Are we doomed because of our childhood or can our motivation still save us?
Tim Noorduin
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Master thesis Marketing Management
Peizerweg 68-14 Groningen
Phone: +31648556188
T.w.noorduin@student.rug.nl
S2758628
Mentor: prof. dr. B.M. Fennis
Second supervisor: M. Moeini Jazani
Acknowledgements
After an intensive half year of writing this paper, I end an interesting and educational period.
This period provided new insights for me personally and yielded new experiences in the
scientific field. I look back at the intense period of writing a paper within an inspiring field of
research. The expansion of knowledge is something I am proud of and I want to make use of
this opportunity to thank everyone that helped me and supported me in this period.
First of all, I would like to pay my special regards to my mentor during the writing of this
paper, prof. dr. B. M. Fennis for his time and mentorship. Thank you for your time,
encouraging words and dedication during the months of working on this subject together. You
provided me with the feedback needed to steer me into the right direction.
Second, I want to thank family and friends. Your support and empowering words were the
extra helpful push. I am very thankful for all the time and dedication you put in the
participation on this research paper in the form of participating in the experiment.
Dear all, thank you!
Abstract
In order to elaborate on the current knowledge of conscious and unconscious food-related
decision-making behavior when under mild stress, the notion that motivation to eat healthy
has a moderating effect on the moderation effect LHS has on the relation between stress and
hedonic consumption is tested. The expectation is that people that are motivated to eat healthy
will have a lower tendency to be rewarded in the short term. Therefore, these individuals will
be more likely to see the long-term benefits which will reduce the influence of a fast LHS,
which leads to a reduction of the effect of stress on hedonic consumption. The performed
experiment is a 2-between-subjects-design with a stressor (the presence and the absence of
time pressure) as a between subject factor, with motivation to eat healthy as a scale measured
moderator and with LHS as a continuous measured independent variable. Stress was
manipulated in the form of two variations through the Montreal Imaging stress task,
motivation to eat healthy and LHS were measured on a continuous scale. Hedonic
consumption was measured in the willingness to pay for hedonic products during an
imaginable visit to a grocery store. The main effect of three-way interaction was found to be
significant (B = 0,06, t (97) = 2.33, p =.022). The moderation effect of LHS on the relation
between stress and hedonic consumption is moderated by the motivation to eat healthy. A
higher motivation reduces the effect of LHS on the relation between stress and hedonic
consumption.
Key words: Life History Strategy, Stress, Motivation, Hedonic food consumption,
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION ... 5
Decision-making under the influence of a mild stressor ... 5
Replication ... 5
Extension ... 6
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 7
Previous research ... 7
Replication of the research ... 9
Extension of the research ... 10
Conceptual framework ... 12 METHODOLOGY ... 13 Participants ... 13 Design ... 14 Procedure ... 14 Analysis Plan ... 16
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 17
Stress manipulation ... 17
Replication of research ... 17
Extension in the form of a three-way interaction... 18
General discussion and theorical implications... 19
Practical implications and limitations ... 20
Future research ... 22
REFERENCE-LIST... 24
Introduction
Decision-making under the influence of a mild stressor
“The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.” Early childhood experiences can influence an individuals’ mental and physical health in the long-term (Duncan et al., 2010). A
major influence on our future decision-making process is Life History Strategy, the degree to
which an individual experienced stress and unpredictability during their childhood stage
(Maner, Dittman, Meltzer and McNulty, 2016). The Life History Strategy, also known as
LHS, affects the way we humans make choices. But, what about our own individual
willpower in the form of motivation? Lots of assumptions are made on the way we end up
making food-related choices, set goals and pursue them eventually. Mild and intense stress
also affect the way we end up making choices (Fennis, Gineikiene, Barauskaite and Van
Koningsbruggen, 2018). In order to colligate conscious and unconscious food-related
decision-making behavior when under mild stress, the research question of this paper is
formulated as follows:
• What is the influence of the motivation to eat healthy of an individual on the effect of
Life History Strategy on the relation between stress and hedonic food consumption?
Replication
According to Mittal, Griskevicius and Ellis (2014) unpredictability, stress and scarcity in our
childhood can have a major impact on decision-making and behavior in the future life of
individuals. The more stress perceived, the less we think conscious about our food-related
decisions and the more we expect people have an increased willingness to pay for hedonic
behavior, opportunism, decision-making and even goal setting on the other side. Past
experienced stress and unpredictability in early stages of our lives can thus influence the way
we end up making choices, the way formulate and achieve goals in life and even the way we
consume in later stages of our lives according to Fennis et al. (2018). The replication of
previous research performed on this topic leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: A higher LHS score (the slower the individuals’ LHS) leads to less effect of stress on hedonic food consumption.
Extension
Is our own will still relevant? The influence of motivation to eat healthy on the effect of Life
History Strategy on decision-making in the food consumption process is the main topic of this
paper. The expectation is that motivation has a moderating effect on the LHS moderation on
the effect of stress on hedonic consumption. Motivation is expected to lower the
impulsiveness, short-term reward seeking and hedonic pleasure seeking which are factors that
are influenced by the LHS a person obtains from the unpredictability and stress experienced
in the past. Thus, it is expected that individuals that are more motivated to eat healthy show
less tendency for hedonic consumption as a result of stress influenced by the fast LHS (low
score) of this particular individual. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Theoretical background
Previous research
According to experiments performed by Fennis et al. (2018) the presence of a mild stressor
results in increased hedonic food consumption. The way stress is perceived differs for the
individuals that adopted a slow vs. a fast Life History Strategy. The Life History Strategy or
LHS is conceptualized as the degree to which an individual experienced stress and
unpredictability during their childhood stage (Fennis et al., 2018). The unpredictability of our
childhood experiences results in uncertainty in later stages of life according to Maner et al.
(2016). As a consequence, short-term pursuit of rewards is stimulated either consciously or
unconsciously (Maner et al., 2016). In addition, Laran and Salerno (2012) argue that the
higher the unpredictability, the lower the perceived certainty in the future. As a result, fast
LHS people show more tendency to reproduce, be impulsive, take risk and stick to short-term
rewarding choices. Whereas slow LHS people are more oriented towards long-term rewards.
The impact of LHS as a moderator on the effect of stress on hedonic consumption was tested
in an experiment performed by Fennis et al. (2018). Every individual reacts to stress in a
different way, which results in not being able to resist the hedonic temptation for some
individuals. Fennis et al. (2018) found that especially fast LHS individuals were more
sensitive to the mild stressor, which resulted in a higher willingness to pay for hedonic food
for those individuals. Slower LHS individuals were less influenced by the stressors, which
resulted in less hedonic consumption. Hedonic consumption, the dependent variable, is the
extent to which people is willing to spend a certain amount of money on hedonic products, in
According to Berezowska, Fischer and Van der Trijp (2017) motivation is one of the key
components in human behavior. It can be defined as the willingness or interest to engage in
expressions of behavior to attain certain desired states, such as losing weight, gaining muscle,
be healthier or eat more beneficial nutrients. Berkman (2018) adds that motivation can be
conceptualized as the power of a certain desire to reach a specific outcome. Motivation is
often linked to discipline, the delay of current temptations in the form of food to reach a
certain goal in the long-term. This desire is consciously present in our mind, which could
possibly reduce the unconscious behavior caused by our childhood experiences in the past.
Motivation to eat and be healthy instead of picking hedonic foods is a vital component in
achieving goals in the long run (Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok and Baumeister,
2012). But, does this desire withstand the experiences of our childhood? Working to change
behavior often is difficult because of the deeply formed habits and consequences from the
past like our childhood. Berkman (2018) states that especially long-term behavior is difficult
to change, but intrinsic motivation can help overcome this deeply formed powerful system of
behavior that is a consequence of our past. The next section will discuss the expectations of
Replication of the research
As mentioned before, the main focus of recent research performed within this subject is the
impact of LHS on the decision-making process under the influence of a mild stressor.
Especially the domain of decision-making concerning food-consumption related choices.
Fennis et al. (2018) tested the hedonic consumption as a consequence of experienced stress to
verify whether the impulsivity and decision making is varying at different levels of LHS. To
continue on the research performed on this topic. First of all, Fennis et al. (2018) performed
several experiments measuring the influence of mild stress on hedonic consumption to better
understand the role of stress and the sensibility of people towards it. This relation was
moderated by the effect of Life History Strategy to verify differences in hedonic consumption
between fast and slow LHS individuals. The results of this research suggest that people with a
fast LHS tend to be more influenced by mild stressors; they tend to have a higher hedonic
consumption than people with a slow LHS (Fennis et al., 2018). The people with fast LHS
tend to choose the fast rewarding path, rather than the slower rewards that might occur in the
future. The goal is to clear links between the earlier socio-economic status, obesity rates,
future physical and mental health. To verify and validate these conclusions, this performed
Extension of the research
We expect not all human decisions to be based solely on an individuals’ background and
childhood experiences. The research currently performed on this topic lacks the inclusion of
important personal character traits involved in decision-making, reward systems and goal
setting. Motivation is one of these essential personality- and behavioral traits in determining people’s future decision-making, goal setting and behavior (Kato et al., 2013), and therefore expected to influence the decision-making process. Especially in the food domain,
determination in the form of motivation is key in balancing weight, beauty, confidence and
health.
Motivation is a key component in predicting future reward-seeking behavior and impulsivity
within individuals. As an extension of the experiments performed by Fennis et al. (2018), the
motivation to eat and live healthy will be added to further investigate the influence of
personal character traits. The beneficial part of this research is the influence of the current
vision within an individual on consumption in a relation to childhood experiences that
influence our daily behavior. LHS and motivation to eat healthy contain another aspect that is
key to the decisions we make. Namely, the current motivation is chosen and based on our
capability of conscious choice. On the other hand, Life History Strategy is a consequence of
experiences during our childhood and LHS influences individuals and tends to be more on an
unconscious level of decision-making. For a better understanding of marketing decision
making the way people are motivated to live a healthy lifestyle and eat healthy is added to the
current research. This, in order to combine the value of current conscious behavior
(motivation to eat healthy) to the more unconscious behavior, which results from our
experiences in the past (our childhood, LHS). Griskevicius et al. (2011) highlight the different
strategy. The role of motivation in the form of discipline is considered to be an important
factor in decision-making, reward systems and pleasure seeking (Kato et al., 2013). It would
be very interesting to see whether the LHS influence is affected by the motivation to eat
healthy. If this is not the case and our past experiences seem to outweigh our willpower based
on our current motivation to eat healthy, the marketing sector will be provided with novel
insights. Nonetheless, for the future of understanding the decision-making process within
individuals it is essential to understand the role of motivation to further research whether the
motivation must be strengthened within individuals or that the problem lies within the
childhood and the past of people’s lives. In the current research on this domain, it is poorly understood what the impact of motivation is on the LHS, the goal of this research paper is to
fill up that void.
According to Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese and De Ridder (2016) motivation is an important
measure of self-control performance. Therefore, motivation is expected to reduce the
impulsiveness and short-term reward seeking. We propose that motivation to eat and live
healthy decreases the impact of LHS. People that are highly motivated to eat healthy will be
less influenced by their LHS. It stands reason to assume that people with a high motivation
and slow LHS will have a lower hedonic consumption as a consequence of stress. Motivated
people with a fast LHS will be less effected by their own motivation and will have a higher
hedonic consumption as a consequence of stress. Chueng et al. (2016) state that motivation
causes patience for rewards. The higher the intrinsic motivation within the individual, the
higher his or her willingness and ability to delay rewards for later potential benefits. Above
that, it is expected that motivated individuals make their choices on a more conscious basis,
they are explicitly managing their food intake and therefore the stressor will have less effect
individuals tend to be less caring about their impulses and will reward themselves instantly.
So, the expectation is that the individuals with high motivation to eat healthy will make their
choices more on a rational base, instead of a hedonic fast rewarding principle that comes from
unconscious desire. In a formal way of formulation, we assume that people that are motivated
to eat healthy will have a lower tendency to be rewarded in the short term. Therefore, these
individuals will be more likely to see the long-term benefits which will reduce the influence
of a fast LHS, which leads a reduction of the effect of stress on hedonic consumption. The
expected relations are shown in the conceptual model in the next section in figure 1.
Conceptual framework
(Figure 1: Conceptual framework.)
Variables in the framework:
• Independent variable: Stress
• Moderator: Life history strategy score (the higher the score the slower the LHS) • Moderating the moderation: Motivation to eat/live healthy
Methodology
Participants
The experiment in the form of a questionnaire was administered online to identify the effect
of an individual’s motivation to eat healthy on the effect of our childhood experiences in the form of LHS when exposed to stress and see how this translates to the hedonic consumption.
The data collection was surveyed anonymously and confidentially. The demographical
questions in the questionnaire functioned to gain insight into our sample (age, gender, etc.).
This survey was approved by the University of Groningen. The complete questionnaire can be
found in appendix 1.
The requirements for participation in this research were: The participant is ;(1) at least 18
years old, (2) able to read English and (3) able to complete the survey on an individual basis.
The individuals that decided to participate by accepting the invitation were informed about
the confidentiality and anonymity of their data. The participants had the option to quit at any
time. The participants in the sample were 107 individuals that were randomly approached
online through e-mail and asked to participate in this questionnaire. The final sample size
included 98 individuals after some individuals did not spend money on any of the products in
the imaginable grocery shopping situation or did not meet the requirements mentioned above.
Design
The performed experiment is a 2-between-subjects-design with a stressor (the presence and
the absence of time pressure) as a between subject factor, with motivation to eat healthy as a
scale measured moderator and with LHS as a continuous measured independent variable. The
individuals that decided to participate in the survey were informed about the estimated
duration of the questionnaire. The online questionnaire contains of questions within 5
different domains: demographical questions, LHS, hedonic consumption, stress and
motivation to eat healthy. To test the notion that stress indeed boosts the hedonic food
consumption for higher levels of LHS, the participants were either exposed to (1) the stress or
(2) no-stress condition. To test whether the motivation indeed influences the decision-making
process within the individual to think more in the long-term, we measured the motivation to
eat healthy on a scale. We tested the idea that a mild stressor would indicate a higher hedonic
consumption for individuals in the form of the willingness to pay for hedonic food compared
to utilitarian foods.
Procedure
First, during the experiment, stress was manipulated in the form of two variations through the
Montreal Imaging stress task (Fennis et al, 2018). This Montreal Imaging Stress Task
consisted of eighteen math problems which had to be solved solely with the mind, without the
aid of paper, a pen or any electronic devices. The stress was manipulated by inserting a
time-pressure element (10 seconds per math problem) versus no time-time-pressure. The individuals in
the time-pressure condition also received the message of a 10% worse score than the average,
whereas the other condition stated an average score for the no time-pressure group. After the
exposure to either the time-pressure or no time-pressure, the individuals were asked to
different products), both hedonic and utilitarian. The individuals were asked to imagine
themselves paying a visit to their regular grocery store. Of the total amount of money spent,
the hedonic-utilitarian ratio was calculated by the proportion of money spend on hedonic food
of the total amount of money spent to see whether stress does influence the ratio as we expect.
The average budget the 98 individuals spent in the experiment during the imaginary grocery
shopping was (M=€39.18, SD=16.01) of which a percentage of 16,7% on average went to
hedonic products as chocolate and chips. To test whether or not the stress manipulation was
successful, the stress was measured after the mental game by a 6-item 7-point Likert-scale
(M=4.02, SD=1.02, α=0.73). The scale was ranging 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly
agree) to see how the Mental Game was perceived was averaged. The higher the indicated
stress score, the more stress the individual perceived. Subsequently, LHS was measured by a
20-item Mini-K 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).
The score on the 20 items was averaged to create an LHS index (M=5.35, SD=0.62, α =0.75).
With a high outcome indicating a slow LHS, the less a person tends to choose for hedonic
food when influenced by the stressor according to Fennis et al. (2018). As an extension to the
performed experiment by Fennis et a. (2018) the motivation to eat healthy was measured by
the 5-item MHES 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly
agree) designed by Kato et al. (2013). The score on each of the scale-items was averaged to
create a motivation index. The higher the score on motivation, the more the individual has the
Analysis Plan
For the replication of the research performed by Fennis et al., PROCESS model 1 will be used
to test the notion whether a mild stressor increases the consumption of hedonic food products
for individuals with a fast LHS. For the analysis the extension of the research by Fennis et al.,
a PROCESS model 3 will be used to analyze the three-way interaction. The key hypothesis
will thus be tested by the use of PROCESS model 3 with motivation to eat healthy and LHS
as interacting moderators (moderated moderation) on the effect of stress (IV) on the hedonic
Results and discussion
Stress manipulation
To test whether the stress manipulation was performed successfully, a univariate ANOVA
was performed. The univariate ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the stress
task (IV) on the perceived stress (DV), in the stress task and no-stress task condition. The test
indicated a significant effect of the stress condition on the perceived stress of the individuals
for independent variable level 0: stress-task (M=4.61, SD=.15) and independent variable level
1: no stress-task (M=3.59, SD=.12) conditions; [F(1,97)=28.83, p = 0.00] was found. Thus,
people with the time pressure condition and the message of a 10% worse performance
experienced significantly more stress than individuals that did not have the time pressure
element and did not receive negative feedback. In other words, the stress manipulation was
performed successfully.
Replication of research
The data was analyzed through multiple regression using PROCESS in SPSS. The replication
part of the research performed by Fennis et al. (2018) will be tested. The replication of
previous research supposes a moderating effect of LHS on the effect of increased stress on
hedonic food consumption. The moderation was tested through the use of PROCESS model 1
in SPSS, the results are shown in appendix 2. An insignificant interaction was found when
analyzing the effect LHS score has on the effect of stress on hedonic consumption (B = 0,015,
t (97) = 0.56, n.s.). Hence, it can be concluded that there is no support for the hypothesis (H1)
that the effect of stress on hedonic consumption is moderated by the individuals’ LHS score.
In other words, according to this experiment, it can’t be concluded that LHS score moderates
the effect of stress on hedonic consumption. All other effects including the main effect of
Extension in the form of a three-way interaction
To test for the significance of the three-way interaction. The moderated moderation, testing
the effect of motivation to eat healthy has as the moderating effect of LHS on the relation
between stress and hedonic consumption. To verify this three-way interaction, PROCESS
model 3 was used to indicate the significance of the effect via the p-value of the three-way
interaction, the results of the PROCESS 3 model are shown in appendix 3. The main effect of
three-way interaction was found to be significant (B = 0,06, t (97) = 2.33, p =.022). Above
that, the interaction between stress and LHS turns out significant (B = -.32, t (97) = -2.22, p =
0.0291), as did the interaction between stress and motivation to eat healthy (B = 0,287, t (97)
= -2.293, p =.024), the interaction between LHS and motivation however did not match the
significance criteria. These results provide support for the hypothesis that there is a significant
three-way interaction, a moderated moderation. The analysis with 10,000 bootstraps did not
include a zero in the confidence interval (95% CI [.0055;.1142]). Hence, there is significant
support for the hypothesis (H2) that the motivation moderates the moderating effect of LHS
score on the effect of stress on hedonic consumption. Based on the results of PROCESS
model 3, the three-way interaction supports the hypothesis that motivation moderates the
moderating effect of LHS score on the relation between stress and hedonic consumption.
Thus, motivation weakens the effect of LHS score on the effect of stress on hedonic
General discussion and theorical implications
Preceding literature research indicated the influence of Life History Strategy on the effect of
stress on hedonic consumption. Previous literature suggests, the more an individual
experienced stress, uncertainty and scarcity in their childhood, the more likely he/she is to
adopt a Fast Life History Strategy. To expand the knowledge of decision-making, the
motivation to eat healthy is added to test the notion and the main hypothesis; that motivation
to eat healthy reduces the effect of a slow LHS on the effect of stress on hedonic food
consumption. In particular, this experiment was designed to test the notion that an
individuals’ own will to eat healthy in the form of motivation can reverse the suggested influence of an individuals’ fast Life History Strategy on the relation between stress and hedonic consumption. The performed experiment is a 2-between-subjects-design with a
stressor (the presence and the absence of time pressure) as a between subject factor, with
motivation to eat healthy as a scale measured moderator and with LHS as a continuous
measured independent variable. Results showed that the more motivated the individual, the
less the influence of slow LHS on the effect of stress on hedonic consumption.
Hereby, the current research on the stress sensitization between different LHS groups is
expanded with the motivation to eat healthy (Griskevicius et al., 2011). The more a person is
motivated, the more willingness to delay rewards instead of current rewards in the form of
hedonic consumption. People are able to delay their rewards despite their LHS (Chueng et al.,
2016). This research shows that in addition to an individuals’ past in the form of LHS (Fennis,
2018), individuals have an influence on their food consumption themselves too and are not
doomed because of their past (Duncan et al., 2010). Thus, motivated individuals indeed have
the strength to delay their rewards towards a more long-term perspective (Chueng et al.,
2016). This experiment also elaborates the previous research about whether a mild stressor
effect of the fast LHS the individual might have obtained from the past, this decreases the
effect of stress on hedonic consumption (Chueng et al., 2016). In summary, this research
strengthens the current literature on the influence of a mild stressor on hedonic consumption
(Maner et al., 2017) and the influence of Life History Strategy on this relation (Fennis et al.,
2018; Mittal et al., 2014) with the fact that the current intrinsic motivation to eat healthy. The
unique combination of motivation of the individual as a current measure combined with the
LHS as the past of the individual and the presence/absence of stress as the situational factor
allows for an improved evaluation of the drivers of customers choices.
Practical implications and limitations
Essential in the process of understanding the drivers within the consumer decision-making is
the inclusion of the motivation of an individual. First of all, for marketing matters, it is a very important outcome that the individuals’ motivation has an influence on decision-making in the food domain and can even be strong enough to outweigh the consequences of someone’s
past. This causes the food consumption sector over the entire width to benefit from
understanding which influences play a role. The motivation to eat healthy seems to be able to
lower the effects of a fast LHS, it is essential that on itself this is the case and the LHS does
not affect our choices for our entire life. Now, the interesting component for the food and
production sector could be the element of strengthening this motivation to make the effect of
our past in the form of a fast LHS, disappear. Therefore, companies that sell and produce
should awaken and strengthen this intrinsic motivation within the consumer. For example, by
nudging them or creating packages with choices and messages that highlight the long-term
benefits. The marketeers and companies in the food sector should find ways to motivate the
individual to go with long-term beneficial product instead of short-term rewarding hedonic
Second, for the consumer, there is a new understanding that choices under stress and different
LHS scores are influencing the decision-making behavior. It is important to understand that
we have an ability to take action ourselves through our own motivation to eat healthy. This
will enable dieticians, psychologists and other specialists in the food sector to understand the
urgency of motivation in food related choices. Of course, motivation was always considered
an incredibly important factor, but that it can decrease the effect of LHS is essential in the
further process of helping the consumer towards healthier choices. As stated by Fennis et al.
(2018), too much promotion of a healthy choice can backfire and cause an increase in hedonic
consumption, so it is essential to strengthen the intrinsic feeling of motivation and making the
right choice for the long-term instead of picking the short term. Companies must take this into
account when designing an environment to encourage long-term beneficial food choices.
The only insignificant interaction within the moderated moderation was the single effect of
motivation on LHS. This interaction was nearly significant, which could have been caused by
several individuals that did not care about their nutrition and intake at all and still have a slow
LHS. Or because some individuals do not consider themselves as motivated to eat healthy, but
in fact are. But they might still have a fast LHS, nonetheless. Another remarking point is the
significance in Model 3 against a non-significant Model 1. This difference can be explained
by the possible presence of the suppressor effect. The addition of one of the variables present
in the Model 3 has increased the predictability of other variables present in both models.
A last small footnote, this experiment was conducted among individuals from the
Netherlands. On average, individuals from the Netherlands do not have the same obesity
Future research
First of all, it would be very interesting to repeat the experiment with the actual consumption
and purchasing behavior. As stated before, people may indicate a high motivation to eat
healthy, but when the choices present themselves in real-time instead of imaginable, it would
be interesting to see what happens if the motivation is strong enough and if the decreasing
effect on the fast LHS effect disappears. Another interesting extension would be to implicate
the experimenting with manipulating the motivation of the individual as indicated by Pegg
and Kujawa (2020) in this case food-packages with motivation empowering messages.
Messages aimed at the long-term rewards over short-term to verify if this has an effect on the
experienced motivation within the individual. Thus, to test the intrinsic motivation to eat
healthy before and after seeing the package, to see whether a package can nudge an individual
towards healthier decision-making and their increase motivation. In addition, as stated above
the tested sample was solely coming from the Netherlands. An interesting comparison would
be to see whether the three-way interaction is also present among other parts of the globe.
Based on the outcome, comparisons can be made in the way of advertising which is effective
and working in different parts of the world. All to better understand all the components
involved in human food-related decision-making. Another interesting possibility for further
research is the possible difference in genetic reward-system through dopamine between
different LHS groups as indicated by Heyman (2018).
Lastly, Hill et al. (2016) indicate the importance of future research on the topic of motivation,
this could incorporate the research on the motivation to eat healthy of this paper combined
with the motivation to regulate calorie intake within individuals. Also, further research should
implicate the possibility to shift people from a short-term reward vision to a long-term
To conclude, the decision-making of food-related choices for human-being is almost
immeasurable, but by including the present motivation to eat healthy, the past in the form of
LHS and the presence and absence of stress as a situational influence, the overview of all the
components that play a role became more elaborated. Research exploring these subjects could
provide beneficial insights in the treatment of obesity, unhealthy eating behavior and
Reference-list
Berkman, E. T. (2018). The neuroscience of goals and behavior change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(1), 28–44.
Cheung, T., Gillebaart, M., Kroese, F., & Ridder, D. (2016). Self-control success revealed:
Greater approach motivation towards healthy versus unhealthy food. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 30(6), 846–853.
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United
States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
De Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F.
(2012). Taking stock of self-control, a meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide
range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99.
Duncan, G. J., Ziol‐Guest, K. M., & Kalil, A. (2010). Early‐childhood poverty and adult attainment, behavior, and health. Child development, 81(1), 306-325.
Fennis, B. M., Gineikiene, J., Barauskaite, D., & van Koningsbruggen, G. M. (2018). Trapped
in the rabbit hole: life history strategies modulate the impact of mild stress on hedonic
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of
mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015–1026.
Heymann, G. (2018). Genetic resolution of dopamine systems for reward association and
motivation [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 79, Issue 12–B(E)).
Hill, S. E., Prokosch, M. L., DelPriore, D. J., Griskevicius, V., & Kramer, A. (2016). Low
childhood socioeconomic status promotes eating in the absence of energy need. Psychological
Science, 27, 354–364. (Original DOI: 10.1177/0956797615621901)
Kato, Y., Iwanaga, M., Roth, R., Hamasaki, T., & Greimel, E. (2013). Psychometric
validation of the motivation for healthy eating scale (MHES). Psychology, 4(02), 136.
Laran, J., & Salerno, A. (2013). Life-history strategy, food choice, and caloric consumption.
Psychological science, 24(2), 167-173.
Maner, J. K., Dittmann, A., Meltzer, A. L., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). Implications of
life-history strategies for obesity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32),
8517-8522.
Mittal, C., Griskevicius, V., and Ellis, B.J. (2014). Consumer behavior across the life span: A
life history theory perspective. In Stephanie Preston, Morten L. Kringlbach & Brian Knutson
Naughton, P., McCarthy, S. N., & McCarthy, M. B. (2015). The creation of a healthy eating
motivation score and its association with food choice and physical activity in a cross-sectional
sample of Irish adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
12(1), 74.
Pegg, S., & Kujawa, A. (2020). The effects of a brief motivation manipulation on reward
responsiveness: A multi-method study with implications for depression. International Journal
of Psychophysiology, 150, 100–107.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Experiment questionnaire
Dear participant,
Welcome to a short survey (5-10 minutes) composed of two parts.
My name is Tim Noorduin and I am Master Marketing student at the University of Groningen. In order to fulfill my master’s degree, I am interested in two different topics; Human Cognition and Spending Behavior.
• The first study is about the consequences of quantitative reasoning, which includes a mathematical test.
• The second study is about purchase behavior, in which a specific scenario will be given.
Your participation in this study will remain confidential and there will be no attempt to link your responses and your identity. Also, your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time by closing the survey platform.
If you have questions about this research, you can send an email message to t.w.noorduin@student.rug.nl
Welcome to the first part of the study! This part is about quantitative reasoning and includes a short math test.
The Mental Game
This intelligence test serves as an important indicator of the quantitative mind of a person. You will now be presented with a set of quantitative reasoning questions based on arithmetic tasks
such as addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (*), and division (/).
There is one correct answer for each question. The correct answer is a number between 0 and 9. You will have 10 seconds to answer each question.
We are interested in the response that you can arrive at through mental calculation alone. As such, please complete these without the use of a pencil and paper or a calculator.
For each question select the option that you think is the correct answer.
Also, at the end of the game, you will be given feedback about how you performed compared to other participants.
o CONTINUE
Exhibit 2b. Low Stress Condition
The Mental Game
This intelligence test serves as an important indicator of the quantitative mind of a person. You will now be presented with a set of quantitative reasoning questions based on arithmetic tasks
such as addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (*), and division (/).
There is one correct answer for each question. The correct answer is a number between 0 and 9. I am interested in the response that you can arrive at through mental calculation alone.
As such, please complete these without the use of a pencil and paper or a calculator. For each question, select the option that you think is the correct answer.
Q4. EXAMPLE: 4 - 1 + 2 = ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Q5. Here is another EXAMPLE 7 + 2 * 1 = ?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
This is the end of the Mental Game Thank you!
HIGH STRESS CONDITION: Your performance was 10% worse compared to the average of other participants' performance.
LOW STRESS CONDITION: Your performance was similar compared to the other participants' performance.
o CONTINUE
Exhibit 3. Second part study
Welcome to the second part of this study. This part is about spending behavior in a grocery store.
You will now be given a short scenario.
Exhibit 5. Willingness to buy Hedonic products adapted
In your regular visit to the supermarket you encounter different product on the shelves. Please indicate for each of the following products what you would be willing to spend on each of
Exhibit 7. Manipulation Check/ Mood measure (Acar-Burkay, et al. 2014)
Back to the Mental Game.. Please use the scale below to tell us how you experienced the game
Exhibit 8. LHS: Mini-short K-form (Figueredo, 2004)
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Use the scale below.
Additional LHS questions measured in the same scale:
I am often in social contact with my friends.
I often get emotional support and practical help from my friends.
You are doing great! Only a few more questions to go. Exhibit 9. Motivation scale
Please indicate the extent of agreement with the following statements, ranging from 1 to 7, whereas 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree:
• I like to find new manners to create meals that are good for health. • It is fun to create meals that are good for my health.
• I am interested in eating healthy. • I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals. • I am satisfied with eating healthy.
Exhibit 10. Socioeconomic status (Griskevicius et al. 2011)
Exhibit 11. Demographic questions.
You are at the end of the questionnaire. Please finalize answering some demographic questions.
What is your gender? Male Female Other
What is your age?
Currently I am….
Studying Working
Looking for a job Not applicable
What is your nationality?
Dutch
Other, namely ____________________
THANK YOU!
This is the end of the questionnaire.
Thank you for taking your time to complete all questions.
If you are interested in the results of the study, please fill in your e-mail address. Your information will be kept confidential and will only be used to keep you updated about
the final results of the research.
E-mail Address: T.w.noorduin@student.rug.nl
