A new climate externalities food knowledge test validated by item response theory and behavioural data prediction ( Validación de una nueva prueba de conocimientos sobre la externalidad climática de los alimentos mediante la teoría de respuesta al ítem y la predicción a partir de datos conductuales )
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2023
A new climate externalities food knowledge test validated by item response theory and behavioural data prediction ( Validación de una nueva prueba de conocimientos sobre la externalidad climática de los alimentos mediante la teoría de respuesta al ítem y la predicción a partir de datos conductuales )
Research underscores the imperative for global dietary shifts to curb global temperature rise within the Paris Agreement’s 2°C limit. Understanding human dietary behaviour is crucial for effective environmental policies promoting pro-environmental actions. A significant obstacle is the lack of awareness regarding the CO2 implications of meat and dairy consumption, hindering sustainable diet adoption. Thus, evaluating knowledge-based interventions requires reliable tools to quantify climate impact knowledge related to food consumption. Unfortunately, existing pro-environmental knowledge measurement instruments lack domain specificity, leaving a void in assessing climate-conscious food choice knowledge. Addressing this void, our climate externalities food knowledge test was developed. It underwent calibration via item response theory with a German university student sample and validation across one German and two Chilean student samples. The resulting scale exhibited a strong approximate model fit, acceptable item fit metrics, good reliability and the ability to predict climate-relevant food-choice patterns and expert group performance. However, notable differential item functioning was observed based on cultural context. Our instrument provides a valuable contribution to understanding and promoting sustainable food choices on a global scale.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArbuthnotJ.LinggS. (1975). A comparison of french and american environmental behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes. International Journal of Psychology, 10(4), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597508247339
2.
BarrowL. H.MorriseyJ. T. (1989). Energy literacy of ninth-grade students: a comparison between maine and new Brunswick. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(2), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1989.9943027
3.
BryngelssonD.WirseniusS.HedenusF.SonessonU. (2016). How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy, 59, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.012
4.
CapacciS.MazzocchiM.ShankarB.Brambila MaciasJ.VerbekeW.Pérez-CuetoF. J., Kozioł-Kozakowska, A., Piórecka, B., Niedzwiedzka, B., D’Addesa, D., Saba, A., Turrini, A., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Bech-Larsen, T., Strand, M., Smillie, L., Wills, J., & Traill, W. B. (2012). Policies to promote healthy eating in Europe: A structured review of policies and their effectiveness. Nutrition Reviews, 70(3), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00442.x
5.
CarlssonF.FrykblomP.LagerkvistC. (2005). Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters, 89(2), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.010
6.
ChanH. W.PongV.TamK. P. (2019). Cross-national variation of gender differences in environmental concern: Testing the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 51(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517735149
7.
CordtsA.NitzkoS.SpillerA. (2014). Consumer response to negative information on meat consumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.164599
CummingsR. G.TaylorL. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89(3), 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649
10.
de BakkerE.DagevosH. (2012). Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: Questioning the citizen-consumer gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 877–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9345-z
11.
DelgadoC.RosegrantM.SteinfeldH.EhuiS.CourboisC. (2016). Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Outlook on Agriculture, 30(1), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000001101293427
12.
Díaz-SieferP.NeamanA.SalgadoE.Celis-DiezJ.OttoS. (2015). Human-environment system knowledge: A correlate of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 7(11), 15510–15526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115510
13.
DogbeW.GilJ. M. (2018). Effectiveness of a carbon tax to promote climate-friendly food consumption. Food Policy, 79, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.08.003
14.
DoyonM.SaulaisL.RuffieuxB.BweliD. (2015). Hypothetical bias for private goods: Does cheap talk make a difference?Theoretical Economics Letters, 6(5), 749–756. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2015.56087
15.
EdjabouL. D.SmedS. (2013). The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate-friendly diets – The case of Denmark. Food Policy, 39, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.004
16.
FietkauH.-J.KesselH.TischlerW. (1982). Umwelt im Spiegel der öffentlichen Meinung. Arbeitsberichte des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin, Internationales Institut für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/Main. Campus Verlag.
17.
FrickJ.KaiserF. G.WilsonM. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behaviour: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1597–1613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015
18.
FritscheU.RauschL. (2018). Globales emissions-modell integrierter systeme (GEMIS) version 4.5.
19.
GeigerS. M.OttoS.Diaz-MarinJ. S. (2014). A diagnostic environmental knowledge scale for Latin America/Escala diagnóstica de conocimientos ambientales para Latinoamérica. Psyecology, 5(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2014.881664
20.
GigliottiL. M. (1990). Environmental education: What went wrong? What can be done?The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9943040
21.
GirodB.van VuurenD. P.HertwichE. G. (2014). Climate policy through changing consumption choices: Options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Global Environmental Change, 25, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.004
22.
GodfrayH. C.AveyardP.GarnettT.HallJ. W.KeyT. J.LorimerJ. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 361(6399). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324
HamonA.MesbahM. (2002). Questionnaire reliability under the Rasch model. In Statistical methods for quality of life studies: design, measurements and analysis (pp. 155–168). Springer US.
25.
HartmannC.SiegristM. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006
26.
HausbeckK. W.MilbrathL. W.EnrightS. M. (1992). Environmental knowledge, awareness and concern among 11th-grade students: New York state. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1992.9943493
27.
HinesJ. M.HungerfordH. R.TomeraA. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
28.
HowesM.WortleyL.PottsR.Dedekorkut-HowesA.Serrao-NeumannS.DavidsonJ. (2017). Environmental sustainability: A case of policy implementation failure?Sustainability, 9(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020165
29.
HunterE.RöösE. (2016). Fear of climate change consequences and predictors of intentions to alter meat consumption. Food Policy, 62, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.004
30.
IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. Special report.
31.
IrwingP.HughesD. (2018). Test development. In IrwingP.BoothT.HughesD. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing (pp. 3–49). Wiley.
KaiserF. G.FrickJ. (2002). Entwicklung eines Messinstrumentes zur Erfassung von Umweltwissen auf der Basis des MRCML-Modells. Diagnostica, 48(4), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.48.4.181
34.
KaiserF. G.FuhrerU. (2003). Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Applied Psychology, 52(4), 598–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00153
35.
LantermannE.-D.Döring-SeipelE.SchimaP. (1992). Ravenhorst: Gefühle, Werte und Unbestimmtheit im Umgang mit einem ökologischen Scenario. Quintessenz-Verlag-GmbH.
36.
LarocheM.TomiukM. A.BergeronJ.Barbaro‐ForleoG. (2002). Cultural differences in environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of Canadian consumers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 19(3), 267–282.
37.
LeaE.WorsleyA. (2008). Australian consumers’ food-related environmental beliefs and behaviours. Appetite, 50(2–3), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.07.012
38.
LiefländerA. K.BognerF. X.KibbeA.KaiserF. G. (2015). Evaluating environmental knowledge dimension convergence to assess educational programme effectiveness. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 684–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1010628
MacdiarmidJ. I.DouglasF.CampbellJ. (2016). Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite, 96, 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011
41.
MagisD.BélandS.TuerlinckxF.De BoeckP. (2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of dichotomous differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.847
42.
Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2013). Goodness-of-fit assessment of item response theory models. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11, 71–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030641
43.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.JoeH. (2014). Assessing approximate fit in categorical data analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(4), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.911075
44.
O’NeillS.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). Fear won’t do it. Science Communication, 30, 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
45.
RappoportL.PetersG. R.DowneyR.McCannT.Huff-CorzineL. (1993). Gender and age differences in food cognition. Appetite, 20(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1993.1004
46.
ReinhardtG.GärtnerS. O.HelmsH.RettenmaierN. (2006). An assessment of energy and greenhouse gases of NExBTL. Heidelberg.
47.
RobitzschA.KieferT.WuM. (2018). TAM: Test analysis modules. R package version 2.8-21. Retrieved.
48.
SchahnJ. (1996). Die Erfassung und Veränderung des Umweltbewußtseins: Eine Untersuchung zu verschiedenen Aspekten des Umweltbewußtseins und zur Einführung der Wertstofftrennung beim Hausmüll in zwei süddeutschen Kommunen [Heidelberg, Univ., Diss., 1995]. Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe 6, Psychologie. Vol. 535.
49.
ScheibehenneB.MieslerL.ToddP. M. (2007). Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite, 49(3), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.224
50.
SchöslerH.BoerJ. D.BoersemaJ. J.AikingH. (2015). Meat and masculinity among young Chinese, Turkish and Dutch adults in the Netherlands. Appetite, 89, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.013
51.
SchöslerH.de BoerJ.BoersemaJ. J. (2012). Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite, 58(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.009
52.
TeufelJ.BrommerE.GattermannM.StratmannB. (2011). Grobscreening zur Typisierung von Produktgruppen im Lebensmittelbereich in Orientierung am zu erwartenden CO2-Fußabdruck.: Studie für das Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz. NRW.
53.
ToblerC.VisschersV. H. M.SiegristM. (2012). Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Climatic Change, 114(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0393-1
54.
TrainK. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.
55.
VanhonackerF.van LooE. J.GellynckX.VerbekeW. (2013). Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite, 62, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003
VriesM. D.van MiddelaarC. E.BoerI. J. M. D. (2015). Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 178, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.020
58.
WrightB. D.LinacreJ. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370–371. https://rasch.org/rmt/rmt83.htm
