Advertising a healthy default reduces interest in visiting the restaurant; that is, advertising healthy defaults drives away first-time sales

Dodging dietary defaults: Choosing away from healthy nudges. Helen Colby, Meng Li, GretchenChapman. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 161, Supplement, November 2020, Pages 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.001

Abstract: The default effect has been identified as a powerful tool to influence behavior; however, the current studies demonstrate that consumers dodge the effects of healthy defaults by selecting away from the healthy default environment, thereby reducing its effect. Two studies with real consequences and three hypothetical scenario studies in restaurant settings demonstrate that healthy defaults promote healthy food choice in the moment, but consumers choose to put themselves in environments with unhealthy defaults over those with healthy defaults. That is, healthy defaults negatively impact sales and willingness of consumers to return to the restaurant that offers them. Study 1 provides initial evidence that a healthy default reduces sales of the product compared to a less healthy default in a real gift shop. Study 2 uses an online survey with real consequences and demonstrates that participants prefer to receive meal kits from a company with unhealthy defaults over one with healthy defaults. Studies 3–5 use hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate the tendency for consumers to dodge healthy defaults. Study 3 shows that a healthy default can drive away future sales. Study 4 demonstrates that advertising a healthy default reduces interest in visiting the restaurant; that is, advertising healthy defaults drives away first-time sales. Finally, Study 5 shows that this dodge effect is robust in a between-subject manipulations using a well-known brand. The results demonstrate that consumers dodge healthy defaults by migrating to environments where unhealthy defaults are in place.

Keywords: Default effectCognitive dissonanceConsumer behaviorHealthy eating

7. General discussion

Our studies demonstrated a dodge effect: Consumers avoid purchasing the product if it has a healthy default in place (Study 1), select a different meal-kit brand when the default is healthy (Study 2), avoid returning to a restaurant with a healthy default (Studies 3, and 5), and avoid selecting a restaurant advertising a healthy default (Study 4). Note that the current studies demonstrate two variants on the dodge effect: (i) choosing to purchase something else (or nothing at all) when the defaults is healthy (Studies 1, 2, 4) and (ii) choosing the healthy default when presented with it, but then avoiding that store/restaurant in the future (Studies 3, 5). This dodge effect can reduce the impact of default manipulations, as consumers with preferences that do not match the default will avoid being exposed to that default. Simultaneously, the dodge effect could inflate the apparent impact of a default manipulation in a non-experimental setting, as the large percentage of consumers sticking with the healthy default may in part reflect a self-selecting effect: consumers who do not wish to consume the healthy option may have simply been chased away.

The current results point to the importance of examining the effect of defaults and other nudges not only in the local environment where they are in place, but also in upstream decisions when decision makers select which environment to enter and in downstream decisions where decision makers choose whether to return to an environment. Our results suggest that consumers may avoid environments where it is difficult to satisfy their preferences (e.g., when the environment has a healthy but unappealing food default in place).

The current studies do not pinpoint the mechanism behind the dodge effect. We speculate that one likely mechanism is that many consumers mindlessly accept the default. Consequently, they experience a meal that is not tasty and attribute that poor experience to the restaurant, rather than to their own acceptance of the default. Note, however, that it is not necessary for the consumer to experience the default healthy outcome for a dodge effect to manifest, as Study 4 demonstrates that consumers dodge healthy defaults when initially selecting a restaurant. Other mechanisms are also possible. For example, opting out of healthy default (to obtain the unhealthy food) may incur physical or psychological costs relative to obtaining the same unhealthy food by accepting an unhealthy default. Opting out of healthy default requires some effort, but it may also signal vice to the decision maker or others, or it may make the decision maker feel guilty or feel angry that others appear to be trying to make her feel guilty about her choice. Testing these and other specific mechanisms is outside the scope of the current paper but is an interesting topic for future research. Regardless of the mechanism, restaurants that set a healthy default risk losing customers.

Thus, while healthy defaults have a strong positive effect on food consumption, they may not be the easy answer to the obesity crisis that some have suggested, as the dodge effect may present serious hurdles for business owners interested in implementing healthy defaults. However, consumers may be less likely to dodge healthy defaults when it is not feasible to leave one environment and move to another. For example, in school lunchrooms and workplace cafeterias where customers have few other options but to eat within the facility, implementing healthy defaults could provide large health benefits without driving down sales or driving away customers.

It is important to note that the current results indicate that the dodge effect will reduce the effect of healthy defaults on consumptions of healthy food relative to what would be expected given no dodge; however, the net effect of the healthy default on consumption is nevertheless still positive: more healthy food is consumed under a healthy default than under an unhealthy default. The current studies found large default effects but modest sized dodge effects. We computed the net size of default effect as the difference between the proportion of participants’ choices that stuck with the default and 50%, the proportion expected from the hull hypothesis. Similarly, we computed the net size of the dodge effect as the difference between the observed proportion of participants choosing the healthy default establishment and 50%, as expected from the null hypothesis (see Table 1). The weighted means of net default effect and net dodge effect were 25.6% and 6.9%, respectively, suggesting that the magnitude of dodge effect is roughly 27% of the size of the default effect. Thus, although consumers are somewhat less likely to patronize a restaurant with a healthy default, compared to one with an unhealthy default, once the consumers are inside the healthy default restaurant, the default will have a notable effect of food choice.

...

The primary beneficiary of healthy defaults are consumers, who are encouraged to eat foods that benefit their long-term health. An equally important set of stake holders, however, are the restaurants and other businesses with the power to set healthy defaults. If customers dodge healthy defaults, even to a limited extent, businesses stand to lose revenue if they set healthy defaults, relative to setting defaults as the less healthy but tastier alternative. Consequently, the dodge effect poses a barrier to public health initiatives to encourage businesses to set healthy defaults. Future research can examine whether alternatives to healthy defaults, such as having no default but always asking consumers to make a choice among healthy and unhealthy food options, can eliminate the dodge effect and are hence more palatable for businesses.

Defaults can be a powerful tool to promote healthy eating behavior. The current studies provide new evidence and insights into the limitations of default manipulations. Because consumers can dodge the effects of defaults, the long-term effects of default manipulations are likely to be smaller than previously thought. Such findings can help health officials as well as business owners decide what healthy defaults might be appropriate to implement, so that people will make more healthy choices, and stick with them.