Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 27;11(7):973.
doi: 10.3390/foods11070973.

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

Kathryn A Carroll  1 , Anya Samek  2 , Lydia Zepeda  3
Affiliations

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

Kathryn A Carroll et al. Foods. .

Abstract

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

Keywords: cognitive load; consumer behavior; consumer choice; field experiment; food bundling; food choice; grocery shopping.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Display layout for the grocery shopping experiment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Food Bundle Selection by Treatment (when Bundles were Displayed) and Need for Cognition Score (NCS). NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses. Differences within treatments between need for cognition scores (NCS) are significant at the 1% *** level.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bundle Selection by Treatment (when Discount Bundles were Displayed) and Need for Cognition Score (NCS). NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses. Differences within treatments between need for cognition scores (NCS) are significant at the 1% *** level if noted.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Odds of Selecting Any Bundle, by Main Effects Variables. NOTE: Robust standard errors in parentheses. Odds ratios are significant at the 5% ** or 1% *** level if noted.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Stremersch S., Tellis G. Strategic Bundling of Products and Prices: A New Synthesis for Marketing. J. Mark. 2002;66:55–72. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.66.1.55.18455. - DOI
    1. Sett R.K. A Product and a Price Bundle in an Efficient Choice Set: How Do Choice Framing and Goal Orientation Influence Preferences? J. Mark. Theory Pr. 2014;22:285–298. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679220304. - DOI
    1. Harlam B.A., Krishna A., Lehmann D.R., Mela C. Impact of bundle type, price framing and familiarity on purchase intention for the bundle. J. Bus. Res. 1995;33:57–66. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(94)00014-6. - DOI
    1. Harris J., Blair E.A. Consumer preference for product bundles: The role of reduced search costs. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2006;34:506–513. doi: 10.1177/0092070306288405. - DOI
    1. Sharpe K.M., Staelin R. Consumption Effects of Bundling: Consumer Perceptions, Firm Actions, and Public Policy Implications. J. Public Policy Mark. 2010;29:170–188. doi: 10.1509/jppm.29.2.170. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources