Running head : SUPERMARKET DECISION-MAKING 1 SUPERMARKET DECISION-MAKING : THE EFFECTS OF JUSTIFICATION , SELF-CONTROL DEPLETION , AND RESTRAINED EATING BEHAVIOR

Individuals classified as restrained eaters focus more on the nutritional impact of their food decisions, and are more susceptible to external rather than internal factors driving these decisions, than unrestrained eaters. The food choices of both restrained and unrestrained eaters can be influenced by a justification effect (e.g., feeling that it is acceptable to eat an indulgent item after going to the gym) and self-control depletion (e.g., choosing unhealthier items when self-control is diminished at the end of a lengthy shopping trip), which may have wide ranging implications for consumer health. In the present study, the influence of restrained eating behavior, justification (manipulated by altering the order in which participants shopped), and self-control depletion (operationalized by the number of prior shopping decisions that had been made) on the nutritional content of food chosen during an online supermarket trip was examined. Overall, restrained eaters chose healthier items than unrestrained eaters, but there was no impact of shopping order or trip length on the nutritional content of food choices. In a follow-up study conducted at Hamilton College, there was no effect of restrained eating behavior or food order on the healthiness of the items that students chose from a buffet line. The scale used to differentiate between restrained and unrestrained eaters was reliable in both studies, indicating that it is a useful tool in diverse populations. However, the justification and self-control depletion manipulations employed were not effective. In order to successfully examine the nuanced effects of both phenomena, additional studies should be conducted using a field study paradigm at an actual supermarket. SUPERMARKET DECISION-MAKING 3 Supermarket Decision-Making: The Effects of Justification, Self-Control Depletion, and Restrained Eating Behavior Imagine standing in the frozen foods section of your local supermarket. Directly in front of you, there are four freezer cases filled with ice cream that comes in fifteen different flavors produced by upwards of twenty manufacturers. Some varieties claim to be “low-fat” or “light,” while others tout a “creamy texture” or “real ingredients. ” Turning around, you are faced with a similar dilemma as you search for a frozen dinner. It’s getting late, you’ve been grocery shopping for over an hour, and you want to get home. “It shouldn’t be so difficult to make a choice,” you think to yourself, and finally settle on frozen chicken fingers and full-fat rocky road ice cream. Although these choices may seem arbitrary, they were likely influenced in large part by your previous decisions in the produce, dairy, and meat sections, your own patterns of eating behavior, and even the order in which you went shopping. The number of decisions that consumers are faced with during a typical trip to the grocery store is astonishing. They must make numerous choices, not only concerning what types of food to buy, but also about what varieties and brands they desire. On average, Americans visit the supermarket 1.5 times per week (Food Marketing Institute, 2015), or over 75 times per year. An average supermarket carries 42,214 items (Food Marketing Institute, 2015), which means consumers come into contact with over 3 million food products during the course of their yearly shopping experiences. Complicating matters further, there are price and nutritional differences between foods, which are often at odds with each other. With all of these decisions to make, it is no wonder that consumers often feel overwhelmed. The choice between healthy and unhealthy products has become more salient over the past decade as consumers worry about the potential impact that food can have on their wellSUPERMARKET DECISION-MAKING 4 being. In a 2012 survey by the International Food Information Council Foundation, over half of respondents indicated that they put “a lot of thought” into the healthfulness of their food choices, and at least 60% specified that they consider the nutritional label when buying packaged foods. For every variety of junk food or indulgent pastry that a store offers, there is at least one (supposedly) healthy counterpart (e.g., 100 calorie snack packs or low-fat cookies). Although it is almost impossible to avoid buying something healthy, as stores are offering a greater variety of fresh produce and affordable organic options, bypassing unhealthy foods is not as simple as it may seem. It is difficult to go through an entire shopping trip without buying any indulgent items, even if people know they are bad for them. The factors that influence food decisions in a supermarket can be broken down into three general categories: prior decisions made in the shopping trip, the number of decisions made, and individual eating behaviors. Through the licensing effect (Khan & Dhar, 2006), choosing healthy foods at the beginning of a supermarket trip justifies the subsequent selection of unhealthy foods; self-control depletion (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000) predicts that making a large number of consecutive decisions depletes the cognitive resources necessary to resist temptation; and individuals’ intrinsic restrained eating behavior (Herman & Mack, 1975) influences their food choices differently at various points in the shopping trip. Justification and the Licensing Effect Variety and choice. On the surface, having more choices in the supermarket seems positive. It ensures everyone can find something that is pleasing and reduces the potential for boredom in frequent shoppers. Yet, research contradicts the notion that more variety is better. Choosing from a large assortment of products has been found to be more difficult than choosing from a smaller variety (Sela, Berger, & Liu, 2009). Individuals are actually less likely to make SUPERMARKET DECISION-MAKING 5 purchases when faced with a large (rather than small) number of products, and they are more satisfied in their choices when deciding between a smaller range of options (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). When making a difficult decision, consumers will look for whatever option is easiest to justify in order to facilitate the decision-making process (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009; Sela et al., 2009). Normally, utilitarian (or virtuous) goods are easier to justify than hedonic (or vice) goods. Okada (2005) found that when asked to choose between a utilitarian ($50 grocery certificate) and hedonic ($50 dinner certificate) product, individuals were more likely to select the utilitarian option, even though they had rated it lower than the hedonic option when presented with them separately. When products are jointly evaluated, the flaws of the hedonic good are highlighted through contrast with the virtuous utilitarian good, making it more difficult to justify (Okada, 2005). This finding implies that even though consumers may view an unhealthy (hedonic) product as more desirable, they will generally choose a healthy (utilitarian) product when they are presented together in the supermarket (i.e., on the same shelf or in the same aisle). When asked whether they hoped a friend would choose the dinner or grocery gift certificate for them, participants in Okada’s (2005) study indicated the dinner certificate more often. Because a third party is making the decision for them, there is no need for individuals to justify the purchase, leading to a preference for the hedonic good that they rated higher initially and presumably value more (Okada, 2005). When the size of a food assortment was varied (e.g., two varieties of ice cream vs. ten varieties), individuals were more likely to select a healthy option in the high variety condition (Sela et al., 2009). This result was independent of the make-up of the assortment and only depended on the total number of products offered, such that even if the “high variety” condition contained mostly hedonic goods, participants were still more likely than those in the low variety SUPERMARKET DECISION-MAKING 6 condition to choose a utilitarian product. It seems that the difficulty of a decision (and therefore the propensity to choose healthy items) may be directly related to the number of products one is deciding between, which is an important consideration in supermarkets where a typical aisle can contain ten varieties of chips or twelve brands of barbeque sauce. However, there are factors other than variety that influence each decision, many of which are dependent on choices made in previous aisles. Justification overview. When faced with a decision, individuals are likely to make the choice that is easiest to rationalize (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009). The rationalization can be based on a variety of factors and acts as a justification for the choice. Hedonic goods are more difficult to justify than utilitarian goods, so what drives consumers to sometimes choose them when faced with a multiple options? A phenomenon termed the licensing effect has been demonstrated in a variety of studies, and essentially relies on the assumption that most “real world” decisions are not made in a vacuum. Decisions tend to occur in a series (especially during a typical shopping trip), and the licensing effect arises because each prior choice has an effect on subsequent ones (e.g., Khan & Dhar, 2006; Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009). When a consumer makes a choice or performs an act (often called a licensing task) that increases her positive selfconcept (e.g., donating to charity or buying a healthy snack), it can act as a justification for her to participate in subsequent hedonic behavior (e.g., spending money on a luxury vacation or stopping at the ice cream stand) by attenuating the negative feelings about the self normally associated with it (Khan & Dhar, 2006). In other words, individuals look for a way to justify a purchase that normally would be forbidden. Justifications arising from licensing tasks can be extremely varied, and are often broken down into