Mechanisms between Time Scarcity and Healthiness of Food Choices: Evidence from a Lab Experiment

Last registered on June 15, 2023

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Mechanisms between Time Scarcity and Healthiness of Food Choices: Evidence from a Lab Experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0011556
Initial registration date
June 10, 2023

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 15, 2023, 4:45 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
The Pennsylvania State university

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
The Pennsylvania State University
PI Affiliation
The Pennsylvania State University

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2023-06-10
End date
2023-10-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
In a laboratory experiment with 360-420 participants, we aim to analyze the impact of time scarcity on the healthfulness of food choices by employing snack selection and a second-price sealed-bid auction.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Jaenicke, Edward, Sihyun Park and Martina Vecchi. 2023. "Mechanisms between Time Scarcity and Healthiness of Food Choices: Evidence from a Lab Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. June 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.11556-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The lab experiment consists of three parts: 1) Snack selection, 2) Auction, and 3) Survey questionnaire. The first part of the experiment (snack selection) will follow a 3x2 experimental design resulting in six experimental conditions, and the second part of the experiment (auction) will have two experimental conditions.

In the first part of the experiment (snack selection), we study the impact of time available to consume a snack on the healthfulness of food choices. Participants in the experiment are offered healthy and unhealthy snack options (food items and beverages) and asked to select the snack which they will consume during a break.
We developed a menu composed of obviously healthy versus unhealthy option pairs (seven food item pairs and three beverage pairs), with products in a pair that have a similar eating time. Participants are asked to select one product in each pair. Only one pair from each of the food item pairs and beverage pairs are then randomly selected, and participants receive their preferred product in the selected pairs. After snack consumption, we also measure food waste to use it as a control.
We randomly assign participants to two time-related treatments: 1) “consumption time” treatment where the time available for snack consumption is short for the treated and long for the control, and 2) “selecting time” treatment where the treated participants are asked to select their snack within 3 seconds for each pair while the controlled participants have no limit to select. For the “consumption time” treatment, we use two means to shorten the time available for snack consumption: 1) Give the treated participants the same amount of time as the control group (20 minutes), but with tasks to do. The tasks we ask the treated to do are solving 50 math problems (2-digit addition and subtraction) and typing a 1-page document. In this case, the cognitive load does not influence the participants’ decisions because the selection is made before performing the given tasks. 2) Give the treated participants a physically shorter amount of time (3 minutes) than the control group to consume the snack.

In the second part of the experiment (auction), we elicit participants’ willingness to pay (WTP) using a sealed-bid second-price auction mechanism introduced by Vickrey (1961). We aim to investigate the impact of preparation time and time pressure when making decisions on the WTP for several food products. We elicit participants’ WTP for foods that differ in two dimensions: (a) time required for preparing the meal: fast versus slow, and (b) healthfulness of the meal: healthy versus unhealthy. This allows us to investigate whether WTP for healthfulness is different for foods with different preparation times. To study the impact of time scarcity during making decisions, we vary the time available for participants to submit their bids with a randomly assigned “bidding time” treatment: the treated participants need to bid on four products within 20 seconds in order to avoid deductions while the controlled participants have no limit to bid.
We auction twelve products in three product categories: soup, oatmeal, and mac & cheese. For each product category, we identified four products that vary in the two dimensions of healthfulness and preparation time. Participants are asked to simultaneously bid on the four products in each product category. Participants can bid up to $20 for each product. The bidder placing the highest bid is the winner and purchases the product at the price corresponding to the second highest bid.
Intervention Start Date
2023-06-10
Intervention End Date
2023-09-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1 – Number of unhealthy snacks (higher added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium content) chosen in pairwise choices (seven food item pairs and three beverage pairs)
2 – Amount of time spent selecting the snack from each pair
3 – Willingness to pay for three food products categories (soup, oatmeal, and mac & cheese) divided into four products according to preparation time and healthiness (fast and healthy, fast and unhealthy, slow and healthy, and slow and unhealthy)
4 – Amount of time spent bidding on the four products in each food product category
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment will be conducted from June 10, 2023, in the Laboratory for Economics, Management, and Auctions (LEMA) Lab at the Pennsylvania State University. We invite 360-420 subjects to participate in the experiment, expecting 8-16 participants in each session. The lab experiment consists of three parts: 1) Snack selection, 2) Auction, and 3) Survey questionnaire. We make participants select a snack prior to the auction so that cognitive load does not influence their decision on selecting a snack.
In the first part of the experiment, the snack selection, we investigate the relationship between time scarcity and healthfulness of food consumption. We randomly assign the time available to consume a snack and let participants select the snack to consume in our lab.
In the second part, the auction, we study the link between time scarcity and healthfulness of food purchases, and we focus on preparation time as the form of time scarcity in this experimental design. Based on an auction mechanism, we elicit participants’ willingness to pay (WTP) for healthfulness in foods that require different preparation times.
Alternatively, the impact of time on food choices might be mediated by the time available to make the decision. In both parts of the experiment, we randomly vary the time available to state the WTP and to select the preferred snack option. It is possible that with little time to decide, individuals could dismiss the value of the healthy attribute, thus leading to the selection of a less healthy food option.
In the last part of the experiment, participants are asked to answer questions about their sociodemographic characteristics, time uses, and eating habits. Their answers are used to control factors affecting snack selection or WTP for healthfulness other than time to consume, time to decide, and time to prepare.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is done by the experimental software (oTree).
Randomization Unit
Randomization for “consumption time” treatment is done at the session level (8 to 16 subjects).
Randomization for the other two treatments (“selecting time” and “bidding time”) is done at the participant level.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
360 to 420 participants
Sample size: planned number of observations
Part 1 (Snack Selection): Minimum of 60*6=360 participants, maximum of 70*6=420 participants Part 2 (Auction): Minimum of 180*2=360 participants, maximum of 210*2=420 participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Part 1 (Snack Selection): 60 to 70 participants
Part 2 (Auction): 180 to 210 participants
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Penn State Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2023-04-04
IRB Approval Number
STUDY00016715

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials