Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Larger partitions lead to larger sales: Divided grocery carts alter purchase
norms and increase sales☆
Brian Wansink a,⁎, Dilip Soman b, Kenneth C. Herbst c
a
Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, 475 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY, United States
b
Rotman School of Business, University of Toronto, 105 S. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada
c
School of Business, Wake Forest University, 214 Farrell Hall, Building 60, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Before food portions are determined at home, they are determined at the supermarket. Building on the notion of
Received 1 September 2015 implied social norms, this research proposes that allocating or partitioning a section of a shopping cart for fruits
Received in revised form 1 December 2015 and vegetables (produce) may increase their sales. First, a concept test for on-line shopping (Study 1) shows that
Accepted 1 June 2016
a large produce partition led people to believe that purchasing larger amounts of produce was normal. Next, an
Available online 8 February 2017
in-store study in a supermarket (Study 2) shows that the amount of produce a shopper purchased was in propor-
Keywords:
tion to the size of this partition – the larger the partition, the larger the purchases (especially in a nutrition-
Fruits and vegetables reinforced environment). Using partitioned or divided shopping carts (such as half-carts) could be useful to re-
Half-cart tailers who want to sell more high-margin produce, but they could also be useful to consumers who can simply
Healthy shopping divide their own shopping cart in half with their jacket, purse, or briefcase. Divided shopping carts may lead to
Produce healthier shoppers and to healthier profits.
Grocery retailers © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Shopping carts
Social norms
Partitioning
Part-carts
Sectioned shopping trolley

1. Introduction
When considering portion size, the best and worst habits begin in
the supermarket. Doctors, dieticians, and the Department of Agriculture
endorse the adage “Healthy eating begins at home” (Koh, 2011). Yet
what – and how much – is eaten at home is determined by the food
that consumers put in their shopping cart at the supermarket. Before
healthy eating can occur at home, healthy eating needs to start with
healthier purchases in the supermarket.
Grocery shopping occurs in a stimulus-rich and often time-
constrained context, and healthy options are often obscured. Conse-
quently, most Americans consistently buy foods that are too high in
fat, calories, and sodium, and they buy less than half (24.1% vs. 50%) of
the amount of fruits and vegetables recommended by U.S. Dietary
☆ Thanks to Ailing Chua, Neuri Park, Adrian Lo, Jason Yu, and Jon Elias for assisting with
the research. Thanks to John Brand for helping with data collection and with data entry for
Study 1. In addition, thanks to Huy Tran for analyzing the Study 1 data. Special thanks to
Collin Payne (New Mexico State University) for his analysis and for his editorial help on re-
lated versions of this research.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: foodandbrandlab@cornell.edu (B. Wansink),
dilip.soman@rotman.utoronto.ca (D. Soman), herbstk@wfu.edu (K.C. Herbst).
Guidelines (French, Wall, Mitchell, Shimotsu, & Welsh, 2009). Increas-
ing the purchase dollars allocated to healthy foods could contribute to
healthier shoppers and to healthier profits.
When prompted in a lab, many consumers can categorize food as
healthy or less healthy subjectively, or as a virtue or a vice (Chernev &
Gal, 2010; Rozin, Ashmore, & Markwith, 1996; Rozin & Vollmecke,
1986). Yet when people shop for groceries, whether they actively
think in terms of separate categories, such as “healthy” versus “un-
healthy” unless goal-directed or unless prompted to do so by an exter-
nal stimulus is unclear (Miller, 1998). Additionally, such categories
may not be salient, consistently used, well-defined, or even remem-
bered during a shopping trip (Wansink & Kranz, 2013). One way in
which stores could help shoppers consider separate categories of food
would be to partition a shopping cart. For instance, a visual cue could
suggest that half of the shopping cart be allocated to “fruits and vegeta-
bles”, and the other half be allocated to “everything else”. Making con-
sumers categorize their choices has been shown to alter the
allocations in other contexts (Fox, Ratner, & Lieb, 2005; Morwitz,
Greenleaf, & Johnson, 1998), including plating and personal food serv-
ing decisions (Riis & Ratner, 2010; Wansink, 2014).
Two primary questions follow: 1) Can partitioned shopping carts in-
fluence purchase and assortment allocations when grocery shopping?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.023
0148-2963/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 B. Wansink et al. / Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209
2) If partitioned shopping carts influence purchase, is the reason partial-
ly because they alter perceptions of purchase norms? The answer to
these questions would be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders:
• Shoppers. A simple “half-cart” rule-of-thumb could subtly emphasize
the tradeoffs between healthy and less healthy foods while grocery
shopping.
• Supermarkets. Using modified shopping carts could shift the distribu-
tion of sales to higher-margin foods (such as perishable produce), in-
creasing overall sales and perhaps increasing the supermarket's
overall profit.
• Public policy officials. Partitioned shopping carts could be
championed and more quickly accepted by supermarkets than com-
mon policy proposals that focus on nutrition information, taxation,
or subsidies.
• On-line retailers. The notion of partitioning a shopping cart may also
hold for partitioning a blank on-line shopping form. Having separate
areas for separate types of products could increase sales or alter the
on-line retail distribution of sales to higher-margin items.
To investigate how partitioned carts may influence shopping behav-
ior, Study 1 uses a lab study that suggests that partitioning is effective
because of the purchase norms that partitioning implies. Study 2 then
takes this to a supermarket and consistently demonstrates that the sim-
ple act of partitioning a cart can increase the amount of healthy food
purchased in relation to the size of the partition. In this paper, synergis-
tic recommendations for shoppers, supermarkets, and public policy of-
ficials are discussed along with new opportunities for researchers who
want to examine how environmental cues can be used to guide shop-
pers toward healthier behavior.
1.1. The social norms of shopping
Starting with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, nutrition education has
been dominated by an information processing approach which empha-
sizes that nutrition knowledge is nutrition power (Nestle, 2007). Yet,
this approach presupposes a high level of motivation and engagement
that might not reflect a typical shopper's state of mind (Cobb & Hoyer,
1986; Kuenzel & Musters, 2007). Instead of potentially wrongly assum-
ing that shoppers have a strong motivation to process nutrition infor-
mation (Andrews, Burton, & Kees, 2011), assortment allocation cues –
such as a partitioned shopping cart – might make healthy shopping de-
cisions easier without requiring a strong health-related motivation.
In ambiguous allocation contexts, perceived social norms can pow-
erfully influence a wide range of consumer behaviors (Goldstein,
Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008; Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, &
Griskevicius, 2007), including many related to food (Herman, Roth, &
Polivy, 2003; Robinson, Thomas, Aveyard, & Higgs, 2014b). This has
been shown with a wide range of food choices (Herman & Polivy,
2005) including dieting (Stroebe, Mensink, Aarts, Schut, & Kruglanski,
2008; Woody, Costanzo, Liefer, & Conger, 1981), healthy versus un-
healthy eating (Robinson, Benwell, & Higgs, 2013; Robinson & Higgs,
2013), serving size (Wansink & van Ittersum, 2007), the timing of
meals (de Castro, Bellisle, Feunekes, Dalix, & De Graaf, 1997), and
one's need for social acceptance (Robinson, Fleming, & Higgs, 2014a;
Robinson et al., 2014b). In these areas, even gentle suggestions of
what might be a general consumption norm can alter what or how
much a person consumes (Robinson et al., 2014a). For instance, consid-
er the “Half-Plate Rule” (Wansink & Tran, 2017 (working paper))
explored in a recent study in which diners were told that half of their
dinner plate needed to be reserved for fruit, vegetables, or salad. The
diners' reported serving of fruits and vegetables increased, and their
serving of meat and grain items significantly decreased. Not only did
the half-plate provide a visual benchmark, but the half-plate may
have also provided an implied social consumption norm (Wansink
& Kranz, 2013).
203
When shopping for groceries, how much of a healthy food – such as
fruits or vegetables – is the right amount to buy is unclear. This amount
is variable, subjective, and situation-specific. Yet similar to the “Half-
Plate Rule”, any implied suggestion of what is normal might also alter
how much shoppers may otherwise purchase (Tran et al., under
review). In the case of fruits and vegetables, only 24.1% of the items pur-
chased in a typical U.S. shopping trip are fruits and vegetables (French
et al., 2009). Signs that suggest or imply social norms have been effective
when explicitly stating a norm (Robinson et al., 2014a; Robinson et al.,
2014b). Similarly, if a shopping cart reserved and labeled 50% of the
shopping cart's area for fruits and vegetables, a social norm might be im-
plicitly suggested. This may lead shoppers to consider purchasing more
fruits and vegetables than if only 25% of the shopping cart was explicitly
reserved and labeled for fruits and vegetables. Although this reserved
space would not be binding or physically restrictive, such a partition
could continuously suggest that grocery shoppers who generally buy
less than these amounts should consider at least offsetting or balancing
their less healthy food purchases with healthier ones. This may not only
increase the amount of healthy foods purchased, but this may also de-
crease the amount of less healthy foods purchased. In such a case, social
norms would become purchase norms.
Partitions could be used to differentiate any distinctions between
target foods that can be easily made by consumers – snack foods versus
meal foods; processed versus non-processed – but the more clear the
distinction, the more effective the partitioning might be. This research
is focused on target foods that are healthy. A wide range of healthy
foods exist that a grocery store could encourage shoppers to purchase,
including fruit, vegetables, lean meat, dairy, and whole grains. Because
some debate exists about what constitutes a healthy percentage of fat
or whole grain, fruits and vegetables will be the categories of food
used throughout this paper as generally representative of a larger
class of “healthy foods”.
Supposing that partitioning will be used to focus on the norms of
purchasing fruits and vegetables, the following is hypothesized:
H1. A partitioned shopping cart will alter the number of fruits and veg-
etables purchased.
If partitioned carts influence the number of fruits and vegetables
purchased, then perhaps the reason is because they suggest a shopping
norm. Such a norm would serve as an aspirational quality that might
lead a shopper to be continually more motivated to balance the alloca-
tion of items between the partitions. Just as this is believed to be what
motivates more balanced food serving decisions with divided
(partitioned) plates at mealtime (Wansink & van Ittersum, 2007), this
might lead to more balance in one's purchase decisions. If the size of a
partition changes, then this change might also change the target of
how much a person believes is appropriate to buy. Although this rela-
tionship may not be proportional, the size of the partition should be
positively related to the amount one purchases.
H2. The size of a partition will alter the number of fruits and vegetables
purchased.
A partition could take a variety for forms. In a traditional retail con-
text, a shopping cart or a basket could simply be divided with metal,
plastic, or a visual divider. In an on-line context, a shopping basket
could have a divided line on the order form, or the shopping basket
could be explicitly labeled with distinct categories for products. Key dif-
ferences exist between traditional retail shopping and on-line shopping
in terms of fatigue, processing involvement, timing, and impulsivity
(Childers, Carr, Peck, & Carson, 2002). Being able to examine the role
of partitioning in both instances would provide confidence on whether
partitioning's impact can be generalized. Because of this, the hypotheses
in this paper are explored in a field study involving a simulated on-line
grocery store concept and in an in-store supermarket field study. In
Study 1, a simulated on-line shopping study suggests that partitions
204 B. Wansink et al. / Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209
may be effective because they suggest purchase norms. In Study 2, a
field study in a supermarket reinforces the potential power of
partitioned carts by showing that most shoppers purchased fruits and
vegetables in quantities relative to the size of their allocated partition
within a shopping cart.
2. Methods and results
2.1. Study 1: does partitioning alter purchase norms and buying intentions?
In Study 1, the aim was to determine whether partitioning a shop-
ping cart biases purchase in a controlled environment. Whereas trying
to simulate grocery shopping – and a divided cart – in this more con-
trolled environment would be difficult, this does lend itself to the in-
creasingly common practice of ordering groceries (as well as other
items (e.g., books and recordings)) on-line. In working with a retailer
that was exploring the feasibility of on-line ordering and delivery, a de-
termination was made that partitioning could be accomplished by
subdividing the order blank that a person would see on a simulated
computer screen. Without having to subdivide a cart physically, this
procedure would allow implementation flexibility and less potential
for demand effects.
2.1.1. Method
Study 1 involved weekly or bi-weekly shoppers who were responsi-
ble for their own cooking and who lived in an apartment or home with
full kitchen facilities. They were recruited through flyers and emails that
requested their involvement in a 30-minute study about “off-campus
living and shopping”. In exchange for their participation, they received
$10 USD and a boxed lunch. The study was conducted over a six-day pe-
riod (Tuesday to Thursday on two consecutive weeks) with 17 to 24
people in each session. Of the 118 people who showed up for the
study, eleven were not allowed to participate in the study because
they did not fit the recruiting criteria. For instance, they did not do
their own cooking (they had a spouse or roommate cook for them), or
they dined out four or more times a week. In total, 107 people complet-
ed the study (63% women; average age 25.3 years).
The session began with an unrelated decoy task involving the partic-
ipants describing how they located their off-campus apartment and
home. They were then asked to provide five pieces of advice they
would give to others when moving to this particular town, including
where to shop. Following this, they were told that on-line grocery
Control Condition One-Third Partition
Fig. 1. Sample order forms for different-size partitions in Study 1.
shopping is becoming a service that some supermarkets were beginning
to offer. They were told that these shopping experiences took a variety
of interactive designs that are suited differently for computers, tablets,
and smart phones. They were told that some of these designs included
pull-down menus, “type-and-match” lists (in which the computer pro-
vides auto-fill suggestions), or a basic typed “e-shopping list”.
Participants were asked to indicate which day of the week they typ-
ically did their major shopping trip and then to indicate when they
thought they were most likely to make their next shopping trip. Partic-
ipants were told that the research would examine their general shop-
ping patterns and what they thought they were most likely to buy
during their next major shopping trip. They were then given a stiff card-
board sheet that was designed in the same shape and color as an iPad
and which was printed on heavy cardboard stock paper. The order por-
tion of the screen was in the form of a rectangular box on the “screen”
which noted “Fruits and Vegetables” at the top of the box and “All
Other Grocery Items” at the bottom of the box. This rectangular box
was shaped in proportion to the length and width of the dimensions
of the standard-sized shopping cart.
The rectangle was partitioned in one of three ways (see Fig. 1). First,
in the Control condition, the rectangle had no partition. The rectangle in
the Control condition simply said “Fruits and Vegetables” at the top of
the box and “All Other Grocery Items” at the bottom of the box. Second,
the 33% Partition condition had a partition drawn approximately one-
third the way down the box, leaving the top third of the box for “Fruits
and Vegetables” and the bottom two-thirds for “All Other Grocery
Items”. Third, the 66% Partition condition had a partition drawn approx-
imately two-thirds of the way down the box leaving the top two-thirds
of the box for “Fruits and Vegetables” and the bottom third for “All Other
Grocery Items”. In addition to being asked to indicate what they would
buy, participants were also asked to indicate how much they would buy
if they were purchasing more than one (e.g., two bags of apples, three
boxes of cereal).
After people had written down what they would order and the
quantities, they were asked to turn the cardboard sheet over and to an-
swer the questions on the back. Recall the hypothesis that dividing, sec-
tioning, or partitioning a cart might influence consumers if the dividing,
sectioning, or partitioning suggested a higher purchase norm for fruits
and vegetables. Two key questions were asked to assess this. First, par-
ticipants were asked to write down the amount of money they believed
the average person spent on fruits and vegetables when making a sim-
ilar shopping trip. Second, participants were asked to estimate what
Two-Thirds Partition
 B. Wansink et al. / Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209 205

percentage of their shopping budget was allocated toward fruits and
vegetables. Following this, they were asked a number of control-
related questions (including demographics). On a separate piece of
paper, following an unrelated set of questions related to commuting
and transportation, participants were asked about what they thought
this particular study was. Most believed the study was about the feasi-
bility of on-line grocery shopping. While a handful of participants said
the study was “about fruits and vegetables”, no one explicitly men-
tioned the dividing lines on the order form.
Note that participants were asked to answer the two purchase norm
questions after completing their order form and after turning over the
order form. So, their order form and the division lines on the order
form could not be seen. This was done to try further to separate any po-
tential demand effect by removing the immediate salience of what they
bought and the position of the line from their estimate of what the typ-
ical person bought.
2.1.2. Results
Partitioning had a significant impact on how many fruits and vegeta-
bles shoppers selected. As shown in Table 1, when comparing the three
conditions – the Control, the 33% Partition, and the 66% Partition – the
influence of the cart respectively increased the total number of fruits
and vegetables selected (5.61, 8.26, and 12.51; F(2, 104) = 12.93,
p b 0.001) and the different types of fruits and vegetables selected
(3.83, 5.38, and 6.95; F(2, 104) = 13.83, p b 0.001). When examining
the impact of partitioned carts on the total number of non-fruit and
non-vegetable items selected (e.g., chips, crackers, frozen dinners), the
partitioned carts marginally decreased the total number of these items
selected (10.81, 11.29, and 8.11; F(2, 104) = 3.06, p = 0.051).
The contrast between the Control condition and the 66% Partition
showed that the partition more than doubled the total number of fruits
and vegetables selected (from 5.61 to 12.51; p b 0.001). This partition
nearly did the same for the different types of fruits and vegetables se-
lected (from 3.83 to 6.95; p b 0.001), and this partition marginally de-
creased the total number of non-fruit and non-vegetable items
selected (from 10.81 to 8.11; p = 0.053). Compared to the Control con-
dition, the 33% Partition condition also increased the total number of
fruits and vegetables selected (from 5.61 to 8.26; p b 0.05). This parti-
tion increased the different types of fruits and vegetables selected
(from 3.83 to 5.38; p b 0.05), and this partition had no impact on the
total number of non-fruit and non-vegetable items selected (10.81 vs.
11.29; p = 0.73).
Interestingly, just as 66% vs. 33% Partition increased both the total
number of fruits and vegetables selected (p b 0.01) and the different
types of fruits and vegetables selected (p b 0.05), this partition had the
opposite impact on the total number of non-fruit and non-vegetable
items selected. A 66% vs. 33% Partition decreased the total number of
non-fruit and non-vegetable items selected (11.29 vs. 8.11, p b 0.05),
and this partition decreased the different types of non-fruit and non-
vegetable items selected (8.32 to 6.51, p b 0.05).
To examine specifically the effectiveness of the shopping norm ex-
planation, people's estimation of how much money they believed the
average shopper spends on fruits and vegetables on a shopping trip
was analyzed. Although assuredly noisy, one might expect estimates
to be higher in the 66% Partition condition than in the Control condition.
Looking across the three conditions – Control, 33% Partition, and 66%
Partition – an upward trend was present on how much they believed
others spend on fruits and vegetables ($21.52, $22.12, and $29.28; F(2,
104) = 4.08, p b 0.05). The paired comparison between the 66% Parti-
tion and the 33% Partition was significant (p b 0.05). Similarly, when
people were asked to indicate the average percentage other shoppers
spend on fruits and vegetables across the three conditions – Control,
33% Partition, and 66% Partition, an upward trend was also present
(13.72%, 21.69%, and 30.69%; F(2, 104) = 9.66, p b 0.001). The paired
comparison between the Control and the 66% Partition was significant
(p b 0.001), as was the difference between the 33% Partition and the
66% Partition (p b 0.05).
As depicted in Fig. 2, a process mediation analysis (Preacher & Hayes,
2008) revealed that the average perceived level of spending by others
on fruits and vegetables partially mediates the effect of partition on
total fruits and vegetables. As Fig. 2 (Model B) illustrates (examining
the direct effect), the effect of partition influenced the total fruits and
vegetables (β = 0.11; p b 0.001). As Fig. 2 (Model A) illustrates
(checking for mediation), partitioning influenced the average perceived
level of spending by others on fruits and vegetables (β = 0.12; p b 0.05).
The mediation analysis revealed that the indirect effect of the average
perceived level of spending by others on fruits and vegetables on total
fruits and vegetables was marginally significant (β = 0.11; p = 0.09).
This indirect effect was significant at a 95% confidence interval with
both the lower and upper limits excluding zero (0.0023 to 0.0353).
This indicates that partitioning partially influences total fruits and veg-
etables because partitioning may lead shoppers to believe that buying
more fruits and vegetables is normal or typical because that is what
others are perceived to be doing.
2.1.3. Discussion
Study 1 illustrates the potential promise that partitioning has in al-
tering choice. Study 1 suggests that implicit social norms may be con-
tributing to this shopping behavior in addition to the heightened
salience that the partition provides. Studies that involve low-
involvement behaviors (such as this one) can be prone to demand ef-
fects. Care was taken so that no person witnessed another person

Table 1
Grocery cart partitions influence fruit and vegetable (F&V) selection (standard deviations in parentheses) in Study 1.

Control condition - A 33% FV condition - B 66% FV condition - C F-test Eta squared Planned contrasts t-test
n = 36 n = 34 n = 37 (p-value) (p-value)

A-B A-C B-C

Total # F&V 5.61 8.26 12.51 12.93⁎⁎⁎ 0.199 2.377⁎ 4.856⁎⁎⁎ 2.752⁎⁎
(3.99) (5.23) (7.64) (0.000) (0.021) (0.000) (0.008)
Diff Types F&V 3.83 5.38 6.95 13.83⁎⁎⁎ 0.210 2.562⁎ 5.258⁎⁎⁎ −2.603⁎
(1.86) (2.85) (2.77) (0.000) (0.012) (0.000) (0.011)
Total # non-F&V 10.81 11.29 8.11 3.06 0.056 0.346 −1.953 2.274⁎
(6.07) (6.95) (4.53) (0.051) (0.730) (0.053) (0.025)
Diff Types non-F&V 8.17 8.32 6.51 3.51⁎ 0.063 0.204 −2.194⁎ 2.367⁎
(3.41) (3.24) (3.00) (0.033) (0.839) (0.030) (0.020)
Avg Perceived F&V Purchsd by Others $21.52 $22.12 $29.28 4.08⁎ 0.096 0.189 2.529⁎ −2.360⁎
(10.79) (9.51) (12.91) (0.021) (0.850) (0.013) (0.021)
Avg Perceived % Spent on F&V by Others 13.72% 21.69% 30.69% 9.66⁎⁎⁎ 0.201 2.006⁎ 4.382⁎⁎⁎ −2.348⁎
(8.48) (17.02) (15.28) (0.000) (0.048) (0.000) (0.021)
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
206 B. Wansink et al. / Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209
Fig. 2. Cart partitions influence perceptions of average spending by others on fruits and
vegetables in Study 1. Note. Model A is the mediation model with average perceived
level of spending by others on fruits and vegetables as a mediator between Partition
condition and total fruits and vegetables. Model B is the direct effect model between
Partition condition and total fruits and vegetables. Standardized path coefficients are
shown with p-value in parentheses. *p b .05, **p b .001.
completing the study (and therefore potentially being assigned to a dif-
ferent condition). During debriefing, nobody inferred the purpose of the
study. Those who did venture a guess thought that the study was a sur-
vey on cooking or on where they shopped for groceries.
One unexpected issue of generalizability with this study involved
the store and the shoppers who were involved in the study. The primary
store in which these people indicated they shopped was one that ag-
gressively positioned and promoted itself as being the high-quality,
healthy grocery store in the market. The grocery store's focus on quality
attracted higher income shoppers, who may have had a predisposition
to purchase more fruits and vegetables from the outset. Recall in the in-
troduction of this paper an acknowledgement that the power of cues –
such as partitioning – may work differently with highly-motivated
(e.g., health-conscious) shoppers than with less motivated shoppers.
This will be addressed in Study 2 by varying the focus of shoppers by
having them either think about quality or think about value when
shopping.
2.2. Study 2: do larger partitions lead to larger sales in grocery stores?
In this study, the aim was to assess whether the size of the partition
influences sales, and to focus on determining whether partitioning
would be generalizable to stores that were not necessarily “quality” po-
sitioned retailers with higher income shoppers. That is, Study 1 exam-
ined grocery shopping in an on-line simulated context, but Study 1
was also conducted in proximity to a high-quality grocery store that po-
sitioned itself as high-quality (versus high-value) and as having a vari-
ety of healthy, attractive, high-quality fruits and vegetables that were
frequently promoted.
Study 2 moves shopping behavior into the store, and uses physical
modifications of a cart – partitioning maps – to address the following
two questions: 1) Does the size of a partition determine the size of
one's sales, and 2) does partitioning work equally well for stores that
do not focus as strongly on quality (and on fruits and vegetables) as
they do on value. For instance, some supermarket chains and some in-
dependent stores choose to use in-store advertising and promotions
to emphasize the value/cost-savings that they offer instead of specifical-
ly promoting fruits and vegetables, which may be lower in quality and
variety than that in larger premium supermarkets.
Study 2 explores whether a reinforcing promotional environment
enhances the effectiveness of partitions. The general expectation is
that a store with healthy or nutrition-reinforced messages (versus a
value/cost-savings message) will lead to an increased dollar amount
spent on fruits and vegetables when shoppers use a partitioned cart.
However, this manipulation of promotional environments was not
intended for hypothesis testing as much as for exploring preliminarily
the potential generalizability of these findings across different store
environments.
2.2.1. Method
Study 2 was a field study conducted using shoppers in an indepen-
dently owned and operated grocery store in a Canadian city. The study
utilized a 3 × 2 between-participants design which combined one of
three different cart partitioning conditions (Control vs. 35:65 Partition
vs. 50:50 Partition) with one of two different store positioning messages
(Health/Nutrition vs. Value/Cost-Savings).
Please note that these data were collected in 2007. At this time,
smartphone penetration and usage were negligible, simplified nutrition
labeling was still in infancy, grocery delivery and on-line grocery shop-
ping in this community were minimal, and consumer awareness and
trends of healthy eating were not as strong as they are today.
Cart partitioning was manipulated in the form of one of three differ-
ent paper mats which fully covered the bottom of each cart. As depicted
in Fig. 3, in the Control condition, a gray mat with nothing written on the
mat occupied the bottom of the shopping cart. In the “35-65” Partition
condition, 35% of the mat was labeled “Fruits & Veggies”, and 65% of
the mat was labeled “Meats & Treats”. In the “50-50” Partition condition,
50% of the mat was labeled “Fruits & Veggies”, and 50% of the mat was
labeled “Meats & Treats” (see Fig. 3). Every morning, an attendant
placed one of these three mats randomly at the bottom of the carts,
numbered them sequentially, and nested them into a cart-garage at
the entrance of the store. While the use of the label “fruits and vegeta-
bles” is consistent with Study 1, a concern of this retailer was a sign
that said “all other grocery items” would stigmatize and otherwise un-
fairly lower sales of items other than fruits and vegetables. So, the sign
was modified to say “Meats & Treats”.
The research included a manipulation of store positioning via a flyer
given to shoppers as they entered the store. The layout of both versions
of the flyer was identical except for the wording. One version had a
Health/Nutrition positioning, and the other version had a Value/Cost-
Savings positioning. The flyer for the Health/Nutrition positioning
read: “Healthy Food at Great Values. Research shows that eating more
fruits and veggies and less meats and treats is good for health! Healthy
Food. Great Prices”. The flyer for the Value/Cost-Savings positioning
read: “Superior Food at Great Values. Research shows that purchasing
high-quality food reduces spoilage and is overall more cost effective!
Superior Food. Great Prices!”.
As shoppers approached the store, a researcher who was blind to the
hypotheses intercepted them, welcomed them to the store, and asked
them for their willingness to participate in a study of consumer purchas-
ing. The research assistant then assessed whether the shopper was
making a regular weekly shopping trip visit (or a “fill-in” visit). Because
the interest was in the impact of shopping carts, eliminating shoppers
who were not going to use a shopping cart (shoppers often use hand
baskets for fill-in visits) was desired. Shoppers who wanted a cart
were given one of the two flyers (from a stack which had been random-
ly shuffled) and then asked if they would be willing to let a researcher
(also blind to the hypotheses) look at their receipt and record some de-
tails at the end of their shopping trip. Of the 205 shoppers who were
asked to participate, 169 (82.4%) consented. The researcher also affixed
a small sticker to the handle of the cart that was color coded to identify
which version of the flyer the participant had received.
Shoppers retrieved their cart from a cart-garage which had been
filled with carts with the three different mat allocation conditions (Con-
trol, 35:65 Partition, and 50:50 Partition) in random order. Because the
carts were nested within one another, participants retrieving a cart
 B. Wansink et al. / Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209 207

Fig. 3. Paper mats used to partition carts in Study 2.

were likely unaware of what was at the bottom of any of the remaining
carts.
After the shoppers paid for their purchases, they were intercepted by
a researcher with a clipboard and a calculator who a) identified which
version of the flyer the shopped had read by looking at the sticker on
the handle, and b) recorded data from their shopping receipt. Specifical-
ly, the researcher calculated the total (pretax) dollars spent on “fruits
and vegetables” and the total amount spent on “meats and treats”.
Items that did not fall under these categories were not recorded. This
procedure generally took less than 2 min. The researchers had been pre-
viously provided with a complete list of items that the store carried in
both the “fruits and vegetables” category and the “meats and treats” cat-
egory. After being asked to read through and familiarize themselves
with lists, the researchers were trained to look at any grocery receipt
and to identify quickly any items that belonged in these two categories.
After returning the receipts, the researcher asked the shoppers if
they had a chance to look at the flyer prior to when they started shop-
ping. Each shopper answered “yes”. Shoppers were then thanked and
given a gift as a token of appreciation.
2.2.2. Results
Data on dollars spent on fruits and vegetables [FV] and data on dol-
lars spent on meats and treats [MT] were collected from each shopper.
As hypothesized, both the partitioning of the shopping carts and the po-
sitioning of the store (the Health/Nutrition versus Value/Cost-Savings
flyer) had main effect influences on the amount spent on fruits and veg-
etables (see Fig. 4). A significant increase in dollars spent on fruits and
vegetables was present when comparing the control cart, the 35%
20
17.54
Partition cart, and the 50% Partition cart ($10.36, $11.85, $13.40; F(2,
163) = 10.15, p b 0.01). Additionally, a significant increase in dollars
spent on fruits and vegetables was present when the Health/Nutrition
flyer was used compared to when the Value/Cost-Savings flyer was
used ($14.42 vs. $9.18; F(1, 163) = 72.66, p b 0.01).
Recall that, in Study 1, partitioning significantly increased fruit and
vegetable selection. In Study 2, an interaction was present between
cart partitioning and store positioning in that partitioned carts were
most impactful at influencing dollars spent on fruits and vegetables
when the Health/Nutrition flyer was used (F(2, 163) = 4.94, p b 0.01).
As Table 2 indicates, when shoppers were exposed to a healthy/nutri-
tion positioning, the shopping cart significantly influenced how much
they spent on fruits and vegetables when comparing the control cart,
the 35% Partition cart, and the 50% Partition cart ($11.61, $14.97, and
$17.54; all ps of simple effects tests b 0.05). Among those exposed to
the Value/Cost-Savings flyer, partitioned shopping carts did not signifi-
cantly increase the dollars spent on fruits and vegetables (8.77, 8.72, and
9.92; all ps of simple effects tests N0.05).
Interestingly, an ANOVA on the spending on meats and treats [MT]
revealed no significant effects (all ps N 0.50). As the data in Table 2 sug-
gest, spending on meats and treats was not affected by the cart position-
ing, the store partitioning, or by the interaction between the two.
2.2.3. Discussion
Simply partitioning a shopping cart in different ways led to a signif-
icant sales increase in a nutrition-reinforced environment. In the case of
the 50% Partition cart, the purchase amount spent on fruits and
Table 2
Dollars spent on fruits and vegetables increase with partition size in a health/nutrition-re-
inforced environment (standard deviations in parentheses) in Study 2.

16 14.97 Average $ spent Average $ spent

on fruits and on meats
vegetables [FV] and treats [MT]
$ 11.61
12
Spent 9.92 Nutrition Flyer Health/Nutrition positioning flyers
8.77 8.72 Value Flyer No Partition $11.61 $17.13
8 (n = 34) ($3.64) ($4.08)
35-65 Partition $14.97 $17.51
(n = 26) ($4.42) ($4.48)
4 50-50 Partition $17.54 $14.60
(n = 26) ($4.19) ($4.79)

0
Value positioning flyers
Control 35-65 50-50 No Partition $8.77 $16.35
(No Partition) Partition Partition (n = 26) ($4.39) ($5.04)
Cart Type 35-65 Partition $8.72 $16.09
(n = 26) ($4.42) ($4.60)
50-50 Partition $9.92 $16.63
Fig. 4. Dollars spent in Study 2 on fruits and vegetables (combined) increase with partition
(n = 31) ($5.22) ($5.00)
size when health/nutrition is reinforced in the environment.
208 B. Wansink et al. / Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209
vegetables increased from $9.92 (when the Value/Cost-Savings flyer
was used) to $17.54 (when the Health/Nutrition flyer was used). This
exceeds most promotional efforts to increase dollars spent on fruits
and vegetables (which are considered to be a success if they increase
sales by 5% and they are typically done with costly margin-cutting
price promotions (Food Marketing Institute, 2005)).
Simply altering the size of the partition from 35% to 50% in the
Health/Nutrition store positioning condition increased the dollars
spent on fruits and vegetables from $14.97 to $17.54. This is consistent
with a purchase norm explanation. Changing the size of the partition
proportionately altered the amount spent on fruits and vegetables.
Interestingly, changing this mix should have had a similar influence
on meats and treats. In this study, the difference was not significant per-
haps because one may need real inducement to purchase more meats
and treats (as long as they have enough money), and this lack of effect
may be due to a ceiling effect.
Different stores have different positions in the market to attract dif-
ferent types of shoppers. These results suggest that nudges that are ori-
ented to help customers shop more nutritiously might have the biggest
impact when combined with other consistent messaging and marketing
efforts (Wansink, 2017, forthcoming). While an assumption might have
earlier been that healthy nudges are more effective in some stores than
in others because the customers are different, these results suggest that
the marketing efforts make the difference more than the customers. In
this study, the basic demographics of the customers were the same
from day to day.
In this study, a store-wide renovation to develop a full-store Health/
Nutrition positioning versus a Value/Cost-Savings positioning would
have not been possible. The range of the quality and variation of fruits
and vegetables being offered could not be changed. In addition, the pro-
motional environment throughout the store could not be changed. In-
stead, store positioning in the form of in-store flyers was manipulated.
In spite of this minimal exploratory intervention, encouraging synergy
was present when the partitioned carts were used in a health/
nutrition-reinforced environment. This is additionally encouraging be-
cause the majority of supermarket chains in the U.S. actively and widely
embrace institutionalized health/nutrition-reinforced programs in their
produce sections. These are either developed in-house by an industry
trade association or by the government. For instance, Safeway,
Wegmans, Giant, HEB, Hannaford, Hy-Vee, Schnucks, TOPS, and others
promote freshness and nutrition by embracing in-store promotional
programs such as “More Matters” (Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Alliance),
“Five-a-Day” (National Grocers Association), and “Partner with
MyPyramid” (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Given the challenges inherent in field studies, Study 2 had a number
of limitations. No demographic data were collected, and the possibility
exists that shoppers may have modified their shopping if they remained
aware that they had to provide their receipt after shopping. In particu-
lar, if shoppers saw a mat in their cart which specifically mentioned
fruits and vegetables (in combination with the flyer), then they could
be more sensitized to shopping more carefully in the produce aisle.
3. General discussion
Many people in developed countries are overfed but nutritionally
starved (Hedley et al., 2004). These two studies showed that
partitioning a shopping cart led customers to spend more money on
fruits and vegetables. In these nonrestrictive shopping contexts, shop-
pers appear to be malleable to healthy suggestions. What is purchased
at supermarkets has a sizable impact on one's daily caloric intake. Im-
proving the food purchase decisions made in supermarkets is a promis-
ing step in helping change the foods eaten and the weight gained in
one's home. Improving the food purchase decisions made in supermar-
kets would be empowering to all those involved and would show con-
sumers that small changes can have big effects. Improving the food
purchase decisions made in supermarkets might also lead to positive
changes in other parts of a consumer's life. For supermarket managers,
this research reveals that small, innovative in-store changes can have
a win-win impact on shoppers and sales. For public policy officials,
this research demonstrates that important options are present for ad-
dressing public health which are more behavioral than regulatory.
3.1. Implications for retailers and shoppers
Healthy perishable foods are profitable ones for supermarkets to sell.
Often, higher profit margins exist for these foods, and higher spoilage
costs exist for not quickly selling them. Yet, the impact of partitioning
is not only relevant to produce. A retailer could just as easily use
partitioning to suggest another categorization scheme, such as natural
foods versus processed foods.
Yet in the same way that grocers can use partitioned carts to help
disinterested shoppers buy healthier food, interested shoppers can par-
tition their own cart in whatever way they believe will help them shop
healthier. For instance, a person could easily and visibly “partition” or
divide a cart by creating their own partitions. In Canada, many shoppers
use “green boxes” to carry their groceries home. These boxes are sized
such that two of them fit perfectly into a standard shopping cart, and
many shoppers use this arrangement as a partition. They could then al-
locate the targeted partition to whatever general category of foods they
wished to purchase in greater quantities. A shopper with children might
want to be nudged to buy more fruits and vegetables, and a shopper
with high blood pressure might want to buy more low-sodium foods.
A dieter might want to be nudged to buy more low-fat foods, and a di-
abetic might want to buy more foods with a low glycemic index.
In addition, other operationalizations – such as a partitioned on-line
order form – could also be effective. That is, the notion of partitioning a
shopping cart may also hold for partitioning an order form on an on-line
shopping cart. Having sectioned areas for separate types of products
(such as books versus DVDs) could either increase sales or alter the dis-
tribution of sales to higher-margin items. Much of the initial research on
partitioning allocations was conducted with paper-and-pencil tasks or
with computer tasks. Having a segmented order form for on-line gro-
cery shopping is not unlike what is often found in high-traffic delis in
which order forms clearly break out several categories (such as sand-
wich, chips, drink, dessert, and fruit) not all of which might have other-
wise been considered.
3.2. Future research and limitations
The general interest for grocers is in what will increase the dollars
spent in their store. Because the interest was in the purchases of healthy
foods, the focus was on the dollars that shoppers spent on fruits and
vegetables (which are representative of a larger class of “healthy
foods”). While partitioning increased the sales of fruits and vegetables,
how partitioning might have influenced the sales of other foods is less
clear.
In this paper, the focus was on how partitions imply how much fruits
and vegetables are normally purchased by other people and on how this
contributes to shoppers buying more on their own. Partitions might also
have an influence because they increase the salience of fruits and vege-
tables by calling them out. Such an explanation has been investigated in
earlier pilot studies, but this only proved to be moderately significant
(Wansink, Payne, Herbst, & Soman, 2013), possibly with highly involved
shoppers. As with many interventions, how effective partitioning would
be over time is unclear. This may depend on whether partitioning gen-
erates a lower-involvement approach to shopping or a higher-
involvement approach to shopping. If partitioning generates a lower-
involvement approach to shopping, then the effect may be more persis-
tent over time. A purchasing norm explanation would suggest a lower-
involvement approach. This is similar to how smaller plates suggest a
smaller serving norm and are effective in changing serving size and con-
sumption in field contexts in which people are not aware that they are
 B. Wansink et al. / Journal of Business Research 75 (2017) 202–209
being observed (Holden, Zlatevska, & Dubelaar, 2016; Zlatevska,
Dubelaar, & Holden, 2014). If the salience explanation is more dominant
in a shopper, then the effect may not persist to the same degree (cf.,
Hayes, 2013). As the effect becomes more expected and more familiar,
the effect may become less strong.
In retail field studies, intervening without some possibility of de-
mand effects is difficult to avoid (Toft, Winkler, Eriksson, Mikkelsen, &
Glumer, working paper; Winkler et al., 2016). If people see a sign or if
they are intercepted, then they could behave differently than they oth-
erwise might. Study 1 addresses demand effects through debriefings,
but this was not done in Study 2 because of contamination concerns –
one shopper telling another shopper what the study involves. Despite
this limitation with Study 2, that the results are consistent with Study
1 and with predictions is encouraging. Another limitation of Study 2
was that researchers hand-coded the sales of items. While the research
assistants were not blind to the conditions, the condition upon which
they were most focused was the positioning condition (value vs. health)
as opposed to the partitioning condition. They did not know the purpose
or the hypotheses of the studies. Again, the fact that these results are
consistent with those in Study 1 is encouraging.
Underscoring that dividing a cart could be done with any product is
important. Because of the win-win importance of selling more fruits and
vegetables, this was the focus of this paper. Using a demarcation such as
this could just as easily be done with, among other things, store brands,
fresh foods, and meats and treats. The success associated with dividing a
cart, however, may be dependent on the ease with which a person can
categorize the food on the critical dimension. For the purposes of this re-
search, fruits and vegetables seemed fairly clear. Study 1 included an ex-
amination of fruits and vegetables versus everything else. Study 2
included an examination of fruits and vegetables versus meats and
treats. Although the phrase “meats and treats” may have encouraged
more indulgence, the results were consistent with Study 1 and with pre-
dictions. Future studies can push the boundaries and implementation of
these ideas to other categories and to other methods of partitioning.
4. Conclusion
Although the impact of partitioning appears to be strong in these
studies, a number of unanswered questions exist about how robust
these findings would be across time and across different types of super-
markets. As one-period studies, whether the increases in sales are short-
term, or whether they resulted in the forward-buying of produce is un-
clear. If so, the novelty of partitioned carts over time could wear off, and
their impact could decay. Still, given the increasing reinforcement from
other areas (such as the USDAs MyPlate.gov message to make half of
your plate available for fruits and vegetables), partitioned carts could
be a tool that leads to healthier shopping. For some supermarkets, the
next step could be a cautious one that involves controlled random-
trial studies across a number of units in the chain. This could initially
be accomplished on a test basis to gauge the acceptance by shoppers
and staff.
Much of the incremental improvement in lifespan and in quality of
life is likely to come increasingly from behavioral lifestyle changes
(Wansink, working paper). Well-intentioned marketers may be suited
to help lead the movement effectively toward behavioral change.
References
Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Kees, J. (2011). Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of
front-of-package nutrition symbols. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30, 175–190.
de Castro, J. M., Bellisle, F., Feunekes, G. I. J., Dalix, A. M., & De Graaf, C. (1997). Culture and meal
patterns: A comparison of the food intake of free-living American, Dutch, and French stu-
dents. Nutrition Research, 17, 807–829.
Chernev, A., & Gal, D. (2010). Categorization effects in value judgments: Averaging bias in eval-
uating combinations of vices and virtues. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 738–747.
Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2002). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for on-
line retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 511–535.
209
Cobb, C. J., & Hoyer, W. D. (1986). Planned versus impulse purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing,
62, 384–409.
Food Marketing Institute (2005). Trends in the United States: Consumer attitudes and the super-
market. Food Marketing Institute: Washington D.C.
Fox, C. R., Ratner, R. K., & Lieb, D. S. (2005). How subjective grouping of options influences choice
and allocation: Diversification bias and the phenomenon of partition dependence. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 538–551.
French, S., Wall, M., Mitchell, N. R., Shimotsu, S. T., & Welsh, E. (2009). Annotated receipts cap-
ture household food purchases from a broad range of sources. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, 37.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social
norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research,
35, 472–482.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hedley, A. A., Ogden, C. L., Johnson, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., & Flegal, K. M. (2004). Prev-
alence of overweight and obesity among U.S. children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2847–2850.
Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2005). Normative influences on food intake. Physiology & Behavior, 86,
762–772.
Herman, C. P., Roth, D. A., & Polivy, J. (2003). Effects of the presence of others on food intake: A
normative interpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 873–886.
Holden, S. S., Zlatevska, N., & Dubelaar, C. (2016). Whether smaller plates reduce consumption
depends on who's serving and who's looking: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research, 1, 134–136.
Koh, H. K. (2011). 2011 dietary guidelines for Americans: How to advise patients. Medscape
(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738682).
Kuenzel, J., & Musters, P. (2007). Social interaction and low involvement products. Journal of
Business Research, 60, 876–883.
Miller, D. (1998). A theory of shopping. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Morwitz, V. G., Greenleaf, E., & Johnson, E. (1998). Divide and prosper: Consumers' reactions to
partitioned prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 453–463.
Nestle, M. (2007). What to eat. New York: North Point Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879–891.
Riis, J., & Ratner, R. K. (2010). Simplified nutrition guidelines to fight obesity. In R. Batra, P. A.
Keller, & V. J. A. Strecher (Eds.), Leveraging consumer psychology for effective health commu-
nications: The obesity challenge. NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Robinson, E., & Higgs, S. (2013). Food choices in the presence of ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ eating
partners. British Journal of Nutrition, 109, 765–771.
Robinson, E., Benwell, H., & Higgs, S. (2013). Food intake norms increase and decrease snack
food intake in a remote confederate study. Appetite, 65, 20–24.
Robinson, E., Fleming, A., & Higgs, S. (2014a). Prompting healthier eating: Testing the use of
health and social norm based messages. Health Psychology, 33, 1057–1064.
Robinson, E., Thomas, J., Aveyard, P., & Higgs, S. (2014b). What everyone else is eating: A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of informational eating norms on eating be-
havior. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114, 414–429.
Rozin, P., & Vollmecke, T. A. (1986). Food likes and dislikes. Annual Review of Nutrition, 6,
433–456.
Rozin, P., Ashmore, M., & Markwith, M. (1996). Lay American conceptions of nutrition: Dose in-
sensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psychology, 15,
438–447.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The construc-
tive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18,
429–434.
Stroebe, W., Mensink, W., Aarts, H., Schut, H., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Why dieters fail:
Testing the goal conflict model of eating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
26–36.
Toft, U., Winkler, L. L., Eriksson, F., Mikkelsen, B. E., & Glumer, C. (2017). The effect of 20% discount on
fruit and vegetables combined with space management intervention on supermarket purchases
during the three month SoL project. Denmark: University of Copenhagen (Working paper).
Wansink, B. (2014). Slim by design: Mindless eating solutions to everyday life. New York: William
Morrow.
Wansink, B. (2017). Healthy profits: A retail framework for increasing the sales of healthy foods.
Journal of Retailing (forthcoming).
Wansink, B. (2018). Reducing portion size norms: How to discover innovative solutions. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Food and Brand Lab (Working paper).
Wansink, B., & Tran, H. G. (2017). MyPlate, half plate, or the whole plate: How dietary guid-
ance systems influence eating behavior. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Food and Brand Lab (Work-
ing paper).
Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2007). Portion size me: Downsizing our consumption norms.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107, 1103–1106.
Wansink, B., & Kranz, K. (2013). Who's using MyPlate? Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 45, 728–732.
Wansink, B., Payne, C., Herbst, K. C., & Soman, D. (2013). Part carts: Assortment allocation cues
that increase fruit and vegetable purchases. Journal of Nutrition and Eating Behavior, 45, S42
((Supplement), This abstract was published in the 2013 Society for Nutrition Education and
Behavior Annual Conference Abstracts Book).
Winkler, L. L., Christensen, U., Glumer, C., Bloch, P., Mikkelsen, B. E., Wansink, B., & Toft,
U. (2016). Substituting sugar confectionery with fruit and healthy snacks at check-
out – a win-win strategy for consumers and food stores? A study on consumer atti-
tudes and sales effects of a healthy supermarket intervention. BMC Public Health,
16, 1184–1196.
Woody, E. Z., Costanzo, P. R., Liefer, H., & Conger, J. (1981). The effects of taste and caloric per-
ceptions on the eating behavior of restrained and unrestrained subjects. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 5, 381–390.
Zlatevska, N., Dubelaar, C., & Holden, S. (2014). Sizing up the effect of portion size on consump-
tion: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Marketing, 78, 140–154.