The Hunger Games: Using hunger to promote healthy choices in self-control conflicts.

The majority of existing research and conventional wisdom would advise against shopping on an empty stomach as hunger is assumed to encourage impulsive choices that typically lead to self-control failure (i.e., favouring short-term gratifications at the expense of long-term goals). Nonetheless, through two studies the current research aims to demonstrate that hungry consumers would not always be disadvantaged when encountering a self-control conflict involving a trade-off choice between a healthy vs. a more palatable but unhealthy choice. Particularly we posit that the choice outcome of the self-control conflict is dependent on contextual cues, such that hungry consumers with the tendency to make fast decisions could benefit from following a social proof heuristic promoting the healthy options. In Study 1, we indeed observed participants' self-reported hunger to be negatively associated with state self-control, but as most participants generally experienced low levels of hunger we did not observe apparent effects of hunger on food choice (DV), and correspondingly the potential influence of the social proof heuristic in moderating the choice outcome. However, in Study 2 where hunger was manipulated, we found hungry participants making significantly less healthy choices than satiated participants, but a social proof heuristic mitigated this effect (i.e., in the presence of social proof heuristic hungry participants made just as many healthy food choices as satiated participants; and hungry participants made more healthy choices in the social proof condition than in the no heuristic condition). These findings support our approach of providing contextual cues in the environment in order to work with, rather than against, the impulsivity triggered by hunger to promote successful self-control behaviours.