Abstract:
We elicit and estimate risk preferences for a pool of young adults in the UK, and explore their links with healthy eating and risky health behaviours. We construct the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) as an overall indicator of nutritional quality, and we use it to complement the body mass index BMI. While for females we find no significant association between the BMI and risk preferences, males with high BMI appear more risk-seeking. However, this association disappears when controlling for the quality of the diet. For males, the HEI is significantly associated with risk preferences. Males smoking status is not associated with risk preferences.
Correction Note
Correction added after online publication February 28, 2017: Due to a technical error, some reference citations in an earlier version of the article were misplaced.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ahima, R. S., and M. A. Lazar. 2013 (Aug) 23. “The Health Risk of Obesity—Better Metrics Imperative.” Science 341 (6148): 856–858.10.1126/science.1241244Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, S., G. Harrison, M. Lau, and E. E. Rutström. 2006 (Dec) 1. “Elicitation Using Multiple Price List Formats.” Experiments Economics 9 (4): 383–405.10.1007/s10683-006-7055-6Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, S., G. W. Harrison, M. I. Lau, and E. E. Rutström. 2008 (May). “Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences.” Econometrica 76 (3): 583–618.10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.xSearch in Google Scholar
Anderson, L. R., and J. M. Mellor. 2008 (Sep). “Predicting Health Behaviors with an Experimental Measure of Risk Preference.” Journal of Health Economics 27 (5):. 1260–1274.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.05.011Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M., & Rutström, E.E. (2010). Behavioral econometrics for psychologists. Journal of Economic Psychology. 31, 553-576.10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.017Search in Google Scholar
Barsky, R. B., F. T. Juster, M. S. Kimball, and M. D. Shapiro. 1997 (May) 1. “Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2): 537–579.10.1162/003355397555280Search in Google Scholar
Baum, C. L., and W. F. Ford. 2004 (Sep) 1. “The Wage Effects of Obesity: A Longitudinal Study.” Health Economics 13 (9): 885–899.10.1002/hec.881Search in Google Scholar
Baum CL, Ford WF, 2004. The Wage Effects of Obesity: a Longitudinal Study. Health Economics, 13 (9), 885-899.10.1002/hec.881Search in Google Scholar
Blais, A. R., and E. U. Weber. 2006. “A Domain-Specific Risk Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations.” Judgment and Decision Making. 1(1): 33–4710.1037/t13084-000Search in Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, J., J. Currie, and S. Haider. 2004 (Jul). “Poverty, Food Insecurity, and Nutritional Outcomes in Children and Adults.” Journal of Health Economics 23 (4): 839–862.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.12.008Search in Google Scholar
Bhattacharya J, Currie J, Haider SJ, 2006a. Poverty, Food Insecurity, and Nutritional Outcomes in Children and Adults. Journal of Health Economics, 23, 839-862.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.12.008Search in Google Scholar
Bhattacharya J, Currie J, Haider SJ, 2006b. Breakfast of Champions? The School Breakfast Program and the Nutrition of Children and Families, Journal of Human Resources, 41(3), 445-466.10.3386/w10608Search in Google Scholar
Blondel, S., Y. Lohéac, and S. Rinaudo. 2007. “Rational Decision of Drug Users: An Experimental Approach.” Journal of Health Economics 26 (3): 643–658.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Breslow, R. A 2005 (Dec) 22. “Alcohol Drinking Patterns and Diet Quality: The 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.” American Journal of Epidemiology 163 (4): 359–366.10.1093/aje/kwj050Search in Google Scholar
Breslow RA., Guenther PM, Smothers BA, 2006. Alcohol Drinking Patterns and Diet Quality: The 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. American Journal of Epidemiology 163: 359-366.10.1093/aje/kwj050Search in Google Scholar
Burkhauser, R. V., and J. Cawley. 2008 (Mar). “Beyond BMI: The Value of More Accurate Measures of Fatness and Obesity in Social Science Research.” Journal of Health Economics 27 (2): 519–529.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.05.005Search in Google Scholar
Cawley, J 2004. “The Impact of Obesity on Wages.” The Journal of Human Resources 39 (2): 451.10.2307/3559022Search in Google Scholar
Chiou, W. B., C. S. Wan, W. Wu, and K. T. Lee. 2011. “A Randomized Experiment to Examine Unintended Consequences of Dietary Supplement Use among Daily Smokers: Taking Supplements Reduces Self-Regulation of Smoking.” Addiction 106 (12): 2221–2228.10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03545.xSearch in Google Scholar
Cohen, J 1969. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cox, J., and V. Sadiraj. 2005. “Small- and Large-Stakes Risk Aversion: Implications of Concavity Calibration for Decision Theory.” Games and Economic Behavior 56 (1): 45–60.10.1016/j.geb.2005.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Croson, R., and U. Gneezy. 2009 (May). “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 448–474.10.1257/jel.47.2.448Search in Google Scholar
Dohmen, T., A. Falk, D. Huffman, U. Sunde, J. Schupp, and G. G. Wagner. 2011 (Mar) 31. “Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences.” Journal of the European Economic Association 9 (3): 522–550.10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.xSearch in Google Scholar
Dolan, P., Galizzi, M.M. (2014). Because I’m Worth It. A Lab-Field Experiment on Spillover Effects of Incentives in Health. LSE CEP Discussion Paper CEPDP1286.Search in Google Scholar
Dolan, P., Galizzi, M.M. (2015) Like Ripples on a Pond: Behavioural Spillovers and Their Consequences for Research and Policy, Journal of Economic Psychology, 2015, 47, 1-16.10.1016/j.joep.2014.12.003Search in Google Scholar
Galizzi, M. M., Machado, S. R., & Miniaci, R. (2016). Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative survey. LSE Research Online Working Paper 67554. Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics.10.2139/ssrn.2822613Search in Google Scholar
Feinberg, R 1977. “Risk Aversion, Risk and the Duration of Unemployment.” Review of Economics and Statistics 59 (3): 264–271.10.2307/1925044Search in Google Scholar
Filippin, A., and P. Crosetto. “A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes. IZA Discussion Paper 8184 2014.10.2139/ssrn.2402139Search in Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U 2007 (Feb) 7. “Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments.” Experiments Economics 10 (2): 171–178.10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4Search in Google Scholar
Flegal, K. M., B. I. Graubard, D. F. Williamson, and M. H. Gail. 2005. “Excess Deaths Associated with Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity.” Jama 293 : 1861–1867.10.1001/jama.293.15.1861Search in Google Scholar
Gallagher, D., M. Visser, D. Sepulveda, et al. 1996. “How Useful Is the Body Mass Index for Comparison of Body Fatness across Age, Sex, and Ethnic Groups?” American Journal of Epidemiology 143 (3): 228–239.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008733Search in Google Scholar
Garn, S. M., W. R. Leonard, and V. M. Hawthorne. 1986. “Three Limitations of the Body Mass Index.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 44 : 996–997.10.1093/ajcn/44.6.996Search in Google Scholar
Greiner, B. “The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0: A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics. Working Paper Series in Economics 10 University of Cologne, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
Griffith, R., M. O’Connell, and K. Smith. 2012a. ““Measuring the Quality of People’s Diets: A Comparison of Intake and Purchase Data.”. ANR-ESRC Workshop on Econometrics and I.O. of Nutrition, Toulouse, School of Economics.Search in Google Scholar
Guenther, P. M., J. Reedy, S. M. Krebs-Smith, B. B. Reeve, and P. P. Basiotis. 2006a (Aug). “The Revised Healthy Eating Index: A Tool for Measuring Change in Diet Quality.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 106 (8): 68. A.10.1016/j.jada.2006.05.216Search in Google Scholar
Guenther, P. M., S. M. Krebs-Smith, J. Reedy, P. Britten, W. Juan, M. Lino, et al. “Healthy Eating Index-2005. (CNPP Fact Sheet No. 1) Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006b.Search in Google Scholar
Guenther, P. M., J. Reedy, S. M. Krebs-Smith, B. B. Reeve, and P. P. Basiotis. (2007).Development and Evaluation of the Healthy Eating Index: Technical ReportCenter for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, US Department of Agriculture.Search in Google Scholar
Hakes, J. K., and W. K. Viscusi. 2007. “Automobile Seatbelt Usage and the Value of a Statistical Life.” Southern Economic Journal 73 : 659–676.10.1002/j.2325-8012.2007.tb00795.xSearch in Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., E. Johnson, M. M. McInnes, and E. E. Rutstrom. 2005. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment.” The American Economic Review 95 (3): 897–901.10.1257/0002828054201378Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., A. Hofmeyr, D. Ross, and J. T. Swarthout. Risk Preferences, Time Preferences, and Smoking Behaviour. CEAR Working Paper 2015-11 Georgia State University, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., M. I. Lau, and E. E. Rutström. 2007 (Jun). “Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 109 (2): 341–368.10.1111/j.1467-9442.2007.00496.xSearch in Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W., & Rutström, E.E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J.C. Cox & G.W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk Aversion in Experiments. Bingley, UK: Emerald Research in Experimental Economics, Volume 12.10.1016/S0193-2306(08)00003-3Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., M. I. Lau, and E. E. Rutström. 2010 (Sep). “Individual Discount Rates and Smoking: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Denmark.” Journal of Health Economics 29 (5):. 708–717.10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.06.006Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., and E. E. Rutström. 2008 (Jun) 13. “Expected Utility Theory and Prospect Theory: One Wedding and a Decent Funeral.” Experiments Economics 12 (2): 133–158.10.1007/s10683-008-9203-7Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W., & Lau, M.I. (2014). Risk attitudes, sample selection, and attrition in a longitudinal field experiment. CEAR Working Paper 2014-04. Robinson College of Business. Georgia State University.10.1162/rest_a_00845Search in Google Scholar
Hey, J. D., and C. Orme. 1994. “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data.” Econometrica 62 (6): 1291–1326.10.1142/9789813235816_0003Search in Google Scholar
Hofstetter, A., Y. Schutz, E. Jéquier, and J. Wahren. 1986 (Jan) 9. “Increased 24-Hour Energy Expenditure in Cigarette Smokers.” The New England Journal of Medicine 314 (2): 79–82.10.1056/NEJM198601093140204Search in Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury. 2002 (Dec). “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” The American Economic Review 92 (5): 1644–1655.10.1257/000282802762024700Search in Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury. 2005. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects.” The American Economic Review 95 (3): 902–912.10.1257/0002828054201459Search in Google Scholar
Information Center for Health and Social Care. 2008. Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use Among Young People in England in 2008. London, National Health ServiceSearch in Google Scholar
Janssen, I., P. T. Katzmarzyk, and R. Ross. 2004. “Waist Circumference and Not Body Mass Index Explains Obesity-Related Health Risk.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79 : 379–784.10.1093/ajcn/79.3.379Search in Google Scholar
Johansson, E., P. Bockerman, U. Kilskinen, and M. Heliovaara. 2009. “Obesity and Labour Market Success in Finland: The Difference between Having a High BMI and Being Fat.” Economics and Human Biology 7 : 36–45.10.1016/j.ehb.2009.01.008Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy E, Ohls J, Carlson S, Fleming K, 1995. The Healthy Eating Index: Design and Applications. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 95 (10), 1103-1108.10.1016/S0002-8223(95)00300-2Search in Google Scholar
Kragelund, C., and T. Omland. 2005 (Nov). “A Farewell to Body-Mass Index?” The Lancet 366 (9497): 1589–1591.10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67642-8Search in Google Scholar
Lahiri, K., and J. G. Song. 2000. “The Effect of Smoking on Health Using a Sequential Self-Selection Model.” Health Economics 9 (6): 491–511.10.1002/0470846313.ch4Search in Google Scholar
Lusk, J. L., and K. H. Coble. 2005. “Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Risky Food.” Americal Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (2): 393–405.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00730.xSearch in Google Scholar
Mitchell, S 1999. “Measures of Impulsivity in Cigarette Smokers and Nonsmokers.” PsychopharmacologyBerl) 146 : 455–464.10.1007/PL00005491Search in Google Scholar
Nevill, A. M., and R. L. Holder. 1995. “Body Mass Index: A Measure of Fatness or Leanness?” British Journal of Nutrition 73 : 507–516.10.1079/BJN19950055Search in Google Scholar
Ohmura, Y., T. Takahashi, and N. Kitamura. 2005. “Discounting Delayed and Probabilistic Monetary Gains and Losses by Smokers of Cigarettes.” PsychopharmacologyBerl) 182 : 508–515.10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_8Search in Google Scholar
Prentice, A. M., and S. A. Jebb. 2001. “Beyond Body Mass Index.” Obesity Reviews 2 (3): 141–147.10.1046/j.1467-789x.2001.00031.xSearch in Google Scholar
Reynolds, B., J. Richards, K. Horn, and K. Karraker. 2004. “Delay Discounting and Probability Discounting as Related to Cigarette Smoking Status in Adults.” Behavioural Processes 65 : 35–42.10.1016/S0376-6357(03)00109-8Search in Google Scholar
Reynolds, B 2006. “The Experiential Discounting Task is Sensitive to Cigarette-Smoking Status and Correlates with a Measure of Delay Discounting.” Behavioural Pharmacology 17 : 133–142.10.1097/01.fbp.0000190684.77360.c0Search in Google Scholar
Slovic, P 1972. “Procession Situation, Information, and the Generality of Risk-Taking Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 : 128–134.10.1037/h0032370Search in Google Scholar
Stamford, B. A., S. Matter, R. D. Fell, and P. Papanek. 1986 (Apr). “Effects of Smoking Cessation on Weight Gain, Metabolic Rate, Caloric Consumption, and Blood Lipids.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 43 (4): 486–494.10.1093/ajcn/43.4.486Search in Google Scholar
Sutter, M., M. Kocher, D. Glatzle-Rutzler, and S. Trautmann. 2013. “Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents’ Field Behavior.” The American Economic Review 103 (1): 510–531.10.1257/aer.103.1.510Search in Google Scholar
Sutter M, Kocher MG, Glatzle-Rutzler D, Trautmann ST, 2013. Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents’ Field Behavior. American Economic Review, 103(1), 510-531.10.1257/aer.103.1.510Search in Google Scholar
Szrek, H., L.-W. Chao, S. Ramlagan, and K. Peltzer. 2012 (Nov). “Predicting (Un)Healthy Behavior: A Comparison of Risk-Taking Propensity Measures.” Judgment and Decision Making 7 (6): 716–727.10.1017/S1930297500003260Search in Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. K., and J. Hersch. 2001 (May). “Cigarette Smokers as Job Risk Takers.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (2): 269–280.10.1162/00346530151143806Search in Google Scholar
Wack, J., and J. Rodin. 1982. “Smoking and Its Effects on Body Weight and the Systems of Caloric Regulation.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 35 : 366–380.10.1093/ajcn/35.2.366Search in Google Scholar
Wada, R., and E. Tekin. 2010. “Body Composition and Wages.” Economics and Human Biology 8 : 242–254.10.3386/w13595Search in Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., A. R. Blais, and N. E. Betz. 2002. “A Domain-Specific Risk Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors.” Judgment and Decision Making 15 (4): 263–290.10.1002/bdm.414Search in Google Scholar
Werle C., Wansink B., Payne C. (2010). Just thinking about exercise makes me serve more food. Physical activity and calorie compensation. Appetite, 56(2), 332-335.10.1016/j.appet.2010.12.016Search in Google Scholar
Werle, C. O. C., B. Wansink, and C. R. Payne. 2011 (Apr). “Just Thinking about Exercise Makes Me Serve More Food. Physical Activity and Calorie Compensation.” Appetite 56 (2): 332–335.10.1016/j.appet.2010.12.016Search in Google Scholar
Wisdom, J., Downs, J.S., and Loewenstein, G. (2010). “Promoting Healthy Choices: Information Versus Convenience.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 164-78.10.1257/app.2.2.164Search in Google Scholar
World Health Organization, 2003. Factsheet: Obesity and overweight. http://www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/gs_obesity.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Appendix
Appendix A: Experimental test to elicit risk preferences
Pair | Lottery A | Lottery B | EVA | EVB | EVA-EVB | CRRA range if switching to B | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | £ | £ | £ | ||
1 | 10 % | 20 | 90 % | 16 | 10 % | 38.5 | 90 % | 1 | 16.40 | 4.75 | 11.65 | –∞; –1.71 |
2 | 20 % | 20 | 80 % | 16 | 20 % | 38.5 | 80 % | 1 | 16.80 | 8.50 | 8.30 | –1.71; –0.95 |
3 | 30 % | 20 | 70 % | 16 | 30 % | 38.5 | 70 % | 1 | 17.20 | 12.25 | 4.95 | –0.95; –0.49 |
4 | 40 % | 20 | 60 % | 16 | 40 % | 38.5 | 60 % | 1 | 17.60 | 16.00 | 1.60 | –0.49; –0.15 |
5 | 50 % | 20 | 50 % | 16 | 50 % | 38.5 | 50 % | 1 | 18.00 | 19.75 | –1.75 | –0.15; 0.14 |
6 | 60 % | 20 | 40 % | 16 | 60 % | 38.5 | 40 % | 1 | 18.40 | 23.50 | –5.10 | 0.14; 0.41 |
7 | 70 % | 20 | 30 % | 16 | 70 % | 38.5 | 30 % | 1 | 18.80 | 27.25 | –8.45 | 0.41; 0.68 |
8 | 80 % | 20 | 20 % | 16 | 80 % | 38.5 | 20 % | 1 | 19.20 | 31.00 | –11.80 | 0.68; 0.97 |
9 | 90 % | 20 | 10 % | 16 | 90 % | 38.5 | 10 % | 1 | 19.60 | 34.75 | –15.15 | 0.97; 1.37 |
10 | 100 % | 20 | 0 % | 16 | 100 % | 38.5 | 0 % | 1 | 20.00 | 38.50 | –18.50 | 1.37; ∞ |
Note: The columns with the expected values for the lotteries and the implied CRRA intervals were not shown to the subjects in the experiment.
Pair | Lottery A | Lottery B | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | |
1 | 10 % | 20 | 90 % | 16 | 10 % | 38.5 | 90 % | 1 |
2 | 20 % | 20 | 80 % | 16 | 20 % | 38.5 | 80 % | 1 |
3 | 30 % | 20 | 70 % | 16 | 30 % | 38.5 | 70 % | 1 |
4 | 40 % | 20 | 60 % | 16 | 40 % | 38.5 | 60 % | 1 |
5 | 50 % | 20 | 50 % | 16 | 50 % | 38.5 | 50 % | 1 |
6 | 60 % | 20 | 40 % | 16 | 60 % | 38.5 | 40 % | 1 |
7 | 70 % | 20 | 30 % | 16 | 70 % | 38.5 | 30 % | 1 |
8 | 80 % | 20 | 20 % | 16 | 80 % | 38.5 | 20 % | 1 |
9 | 90 % | 20 | 10 % | 16 | 90 % | 38.5 | 10 % | 1 |
10 | 100 % | 20 | 0 % | 16 | 100 % | 38.5 | 0 % | 1 |
11 | 10 % | 6 | 90 % | 4.80 | 10 % | 11.55 | 90 % | 0.30 |
12 | 20 % | 6 | 80 % | 4.80 | 20 % | 11.55 | 80 % | 0.30 |
13 | 30 % | 6 | 70 % | 4.80 | 30 % | 11.55 | 70 % | 0.30 |
14 | 40 % | 6 | 60 % | 4.80 | 40 % | 11.55 | 60 % | 0.30 |
15 | 50 % | 6 | 50 % | 4.80 | 50 % | 11.55 | 50 % | 0.30 |
16 | 60 % | 6 | 40 % | 4.80 | 60 % | 11.55 | 40 % | 0.30 |
17 | 70 % | 6 | 30 % | 4.80 | 70 % | 11.55 | 30 % | 0.30 |
18 | 80 % | 6 | 20 % | 4.80 | 80 % | 11.55 | 20 % | 0.30 |
19 | 90 % | 6 | 10 % | 4.80 | 90 % | 11.55 | 10 % | 0.30 |
20 | 100 % | 6 | 0 % | 4.80 | 100 % | 11.55 | 0 % | 0.30 |
21 | 10 % | 200 | 90 % | 160 | 10 % | 385 | 90 % | 10 |
22 | 20 % | 200 | 80 % | 160 | 20 % | 385 | 80 % | 10 |
23 | 30 % | 200 | 70 % | 160 | 30 % | 385 | 70 % | 10 |
24 | 40 % | 200 | 60 % | 160 | 40 % | 385 | 60 % | 10 |
25 | 50 % | 200 | 50 % | 160 | 50 % | 385 | 50 % | 10 |
26 | 60 % | 200 | 40 % | 160 | 60 % | 385 | 40 % | 10 |
27 | 70 % | 200 | 30 % | 160 | 70 % | 385 | 30 % | 10 |
28 | 80 % | 200 | 20 % | 160 | 80 % | 385 | 20 % | 10 |
29 | 90 % | 200 | 10 % | 160 | 90 % | 385 | 10 % | 10 |
30 | 100 % | 200 | 0 % | 160 | 100 % | 385 | 0 % | 10 |
31 | 10 % | 40 | 90 % | 32 | 10 % | 77 | 90 % | 2 |
32 | 20 % | 40 | 80 % | 32 | 20 % | 77 | 80 % | 2 |
33 | 30 % | 40 | 70 % | 32 | 30 % | 77 | 70 % | 2 |
34 | 40 % | 40 | 60 % | 32 | 40 % | 77 | 60 % | 2 |
35 | 50 % | 40 | 50 % | 32 | 50 % | 77 | 50 % | 2 |
36 | 60 % | 40 | 40 % | 32 | 60 % | 77 | 40 % | 2 |
37 | 70 % | 40 | 30 % | 32 | 70 % | 77 | 30 % | 2 |
38 | 80 % | 40 | 20 % | 32 | 80 % | 77 | 20 % | 2 |
39 | 90 % | 40 | 10 % | 32 | 90 % | 77 | 10 % | 2 |
40 | 100 % | 40 | 0 % | 32 | 100 % | 77 | 0 % | 2 |
Appendix B: Instructions for the experimental test.
In the test that follows you will be presented 40 pairs of alternative options. Each pair of options is indicated with a sequential number.
In particular, each pair consists of two lotteries: lottery A, and lottery B.
Both lotteries A and B give you an amount of money (£1) with some probability (P1), and some other amount of money (£2) with the complementary probability (P2).
For instance consider the pair of lotteries “0” represented below:
Pair | Lottery A | Lottery B | Your Choice | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | |||
0 | 10 % | 20 | 90 % | 16 | 10 % | 38.5 | 90 % | 1 | A | B |
In pair “0” lottery A gives you £20 with probability 10 % and £16 with probability 90 %, while lottery B gives you £38.5 with probability 10 % and £1 with probability 90 %.
In the test, at each pair you will be asked to choose the lottery that you prefer between lottery A and lottery B. You can choose the lottery you prefer by selecting either option “A” or option “B” under “Your choice”. Please notice that there is no right or wrong answer: we are genuinely interested in what you prefer.
There is an important aspect you may want to consider when choosing your preferred option. At the end of the experiment, one of the 40 pairs of lotteries will be randomly selected. Also, one out of 10 participants in your experimental session will be randomly selected to get paid according to the selected pair of lotteries.
If you will be among the subjects randomly selected to get paid, you will be paid according to the actual outcome of the lottery corresponding to your preferred option (either A or B) in the selected pair.
For instance, imagine that at the end of the experiment, the pair “0” above will be randomly selected for the payment. Also, imagine that you will be among the subjects randomly selected to be paid.
This means that the end of this experimental session you will play either lottery A, if you have chosen A as your preferred option at pair “0”, or lottery B, if you have chosen lottery B as your preferred option in that pair.
If you have chosen lottery A as your preferred option in pair “0”, you will win either £20 with probability 10 %, or £16 with probability 90 %. On the other hand, if you have chosen lottery B as your preferred option in pair “0”, you will win either £38.5 with probability 10 %, or £1 with probability 90 %.
Your preferred lottery will be played for real and you will be paid the corresponding amount of money at the end of the experiment.
Before starting making your choices, please make sure you have fully understood how this test works. You can familiarize with the test by asking yourself which options you prefer between the two lotteries in pair “0”:
Pair | Lottery A | Lottery B | Your Choice | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | P1 | £1 | P2 | £2 | |||
0 | 10 % | 20 | 90 % | 16 | 10 % | 38.5 | 90 % | 1 | A | B |
Please consider now the first pair of options, take your time to decide, select and confirm the option you prefer between A and B, and then move to the next pair of options. Notice that, once you have made your choice, you cannot go back and change your choice.
At this stage, please feel free to ask any question or clarification to the experimenter in the lab. Otherwise, if everything is clear, you are free to start the test whenever you feel like. Please, for each of the following pairs of lotteries, make your choice of the lottery you prefer, by selecting either A or B.
Appendix C: Construction of the HEI Index
In our questionnaire we assess food intake using recall measures. In particular, we used a self-completed semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) where we asked subjects to report their frequency of consumption of standard portions of different categories of food and drinks in their last week, with portions’ sizes being described and visualized in intuitive ways (e. g. ‘a portion is 80 grams, or 3 ounces, about what fits in the palm of your hand’). The FFQ method imposes a low burden on respondents and is directly implementable in self-completed surveys, and as such is used, in the UK, by the NDNS, the BHPS, and the Health in England surveys, among others (36–39). We chose a recall time frame of one week as a compromise between the four-day time frame in the NDNS survey and the two-weeks time window in the LCFS survey. Whilst minimizing the recalling bias, the one-week time frame allows assessing the habitual nutritional intake over a sufficiently representative period of time. Moreover it was chosen also for the sake of direct comparability with the previous study by (11). For a more general discussion on the role of the time windows of recall measures of food consumption, and of collection of food purchasing data see (40,41).
The data collected has been used to calculate the HEI that is constructed as a weighted sum of twelve nutritional sub-indexes.
The first six sub-indexes assign 5 points each to subjects whose daily intakes are at least equal, or greater, than the recommended quantities for six “healthy” categories of food: total fruit (TotFruit); whole fruit (WFruit); total vegetables (TotVeg); dark green and orange vegetables, and legumes (GreenVeg); total grains (TotGrains); whole grains (WGrains). Both the intakes and the recommended quantities are expressed in cup equivalents (grams or ounces) per 1,000 kcal. Each of these sub-indexes gives 0 points to subjects who do not consume any quantity at all of the food in the corresponding category, and assigns to subjects whose intakes are less than the recommended amounts, a number of points in between 0 and 5, according to a function linearly increasing in the consumed quantities.
The next three sub-indexes assign 10 points each to subjects whose daily intakes are at least equal, or greater, than the recommended quantities for: milk (Milk); meat (Meat); and beans and oils (Oils). The intakes and the recommended quantities are also expressed in cup equivalents (grams or ounces) per 1,000 kcal. Each of these sub-indexes gives 0 points to subjects who do not consume any quantity at all of the food in the corresponding category, and assigns to intermediate intakes a number of points between 0 and 10, according to a linear function in the consumed quantities.
One further sub-index (SatFat) assigns 10 and 0 points to subjects for which the saturated fats represent less than 7 %, and more than the 15 %, of their daily energetic intakes, respectively, and assigns points between 0 and 10 to subjects with intermediate proportions. Another sub-index (Sodium) works in a similar way, assigning 10 and 0 points to subjects whose daily intake of sodium is below 0.7 grams, or above 2 grams per 1,000 kcal, respectively, and linearly declining points for the intermediate cases. Finally, one sub-index (SoFAAS) assigns 20 and 0 points to subjects for which the so-called “SoFAAS” discretionary calories, derived from Solid Fat, Alcohol and Added Sugars, represent less than 20 %, and more than 50 % of their daily energetic intakes, respectively, and assigns linearly declining points for the intermediate cases.
For the previous version of the HEI index, the USDA made available online a software that processed a series of inputs such as age, sex, daily intakes of some categories of food and returned the HEI score for the subject. No software, or readily available program, was released by USDA for the HEI-2005.[17] To compute the HEI score for each subject in the experiment, we thus wrote our own program following, step by step, the guidelines in the documentation released by the USDA panel of experts (29–31). In particular, starting with the weekly intakes of food we expressed all the intakes on a daily base and computed the daily energetic intake for each subject, in kcal; we then considered every single intake and computed its nutritional value and contribution to each of the 12 HEI sub-indexes; we summed up the values for all intakes and expressed them in terms of the computed daily energetic intake for each subject; we finally assigned points to each sub-index (e. g. SatFat, SoFAAS) and computed the overall HEI. We have used Stata 11 to program these computations. The program is available on request.
Appendix D: Tables for subsample of subjects less than 24 years old
Model Ib | Model IIb | Model IIIb | Model IVb | Model Vb | Model Vib | Model VIIb | Model VIIIb | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | –0.0056 | –0.0111 | –0.0092 | –0.0050 | –0.0042 | –0.0038 | –0.0072 | –0.0058 |
(0.0260) | (0.0269) | (0.0246) | (0.0270) | (0.0249) | (0.0239) | (0.0272) | (0.0248) | |
NonWhiteBritD | –0.101 | –0.0991 | –0.104 | –0.107 | –0.113* | –0.109 | –0.102 | –0.109 |
(0.0742) | (0.0745) | (0.0660) | (0.0758) | (0.0686) | (0.0664) | (0.0746) | (0.0675) | |
Budget | –0.0003 | –0.0004 | –0.0008 | –0.0003 | –0.0006 | –0.0006 | –0.0003 | –0.0006 |
(0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | |
ParentEduc | –0.0726* | –0.0723* | –0.111** | –0.0767* | –0.112** | –0.109** | –0.0773** | –0.111** |
(0.0375) | (0.0385) | (0.0470) | (0.0392) | (0.0476) | (0.0460) | (0.0391) | (0.0468) | |
SmokeD | 0.0903 | 0.0809 | 0.199 | 0.0716 | 0.187 | 0.202 | 0.0998 | 0.207 |
(0.0991) | (0.0969) | (0.127) | (0.0916) | (0.124) | (0.128) | (0.0980) | (0.128) | |
QuitsmokeD | 0.110 | 0.112 | 0.0941 | 0.109 | 0.0958 | 0.0957 | 0.103 | 0.0922 |
(0.114) | (0.115) | (0.104) | (0.115) | (0.105) | (0.105) | (0.117) | (0.106) | |
Alcohol | 0.0013 | 0.0016 | 0.0119 | 0.0007 | 0.0097 | 0.0108 | 0.0009 | 0.0099 |
(0.0062) | (0.0067) | (0.0097) | (0.0064) | (0.0089) | (0.0089) | (0.0066) | (0.0091) | |
SportUnits | 0.0010 | –0.0049 | 0.0170 | 0.0134 | 0.0307 | 0.0204 | 0.0096 | 0.0264 |
(0.0351) | (0.0344) | (0.0333) | (0.0347) | (0.0348) | (0.0335) | (0.0330) | (0.0328) | |
ObeseD | –0.537*** | –0.576*** | ||||||
(0.0653) | (0.0650) | |||||||
Score_HEI | 0.0062** | 0.0057** | 0.0058** | 0.0056** | ||||
(0.0027) | (0.0027) | (0.0027) | (0.0028) | |||||
BMI Cat | –0.0689 | –0.0530 | ||||||
(0.0757) | (0.0730) | |||||||
OverwD | –0.0967* | –0.0673 | ||||||
(0.0546) | (0.0565) | |||||||
Constant | 1.079* | 1.204* | 0.952 | 1.212* | 0.969 | 0.844 | 1.130* | 0.905 |
(0.638) | (0.667) | (0.581) | (0.690) | (0.612) | (0.562) | (0.675) | (0.587) | |
Observations | 2,160 | 2,120 | 2,120 | 2,120 | 2,120 | 2,160 | 2,120 | 2,120 |
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses.
p < 0.10
p < 0.05
p < 0.01.
Model IXb | Model Xb | Model XIb | Model XIIb | Model XIIIb | Model XIVb | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | –0.0196 | –0.0038 | –0.0168 | –0.0187 | –0.0092 | –0.0159 |
(0.0332) | (0.0239) | (0.0284) | (0.0322) | (0.0246) | (0.0277) | |
NonWhiteBritD | –0.0880 | –0.109 | –0.101 | –0.0914 | –0.104 | –0.101 |
(0.0729) | (0.0664) | (0.0651) | (0.0720) | (0.0661) | (0.0642) | |
Budget | –0.0005 | –0.0006 | –0.0008 | –0.0005 | –0.0008 | –0.0008 |
(0.0010) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0010) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | |
ParentEduc | –0.0844* | –0.109** | –0.119** | –0.0801* | –0.111** | –0.117** |
(0.0452) | (0.0460) | (0.0504) | (0.0449) | (0.0470) | (0.0504) | |
SmokeD | 0.0870 | 0.202 | 0.203* | 0.0817 | 0.199 | 0.201* |
(0.0885) | (0.128) | (0.119) | (0.0908) | (0.127) | (0.121) | |
QuitsmokeD | 0.114 | 0.0957 | 0.110 | 0.114 | 0.0941 | 0.104 |
(0.118) | (0.105) | (0.109) | (0.118) | (0.104) | (0.108) | |
Alcohol | 0.0009 | 0.0108 | 0.0092 | 0.0012 | 0.0119 | 0.0106 |
(0.0082) | (0.0089) | (0.0097) | (0.0078) | (0.0097) | (0.0097) | |
SportUnits | 0.0174 | 0.0204 | 0.0402 | 0.0081 | 0.0170 | 0.0307 |
(0.0334) | (0.0335) | (0.0360) | (0.0330) | (0.0334) | (0.0355) | |
BMI | –0.0193* | –0.0183* | –0.0133 | –0.0119 | ||
(0.0100) | (0.0099) | (0.0119) | (0.0108) | |||
Score_HEI | 0.0058** | 0.0059** | 0.0062** | 0.0062** | ||
(0.00270) | (0.00274) | (0.00276) | (0.00273) | |||
Constant | 1.812* | 0.844 | 1.526* | 1.662* | 0.952 | 1.356* |
(0.978) | (0.562) | (0.814) | (0.979) | (0.581) | (0.809) | |
Observations | 2,120 | 2,160 | 2,120 | 2,100 | 2,100 | 2,100 |
Note: Models XIIb–XVIb exclude BMI outlier above 30. Standard errors in parentheses.
p < 0.10
p < 0.05
p < 0.01.
Model XVb | Model XVIb | Model XVIIb | Model XVIIIb | Model XIXb | Model XXb | Model XXIb | Model XXIIb | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.0065 | 0.0051 | 0.0063 | 0.0052 | 0.0063 | 0.0065 | 0.0088 | 0.0108 |
(0.0223) | (0.0226) | (0.0227) | (0.0226) | (0.0221) | (0.0223) | (0.0250) | (0.0245) | |
NonWhiteBritD | –0.0023 | –0.0057 | –0.0016 | 0.0031 | 0.0079 | –0.0023 | –0.0315 | –0.0288 |
(0.0614) | (0.0592) | (0.0624) | (0.0658) | (0.0706) | (0.0614) | (0.0835) | (0.0867) | |
Budget | 0.0010 | 0.0011 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0009 | 0.0010 | 0.0012 | 0.0010 |
(0.0010) | (0.0010) | (0.001) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | (0.0010) | (0.0011) | (0.0010) | |
ParentEduc | –0.0491 | –0.0562* | –0.0497 | –0.0594* | –0.0534 | –0.0491 | –0.0476 | –0.0406 |
(0.0318) | (0.0316) | (0.0334) | (0.0330) | (0.0333) | (0.0318) | (0.0377) | (0.0382) | |
SmokeD | –0.463*** | –0.472*** | –0.463*** | –0.461*** | –0.454*** | –0.463*** | –0.489*** | –0.482*** |
(0.0939) | (0.0822) | (0.0940) | (0.0888) | (0.101) | (0.0939) | (0.0793) | (0.0885) | |
quitsmokeD | –0.0429 | –0.0436 | –0.0439 | –0.0455 | –0.0476 | –0.0429 | –0.0242 | –0.0243 |
(0.0763) | (0.0794) | (0.0775) | (0.0802) | (0.0786) | (0.0763) | (0.0885) | (0.0857) | |
Alcohol | 0.0847*** | 0.0747*** | 0.0845*** | 0.0764*** | 0.0859*** | 0.0847*** | 0.0714*** | 0.0815*** |
(0.0155) | (0.0129) | (0.0159) | (0.0122) | (0.0157) | (0.0155) | (0.0129) | (0.0162) | |
SportUnits | –0.0985*** | –0.0969*** | –0.0984*** | –0.0943*** | –0.0962*** | –0.0985*** | –0.0985*** | –0.0992*** |
(0.0260) | (0.0273) | (0.0259) | (0.0276) | (0.0258) | (0.0260) | (0.0285) | (0.0273) | |
Score_HEI | 0.0024 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0024 | 0.0024 | |||
(0.0027) | (0.0029) | (0.0026) | (0.0027) | (0.0028) | ||||
ObeseD | –0.0369 | –0.0114 | ||||||
(0.108) | (0.153) | |||||||
BMI Cat | –0.0161 | –0.0143 | ||||||
(0.0344) | (0.0348) | |||||||
OverwD | 0.0491 | 0.0514 | ||||||
(0.0678) | (0.0742) | |||||||
Constant | 0.500 | 0.696 | 0.511 | 0.734 | 0.557 | 0.500 | 0.589 | 0.381 |
(0.542) | (0.469) | (0.568) | (0.488) | (0.546) | (0.542) | (0.537) | (0.609) | |
Observations | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,960 |
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses.
p < 0.10
p < 0.05
p < 0.01.
Model XXIIIb | Model XXIVb | Model XXVb | bModel XXVIb | Model XXVIIb | Model XXVIIIb | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.0079 | 0.0065 | 0.0080 | 0.0174 | 0.0223 | 0.0227 |
(0.0225) | (0.0223) | (0.0215) | (0.0245) | (0.0219) | (0.0220) | |
NonWhiteBritD | –0.0010 | –0.0023 | 0.0053 | –0.0339 | –0.0412 | –0.0471 |
(0.0574) | (0.0614) | (0.0620) | (0.0680) | (0.0610) | (0.0665) | |
Budget | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.000 | 0.0007 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 |
(0.0009) | (0.0010) | (0.0009) | (0.0010) | (0.0009) | (0.0009) | |
ParentEduc | –0.0574* | –0.0491 | –0.0524* | –0.0447 | –0.0275 | –0.0254 |
(0.0307) | (0.0318) | (0.0305) | (0.0341) | (0.0328) | (0.0333) | |
SmokeD | –0.462*** | –0.463*** | –0.456*** | –0.456*** | –0.442*** | –0.445*** |
(0.0851) | (0.0939) | (0.0958) | (0.0829) | (0.0981) | (0.0999) | |
QuitsmokeD | –0.0431 | –0.0429 | –0.0464 | –0.0197 | –0.0145 | –0.0124 |
(0.0770) | (0.0763) | (0.0758) | (0.0827) | (0.0742) | (0.0752) | |
Alcohol | 0.0757*** | 0.0847*** | 0.0849*** | 0.0733*** | 0.0910*** | 0.0911*** |
(0.0124) | (0.0155) | (0.0152) | (0.0121) | (0.0154) | (0.0154) | |
SportUnits | –0.0953*** | –0.0985*** | –0.0971*** | –0.0921*** | –0.0953*** | –0.0954*** |
(0.0271) | (0.0260) | (0.0255) | (0.0278) | (0.0250) | (0.0251) | |
BMI | –0.0029 | –0.0027 | –0.0009 | 0.00133 | ||
(0.0032) | (0.0034) | (0.0071) | (0.0066) | |||
Score_HEI | 0.00247 | 0.0022 | 0.00452 | 0.00468* | ||
(0.002) | (0.0026) | (0.0029) | (0.0026) | |||
Constant | 0.710 | 0.500 | 0.555 | 0.452 | 0.0102 | –0.0402 |
(0.451) | (0.542) | (0.506) | (0.551) | (0.545) | (0.570) | |
Observations | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,960 | 1,890 | 1,890 | 1,890 |
Notes: Models XXVIb–XXVIIIb exclude BMI outliers above 30. Standard errors in parentheses.
p < 0.10
p < 0.05
p < 0.01.
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston