Abstract
Tracy TL Cheung, Floor M Kroese, Bob M Fennis and Denise TD De Ridder
Put a limit on it: The protective effects of scarcity heuristics when self-control is low. 2015; Vol. 2(2) 1–11
(DOI: 10.1177/2055102915615046)
This article was published in November 2015 on Journal of Health Psychology Open (HPO), which contained errors from its authors. The errors have been traced at p.4, second column, three paragraphs under the heading Study 1 and subhead Results which specifically affected the value of one of the means (i.e., healthy choices made in pairs without a heuristic). The corrected syntax nonetheless produces results that converge to what was initially reported in the manuscript, so while a few specific values fluctuated slightly in correspondence to the “updated” mean, what was initially reported as significant/non-significant remained robust. Importantly, the updated results lead to the same conclusions the authors had initially drawn. All of the authors would like to be transparent with their findings
Results
Descriptives. Participants reported to purchase food products on offer or promotion (M = 5.14, SD = 1.40) to relatively frequently. Moreover, they also reported eating healthily to a moderate extent (M = 5.11, SD = 1.53), and purchasing healthy food products on a relatively frequent basis (M = 4.98, SD = 1.43). Finally, participants selected an average of 5.6 healthy food products (SD = .21) out of the twelve food choice pairs.
The effects of a scarcity heuristic on healthy food choices. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed to examine the effects of a general scarcity heuristic on participants’ healthy food choices, in which scarcity (no heuristic vs. scarcity heuristic) was a within-subjects factor and state self-control was a continuous predictor. Furthermore, in addition to controlling for the potential influence of NFC, consumer characteristics including participants’ extent of healthy eating (r = .57, p < .001) and frequency of purchasing healthy food (r = .45, p < .001) products were included as covariates since they were significantly correlated with the dependent variable.
There was a significant main effect of scarcity, where more healthy choices were made in food pairs that had a scarcity heuristic (M = 3.14, SD = 1.61), compared to when there was no heuristic (M = 2.52, SD = .19), F(1,58) = 17.37, p < .001, η2 = .23. Self-control was also a significant predictor, F(1,58) = 4.87, p = .03, η2 = .08. Results also indicated that NFC was not a significant covariate, F(1, 58) = .35, p = .55. Moreover, the extent to which participants try to eat healthily, F(1, 58) = 14.12, p < .001, η2 = .19] had an influence on the number of healthy choices, but not the frequency to which participants purchase healthy food products, F(1, 58) = .58, p = .45]. Finally, as expected there was a significant interaction between scarcity and self-control, F(1,58) = 8.03, p = .006, η2 = .127 (Figure 1). Parameter estimates indicate that when there was a scarcity heuristic, the number of healthy food choices increased as self-control levels decreased, b = −.50, t(58) = −3.11, p = .03. However, self-control had no influence on the outcome of healthy choices made when there was no heuristic present, b = −.073, t(58) = −.53, p = .60.
Results
Descriptives. Participants reported to purchase food products on offer or promotion (M = 5.14, SD = 1.40) to relatively frequently. Moreover, they also reported eating healthily to a moderate extent (M = 5.11, SD = 1.53), and purchasing healthy food products on a relatively frequent basis (M = 4.98, SD = 1.43). Finally, participants selected an average of 5.46 healthy food products (SD = 2.97) out of the twelve food choice pairs.
The effects of a scarcity heuristic on healthy food choices. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed to examine the effects of a general scarcity heuristic on participants’ healthy food choices, in which scarcity (no heuristic vs. scarcity heuristic) was a within-subjects factor and state self-control was a continuous predictor. Furthermore, in addition to controlling for the potential influence of NFC, consumer characteristics including participants’ extent of healthy eating (r = .57, p < .001) and frequency of purchasing healthy food (r = .45, p < .001) products were included as covariates since they were significantly correlated with the dependent variable.
There was a significant main effect of scarcity, where more healthy choices were made in food pairs that had a scarcity heuristic (M = 3.14, SD = 1.61), compared to when there was no heuristic (M = 2.43, SD = 1.64), F(1,58) = 18.42, p < .001, η2 = .24. Self-control was also a marginally significant predictor, F(1,58) = 3.62, p = .06, η2 = .06. Results also indicated that NFC was not a significant covariate, F(1, 58) = .46, p = .50. Moreover, the extent to which participants try to eat healthily, F(1, 58) = 13.75, p < .001, η2 = .19, had an influence on the number of healthy choices, but not the frequency to which participants purchase healthy food products, F(1, 58) = .47, p = .50. Finally, as expected there was a significant interaction between scarcity and self-control, F(1,58) = 6.19, p = .016, η2 = .1 (Figure 1). Parameter estimates indicate that when there was a scarcity heuristic, the number of healthy food choices increased as self-control levels decreased, b = −.50, t(58) = −3.11, p = .003. However, self-control had no influence on the outcome of healthy choices made when there was no heuristic present, b = -.08, t(58) = −.44, p = .67.