For many years, I have been leading a multidisciplinary research team consisting of Paula Brauer (Applied Human Nutrition), Vinay Kanetkar (Marketing Modeling) and myself on the topic of promoting consumers’ choice and consumption of fruits and vegetables. Funded by the Ontario Agri-food Innovation Alliance (also known as the OMAFRA-U of G partnership), we conducted a series of research since 2012.
Consumers’ consumption of fruits and vegetables are insufficient in most developing and developed countries although most of them are aware of health benefits of doing so and some intend to do so. How we can close the attitude-behaviour gap (aka the intention-behaviour gap) in this domain has been the subject of our research program.
Patterns of using vegetables of different types and forms
Initially, we were interested in how frequent consumers of vegetables are different from those whose consumption of vegetables is infrequent. Focusing on preparation and consumption of vegetables in the household level, we assessed the frequency of serving foods prepared with nine forms and types of vegetables typically available in supermarkets: canned tomatoes, frozen potatoes, frozen mixed vegetables, fresh potatoes, fresh tomatoes, mushroom, asparagus, broccoli and Brussels sprouts, with a large number of main food preparers. Based on the nine variables, we extracted three segments of food preparers. One segment prepared Brussels sprouts, broccoli and asparagus more frequently than the others (termed “Crucifer lovers”), and they were open to new recipes. Another segment of food preparers used frozen vegetables very frequently than the Crucifer lovers and the cluster with relatively low vegetable consumption (hence termed “Frozen vegetable users”), and prioritized time and convenience in meal preparation. Findings of this paper illustrate that it is important for researchers and practitioners to pay attention to consumers’ different perception and habit of preparing specific forms and types of vegetables instead of considering them in one homogeneous food group in devising ways of promoting them.
Yi, S, Kanetkar, V & Brauer, P. (2015). Assessment of heterogeneity in types of vegetables served by main household food preparers and food decision influencers. Public Health Nutrition, 18(15), 2750–2758. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980015001019
Nudging customers to choose FV-rich food items in institutional food service contexts
However, considering that more and more people are eating meals away from home, we began to pay attention to how we may encourage them to choose fruits and vegetable-rich food items in restaurants and eateries. We decided to focus on institutional food services contexts (e.g., university cafeterias and worksite canteens) because a large number of people are eating one or more meals every day. In other words, a single effective intervention implemented in a cafeteria can boost thousands of students’ choice and intake of FV (fruits and vegetables) en masse.
At the same time, we became interested in the concept of nudging and empirical studies that applied nudging to public health and well-being. Coined by Thaler and Sunstein (2009), nudging refers to a set of tactics intended to subtly change individuals’ choice and other behaviour by making subtle changes in ways the sets of alternatives are presented to them or in ways the alternatives are described or by gently reminding them of their pre-commitment at the point of decision. Thus, nudging offers a promising avenue of various subtle changes that can be devised and implemented to promote the FV items in institutional food service contexts.
Collaborating with Ed Townsley, the director of the University of Guelph Hospitality Services, our research team conducted several semester-long field studies by implementing nudging techniques in campus dining halls and cafeterias in 2017-2019. For example, we noticed that most customers at a deli sandwich station were choosing lettuce while very few chose baby spinach although the latter is more nutritious than the former and is an easy substitute. One factor that was contributing to this tendency was the location of the two bins. Lettuce was placed in the first bin in the array of vegetable ingredients for sandwiches and thus was the first vegetable ingredient customers saw, whereas baby spinach was placed in one of the middle bins. Thus, the nudging intervention we implemented was enhance the proximity of spinach to customers: placing spinach in the prime bin and switching lettuce to the middle bin (See below for the schematic view of the sandwich station and switching of bins). This was likely to enhance visual prominence of spinach and reduce perceptive effort associated with choosing it. Indeed, the proximity nudge worked! About 10-13 customers (out of around 100) selected sandwiches on days the proximity intervention was used, whereas 1-2 customers did so on days the nudge was not used. Findings from our field studies are reported in this manuscript.
Yi, S., Kanetkar, V., & Brauer, P. (2022). Nudging food service users to choose fruit-and vegetable-rich items: Five field studies. Appetite, 173, 105978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.105978
Institutional food service customers’ support of nudging techniques
Another important consideration in the implementation of nudging techniques in institutional food service contexts is that some customers may negatively react to the use of them. Given that users of institutional food services are captive customers who eat a large number of meals over multiple semesters, they may perceive certain nudging techniques intrusive upon their freedom of choice even if the technique are intended to promote healthy food items. Although nudging techniques were proposed to influence people’s choices in less heavy-handed manner than traditional behaviour change interventions, certain types of nudging, for example, those involving the change in default choices, may be perceived as intrusive upon the freedom of choice by some customers who are accustomed to unhealthy food items served as the default. Therefore, institutional food service operators may decide not to implement nudges that are not supported by a large number of their customers.
This led us to assess the degree of support for different types of nudging intended to promote FV among institutional food service customers. We assessed customers’ support of nine types of nudging adapted from Muenscher et al.’s (2016) Typology of Choice Architecture (TCA) (See the table below) and their perception that each nudge would be intrusive upon freedom of choice and be effective in changing their peer’s choice of FV. We also assessed individual difference in perceived trustworthiness of campus food services, importance of regularly eating fruits and vegetables. Although generally supportive of all the nudge types, our respondents were more supportive of nudges that make information about FV-items more visible (Type A2) as well as nudges that reduce effort for FV-items (Type B2), increase the range of FV items (Type B3) and offer small incentives for frequently choosing FV-items (Type B4). In comparison, they were less supportive of nudges that place FV-items as the default alternative (Type B1) and other types of nudging (A1, A3, C1 and C2). This pattern was found in two separates samples and reported in the manuscripts below.
Yi, S., Kanetkar, V., & Brauer, P. (2022). Customer support for nudge strategies to promote fruit and vegetable intake in a university food service. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 706. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13054-7
Yi, S., Kanetkar, V., & Brauer, P. (2023). Campus food service users’ support for nudge strategies for fruit and vegetable-rich items: Findings from a large Canadian national sample. Journal of Nutritional Science, 12, e93. https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2023.80
| Nudging Type | Descriptor from TCA | Description in the survey |
| A1 | Translate information | Food-service operators change the format or style of posters or other communications about FV-rich items and healthy eating simpler, more familiar or attractive than before For example, they may emphasize sensory satisfaction and short-term performance benefits of certain FV-rich items instead of long-term health benefits of eating FV (e.g., long life, less chance of heart disease) in posters around cafeterias and/or their website. |
| A2 | Make information visible | Food service operators try to make information about FV-items more readily visible to users. For example, FV-rich food items may now be clearly indicated with symbols, such as “Health checks” or “Traffic light” symbols (e.g., green light for healthy option, yellow light for caution; red light for less healthy option). Alternatively, FV-rich food items are now placed at the beginning or end of menu boards in order to make them stand out for customers. |
| A3 | Provide social reference point | Food service operators try to encourage cafeteria users to choose more FV-rich items by making reference to or alluding to what their peer or opinion leaders frequently choose and eat. For example, a poster may be displayed in cafeterias that show popular FV-rich items with the number of customers who chose each last month. |
| B1 | Change default | Food service operators present FV-rich items as default options whenever possible while allowing customers to “opt out” and ask for other less healthy items. For example, FV-rich sides, such as broccoli spears or coleslaw, are now prominently displayed and offered as the “default” or “usual” side to main entrées (although a less healthy side is still available on request). Alternatively, servers may prompt cafeteria users to choose FV-rich items in a friendly manner (although users are free to choose other items |
| B2 | Change option-related effort | Food service operators present FV-rich items in ways that make them easier to spot, reach and choose over other items. For example, FV-rich items are displayed in areas that are more noticeable and easier to reach, such as eye-to-waist level of shelves, brightly lit displays, or near checkout lines. Alternatively, FV-rich items or stations serving them are moved to the beginning of a cafeteria line or a central location so that they can be chosen with minimal effort. |
| B3 | Change range of options | Food service operators change the range or composition of FV-rich items so that they are perceived as more dominant or attractive, and thus more likely to be chosen. For example, greater ranges of FV additions and options may be provided in stir-fry and/or pasta stations. Alternatively, more than one FV-rich side may be offered alongside less healthy sides so that users have greater choice of healthy sides. |
| B4 | Change option consequences | Food service operators try to offer micro-incentives or emphasize other perceived benefit of choosing FV-rich items. For example, loyalty cards may be introduced such that small incentives are provided in return for frequent purchase of FV-rich items (e.g., one free whole fruit such as an apple or banana, after 5 eligible FV purchases). |
| C1 | Provide reminders | Food service operators try to remind cafeteria users about FV-rich items on offer at the right moment. For example, a big TV monitor may be placed at the main entrance to a cafeteria and prominently display FV-rich items on offer for the meal occasion. Alternatively, customers may sign up for a food service app that alerts them with healthy items on offer at various locations on campus. |
| C2 | Facilitate commitment | Food service operators try to support cafeteria users who are committed to healthy eating by offering frequent feedback. For example, cafeteria users are invited to sign up for a contest or an app that prompts them to set a personal goal for FV servings per day (or week), and provides weekly feedback on success based on their on-campus purchase record. Alternatively, cafeteria users are invited to sign up for an app that will track users’ purchase of FV-rich items bought on campus and provides feedback on FV intake on campus for that week. (Would be available for interested students only) |
For preliminary works we conducted as a part of our nudging project, please refer to these:
Bains, K., DeMarco, N., Brauer, P., & Yi, S. (2021). Post-secondary food service manager perspectives on fruit and vegetable nudging strategies: qualitative study. Current Developments in Nutrition, 5(9), nzab109. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzab109
Holligan, S, Yi, S, Kanetkar, V, Haines, J & Brauer, P. (2019). Preferences for vegetables among university foodservice users: a survey to inform nudge-based interventions. British Food Journal, 121(12), 3338-3349. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2018-0597