THE EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LIGHT LABELS ON THE
CONSUMPTION OF SUGAR SWEETENED BEVERAGES AND
THE MODERATING ROLE OF SELF-CONTROL IN A
CANTEEN SETTING
Master thesis defense presentation, July 5, 2019
Faculty of Economics and Business
Max van Poll s2782855
Table of content
- Introduction
- Conceptual model
- Theoretical Framework
- Methodology
- Results
- Public policy and practical implications
- Limitations and future research
What is the effect of traffic light
labels on sugar consumption
in sugar sweetened beverages?
How is this affected by self-control?
Theoretical framework
Research on TLL suggests that the labels have a positive effect on consumer behaviour because of its ability to convey healthiness information in a simple yet strong way to consumers at the point of purchase (Balcombe, Fraser & Falco, 2010), (Thorndike, Riis, Sonnenberg and Levy, 2014).
H1: implementation of Traffic Light Labels will effectively reduce sugar consumption in SSB’s in canteens.
Self-control
- Self-control is the ability to change or override impulsive responses and regulate thoughts and behaviour (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Vohs & Baumeister, 2004).
- High self-control individuals were associated with increased levels of healthy eating, less binge eating, and reduced alcohol consumption. Low self-control individuals were associated with increased consumption of sugary and fatty foods (Friese & Hofmann, 2009; Oaten & Cheng, 2006).
H2: TLL will have a more pronounced effect on the reduction of sugar consumption in SSB’s of low
self-control individuals than it will on individuals with high self-control.
High self-control
Capable of overriding urge to indulge (Baumeister, 2002).
Better capable of dealing with self-control dilemma’s (Koenigstorfer et al., 2014).
Already possess strategies that encourage healthful food decisions (Fishbach, Friedman & Kruglanski, 2003).
Low self-control
More susceptible to promotions accentuating immediate gratification, (Fishbach, Friedman & Kruglanski, 2003).
have a predisposition towards impulsive decision-making strategies which include
over-reliance on salient cues or heuristics (Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs, 2009.
Direct effect
Research suggests that high self-control individuals are more likely to approach goals and avoid
temptations. Conversely, low self-control individuals are more likely to indulge in temptations in
favour of their long-term goals (Fishbach and Shah 2006).
Example:
When presented with the options between a chocolate cake and a fruit salad, a low self-control
individual is less likely to choose a less appealing option with longer term benefits (fruit salad) in
favour of a more immediately attractive but ultimately less beneficial option of chocolate cake
(Baumeister et al., 1998; Muraven et al., 1998; van Dellen and Hoyle, 2010).
Design
2 x 2 between-subject design
Age = 25.44
Recruited through Facebook
SD = 8.59
N = 137
average education:
52 men (38%)
Bachelor’s degree
Example of control condition vs. intervention
Results
Results
- (H2) No significant interaction effect between self-control and nutritional
labelling (B = -.315, p = 0.210 > .05)
- (H3) Significant direct effect of self-control on beverage choice (B= -.560, p=
0.026)
Results
- (H1) Multinomial Logistic Regression analysis indicated a significant main
effect of traffic light labels on beverage choice color (B=1.875,p=0.012)
- (H2) No significant interaction effect between self-control and nutritional
labelling on beverage choice color (B = -.315, p = 0.210 > .05)
Results
DV : grams of sugar per beverage
- (H1) Process Macro indicated a significant main effect of traffic light labels
on sugar per beverage (B=1.875,p=0.012)
- (H2) It also indicated a marginal significant interaction between
self-control and nutrition labelling on sugar per beverage (B = -.52, SE =
.28, t= -1.84, p= 0.0688)
Results
H2: TLL will have a more pronounced effect on the reduction of sugar consumption in SSB’s of low
Results
H2: TLL will have a more pronounced effect on the reduction of sugar consumption in SSB’s of low
Results
Hypothesis
Content
Supported
H1
implementation of Traffic LightLabels will effectively reduce sugar consumption in SSB’s in canteens
Yes
H2
TLL will have a more pronouncedeffect on the reduction of sugar consumption in SSB’s of low
self-control individuals than it will on individuals with high self-control
No
H3
High self-control has a direct positiveinfluence on reduction of sugar consumption in SSB’s in canteens.
Public policy and practical implications
- Most tempting environments
- Red and green labels
Limitations and future research
- Hypothetical canteen situation
- Age, education
Conclusion
- Positive effect labels on reduction of sugar in SSB’s in canteen setting
- Positive effect between self-control and the reduction of sugar in SSB’s in
canteens
Thank you for your attention!
References
- Baumeister, Roy F. (2002), “Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 670–76
- Balcombe, K., Fraser, I., & Falco, S. (2010). Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price. Food Policy, 35(3), 211-220. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.12.005
- Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. (2003). Leading us not into temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 84(2), 296-309. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.296
- van Herpen, E., & Trijp, H. (2011). Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite, 57(1), 148-160. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.011
-References
- Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kamm, F. (2014). Healthful Food Decision Making in Response to Traffic Light Color-Coded Nutrition Labeling. Journal Of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(1), 65-77. doi: 10.1509/jppm.12.091
- Thorndike, A., Riis, J., Sonnenberg, L., & Levy, D. (2014). Traffic-Light Labels and Choice Architecture. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine, 46(2), 143-149. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.002
