• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

认知负荷下消费者对食品组合的偏好:一项食品购物实验

Consumer Preference for Food Bundles under Cognitive Load: A Grocery Shopping Experiment.

作者信息

Carroll Kathryn A, Samek Anya, Zepeda Lydia

机构信息

Department of Nutrition and Family Sciences, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 72035, USA.

Rady School of Management, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.

出版信息

Foods. 2022 Mar 27;11(7):973. doi: 10.3390/foods11070973.

DOI:10.3390/foods11070973
PMID:35407060
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8997493/
Abstract

Product bundling is a common retail marketing strategy. The bundling of food items has the potential to increase profits in the grocery sector, particularly for fresh produce, which often has lower profit margins. Although prior work suggests consumers prefer bundles because they require less cognitive effort to select, no study has yet experimentally manipulated cognitive load when food bundles are included in the choice set. To test whether bundle preference differs when cognitive resources are constrained, a grocery shopping experiment was conducted with 250 consumers in the midwestern U.S., in a laboratory that featured a grocery store display. Consumers who grocery shopped under cognitive load had a higher odds of selecting a food bundle even when the bundle did not offer a price discount. Results suggest food bundles may be preferred because they require less cognitive effort to process, which could benefit consumers by simplifying the grocery shopping experience. Additional factors found to influence food bundle selection included whether the bundled items were perceived as being complementary and hunger levels. Food bundles could help lessen cognitive effort associated with grocery shopping and may especially appeal to those who do not enjoy food shopping.

摘要

产品捆绑销售是一种常见的零售营销策略。食品捆绑销售有可能提高食品杂货行业的利润,尤其是对于利润率通常较低的新鲜农产品而言。尽管先前的研究表明消费者更喜欢捆绑销售的商品,因为选择它们所需的认知努力较少,但尚未有研究在选择集中包含食品捆绑商品时,对认知负荷进行实验性操纵。为了测试当认知资源受到限制时,对捆绑销售商品的偏好是否会有所不同,在美国中西部对250名消费者进行了一项食品杂货购物实验,实验在一个设有食品杂货店陈列的实验室中进行。即使捆绑销售的商品没有价格折扣,在认知负荷下进行食品杂货购物的消费者选择食品捆绑商品的几率也更高。结果表明,食品捆绑销售的商品可能更受青睐,因为处理它们所需的认知努力较少,这可以通过简化食品杂货购物体验使消费者受益。发现影响食品捆绑销售商品选择的其他因素包括捆绑销售的商品是否被认为具有互补性以及饥饿程度。食品捆绑销售有助于减少与食品杂货购物相关的认知努力,可能尤其吸引那些不喜欢食品购物的人。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/415cdc98b952/foods-11-00973-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/7cda79c59023/foods-11-00973-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/e8e13716a597/foods-11-00973-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/744701aac790/foods-11-00973-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/415cdc98b952/foods-11-00973-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/7cda79c59023/foods-11-00973-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/e8e13716a597/foods-11-00973-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/744701aac790/foods-11-00973-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9e47/8997493/415cdc98b952/foods-11-00973-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Consumer Preference for Food Bundles under Cognitive Load: A Grocery Shopping Experiment.认知负荷下消费者对食品组合的偏好:一项食品购物实验
Foods. 2022 Mar 27;11(7):973. doi: 10.3390/foods11070973.
2
Food bundling as a health nudge: Investigating consumer fruit and vegetable selection using behavioral economics.食品捆绑作为一种健康推动策略:运用行为经济学研究消费者水果和蔬菜选择。
Appetite. 2018 Feb 1;121:237-248. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.082. Epub 2017 Nov 11.
3
Grocery Shopping before, during and after the Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.疫情之前、期间及之后的食品杂货店购物:一项定性研究。
Fam Consum Sci Res J. 2022 Sep;51(1):35-50. doi: 10.1111/fcsr.12453. Epub 2022 Aug 3.
4
Online grocery shopping: promise and pitfalls for healthier food and beverage purchases.在线杂货购物:更健康的食品和饮料购买的承诺和陷阱。
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Dec;21(18):3360-3376. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018002409. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
5
Prevalence and demographic correlates of online grocery shopping: results from a nationally representative survey during the COVID-19 pandemic.新冠疫情期间全国代表性调查中在线杂货购物的流行率及其人口统计学关联。
Public Health Nutr. 2022 Nov;25(11):3079-3085. doi: 10.1017/S1368980022001756. Epub 2022 Aug 19.
6
The gamification of nutrition labels to encourage healthier food selection in online grocery shopping: A randomized controlled trial.将营养标签游戏化以鼓励在线杂货购物中选择更健康的食物:一项随机对照试验。
Appetite. 2023 Sep 1;188:106610. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106610. Epub 2023 Jun 2.
7
Estimating Dietary Intake from Grocery Shopping Data-A Comparative Validation of Relevant Indicators in Switzerland.从杂货店购物数据估计膳食摄入量——瑞士相关指标的比较验证。
Nutrients. 2021 Dec 29;14(1):159. doi: 10.3390/nu14010159.
8
The demand for online grocery shopping: COVID-induced changes in grocery shopping behavior of Canadian consumers.在线杂货购物的需求:加拿大消费者因 COVID-19 而改变的杂货购物行为。
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 8;19(2):e0295538. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295538. eCollection 2024.
9
Characterising urban immigrants' interactions with the food retail environment.描述城市移民与食品零售环境的相互作用。
Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jul;24(10):3009-3017. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020002682. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
10
Information, ingestion, and impulsivity: The impact of technology-enabled healthy food labels on online grocery shopping in impulsive and non-impulsive consumers.信息、摄入与冲动性:技术支持的健康食品标签对冲动型和非冲动型消费者在线食品杂货购物的影响。
Front Nutr. 2023 Mar 28;10:1129883. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1129883. eCollection 2023.

引用本文的文献

1
Bundling of unhealthy food products in Johannesburg, South Africa: an exploratory study.南非约翰内斯堡将不健康食品捆绑销售:一项探索性研究。
Health Promot Int. 2024 Dec 1;39(6). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daae167.
2
Research on Influencing Factors of Food Choice and Food Consumption.食物选择与食物消费的影响因素研究
Foods. 2023 Mar 19;12(6):1306. doi: 10.3390/foods12061306.

本文引用的文献

1
How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: Eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information.消费者对基于肉类和植物的饮食如何关注科学和商业信息来源:饮食动机、认知需求和信息评估能力。
Appetite. 2019 Jul 1;138:72-79. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.017. Epub 2019 Mar 14.
2
WHO IS 'BEHAVIORAL'? COGNITIVE ABILITY AND ANOMALOUS PREFERENCES.谁是“行为学意义上的”?认知能力与异常偏好。
J Eur Econ Assoc. 2013 Dec 1;11(6):1231-1255. doi: 10.1111/jeea.12055.
3
Food bundling as a health nudge: Investigating consumer fruit and vegetable selection using behavioral economics.
食品捆绑作为一种健康推动策略:运用行为经济学研究消费者水果和蔬菜选择。
Appetite. 2018 Feb 1;121:237-248. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.082. Epub 2017 Nov 11.
4
A Dual-Self Model of Impulse Control.冲动控制的双重自我模型。
Am Econ Rev. 2006 Dec;96(5):1449-76. doi: 10.1257/aer.96.5.1449.
5
The Hunger Games: Using hunger to promote healthy choices in self-control conflicts.饥饿游戏:利用饥饿促进自我控制冲突中的健康选择。
Appetite. 2017 Sep 1;116:401-409. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.020. Epub 2017 May 11.
6
Interaction terms in nonlinear models.非线性模型中的交互项。
Health Serv Res. 2012 Feb;47(1 Pt 1):255-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01314.x. Epub 2011 Aug 30.
7
A dual system model of preferences under risk.风险下偏好的双系统模型。
Psychol Rev. 2010 Jan;117(1):243-55. doi: 10.1037/a0017884.
8
Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment.认知负荷选择性地干扰功利主义道德判断。
Cognition. 2008 Jun;107(3):1144-54. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004. Epub 2007 Dec 26.
9
The efficient assessment of need for cognition.认知需求的有效评估。
J Pers Assess. 1984 Jun;48(3):306-7. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.
10
Impulsive decision making and working memory.冲动决策与工作记忆。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Mar;29(2):298-306. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.298.