Perceived Impulsiveness and Healthfulness of 100 Food Items

Authors:
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2160503
Johnson School Research Paper Series #26-2012
Vice and Virtue Food: Perceived Impulsiveness and Healthfulness of 100 Food
Items
Manoj ThomasCornell University
Kalpesh Kaushik DesaiSUNY Binghamton
Satheeshkumar SeenivasanMonash University
This paper can be downloaded without charge at The Social Science Research
Network Electronic Paper Collection.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2160503Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2078654
1
VICE AND VIRTUE FOOD:
PERCEIVED IMPULSIVENESS AND HEALTHFULNESS OF 100 FOOD ITEMS
MANOJ THOMAS
KALPESH KAUSHIK DESAI
SATHEESHKUMAR SEENIVASAN**
*Manoj Thomas is Associate Professor of Marketing at Cornell University, 353 Sage Hall,
Ithaca, NY 14850 (mkt27@cornell.edu). Kalpesh Kaushik Desai is Associate Professor of
Marketing at State University of New York, Binghamton (kdesai@binghamton.edu).
Satheeshkumar Seenivasan is lecturer in the department of Marketing at Monash University
(satheesh.seenivasan@monash.edu). This paper reports supplementary results from the article
published in the Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 126-139 by the same authors.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2160503Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2078654
2
ABSTRACT
This paper reports subjective ratings of healthfulness/unhealthiness and impulsiveness of 100
food categories that are purchased by a typical American consumer. These ratings are used to
identify food items that are considered as vice and virtue products.
3
In the literature on impulsive consumption it is commonly assumed that some unhealthy
food products trigger impulsive purchase urges because of the desire activated by emotive
imagery and associated sensations. Consumers impulsively buy such products even though they
consider these products to be unhealthy and experience regret after the purchase. Such food
items are often referred to as vices or vice products (Khan and Dhar 2006; Thomas, Desai and
Seenivasan 2011; Kivetz and Keinan 2006; Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999; Wertenbroch 1998). In
contrast, several products commonly perceived as healthful – such as oatmeal or broccoli – are
purchased based on deliberative thinking or prior planning rather than impulsively; such products
are often referred to as virtue products. Although the notion of vice-virtue products is firmly
entrenched in the literature, it is not clear which food categories are typically considered as vice
or virtue by consumers. In this paper, we report results from a survey done to rate several
popular food categories on healthfulness and impulsiveness, and use these ratings to identify vice
and virtue products.
This survey was done for the analyses reported in Thomas, Desai and Seenivasan (2011).
The analyses of shopper basket unhealthiness reported in Thomas, Desai and Seenivasan (2011)
required the ratings of the 100 food categories on the impulsiveness-planned and healthy-
unhealthy scales. These 100 categories were selected on the basis of their sales and accounted for
73% of the food sales bought by 1000 households randomly selected from a database of
customers maintained by a large grocery chain in USA. Thus, these 100 categories represent the
types of food products that a typical American consumer purchases on her grocery shopping
trips. We used the same category labels that the retail store management uses to organize and
display the products on the retail shelves. Since we do not know whether each of these food item
is considered a vice product or a virtue product, we conducted a survey to get participants to rate
4
these food items based on their healthfulness and impulsiveness. Note that because
categorization of products as vice or virtue products is a subjective judgment, our interest is in
perceptions of unhealthiness rather than actual unhealthiness of food items as measured by
calorie levels or fat content.
Procedure
Seventy-eight undergraduate students at Cornell University were asked to rate each of
these 100 food categories. To ensure that the results were not biased by a repeated-measure
design, we asked about one-half of the pretest survey participants to rate the categories on
impulsiveness while the other half were asked to rate each category on healthiness. About half of
the participants (n = 37) were asked to rate each category on planned-impulsive purchase
continuum. Specifically, they were informed that “an impulsive product is one that is usually
purchased without prior planning. Even when they do not plan to buy the product, consumers
often buy such products spontaneously when they are in a store. In contrast, planned products are
based on prior deliberation. Consumers come into the store with the intention of buying such
products.” Participants evaluated each of the 100 categories on a 9-point scale anchored at 1 =
Planned and 9 = Impulsive. Participants’ responses were averaged to compute the average
impulsiveness rating for each category. Beans, barley, rice, baby food, vegetables, milk, and
meat were some of the less impulsive categories, and ice cream, candies, cookies, gum, donuts,
potato chips, and pudding were some of the more impulsive product categories in the list of 100
categories. The remaining half evaluated each of the 100 categories on a 9-point scale anchored
at 1 = Healthy and 9 = Unhealthy. Their responses were also averaged to compute the average
5
unhealthiness rating for each category. As expected, impulsiveness and unhealthiness ratings
collected from separate groups of respondents were highly correlated (r = .59, p < .01);
categories that were rated as impulsive were also rated as unhealthy.
We computed vice-virtue ratings for the products by multiplying the impulsiveness and
unhealthiness ratings to create an index that reflects the degree to which a product is considered
vice; this index was then standardized and the products were sorted in a decreasing order. A
higher score on this index indicates that the product is considered more impulsive and
unhealthier. Table 1 lists the products and their ratings on the various measures. The shaded
regions identify categories that are either one standard deviation above (vice products) or below
(virtue products) the average score on the vice index.
REFERENCES
Khan, Uzma and Ravi Dhar (2006), “Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 43 (May), 269–66.
Kivetz, Ran and Anat Keinan (2006), “Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-Control
Regrets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (September), 273–82.
Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conict: The Interplay of
Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26
(3), 278–92.
Thomas, Manoj, Kalpesh Desai and Satheeshkumar Seenivasan (2011), “How Credit Card
Payments Increase Unhealthy Food Purchases: Visceral Regulation of Vices,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 38 (1) , 126-139.
Wertenbroch, Klaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of
Virtue and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17(4), 1–10.
6
TABLE 1: UNHEALTHINESS AND IMPULSIVENESS RATINGS OF 100 FOOD CATEGORIES
Category Name Unhealthiness
Rating Impulsiveness
Rating Vice
Index
CONFECTIONARY, GUM, BARS, MARSHMALLOWS 7.98 8.24 2.52
CANDY, COOKIES, SNACKS, POPCORN 7.90 8.00 2.37
CANDY - GUM, CONFECTIONARY 7.56 8.16 2.28
DONUTS 8.12 7.59 2.27
ICECREAM SANDWICH, POPS, FUDGE, FRUIT BAR,CHOC
BARS 7.85 7.84 2.27
SWEET GOODS, BREAKFAST CAKES, CHEESE CAKE,
DESSERT CAKES, DONUTS, MUFFINS, PIES 7.78 7.51 2.08
SNACKS - POTATIO CHIPS, TORTILLA CHIPS, CORN
CHIPS, CHEESE PUFFS, PRETZELS 7.73 7.46 2.03
COOKIES 7.34 7.35 1.81
REFRIGERATED PUDDING, GELS, CHEESE CAKES 7.51 6.86 1.66
CAKES 7.56 6.65 1.58
ICE CREAM 7.41 6.76 1.57
GELATIN, PUDDING & OTHER DESSERTS 6.68 7.32 1.50
CARBONATED BEVERAGES 7.44 6.51 1.47
FROZEN BURGERS, SANDWICH,PIZZA,ROLLS,
BURRITOS, MOZZA STICKS 7.90 6.11 1.46
CARRY OUT CAFE PRODUCTS 6.12 7.22 1.22
TOASTED PASTRIES 6.66 6.51 1.17
MUFFINS 6.51 6.57 1.13
PIZZA 6.76 6.24 1.10
BOTTLED COFFE, TEA, ENERGY DRINK, CHOCOLATE
DRINK 6.46 6.46 1.07
DINNERS, PIZZA-PIE MIXES, RAMEN NOODLES 7.61 5.46 1.06
7
BISCUITS, COOKIES, TORTILLAS,SWEET ROLLS, PIE
CRUSTS 6.98 5.68 0.94
CAKE MIX, BROWNIE MIX, COOKIE MIX, MUFFIN MIX,
FROSTING 7.44 5.08 0.83
FROZEN 6.83 5.16 0.68
HOT DOGS 6.76 5.14 0.64
BEER 7.20 4.73 0.60
FROZEN POTATOES, ONION RINGS & PIEROGIES 6.73 4.76 0.48
BACON 7.37 4.32 0.47
SNACK NUTS 4.46 7.05 0.45
FROZEN BAGELS, PASTRIES, ENTREES, WAFFLES,
PANCAKES 6.76 4.65 0.45
FROZEN SOUP, FROZEN DINNERS 6.37 4.76 0.38
SAUSAGE 7.00 4.11 0.29
INSTANT BREAKFAST POWDER 5.78 4.81 0.23
READY TO SERVE 5.63 4.84 0.19
REFRIGERATED JUICES & DRINKS 5.07 5.27 0.16
SPREADS, DIPS - HORSERADISH, DAIRY DIPS, SEAFOOD,
SPREADS 6.15 4.27 0.13
BREAKFAST BARS, GRANOLA YOGURT BARS, FRUIT
SNACKS / ROLLS 4.54 5.78 0.13
POPCORN - UNPOPPED 5.41 4.84 0.13
SALAD DRESSING, MAYO & TOPPINGS 6.80 3.68 0.06
CRACKERS 5.00 4.97 0.05
COTTON CHEESE, 6.22 3.97 0.04
SUGAR 6.73 3.51 -0.02
BUTTER,MARGARINE & SPREADS 7.61 3.03 -0.06
JUICES, DRINKS 4.59 4.95 -0.08
8
JUICES, DRINKS - SHELF STABLE 4.93 4.43 -0.13
JAMS , JELLIES, SPREADS 5.54 3.89 -0.15
PEANUT BUTTER 4.68 4.27 -0.24
CONDIMENTS, GRAVIES, SAUCES 6.05 3.22 -0.28
COFFEE 5.44 3.49 -0.31
DELI SALADS 3.29 5.76 -0.31
READY TO EAT CEREAL 4.37 4.08 -0.38
DINNER ROLLS, SANDWICH ROLLS, SELF SERVE ROLLS 4.88 3.65 -0.38
PORK 5.29 3.32 -0.39
CHEESE 4.54 3.86 -0.39
SOUP 4.02 4.35 -0.39
PICKLES, OLIVES 4.46 3.86 -0.41
SHORTENING, OIL 7.10 2.41 -0.42
ETHNIC - EAST EUROPEAN, MEXICAN, ASIAN, MIDDLE
EASTERN 3.98 4.16 -0.45
DRY MEXICAN PRODUCTS 5.00 3.30 -0.46
SEAFOOD - CANNED 4.98 3.19 -0.49
FRESH PACKAGED SALADS 2.98 5.22 -0.51
BAKING SUPPLIES-BAKING POWDER, BAKING
CHOCOLATE,COCOA,STARCH 6.00 2.51 -0.54
FRUIT CANNED 3.98 3.62 -0.58
BEEF 4.93 2.92 -0.58
SWEET CORN 3.44 4.03 -0.62
PASTA 4.54 3.03 -0.62
DELI MEATS 4.68 2.89 -0.63
9
PASTA SAUCE 4.59 2.92 -0.64
LUNCH MEAT 4.85 2.76 -0.64
CANNED VEGETABLES 4.20 3.19 -0.64
FRESH BREAD 3.51 3.70 -0.67
BOTTLED WATER 2.83 4.32 -0.71
CUT FRUIT 2.24 5.32 -0.73
HOT CEREAL 3.12 3.73 -0.75
YOGURT - REFRIGERATED 3.17 3.54 -0.77
FRESH SOFT FRUIT SEASONAL 2.32 4.84 -0.77
MILK & CREAM 4.59 2.24 -0.83
UNPREPARED MEAT, SEAFOOD 4.41 2.32 -0.83
SPICES , SEASONINGS, EXTRACTS 3.93 2.46 -0.87
TEA 2.17 4.43 -0.87
EGGS & EGG SUBSTITUTES 3.85 2.46 -0.88
BREADS 3.29 2.76 -0.90
CHICKEN 3.32 2.73 -0.90
VEGETABLES - FROZEN 3.15 2.73 -0.93
FRESH BERRIES 1.83 4.68 -0.94
FRESH MELONS 1.98 4.22 -0.95
FRESH PEARS 2.00 4.16 -0.95
FRESH CITRUS 2.02 4.00 -0.96
FRESH POTATOES 2.83 2.76 -0.98
FRESH GRAPES 1.98 3.81 -1.00
FRESH BANANAS 1.83 3.81 -1.03
10
FRESH PEPPERS 2.17 3.19 -1.03
FRESH APPLES 1.71 4.03 -1.04
FRESH TOMATOES 1.93 3.19 -1.08
FRESH ONIONS 2.46 2.49 -1.08
FRESH MUSHROOMS 2.07 2.86 -1.09
BABY FOOD 2.90 1.97 -1.11
SALAD VEGETABLES 1.95 2.92 -1.11
FRESH CARROTS 1.78 3.14 -1.11
BEANS, BARLEY, RICE 2.88 1.84 -1.13
FRESH COOKING VEGETABLES
2.02
2.16
-1.19
... A key assumption of this research is that people categorise food options according to the good/bad dichotomy of virtue and vice (Chernev and Gal, 2010;Rozin et al., 1996). Products such as fat-free yogurt and whole wheat products that consumers buy based on careful consideration rather than impulsiveness, are viewed as healthy and referred to as "virtue products" (Thomas et al., 2012). Virtue foods are consistent with long-term self-control goals like weight control or getting certain functional nutrition but are inconsistent with immediate gratification (Chernev and Gal, 2010). ...
... Virtue foods are consistent with long-term self-control goals like weight control or getting certain functional nutrition but are inconsistent with immediate gratification (Chernev and Gal, 2010). In contrast, products such as ice cream or cookies that consumers buy impulsively, despite considering them unhealthy and feeling regret about eating them, are often referred to as "vices" or "vice products" (Kivetz and Keinan, 2006;Shiv and Fedorikhin, 1999;Thomas et al., 2012;Wertenbroch, 1998). Vices are indulgent and consistent with short-term goals of immediate gratification like enjoying ice cream but are inconsistent with long-term self-control goals like losing weight or getting certain functional nutrition (Chernev and Gal, 2010). ...
... Vices are indulgent and consistent with short-term goals of immediate gratification like enjoying ice cream but are inconsistent with long-term self-control goals like losing weight or getting certain functional nutrition (Chernev and Gal, 2010). Thomas et al. (2012) conducted a survey of healthiness and impulsiveness associated with 100 food categories which representing the types of food products that a typical American consumer purchases on their grocery shopping trips. Vice food implies a greater emphasis on positive outcome of desire and a corresponding insensitivity to ought-related benefits of health, which tend to be long-term goals and do not apply to immediate gratification (Sengupta and Zhou, 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to facilitate the use of public communication in the development of healthy food plans for consumers. This research aims to investigate whether the influence of “fit” to individuals’ goal pursuit strategies on the effectiveness of advertisement frames can intensify persuasion to consume healthy (virtue) foods or restrain the consumption of unhealthy (vice) foods in health promotion. Design/methodology/approach Two experiments were conducted to investigate how goal-framed messages for different food types affect consumer decision making by moderating regulatory focus. Findings The results demonstrate that the compatibility between the mere exposure to virtue (vice) food in a negative (positive) frame drives the effectiveness of a given goal framing. However, when additional regulatory focus is added, the fit in the vice/promotion and virtue/prevention condition causes the effect of framing to disappear. Moreover, the unfit in the virtue/promotion and vice/prevention condition suppresses the virtue (vice) preference in the positive (negative) frame. Research limitations/implications These findings suggest that under different valence framing, advertising messages provide different amounts of persuasion in virtue/vice conditions and the moderation effect of regulatory fit on framing to influence virtue/vice food preference. Practical implications Public policy executives and marketers can increase the likelihood that consumers will make healthy food choices by fitting goals to strengthen persuasion. The unfitted goal orientation between food and regulatory focus enhances the framing effect leading to food preference changes. Originality/value The framing effect disappears when additional regulatory fit the food type, but is enhanced when additional regulatory focus does not fit the food type. By bringing fit into the frame and the virtue/vice food type, this research extends the notion of regulatory fit into three pairs of given goal orientations on the persuasiveness of message framing to health-related communication. It provides a substantial explanation underlying persuasion to promote a greater understanding of virtue/vice food preferences.
Article
Full-text available
Most choices in the real world follow other choices or judgments. The authors show that a prior choice, which activates and boosts a positive self-concept, subsequently licenses the choice of a more self-indulgent option. The authors propose that licensing can operate by committing to a virtuous act in a preceding choice, which reduces negative self-attributions associated with the purchase of relative luxuries. Five studies demonstrate the proposed licensing effect of a prior commitment to a vir-tuous act on subsequent choice. Consistent with the authors' theory, the preference for an indulgent option diminishes if the licensing task is attributed to an external motivation. The authors also report a mediation analysis in support of their theoretical explanation that the licensing effect operates by providing a temporary boost in the relevant self-concept.
Article
Full-text available
Some food items that are commonly considered unhealthy also tend to elicit impulsive responses. The pain of paying in cash can curb impulsive urges to purchase such unhealthy food products. Credit card payments, in contrast, are relatively painless and weaken impulse control. Consequently, consumers are more likely to buy unhealthy food products when they pay by credit card than when they pay in cash. Results from four studies support these hypotheses. Analysis of actual shopping behavior of 1,000 households over a period of 6 months revealed that shopping baskets have a larger proportion of food items rated as impulsive and unhealthy when shoppers use credit or debit cards to pay for the purchases (study 1). Follow-up experiments (studies 2–4) show that the vice-regulation effect of cash payments is mediated by pain of payment and moderated by chronic sensitivity to pain of payment. Implications for consumer welfare and theories of impulsive consumption are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
This article examines how consumer decision making is influenced by automatically evoked task-induced affect and by cognitions that are generated in a more controlled manner on exposure to alternatives in a choice task. Across two experiments respondents chose between two alternatives: one (chocolate cake) associated with more intense positive affect but less favorable cognitions, compared to a second (fruit salad) associated with less favorable affect but more favorable cognitions. Findings from the two experiments suggest that if processing resources are limited, spontaneously evoked affective reactions rather than cognitions tend to have a greater impact on choice. As a result, the consumer is more likely to choose the alternative that is superior on the affective dimension but inferior on the cognitive dimension (e.g., chocolate cake). In contrast, when the availability of processing resources is high, cognitions related to the consequences of choosing the alternatives tend to have a bigger impact on choice compared to when the availability of these resources is low. As a result, the consumer is more likely to choose the alternative that is inferior on the affective dimension but superior on the cognitive dimension (e.g., fruit salad). The moderating roles of the mode of presentation of the alternatives and of a personality variable related to impulsivity are also reported. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.
Article
Full-text available
This article proposes that supposedly farsighted (hyperopic) choices of virtue over vice evoke increasing regret over time. We demonstrate that greater temporal separation between a choice and its assessment enhances the regret (or anticipated regret) of virtuous decisions (e.g., choosing work over pleasure). We argue that this finding reflects the differential impact of time on the affective determinants of self-control regrets. In particular, we show that greater temporal perspective attenuates emotions of indulgence guilt but accentuates wistful feelings of missing out on the pleasures of life. We examine alternative explanations, including action versus inaction regrets and levels of construal. (c) 2006 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..
Article
Consumers' attempts to control their unwanted consumption impulses influence many everyday purchases with broad implications for marketers' pricing policies. Addressing theoreticians and practitioners alike, this paper uses multiple empirical methods to show that consumers voluntarily and strategically ration their purchase quantities of goods that are likely to be consumed on impulse and that therefore may pose self-control problems. For example, many regular smokers buy their cigarettes by the pack, although they could easily afford to buy 10-pack cartons. These smokers knowingly forgo sizable per-unit savings from quantity discounts, which they could realize if they bought cartons; by rationing their purchase quantities, they also self-impose additional transactions costs on marginal consumption, which makes excessive smoking overly difficult and costly. Such strategic self-imposition of constraints is intuitively appealing yet theoretically problematic. The marketing literature lacks operationalizations and empirical tests of such consumption self-control strategies and of their managerial implications. This paper provides experimental evidence of the operation of consumer self-control and empirically illustrates its direct implications for the pricing of consumer goods. Moreover, the paper develops a conceptual framework for the design of empirical tests of such self-imposed constraints on consumption in consumer goods markets. Within matched pairs of products, we distinguish relative “virtue” and “vice” goods whose preference ordering changes with whether consumers evaluate immediate or delayed consumption consequences. For example, ignoring long-term health effects, many smokers prefer regular (relative vice) to light (relative virtue) cigarettes, because they prefer the taste of the former. However, ignoring these short-term taste differences, the same smokers prefer light to regular cigarettes when they consider the long-term health effects of smoking. These preference orders can lead to dynamically inconsistent consumption choices by consumers whose tradeoffs between the immediate and delayed consequences of consumption depend on the time lag between purchase and consumption. This creates a potential self-control problem, because these consumers will be tempted to overconsume the vices they have in stock at home. Purchase quantity rationing helps them solve the self-control problem by limiting their stock and hence their consumption opportunities. Such rationing implies that, per purchase occasion, vice consumers will be less likely than virtue consumers to buy larger quantities in response to unit price reductions such as quantity discounts. We first test this prediction in two laboratory experiments. We then examine the external validity of the results at the retail level with a field survey of quantity discounts and with a scanner data analysis of chain-wide store-level demand across a variety of different pairs of matched vice (regular) and virtue (reduced fat, calorie, or caffeine, etc.) product categories. The analyses of these experimental, field, and scanner data provide strong convergent evidence of a characteristic crossover in demand schedules for relative vices and virtues for categories as diverse as, among others, potato chips, chocolate chip cookies, cream cheese, beer, soft drinks, ice cream and frozen yogurt, chewing gum, coffee, and beef and turkey bologna. Vice consumers' demand increases less in response to price reductions than virtue consumers' demand, although their preferences are not generally weaker for vices than for virtues. Constraints on vice purchases are self-imposed and strategic rather than driven by simple preferences. We suggest that rationing their vice inventories at the point of purchase allows consumers to limit subsequent consumption. As a result of purchase quantity rationing, however, vice buyers forgo savings from price reductions through quantity discounts, effectively paying price premiums for the opportunity to engage in self-control. Thus, purchase quantity rationing vice consumers are relatively price insensitive. From a managerial and public policy perspective, our findings should offer marketing practitioners in many consumer goods industries new opportunities to increase profits through segmentation and price discrimination based on consumer self-control. They can charge premium prices for small sizes of vices, relative to the corresponding quantity discounts for virtues. Virtue consumers, on the other hand, will buy larger amounts even when quantity discounts are relatively shallow. A key conceptual contribution of this paper lies in showing how marketing researchers can investigate a whole class of strategic self-constraining consumer behaviors empirically. Moreover, this research is the first to extend previous, theoretical work on impulse control by empirically demonstrating its broader implications for marketing decision making.