Quantitative Marketing and Economics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 79–109 | Cite as

The effect of the WIC program on consumption patterns in the cereal category

  • Romana Khan
  • Ting ZhuEmail author
  • Sanjay Dhar


The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a federally-funded food assistance program for low income participants who are at nutritional risk. Beneficiaries receive vouchers for specific foods and brands, selected for their nutritional value. While the program is designed to improve nutrition, it may also induce changes in consumption behavior that persist beyond participation in the program. In this paper, we study how participation in WIC impacts the consumption patterns and preferences during and after the program. Our analysis focuses on the cereal category, in which the subsidized brands must meet certain nutritional guidelines. As expected, during the program households increase cereal consumption volume and shift their choices towards the WIC-approved brands. More interesting is that once households exit the program, the higher category consumption rate and elevated share of WIC brands persist. To understand the behavioral mechanism underlying these consumption patterns, we estimate a choice model and find an increased preference for WIC brands after controlling for state dependence. The evidence suggests that this targeted food subsidy program is effective in creating behavior change that persists even after the incentive is withdrawn.


Public policy Food subsidies Brand management 

JEL Classification

J18 H71 M30 



We acknowledge the Kilts Center for Marketing at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and Frank Piotrowski of AC Nielsen for providing access to the Nielsen Homescan and RMS data.


  1. Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arcia, G.J., Crouch, L.A., & Kulka, R.A. (1990). Impact of the WIC program on food expenditures. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(1), 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashraf, N., Berry, J., & Shapiro, J.M. (2010). Can higher prices stimulate product use? Evidence from a field experiment in Zambia. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2383–2413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitler, M., Currie, J., & Scholz, J.K. (2003). WIC eligibility and participation. The Journal of Human Resources, 38(Supplement), 1139–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitler, M.P., & Currie, J. (2005). Does WIC work? The effects of WIC on pregnancy and birth outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blattberg, R.C., Briesch, R., & Fox, E.J. (1995). How promotions work. Marketing Science, 14(3), G122–G132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York.Google Scholar
  8. Bronnenberg, B.J., Dubé, J.P., & Gentzkow, M. (2012). The evolution of brand preferences: evidence from consumer migration. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2472–2508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brownstone, D., Bunch, D., & Train, K. (2000). Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part B, 34, 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson, A., & Senauer, B. (2003). The impact of the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children on child health. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, D., & Farley, T.A. (2008). Eating as an automatic behavior. Preventing Chronic Disease, 5(1), A23.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, D.E. (2011). Bidding for WIC infant formula contracts: Do non-WIC customers subsidize WIC customers? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(1), 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devaney, B., Bilheimer, L., & Schore, J. (1992). Medicaid costs and birth outcomes: the effects of prenatal wic participation and the use of prenatal care. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(4), 573–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dodson, J.A., Tybout, A.M., & Sternthal, B. (1978). Impact of deals and deal retraction on brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubé, J.P., Hitsch, G.J., & Rossi, P.E. (2010). State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia. The RAND Journal of Economics, 41 (3), 417–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gorski, M.T., & Roberto, C.A. (2015). Public health policies to encourage healthy eating habits: recent perspectives. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 2015(7), 81–90.Google Scholar
  17. Grier, S., & Bryant, C.A. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, J.L., Schwartz, M.B., Brownell, K.D., Sarda, V., Weinberg, M.E., Speers, S., Thompson, J., Ustjanauskas, A., Cheyne, A., Bukofzer, E., Dorfman, L., & Byrnes-Enoch, H. (2009). Cereal FACTS: Evaluating the nutrition quality and marketing of children’s cereals. Ruud Center, Yale University.Google Scholar
  19. Herman, D.R., Harrison, G.G., Afifi, A.A., & Jenks, E. (2008). Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among low-income women in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K.L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joyce, T., Gibson, D., & Colman, S. (2005). The changing association between prenatal participation in WIC and birth outcomes in New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(4), 661–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keane, M.P. (1997). Modeling heterogeneity and state dependence in consumer choice behavior. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 15(3), 310–327.Google Scholar
  23. Keane, M.P., & Wasi, N. (2012). Estimation of discrete choice models with many alternatives using random subsets of the full choice set: With an application to demand for frozen pizza. Oxford: Univerisity of Oxford Working Paper. No. 2012-W13.Google Scholar
  24. Kirchhoff, S. (1998). Nutrition Program’s Tempest In A Cereal Bowl Congressional Quarterly, May 18.
  25. Martinez-Schiferl, M. (2012a). WIC participants and their growing need for coverage. Income and Benefits Policy Center, Urban Institute. Retrieved from.
  26. Martinez-Schiferl, M. (2012b). WIC Coverage in your state. UrbanWire, Food and Nutrition, Urban Institute. Retrieved from.
  27. McFadden, D. (1978). Modeling the choice of residential location. In Karlqvist, A., Lundqvist, F., Snickars, F., & Weibull, J. (Eds.) Spatial interaction theory and planning models (pp. 75–96). North-Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  28. Mela, C.F., Gupta, S., & Lehmann, D.R. (1997). The long term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 248–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oliveira, V.J., & Gundersen, C. (2000). WIC and the nutrient intake of children. Economic Research Service: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  30. Rasmussen, K.M., Latulippe, M.E., & Yaktine, A.L. (Eds.) (2016). Review of WIC food packages: proposed framework for revisions: interim report. Committee to review WIC food packages; food and nutrition board. institute of medicine; national academies of sciences, engineering, and medicine; Washington (DC). Washington: National Academies Press (US). Jul 6 2016.Google Scholar
  31. Reilly, J. (2000). Charitable work sells at a number of firms. Marketing News, 34(19), 46.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, D., Habicht, J.P., & Devaney, B. (1998). Household participation in the food stamp and WIC programs increases the nutrient intakes of preschool children. The Journal of N utrition, 128(3), 548–555.Google Scholar
  33. Seetharaman, P.B., Ainslie, A., & Chintagunta, P.K. (1999). Investigating household state dependence effects across categories. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simmons, C.J., & Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, K. (2016). Fewer than half of WIC-eligible families receive WIC benefits. Carsey Research National Issue Brief #102, Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire, Summer 2016.
  36. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology, 10(1), 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weingarten, H. (2013). Kellogg’s Scooby Doo Cereal – low sugar option for kids. Fooducate 27 February 2013.
  39. Wood, W., & Neal, D.T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associate Professor of Marketing at Graduate School of BusinessChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Associate Professor of Marketing at Krannert School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Professor of Marketing at the Booth School of BusinessUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations