Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-5
Evidence on the Effectiveness-Acceptance Trade-Off Between Forced Active Choice and Default Nudging: A Field Study to Reduce Meat Consumption in Cafeterias
Overconsumption of meat remains common in Western diets. In a cafeteria setting, we assessed the impact of two interventions on reducing meat consumption: forced active choice (explicitly choosing meat portion size) and default nudge (offering a reduced meat portion with an opt-out option). Our field study, involving 5,966 food choices and feedback from 125 cafeteria users, revealed both interventions were effective and perceived as ethical. Across 11 meat dishes, both interventions increased the selection of reduced meat portions. Notably, the default nudge had a more substantial impact, with 90.6% opting for reduced portions compared to 38.5% for active choice. Interestingly, gender differences are most pronounced during the active choice phase and reduced through a default condition. We predict that in biased food choice environments where one option is clearly favored, differences in food choices influenced by socio-demographic factors are likely to diminish.
BergeronS.DoyonM.SaulaisL.LabrecqueJ. (2019). Using insights from behavioral economics to nudge individuals towards healthier choices when eating out: A restaurant experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 73, 56–64.
2.
BianchiF.GarnettE.DorselC.AveyardP.JebbS. A. (2018). Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: A systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(9), e384–e397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30188-8
BoronowskyR. D.ZhangA. W.StecherC.PresleyK.MathurM. B.ClevelandD. A.GarnettE.WhartonC.BrownD.MeierA.WangM.BravermanI.JayJ. A. (2022). Plant-based default nudges effectively increase the sustainability of catered meals on college campuses: Three randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, Article 1001157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1001157
5.
BovensL. (2009). The ethics of nudge. In Grüne-YanoffT.HanssonS. O. (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (pp. 207–219). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2593-7_10
6.
BrunsH.Kantorowicz-ReznichenkoE.KlementK.JonssonM. L.RahaliB. (2018). Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?Journal of Economic Psychology, 65, 41–59.
7.
Campbell-ArvaiV.ArvaiJ.KalofL. (2012). Motivating sustainable food choices: The role of nudges, value orientation, and information provision. Environment and Behavior, 46(4), 453–475.
8.
CasoG.VecchioR. (2023). Nudging low-medium income mothers towards healthy child options in an online restaurant scenario. Appetite, 180, Article 106360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106360
9.
De RidderD.AdriaanseM.Van GestelL.WachnerJ. (2023). How does nudging the COVID-19 vaccine play out in people who are in doubt about vaccination?Health Policy, 134, Article 104858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104858
10.
DogruelL.JoeckelS.VitakJ. (2017). The valuation of privacy premium features for smartphone apps: The influence of defaults and expert recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 230–239.
11.
ErhardA.BoztugY.LemkenD. (2023). How do defaults and framing influence food choice? An intervention aimed at promoting plant-based choice in online menus. Appetite, 190, Article 107005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107005
12.
EversC.MarchioriD. R.JunghansA. F.CremersJ.De RidderD. T. D. (2018). Citizen approval of nudging interventions promoting healthy eating: The role of intrusiveness and trustworthiness. BMC Public Health, 18(1), Article 1182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6097-y
13.
HagmanW.AnderssonD.VästfjällD.TinghögG. (2015). Public views on policies involving nudges. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2
14.
HagmanW.ErlandssonA.DickertS.TinghögG.VästfjällD. (2022). The effect of paternalistic alternatives on attitudes toward default nudges. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.17
15.
HagmannD.SiegristM.HartmannC. (2018). Taxes, labels, or nudges? Public acceptance of various interventions designed to reduce sugar intake. Food Policy, 79, 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.06.008
16.
HansenP. G.SchillingM.MalthesenM. S. (2021). Nudging healthy and sustainable food choices: Three randomized controlled field experiments using a vegetarian lunch-default as a normative signal. Journal of Public Health, 43(2), 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdz154
17.
HoldenS. S.ZlatevskaN.DubelaarC. (2015). Whether smaller plates reduce consumption depends on who’s serving and who’s looking: A meta-analysis (SSRN Scholarly Paper 2706338). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2706338
18.
HorganG. W.ScalcoA.CraigT.WhybrowS.MacdiarmidJ. I. (2019). Social, temporal and situational influences on meat consumption in the UK population. Appetite, 138, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.007
19.
HummelD.MaedcheA. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47–58.
20.
JachimowiczDuncanS.WeberE. U.JohnsonE. J. (2019). When and why defaults influence decisions: A meta-analysis of default effects. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.43
21.
LaTourM. S.SnipesR. L.BlissS. J. (1996). Don’t be afraid to use fear appeals: An experimental study. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(2), 59–68.
22.
LemkenD. (2021). Options to design more ethical and still successful default nudges: A review and recommendations. Behavioural Public Policy, 8(2), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.33
23.
LemkenD.KrausK.NitzkoS.SpillerA. (2018). Staatliche Eingriffe in die Lebensmittelwahl—Welche klimapolitischen Instrumente unterstützt die Bevölkerung? [Interventions on food choices—Which climate change mitigation policies are publicly supported?]. GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 4, 363–372. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.4.8
24.
LemkenD.LangenN. (2023). The price penalty on meat substitutes—Consumers prefer reduced meat portions over novel meat alternatives and authentic vegetarian dishes—Final stage of a registered report. Q Open, 3(1), Article qoad009. https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoad009
25.
LöfgrenÅ.MartinssonP.HennlockM.SternerT. (2012). Are experienced people affected by a pre-set default option—Results from a field experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(1), 66–72.
26.
McGillR.AnwarE.OrtonL.BromleyH.Lloyd-WilliamsF.O’FlahertyM.Taylor-RobinsonD.Guzman-CastilloM.GillespieD.MoreiraP.AllenK.HyseniL.CalderN.PetticrewM.WhiteM.WhiteheadM.CapewellS. (2015). Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact. BMC Public Health, 15(1), Article 457. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7
27.
MeierJ.AndorM. A.DoebbeF. C.HaddawayN. R.ReischL. A. (2022). Review: Do green defaults reduce meat consumption?Food Policy, 110, Article 102298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102298
28.
MichaelsenP.JohanssonL.-O.HedesströmM. (2021). Experiencing default nudges: Autonomy, manipulation, and choice-satisfaction as judged by people themselves. Behavioural Public Policy, 8(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.5
29.
NaghshiS.SadeghiO.WillettW. C.EsmaillzadehA. (2020). Dietary intake of total, animal, and plant proteins and risk of all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ, 370, Article m2412. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2412
30.
NelsonK. M.PartelowS.SchlueterA. (2019). Nudging tourists to donate for conservation: Experimental evidence on soliciting voluntary contributions for coastal management. Journal of Environmental Management, 237, 30–43.
RandersL.ThøgersenJ. (2023). From attitude to identity? A field experiment on attitude activation, identity formation, and meat reduction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 87, Article 101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101996
33.
ReindersM. J.HuitinkM.DijkstraS. C.MaaskantA. J.HeijnenJ. (2017). Menu-engineering in restaurants—Adapting portion sizes on plates to enhance vegetable consumption: A real-life experiment. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), Article 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0496-9
34.
ReindersM. J.van LieshoutL.PotG. K.NeufingerlN.van den BroekE.Battjes-FriesM.HeijnenJ. (2020). Portioning meat and vegetables in four different out of home settings: A win-win for guests, chefs and the planet. Appetite, 147, Article 104539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104539
35.
ReischL. A.SunsteinC. R.GwozdzW. (2017). Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges. Food Policy, 69, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.007
36.
SaulaisL.MasseyC.Perez-CuetoF. J. A.AppletonK. M.DinnellaC.MonteleoneE.DepezayL.HartwellH.GiboreauA. (2019). When are “Dish of the Day” nudges most effective to increase vegetable selection?Food Policy, 85, 15–27.
37.
SmithN. C.GoldsteinD. G.JohnsonE. J. (2013). Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.10.114
Stoll-KleemannS.SchmidtU. J. (2017). Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss. Regional Environmental Change, 17(5), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5
40.
SunsteinC. R. (2021). Sludge: What stops us from getting things done and what to do about it. MIT Press.
41.
TaufikD.BouwmanE. P.ReindersM. J.DagevosH. (2022). A reversal of defaults: Implementing a menu-based default nudge to promote out-of-home consumer adoption of plant-based meat alternatives. Appetite, 175, Article 106049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106049
42.
TaufikD.VerainM. C. D.BouwmanE. P.ReindersM. J. (2019). Determinants of real-life behavioural interventions to stimulate more plant-based and less animal-based diets: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 93, 281–303.
43.
TheotokisA.ManganariE. (2015). The impact of choice architecture on sustainable consumer behavior: The role of guilt. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 423–437.
Van GestelL. C.AdriaanseM. A.De RidderD. T. D. (2021a). Do nudges make use of automatic processing? Unraveling the effects of a default nudge under type 1 and type 2 processing. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 5(1–3), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2020.1808456
47.
Van GestelL. C.AdriaanseM. A.De RidderD. T. D. (2021b). Who accepts nudges? Nudge acceptability from a self-regulation perspective. PLoS One, 16(12), Article e0260531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260531
48.
VandenbroeleJ.SlabbinckH.van KerckhoveA.VermeirI. (2018). Curbing portion size effects by adding smaller portions at the point of purchase. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 82–87.
49.
WillettW.RockströmJ.LokenB.SpringmannM.LangT.VermeulenS.GarnettT.TilmanD.DeClerckF.WoodA. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492.
50.
YiS.KanetkarV.BrauerP. (2022). Customer support for nudge strategies to promote fruit and vegetable intake in a university food service. BMC Public Health, 22(1), Article 706. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13054-7
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
