Self-checkout registers have become a widespread feature in grocery stores, offering convenience and perceived efficiency to consumers. Beyond simply speeding up the process, these stations provide shoppers with a greater degree of privacy, as there is no cashier directly observing their purchases. This element of anonymity has raised questions about whether customers alter their buying behaviours in response to reduced social scrutiny. A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign explores precisely this question: do individuals prefer self-checkout when purchasing items that may be associated with social stigma?

Led by Becca Taylor, assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics (ACE) at Illinois, the study sought to understand whether the absence of human interaction influences purchasing decisions, particularly in the case of products that might provoke embarrassment. “When you’re at a cashier register, the cashier sees everything you purchase. When you’re at self-checkout, you can control what others see, so you might be more likely to buy embarrassing items,” Taylor explained. The researchers were especially interested in how automation technologies might affect what consumers are willing to buy when that decision involves potentially stigmatised products — such as condoms, pregnancy tests, period supplies, haemorrhoid creams, and diarrhoea relief medications.

To investigate this, Taylor and her team analysed scanner data from a major grocery store chain operating in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Their data spanned from 2008 to 2011, a critical time frame that captured the initial introduction of self-checkout registers across many of the chain’s locations. This rollout offered a natural experiment for assessing changes in consumer behaviour, allowing the researchers to compare purchase patterns before and after self-checkout became available. “This was the first time that self-checkout was available to shoppers, and we could see how they responded to it,” Taylor noted.

The study was structured around two key questions. First, did shoppers under-purchase stigmatised items when self-checkout was not an option? And second, once self-checkout was available, were they more likely to use it for these purchases? Using a random sample of transactions from 30 stores, the researchers observed that sales of some items, such as condoms, bowel treatments, and yeast infection medications, increased following the introduction of self-checkout. However, other products — including period supplies — did not show a similar increase, possibly because they are often purchased out of necessity rather than discretion. The findings suggest a distinction between items that can be postponed or avoided and those that are non-negotiable.

In a second phase of the analysis, the researchers examined purchasing behaviour in more detail, drawing on every transaction that occurred during afternoon hours at 51 stores over three years. They found that, overall, 19% of items were bought via self-checkout. However, when it came to stigmatised products, that number rose sharply. For instance, 42% of condom purchases and 43% of pregnancy test sales occurred at self-checkout stations. Importantly, this preference held even when other complicating factors were present. Customers who purchased produce — which must be weighed and coded — or who were buying large baskets of groceries, still opted for self-checkout when their basket included socially sensitive items. The desire for discretion appeared to outweigh the inconvenience of scanning and bagging a full shop.

Interestingly, this preference comes with a measurable tradeoff. While customers might feel that self-checkout is faster due to the sense of being in control, data shows that transactions at staffed registers are, on average, 100 seconds shorter. Nevertheless, many are willing to accept the extra effort and time for the sake of privacy. These insights arrive at a time when some retailers are reconsidering the widespread use of self-checkout, citing customer feedback in favour of human interaction. Taylor concludes that while there are indeed circumstances in which shoppers prefer engaging with a cashier — for instance, when purchasing flowers, produce, or bulky items like dog food — the availability of both self-checkout and staffed lanes is essential. Allowing consumers to choose based on their immediate needs and comfort levels ultimately enhances their overall shopping experience.

More information: Becca Taylor et al, Does automation reduce stigma? The effect of self-checkout register adoption on purchasing decisions, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107126

Journal information: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Provided by University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences