Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Conducting Research That Stimulates Win-Win Policies

2016; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 1; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1086/687247

2378-1823

Koert van Ittersum, Brian Wansink,

Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Previous articleNext article FreeConducting Research That Stimulates Win-Win PoliciesKoert van Ittersum and Brian WansinkKoert van Ittersum Search for more articles by this author and Brian Wansink Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThere is both promise and peril in trying to control behavior in a free-market world. That is a key theme of the articles in this issue on “Consumer Response to Regulation,” as well as the theme of the discussion on the article by Peters et al. (2016), which was published in the inaugural issue of the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research (van Ittersum and Wansink 2016).A larger context for this discussion—and one raised in the inaugural issue—was that government policies that aim at helping consumers make healthier choices may in fact backfire or exacerbate a different problem they are trying to resolve (Pham, Mandel, and Morales 2016). With soft drinks, for instance, one 6-month field study showed a 10% soft drink surcharge did not decrease soft drink sales, but it backfired because it increased beer sales among beer-buying households (Hanks et al. 2013). Similarly, Bloomberg’s failed attempt to ban big soft drinks larger than 16 ounces in New York City is feared to have backfired because it led citizens to skeptically believe public health policy makers were elitist, out of touch with reality, and out of workable solutions (Just and Wansink 2012).Consumer responses to regulation often fail with food issues because they fail to solve either a consumer or a company problem (van Ittersum 2015). What have been most effective, however, are solutions that consumers want and that companies can deliver: 100-calorie packages, resealable packaging, menu reconfigurations, reformulations, and healthier defaults. However, solutions like these cannot be mandated. As with much boundary research, those solutions that will be most legendary in 20 years have yet to be discovered (Wansink and van Ittersum 2016).How Can Win-Win Solutions Be Discovered?Win-win solutions are unlikely to be discovered when companies are isolated or under attack. When companies feel attacked or unsupported, they become suspicious or even hostile to new ideas (e.g., the 100-calorie pack: Wansink 2014, 1–3). In contrast, when they receive academic attention and collaboration and public policy support, companies become more open to generating and testing new solutions.Although academics who focus on changing behavior—like marketers or psychologists—can help companies generate and test new solutions, there is not a long or successful history of this happening. Companies can be skeptical of working with such scholars, fearing that their academic methodologies and career goals may ultimately generate risk to brand or embarrassment to the organization. What if research to develop a new kid’s meal initially shows that kids eat more calories instead of fewer calories? What if a new feature on a wearable exercise tracker leads to increased injuries and sick days because of overexertion?Win-win solutions can emerge when companies work with trusting academics in a jointly encouraging—and forgiving—policy environment. What is guaranteed is that there will be false starts and course corrections long before win-win solutions are found. There are a lot more golf balls lost in the woods than there are holes-in-one.Balancing Trust and Suspicion: The Case of Disney and DefaultsBehavioral interventions in school lunchrooms and cafeterias have dramatically shifted consumers toward choosing healthier foods (Hanks, Just, and Wansink 2013). In the context of this success, the Disney Company wanted to investigate whether there were changes they could make in their theme parks that would lead their guests to eat healthier and still have a magical experience. Menu reformulations and menu item changes had shown initial success, but what else could be done?The proposed idea of changing defaults—such as having milk or fruit come with children’s combo meals instead of soft drinks and fries—was suggested. Children could still request soft drinks and fries, but it took a little extra effort. The often-asked question was whether this policy change would change behavior or backfire and hurt guest satisfaction (Laroche et al. 2016).A large-scale field study was conducted with trusted academics, and the results showed that 48% and 66% of guests accepted healthy default sides and beverages, respectively. The healthy defaults reduced calories (21.4%), fat (43.9%), and sodium (43.4%) for kid’s meal sides and beverages without changing the consumer cost of the meals (Peters et al. 2016). This provided powerful evidence that changing food defaults can lead to healthier diets—without pushback (at least in a theme park). As a test of concept, these findings may stimulate many other food vendors and concessionaires (Laroche et al. 2015) to make similar changes if news of this success became widespread.Despite the powerful public benefit of publishing these results, Disney was reluctant to do so. They were concerned about the potential damage to their reputation that could result from the public health community claiming that they had sponsored research and they were promoting the results or controlling the message (Kaplan 2016). In the end, the article “Using Healthy Defaults in Walt Disney World Restaurants to Improve Nutritional Choices” was published in the inaugural issue of the Journal of the Association of Consumer Research (Peters et al. 2016).The Consumer Response to RegulationSeeking win-win solutions to consumer and company problems is a key way of avoiding the win-lose relationship that can sometimes exist between consumer responses to regulations. These win-win solutions, however, need testing, course correction, and retesting. These solutions can occur when there are trusting relationships with academics and supportive patience from public policy officials and journalists. In contrast, an overzealous “scrutiny on industry-sponsored research can have unintended consequences—maybe scaring people off to say, ‘I don’t ever want to fund research as an industry because it’s not worth it,’” according to John Peters (Kaplan 2016).What follows is a critical but constructive commentary by Marion Nestle on the research by Peters et al. (2016), a response by John C. Peters and James O. Hill, and a final reply from Marion Nestle. The academics identify different pros, cons, and cautions associated with research collaborations involving businesses that may help others in developing the win-win solutions that will be tomorrow’s great ideas. Notes Koert van Ittersum ([email protected]) is professor of marketing and consumer well-being, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, Netherlands. Brian Wansink ([email protected]) is the John S. Dyson Chair of Consumer Behavior and Director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab, Dyson School of Applied Economics and Business, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.ReferencesHanks, Andrew, David Just, John Cawley, Harry Kaiser, Laura Smith, Jeffrey Sobal, Elaine Wethington, and William Schulze (2013), “From Coke to Coors: A Field Study of a Fat Tax and Its Unintended Consequences,” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 45 (Suppl. 4), 40.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHanks, Andrew S., David R. Just, and Brian Wansink (2013), “Smarter Lunchrooms Can Address New School Lunchroom Guidelines and Childhood Obesity,” Journal of Pediatrics, 162 (4), 867–69.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarJust, David R., and Brian Wansink (2012), “Do Not Support Regulation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages,” New England Journal of Medicine, 367 (15), 1465–66.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarKaplan, Shelia (2016), “Disney, Fearing a Scandal, Tried to Press Journal to Withdraw Research Paper,” STAT: Reporting From the Frontiers of Health and Medicine, https://www.statnews.com/2016/04/08/disney-nutrition-colorado-journal/.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarLaroche, Helena H., Christopher Ford, Kate Anderson, Xueya Cai, David Just, Andrew Hanks, and Brian Wansink (2015), “Concession Stand Makeovers: A Pilot Study of Offering Healthy Foods at High School Concession Stands,” Journal of Public Health, 37 (1), 116–24.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarLaroche, Helena H., Christine Hradek, Kate Hansen, Andrew S. Hanks, David Just, and Brian Wansink (2016), “Healthy Concessions: High School Students Responses to Healthy Concession Stand Changes,” Journal of School Health, forthcoming.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarPeters, John C., Jimikaye Beck, Jan Lande, Zhaoxing Pan, Michelle Cardel, Keith Ayoob, and James O. Hill (2016), “Using Healthy Defaults in Walt Disney World Restaurants to Improve Nutritional Choices,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1 (1), 92–103.First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarPham, Nguyen, Naomi Mandel, and Andrea C. Morales (2016), “Messages from the Food Police: How Food-Related Warnings Backfire among Dieters,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1 (1), 175–90.First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholarvan Ittersum, Koert (2015), “Marketing and Consumer Well-Being,” doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4376.6489.First citation in articleGoogle Scholarvan Ittersum, Koert, and Brian Wansink (2016), “The Behavioral Science of Eating: Encouraging Boundary Research That Has Impact,”Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1 (1), 5–14.First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarWansink, Brian (2014), Slim by Design—Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life, New York: William Morrow.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarWansink, Brian, and Koert van Ittersum (2016). “Boundary Research: Tools and Rules to Impact Emerging Fields,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, doi: 10.1002/cb.1570.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Volume 1, Number 3July 2016Consumer Response to RegulationGuest Editors: David W. Stewart and Debra L. Scammon Sponsored by the Association for Consumer Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/687247 Views: 477Total views on this site HistoryPublished online May 18, 2016 © 2016 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.