Back to the directory Find in the timeline

Calorie posting at Starbucks: the Bollinger, Leslie and Sorensen study

Three economists used Starbucks transaction data from New York City, Boston and Philadelphia to measure what happened after mandatory calorie posting began in New York. Calories per transaction fell about 6 percent, mostly from food. The authors say they persuaded Starbucks to provide the data.

2011. Marks publication in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, volume 3, issue 1. The NBER working paper appeared in January 2010 and the paper dates mandatory posting in New York City from 1 April 2008. Chronology section: 2010 to 2026.

StudyIndependent experimentDecisionsConsumer

Where it sits: Academic psychologyResearch published for other researchers and students.
Evidence level: Independent experimentIndependent research, with its design and limits stated.
Organizations: StarbucksAn organization is listed where the sources concern it. The text says exactly how.
Sources inspected: 3 of 32 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 1 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.

What happened

New York City required chain restaurants to post calories from mid-2008. Bollinger, Leslie and Sorensen write that they persuaded Starbucks to provide detailed transaction data: every transaction at its company stores in New York, Boston and Philadelphia from 1 January 2008 to 28 February 2009, plus a large sample of anonymous cardholders. The authors also ran in-store surveys around a Seattle law that began on 1 January 2009.

The psychological idea

The study compares purchases in New York, where posting began on 1 April 2008, with purchases in Boston and Philadelphia, where there was no posting. The authors ask whether calorie information changes what people buy, either by teaching them calorie counts or by making calories more salient. They say the direction of any effect was unclear in advance.

In practice

Average calories per transaction fell 6 percent, from 247 to 232, and the fall lasted the 10 months of data. Almost all of it came from food, down 14 percent, while beverage calories did not substantially change. Customers who averaged over 250 calories before posting cut by 26 percent. The authors found no statistically significant change in Starbucks revenue overall.

Why it mattered

The authors say it is hard to imagine having such detailed data for other chains, so the study measures actual purchases, not stated intentions. It tests a question that the authors call empirical: whether calorie posting affects behavior.

Limits and qualifications

The data cover one chain, and the authors say they cannot know whether the effects are similar elsewhere. They also cannot know whether people offset the reduction by eating differently at home, and they do not measure obesity. The paper says Starbucks provided the data and states that the authors have no consulting relationship with Starbucks and that findings are independent of its interests. It says nothing about Starbucks's own intent. Only the working paper was read in full, not the published version.

Evidence behind the claims

The authors write that they persuaded Starbucks to provide detailed transaction data: every transaction at company stores in New York City from 1 January 2008 to 28 February 2009, with mandatory posting commencing on 1 April 2008, plus Boston and Philadelphia, a large sample of anonymous cardholders, and in-store surveys around a Seattle law of 1 January 2009.
DocumentedSource: [1]Where: Introduction, pages 1 to 2
Average calories per transaction fell by 6 percent (from 247 to 232) and the reduction persisted for the 10 months of data.
Experimental findingSources: [1] [2] [3]Where: Introduction, page 2; published abstract; digest summary
Almost all of the effect came from food purchases, with average food calories per transaction down 14 percent and beverage calories not substantially changed. Customers who averaged over 250 calories per transaction before posting cut by 26 percent.
Experimental findingSource: [1]Where: Introduction, pages 2 to 3
The working paper's title-page note thanks Starbucks for providing the data and states the authors have no consulting relationship with Starbucks and that the findings are completely independent of Starbucks' interests; the paper reports nothing on Starbucks's own intent.
DocumentedSource: [1]Where: Title-page acknowledgement note; pages 1 to 3
The authors report no statistically significant change in Starbucks revenue overall and an estimated 3 percent rise at stores within 100 meters of a Dunkin Donuts.
Experimental findingSource: [1]Where: Introduction, page 2
The authors state two limits: they do not directly measure obesity, and they have data for only one chain, so they cannot know whether effects are similar at other chains or whether people offset changes at home.
DocumentedSource: [1]Where: Introduction, page 3
The study was published as Bollinger, Leslie and Sorensen (2011) in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3(1), 91 to 128.
DocumentedSource: [2]Where: Publication recordChecked at abstract level

People involved

Bryan Bollinger. Author, Stanford University
Phillip Leslie. Author, Stanford Graduate School of Business
Alan Sorensen. Author, Stanford Graduate School of Business

In the Psy101 course

OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 2.3: Analyzing FindingsChapter 2, Psychological Research. Method. The section discusses this topic.Covers correlation, causation and experimental logic; the study is a before-and-after comparison with other cities, not a randomized experiment.
OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 12.3: Attitudes and PersuasionChapter 12, Social Psychology. Context. Nearest related section; it does not discuss this topic by name.Nearest related section: persuasion and attitude change. It does not cover information labeling.

This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.

Sources and inspection

3 of 3 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.

[1]
Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants (NBER Working Paper 15648)Bollinger, B; Leslie, P; Sorensen, A. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. Journal article. Primary source.Relevant text checkedRead the title page, abstract and introduction (pages 1 to 3) of the January 2010 working paper as page images. Did not read the methods, tables or the published version.
[2]
Calorie Posting in Chain RestaurantsBollinger, B; Leslie, P; Sorensen, A. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy (record at Stanford GSB), 2011. Journal article. Primary source.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the publication record with the journal citation and abstract.
[3]
Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants (NBER Digest)NBER Digest. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. Report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the digest summary as returned by the fetch tool. It repeats the 247 to 232 figures and does not say how the data were obtained.

Access note: Numbers come from the January 2010 NBER working paper, which may differ from the published 2011 version. Any agreement between the authors and Starbucks beyond the acknowledgement note was not seen.

Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.