School Debit Accounts Lead to Less Healthy Food Choices and Higher Calorie Meals!
To encourage kids to make healthier choices, give them cash to spend in the cafeteria instead of taking part in a debit system
Schools can increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables by implementing a debit system that allows parents to set daily limits or food restrictions
Schools can use a “cash for cookies” rule, where students have to use cash for unhealthy items but can use debit for any other items to encourage healthy choices
Tools & Resources
Feel free to download and use any of the graphics, illustrations, videos, and resources on this page for educational purposes. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Many school cafeterias adopt debit account payment systems as quick, convenient ways to keep lunch lines moving, but according to this study conducted by Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab researchers, putting it on the debit account may impact the health of kids’ meals. Schools use debit systems without the option of paying with cash, students’ lunches contained fewer fruits and vegetables, more unhealthy items, and more calories overall.
Researchers David Just, PhD and Brian Wansink, PhD (Cornell Professors and Founders of the Smarter Lunchrooms Movement) examined the lunch purchases of 2,314 students in grades 1 through 12 to see how payment methods impacted food choice. In schools that completely converted to debit systems—as opposed to those that gave students the option to pay with cash instead—fruit purchases were 13% lower, while vegetable purchases were 20% lower. Students at debit-only schools were also more likely to purchase less healthy food options, such as candy, dessert, and fried foods. In fact, the lunches of students at debit-only schools contained 63 more calories from these less healthy foods and 32 fewer calories from healthier options.
According to Just and Wansink, the degree of parental guidance at lunchtime may be partly responsible for this phenomenon. When parents give children a certain amount of cash for lunch each day, they can monitor their kids’ daily expenditure more closely, resulting in better lunch choices. Debit systems, however, eliminate the restrictions of a daily cash allowance, providing kids the opportunity to spend their lunch money as they please—with unhealthy consequences. A debit system which allows parents to set daily limits or food-specific restrictions may be an ideal compromise between convenience and guidance. Alternative methods—like the implementation of a “cash for cookies” rule— can nudge kids towards healthier foods by making them pause before impulse-purchasing less healthy options.
For more about the Smarter Lunchrooms Movement, visit: smarterlunchrooms.org
• Download paper from the SSRN (the Social Science Research Network)
Just, David and Brian Wansink (2014). School Lunch Debit Card Payment Systems are Associated with Lower Nutrition and Higher Calories. Obesity, 22(1), 24-26. doi: 10.1002/oby.20591
Other Interesting Articles on Compensation
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 586-598.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & Van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science, 311, 1005-1007.
Fillingim, R. B., Roth, D. L., & Haley, W. E. (1989). The effects of distraction on the perception of exercise-induced symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 33, 241-248.
Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.
Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (1997). The psychophysical effects of music in sport and exercise: A review. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 54.
Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 259-266.
King, N. A. (1999). What processes are involved in the appetite response to moderate increases in exercise-induced energy expenditure? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58, 107-113.
King, N. A., Snell, L., Smith, R. D., & Blundell, J. E. (1996). Effects of short-term exercise on appetite responses in unrestrained females. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 663-667.
Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. (2006). Determinants of justification and self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 572-587.
Lerouge, D. (2009). Evaluating the Benefits of Distraction on Product Evaluations: The Mind-Set Effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 367-379.
Lichtman, S.W., Pisarska, K., Berman, E.R., Pestone, M., Dowling, H., Offenbacher, E., Weisel, H., Heshka, S., Matthews, D.E., & Heymsfield, S.B. (1992). Discreptency between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 327 (27), 1893-1898.
Martins, C., Morgan, L. M., Bloom, S. R., & Robertson, M. D. (2007). Effects of exercise on gut peptides, energy intake and appetite. Journal of Endocrinology, 193, 251-258.
Nowlis, S. M., & Shiv, B. (2005). The Influence of Consumer Distractions on the Effectiveness of Food-Sampling Programs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 42 (2), 157-168.
Okada, E.M. (2005). Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 42, 43-53.
Learn more . . .