Nudges on the unconscious for better nutrition

Nudging uses the environment to change behavior and works through unconscious decisions of consumers. A recent meta-analysis has compared the effects of different nudges and show promising results.

Buying, preparing, and consuming food are relatively simple actions. But according to prof.dr.ir. Koert van Ittersum, professor of Marketing & Consumer Well-Being at the University of Groningen, this does not apply to the decisions about what to buy, how much to prepare and, for example, what to do with leftovers. Van Ittersum: “Every day, people make an awful lot of decisions about their diet and all those decisions are influenced by various environmental factors, such as a discount on beer or chips. Choices also influence each other. After a salad and water, for example, the appetite for something tasty can increase and we sometimes think that we have earned something tasty thereafter. This makes food choice behavior very complex. Making all these decisions consciously is unfeasible and most choices take place unconsciously.” In this context, Van Ittersum thinks the metaphor of an iceberg floating in the sea is a good one, in which the tip above the water are the conscious choices and the unconscious choices are in the most invisible part under water.

Nudging

Van Ittersum: “Nudging works through the unconscious and is interesting because it can influence food choice behavior. When we nudge, we change the choice architecture without an existing option being forbidden and without giving economic incentives. For example, the sale of a product can differ 12-13% depending on whether the product is in front of or at the back of the shelf.”

Meta-analysis to nudging

Van Ittersum finds the recent meta-analysis (1) about food-nudges promising: “Nudging appears to result in a lower energy intake. On an annual basis, a decrease of 100-200 kcal/day can have a significant effect on body weight. The French researchers calculated a decrease of 64 kcal/day with cognitive nudges, such as nutritional labeling. Nudges, which directly affect the behavior, for example, cleaned fruits, were the most effective: minus 209 kcal/day. Affective nudges, such as attractive packaging, were in between with a decrease of 129 kcal/day.”

Nudging appears to result in a lower energy intake.

Two interesting differences

In restaurants and cafeterias, a significant effect of nudging has been observed, but not in supermarkets. According to van Ittersum, this could be due to the greater complexity in supermarkets, which means that there are many routine decisions that are difficult to influence. Furthermore, discouraging unhealthy eating behavior turns out to be more effective than stimulating healthy behavior. Van Ittersum: “This can arise because nudges respond to what we know cognitively what is better, but it is difficult to put knowledge into practice because we want to eat and drink good food and drink at the same time. Feelings of guilt after unhealthy behavior also plays a role, although an appeal on guilt must be limited otherwise the opposite effect can arise. People can actually start to resist the direction they are sent emotionally.”

(1)          Cadario R Chandon P. Which healthy eating nudges work best? A meta-analysis of field experiments. Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mks

Quantity versus quality

Van Ittersum has a clear opinion about the most important food message to the Dutch population: “In my opinion, we talk a lot in the Netherlands about what someone should and should not eat. Important though, don’t get me wrong. However, the discussion about how much someone can eat seems secondary. Healthy food is determined by what we eat but also by how much we eat. I think consumers should and can use more support when making choices about quantities.”

Michiel Löwik