www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

National Agricultural Library

Cataloging Record:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is 

derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) 

or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Photo credit: Steve Peterson, USDA/ERS 

Just, David R.

Could behavioral economics help improve diet quality for nutrition assistance 

program participants? (Economic research report (United States. Dept. of 

Agriculture. Economic Research Service) ; no. 43)

1. Food relief—United States. 

2. Food consumption—United States. 

3. Nutrition—Psychological aspects. 

4. Food preferences. 

5. Nutrition policy—United States. 

6. Food stamps—United States.

7. National school lunch program. 

8. School breakfast programs—United States.

9. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (U.S.)

I. Mancino, Lisa. II. Wansink, Brian. III. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. 

Economic Research Service. IV. Title.

HV696.F6
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

David R. Just, Lisa Mancino, and Brian Wansink

Abstract

Findings from behavioral and psychological studies indicate that people regularly and

predictably behave in ways that contradict some standard assumptions of economic

analysis. Recognizing that consumption choices are determined by factors other than

prices, income, and information illuminates a broad array of strategies to influence

consumers’ food choices. These strategies expand the list of possible ideas for

improving the diet quality and health of participants in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Stamp Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the National School Lunch and School

Breakfast Programs. 

Keywords: behavioral economics, food consumption, obesity, food stamps, National

School Lunch Program, nutrition assistance, WIC

About the Authors

David R. Just is an assistant professor of Applied Economics and Management at

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Lisa Mancino is an economist with the Economic

Research Service, USDA; and Brian Wansink is a professor of Applied Economics and

Management at Cornell University.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate the thoughtful review suggestions from Joanne Guthrie

and Elizabeth Frazao, Economic Research Service (ERS); Marianne Bertrand, University of Chicago; Steve Carlson, Rich Lucas, and Carol Olander, Food and Nutrition

Service (FNS); Sean Cash, University of Alberta; and Trent Smith, Washington State

University. We also thank Priscilla Smith for editorial and production assistance and

Victor B. Phillips, Jr., for cover design and layout. 

Economic

Research

Report 

Number 43

Could Behavioral Economics

Help Improve Diet Quality 

for Nutrition Assistance

Program Participants?

June 2007
ii

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Prices, Income, and Information Are Standard Policy

Levers That Influence Food Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

How Cognitive Glitches and Psychological Biases 

Influence What People Eat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Making Changes, by Default . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Distractions, Cognition, and Eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Mental Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Problems of Self-Control and Visceral Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Avoiding Temptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

How Cognitive Glitches and Psychological Biases 

Influence How Much People Eat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Where We Eat and With Whom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

How Food Is Presented—Salience and Stockpiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

How Food Is Presented—Variety, Shape of Container, 

and Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Psychological Biases Can Also Make People More 

Receptive to New Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Just, David R., Lisa Mancino, and Brian Wansink. Could Behavioral

Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program

Participants? ERR-43. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. June 2007.
iii

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

As obesity has come to the forefront of public health concerns, there is

growing interest in finding ways to guide consumers’ food choices to be

more beneficial for their long-term health. About one in five Americans

participates in at least one of the nutrition assistance programs sponsored by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This study uses behavioral economics,

food marketing, and psychology to identify possible options for improving

the diets and health of participants in the Food Stamp Program; the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);

and the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs.

What Is the Issue?

USDA and other public health agencies historically have provided recommendations on how to make food choices that promote health and prevent

disease. Food manufacturers and marketers, on the other hand, have discovered that certain psychological cues, such as packaging and presentation, 

are efficient ways to increase consumption of their products. Could similar

marketing approaches be used in public health efforts to improve diet

quality and reduce body weight among U.S. food assistance program participants? Insights from behavioral economics shed light on several factors that

could help economists and policymakers better understand food choices. In

2005, over half of all nutrition assistance program participants were children. Many notions about what is good or acceptable to eat are determined

in childhood. Improving diet quality among these nutrition program participants has the potential to guide food choices at a critical time, when a

child’s dietary preferences are being defined. 

What Did the Study Find?

This study incorporates findings from behavioral economics, food marketing,

and psychology to propose insights into how people make food decisions.

Recognizing that consumption choices are determined by factors other than

prices, income, and information broadens the array of strategies that could influence consumer food choices and improve diet and health. This exploration of

new ideas, however, is by no means a recommendation or endorsement of any

of them. A thorough analysis of costs, benefits, and potential impacts would be

needed before any strategy could be considered as a policy option. 

People have problems of self-control when choosing food, either because

they prefer immediate gratification or because they are under the influence

of a visceral factor, such as feeling hungry. Allowing them to preselect more

healthful choices may be effective. For example, letting students preselect

menu options in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs

or giving food stamp participants the option to preorder groceries by telephone or online may improve the healthfulness of their food choices.

People place more weight on “default options.” Another idiosyncrasy of

consumer choice frequently observed in experimental studies is that individuals exhibit an asymmetry in how they value gains relative to losses. This

asymmetry gives rise to anomalous behavior, where individuals are willing

to pay much less to acquire an item than they are willing to accept to part
with it. It also makes them much more likely to choose the default options,

even when the costs of switching to an alternative are low or even zero.

Making the default menu option of school meals more healthful, such as a

fruit salad instead of French fries may increase the likelihood that they will

choose more healthful foods.

People categorize income into mental accounts. “Mental accounting” helps

explain why coupons that can be used only for food purchases have been

shown to be more effective at raising food spending among food stamp

participants than an equal benefit amount of cash. If funds are earmarked for

a specific purpose, recipients spend within a certain category until funds are

entirely depleted. Specifying amounts of food stamp allotments that go

toward the purchase of healthful foods, such as fruits, dark green vegetables,

and whole grains, may be another option for improving diet quality of

program participants.

People undervalue fixed costs relative to variable costs. When only certain

items can be selected using prepayment (fixed costs), those items will be

chosen more often than those that can be purchased only with cash (variable

costs). In the school meals programs, for instance, students, in conjunction

with parents or guardians, could specify that only more healthful items be

purchased with prepaid cards.

Food decisions are often based more on emotion than rational thought.

Impulsive behavior, such as choosing less healthy foods over healthier

foods, may result from how the food is presented, the presence of stress, or

other demands on an individual’s “processing” ability. When processing

resources are low, it is more likely that an individual will make consumption

choices based solely on immediate considerations. Drawing attention to

more healthful foods—by making them more accessible or displaying them

more prominently in school cafeterias—might mitigate the effects of a

distracting environment and increase the likelihood that students choose

more healthful menu options.

External cues can have a major effect on the food selected, the amount

consumed, and the eater’s perception of how much was consumed. Noise

levels, lighting, and distractions, as well as the size and shape of foods and

food containers, affect how much people eat. Adjusting these factors can

have a major impact on how much is eaten for a meal or snack. Reducing

the number of students seated at each table or making school cafeterias

more brightly lit are possible options that might help students better monitor

their actual consumption. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

This study incorporates findings from behavioral economics, food marketing,

and psychology to explore various methods of improving individuals’ diets and

health. Within the context of USDA nutrition assistance programs, such as food

stamps, WIC, and the school meals programs, these findings provide an opportunity to begin thinking of new ways to encourage program participants to

choose diets that are better aligned with their own goals for future health.

iv

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
1

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

USDA and other public health agencies have a long history of disseminating

information about why and how to make food choices that promote health

and prevent disease. Since 1980, recommendations on attaining adequate

nutrition also include information about the benefits of maintaining a

healthy body weight and limiting consumption of nutrients linked to chronic

diseases. On the other side of the table, food manufacturers and marketers

have discovered that certain psychological cues, such as packaging and

presentation, are efficient ways to increase consumption of their products.

These approaches have not been widely used in public health efforts aimed

at improving diet quality and reducing body weight.

There are several behavioral and cognitive biases affecting food consumption decisions. The food psychology literature has found that external cues

can drastically alter not only consumption volume, but also individual

perceptions of how much they should and actually do eat. Wansink (1996)

finds that larger packages lead to greater consumption and Diliberti et al.

(2004) find that by increasing restaurant portion sizes from 248 grams to

377 grams of pasta, individuals increase caloric intake by an average of 43

percent. Also, more standard elements that are thought to be the main

drivers of food choices, such as price, will sometimes prove to have little

influence over consumption volume. For example, individuals appear to

consume much larger quantities of food when it is stockpiled regardless of

the initial cost (Wansink and Deshpande, 1994).

As obesity has come to the forefront of public health concerns, there is

growing interest in finding ways to guide consumers’ food choices to be

more beneficial for their long-term health. One frequently mentioned option,

the “snack tax,” would raise the relative price of less healthful foods.

However, taxes on food would disproportionately burden low-income individuals who spend a greater share of their income on food than wealthier

consumers. Also, such measures would impose an additional cost for

everyone, not just consumers who need incentives to better balance their

own long-term health preferences with current food choices. Thus, a major

challenge is to find incentives that can improve the food choices among

individuals who behave contrary to their own intentions without limiting the

choices of individuals who make optimal choices.

A benefit of incorporating findings from food psychology and behavioral

economics into this discussion is that it broadens the policy options. Food

psychology research shows that subtle incentives, such as product placement, package size, and fixed-cost pricing (e.g., “all you can eat” buffets)

used to increase consumption should be just as effective at reducing

consumption. Moreover, review of the literature suggests that these tools

may be at least as powerful as the more traditional economics tools used to

guide consumers’ decisions, such as taxes and credits. And, unlike taxes or

credits, behavioral cues can provide benefits to society without imposing a

cost to those who currently behave optimally for their own long-term

benefit, nor will they necessarily impose additional costs to those who are

food insecure or living at the margins. However, a thorough analysis of

costs, benefits, and potential impacts—a task outside the scope of this
discussion—would be needed before any strategy proposed in this report

could be considered a viable option.

Standard economic analysis relies primarily on large-scale survey data. By

contrast, the field of behavioral economics typically tests hypotheses through

the use of experiments that isolate behaviors—for example, the effect of larger

portion sizes on a person’s food consumption. Typically the behavior of a

group receiving the treatment of interest is compared with the behavior of a

control group not receiving the treatment. In this case, consumption volume

would be compared between those who were given the larger portions and

those who were not. By randomly assigning individuals to either control or

treatment groups, researchers can account for many confounding factors, such

as selection biases. In this example, a selection bias may arise if hungry individuals choose both to give themselves larger portions and eat more as well.

Without randomly assigning portion sizes, researchers would overestimate the

effect of portion size on consumption. These methods can reveal more

nuanced information than standard techniques, while also reducing the potential for confounding effects to mislead researchers.

This study’s objective is to incorporate the findings from behavioral

economics, food marketing, and psychology into a framework that can be

used to explore new methods of improving individuals’ diets and health.

Beyond nutrition guidance and food labeling, few policies influence the

food choices of the general population. However, there are mechanisms that

directly influence the diets of those Americans who receive nutrition assistance. USDA’s domestic nutrition assistance programs affect the daily lives

of millions of people. About one in five Americans participates in at least

one nutrition assistance program at some point during the year. Many of

these programs include nutrition education components and are designed to

support healthy food choices. However, these individuals are more at risk

than others from changes in the economy or other social conditions,

including increased risk of diet-related illness (Fox and Cole, 2004). Finding

additional ways to improve the healthfulness of food choices among this

population without imposing additional costs or restricting their right to

choose the foods they like as part of their nutrition assistance program

participation could have broad societal benefits.

In 2005, more than half of the people who participated in either the Food

Stamp Program or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children were children (Barrett, 2006; Oliveira, 2006). On

average, over 29 million children participated in the National School Lunch

Program each day (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2006). Many of the

notions about what is good or acceptable to eat are determined in the first

few years of life (Smith, 2004), and people form their diets based on what

foods are more familiar (Smith, 2004; Smith and Tasnadi, 2007). Thus,

finding ways to improve diet quality among those participating in nutrition

assistance programs is also important because these programs have the

potential to guide food choices at a critical time—when a child’s dietary

preferences are being defined.

This study focuses on four of the largest nutrition assistance programs: the

Food Stamp Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children; and the National School Lunch and Break2

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
fast Programs, referred to collectively as USDA school meals programs (see

the ERS Food Assistance Landscape series for details of each program; the 

most recent Landscape is available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

eib6-4). The potential for impact on food choices within the food stamp,

WIC, and USDA school meals programs differs significantly depending on

the nutrition assistance delivery mechanism. WIC and the FSP provide

assistance for individuals to purchase food to be prepared and eaten within

the home. The school meals programs offer prepared meals to be eaten

within a school-controlled cafeteria. WIC provides for a very narrow set of

products, while the FSP performs much like a direct money transfer, barring

only nonfood items and prepared foods that are not intended for home

consumption. 

While the potential to exploit certain idiosyncratic behaviors to encourage

healthier diets exists in all of these programs, the potential instruments

differ substantially. Which interventions are viable will depend largely on

whether a program distributes benefits by providing purchasing power or

preparing meals. Bestowing benefits through prepared meals offers a great

degree of control over both how the food is presented and the environment

where the food is chosen. Manipulation of food to be prepared and eaten at

home may be much more invasive or costly and may therefore require

exploiting a very different set of behaviors.

3

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Prices, Income, and Information Are Standard

Policy Levers That Influence Food Choice 

The standard economic framework for evaluating consumer behavior treats

food as a good that provides both short- and long-term benefits. While some

aspects of food, such as flavor, texture, and relief from hunger provide

immediate gratification, the effect of other aspects, such as nutrient content,

calories, and the presence of certain bacteria, are not usually realized until

some point in the future. In line with the saying, “a moment on the lips, a

lifetime on the hips,” economic analysis of food choices typically assumes

that individuals must make tradeoffs between enjoyment of today’s choices

and the consequences of those choices at some point in the future. How well

individuals are able to translate food choices into future health outcomes is

related to how much they know about diet, health, and nutrition. 

Typically, this framework is then used to evaluate if and how much food

choices will vary with three primary economic variables: income, prices,

and information about diet and health. Historically, providing information

about diet and health has been the most widely used tool to help consumers

make more healthful food choices. For over 100 years, USDA has provided

advice on how and why to eat a healthful diet (Welsh, Davis, and Shaw,

1993). Since 1980, USDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services have jointly issued the Dietary Guidelines for Americans every 5

years. Although there have been variations over time, the primary focus has

been on educating consumers in ways to achieve proper nutrition while

consuming reasonable proportions of the various food groups in moderation.

In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act

(NLEA), which requires that all packaged foods have nutrition labeling and

use standardized definitions for terms such as serving size, “low fat,” and

“light.” Many of the government-funded food and nutrition programs, such

as food stamps, WIC, and the school meals programs, also earmark funds

for nutrition education. The evidence is mixed on whether information and

labels actually improve the healthfulness of food choices. Several studies

have found a positive correlation between nutrition knowledge and diet

quality, such as lower fat intake (Gould and Lin, 1994), the probability of

being obese (Nayga, 2000b; Variyam and Cawley, 2006), and food label use

(Nayga, 2000a). Others, however, have found no significant correlation or

one that may be very short-lived (e.g., Chang and Just, 2007). 

Rising obesity rates have led some health researchers to advocate raising the

price of less healthful foods, such as salty snack chips, soft drinks, and ice

cream, relative to more healthful foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and whole

grains. Logistical problems aside, economic analysis of consumer’s sensitivity to prices shows that such a measure would have limited efficacy

because peoples’ diets are not very responsive to prices. Using 1999 scanner

data on food purchases, Kuchler, Tegene, and Harris (2005) estimate that

taxing potato chips by 20 percent would bring about only a quarter-pound

loss in body weight per year per potato-chip eater. Changing prices could

also have some unintended consequences due to the interdependent nature

of food choices. Kinsey and Bowland (1999) found that modest decreases in

the price of fruits, meats, and dairy products would lead to small improvements in individuals’ diet quality and that the price of fat would have to rise

4

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
by as much as 15 percent to bring about a 1-percent reduction in fat

consumption. Huang (1999) estimated that changing prices would also lead

to some peculiar substitutions—decreasing the price of fruits or vegetables

would increase consumption of fat, decreasing the price of vegetables would

decrease consumption of vitamin A, and increasing the price of fat would

reduce consumption of protein, calcium, iron, and folate. Such research

shows that simply manipulating food prices is not likely to induce significant improvements in American consumers’ diets. 

The full “price” of food also includes the value of time spent acquiring,

preparing, cooking, and cleaning up after meals. Many of the market-driven

changes to the current U.S. food distribution system have reduced the time

required to procure and prepare food by providing convenient, ready-to-eat

snack foods, microwavable meals, vending machines at workplaces and

schools, and drive-through windows at fast-food restaurants. These changes

may have inadvertently made the environment more fat-friendly for

consumers. It is extremely easy to access large quantities of food and

expend hardly any time or energy doing so.

There is evidence that an increased availability of convenient foods is one

underlying cause of increased consumption. This explanation conforms with

standard economic theory, which predicts that people will consume more of

an item whose total cost (combination of time and money) of production has

declined (Cutler, Glaeser and Shapiro, 2003; Variyam, 2005). Cutler,

Glaeser, and Shapiro (2003) found that prices, income, calorie expenditures

(exercise), and caloric intake at meals all remained relatively stable during

the period that obesity rates began increasing. The amount of time spent

preparing food dropped by about 50 percent, thus the time cost of a snack

declined sharply. Chou, Grossman, and Saffer (2004) also examine the

effects of monetary prices and convenience (via an increased availability of

fast food and other food sources) on obesity levels. While the relationship

between food prices and obesity is statistically significant, it is small in

magnitude. Availability of fast food, on the other hand, appears to play a

much larger role in obesity. This indicates that while Americans may not be

so responsive to monetary costs of food, they may be more sensitive to time

costs. 

This brief overview illuminates how a fairly standard economic framework

can help explain some of the reasons behind food choices, but that the

impact of standard economic levers—and the policy options associated with

them—are limited. The next sections show that adding more realism into

economic models by incorporating the psychological and behavioral aspects

of food consumption reveals a broader range of policy options to increase

the likelihood that individuals will make more healthful food choices. 

5

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
How Cognitive Glitches and Psychological

Biases Influence What People Eat

Through carefully controlled experiments, psychologists and behavioral

researchers have documented widespread observance of behaviors and

problem-solving techniques that do not conform with standard assumptions

of standard economic theory. For example, experiments where subjects are

asked to perform fairly simple reasoning tasks, such as calculating the probability that event A will occur given event B, show that the vast majority of

respondents make systematic errors. Psychologists infer that these errors are

the result of individuals’ using simple decision rules, or heuristics, which

lead to seemingly illogical choices or biases (Conlisk, 1996; Kahneman,

Slovic, and Tversky, 1982). These errors become more prevalent when decisions are made when there is some element of chance or uncertainty about

the results of a choice or when some rewards from a decision are realized

after a significant passage of time, rather than immediately. While using

simple heuristics may lead to biases, doing so may still be a more efficient

approach to problem solving if it provides an adequate solution without the

greater time and mental costs of a more deliberative approach. Experimental

research findings suggest that the heuristics used to simplify decisionmaking

can predictably affect which foods they eat, how much, and their willingness to consume that food again. Experimental and theoretical research also

describes how problems of self-control may arise when the benefits from a

decision are separated from the costs by a time lag. 

Making Changes, by Default

One idiosyncrasy of consumer choice frequently observed in experimental

studies is that individuals exhibit an asymmetry in how they value gains

relative to losses. Known as loss aversion (Kahneman and Tversky, 1984),

this asymmetry gives rise to anomalous behavior, known either as an

endowment effect (Thaler, 1980) or a status quo bias (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988). Both anomalies refer to aversions that cause individuals to

willingly pay much less to acquire an item than they would accept to part

with it (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988; Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler,

1990). This aversion also makes individuals much more likely to choose the

default options, even when the costs of switching to a different option are

low (or even negative). For example, Choi et al. (2003) found that only 26

percent to 69 percent of employees opted to participate in a 401(k) program

when they were not automatically enrolled compared with participation

rates of 85 percent among employees for whom the default option was to

enroll. Similarly, Thaler and Benartzi (2004) found that saving rates

increased dramatically when employees were offered a plan where a specified fraction of their future pay increases were automatically diverted into a

savings account. 

Such findings from behavioral experiments suggest that individuals will be

apt to make decisions that are more harmonious with their long-term objectives when those decisions are presented as the default options. Relating this

to USDA’s nutrition assistance programs, one way to increase the likelihood

that program participants make healthier food choices would be to make

such choices the default. Within the school cafeteria framework, a healthy

meal could be automatically preordered for students each day. Students who

6

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
wanted a different, less healthful food choice (such as a la carte offerings)

would then have to change their order and pay the cost difference, if any.

Among Food Stamp Program participants, the default option could be a

more restrictive food stamp package that fulfilled certain nutrition guidelines, such as a minimum percentage of the benefit amount to be allocated

to purchase of whole-grain foods, dark green vegetables, or fruits. To opt

out of this package, participants would need to specify that they would

prefer the current benefit program. 

The characteristics of the goods or services in question as utilitarian or

hedonic have been found to play a role in how likely individuals are to

exhibit status quo biases. Hedonic characteristics are associated with a

sensory experience and immediate gratification. Utilitarian attributes, on the

other hand, are more functional and typically associated with a longer term

goal, such as good health (Hirshman and Holbrook, 1982; Strahilevitz and

Myers, 1998). Individuals tend to view goods in terms of moral structure—

classifying them as “wants” or “shoulds” (Bazerman, Tenbrunsel, and

Wade-Benzoni, 1998). The notion that some goods are virtuous or necessary

while others are sinful or extravagant leads to very different choice

behavior. Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) show that utilitarian characteristics

are more important when deciding which goods to acquire and hedonic

characteristics are more important in determining which to give up. Thus,

while individuals appear to be deliberative in determining which products to

select, they seem to be more reactionary when choosing which items to

forgo. 

In the context of food, this suggests that individuals are more likely to add

utilitarian foods (which are likely to be healthier) to their diet than they are

to eliminate a hedonic (and typically less healthful) food. This odd twist on

the status quo bias works against efforts to reduce consumption of foods

that are viewed as extravagant, making it much more difficult to reduce

caloric intake. These findings also support the concept of considering the

healthfulness of default menu items and food packages within the nutrition

assistance programs. 

Distractions, Cognition, and Eating

Certain situations also affect the likelihood that individuals’ decisions will

be based more on emotional than on rational factors. Epstein (1993)

proposes the Cognitive-Experiential Self Theory (CEST) to describe this

conflict. This model supposes that there are two processes used to evaluate

every stimulus:

1. An experiential system to make rapid evaluations based on emotions.

2. A cognitive process to make more deliberative evaluations based on

rational thinking.

The primary determinant of which process takes over is the availability of

processing resources (time, necessity to deal with other decisions, etc.).

Impulsive behavior, such as choosing less healthy foods over healthy foods,

may result from the presentation of food choices, the presence of stress, or

other demands on processing ability. Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999) find that

individuals who were given some cognitive task to perform while choosing

7

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
between cake or fruit salad were much more likely to choose the cake than

those given only the food-choice task. This result held true even if the price

of the cake was raised considerably higher than the price of the fruit salad.

The standard economic framework can be adjusted to incorporate the possibility that individuals toggle between using a cognitive process to make

decisions and an experiential system to make decisions based primarily on

emotions. If it is true that emotions take precedence over reason as

processing resources decrease, then another way to improve the healthfulness of individuals’ food choices is to manage their processing resources.

When processing resources are low, it is more likely that an individual will

make consumption choices based solely on immediate considerations. When

these resources are higher, the same individual will be more likely to

consider the tradeoffs between current consumption and future well-being.

Within the school meals programs, processing resources could be affected

by distractions or time constraints that occur while making meal selections

or choosing when to stop eating. Consequently, students may be more likely

to make healthful menu selections or more reasonable quantity decisions if

afforded more time in which to do so. Alternatively, the nutritional value of

foods chosen might improve if individuals were given the opportunity to

make selections in a calmer environment—possibly in class, before heading

to the cafeteria. Another way to mitigate the effect of a distracting environment would be to draw attention to the more healthful foods by making

them more accessible or displaying them more prominently. Within the FSP

or WIC, processing resources might again correspond to similar distractions

or time constraints. A possible way to mitigate these factors would be to

give participants the option of preselection or preordering their grocery

items (whether program-provided or not) at times when fewer distractions

might be present.

Mental Accounting

Lowering the price of one good, food for example, will have both an income

and a substitution effect, according to standard economic predictions. With

the income effect, individuals increase food purchases in response to more

room in their budget. This change in price may also have a substitution

effect, where people change how they allocate expenditures among broad

categories. In this case, lowering food prices may lead to only a slight

increase in total food purchases while generating a much greater increase in

expenditures on other items.

By contrast, mental accounting (Thaler, 1980; Shefrin and Thaler, 2004)

supposes that individuals categorize their income by earmarking it for

specific purposes or specifying that it be used within a certain timeframe.

The idea that money is not fungible but is set aside for a specific purpose is

engrained in consumers’ vocabularies early on with terms such as “lunch

money,” “rainy day funds,” and “mad money.” Income sources seen as onetime events are viewed as more frivolous (such as tax refunds) and are

subsequently earmarked for more frivolous consumption (like plasma televisions). Individuals may also categorize a certain amount of income for food

consumption based on factors such as the source of income (employment,

welfare, food stamps, and gifts).

8

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
In contrast to the more standard framework, mental accounting predicts that

once money is earmarked for a purpose, one will spend within a certain

category until funds are entirely depleted. Thus, if allocating a portion of

income to current food spending, and food prices decline, one may overlook

the opportunity to shift the surplus “food money” to another purpose.

Instead, one will buy more food. In this case, finding a low price on an item

may lead to overconsumption rather than substitution.

Another consequence of mental accounting is that individuals tend to

exhibit a “flat-rate bias,” where they undervalue fixed costs, relative to variable costs (Thaler, 2004). Health club members typically choose to pay for

their gym membership on a monthly or annual basis, even when a per-use

fee would have lower total costs (DellaVigna and Malmendier, 2002).1 One

implication of a flat-rate bias is that, when only certain items can be

selected using prepayment, those items will be chosen with greater

frequency compared with those that can be purchased only with cash. 

The idea of earmarking funds and mental accounts may partially explain

why several studies have found that food stamp coupons that can be used

only for food purchases are more effective at raising food expenditures than

an equal benefit amount given as cash even when both coupons and cash are

used on food (reviewed in Fox, Hamilton, and Lin, 2004). This outcome is

contrary to rational economic theory, which predicts that cash and coupons

would have the same effect. This concept also lends support to the idea that

providing further guidelines on the proportion of food stamp allotments that

should go toward the purchase of healthful foods, such as fruits, dark green

vegetables, and whole grains, could increase the purchase of more healthful

items among program participants. 

Foods that are part of the official USDA school meals must meet dietary

standards. But, similar standards could also be placed on a la carte foods

and foods sold separately from USDA school meals. Through prepaid cards,

or point-of-sale (POS) technology, students, possibly in conjunction with

parents, could specify what portion of their total bill should be spent on

fruits, vegetables, desserts, or high-calorie beverages. Such options have

already been tried in several school districts. The finding that individuals

undervalue fixed costs relative to variable costs has possible implications for

the school meals programs as well. To take advantage of this flat-rate bias,

parents or students could prepay for specific, more healthful items. Other,

less healthful items, such as soft drinks or high-fat desserts, could be

purchased, but only with cash.2

Problems of Self-Control and 

Visceral Influences

Economic models typically assume individuals discount future utility exponentially, meaning that the value people place on future well-being is less

than the value of today’s well-being and the value of each subsequent time

period decreases at a constant rate. However, experimental and empirical

studies provide examples showing that actual consumer behavior cannot be

reconciled with the assumption of exponential discounting. One frequently

observed anomaly is that individuals often change how they rank a less

9

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA

1 There are competing explanations 

for this behavior, flat-rate biases being

one of them. Others include the possibility that people underestimate the

future utility received from a service

and that individuals may choose to

overpay upfront as a commitment

mechanism to influence future 

behavior. 

2 Though carbonated soft drinks are

not a choice within the actual school

meal programs, they are available for

purchase at some schools. Some cafeterias do offer other sugary beverages

a la carte.
preferable, yet more immediate reward relative to a preferable but delayed

reward when the time delay between receiving either reward is changed

equally (discussed by Laibson, 2004). A common example cited in the literature on experimental economics describes an individual who prefers one

apple right now to two apples 24 hours from now, yet also prefers two

apples in 51 days to one apple in 50 days (Thaler, 1981). Such time-inconsistent preferences find expression as a self-control problem, where one

places extra value on more immediate rewards within the near term. This

behavior has been linked to consistent shortfalls in retirement savings, and

the need for penalties on early withdrawals of those savings (Laibson et al.,

1998; Angeletos et al., 2001). In the case of food consumption, the wouldbe dieter may continually commit to cutting back on high-calorie foods after

one more doughnut.

Repeated observation of time-inconsistent preferences has led some

researchers to change this assumption by using a framework where decisionmakers lack self-control and choose alternatives that are usually less

desirable or valuable over some timeframe simply because they are available

sooner (see Gul and Pesendorfer, 2004, for a review). This adjustment to the

more standard economic framework has been used to show that individuals

can improve their longrun well-being through some sort of commitment

mechanism that will enforce time consistency and set limits on current

consumption levels (e.g., a 401(k) plan). Such curbs on one’s ability to

choose could never be a valuable tool if individuals had an ability to choose

the best option after the fact.

Kivetz and Simonson (2002) found that individuals tended to choose luxury

items as program rewards rather than the cash equivalent (or greater)

because they feared lack of self-control would cause them to use the money

for everyday expenses, and therefore, preclude their ability to afford the

luxury item. This framework has also been used to explain a number of

seemingly inconsistent preferences including: why individuals choose relatively more expensive annual gym memberships over “pay as you go”

options, even though the latter would be less expensive for most users

(DellaVigna and Malmendier, 2002); why problems of self-control coupled

with decreasing time and monetary costs of food attainment may explain an

increasing rise in obesity rates (Culter, Glaeser, and Shapiro, 2003); and

why food stamp recipients reduce caloric intake as the days after food stamp

receipt increase (Shapiro, 2005). 

A limitation of such models, however, is that time-inconsistent behavior is

attributed entirely to how soon a choice is available relative to its alternatives (Frederick, Loewenstein, and O’Donoghue, 2004; Loewenstein, 2004).

In terms of food consumption, this means an individual will always be

expected to choose the more immediately available food, regardless of his or

her level of hunger. In reviewing the literature on weight loss, Herman and

Polivy (2003) show that simply making some foods immediately available is

not sufficient to induce binge eating. 

To account for this, researchers have developed an alternate framework that

allows a broader range of situations to trigger present biased behaviors

(such as a self-control problem) by adding the assumption that certain

visceral influences, such as feeling hunger, thirst, or pain, can add to or

10

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
detract from how much enjoyment an individual gets from current consumption (Loewenstein, 2004). For example, a plate of nachos is not terribly

enjoyable after a full meal. But these same nachos may seem extremely

palatable to a hungry person. Also, a hungry person is likely to make shortsighted tradeoffs between immediate and delayed food, even if that person

will be feeling just as hungry tomorrow.

This visceral factors framework differs from Cognitive-Experiential Self

Theory (described earlier) which assumes that the availability of processing

resources—related to factors such as the amount of time afforded to make a

decision, level of stress, or presence of other distraction—dictates whether

an individual takes a rational approach to decisionmaking or makes evaluations based on emotions. In comparison, the visceral factors framework

assumes that while an individual uses rational thinking to evaluate decisions, the amount of utility derived from consuming a specific amount of

some good—say, food—will change depending on the intensity of relevant

visceral influences, such as feeling hungry, nervous, or nauseous.

For explaining food choices, the visceral factors framework can illuminate

how and why certain situations give rise to time-inconsistent choices. In a

more neutral state, an individual may choose to consume the types and

quantities of foods that are consistent with his or her long-term health objectives. As visceral factors intensify, however, the perceived value of one’s

current well-being increases relative to the value of one’s future well-being.

Thus, consumption of goods that provide immediate gratification will be

consumed in greater amounts compared with situations when visceral

factors are less intense. 

Using this framework, Mancino (2003) and Mancino and Kinsey (2004)

show that hunger can lead to unhealthy choices, especially when combined

with time constraints. As individuals become busier (and time constraints

begin to tighten), more convenient food becomes a substitute for leisure

time. Also, as individuals become busier, they may eat less often, allowing

their feeling of hunger to get out of control, leading to overconsumption.

This research suggests that busier lifestyles may have created an atmosphere

where increasing the interval between meals leads individuals to periodically ignore health information, causing an increase in obesity. 

The empirical evidence that individuals tend to lack self-control, either

because they simply prefer immediate gratification or because they are

under the influence of a visceral factor, suggests that allowing them to preselect or commit to more healthful choices would be an effective means to

counteract their tendency to make shortsighted, less healthful choices.

Within the school meals programs, students will be more likely to choose

foods that promote better health over those that simply provide immediate

gratification if they choose their foods well before meal time. Alternatively,

parents or children could devise a commitment mechanism, such as making

certain foods off-limits. Through point-of-sale technologies, such mechanisms are currently increasing in popularity. Some schools employ POS

systems through which parents can track what menu items their children

purchase at school and even specify that their POS card preclude the

purchase of specific items, such as soft drinks or high-fat desserts. 

11

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Similarly, within the Food Stamp Program (FSP), participants may be more

likely to choose foods that are in sync with their long-term health objectives

if they make their purchasing decisions before going to the store and finding

themselves tempted with less healthful food options, such as salty snack

chips, high-fat dessert products, and soft drinks. One way to do this would

be through preordering. Another option would be to allow FSP participants

to specify that certain less healthful foods be ineligible for purchase with

their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. A simpler, less costly alternative currently used by some States as part of their Food Stamp and Nutrition

Education programs would be to design curriculum that highlights the

importance of planning meals, preparing shopping lists, and not shopping

for groceries on an empty stomach or accompanied by children (Philips et

al., 2000). 

The monthly schedule for distributing food stamps has been cited as a

potential cause of weight gain among participants. Because benefits are

distributed only once a month, there is evidence of a period of overconsumption shortly after benefits are distributed, followed by a period of

rationing, or under-consumption later in the cycle (Wilde and Ranney,

2000). This cycle may be even more pronounced among individuals with

self-control problems—they will likely spend too much for current

consumption at the expense of future consumption. Increasing the frequency

of benefit disbursements could also function as another commitment mechanism. Thus, decreasing the amount available for current consumption at

each decision period, while leaving total payment amount unchanged,

should also boost one’s ability to make time-consistent decisions. 

Avoiding Temptation

A fundamental tenet of rational behavior is the axiom of the independence

of irrelevant alternatives. The axiom asserts that if a person prefers option A

to option B, then he or she will continue to prefer A to B even if a third,

irrelevant option C is available. Frequent observation of behavior that

violates this principle suggests that modeling choices under an assumption

of complete rationality will be too restrictive and result in erroneous predictions about behavior. Instead, individuals seem to exhibit a “context effect”

where the rankings of alternatives depend on other options offered in a

choice set, even when those options are never chosen (Camerer and

Loewenstein, 2004). Gul and Pesendorfer (2001) propose that individuals

have preferences over the presence of temptations: The value of choosing a

salad rather than a hamburger will be lower when tempting items like

chocolate cake also appear on the menu, even if the cake is not chosen.

Because cognitively better choices may lose their appeal when more

hedonic choices are presented, Gul and Pesendorfer argue that removing

tempting options that are typically considered less desirable will unambiguously improve individual well-being.

Presenting individuals with tempting alternatives may also be problematic if

their willpower (ability to self-regulate) is a depletable resource (Ozdenoren,

Salant, and Silverman, 2006). Experiments show that an individual’s ability

to exercise willpower is lower if he or she has recently engaged in prior acts

of self-restraint (Baumeister and Vohs, 2003). While individuals who have

honed their skills at self-regulation may find effective ways to stick with

12

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
their long-term objectives (Fishbach and Shah, 2006), less effective regulators will be better able to avert temptation by imposing additional costs (or

benefits) on giving in to temptation (Fishbach and Trope, 2005).

Within the school meals setting, these findings suggest that simply

presenting students with a broader array of unhealthful but flavorful foods

can decrease the enjoyment they get from choosing more healthful foods.

The findings also suggest that the likelihood of choosing healthful menu

options decreases as the number of tempting, less healthful options

increases. Another finding from this research is that giving individuals the

option of precommitting to the more healthful option may improve wellbeing. As such, offering students the option to preselect healthful menu

options could be another way to improve their food choices. Through

preordering their groceries, either by phone or possibly online, FSP participants could also be given the option to preselect their foods directly through

FSP. 

13

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
How Cognitive Glitches and Psychological

Biases Influence How Much People Eat

In addition to choosing the wrong mix of foods, many Americans simply eat

too much food as well. According to ERS data on food consumption, the

average daily calories available in the U.S. food supply increased by more

than 500 calories per person between 1970 and 2004. Surprisingly, experimental studies find that choosing what to eat and choosing how much to eat

may be controlled by separate psychological mechanisms. Environmental

factors seem to have a stronger effect on the amount people eat than tastes

and preferences (Wansink and Kim, 2004). In particular, the eating environment (atmosphere, effort, social facilitation, and distractions) and the food

environment (salience, structure, size, stockpiling, and shape) affect

consumption volume by setting consumption norms (an indication of how

much people should consume) and inhibiting monitoring accuracy. These

subtle cues can have large impacts on consumption volume, often without

the individual’s being aware of their effect (see Wansink, 2004, for definitions of terms and complete review of the consumption volume literature).

Where We Eat and With Whom

The eating environment is defined as all factors external to the presentation of

the food itself. Social situations may encourage individuals to eat more than

they would normally. When eating in groups or social situations, individuals

tend to eat quantities that are similar to others (Birch and Fisher, 2000; de

Castro, 1994). Individuals may alter what they eat due to the distraction of

conversation and increase consumption volume as the size of the gathering

increases (de Castro and Brewer, 1992) or as the length of meal is extended

(Bell and Pliner, 2003). When wanting to impress others at the table, as in a

job interview, individuals will often eat less (Chaiken and Pliner, 1990; Mori,

Chaiken, and Pliner, 1987, Stroebele and de Castro, 2004). Social gatherings

also tend to decrease the variance of consumption; those who normally eat

large amounts eat less, while those who normally eat little will eat more

(Clendennen, Herman, and Polivy, 1994; Pliner et al., 2003). 

Other aspects of the eating environment, such as lighting, odor, and temperature, can influence consumption volume (Wansink, 2006; Wansink, 2004).

People tend to shorten the duration of meals in brightly lit environments

compared with places that are more dimly lit. People also tend to be less

self-conscious when the lighting is low, thus increasing the likelihood of

eating more than they would normally. 

Beyond mentioning their impact as part of nutrition education, it is difficult

to imagine how controlling where people eat, with whom, or the atmosphere

within a dining area could be feasible within either FSP or WIC. However,

these findings do have implications within the school meals programs. It

may be that simply decreasing the number of students seated at each table

could have a significant impact on the amount of food consumed at school

meals. Making school cafeterias more brightly lit could be another way to

help students better monitor their actual consumption volume. 

14

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
How Food Is Presented—

Salience and Stockpiling

The primary factor in managing consumption volume is the accuracy with

which individuals gauge how much they eat (Arkes, 1991; Polivy et al.,

1986). Rules of thumb, such as eating one package or one bowlful of food

or choosing products that are lower in fat or calories, are often used to

monitor consumption volume. Such rules of thumb can have unintended

effects on dieters. For example, Wansink and Linder (2003) found that while

diners correctly believed that dipping bread in olive oil would increase the

fat content relative to spreading butter on the bread, their total consumption

volume may have negated this difference. These same diners tended to eat

23 percent more bread during the course of the meal when choosing butter

over olive oil (Wansink and Linder, 2003).

Increasing the salience of food may increase consumption volume because it

serves as a reminder of a pleasurable experience. Simply seeing a food can

also lead to unplanned consumption (Boon et al., 1998; Cornell, Rodin, and

Weingarten, 1989). Salience may be generated internally, leading to greater

consumption volume than externally generated salience. Scientists were able

to manipulate the salience of soup by simply asking individuals to write a

description of the last time they ate soup. Those asked to describe their experience consumed more than twice as much soup in the next 2 weeks as did a

control group that was not asked (Wansink and Deshpande, 1994).

Similarly, individuals who happened by a cookie dish, and impulsively

decided to eat, ate fewer cookies than those who deliberately sought out the

cookies (Wansink, 1994). Conversely, placing candies just 3 feet away from

one’s desk, as opposed to directly on one’s desk, can significantly reduce

the volume of consumption (by five to six chocolates a day, see Painter,

Wansink and Heiggelke, 2002).

Stockpiling food can also increase consumption (Chandon and Wansink,

2002). In an experiment where homes were stocked with large quantities of

ready-to-eat food, the foods were consumed at greater than twice the rate of

consumption than in homes given more normal amounts of the food within

the first week (Chandon and Wansink, 2002). After the first week, consumption rates were similar between the two treatments. Some have speculated

that stockpiled foods may increase visibility and salience of the food.

However, experiments attempting to isolate this phenomenon have been

inconclusive (Terry and Beck, 1985; Wansink and Deshpande, 1994).

Devising ways to directly manipulate the salience of foods within the WIC

or food stamp program is difficult to imagine. However, nutrition education

within these programs could highlight ways to increase the salience of

certain foods, such as fruits and vegetables, relative to other less healthful

foods by changing where they are stored within the home. The school meals

programs, on the other hand, have the ability to work with cafeterias and

lunchrooms to change the placement of specific food items to adjust their

relative prominence. Salads, fruit and vegetable servings, or other more

healthful foods could be displayed more prominently, such as at the beginning of the cafeteria lines or on a level that is easily accessible. By contrast,

15

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
desserts, soft drinks, or other less nutrient-dense foods could be offered so

they are harder to reach and harder to see. 

The finding that stockpiled foods are consumed in greater quantity may

have implications for how benefits are distributed within the Food Stamp

Program. There is speculation that the monthly food stamp benefit disbursement contributes to sporadic consumption of food. Shortly after benefits are

issued, food expenditures spike and thus foods are more plentiful within the

home compared with the end of the month.3 If recently stockpiled foods are

consumed in greater quantity, program participants, especially among those

who have problems of self-control, would be more likely to experience

binge-eating at the beginning of the food stamp cycle. Therefore, allowing

FSP participants to choose to have benefits distributed more frequently

could reduce the variation in the quantity (and possibly quality) of food

intake throughout the month. 

How Food Is Presented—Variety, Shape of

Container, and Packaging

The structure or variety of food can also lead to increased consumption

volume. In particular, offering a greater variety of foods increases the

consumption volume of that food (Miller et al., 2000; Rolls, 1986; Rolls et

al., 1981). Recent work has found that even increasing aspects of variety not

associated with taste or nutrition significantly increases consumption

volume. For example, subjects presented with 10 versus 7 colors of M&M

candies consumed 43 percent more candy (Kahn and Wansink, 2004).

Another experiment presented one set of subjects with identical numbers

and variety of colors of jelly beans. However, while one treatment group

received the jelly beans sorted by color, the other received the assortment

mixed. Those who received the mixed assortment ate 69 percent more on

average (Kahn and Wansink, 2004). 

Larger portion sizes are frequently cited as contributors to increased obesity

rates in the United States (Rolls, 2003; Young and Nestle, 2002). Experimental research does show that people eat more when presented with larger

packages or portions of food (Diliberti et al., 2004; Rolls et al., 2004;

Wansink, 1996; Nisbett, 1968; Rolls, Morris, and Roe, 2002; Edelman et al.,

1986). Doubling the portion size increases consumption anywhere from 18

percent to 25 percent for meal-related foods and by up to 45 percent for

snack foods (Wansink, 1996). Surprisingly, this result is robust to any

number of different treatments. Larger portions lead to greater consumption

even if the food is reported to be repulsive by the subjects (Wansink and

Kim, 2004). Moreover, eating from larger packages causes less accuracy in

monitoring consumption volume; when eating from larger packages, people

underestimate their own consumption to a larger extent compared with when

they eat from smaller packages (Wansink, 1996). Alternatively, increasing the

calorie density appears to have little effect on consumption volume (Rolls,

Bell, and Waugh, 2000; Rolls et al., 1998; Rolls, Morris, and Roe, 2002). 

The shape of serving containers, such as bowls, plates and glasses, can also

significantly affect the volume of consumption. Individuals tend to focus on

the height of a glass rather than its width (Krider, Raghubir, and Krishna,

16

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA

3 Evidence that stockpiling food leads

to increased consumption in the short

run may offer another explanation for

the finding by Shapiro (2005)—that

consumption patterns among food

stamp recipients challenge the assumption of exponential discounting.
2001; Piaget, 1969; Raghubir and Krishna, 1999). Teenagers were found to

pour 88 percent more juice into short, wide glasses than into tall, thin glasses,

when both types of glasses held the same volume. Similarly, bartenders asked

to pour 1.5 ounces of gin poured 26 percent more into tumbler-style glasses

than into tall, thin glasses (Wansink and van Ittersum, 2003). 

Lastly, there is evidence that other alterations in food packaging or presentation may make it easier to assess consumption volume. Introducing more

intermediate packaging in containers of chips or other items, such as individually wrapped sets of cookies within a bag, seems to draw attention to

consumption volume and make it easier for individuals to determine an

appropriate stopping point (Wansink, 2004). 

Compared with the FSP or WIC, it is more straightforward to apply implications from these findings to the school meals programs. Increasing the

number of different vegetables or fruits offered within a single salad may

lead students to consume a greater amount. Changing the shape of

containers that are used could also promote consumption of certain foods

and beverages relative to less healthful foods. Tall, thin glasses could be

used for less healthful beverages while shorter, wider glasses could be used

for beverages such as low-fat milk, water, and fruit juices. Similarly, larger

bowls could be used for servings of fruits and vegetables, while small plates

and dishes could be used for desserts or other less nutritious foods. Finally,

placing packaging restrictions, such as 100-calorie packs, in vending

machines and prepackaged foods a la carte is another way to help individuals monitor their own consumption volume within the schools. 

In addition to highlighting the effects of variety, container shape, and

product packaging on consumption volume in nutrition education for food

stamp and WIC participants, there may be opportunities to apply some of

the findings more directly. Interested program participants could be given a

set of glasses, dishes, and/or bowls that contain some sort of visual graphic

to indicate appropriate portion sizes. Promoting single-serving packaging

for whole-grain cereals or low-fat cheese slices may also be feasible within

the WIC package. 

17

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Psychological Biases Can Also Make People

More Receptive to New Information

For some, improving diet quality may require eating different foods or

changing methods of preparation. Experimental research finds that specific

cues can significantly influence individuals’ expectations of how a new

product will taste and, thus, how likely individuals are to try new foods and

recipes. These cues may include appearance, name, price, brand, or information and descriptions given by others (Tuorila et al., 1998; Cardello and

Sawyer, 1992). Subsequently, expectations can bias an individual’s actual

postconsumption opinion of taste and overall experience. Experiments show

that individuals who think an item will taste good give higher post-trial evaluations compared with those who expected the same item to taste bad

(Tuorilla et al., 1998; Cardello and Sawyer, 1992). 

Cardello and Sawyer (1992) told groups of subjects that they would be

sampling a brand of juice from a new tropical fruit. Each group except one

was told that the juice had been taste-tested previously and subjects had

either “liked it very much,” “disliked it very much,” or “neither liked nor

disliked it,” depending on treatment group. Subjects’ expectations about the

juice correlated very closely with the information provided by the

researchers. Groups whose members had expected a bad experience reported

a lower level of acceptance than groups whose members had expected a

good experience. This is a phenomenon called “confirmation.” In fact,

subjects’ expectations about the overall experience tended to bias their posttrial analysis of taste sensations (like sweetness) that had not been

mentioned in the pre-taste information. Despite biasing evaluations, it

appears that discovering that food is not what was described reduces one’s

willingness to try the food again (Tuorila et al., 1998).

Individuals have been found to be significantly influenced by who gave

them information about a product. Manufacturers and retailers have long

known the power of word-of-mouth advertising. Smith (2004) also argues

that many notions as to what is good or acceptable are determined in the

first few years of life. This leads marketers of foods to frequently show

images of young children who are happy presumably because they have

consumed the marketers’ food products.

People seek social validation by trying to fit in and are more likely to be

persuaded by people they consider to be likable (Cialdini, 2001). Not

surprisingly, that is why people who are considered popular and trustworthy

figures are often used to tout the virtues of a product, rather than more infamous people. Promoters have now taken this one step further. It is now

becoming increasingly popular among product promoters to actually seek

out young adults or teenagers to act as “trend setters” who will be able to

spread the word about a product among their peers (Walker, 2004). 

In terms of providing nutrition education with school meals programs, FSP,

and WIC, this suggests that who delivers the message and how satisfied he

or she appears to be while doing so may have more of an impact than

simply providing information about how and why to make more healthful

food choices. 

18

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Conclusions

The previous sections summarized how the use of simple rules of thumb and

heuristics may influence what individuals choose to eat, how much they eat, and

how they evaluate these decisions after the fact. Incorporating these findings

into the study of consumer behavior expands the array of possible ideas that

may be considered for food policy, nutrition education, and social marketing. 

With small adjustments, standard economic frameworks can incorporate more

realism by recognizing that individuals often use simple heuristics, such as

placing more weight on default options or using package size to determine

quantity, when making food choices. The practical implications of this would

be that altering elements of the product, such as package size and shape, the

amount of variety, the number of calories, or the default options on a menu,

can significantly affect diet quality and consumption volume. 

Altering the food environment by increasing the convenience of healthful

foods relative to less healthful foods, reducing distractions, or altering the

lighting may also make it easier to make choices that are more harmonious

with an individual’s long-term health objectives. 

Recognizing that situational cues, like hunger, stress, or distractions, can

increase tendencies to focus on current well-being also expands possible policy

and education techniques. Commitment devices, such as allowing individuals

to preselect more healthful foods, may be another effective way to help individuals make food choices that align with their own future health goals. 

Similarly, explicitly modeling how mental accounting affects individuals’

sensitivity to price differences reveals subtle techniques that might be able

to significantly improve the quality of food choices. Knowing that people

undervalue fixed costs relative to variable costs suggests that allowing

people to prepay for healthful items may be another way to strengthen the

link between intended and actual behavior. 

Willingness to try new foods and a propensity to like them are strongly

influenced by the actions of those around us. In terms of nutrition education

and marketing, this suggests that who delivers the message and how satisfied they appear may have more of an impact than simple information about

the virtues of healthful foods. 

These findings expand the list of ideas for improving the diet quality among

participants of specific food and nutrition programs, such as food stamps,

WIC, and the school meals programs, without limiting freedom of choice.

And unlike more traditional interventions, such as changing prices or banning

specific food items, many of the proposed changes could be targeted to only

those participants who wanted to make choices that are more harmonious with

their own (or their parents’) long-term health objectives. 

This exploration of new ideas is by no means a recommendation or endorsement of any of them. A thorough analysis of costs, benefits, and potential

impacts would be needed before any strategy could be considered as a policy

option. Many of these suggested ideas may also influence where households

shop, how they manage limited resources, and the total package of what

19

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
they purchase. Practical and legal issues may also pose hurdles to implementing some of these strategies. As such, an important area for research

would be to design experiments and pilot programs to gauge the efficacy, cost,

legality, and feasibility of these possibilities. Comparing results of these

experiments against estimated costs and benefits of more traditional

approaches to nutrition assistance would also clarify the merits of these ideas

relative to other strategies.

20

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
References

Ainslie, G., and N. Haslam. (1992) “Hyperbolic Discounting” and “SelfControl,” Choice Over Time, George Loewenstein and John Elster (eds.).

New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Angeletos, George-Marios, et al. (2001) “The Hyperbolic Consumption

Model: Calibration, Simulation, and Empirical Evaluation.” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, pp. 47-68.

Akerlof, G.A. (1991) “Procrastination and Obedience.” American Economic

Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 1-19. 

Arkes, H.R. (1991) “Costs and Benefits of Judgment Errors–Implications

for Debiasing.” Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 110, pp. 486-498.

Barrett, A. (2006) Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year

2005. Report No. FSP-06-CHAR. Prepared by Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and

Nutrition Service. Accessible at: www.fns.usda.gov/oane

Baumeister, Roy, and Kathleen Vohs. (2003) “Willpower, Choice, and SelfControl,” Time and Decision, George Loewenstein, Daniel Read, and 

Roy Baumeister (ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bazerman, M.H., A.E. Tenbrunsel, and K. Wade-Benzoni. (1998)

“Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Understanding and Managing

Conflicting Internal Preferences.” Academy of Management Review, 

Vol. 23, pp. 225-241.

Bell, R., and P.L. Pliner. (2003) “Time to Eat: The Relationship Between the

Number of People Eating and Meal Duration in Three Lunch Settings.”

Appetite, Vol. 41, pp. 215-218.

Birch, L.L., and J.O. Fisher. (2000) “Mother’s Child-Feeding Practices

Influence Daughters’ Eating and Weight.” American Journal of 

Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, pp. 1,054-1,061.

Boon, B., W. Stroebe, H. Schut, and A. Jansen. (1998) “Food for Thought:

Cognitive Regulation of Food Intake.” British Journal of Health

Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 27-40.

Bowman, D., D. Minehart, and M. Rabin. (1999) “Loss Aversion in a

Consumption-Savings Model,” Journal of Economic Behavior and

Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 155-178(24).

Camerer, C.F., and G. Loewenstein. (2004) “Behavioral Economics: Past,

Present and Future.” Advances in Behavioral Economics, Colin F.

Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin (eds.). Russell Sage

Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3-52.

Cardello, A.V., and F.M. Sawyer. (1992) “Effects of Disconfirmed

Consumer Expectations on Food Acceptability.” Journal of Sensory

Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 253-277.

Chaiken, S., and P. Pliner. (1990) “Eating, Social Motives, and SelfPresentation in Women and Men.” Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 240-254.

21

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Chandon, P., and B. Wansink. (2002) “When Are Stockpiled Products

Consumed Faster? A Convenience-Salience Framework of Postpurchase

Consumption Incidence and Quantity.” Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 39, pp. 321-335.

Chang, Hung-Hao, and David R. Just. (2007) “Health Information Availability

and the Consumption of Eggs: Are Consumers Bayesians?” Journal of

Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 77-92.

Choi, James, et al. (2003). “Optimal Defaults.” American Economic Review

Papers and Proceedings, May, pp. 180-185.

Chou, Shin-Yi, Michael Grossman, and Henry Saffer. (2004) “An Economic

Analysis of Adult Obesity: Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor

Surveillance System.” Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.

565-587.

Cialdini, Robert. (2001) “The Science of Persuasion.” Scientific American.

February, pp. 76-81.

Clendennen, V., C.P. Herman, and J. Polivy. (2003) “Social Facilitation of

Eating Among Friends and Strangers.” Appetite, Vol. 23, pp. 1-13.

Cornell, C.E., J. Rodin, and H. Weingarten. (1989) “Stimulus-Induced

Eating When Satiated.” Physiology and Behavior, Vol. 45, pp. 695-704.

Conlisk, John. (1996) “Why Bounded Rationality?” Journal of Economic

Literature, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 669-700.

Cutler, D.M., E.L. Glaeser, and J.M. Shapiro. (2003) “Why Have Americans

Become More Obese?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 17, 

pp. 93-118.

de Castro, J.M. (1994) “Family and Friends Produce Greater Social

Facilitation of Food Intake than Other Companions.” Physiology and

Behavior, Vol. 56, pp. 445-455.

de Castro, J.M., and E. Brewer. (1992) “The Amount Eaten in Meals by

Humans Is a Power Function of the Number of People Present.”

Physiology and Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 121-125.

DellaVigna, S., and U. Malmendier. (2002) “Overestimating Self-Control:

Evidence from the Health Club Industry” paper. University of California,

Berkley.

Dhar, R., and K. Wertenbroch. (2000) “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic

and Utilitarian Goods.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, 

pp. 60-71.

Diliberti, N., et al. (2004) “Increased Portion Size Leads to Increased

Energy Intake in a Restaurant Meal.” Obesity Research, Vol. 12, 

pp. 562-568.

Edelman, B., D. Engell, P. Bronstein, and E. Hirsch. (1986) “Environmental

Effects on the Intake of Overweight and Normal-Weight Men.” Appetite,

Vol. 7, pp. 71-83.

Epstein, S. (1993) “Emotion and Self-Theory.” Handbook of Emotions, 

M. Lewis and J.M. Haviland (eds.). New York: Guilford, pp. 313-326.

22

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Fishbach, Ayelet, and James Shah. (2006) “Self-Control in Action: Implicit

Dispositions Toward Goals and Away from Temptations.” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 5, pp.820-832.

Fishbach, Ayelet, and Yaacov Trope. (2005) “The Substitutability of

External Control and Self-Control.” Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 256-270.

Fox, Mary Kay, and Nancy Cole. (2004) Nutrition and Health

Characteristics of Low-Income Populations. E-FAN-04014-1. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. December.

Fox, Mary Kay, William Hamilton, and Biing-Hwan Lin (eds.). (2004).

Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and

Health: Volume 3, Literature Review. Food Assistance and Nutrition

Research Report No. 19-3, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service.

Frederick, Shane, George Loewenstein, and Ted O’Donoghue. (2004) “Time

Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review.” Advances in

Behavioral Economics. Colin F. Camerer, George Loewenstein, and

Matthew Rabin (eds.). Russell Sage Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, pp.162-222.

Gould, B.W. and H.C. Lin (1994) “Nutrition Information and Household

Dietary Fat Intake.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

(19:2) December: 349-365.

Gul, Faruk, and Wolfgang Pesendorfer. (2001) “Temptation and SelfControl.” Econometrica, Vol. 69, No. 6, pp. 1,403-1,435.

Gul, Faruk, and Wolfgang Prosendorfer (2004). “Self-Control, Revealed

Preference and Consumption Choice.” Review of Economic Dynamics,

Vol. 7, pp. 243-264.

Herman, C.P., and J. Polivy. (2003) “Dieting As an Exercise in Behavioral

Economics.” Time and Decision. George Lowenstein, Daniel Reed, and

Roy Baumeister (eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 459-489.

Hirschman, E.C., and M.B. Holbrook. (1982) “Hedonic Consumption:

Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions.” Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 46, pp.92-101.

Huang, K. (1999) Role of National Income and Prices in America’s Eating

Habits, Changes and Consequences, E. Frazao (ed.). Agriculture

Information Bulletin No. 750. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service.

Kahn, B.E., and B. Wansink. (2004) “The Influence of Assortment Structure

on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities.” Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 30, pp. 519-533.

Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, eds. (1982) Judgement Under

Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1984) “Choices, Values, and

Frames.” American Psychologist, April, Vol. 39, pp. 341-350.

23

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Kahneman, D., J.L. Knetsch, and R.H. Thaler. (1990) “Experimental Tests

of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem.” Journal of Political

Economy, Vol. 98, pp. 1,325-1,348.

Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. (1991) “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice:

A Reference-Dependent Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, MIT Press.

Kinsey, J., and B. Bowland. (1999) “How Can the U.S. Food System

Deliver Food Products Consistent With the Dietary Guidelines? Food

Marketing and Retailing: An Economist’s View.” Food Policy, Vol. 24, pp.

237-253.

Kivetz, R., and I. Simonson. (2002) “Earning the Right To Indulge: Effort

As a Determinant of Customer Preference Toward Frequency Program

Rewards.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, pp. 155-170.

Krider, R.E., P. Raghubir, and A. Krishna. (2001) “Pizzas: or Square?

Psychological Biases in Area Comparisons.” Marketing Science, Vol. 20,

pp. 405-425.

Kuchler, Fred, Abebayehu Tegene, and Michael Harris. (2005) “Taxing

Snack Foods: Manipulation Diet Quality or Financing Information

Programs.” Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 4-20. 

Laibson, David. (2004) “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting.”

Advances in Behavioral Economics. Colin F. Camerer, George

Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin (eds.). Russell Sage Foundation.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 429-457.

Laibson, David, et al. (1998) “Self-Control and Saving for Retirement.”

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, pp. 91-196.

Loewenstein, George. (2004).“Out of Control: Visceral Influences on

Behavior.” Advances in Behavioral Economics. Colin F. Camerer, George

Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin (eds.). Russell Sage Foundation.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 689-724.

Mancino, Lisa. (2003) Americans’ Food Choices: The Interaction of

Information, Intentions and Convenience. Ph.D. dissertation. St. Paul:

University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics. 

Mancino, Lisa, and Jean Kinsey. (2004) “Diet Quality and Calories

Consumed: The Impact of Being Hungrier, Busier, and Eating Out.”

Working Paper 04-02, The Food Industry Center, University of

Minnesota, St. Paul.

Miller, D.L., et al. (2000) “Effects of Dietary Fat, Nutrition Labels, and

Repeated Consumption on Sensory-Specific Satiety.” Physiology and

Behavior, Vol. 71, pp. 153-158.

Mori, D., S. Chaiken, and P. Pliner. (1987) “‘Eating Lightly’ and the SelfPresentation of Femininity.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 693-702.

Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Richard H. Thaler. (2000) “Behavioral

Economics,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper

7948, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA.

24

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Nayga, R.M. (2000a) “Nutrition Knowledge, Gender and Food Label Use.”

Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 1, Summer, pp. 97-111.

Nayga, R.M. (2000b) “Schooling, Health Knowledge and Obesity.” Applied

Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 815-822.

Nisbett, R.E. (1968) “Determinants of Food Intake in Human Obesity.”

Science, Vol. 159, pp. 1,254-1,255.

O’Donoghue, Ted, and Matthew Rabin. (2004). “Doing It Now or Later.”

Advances in Behavioral Economics. Colin F. Camerer, George

Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin (eds.). Russell Sage Foundation.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 223-251.

Oliveira, Victor. (2006) Food Assistance Landscape, March 2006. Economic

Information Bulletin 6-2, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service.

Ozdenoren, Emre, Stephen Salant, and Dan Silverman. (2006) “Willpower

and the Optimal Control of Visceral Urges.” National Bureau of

Economic Research Working Paper 12278, National Bureau of Economic

Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA.

Painter, J.E., B. Wansink, and J. B. Hieggelke. (2002) “How Visibility and

Convenience Influence Candy Consumption.” Appetite, Vol. 38, 

pp. 237-238.

Phelps, E.S., and R. Pollak. (1968) “On Second-Best National Saving and

Game-Equilibrium Growth.” Review of Economic Studies. Vol. 35, 

pp. 185-199.

Philips, Beverly, et al. (2000) “Money for Food: A Curriculum about

Planning for and Spending Family Food Dollars. Wisconsin Education

Program, available at www.uwex.edu/ces/wnep/teach/mff/mffall.pdf

Piaget, J. (1969) The Mechanisms of Perception. London, UK: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Pliner, P., et al. (2003) “Time To Eat? The Impact of Time Facilitation and

Social Facilitation on Food Intake.” Presented at Pangborn Sensory

Science Symposium, Boston, MA.

Polivy, J., et al. (1986) “The Effects of Self-Attention and Public Attention

on Eating in Restrained and Unrestrained Subjects.” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 50, pp. 1,203-1,224.

Raghubir, P., and A. Krishna. (1999) “Vital Dimensions in Volume

Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 36, pp. 313-326.

Rolls, B.J. (2003) “The Supersizing of America: Portion Size and the

Obesity Epidemic.” Nutrition Today, Vol. 38, pp.645-649.

Rolls, B.J., E.A. Bell, and B.A. Waugh. (2000) “Increasing the Volume of a

Food by Incorporating Air Affects Satiety in Men.” American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 72, pp. 361-368.

Rolls, B.J., et al. (1998) “Volume of Food Consumed Affects Satiety in

Men.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 67, pp. 1,170-1,177.

25

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Rolls, B.J., E.L. Morris, and L.S. Roe. (2002) “Portion Size of Food Affects

Energy Intake in Normal-Weight and Overweight Men and Women.”

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, pp.1,207-1,213.

Rolls, B.J., et al. (2004) “Increasing the Portion Size of a Packaged Snack

Increases Energy Intake in Men and Women.” Appetite Vol. 42, 

pp. 63-69.

Rolls, B.J. (1986) “Sensory-Specific Satiety.” Nutrition Review, Vol. 44, 

pp. 93-101.

Rolls, B.J., et al. (1981) “Variety in a Meal Enhances Food Intake in Men.”

Physiology and Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 215-221.

Samuelson, William, and Richard Zeckhauser. (1988) “Status Quo Bias in

Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer,

Netherlands, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 7-59.

Shapiro, Jesse M. (2005) “Is There a Daily Discount Rate? Evidence from

the Food Stamp Nutrition Cycle.” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 89,

pp. 303-325.

Shefrin, Hersh M., and Richard H. Thaler. (2004) “Mental Accounting,

Saving and Self Control.” Advances in Behavioral Economics. Colin F.

Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin (eds.). Russell Sage

Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 395-428.

Shiv, B., and A. Fedorikhin. (1999) “Heart and Mind in Conflict: Interplay

of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making.” Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 278-282.

Smith, T.G. (2004) “The McDonald’s Equilibrium: Advertising, Empty

Calories, and the Endogenous Determination of Dietary Preferences.”

Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 383-413. 

Smith, Trenton. (2002) “The McDonald’s Equilibrium: Advertising, Empty

Calories, and the Endogenous Determination of Dietary Preferences.”

Department of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Smith, Trenton, and A. Tasnadi. (2007) “A Theory of Natural Addiction.”

Games and Economic Behavior. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=979192. 

Strahilevitz, M.A., and J.G. Myers. (1998) “Donations to Charity as

Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You

Are Trying to Sell.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vo. 24, pp. 434-446.

Strotz, R.H. (1955) “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility

Maximization.” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 165-180.

Stroebele, N., and J.M. de Castro. (2004) “The Effect of Ambience on Food

Intake and Food Choice.” Nutrition, Vol. 20, pp. 821-838.

Terry, K., and S. Beck. (1985) “Eating Style and Food Storage Habits in the

Home—Assessment of Obese and Nonobese Families.” Behavior

Modification, Vol. 9, pp. 242-261.

26

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Thaler, Richard H. (1980) “Towards a Positive Theory of Consumer

Choice.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 1, 

pp. 39-60.

Thaler, Richard H. (1981) “Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic

Inconsistency.” Economic Letters, Vol. 8, pp. 201-207.

Thaler, Richard H. (2004) “Mental Accounting Matters.” Advances in

Behavioral Economics. Colin F. Camerer, George Loewenstein, and

Matthew Rabin (eds.). Russell Sage Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, pp. 74-103.

Thaler, R.H., and H.M. Shefrin. (1981) “An Economic Theory of Self

Control.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89, pp. 392-406.

Thaler, Richard H., and Shlomo Benartzi. (2004) “Save More Tomorrow

(TM): Using Behavioral Economics To Increase Employee Saving.”

Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 112(S1),

pp. S164-S187, February.

Tuorila, H.M., et al. (1998) “Effect of Expectations and the Definition of

Product Category on the Acceptance of Unfamiliar Foods.” Food Quality

and Preference, Vol. 9, pp. 421-430.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2006),

National School Lunch Program fact sheet. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf.

Variyam, J.N. (February 2005) “The Price is Right: Economics and the Rise

in Obesity.” Amber Waves, 3(1), pp. 20-27.

Variyam, J.N., and J. Cawley. (2006) “Nutrition Labels and Obesity.”

National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 11956, National

Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA.

Volkow, N.D., et al. (2002) “Non-Hedonic’ Food Motivation in Humans

Involves Dopamine in the Dorsal Striatum and Methylphenidate

Amplifies This Effect.” Synapse, Vol. 44, pp. 175-180.

Walker, Rob. (2004). “The Hidden (in Plain Sight) Persuaders.” The New

York Times, December 5.

Wansink, B. (1994) “Antecedents and Mediators of Eating Bouts.” Family

and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 166-182.

Wansink, B. (1996) “Can Package Size Accelerate Consumption Volume?”

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 1-14.

Wansink, B. (2004) “Environmental Factors That Increase the Food Intake

and Consumption Volume of Unknowing Consumers,” Annual Review of

Nutrition, Vol. 24, pp. 455-479.

Wansink, B. (2006) Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think.

New York: Bantam Dell.

Wansink, B., and R. Deshpande. (1994) “‘Out of Sight Out of Mind’: The

Impact of Household Stockpiling on Usage Rates.” Marketing Letters,

Vol. 5, pp. 91-100.

27

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA
Wansink, B., and J. Kim. (2004) “Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets: Portion Size

Can Influence Intake As Much As Taste.” Journal of Nutrition Education

Behavior, September-October, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 242-245. 

Wansink, B., and L.R. Linder. (2003) “Interactions Between Forms of Fat

Consumption and Restaurant Bread Consumption.” International Journal

of Obesity, Vol. 27, pp. 866-868.

Wansink, B., and K. van Ittersum. (2003) “Bottoms Up! The Influence of

Elongation on Pouring and Consumption.” Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 30, pp. 455-463.

Welsh, D., C. Davis, and A. Shaw. (1993) USDA’s Food Guide: Background

and Development. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1514. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service.

Wilde, P.E., and C.K. Ranney. (2000) “The Monthly Food Stamp Cycle:

Shopping Frequency and Food Intake Decisions in an Endogenous

Switching Regression Gramwork. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 200-213.

Young, L.R., and M. Nestle. (2002) “The Contribution of Expanding

Portions Sizes To the U.S. Obesity Epidemic.” American Journal of

Public Health, Vol. 92, pp. 246-249.

28

Could Behavioral Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program Participants?/ ERR-43

Economic Research Service/USDA