Incentivizing Healthy Food Choices Using Add-On Bundling: A Field Experiment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: How can retailers incentivize customers to make healthier food choices? Price, convenience, and taste are known to be among the main drivers behind such choices. Unfortunately, healthier food options are often expensive and not adequately promoted. However, we are observing recent efforts to nudge customers toward healthier food. Methodology/results: In this paper, we conducted a field experiment with a global convenience store chain to better understand how different add-on bundle promotions influence healthy food choices. We considered three types of add-on bundles sequentially: (i) an unhealthy bundle (when customers purchased a coffee, they could add a pastry for $1), (ii) a healthy bundle (offering a healthy snack, such as fruit, vegetable, or protein, as a coffee add-on for $1), and (iii) a choice bundle (the option of either a pastry or a healthy snack as an add-on to coffee for $1). In addition to our field experiment, we conducted an online laboratory study to strengthen the validity of our results. Managerial implications: We found that offering healthy snacks as part of an add-on bundle significantly increased healthy purchases (and decreased unhealthy purchases). Surprisingly, this finding continued to hold for the choice bundle, that is, even when unhealthy snacks were concurrently on promotion. However, we did not observe a long-term stickiness effect, meaning that customers returned to their original (unhealthy) purchase patterns once the healthy or choice bundle was discontinued. Finally, we show that offering an add-on choice bundle is also beneficial for retailers, who can earn higher revenue and profit. Funding: This research was supported by the James McGill Scholar Award Fund, the Scale AI Chair Program, IIVADO (Institut de valorisation des données) Fundamental Research Project Grant, and two Discovery Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.0336 .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it