Dataset Information

When a Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-Of-Home-The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels.

ABSTRACT: This paper reports results from three consecutive studies focusing on the comparison of the effectiveness of different nudges and their combinations to increase sustainable food choices out of the home. The nudges compared are the use of descriptive name labels (DNLs) for the most sustainable dish of a choice set (menu) and the decoy effect (DE), created by adding a less attractive decoy dish to a more attractive target dish with the goal of increasing the choice frequency of the target dish. In the literature, both nudges have been found to influence consumers' choices. In the first study, six category names of sustainability indicators were deduced from a focus group. These were tested with 100 students to identify the most attractive DNLs. Study II, a randomized choice study (n = 420), tested the DE, the DNLs and a combination of the DNLs and the DE used on four different dishes in a university canteen. In study III, 820 guests of a business canteen voted during four weeks for the special meals of the following week (identical to the four choice sets displayed in study II). Results indicate that the combination of DNLs and the DE is not recommended for fostering sustainable food choices. Pure DNLs were more efficient in increasing the choice frequency of the more sustainable meal, whereas the decoy effect resulted in decreased choice frequencies. Regional and sustainable DNLs were favoured by consumers.

SUBMITTER: Ohlhausen P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7278719 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

When a Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-Of-Home-The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels.

Ohlhausen Pascal P Langen Nina N

Foods (Basel, Switzerland) 20200502 5

This paper reports results from three consecutive studies focusing on the comparison of the effectiveness of different nudges and their combinations to increase sustainable food choices out of the home. The nudges compared are the use of descriptive name labels (DNLs) for the most sustainable dish of a choice set (menu) and the decoy effect (DE), created by adding a less attractive decoy dish to a more attractive target dish with the goal of increasing the choice frequency of the target dish. In ...[more]

PMID: 32370148

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDefault nudges are an increasingly prominent tool for promoting healthy and sustainable food choices; however, questions of acceptance remain. While default nudges are more acceptable to the public than traditionally paternalistic tools that aim to restrict choice, they are also the least acceptable amongst nudging strategies. Little research has investigated the aspects of default nudge design that can be leveraged to better uphold freedom of choice, increase public acceptance, and therefore heighten legitimacy of default nudges. Consequently, this study examines public acceptance of five food choice default nudges with demonstrated precedent of effectiveness, as drawn from research studies and/or real-world policies, along with a design variation of each anticipated to increase acceptance. Three drivers of acceptance - perceived intrusiveness, perceived effectiveness, and own behavior - are examined.MethodsAn online survey was administered in Germany (N = 451) to a sample representative of the adult population on quotas of age, gender and income. Acceptance and drivers were measured using seven-point Likert scales. Significant differences in median acceptance of the nudge were determined and displayed graphically. Ten proportional odds ordered logit models were applied and estimated using a maximum likelihood approach to investigate the mechanisms of nudge acceptance.ResultsExamined changes in nudge design, particularly decreasing costliness of opting out and increasing transparency, increased the acceptance of three of the five nudges (N2.2: p = 0.000; N3.2: p = 0.000; N4.2: p = 0.008). Perceived intrusiveness emerged as the most prominent driver of acceptance (negative relationship), followed by perceived effectiveness (positive relationship). Own engagement in the target behavior of the nudge and socio-demographic variables demonstrated negligible impact on acceptance.ConclusionsMitigating the costliness of opting out and improving nudge transparency emerge as key opportunities for choice architects to improve public acceptance, and thereby potentially identify 'sweet spots' in designing default nudges that are both effective and acceptable. The protection of individual freedom of choice and effectiveness are key aspects for choice architects to communicate to increase acceptance.

Project description:ImportanceThere is increasing interest in strategies to encourage more environmentally sustainable food choices in US restaurants through the use of menu labels that indicate an item's potential impact on the world's climate. Data are lacking on the ideal design of such labels to effectively encourage sustainable choices.ObjectiveTo test the effects of positive and negative climate impact menu labels on the environmental sustainability and healthfulness of food choices compared with a control label.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial used an online national US survey conducted March 30 to April 13, 2022, among a nationally representative sample of adults (aged ≥18 years) from the AmeriSpeak panel. Data were analyzed in June to October 2022.InterventionsParticipants were shown a fast food menu and prompted to select 1 item they would like to order for dinner. Participants were randomized to view menus with 1 of 3 label conditions: a quick response code label on all items (control group); green low-climate impact label on chicken, fish, or vegetarian items (positive framing); or red high-climate impact label on red meat items (negative framing).Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was an indicator of selecting a sustainable item (ie, one without red meat). Secondary outcomes included participant health perceptions of the selected item and the Nutrition Profile Index (NPI) score of healthfulness.ResultsAmong 5049 participants (2444 female [51.6%]; 789 aged 18-29 years [20.3%], 1532 aged 30-44 years [25.9%], 1089 aged 45-59 years [23.5%], and 1639 aged ≥60 years [30.4%]; 142 Asian [5.3%], 611 Black [12.1%], and 3197 White [63.3%]; 866 Hispanic [17.2%]), high- and low-climate impact labels were effective at encouraging sustainable selections from the menu. Compared with participants in the control group, 23.5% more participants (95% CI, 13.7%-34.0%; P < .001) selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed high-climate impact labels and 9.9% more participants (95% CI, 1.0%-19.8%; P = .03) selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed low-climate impact labels. Across experimental conditions, participants who selected a sustainable item rated their order as healthier than those who selected an unsustainable item, according to mean perceived healthfulness score (control label: 3.4 points; 95% CI, 3.2-3.5 points vs 2.5 points; 95% CI, 2.4-2.6 points; P < .001; low-impact label: 3.7 points; 95% CI, 3.5-3.8 points vs 2.6 points; 95% CI, 2.5-2.7 points; P < .001; high-impact label: 3.5 points; 95% CI, 3.3-3.6 points vs 2.7 points; 95% CI, 2.6-2.9 points; P < .001). Participants in the high-climate impact label group selected healthier items according to mean (SE) NPI score (54.3 [0.2] points) compared with those in the low-climate impact (53.2 [0.2] points; P < .001) and control (52.9 [0.3] points; P < .001) label groups.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial's findings suggest that climate impact menu labels, especially negatively framed labels highlighting high-climate impact items (ie, red meat), were an effective strategy to reduce red meat selections and encourage more sustainable choices.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05482204.

Dataset Information

When a Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-Of-Home-The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels.

Publications

When a Combination of Nudges Decreases Sustainable Food Choices Out-Of-Home-The Example of Food Decoys and Descriptive Name Labels.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets