Can priming a healthy eating goal cause depleted consumers to prefer healthier snacks?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine whether priming words related to a healthy eating goal can facilitate self-control among depleted people. Design/methodology/approach – A between-subject experimental design was employed, and participants were randomly assigned to conditions. Findings – Consistent with prior research, this research finds that depletion hurts self-control, and that priming words related to a healthy eating goal facilitates it. What is novel is that if people engage in an initial task that requires self-control (that is, if people are depleted), priming health-related words has no positive influence on self-control. Practical implications – Priming health-related words has no impact on preference when consumers are depleted; implying that marketers of healthy food products should place their product at the beginning of a consumer shopping experience, when resources are most available. In other words, the decision to associate a brand with health-related claims must be strategically coordinated with retail location decisions to maximize its effect on consumer choice. From a public policy perspective, there are some implications for grocery store layouts. For example, it may be argued that removing temptations near the entrance of a grocery store might allow consumers to conserve their effort, which may result in healthier choices. Originality/value – This research finds that priming consumers with health-related words can encourage healthy eating choices, but only when consumers have not already engaged in self-control. This is a new insight to theory (specifically, the depletion model and the theory of nonconscious goal priming), and provides an important contribution to a significant and timely issue (that is, how to prevent and reduce obesity). This paper presents relevant implications and concludes with a number of worthwhile future research ideas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".