Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/232822
Authors: 
Dickinson, David L.
Garbuio, Caleb
Year of Publication: 
2021
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 14070
Abstract: 
This paper reports on a preregistered study aimed at testing for executive function differences across individuals who self-reported one of four distinct dietary patterns: No Diet, No Sugar, Vegetarian, and Mediterranean Diet patterns. The incentivized decision task involves Bayesian assessments where participants may use existing (base rate) as well as new information (sample draw evidence) in making probability assessments. Sample size, hypotheses, and analysis plans were all determined ex ante and registered on the Open Science Framework. Our hypotheses were aimed at testing whether adherence to a specialty diet improved decision making relative to those who reported following No Diet. Our data fail to support these hypotheses. In fact, we found some evidence that adherence to a No Sugar Diet predicted a reduced decision accuracy and was connected to an increased imbalance in how the participant weighted the two sources of information available. Our results suggest that decision making is nuanced among dietary groups, but that short-term incentivized decisions in an ecologically valid field setting are likely not improved solely by following a promoted diet such as the Mediterranean or Vegetarian diet.
Subjects: 
behavioral economics
bayes rule
decision making
dietary patterns
mediterranean diet
JEL: 
D90
C90
I10
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
904.92 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.