Cutting Calories: The Preference for Lower Caloric Density Versus Smaller Quantities Among Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters

Abstract

The marketplace includes many attractive high-calorie indulgent food offerings. Despite their appeal, consumers may often be prompted to consider lower-calorie-package offerings instead (e.g., 100-calorie packs). The question thus arises: What predicts consumers’ preferences between different kinds of lower-calorie offerings? The authors conceptualize two different routes to lower-calorie versions of indulgent foods: a lower-caloric-density version (e.g., baked potato chips) or a smaller-portion-size version (e.g., a smaller bag of potato chips). The authors examine how such versions are differentially preferred and why, focusing on the key role of dietary restraint. The authors show that as dietary restraint increases, the preference for a lower-calorie version created via lower caloric density (vs. a smaller portion size) increases. Differential weights placed on health and fullness goals help explain differing preferences across dietary restraint (as the lower-caloric-density version is perceived as healthier and more filling, albeit less tasty, than the smaller-portion-size version). This framework offers theoretical implications for understanding two routes to cutting calories, practical implications for food marketers, and methodological implications for studying food choices.

Frequency Versus Intensity: How Thinking of a Frequent Consumption Indulgence as Social Versus Solitary Affects Preferences for How to Cut Back

“…Further, prior work on indulging less tends to hold consumption frequency constant and takes place in a solitary context. For instance, such work compares within-category substitutes (cutting intensity in the present framework) with cross-category substitutes (Arens and Hamilton 2016, 2018; Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016) or with cutting per-occasion portion sizes (Liu and Haws 2020) in a solitary context, holding frequency constant. By contrast, the present work compares within-category substitutes (i.e., cutting intensity) with cutting frequency and, moreover, shows that whether the consumption occurs as part of a social (vs. solitary) experience shapes cutback preferences.…”

“…For instance, I focused on within-category substitutes, which decrease anticipated enjoyment of the product itself (Arens and Hamilton 2016). Because cross-category substitutes and cutting portion sizes might better preserve product enjoyment than within-category substitutes (Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016; Liu and Haws 2020), interest in these approaches might be elevated overall but possibly more so for solitary consumption, as consumers are more concerned with product enjoyment for solitary consumption. By contrast, a complete abstention approach removes both enjoyment sources; this may be highly unappealing, but especially for social consumption.…”

“…For instance, cutting intensity in the monetary domain often entails choosing a cheaper store brand version, which is less enjoyable than the more expensive name-brand version (Allison and Uhl 1964). Likewise, cutting intensity in the caloric domain often entails choosing a lower-fat or lower-sugar version of the product, which is less enjoyable than the original version (Liu and Haws 2020; Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006).…”

The influence of inner packaging’s number cue on consumption

“…Second, we contribute to the packaging cues literature by identifying the quantity of the inner package as a new visual cue. As noted, previous studies showed that the visual cues of packaging such as size (Argo & White, 2012;Liu & Haws, 2020;Payne et al, 2014;Petit et al, 2020;Wansink, 1996), color (Genschow et al, 2012;Valentina et al, 2019), image (Hagen, 2021), material (Deng & Srinivasan, 2013;Singh & Pandey, 2018), and shape (Valentina et al, 2019), can affect the consumer's attitudes about health and their behavior, such as intake and price premium.…”

“…The research on the relationship between packaging and consumption has been mainly concentrated in the field of consumer health and most studies to date have been conducted in the developed countries of Europe and America. Studies have been conducted on visual cues of packaging design, such as shape (Raghubir & Krishna, 1999; Sevilla & Kahn, 2014; Valentina et al., 2019; Wansink & van Ittersum, 2003); color (Felix et al, 2021; Genschow et al., 2012; Herbes et al., 2020; Valentina et al., 2019); form (Huyghe et al., 2017); material (Deng & Srinivasan, 2013; Kowalska et al, 2020; Singh & Pandey, 2018; Werle et al., 2016; Ye et al., 2020); image (Hagen, 2021; Madzharov & Block, 2010) and size (Coelho do Vale et al., 2008; Liu & Haws, 2020; Payne et al., 2014; Petit et al., 2020; Scott et al., 2008; Wansink, 1996), that have demonstrated to influence on consumption quantity (see Table 1). All these studies focus on different visual cues of independent package instead of combined packaging, including inner and outer package.…”