Skip to main content

Table 4 Effects of nudging and pricing strategies on the percentage of healthy purchases stratified by arm and SEP indicators

From: The effects of nudging and pricing on healthy food purchasing behavior in a virtual supermarket setting: a randomized experiment

Conditions 25% increase arm   25% discount arm   25% increase and discount arm  
  Low educational level (n = 65) High educational level (n = 63)   Low educational level (n = 78) High educational level (n = 58)   Low educational level (n = 76) High educational level (n = 60)  
  B 95%CI B 95%CI lr-test B 95%CI B 95%CI lr-test B 95%CI B 95%CI lr-test
Control Ref. Ref. 0.1 Ref. Ref. 0.2 Ref. Ref. 0.3
Nudging 2.0 −0.5; 4.5 −2.7 −5.8; 0.3 −1.3 −3.9; 1.4 2.0 −0.9; 5.0 0.6 −1.9; 3.1 3.3 0.3; 6.2
Pricing 2.2 −0.3; 4.6 −2.0 −5.0; 1.1 −0.4 −3.0; 2.3 1.8 −1.2; 4.8 −0.9 −3.3; 1.6 2.7 −0.3; 5.7
Price salience 1.8 −0.7; 4.3 1.1 −1.9; 4.2 0.9 −1.8; 3.5 3.2 0.3; 6.2 2.8 0.3; 5.3 6.6 3.6; 9.6
Price salience and nudging 4.4 1.9; 6.8 1.8 −1.2; 4.9 2.6 −0.0; 5.3 1.9 −1.0; 4.9 3.5 0.8; 6.1 4.8 1.7; 8.0
  Low income level (n = 75) High income level (n = 52)   Low income
Level (n = 99)
High income level (n = 35)   Low income level (n = 92) High income level (n = 43)  
  B 95%CI B 95%CI lr-test B 95%CI B 95%CI lr-test B 95%CI B 95%CI lr-test
Control Ref. Ref. 1.0 Ref. Ref. 0.2 Ref. Ref. 0.7
Nudging −0.5 −3.0; 2.0 − 0.5 − 3.8; 2.8 0.9 −1.3; 3.2 −1.5 −5.4; 2.4 1.6 −0.6;3.9 1.8 −1.6; 5.2
Pricing −0.5 −3.0; 2.1 0.8 −2.4; 4.0 0.7 −1.5; 3.0 0.8 −3.2; 4.7 0.9 −1.4; 3.2 −0.6 −4.1; 2.8
Price salience 1.0 −1.5; 3.6 2.0 −1.3; 5.2 2.9 0.6; 5.2 −1.3 −5.2; 2.6 4.0 1.7; 6.3 5.0 1.6; 8.5
Price salience and nudging 2.8 0.4; 5.4 3.1 −0.1; 6.4 3.5 1.2; 5.8 −0.1 −3.9; 3.7 4.5 2.0; 7.0 3.0 −0.6; 6.5
  1. Bold values are statistically significant
  2. Abbreviations: B Beta regression coefficient, CI Confidence interval, lr-test p-value of the likelihood-ratio test, Ref Reference group