The Role of Social Comparison and Implicit Self-Theories

(1)

How Do Social Norms Influence Parents’ Food Choices for Their Children?

The Role of Social Comparison and Implicit Self-Theories

Jens Hogreve

^a

, Shashi Matta

^a

, Alexander S. Hettich

^a

, Rebecca Walker Reczek

^b,∗

aWFIIngolstadtSchoolofManagement,CatholicUniversityofEichstaett-Ingolstadt,AufderSchanz49,85049Ingolstadt,Germany

bFisherCollegeofBusiness,TheOhioStateUniversity,2100NeilAve,FisherHall506A,Columbus,OH43210,USA

Availableonline17June2020 DipayanBiswasservedasAssociateEditor.

Abstract

Despitetheproliferationofhealthiersideitemsforchildrenatfastfoodrestaurants,manyparentsstilldonotmakehealthychoicesfortheir childreninthissetting.Thegoalofthisresearchistoidentifytheparentsmostlikelytodosoanddevelopaninterventiontonudgetheseparents towardmakinghealthierchoicesinretailoutlets.Acrossfourfieldstudiesconductedinaretailenvironment(i.e.,locationsofafastfoodrestaurant chain),theauthorspredictandfindthatparentswithahightendencytoengageinsocialcomparisonandamalleableviewoftheselfaremost likelytoconformtothenormintheirparentalsocialnetwork.Giventhatthenorminthepopulationstudiedistoorderalesshealthysideitem (e.g.,fries)versusahealthysideitem(e.g.,fruit),conformingresultsinsignificantlylesshealthyordersforthechildrenoftheseindividuals.The authorsdemonstratethatasocialnorm-basedinterventiondesignedtosetanewhealthynorminthisretailenvironmentsucceededinincreasingthe overallproportionofparentsthatchoseahealthysideitembyover29%byincreasingthechoiceofhealthysidesspecificallyfortheseindividuals.

Theauthorsconcludewithadiscussionofimplicationsfortheory,retailmanagers,andpolicymakers.

Keywords:Healthyfoodchoice;Fastfoodrestaurant;Laytheories;Socialnorms;Parentalfoodchoice;Fieldexperiments

Whenparentschoosetotaketheirchildrentofastfoodrestau- rants,inmanycasestheynowhavetheoptiontochoosehealthier sideitemsthanthetraditionalFrenchfriesandsodathataccom- paniedchildren’smealsinyearspast(Moranetal.,2017).For example,aparentorderingachildren’smealforachildatBurger Kingcanchoosefruit(e.g.,appleslices)orvegetables(e.g.,car- rots)instead ofFrench fries,along withmilkor juiceinstead ofsoda.Fastfoodrestaurantsareretailoutletsthathavemade thesemenuchangesasastrategicchoice,recognizingtheimpor- tanceofcreatingapositivecustomerexperience(Grewal,Levy,

&Kumar,2009).Providinghealthyoptionsforchildrenallows theretailer toenhance thecustomerexperience bycommuni- catingsharedvalueswithparents(Grewaletal.,2017)who,at leastostensibly, wanttheoptiontobuyhealthyfoodfor their children.However,despitetheavailabilityofhealthieroptions,

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](J.Hogreve),[email protected] (S.Matta),[email protected](A.S.Hettich),[email protected] (R.W.Reczek).

notallparentswillchoosethemfortheirchildren(Moranetal., 2017).

Inthisresearch,weemployaseriesoffieldstudiestoexplore what factors influence parents’ choice of healthy versus less healthy side items for their children at fast food restaurants andtestaninterventiontoincreasechoiceofhealthysideitems amongparentsunlikelytochoosetheseitems.Thisapproachis consistentwithpastresearchshowingthatchoiceofsideitemsat fastfoodrestaurantsinfluencesoverallhealthinessofthemeal (Chandon&Wansink,2007).Indoingso,we investigatetwo individualdifference variablesthathavehithertobeen studied independently – parents’ tendencytoward socialcomparison (i.e.,theextenttowhichonecomparesoneselftoothers;Gibbons

&Buunk,1999)andparents’laytheoryoftheself(i.e.,whether theself,andhenceone’spreferences,areseenasmalleableor fixed;Dweck,Chiu,&Hong,1995;Molden&Dweck,2006).

Wepredictandfindthat,infourfieldstudieswithconsumers actuallydiningatfastfoodrestaurantswiththeirchildren,par- entswithahightendencytocomparethemselvestoothersand amalleableviewoftheselfaremostlikelytoconformtothe perceivednormintheirparentalsocialnetwork.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.05.002

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

(2)

Thenormatthefastfoodchainintheregionwhereourfield studieswereconductedistoorderlesshealthysideitems(e.g., fries)versushealthysideitems(e.g.,fruit),with58.4%ofpar- ticipantsinapilotstudyorderingatleastonelesshealthyside itemfortheirchild(eitherabeverageordrink).Thisresultsug- geststhatwhileconsumersmayvaluetheavailabilityofhealthy options,orderingthemmaynotbethenorm,underscoringthe importanceoftestingourhypothesesinthefieldinretailloca- tions withreal food orders. Doing so limits the potential for sociallydesirableresponding(i.e.,participantsclaimingtomake healthierordersthantheyactuallymake).Wethentestasocial normbased intervention designedto setanewhealthy norm thatsuccessfullynudgestheparentsmostlikelytoconformto theless healthynormtowardorderinghealthier foodfortheir children.Toourknowledge,wearethefirsttoproposeandtest suchaninterventiontoaffectparentalchoiceforchildrenatreal fastfoodrestaurants.

Ourresearchmakesseveralnoveltheoreticalcontributions.

Our research is the first to explore the interactive effect of consumers’ theories of the selfwith their social comparison orientationonfood choice.Assuch, ourresearchcontributes to the literature exploring how lay theories shape food deci- sionmaking(e.g.,Haws,Reczek,&Sample,2017;McFerran

&Mukhopadhyay,2013;Raghunathan,Naylor,&Hoyer,2006) andtheliteratureontheimpactofsocialinfluenceonfooddeci- sions(e.g.,Cruwys,Bevelander,&Hermans,2015;McFerran etal., 2010a; McFerranet al., 2010b; Vartanian, 2015).Sec- ond,we demonstratethat social-normbasedinterventionsare most impactful for individualswith ahightendency tocom- pare themselves to others and a malleable view of the self, addingtotheliteraturedocumenting moderatorsof theeffec- tivenessof socialnormbasedmarketing (Goldstein,Cialdini,

&Griskevicius,2008;White&Simpson,2013).Ourworkalso contributestotheliteratureonparentalfoodchoiceforchildren andfactorsthatinfluencechildren’sattitudestowardandcon- sumptionoflesshealthyfood(e.g.,Connell,Brucks,&Nielsen, 2014;Moore,Wilkie,&Desrochers,2017;Mukhopadhyay&

Yeung,2010;Raju,Rajagopal,&Gilbride,2010)byexploring realfastfooddiningchoicesinthefield.

Conceptually, our work adds to the retailing literature by exploring how consumersmake choicesfor othersin aretail environment. There is relatively little research in marketing exploring this issue, but it is a very common occurrence in thelivesofconsumers.Inaconceptualpiececharacterizingthe choicesconsumersmakeforothers,Liu,Dallas,andFitzsimons (2019)proposethatsuchchoicesfallintooneoffourcells:gift giving,every-daypickups/favors,jointconsumption,andcare giving.Previousresearchintheretailingliteraturehasexplored bothgiftgiving(e.g.,Bradford&Sherry,2013)andjointcon- sumption,whereconsumerschooseaproductorhedonicactivity toconsumetogether(e.g.,Wakefield&Inman,2003).Consider- ablylesswork,however,hasexploredevery-daypickups(e.g., onespouse picks upa product for the other) or care giving, whereaconsumermakesachoiceaspartof theircaregiving responsibilities(e.g.,forachildoranelderlyadult).

We focus specifically on parents’ care-giving choices for children.Previousresearch exploringthistypeof care-giving

has shownthat parents generallywanttomake goodchoices for children because they feel responsible for them (John &

Cole,1986).However,pastworkhasalsoshownthatindividual differencescaninfluencehowparentsrespondtopromotional messagesforcare-givingproductchoices(e.g.,certaintyinone’s parentalidentityinBhattacharjee,Berger,&Menon,2014).We contribute tothisliteraturebyidentifyingtwonewindividual differencevariablesbeyondcertaintyinone’sparentalidentity thataffectparentalcaregivingdecisionsinaretailenvironment.

Finally, our workhas important practical implications for retailmarketingmanagersandpolicymakers.Wedemonstrate theeffectivenessofasocialnormbasedinterventiontoencour- ageconsumerstomakehealthierchoicesfortheirchildrenwhen actually dininginfastfood restaurants.Thistypeofinterven- tionisrelativelynovelintherestaurantcontext,assignificantly moreresearchattention hasbeenfocused ontheeffectof the provision of calorieinformationon menus(Berry, Burton,&

Howlett,2018; Burton, Howlett,&Tangari,2009). Although calorielabelingcanleadtoimprovementsinhealthychoicesfor someconsumers,inarecentstudy,only8%offastfoodrestau- rantconsumersactuallyusedcalorieinformationtoinformtheir choices(Becketal.,2017).Thisfindingsuggeststhatretailfast foodmanagersneedadditionaltoolsintheirarsenaliftheywant tohelpconsumersmakebetterchoices.Wethereforeclosewith adiscussionofhowmanagersoffastfoodrestaurantscanbest implementsocialnormbasedinterventionstoinfluenceparents tomakehealthierchoicesfortheir children.Doing sohasthe potential to notonly allowmanagers of fast food restaurants to partner withcustomers inmaking healthy choices, poten- tially generating positive public relations and attracting new customers,butalsotoincreasecustomersatisfactionandrepur- chaseintentions.

Theoreticalfoundation

SocialInﬂuenceonFoodConsumption

Inacomprehensivereview,Herman,Roth,andPolivy(2003) examinedtheeffectsofsocialfacilitation,socialmodeling,and impressionmanagement onthe amountof foodan individual consumes in a social setting.They conclude their review by summarizing that social influences on food consumption are both“powerfulandubiquitous”andcanincreaseeating(social facilitation)ordecreaseeating(impressionmanagement).Other workhasshownthatsocialinfluencecanalsoaffectwhatcon- sumerschoosetoeat,notjusttheamount(Cruwysetal.,2015;

Vartanian,2015).Intheconsumerbehaviordomain,researchers haveexploredtheinfluenceofotherswhoarephysicallypresent in the retailconsumption environment on food choices (e.g., othercustomersorone’sserverinarestaurant;McFerranetal., 2010a;McFerranetal.,2010b)andtheinfluenceofmereimages of others(Poor,Duhachek,&Krishnan,2013).Morebroadly, socialinfluencecanbebothpowerfulandpervasiveintheretail context, as even the mere presence of other shoppers in an aisleinfluenceconsumers’choices(Argo,Dahl,&Manchanda, 2005).

(3)

In this research, we predict that the perceived behavior of other parents in a parent’s social network can influence their restaurant food choices for their own children,whether this behavior is observed at the time of ordering or learned through word-of-mouth or other sources. This prediction is consistentwithbothpastresearch(1) documentingthesocial influenceofothersinaretailcontext(e.g.,Mangleburg,Doney,

&Bristol, 2004; Zhang etal., 2014) and (2) suggesting that other parents in a parent’s social network influence parental attitudesandbehavior(Cochran&Niego,2002).Forinstance, parental networksaffect parents’ decisionsto vaccinate their children(Brunson,2013)andparents’involvementwithchil- dren’sschoolactivities(Smrekar,1993).However,nopastwork inmarketinghasexploredtheinfluenceofparents’socialnet- workson choiceof food optionsfor their childrenin aretail context.

Theextantresearchontheinfluenceof parents’socialnet- worksisbroadlyconsistentwithresearchonSocialComparison Theory (Festinger, 1954). This theory states that when con- sumersengageinsocialcomparison(i.e.,comparingtheirown behaviortoa relevant standard),they tendtoassimilate(i.e., match)theirbehaviortothatof thestandard(inthiscase,the behavior of otherparents in their social network) when they feelpsychologicallyclosetothestandard(Mussweiler,Rüter,

&Epstude,2004).

Inthecontextweexplore,weproposethatparentsinanindi- vidualparent’ssocialnetwork(i.e.,friendsandcolleagueswho are parents,otherparents livingin the sameregion,etc.) are likelytobeperceived aspsychologicallyclose, whichshould result inassimilation andconforming tothe perceived norm, resultinginmimickingof otherparents’foodchoicesevenin thisrelativelyloosenetwork.However,pastresearchsuggests thatnotall parentswillbeequallyinfluenced bytheirbeliefs aboutwhatotherparentschoosefortheirchildren.Thus,while ampleresearchhasdocumentedtheinfluenceofothersonfood choice,basedonpastliteratureonindividualdifferencesinthe tendencytocompareone’sbehaviortothatofsociallyrelevant others, we furtherpredict that the extent of agiven parent’s conformity to the perceived social norm for children’s food choices is moderated by that parent’s tendency toengage in socialcomparison.

Althoughsocialcomparisonstendtobebothspontaneousand effortless(Gilbert,BrianGiesler,&Morris,1995),researchers havelongarguedthat,whilevirtuallyeveryoneengagesinsocial comparison,theextenttowhichpeopledosovaries(Gibbons

&Buunk,1999).Pastresearchhasshownthatthetendencyto engageinsocialcomparisoncanbemeasuredasanindividual differenceinsocialcomparisonorientation(Iowa-Netherlands ComparisonOrientation; Gibbons&Buunk,1999),such that individuals witha highsocial comparisonorientation have a hightendencytocomparetheirownactionsandattitudeswith sociallyrelevantotherswhilethosewithalowsocialcompar- isonorientationhavealowtendencytodoso.Forparents to conformto the behavior of other parents in their social net- workwithrespecttochoosingfoodfortheirchildren,theymust firstengageinsocialcomparison.Thatis,theymustbefocused enoughonothers’behaviortonoticethestandardsetbyother

parents’behavior.Anindividual’ssocialcomparisonorientation influenceswhetherthiscomparisonoccurs,suchthat:

H1:Parentswithahighsocialcomparisonorientationaremore likelytoconformtothefoodchoicesofotherparentsintheir social networksfor their own childrencompared to parents withalowsocialcomparisonorientation.

TheRoleofImplicitTheoriesoftheSelfasFixedor Malleable

Aparent’ssocialcomparisonorientationisnottheonlyfactor thatwillinfluencewhethertheyconformtowhattheyperceive tobethenormintheirparentalsocialnetworkfororderingchil- dren’sfastfoodsideitems.Wepredictthatanindividual’stheory oftheselfalsodeterminestheirsusceptibilitytotheperceived standardof comparisonsetby their parentalnetwork,specifically whethertheyseethe selfasan unvaryingentitythat is impossibletochangeorasmoremalleableandabletochange.

Asubstantialbodyofresearchoverthelastthreedecadeshas shownthatindividualsholdoneofthesetwoimplicittheories (also calledlay theories or mindsets)about the self (Dweck, 1999;Dweck&Leggett,1988;Dwecketal.,1995;Molden&

Dweck,2006).Fixedorentitytheoristsbelievethataperson’s personalityandothertraitssuchasintelligenceandmoralityare fixedandthatonecannotchangethesetraits.Malleableorincre- mentaltheorists,ontheotherhand,believethatpersonalityand othertraitsaremalleable,suchthattheselfcanchangeovertime (Molden&Dweck,2006).

Intheconsumerbehaviordomain,havingafixedormalleable viewoftheselfhasbeenshowntoaffecthowconsumerspro- cessandrespondtodifferentadvertisingmessageframes(Jain, Mathur,&Maheswaran,2009;Park&John,2012),theiraccep- tanceof brandextensions(Yorkston,Nunes,&Matta,2010), andtheiruseofbrandstosignalpositiveself-qualities(Park&

John,2010).Mostrelevanttothecurrentwork,Mukhopadhyay and Yeung (2010) examined implicit theories of self-control andfound that consumerswho believedthat self-control isa limited resource that canchange over time weremore likely tomake choicesthat benefitedchildren’sself-control.On the other hand,consumerswho believedthat self-control was an unlimitedresourceorthatitcannotchangeovertime(i.e.,fixed self-controltheorists)werelesslikelytoexhibitsuchbehaviors.

Toourknowledge,thisistheonlyextantresearchthat explic- itlyexplorestherolethatimplicittheoriesofanyaspectofthe self-playinparentalchoicesforchildren.WhileMukhopadhyay andYeung(2010)exploredbeliefsaboutaspecificaspectofthe selfbeingfixedormalleable(i.e.,self-control),wetakeadif- ferenttheoreticalapproachfromthispastworkbyinvestigating theeffectofconsumers’implicittheoriesaboutthefixednessor malleabilityoftheselfasawhole(vs.aspecificattribute)and buildtheoryonhowthesebeliefsinteractwithsocialcomparison orientationtoaffectparentalfoodchoiceforchildren.

Atthecoreofourexaminationofconsumers’implicittheo- riesoffixednessormalleabilityofpersonalityisthedifference betweenfixedandmalleabletheoristswhenmakingadecision orchoosingbetweenoptions.Theconsistentfindingacrossmul-

(4)

tiplestudiesexploringimplicitviewsoftheselfisthatthosewith afixedviewoftheselfarelesssensitivetotheeffectofcontex- tualorsituationalfactors,whereasthosewithamalleableview oftheselfaremoresensitivetothecontextorsituation(e.g.,Jain etal.,2009;Mathuretal.,2012;Park&John,2012;Yorkston etal.,2010).Therichbodyofresearchonimplicittheoriesthere- foresuggeststhatfixedtheorists,irrespectiveofthecontextthey findthemselvesin,seekoption(s)thatfittheirpersonalitytraits (Molden&Dweck,2006).Thus,theirpreferencesarerelatively stable,astheybelievetheirpreferences,liketheirpersonality,are fixed.Malleabletheorists,incontrast,askthemselveswhatkind ofasituationtheyareinandwhichoption(s)seemappropriate inthatcontext,adjustingtheir preferencesas neededbecause theybelievetheirpreferencesaremalleable(Molden&Dweck, 2006).

It is precisely because these differences in beliefs about the selfresult in a differential sensitivity to context that we expect self-theoriesto interactwith socialcomparison orientation.Informationaboutwhatothersdoispartofthecontext towhichmalleableself-theoristsareparticularlysensitive,butit isaveryspecificpartofthecontextfocusedonthebehaviorof others(vs.othertypesofcontextualinformationliketimeofday, temperature,etc.).Thus,onlymalleabletheoristswhoarepar- ticularlyattunedtoinformationaboutothers(i.e.,thosewitha highsocialcomparisonorientation)arelikelytobeaffectedina retailfastfoodcontextbywhatfoodstheybelieveothersintheir parentalsocialnetworkareorderingfortheirchildren.Wenote thatwedonotexpectamaineffectofself-theoryontendency tocomplywithsocialnormsinthiscontextbecausethesocial normisnotnecessarilyreadilyapparentnorisituniversallycon- sideredrelevantcontextualinformationforfast foodsidedish decisions.Thus,whilemalleabletheoristsare,ingeneral,more influencedbycontextualinformation,onlythosewithhighsocial comparisonorientationarelikelytothinkaboutorpayattention towhatotherparentsdowhenmakingafooddecisionfortheir children.

Taken together, our theorizing about these two constructs leadsustopredict thatparents’implicitbeliefsabouttheself willinteractwiththeir socialcomparisonorientationtoinflu- encetheirfoodchoicefortheirchildren.Weexpectmalleable theoristswithahighsocialcomparisonorientationtobemost likelytoconformtotheperceivedbehaviorofotherparentsin theirsocialnetworkbecausetheseindividualsarelikelytoattend tocontextual informationaboutwhat otherparents are doing (duetotheirhighsocialcomparisonorientation)andlikelyto beinfluencedbythisinformation(duetotheirmalleabletheory oftheself,whichmakesthemmorelikelytoadjusttheirown attitudes,preferences,andbehaviortomatchrelevantcontextual information).

Thus,thisgroupof parents’ behaviorwill differfromthat of the other threegroups that emergewhen combining these twoconstructs:malleable theoristswithalowsocialcompar- isonorientation,fixedtheoristswithahighsocialcomparison orientation, and fixedtheorists withalow social comparison orientation. Malleabletheoristswithalow socialcomparison orientationwillbelessaffectedbythebehaviorofotherparents thanmalleabletheoristswithahighsocialcomparisonorienta-

tionbecausetheseparentsarelesslikelytoengageinthesocial comparisonrequiredtonotewhatthe normisinthiscontext, althoughtheirmalleabletheoryoftheselfwouldallowthemto adjusttothisnormifitbecamefocal.Fixedtheorists,regardless of whethertheyarehighorlowinsocialcomparisonorienta- tion,areunlikelytobeaffectedbythenormbecausetheyare lesslikelytoadjusttheirownpreferences/attitudestofitaparticularcontext.Thus,regardlessofsocialcomparisonorientation, fixedtheoristsarelesslikelytoconformtothechoicesofother parentsintheirsocialnetwork.Wethereforepredict(asshown intheconceptualmodelpresentedinFig.1):

H2: Social comparisonorientationandself-theoriesinteract toinfluencetheextent towhichparentsconformtothefood choicesofotherparentsintheirsocialnetworks.Parentswith ahighsocialcomparisonorientationandamalleabletheoryof theselfwillconformtoagreaterextentthananyotherparental group.

PilotStudies:CharacterizingtheNormandPerceptionsof HealthinessofSideItems

Priortotestingourhypotheses,weconductedtwopilotstud- iesto(1) characterize thenormamongthe socialnetwork of parentswestudy(i.e.,isthenormtoorderhealthyorlesshealthy beverageandfoodsideitemsforchildrenatfastfoodrestaurants) and(2)identifywhichsideitemsatthefastfoodrestaurantwhere we conducted our mainstudieswere perceived byparents as healthyversuslesshealthy.Thetwopilotstudiesandallmain studieswereconductedon-siteatlocationsofafastfoodchain inmid-sizedruralcitiesinaWesterndemocraticcountry.The settingofourstudies–parentsinaspecificgeographicregion whovisitedthisfastfoodrestaurantwiththeirchildren–suggest thatparentswillfeelpsychologicalclosenesswithotherparents intheir socialnetworkof friends, family,andcolleagues that liveinthisregion.

Inthefirstpilotstudy,trainedresearchassistantsaskedpar- ents whovisitedafastfood restaurantwhileaccompaniedby atleastonechildwhoappearedtobebetweentwoandeleven yearsoldtoevaluatehowhealthythelisted“sideitems”werethat camewithachildren’smeal(i.e.,bothbeverageandfoodside items,aseachmealcamewithachoiceofabeverageandafood side).Thishelpeduscategorizethe listedsideitems intotwo groups, “perceivedas healthy”or “perceivedasless healthy.”

Weconductedthisstudyattwoofthefourrestaurantsthatwere usedaslocationsforallsubsequentstudies.Parentsparticipated inthisstudyinreturnforafreesideitemvoucherredeemablefor thechildatthechain.Theagerestrictionforchildrenaccompa- nyingtheirparentstothefastfoodrestaurantwaschosenbefore conductingthestudysincechildreninthisagegroup(i.e.,ages 2–11)havemoderatepurchaseandnegotiationinfluence(John, 1999) andarethe typicaltargetsof advertisingfor children’s mealsatfast foodrestaurants(Harris etal.,2013).Recogniz- ing that the researchassistants wouldnot always beaccurate inassessingage,weaskedparentstoprovide(inthequestion- naire) theexact ageof the childthat theyplanned toredeem thevoucherforinordertomakesurethatonlyrespondentsthat

(5)

Fig.1.ConceptualModel:SocialComparisonOrientationandImplicitTheoryoftheSelfInteracttoInfluenceSusceptibilitytoNormofChoosingLessHealthy SideItemsforChildreninaFastFoodRestaurant.

actuallyhadchildreninthisagerangewiththemwereincluded intheanalysis.¹Wealsoaskedparticipantstoparticipateonly iftheywereaparentoftheaccompanyingchild.

Seventy-oneparents agreedtoparticipateinthe study,but seventeen respondents were excluded because the accompa- nyingchildrenwere eitherolderthaneleven or younger than two. The remaining 54 study respondents (74.1% female, Mage(Parents)=34 (SD=5.85), Mage(Children)=5.80 (SD=2.44) evaluatedeachofthelistedsideitemsforachildren’smealona 7-pointLikertscale(1=nothealthy,7=healthy).Thoughmain entréesweretypicalfast fooditems, thesideitems (i.e.,beveragesandfoodsideitems)differedinhowhealthytheywere perceivedtobe.²Weconductedafactoranalysisonratingsof healthinessofthesideitems,constrainingthenumberoffactors totwo.Thesetwofactorsexplained57%ofthevariance.³Five items loaded on the first factor, whichrepresented relatively less healthy side items and included fries (Mhealthiness=2.21;

α=.88), andseven items, including fruit, loaded on the second factor, which represented relatively healthy side items (Mhealthiness=5.65; α=.73). The mean ratings of healthiness forthesetwogroupsofsideitemsweresignificantlydifferent (t(53)=22.73,p<.01).Weusedthiscategorizationofsideitems inthesecondpilotstudy,whichexaminedcustomertransaction data,andinthemainstudieswherewemeasuredchoice.

Inoursecond pilot study,weanalyzed historicalcustomer transactiondata at four restaurant locations of the same fast foodchaininthesameregioninwhichthefirstpilotstudywas conducted. Thedata was froma randomly chosen sample of over7400cashiertransactionsofchildren’smealspurchasedin

1 Alladultswithchildrenwholookedtobetheappropriateage(andwho themselveslookedtheappropriateagetobeparentsversusgrandparents)who enteredtherestaurantwhilethestudywasbeingconductedwereapproached andaskedtoparticipatebeforemakingapurchase.Eachstudywasrunona varietyofdays(weekendandweekday)andatdifferenttimesofdaycontrolling fordifferencesinorderpatternscausedbydayofweekortimeofday.

2 Detailsaboutthesideitems(i.e.,beveragesandfoodsideitems)arenot includedtorespectdataprotectionpolicies.

3 Wealsoranafactoranalysiswithoutconstrainingnumberoffactors.This analysisrevealsthreefactorswitheigenvaluesgreaterthanoneandexplains morethan66.2%ofthevariance.Thethree-factorsolutionrevealsonefactor representinghealthysideitems,onefactorrepresentinglesshealthysideitems, andonefactorwithmixedloadingsrepresentingtwocommoncombinations, whicharefriesorfruitwithwater.Becauseofthisoutcome,wechosetoretain thetwo-factoranalysisinourprimaryreporting.

athree-monthperiod.Wefoundthat41.6%oftheorderedchil- dren’smealsincludedatleastonesideitemperceivedashealthy, such as fruit, while 58.4% of the ordered children’s meals included no side item perceived as healthy (t(7399)=14.66, p<.01).⁴Thisbaselinedatacharacterizesthenormwithinthis parentalsocialnetworkasorderinglesshealthysideitemsfor children.Thisdataisconsistentwitharecentlarge-scalesurvey of U.S.parents(n=871) indicatingthat,of the91%whohad takentheirchildrentoeatatleastonemealatoneofthefour majorU.S.fastfoodchainsinthelastweek(i.e.,McDonald’s, BurgerKing,Wendy’sandSubway),only26%reportedbuying mealswithonlyhealthyfoodfortheir children(Scher,2018).

Importantly,inthesamesurvey,parentsindicatedthattheavail- abilityofhealthyoptionsatthesechainswasafactorinselecting arestauranttovisit,pointingtoapotentialdisconnectbetween whatparentsvalueandwhatparentsdo.⁵Theprevalenceofthe normisperhapsunsurprisingwhenoneconsidersthatsodaand friesare likelyviewed as prototypical accompaniments toan entréeinafastfoodcontext.Havingestablishedthenorminthis specificretailcontext,we nowreportaseries offieldstudies designedtotestourhypotheses.

Study1

Study 1 was afield study conducted withreal diners ata fast foodrestaurant diningwithatleastonechild.Weuseda combinationofasurveyandcashregisterreceipts tomeasure parents’socialcomparisonorientationandrecordrealpurchases parentsmadefortheirchildren.

Method

This study was conducted at two locations of a fast food restaurantlocatedintwodifferentcitieswithcomparabledemo- graphicsandsocioeconomicconditions.Researchassistantsin

4 Wenotethatatleastonehealthysideitemchosencouldmeaneitherthe beverageorthefoodsideitemselectedwashealthy.Nohealthysideitemchosen meansboththebeverageandthefoodsideitemselectedwerelesshealthy.We usedthiscodingthroughoutallofourstudies.

5 Suchvalue-behaviorinconsistenciesarenotuncommonintheconsumer behaviorliterature(where,forexample,researchhasshownthatconsumersmay reportvaluingsustainabilitybutmaynotactuallymakesustainablepurchases;

Protheroetal.,2011).

(6)

eachlocationandblindtothehypothesisandstudyobjectives, wereinstructed,followingthesameguidelinesoutlinedinthe firstpilot study,toaskcustomerswhoappearedtobeparents accompaniedbyatleastonechildbetweentheagesoftwoand eleven, to participate ina survey about parents’ opinions. In returnfortheirparticipation,respondentswereofferedavoucher for afreechildren’s meal(which included anentréeandtwo sides,afood sideitemanda beverage).Weaskedparents to providetheexactageofthechildthattheyplannedtoredeem thechildren’smealvoucherforinordertomakesurethatonly respondents that actually hadchildren inthis agerange with themwereincludedintheanalysis.Wealsoaskedparticipants toanswer thequestionnaireonlyif theywere aparent ofthe accompanyingchild.

Allparticipants firstcompleted aquestionnairewithitems thatassessedtheirsocialcomparisonorientationandtheirdemo- graphicinformation.Wepretestedthetwomainscalesusedin ourstudies–thesocialcomparisonorientationscale(Gibbons

&Buunk,1999)andtheimplicittheoriesofpersonality scale (Levy,Stroessner,&Dweck,1998)toarriveatreducedforms of thescalestouseinthe field.Results ofthispretestingare presented in Appendix.⁶ Basic statistics (α, M, and SD) for thescalesandmeasuresusedinthefourmainstudiesarealso reportedinAppendix.

Ninety-sixparentsparticipatedinthisstudy.Datafromseven respondentswereexcludedastheaccompanyingchildrenwere older than eleven or younger than two, leaving us with a finalsampleof89parents(69.6%female,Mage(Parents)=37.36 (SD=6.1)Mage(Children)=5.9(SD=2.46)).Parentswhoagreed toparticipateinthestudyweregivenavoucherforachildren’s mealthatwasonlyvalidforredemptiononthedayofthestudy that was included as the lastpage of the questionnaire. The researcheraskedconsumerstocompletethequestionnaireand depositit inabox onatableinonecorner ofthe restaurant.

Respondentswereinstructedtohandthevouchertothecashier togetthefreechildren’smeal.Thecashier,blindtothehypoth- esis,stapledthereceiptforthetransactiontothevoucher.The voucherandassociatedquestionnairesharedauniqueidentifier codeallowingus tomatchthe questionnairewiththe choices madebyparentswhenredeemingthechildren’smealvoucher.

Inthisandallotherstudies,whetherthebeverageandfoodside itemchosenfor thevouchermealwashealthyorless healthy wascodedon-siteattherestaurantbyresearchassistantsonthe questionnaireitself.Wewerenot allowedtoretainthe actual receipts/voucherspercompanypolicy.Thus,onlyonemealwas analyzedperparent,eveniftheparentorderedmorethanone children’s meal;we tookthisapproach across allsubsequent studies.Respondentsweredebriefedonthepurposeofthestudy aftertheycompletedthestudy.

6 Basedontheresultsofthepretestwedecidedtoemployabbreviatedversions ofthetwoscalesinourstudiesfortworeasons:First,itemsinbothscalesloaded onmultiplefactors.Inordertogainaunidimensionalmeasure,wereducedthe scaletoaone-factorsolution.Second,ashorterquestionnairewasdesirablefor thefieldsettingofourstudiesinordertomaximizethelikelihoodthatrespon- dentswould(1)notbediscouragedfromparticipatingbyalengthyquestionnaire and(2)completetheentirequestionnaire.

ResultsandDiscussion

In order toassessthe relationshipbetweenparents’ social comparisonorientationandactualchoicewhenorderingachil- dren’smeal,respondents’choiceofsideitemswascodedas0 whennohealthysideitemwaschosenand1whenoneortwo healthysideitems(bothbeverageandfoodsideitem)werecho- senas partofthe mealtheyreceivedfromtheirvoucher(i.e., anorderofFrenchfriesandsodawouldresultinascoreof0, andanorderofFrenchfriesandwateroranorderoffruitand waterwouldbothresultinascoreof1,sinceatleastonehealthy sideitemispresent).⁷Weusedtheclassificationofsideitems (perceivedashealthyandlesshealthy)fromthefirstpilotstudy inordertocompletethiscoding.Wenotethat,inthisstudy,no participantchosebothahealthybeverageandhealthyfoodside item.

Resultsfromalogisticregressionwithparents’socialcom- parisonorientationasthepredictorvariableandchoiceofside items as the outcome variable (controlling for parent’s age and gender and the age of the child for whom the voucher wasredeemed)showedthatparents’scoresonthesocialcom- parison orientationscalesignificantlyaffected theirchoice of healthy/less healthy side items (β=−.45, Wald χ²(1)=4.42, p=.036),suchthatparentswithahighersocialcomparisonori- entationwerelesslikelytochooseahealthysideitemfortheir children.

Insum,resultsfromStudy1supportourhypothesisthatpar- entswithahighsocialcomparisonorientationaremorelikely tomakefoodchoicesfortheirchildrenthatconformtothenorm oflesshealthychoicesidentifiedinthepilotstudy(H1).Specifi- cally,parentswithahighsocialcomparisonorientationwereless likelytochoosehealthysideitemsaspartofachildren’smeal comparedtoparentswithalowsocialcomparisonorientation.

Study2a

Study2awasdesignedtotestoursecondhypothesis,which posits that implicitself-theoriesof malleability andfixedness ofpersonalitymoderatetheeffectofsocialcomparisonorienta- tiononparentalfoodchoice.Wedidsobymeasuringparents’

social comparisonorientationandtheir implicittheory of the self.WefollowedthesameoverallprocedureaswedidinStudy 1,includingcollectingrealchoicedata.

Method

Onehundredandeightyparentsagreedtoparticipate;sixteen respondentswereexcludedfromtheanalysiseitherbecausethe childrenwereoutsidetheagerangeof2–11yearsorbecausethe children’sagewasnotreported,resultinginafinalsampleof164

7Insubsequentstudieswepresentourprimaryanalysisusingthisdichoto- mouscodingandasupplementalanalysisusingcountofhealthyitemschosen asthedependentvariable.Becausenoparticipantchosetwohealthysideitems instudy1,thedichotomouscodingisidenticaltocountofhealthyitemssoonly oneanalysisispresentedforthisstudy.

(7)

(79%female, Mage(Parents)=36(SD=8.28),Mage(Children)=6.1 (SD=2.66)).The studywasconducted onthesamedays and timesinfourrestaurantlocations ofthe samefastfood chain inthisregion.Respondentswho volunteeredtoparticipate in thestudycompletedseveralmeasures:(1)theirestimatesofthe percentageofotherparentsintheirsocialcircleoffriends,family,andcolleaguesthattheythoughtwouldchoosehealthy/less healthysideitems for their childrenatafast food restaurant, (2)theirsocialcomparisonorientation(reducedscalebasedon Gibbons&Buunk,1999),(3)theirimplicitself-theoryofper- sonality (reduced scale based on Levy et al., 1998), and (4) theirdemographicinformation.AsinStudy1,thelastpageof thequestionnairecontainedthevoucherforachildren’smeal, whichwasonlyvalidonthatdayandatthatlocation.Respon- dentsweredebriefedonthepurposeofthestudybyadifferent researchassistantaftercompletingthestudy.

Results

PerceptionsofChoiceMadebyOtherParentsintheSocial Circle

Respondentsestimatedthatamajorityofotherparentsintheir socialcirclewouldpreferfriesinsteadofahealthiersidelikefruit (M=60.0%)andwouldprefersodaoverahealthierbeveragelike water(M=62.3%)withtheirchildren’s meal,consistentwith thefindingsinourpilotstudythatthenorminthispopulation istoorderless healthy sidesfor childrenat fast food restaurants.Estimatesdidnotvarybyrespondents’socialcomparison orientationorimplicitself-theory.

ImpactofSocialComparisonOrientationandImplicit Self-TheoriesonChoice

Using PROCESS (Model 1) for SPSS (Hayes, 2013), we regressed choice of healthy side items (i.e., whether one or moreof theitems washealthyregardlessofwhether thiswas thebeverageorthefoodside)onsocialcomparisonorientation, implicit self-theories, and their interaction. We first mean- centeredscoresonthesocialcomparisonorientationscaleand theimplicitself-theoriesscale.Weusedageofparents,parents’

gender,andtheageofthechildrenascontrols.Resultsrevealed amarginally significant negative effect of social comparison orientation(β=−.23,Z=-1.68,p=.09),suchthatthosewitha highersocialcomparisonorientationwerelesslikelytochoose healthysideitems.Wedidnotfindasignificantmaineffectof implicittheories ofthe self(β=−.19, Z=-1.64,p>.1). Most importantly,however,theresultsrevealedasignificantinterac- tion (β=−.18, Z=-1.99, p=.046)between social orientation andimplicitself-theories,aspredictedinH2(seeFig.2–Panel Afordetails).

Afloodlight analysis(Spilleretal., 2013)was usedtotest theregionsofsignificanceofthemeasuredmoderatorvariable (implicittheories)ontheeffectofsocialcomparisonorientation onchoiceof ahealthy sideitem. Resultsindicated thatthere wasasignificantconditionaleffectofimplicitself-theoriesonly amongparticipantswhohadascoreof4.16andaboveonthe socialcomparison orientation scale(SE=.14, p=.05). When participantshave ahigh social comparisonorientation, those

thataremalleabletheoristsaresignificantlylesslikelytoorder healthy side items for their children compared tothose who are fixedtheorists.TheseresultssupportH2 anddemonstrate therobustnessofourfindings.Therewasnosignificantdiffer- ence betweenmalleableandfixedtheoristsintheirlikelihood oforderinghealthysideitemsforchildrenamongrespondents withalowsocialcomparisonorientation(below4.16).

Wealsoranthemainanalysisusingacountofthenumberof healthyitemschosen.Whendoingso,theself-theory×social comparisoninteraction isnon-significant(β=.031, Z=1.239, p=.216),butwe also noticedthat thenumberof participants whochosetwohealthyoptionswasextremelysmall(n=15or 9.1%ofthesample).Wespeculatethatthissmallgroupofindi- vidualsmaybehighlyhealthconsciousandhencenotsensitive tonormativeinformationinthiscontext.Whenanalyzing the resultsremovingtheseparticipantsandusingnumberofhealthy options chosen as the DV (n=149), the results conceptually replicatethoseforthefullsample,thatis,thefocalinteraction betweenself-theoryandsocialcomparisonorientationremains significant(β=-295,Z=-2.668,p=.008).

Discussion

Ourresults showthat parentswerenotuniformlylikelyto conformtotheirbeliefthatthenormintheirparentalnetworkis toorderlesshealthyversushealthyfastfoodsideitemsfortheir children.Thosewithahighersocialcomparisonorientationwere marginallylesslikelytochoosehealthysideitems.Parentswith ahighsocialcomparisonorientationwhoaremalleabletheorists hadthelowestlikelihoodofchoosingatleastonehealthyside item as part of the children’s meal they ordered. To test the robustnessoftheseresults,weaimedtoreplicatethesefindings byexperimentallymanipulatingratherthanmeasuringimplicit self-theoriesinStudy2b.

Study2b

Researchonimplicitself-theorieshasshownthatthesebeliefs aboutfixednessormalleabilityofpersonalitycanbeexperimen- tallyinduced(Chiu,Hong,&Dweck,1997;Jainetal.,2009;

Yorkstonetal.,2010).In Study2b,wethereforemanipulated consumers’implicitself-theoriestotesttherobustnessof our findings.

Method

Onehundred andfifty-nineparents withan accompanying childparticipatedinStudy2b.Fourrespondentswereexcluded fromtheanalysisbecausetheirchildrenwereolderthaneleven.

Thefinalsamplehad155parents(68%female,Mage(Parents)=37 (SD=5.99),Mage(Children)=5.9(SD=3.06)).Similartoourpre- vious studies, this field experiment was conducted in four locationsofthesamefastfoodchainonthesamedaysandatthe sametimesandfollowedthesameprocedureasinStudy2awith oneexception.Ratherthanmeasuringself-theoriesintheques- tionnaire,weexperimentallymanipulatedimplicitself-theories byusingthewidelyfollowedprocedureofaskingrespondentsto

(8)

Fig.2.PanelAImplicitTheoryoftheSelf(Measured)ModeratestheInfluenceofSocialComparisonOrientationonChoiceofHealthySideItem(Study2a, FloodlightAnalysis).PanelBImplicitTheoryoftheSelf(Manipulated)ModeratestheInfluenceofSocialComparisonOrientationonChoiceofHealthySideItem (Study2b).

(9)

readapassageaboutthefixedness(ormalleability)ofpersonal- ityasexplainedbyawell-knownresearcherwiththeostensible purposeofansweringabriefreadingcomprehensiontest(Chiu etal.,1997;Jainetal.,2009;Yorkstonetal.,2010)(seeAppendix forthemanipulation).Parentswererandomlyassignedtoone ofthetwoexperimentalconditions.Respondentsweredebriefed onthepurposeofthestudybyadifferentresearchassistantafter completingthestudy.

Results

TheimplicittheoriesscaleusedinStudy2awasemployed hereas amanipulationcheck.As expected,themanipulation ofimplicitself-theorieswassuccessful.Participantsexposedto thefixedtheoryprime(MFixed=3.61)differedsignificantlyfrom thoseexposedtothemalleabletheoryprime(MMalleable=4.35;

F(1, 155)=9.36, p<.05) on the implicit theories measure (α=.89, M=3.97). Higher scores on this measureindicate a moremalleableself-theory.

Wenext regressed choice of healthy side items on scores on the social comparison orientation scale (mean-centered), manipulatedself-theory (codedsuch that fixedself-theory=- 1andmalleableself-theory=1),andtheirinteraction.Weused PROCESS (Model1) for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) for the analy- sisandcontrolledfor ageof parents,parents’gender,andthe ageofthechildren.Wefoundamaineffectofsocialcompari- sonorientation,replicatingsupportforH1(b=−.47,Z=-3.23, p<.01),such that parents withahighsocialcomparison orientation were less likely to order healthy side items. As in Study2a,wedidnotfindamaineffectofimplicitself-theories (b=−.19,Z=-1.06,p>.1).Instead,wefoundasignificantinter- actionbetweenscoresonthesocialcomparisonorientationscale andmanipulatedself-theory(fixedormalleable)(b=−.31,Z=- 2.13,p=.033), as predicted inH2 (see Fig. 2 – Panel B for details).Follow-upsimple effects analysesof the conditional effectsforthedichotomousmoderatorindicatedthatforthose primedtobefixedtheorists,therewasnodifferenceinlikelihood of ordering healthyside items bysocial comparison orientation(b=−.16,Z=−.93, p>.10).In contrast,thoseprimed to bemalleabletheoristswhohadahighsocialcomparisonorien- tationweresignificantlylesslikelytoorderhealthysideitems fortheirchildrencomparedtothoseprimedtobemalleablethe- oristswhohadalowsocialcomparisonorientation(b=−.78, Z=-3.36,p<.01).Whenweranthesameanalysisusingcount of the number of healthy items chosen, the focal interaction wasnon-significant(β=−.048,Z=1.321,p=.189),but,as in Study2a, the numberof participantswho chosetwo healthy optionswasquitesmall(n=8,5.2%ofthesample).Whenthese participants were removed, the results conceptually replicate thoseusingthedichotomouscodingforthefullsample(n=147;

β=−.31,Z=-2.137,p=.032).

Discussion

TheconsistentfindinginStudies2a and2bis thatparents withahighsocial comparisonorientation whoare malleable theoristsare morelikelytoconformtothe perceivednormin

theirparentalsocialnetworkthanparentswhoaremalleablethe- oristsbuthavealowsocialcomparisonorientationor parents whoare fixedtheorists(regardlessof their socialcomparison orientation). The significant interaction of social comparison orientation and implicit theory of the self in Studies 2a and 2b is drivenby thisgroup of parents, regardless of whether self-theorywasmeasured ormanipulated.Thus,an important questionremains:Howcanmarketingmanagersorpublicpolicy makersinfluencethechoicesmadebytheseparents?

Changingparentalfoodchoicethroughsocialnorms marketing

Thecommunicationofdescriptivesocialnorms,alsocalled social norms marketing, has been widely used to change the behavior of individuals in a desired direction (Calder &

Burnkrant,1977;Cialdini&Trost,1998).Theunderlyingmech- anismofsuchaninterventionistoinformindividualshowother individualsbehaveincomparablesituationsinordertoencour- agethemtoconformtothat behavior(Goldsteinetal., 2008;

Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993).Research has shownthat communicatingdescriptivenormscanencourageconsumersto reusehoteltowels(Goldsteinetal.,2008),toengageinunfamil- iarsustainablebehaviorslikegrasscycling(White&Simpson, 2013),andtoreduceadolescents’intentiontosmoke(Andrews etal.,2004).Morebroadly,socialnormsareapowerfulinflu- enceoneatingbehavior(Higgs, 2015),anddescriptivenorms havebeenshowntoimpactfoodchoicesbothinthelab(Burger etal.,2010)andinthefield(Mollenetal.,2013;Reicksetal., 2012).

Though thereexists an extensive body of research on the effectiveness of social norms marketing, there is relatively limited research that investigates moderators of normative influence. Recent research by White and Simpson (2013) demonstrated that descriptive norms are more likelyto yield conformitywhenanindividual(vs.collective)selfisactivated.

Other research suggests that adherence to descriptive social normsishigherwhenthesituationinwhichthenormisformed is more comparable tothe settingthe conforming individual iscurrentlyoccupying(Goldsteinetal.,2008).Weaddtothis emerging body of research by proposingthat an individual’s socialcomparisonorientationandtheirimplicittheoryoftheself interacttoinfluencetheirtendencytoconformtoadescriptive socialnorm.

WefoundinStudies2aand2bthatparentswithahighsocial comparisonorientationandamalleableviewoftheselfconform totheperceivednormwithintheirparentalsocialnetworktoa greater extentthananyothertypeofindividualsidentified by examiningthe interactionbetweensocialcomparisonorienta- tionandself-theory.Wenowpredictthatthesesameindividuals arealsomostlikelytobeaffectedbyasocial-normsbasedmar- ketinginterventioninwhichanew, healthy,descriptivesocial norm iscommunicated. Thisis because they are most likely toattendtothisnew, healthydescriptive socialnorm(dueto highsocialcomparisonorientation)andmostlikelytobeinflu- encedbythisinformation(duetotheirmalleabletheoryofthe self,whichmakesthemmorelikelytoadjusttomatchrelevant

(10)

contextualinformation).Incontrast,malleabletheoristswitha lowsocialcomparisonorientationwillbeless affectedbythe behaviorofotherparentsintheirsocialnetworkthanthosewith ahighsocialcomparisonorientation.Similarly,fixedtheorists, regardlessofsocialcomparisonorientation, areunlikelytobe affectedbyanynorm–neworestablished–inaparentalsocial networkbecausetheyarelesslikelytoadjusttheirownprefer- ences/attitudestofitaparticularcontext.Wethereforepredict:

H3: Presence (vs. absence) of adescriptive social norm of choosing healthy food for children significantly increases choice of healthy foods for children among the individuals mostsensitivetoinformationaboutwhatotherparentsintheir socialnetworkare choosing(i.e.,parents withahighsocial comparison orientationand a malleable theory of the self).

Presence/absenceofadescriptivesocialnormwillnotaffect choicesmadebyparentswithadifferentcombinationofsocial comparisonorientationandself-theory.

Study3

InStudy3,wetestH3byprovidingparentsmakingfastfood choicesfortheirchildrenwithsupposedlyobjectiveinformation aboutadescriptivenormforparentsinthesamesituation.

Method

Study3 respondentswererecruited inasimilarfashionas in previous studies, in four restaurant locations of the same fast food chain. Similar to Study 2a, we measured respondents’social comparison orientationand implicitself-theory.

We then manipulated a descriptive social norm in the study questionnaire. About half of the study respondents read an excerptfromanewspaperarticleatthebeginningoftheques- tionnaire (before making their food order) that claimed that 75% ofall parentschoose healthyproducts for their children atfastfood restaurants.Thisdescriptivesocialnormmanipu- lationwasadapted fromGoldsteinetal.(2008)andisshown inAppendix.Theotherhalfofthestudysampledidnotreceive thisinformation.Thus,thestudyusedameasuredsocialcompar- isonorientation×measuredself-theory×2(descriptivesocial normexplicitlycommunicatedtobehealthy:presentvs.absent) design.Parentswererandomlyassignedtooneofthetwoexperi- mentalconditions(withandwithoutasocialnormintervention) at all four restaurant locations.Three hundred and nine par- entsparticipatedinthestudy,and21respondentswereexcluded becausetheaccompanyingchildrenwereeitherolderthan11or youngerthantwo,yieldingatotalof288 respondents(70.8%

female,Mage(Parents)=38(SD=6.36),Mage(Children)=6.4(2.71)).

Weusedthesamescalesandmeasuresasinpreviousstudies.As inpreviousstudies,participantsweredebriefedaftercompletion ofthestudy.

Results

Weaskedrespondentswhosawthedescriptivesocialnorm torecall,fromtheexpertquotedinthenewspaperarticlethey

read,thepercentageofparentswhochoosehealthysideitems fortheirchildrenatafastfoodrestaurant.Ninety-eightpercent of respondentsrecalledthecorrectproportion(i.e.,75%),and thisnumberdidnotdifferbysocialcomparisonorientationor self-theory.

In ordertotest H3, we regressed choice of side items on scoresonthesocialcomparisonscale(mean-centered),scores ontheself-theoryscale(mean-centered),themanipulatedfac- torof whetherparticipantswereshowninformationaboutthe newhealthysocialnorm(codedsuchthatnormnotpresent=−1 andnormpresent=1),andallpossibleinteractionsofthesefac- torswhileincludingthecontrolsusedinpreviousstudies.First, we checkedwhetherthe socialnorminterventionwasableto increasehealthyfoodchoicesoverall.Atotalof39.4%ofthe respondentschooseatleastoneoptionperceivedashealthywhen they did not receive healthy norm information, compared to 51.0%ofthosewhoreceivedthehealthysocialnormtreatment (b=.27,Z=4.53,p=.03),consistentwithpastresearchshowing thepowerofsocialnormstoinfluencebehavior(Goldsteinetal., 2008).Thisrepresentsanincreaseofover29%inthepercentage ofparentschoosingatleastonehealthysideitemaspartofthe children’smealbecauseofthesocialnormintervention.Most importantly,ashypothesizedinH3,theresultsrevealasignifi- cant3-wayinteraction(b=.138,Z=4.00,p=.045).Toexplicate thethree-wayinteraction,wereporttheresultsforparticipants whodidnotseethehealthysocialnorminterventionseparately fromtheresultsforparticipantswhodidseethehealthysocial norminformationinthefollowingsections.

We note that we also ran the full model analysis using a countofthenumberofhealthyitemschosenasthedependent variableandfoundanon-significantthree-wayinteractionusing thiscoding(β=.018,Z=.849,p=.396).However,asinprevi- ousstudies,thenumberofparticipantswhochosetwohealthy optionswassmall(n=33or11.5%ofthesample).Whenanalyz- ingtheresultsremovingtheseparticipants,thefocalthree-way interaction hypothesizedinH3ismarginally significant, con- ceptuallyreplicatingtheresultsusingthedichotomouscoding forthefullsample(n=255;β=.121,Z=1.639,p=.100).The follow-up analyses reportednext use all participantsand the dichotomouscoding.

ResultsWhenNoDescriptiveHealthySocialNormis Communicated

Whenparticipants didnot seeinformationcommunicating ahealthysocialnorm,resultsreplicatedfindingsfromStudies 2aand2b.AnalyzingthedatausingPROCESS(Model1) for SPSS(Hayes,2013),wefoundamaineffectofsocialcompari- sonorientation,supportingH1(b=−.37,Z=-2.33,p<.05).We didnotfindasignificantmaineffectofimplicittheoriesofthe self(b=−.13, Z=−.94, p>.1).Mostimportantly,the results revealed a significant interaction (b=−.24, Z=-2.2, p<.05) betweenscoresonthesocialcomparisonorientationscaleand the implicitself-theoriesscale,as predictedinH2 (seeFig.3 for details). The follow up floodlight analysis (Spiller et al., 2013)showedthattherewasasignificantconditionaleffectof implicitself-theoriesonlyamongparticipantswhohadascore of 4.14 andabove onthe socialcomparisonorientationscale

(11)

Fig.3.TheEffectofSocialNormIntervention(Study3,FloodlightAnalysis).

(SE=.17,p=.05).Specifically,whenparentshaveahighsocial comparisonorientation,thosethataremalleabletheoristswere significantlylesslikelytoorderhealthysideitemsfortheirchil- drenthanthosewhoare fixedtheorists. Theseresultssupport H2anddemonstratetherobustnessofourfindings.Therewas nosignificantdifferencebetweenmalleableandfixedtheorists intheir likelihood of orderinghealthyside itemsamong par-

entswithalowsocialcomparisonorientation(below4.14),as inStudy2a.

ResultsWhentheDescriptiveHealthySocialNormis Present

Whenparticipantsdidseeadescriptivehealthysocialnorm, there were no main effects of social comparison orientation

(12)

(b=.09, Z=.68, p>.1) or implicit theories (b=.06, Z=.49, p>.1)onchoiceofsideitems.Inaddition,wedidnotfindasig- nificantinteractiveeffectofthesetwomeasures(b=.01,Z=.15, p>.1).Theseresults,inconcertwiththeresultswhenadescrip- tivehealthysocialnormispresent,suggestthatthesocialnorm interventionincreasedthechoiceofhealthysideitemsspecif- icallyforparentswhoaremalleableself-theoristswithahigh socialcomparisonorientation,suchthat theirchoiceswereas healthyasthoseofotherparents.

Discussion

ConsistentwithH3,theresultsofStudy3demonstratethat thedescriptivehealthysocialnorminterventioneliminatedthe effects consistently foundinourprevious studies.When pre- sentedwithinformationthatalargemajorityof otherparents choose healthy food options for their children at a fast food restaurant, asignificantly largerproportion of parents with a highsocialcomparisonorientationwhoweremalleable theo- ristschose atleastonehealthyside itemwhenorderingtheir children’s mealcompared towhen such information wasnot presented. In contrast, this newinformation about other par- entshadnoeffectonparentswithalowpropensityfor social comparisonorparentswhowerefixedtheorists.

Onelimitationofthisstudyisthatweprovidedinformation tocommunicateonlyahealthydescriptivesocialnorm(leaving participantstorelyontheirowninternalizednormofchoosing lesshealthysideitemsintheconditioninwhichwedidnotcom- municateadescriptivesocialnorm).Wealsonotethattherewas nomaineffectof self-theoryinthisstudy evenwhennorma- tiveinformationwasclearlypresented,whichonemightexpect sincepastresearchhasarguedthatmalleableself-theoristsare, overall, more sensitive tocontextual information. We specu- latethatevenwheninformationaboutwhatotherparentsorder ispresentedclearly, malleabletheoristsarewholowinsocial comparisonorientationsimplydonotseethisinformationasrel- evanttotheirdecisions,resultingonlyinasignificantinteraction betweenself-theoryandsocialcomparisonorientation.

GeneralDiscussion

Giventhat(1)parentsarethemaininfluencersofchildren’s healthyeatinghabitswellintoadolescence(Pedersen,Grønhøj,

& Thøgersen, 2015) and (2) eating patterns established dur- ingchildhoodpersistthroughoutone’sadultlife(Lien,Lytle,

&Klepp,2001;Rajuetal.,2010),understandinghowparents choose betweenless healthyandhealthyoptions for children haslifelongimplications.Wefindrobustevidencethatparents’

social comparison orientation andimplicit theory of the self influencetheir choiceof food items for their children atfast foodrestaurants. Morespecifically,parentswithahighsocial comparison orientationwho are malleable theoristsare most susceptibletoconformingtothisnorm,which,inthepopula- tionwestudy,istoorderrelativelylesshealthysideitemsfor childrenatafastfoodrestaurant.Itisthiscriticalgroupofpar- entsthathadthehighestlikelihoodofchoosinglesshealthyside itemsaspartofthechildren’smealsorderedinourstudies.By providing adescriptive social normintervention – contradic-

tory(andfictitious)informationthatamajorityofotherparents choosehealthyitemsfortheirchildrenatafastfoodrestaurant– wewereabletodramaticallyincreasetheoverallproportionof parentsthatchoseahealthysideitembyincreasingthechoice ofhealthyitemsspecificallyforthisgroupsothattheirchoices matchedthoseofotherparents.

Ourresultssuggestthepotentialtohaverealimpactonthe calorieschildrenareconsuming.Acomparisonoftheaverage caloriesofhealthyandlesshealthysideitemssuggeststhatpar- ents orderinghealthierside itemsdid significantlyreducethe calories childrenwereservedattheretailoutletwhereweran ourstudies.Parentswhochoseahealthybeverageandahealthy foodsideserved,onaverage,70.57%fewercaloriesinsideitems totheirchildrenthanparentswhochosealesshealthybeverage andlesshealthyfoodside.Thedifferenceisnotasstarkwhen comparingparentswhochoseonlyonehealthyside(beverage orfood)toparentswhochosetwolesshealthysides,buteven onehealthychoicestillresultedin35.28%fewercaloriesserved.

SeeTable1forthepercentageofrespondentswhochoseeach possiblecombinationofsideoptionsacrossallstudies.

TheoreticalImplicationsofourResearch

Ourresearchmakesnovelcontributionstotheliteratureon choicesfor othersinaretailcontext,socialinfluenceonfood choice,implicitself-theoriesandlaytheoriesinafoodconsump- tioncontext,theeffectivenessofdescriptivesocialnorms,and thelargerbodyofworkaimedatunderstandingdriversoffood choiceandtheroleparentsplayintheirchildren’shealth.First, we contribute to the retailing literature by exploring choices for others in a retail context (Liu et al., 2019). Specifically, whileotherresearchershaveexploredgiftgiving(Bradford&

Sherry,2013)andjointconsumptioninthiscontext(Wakefield

&Inman,2003),weareamongthefirsttoexplorecare-giving choicesmadeatretailfastfoodrestaurantsinanattempttounder- stand how parental individual differences impact choices for theirchildren.

Second,we build onresearchexaminingtherole ofsocial influence on food choice (McFerranet al., 2010a; McFerran etal.,2010b;Pooretal.,2013)inaretailenvironment(Zhang etal.,2014).Wecontributetothisstreamofresearchbytheoriz- inganddemonstrating,forthefirsttime,thatsocialcomparison orientation determines the degree of influence that parental socialnetworkshaveonparents’foodchoicesfortheirchildren.

Third, we contribute to research on implicit self-theories andlaytheoriesinfoodconsumptioncontexts.Althoughprior researchhasshownthatfixedtheoristsbehaveinwaysconsis- tentwiththeirinnerbeliefsandmalleabletheoristsadapttheir behaviorbasedonthecontextor situation(Chiuetal.,1997), we show,for thefirsttime,thattheextenttowhichmalleable theoristsadjusttheirbehaviortoasocialcomparisonstandardis determinedbytheirsocialcomparisonorientation.Amajority of researchexploringhowlaytheories canleadconsumersto makelesshealthyfoodchoiceshasexploredlaytheoriesabout the relationship betweenspecific food attributes (e.g., health andpriceinHawsetal.,2017;healthandtasteinRaghunathan etal.,2006)whileotherworkhasfocusedonlaytheoriesabout

(13)

Table1

PercentageofRespondentsChoosingEachofthePossibleCombinationsofHealthyandLessHealthyBeveragesandFoodSidesacrossStudies.

Healthy

Beverage+Healthy FoodSide

Healthy Beverage+Less healthyFoodSide

Lesshealthy Beverage+Healthy FoodSide

Lesshealthy Beverage+Less HealthyFoodSide

Study1 0% 48.3% 0% 51.7%

Study2a 9.1% 12.8% 23.2% 54.9%

Study2b 5.2% 32.9% 5.2% 56.8%

Study3 11.5% 30.6% 7.3% 50.7%

thesourceof obesity(McFerran&Mukhopadhyay,2013).In contrast,weshowthatconsumers’implicitself-theoriesinteract withsocialcomparisonorientationtoinfluencefoodchoicefor theirchildren.

Fourth, our work adds to the small yet growing body of research on moderators of social norm effectiveness. We enhancethisliteraturebyshowingthatadescriptivesocialnorm interventionismosteffectivewithconsumerswithahighsocial comparisonorientationwhoaremalleabletheorists.Ontheother hand,ithaslittleeffectonthosewithalowsocialcomparison orientationorthosewhoarefixedtheorists.Ourworkalsocon- tributestothebroaderliteratureexploringhowdescriptivesocial normsinfluencefoodconsumption(Burgeretal.,2010;Higgs, 2015;Mollenetal.,2013;Reicksetal.,2012).

Finally,thisresearchcontributesdirectlytothegrowingliter- atureinmarketingaimedatunderstandingdriversofchildren’s consumptionoffood (e.g.,Connelletal.,2014;Mooreetal., 2017; Raju et al., 2010). Our findings support the consumer socialization framework analyzing the family’s influence on children’sbodilydevelopmentproposedbyMooreetal.(2017) byusingoneofthefiveelementsintheirframework,parental factors.

ManagerialandPublicPolicyImplications

In a culture with increasing sensitivity tomaking healthy food choices, particularly for children, our research offers practical insightstomanagers andpolicy makers. Forover a decade,fastfoodrestaurantshaveincreasedtheavailabilityof healthyfoodoptionsontheirmenus,andmorerecently,affected major changes to their children’s meal options (e.g., in the U.S.,Wendy’sremoved sodaas achoiceinchildren’smeals;

Bowerman,2015).Doingsoallowstheretailertoenhancethe customerexperiencebycommunicatingsharedvalueswithpar- entswhosaytheywanttheoptiontobuyhealthyfoodfortheir childrenatfastfoodoutlets(Grewaletal.,2017).

Ourfindingssuggestthatdespitetheavailabilityofsuchside itemsonfastfoodmenus,parentswithahightendencytoengage insocialcomparisonandamalleableviewoftheselfaremost likelytoconformtotheestablishednormintheirparentalsocial network,whetherit is toorderhealthyor less healthyfoods.

Giventhatthenorminthepopulationwestudiedistoordera lesshealthysideitem(e.g.,fries)versusahealthysideitem(e.g., fruit),conformingresultsinsignificantlylesshealthyordersfor thechildrenof thisgroupof parents.Recent survey evidence indicatesthat thisnormis prevalentinotherpopulations and

notjustlimited tothespecificgeographic locationwe studied (Scher,2018).

Why might the norm be to order less healthy items for children?Althoughtherehasclearlybeendemandfromsome stakeholderstoofferhealthieroptionsforchildrenatfastfood restaurants,consumersappeartostillvaluelesshealthyoptions asindulgent“treats”(Trivedi,Sridhar,&Kumar,2016),inline withtheideathat“unhealthy=tasty”(Raghunathanetal.,2006).

Ourfindingssuggestthatmanagersandpolicymakerscantarget thegroupmostlikelytoconformtoalesshealthynormtoshift thebalancefromchoosingindulgenttreatstohealthieroptions.

Todoso,Study3suggestsdescriptivesocialnorminterventions maybeeffective.

The results of Study3 suggest that employing descriptive socialnormsthatdescribeothersmakinghealthyfoodchoices for their children could influence parents to make healthier choices,particularlyparentswithamalleableviewoftheself andahighsocialcomparisonorientation.Thesenormscouldbe communicatedusingpoint-of-salematerials(e.g.,menus,menu boards,in-storesignage,serverscripts).However,therearetwo potentialcaveatstothisapproach.Oneisthattheactualnormin thepopulationmaybetochooselesshealthyoptions(asitwas inthepopulationwestudied).Managersandpolicymakersmay havedifficultyphrasingsocialnorminterventionsthatareboth healthyandtruthfulinpopulationswherethisisthecase.Todo so,theymayneedtofocusonnarrowlydefinedbehaviors(e.g., choosingaspecificsideitem)versusgeneralnormsabout“being healthy.”Indoingso,itiscriticalthatmanagersnotcrossthebor- derintomakingdeceptiveclaims,bothfromanethicalandlegal perspective.Giventhat healthynormsarenotuniversal,man- agersmayalsowishtoexploreotherwaystosuggestahealthy normwithoutmakingexplicitstatementsthathealthyitemsare chosen morefrequently than lesshealthy items ifthisis not, indeed,thecase.Onepossibilityfordoingsoistovisuallydepict arepresentativefamilyintheregionenjoyinghealthysideitems aspartofachildren’smeal.Signsindicatingthatfruitis“now trending” or“a popularchoice”mayalsoimplyadescriptive normtowardhealthychoiceswithoutbeingdeceptive.Adding ahealthyoptionasamandatorysideitemmightalsoeffectively changethenorm(Settembre,2017).Futureresearchcouldtest theefficacyof suchimpliedsocialnorms.Inadditiontothese verbalandvisualcues,managersmayalsoconsiderothertypes ofsensorycuesthatmaysuggestthatthenorminarestaurantis toorderhealthyfood.Forexample,recentresearchshowsthat light andpale colorsmaysignalhealthiness(Mai,Symmank,

&Seeberg-Elverfeldt,2016),whileotherworkhasfoundthat