Picture this: A kids’ menu contains some healthy options, so a parent decides to order one for their child—perhaps grilled chicken bites with baby carrots. However, when it comes to the parent’s own order, they choose something less healthy, such as a cheeseburger with fries. They do this not because they necessarily want a burger themselves but out of concern that their child won’t like or eat their healthy meal, so the parent uses their own meal as a backup option. This common scenario reveals a complex dynamic in family dining that has significant implications for restaurants, policymakers, and public health.

A dives deep into the dynamics of these parent–child consumption choices through a series of studies, including interviews, a field experiment at a nursery school, and lab experiments. When parents choose healthy options for their kids in settings where sharing is possible, they often make unhealthy choices for themselves. This isn’t simply a matter of parents rewarding themselves; rather, it reflects a deeper tension between present-focused concerns (“will my child eat enough?”) and future-focused concerns (“is my child learning healthy eating habits?”).

“When parents choose healthy options for their kids in settings where sharing is possible, they often make unhealthy choices for themselves.”

The research identifies a psychological process in which parents focus so heavily on their child’s needs that they view their own meal as an extension of their child’s plate, often leveraging it as an alternative option for their child. This behavior not only impacts immediate consumption but could also have longer-term implications related to the wellness of the parents and, in turn, the wellness of the family the as a whole, as well as the modeling of unhealthy habits for children—despite parents’ good intentions.

What Can Restaurants and Policymakers Do?

For restaurants and policymakers, these findings suggest the need for a more holistic approach to family dining. Simply adding healthy options to kids’ menus isn’t enough; the entire dining ecosystem needs attention. Restaurants might consider menu language that promotes future-focused thinking about family meals, developing marketing communications that help set boundaries around food sharing, and working on aligning perceptions of healthy and tasty food. Meanwhile, policymakers should look beyond simply mandating healthy children’s menu options to consider guidelines that address both children’s and adults’ choices, especially in settings where families eat together. Educational campaigns could help families prioritize future well-being over immediate concerns, thus addressing the psychological dynamics revealed in this research. 

We had the privilege of speaking directly with two authors, Kelley Gullo Wight and Peggy Liu, to dive deeper into their fascinating study. Read on for their insights and behind-the-scenes stories:

Q: What initially inspired you to study the relationship between parents’ choices for their children and their subsequent choices for themselves? Can you share how the initial idea led to further studies and ultimately became the published article?

Dr. Wight: The initial inspiration came from personal observations during my first year of the PhD program. I got a cat and noticed an interesting pattern in my own behavior: I would go to the pet food store and spend a lot of time picking out the healthiest food. Afterward, I would go to the cupcake store next door and buy myself a cupcake. I started wondering, “What is happening? Why am I doing this?” This initial observation sparked broader research into how our initial choices for close others might affect our subsequent choices for ourselves.

Dr. Liu: At some point along the journey for this project, we expanded our study to consider a huge variety of relationships, such as siblings, competitive relationships, and friendships. However, what the JMR review team wanted us to do was, instead of covering every possible type of choice for others affecting choice for self, to think more about one specific type of context where it’s common to make choices for others and to figure out why there are influences between choices for others and choices for self in that context. By focusing on the parent–child relationship, we were able to develop a much stronger and more impactful paper.

Q: Were there any challenges in earlier studies, such as the field study conducted in the nursery school? How did you ultimately execute it?

Dr. Wight: The original version of the paper included a field study at a dog park. When the review team wanted us to focus specifically on parent–child relationships, we needed to find a replacement field study, which proved quite challenging during COVID.

Ultimately, we partnered with a nursery school. While we couldn’t directly observe parents and children eating because of COVID protocols, they allowed us to coordinate take-home meal orders for families. We are very grateful to the nursery school for their willingness to work with us. After the research was completed, we were able to give back to the community by conducting workshops about families with the parents, which was really great.

Q: Could greater literacy regarding sustainable and health-conscious food choices make a difference? What suggestions would you offer to parents based on your findings?

Dr. Wight: Focusing on sustainability and avoiding food waste could have a countereffect here: people might be more likely to pick a less healthy backup option to make sure all food is eaten. One thing that seems to be going on is that it may be valuable as a parent to be able to provide a wide variety of options that you have (as the parent) cleared as being healthy and to then let the child pick among them. This way, you’re still exerting control as the parent, and the child has a greater variety of healthy options to pick from, which might encourage healthier eating and help ensure that they pick the healthy options that they view as especially tasty.

Dr. Liu: I think most parents and adults know what’s healthy and unhealthy. Our research suggests that it is really important to emphasize that parents have a future focus (e.g., thinking about their child’s development of healthy habits for their future) instead of just a present focus (e.g., thinking about their child’s eating at that present moment). I think it’s also important to help people—both adults and children—understand that health and taste can be aligned. There’s some interesting research in nutrition that shows you have to try food many times before you can actually know if you like it.

Q: Based on your research, what adjustments would you suggest to restaurants to help promote healthier eating habits, particularly given that many kids’ meals today tend to be unhealthy? How could these insights be applied in public health initiatives?

Dr. Liu: While some companies and school cafeterias have tried to encourage providing children with healthier meals, we need to think about both short-term and long-term impacts. One key aspect would be to make health and taste feel more aligned for children. I think it’s important for children to develop actual enjoyment of these healthier options. Many parents know that it’s not good for their kids to eat unhealthy options frequently; to the extent that restaurants or companies could help children develop healthier habits, I think parents would be willing to eat [at these locations] more frequently.

Dr. Wight: The White House released a in 2023 for restaurants and businesses to offer more healthy children’s options, and many companies signed up. Our research insights suggest that we can’t only focus on the healthy options we offer on the kids’ menu or how we advertise healthy options for kids. We have to think about how parents pick their own meals as well because what really matters is what’s available on the table.

Q: Given societal pressure, such as the ideal of a “perfect parent,” or when in a social event with other parents, will parents’ behavior change?

Dr. Wight: I think, in some ways it’s an empirical question—something that could be interesting to study. With these kinds of parental peer pressure situations, I see where it could result in parents being more likely to try to encourage their children to eat healthy, which exacerbates the concern about whether they will eat enough to be full (such that parents choose unhealthy backup options). However, in other ways, parents may also choose healthy for themselves, given their peer influence. Something else could happen too. When you’re sitting with your parent friend and want to hang out, maybe you want to settle your child as soon as possible and give them something unhealthy that you know they’ll eat without any protest. This depends on all kinds of factors, which adds another layer of social influence to this kind of social dynamic.

Q: Beyond food, do you think similar behaviors might arise in other caregiving areas, such as educational choices (e.g., extracurriculars) or financial decisions for children? Are there common threads across different contexts?)

Dr. Liu: I think one broad concept that ties all these areas together is that parents make sacrifices. As parents, you may sacrifice your time, money, and consumption preferences across these domains. However, some of our findings in this particular JMR paper are fairly specific to food in the sense that if you think about something like the problems of sharing food and the immediate concerns of the child’s hunger, I’m not sure how those concepts translate as easily to education choices. There are parents who drive themselves ragged, trying to drive their children all over town to every extracurricular, when really what might have been better for the child and the whole family’s well-being is if the parent was less stressed. Therefore, while this is a bit removed from what this research project focused on empirically, it has a broader theme of sacrificing your own well-being for the child. This area of sacrifice is a really interesting one, I think, especially given recent calls by the for more work on the well-being of caregivers.

References

Kelley Gullo Wight, Peggy J. Liu, Lingrui Zhou, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2024), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (3), 451–71.

The White House (February 27, 2024), ““

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (August 28, 2024), “.”

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post The Parent’s Plate Problem: How Good Intentions for Kids Lead to Poor Food Choices for Adults appeared first on ÂÜŔňÉçšŮÍř.

This misperception has wide-reaching consequences. Consumers demand steeper discounts for healthy foods close to expiration, are less likely to consume them, and ultimately waste them more often than less healthy options. These biases not only undermine sustainability efforts but also create challenges for retailers striving to balance inventory management and profit margins.

Misconceptions ÂÜŔňÉçšŮÍřt “Freshness”

Our research reveals a fundamental disconnect in how consumers evaluate healthy and unhealthy foods. Healthy items are often perceived as “fresher,” which ironically leads to the belief that they spoil faster. This misconception influences decisions across the food value chain—from purchase to consumption to disposal. For example, consumers are less likely to eat a salad nearing its expiration date compared to a similarly aged bag of chips, believing the former to be riskier to their health.

Retailers face the ripple effects of these biases. Healthy foods nearing expiration often require deeper price cuts to incentivize purchase. This impacts profit margins and creates logistical challenges in maintaining stock levels.

Implications for Marketers and Policymakers

For marketers and retailers, these findings offer actionable insights. Addressing these misperceptions through better labeling and communication can help shift consumer behavior. For instance, emphasizing the durability and stability of healthy foods could mitigate concerns about spoilage. Campaigns that educate consumers about the true perishability of items—highlighting facts like the longevity of certain produce or the minimal risks of consuming healthy foods slightly past their expiration dates—can also play a crucial role.

In addition, current regulations often emphasize the removal of ambiguous date labels but overlook the underlying biases that drive consumer behavior. Policymakers can complement these efforts by promoting educational initiatives that challenge misconceptions about healthy food spoilage. Encouraging transparency in food labeling and creating consistent messaging around expiration dates can reduce waste across households and retail environments.

We also observe opportunities for innovation. Retailers could experiment with dynamic pricing models tailored to healthy foods nearing expiration, offering targeted discounts that maintain profitability while encouraging consumption. Additionally, grocery stores could partner with brands to develop packaging that reassures consumers about the freshness of healthy items, even as they approach their expiration dates.

Beyond waste reduction, these strategies align with broader goals of promoting healthy eating and sustainability. By making consumers feel more confident about purchasing and consuming healthy foods close to expiry, marketers and policymakers can drive both health and environmental benefits.

Source: Christine Kim, Young Eun Huh, and Brent McFerran, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Healthy But Wasted: How Consumer Misconceptions ÂÜŔňÉçšŮÍřt Expiration Dates Increase Food Waste and Eat Into Profit Margins appeared first on ÂÜŔňÉçšŮÍř.

Fillingness, Taste, and Healthiness

• The Role of Food Attributes in Choices
  
  Our study highlights three key attributes—fillingness, taste, and healthiness—that shape food choices. While all consumers value taste, low-SES individuals place a much greater emphasis on fillingness, often at the expense of healthiness. In contrast, high-SES consumers prioritize healthiness, reflecting their access to more abundant and diverse food options.
  
  
• Perceived Relationships Between Attributes
  
  Low-SES consumers often associate healthy foods with being less filling and less tasty, reinforcing their preference for high-calorie, less nutritious options. These beliefs stem from limited exposure to healthy foods and fewer opportunities to experiment with cooking. High-SES individuals, who face fewer resource constraints, are less likely to hold these negative associations.
  
  
• Fillingness as a Critical Factor
  
  Fillingness, while often overlooked in public health strategies, is crucial for low-SES consumers. For individuals facing food insecurity or limited resources, satiety is a pressing concern. Policies and campaigns that ignore this dimension risk promoting foods that low-SES consumers perceive as unappealing or insufficient.

Implications for Policymakers

Our findings suggest that addressing nutritional inequality requires more than just making healthy foods affordable and accessible. Policymakers should focus on creating and promoting healthy options that are perceived as both filling and tasty.

• Expand the Availability of Filling Healthy Foods: Increase access to options like whole grains, legumes, and lean proteins, which are both nutritious and satiating.
  
  
• Incorporate Fillingness in Subsidies: Subsidize filling healthy foods to make them more affordable and attractive to low-SES consumers.

Public health campaigns should also work to reshape perceptions. By emphasizing the satisfying and flavorful aspects of healthy foods, marketers and policymakers can challenge the belief that “healthy equals unsatisfying or bland.”

Marketing and Industry Applications

From a marketing perspective, our research offers actionable strategies to encourage healthier eating habits:

• Reframe the Narrative: Highlight the filling and tasty qualities of healthy foods through advertising and packaging.
  
  
• Product Development: Design healthy food options that cater to low-SES preferences for satiety and flavor.
  
  
• Retail Strategies: Promote healthy, filling meals in stores, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, to align with consumer priorities.

These approaches borrow from the tactics used to market unhealthy foods but reapply them to encourage better choices.

Nutritional inequality is a complex issue that cannot be solved by supply-side solutions alone. Our research shows that consumer preferences and perceptions—particularly regarding fillingness and taste—play a critical role in shaping dietary habits. Addressing these psychological and cultural factors is essential for making healthy foods more appealing and accessible to low-SES populations.

For policymakers, marketers, and public health advocates, the path forward lies in promoting the fillingness and flavor of healthy foods, ensuring that they meet the needs and expectations of disadvantaged communities.

Source: Bernardo Andretti, Yan Vieites, Larissa Elmor, and Eduardo B. Andrade, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Why Low-Income Consumers Avoid Healthy Foods—and How to Change Their Minds appeared first on ÂÜŔňÉçšŮÍř.

The United States has a sugar problem. Excessive sugar consumption induces severe illnesses that increase health care costs. Not surprisingly, about 58% of U.S. adults indicate a desire to cut back on sugar to avoid obesity, diabetes, and heart conditions. Research shows that reducing sugar in consumer packaged goods by a modest 8%–10% could lead to nationwide savings of more than $110 billion in health care costs.

However, despite clear evidence of the negative consequences of sugar consumption, consumers’ intake has steadily increased over the years. This suggests that it is not sufficient for consumers to want to decrease their sugar intake: Companies need to offer appealing products that can help reduce sugar consumption. Soda manufactures such as PepsiCo have been reducing sugars in their products over the years and are increasingly launching smaller package sizes of well-known sugary products to appeal to health-conscious consumers. However, soda companies have to strike a delicate balance between sugar reduction and protecting and increasing their sales—two motives that will conflict if consumers reject reduced-sugar alternatives. As the war on sugar rages on, soda manufacturers seek to find the best solution to maintain sales without harming society.

Sugar Reduction or Package Size Reduction?

In a , we explore if (and how) such sugar reduction strategies affect new product sales. We study two sugar-reduction efforts:

• Sugar content reduction that involves launching a new product containing less sugar (or no sugar) compared to current products. This tactic is currently being implemented by all major players in the soda sector. For example, in 2011, PepsiCo introduced a new product called Pepsi Next, which contains about half the amount of sugar of Pepsi’s regular products.

• Package size reduction involving brands introducing smaller package sizes that help consumers cut back on their sugar intake. In this case, the brand’s average (relative) sugar content remains the same, but consumers’ absolute intake diminishes. Prominent use of this tactic was made evident in the introduction of 7.5-ounce sizes by many soda brands.

We examine the direct effects of these sugar reduction strategies while also proposing that their effectiveness depends on three sets of product-related strategy decisions involving labeling, branding, and packaging. These decisions have important moderating effects on how the sugar reduction strategy affects sales.

• First, with respect to labeling, brand manufacturers must decide whether to feature claims of the presence or absence of (un)healthy ingredients, which can signal enjoyment and/or healthiness. For example, Pepsi emphasizes enjoyment and highlights the use of sugar in some cases (e.g., “Made with Real Sugar”), whereas Mountain Dew has highlighted the absence of sugars in several others (e.g., “Zero Sugar”).

• Second, branding decisions determine whether reduced-sugar products are launched under a mini or diet sub brand or the main brand. For example, Coca-Cola recently launched zero-sugar products under the Coca-Cola name, not a sub brand such as Coke Zero.

• Third, packaging decisions, such as the number of products per pack, also matter. Single items limit consumption, which is consistent with package size reduction, whereas multipacks give consumers stock for continued consumption.

Health vs. Enjoyment

Our analysis of almost 130,000 product additions by nearly 80 brands over 11 years in the U.S. soda category shows that, on average, sugar content reductions perform comparably to similar, nonreduced products, while smaller package sizes perform better than regular sizes. We also find that sugar-reduction efforts work substantially better if they do not overemphasize the reduced sugar content in new additions; that is, sugar reductions perform better without a dedicated sub brand and with enjoyment-oriented claims rather than health claims. As an example, Coca-Cola’s Zero Sugar product was redesigned in 2021 to closely resemble “regular” Coca-Cola rather than the earlier “Coke Zero.” We also find that package size reductions perform better if presented as a fun, high-quality product rather than a stern, healthy alternative. Using single items rather than multipacks further supports this positioning.

How does sugar reduction contribute to society? An average package size reduction reduces incremental category sugar sales by more than 20%. With the average soda product being close to 50 fluid ounces in size, there is ample room for product (size) adjustments that can reduce consumers’ average sugar exposure.

From: Kristopher O. Keller and Jonne Y. Guyt, “,” Journal of Marketing.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Balancing Health and Profit: Reducing Sugar in Soda Without Losing Sales appeared first on ÂÜŔňÉçšŮÍř.

The study examines households over a ten-year period and uses econometric analysis to examine how an increase in the minimum wage changes household food consumption. The authors find that, for households that consume the least amount of food, raising the minimum wage increases a household’s propensity to purchase more calories. However, they also find interesting results regarding the nutritional aspects of food purchased: When the minimum wage increased, the unhealthiest households purchased more healthy calories, but the healthier households selected more unhealthy calories. In addition, the results suggest that when the minimum wage increased, households purchased more new items, such that one in three of the items purchased are items they had purchased for the first time.

When the minimum wage increased, the unhealthiest households purchased more healthy calories, but the healthier households selected more unhealthy calories.

We were able to ask several questions to these authors, who kindly provided interesting insights into this article.

Q: This study contains behavioral conclusions related to several factors including overall caloric intake, consumption of healthy foods, and the number of items in one’s dietary selection. What was the most interesting finding for you in this research and why did it surprise you?

A: We assumed when we began this work that we would see a bigger impact on healthy foods. Perhaps it is difficult to ignore one’s desire for optimism while conducting research. Much of the work on food insecurity posits that healthy eating is inhibited by a lack of budget, but we found: (1) no change in healthy eating as budget dwindled over the course of the month, and (2) a much more limited effect of the minimum wage on healthy eating than we anticipated (and, for some households, a negative effect). In retrospect, this is largely consistent with the literature in that it has shown that it’s very hard to change what people eat. Interestingly, however, this was inconsistent with what food insecure households tell us about their behavior when responding to surveys.

Q: This study possesses strong public policy implications, which have become increasingly more common in the academic marketing literature. How was the idea development process different than when writing a “traditional” marketing paper?

A: We’re not sure that it was all that different, beyond the initial question of interest having the policy bent. Prior research had argued that when minimum wage earners experience higher wages, they are more likely to spend them on durable goods (cars, television sets, etc.). On the other hand, at the time when we started writing the paper, policy makers in Washington had begun referring to minimum wages in America as “starvation wages,” even though there wasn’t much empirical research examining the degree to which higher wages could drive down food insecurity. This motivated our focus on this topic. But once you know which question you’re answering, the process thereafter largely remains the same.

Q: The study finds that increasing the minimum wage prompts unhealthy households to consume more healthy choices, but that the healthiest households respond by consuming less healthy options. Do you think any related policy exists to increase the minimum wage while simultaneously preventing the reduction of healthy foods for households who were ex ante the healthiest?

A: Nothing comes directly to mind, but it may be wishful thinking to hope to curtail any and all indulgence. However, on balance, our findings do seem like a win for consumer welfare. You can think of it almost like income inequality. If you can transfer $1,000 from someone who makes $1 million to someone who makes $20k, that is probably a win; the former person will not miss the $1k, but it may lead to huge improvements in the latter’s life. Although even in our dataset, the “healthiest” people still aren’t necessarily eating as healthily as the USDA or other agencies would recommend.

Q: As cost-of-living increases have begun to rise rapidly due to increased inflation, how does this impact the findings of this study?

A: It indeed has, and our analyses pay special attention to carefully accounting for cost-of-living changes at the local level. Overall, the “real” minimum wage is effectively decreasing, so the ability of minimum wage-earning households to purchase food (and healthy food) is no doubt declining.

Q: Do you think minimum wage increases can lead to any other negative externalities, such as price increases by retailers or consumption of other products?

A: Some research has found this to be so: A 10% increase to the minimum wage was found to lead to between a 0.4% (Leung 2021) and 0.8% (Renkin et al. 2020) increase in grocery store prices. We are not aware of research showing any other negative externalities of minimum wages on product purchases.

Q: Are there any other policies, aside from minimum wage changes, that you think may increase the consumption of healthy foods?

A: Our takeaway from the bulk of the prior literature we cite is that restricting or discouraging unhealthy eating may be more effective than encouraging or subsidizing healthy eating. Attempts at boosting nutritional benefit awareness (via informational campaigns and product labeling) are also known to have limited success. While it may seem hard to nudge households to choose more nutritious food items, this is definitely a promising and active area for further research. 

Journal of Marketing Research Scholarly Insights are produced in partnership with the – a shared interest network for Marketing PhD students across the world.

References:

Leung, Justin H. (2021), “,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 103 (4), 754–69.

Renkin, Tobias, Claire Montialoux, and Michael Siegenthaler (2020), “,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1–99.

Read the full article:

Palazzolo, Mike and Adithya Pattabhiramaiah (2021), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 58 (5), 845–69. DOI:

The post Consumer Nutrition and the Minimum Wage appeared first on ÂÜŔňÉçšŮÍř.