Smarter Lunchrooms Guide Healthier Behavior While Preserving Choice
Making low and no-cost environmental changes in school lunchrooms can encourage students to choose the healthier options
Smarter Lunchroom Makeovers can nudge students toward healthier behaviors that they can carry with them into adulthood
These same principles can be used in other settings, including hospitals, companies, and your home
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.
The term ‘libertarian paternalism’ is a peculiar phrase because it invokes feelings about two seemingly contradictory philosophies. Yet, as a principle of the behavioral sciences, this phrase actually implies gentle guidance, without force.
Recently, the USDA passed regulations designed to make school lunches more nutritious. Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program are required to increase whole grain offerings, cap the fat of milk at 1% for white and non-fat for flavored, and ensure that students take either a fruit or a vegetable with their purchased lunch. Unfortunately, forcing behavior jeopardizes the potential to accomplish the most important goal of improving children’s diets. After all, it’s not nutrition until it’s eaten!
Staying true to the meaning of libertarian paternalism, Cornell University researchers Andrew Hanks, David Just and Brian Wansink conducted a field study in two of high school cafeterias to test whether low- and no-cost environmental changes could lead children to take and eat healthier foods. Under the name, “Smarter Lunchrooms Makeover,” they tested multiple small changes such as making fruits and vegetables more attractive, convenient, and normative, all simple applications of libertarian paternalism.
After the “makeover” was implemented, students were 13% more likely to take fruits and 23% more likely to take vegetables. These are very encouraging results, but selection is only half of the battle!
To check the consumption of the fruits and vegetables selected, Hanks, Just and Wansink recorded whether food items were completely eaten, half eaten or not eaten at all. They found that students not only took more fruits and vegetables, but actual consumption increased by 18% for fruits and by 25% for vegetables. They also found that after the makeover the percentage of kids eating a whole serving of fruit increased by 16% and by 10% for vegetables.
These small changes, based on the principle of libertarian paternalism, cost three hours of time and less than $50 to implement. Evidence from the results demonstrates that this “makeover” not only preserves choice but also can ‘nudge’ children toward healthier behaviors that they can carry with them into adulthood, contributing to the fight against current childhood obesity trends!
Furthermore, these simple changes could also be effective in the cafeterias of other organizations, including hospitals, companies, and retirement homes, as well as within the walls of your very own home.
For more information about the Smarter Lunchrooms Movement visit: smarterlunchrooms.org
• Download paper from the SSRN (the Social Science Research Network)
Hanks, Andrew S., David Just and Brian Wansink (2013). Smarter Lunchrooms Can Address New School Lunchroom Guidelines and Childhood Obesity. Journal of Pediatrics, 162 (4), 867-869. doi 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.12.031
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 . . .