Consumer adoption of sustainable products remains limited despite their clear environmental and sometimes even financial benefits. As per industry standard, marketers communicate these benefits to consumers by emphasizing lifetime or annual savings (e.g., of CO2 emissions). Across five pre-registered studies, we examine how presenting sustainability benefits over shorter (e.g., weekly) rather than longer (e.g., yearly) time intervals affect consumers’ willingness to adopt pro-environmental products. We find that shorter framings consistently increase adoption intentions, even when the objective benefits and their realization remain unchanged. This occurs because shorter, more frequent intervals heighten perceived alignment between the behavior and consumers’ environmental values. This effect replicates across three product contexts, generalizes to an A/B test conducted on Facebook’s advertising platform using real ads from a corporate partner, and attenuates under two boundary conditions: when benefits are framed as purely monetary, reducing moral relevance, and when they are expressed in overly fine-grained terms (e.g., daily), making them seem too small to be meaningful. These findings reveal a simple yet powerful communication lever: reframing identical sustainability benefits over shorter time frames can meaningfully increase consumer adoption intention of sustainable products without altering the products themselves. 

• Paper Presentation at Society for Consumer Psychology (SCP), 2026 (Winner, Schumann Doctoral Dissertation Award)

• Paper Presentation at 3-school (INSEAD-HEC-ESSEC) conference, 2026

• Paper Presentation at Association for Consumer Research (ACR), 2025

• Paper Presentation at La Londe Conference, 2025

• Paper presentation at Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA), 2025

• Poster at Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM), 2024

• Paper presentation at Wharton-INSEAD Doctoral Consortium, 2025

Research on environmental labeling has only examined the effects of labeling all products within a category. We show that this is unlikely to happen without mandatory labeling, as marketers selectively label low-emission products, even though they believe that labeling all products would promote more sustainable choices. Four preregistered, incentive-compatible experiments compare the effects of extending the range of labeled products – from none to low-emission only to all products – on the sustainability of consumers’ food choices. When emissions are difficult to predict or consumers hold incorrect beliefs, labeling all products is necessary to maximize sustainability impact. Contrary to managers’ intuition, however, when consumers can approximately distinguish between low- and high-emission products (e.g., plant vs. meat-based food), labeling only low-emission products is as effective as labeling all products, and more effective than labeling only high-emission products. This occurs because labeling high-emission products only minimally affects the decisions of consumers who knowingly purchased them. Because it primarily influences environmentally conscious consumers, environmental labeling is more effective when it promotes the most sustainable options than when it demotes the least sustainable ones. Overall, studying selective labeling provides new insights into the mechanisms underlying the effects of environmental labels and the conditions compelling mandatory labeling.

• Paper presentation at European Marketing Academy (EMAC), 2026

• Poster at Society for Consumer Psychology (SCP), 2026

• Poster at Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM), 2025

• Paper presentation at Business School for Climate Leadership (BS4CL), 2025

• Paper presentation at Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA), 2025*

• Paper presentation at Association for Consumer Research (ACR), 2024

• Paper presentation at Wharton-INSEAD Doctoral Consortium, 2023

Food marketing cues such as "low fat" or "indulgent" branding bias consumers' calorie estimates, but susceptibility to these biases varies across individuals. This research examines whether metabolic health, particularly insulin resistance, explains this variation. In Study 1, a clinical sample completed a calorie estimation task with healthy- and indulgent-framed snacks; poorer metabolic health (indexed via a 10-marker Metabolic Health Risk Score) predicted greater calorie estimation error (CEE). Pooling this sample with prior data revealed that insulin resistance mediated the effect of BMI on CEE,  identifying a specific physiological mechanism. Study 2 tested whether pharmacologically improving metabolic regulation reduces this bias: long-term users (>12 months) of GLP-1 receptor agonists exhibit significantly lower CEE than matched non-users, with effects concentrated in reduced health-halo bias. Together, these findings reframe food marketing vulnerability as rooted in metabolic regulation rather than stable consumer traits, with implications for understanding how the rapid rise of GLP-1 medications may reshape consumer responses to marketing at scale.

• Poster at Society for Neuroeconomics (SNE), 2023*

• Paper Presentation at Association for Consumer Research (ACR), 2026