Increasing the Proportion of Plant-Based Foods Available to Shift Social Consumption Norms and Food Choice among Non-Vegetarians
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study 1
2.1. Methods
2.1.1. Design
2.1.2. Participants and Sample Size
2.1.3. Materials (Food Options: Burgers)
2.1.4. Measures
Hypothetical Food Choice
Proposed Mediators
Meat Attachment
2.1.5. Procedure
2.1.6. Statistical Procedure
2.2. Results
2.2.1. Participant Characteristics
2.2.2. Hypothetical Food Choice
2.2.3. Proposed Mediators
2.2.4. Proposed Moderators
2.3. Discussion
3. Study 2
3.1. Methods
3.1.1. Design
3.1.2. Participants and Sample Size
3.1.3. Materials (Food Options: Pasta Sauces)
3.1.4. Measures
Food Choice
Proposed Mediators
Meat Attachment
Perceptions of Autonomy
3.1.5. Procedure
3.1.6. Statistical Procedure
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Participant Characteristics
3.2.2. Food Choice
3.2.3. Proposed Mediators
3.2.4. Proposed Moderator
3.2.5. Perceptions of Autonomy (Exploratory Purposes)
3.3. Discussion
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, M.; Tilman, D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 064016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, F.; Garnett, E.; Dorsel, C.; Aveyard, P.; Jebb, S.A. Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: A systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2018, 2, e384–e397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, F.; Dorsel, C.; Garnett, E.; Aveyard, P.; Jebb, S.A. Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to reduce the demand for meat: A systematic review with qualitative comparative analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pechey, R.; Marteau, T.M. Availability of healthier vs. less healthy food and food choice: An online experiment. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pitt, E.; Gallegos, D.; Comans, T.; Cameron, C.; Thornton, L. Exploring the influence of local food environments on food behaviours: A systematic review of qualitative literature. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 2393–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pechey, R.; Hollands, G.J.; Carter, P.; Marteau, T.M. Altering the availability of products within physical micro-environments: A conceptual framework. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollands, G.J.; Carter, P.; Anwer, S.; King, S.E.; Jebb, S.A.; Ogilvie, D.; Shemilt, I.; Higgins, J.P.; Marteau, T.M. Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garnett, E.E.; Balmford, A.; Sandbrook, C.; Pilling, M.A.; Marteau, T.M. Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 20923–20929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- NOS. Vleesvervangers Bezig Met Snelle Opmars, Verkoop Vlees Daalt. Available online: https://nos.nl/artikel/2297492-vleesvervangers-bezig-met-snelle-opmars-verkoop-vlees-daalt.html (accessed on 8 April 2020).
- ABN AMRO. Meer Innovatie Zorgt Voor Groei Van Vleesvervangers. Available online: https://insights.abnamro.nl/2019/05/meer-innovatie-zorgt-voor-groei-van-vleesvervangers/ (accessed on 8 April 2020).
- Pechey, R.; Cartwright, E.; Pilling, M.; Hollands, G.J.; Vasiljevic, M.; Jebb, S.A.; Marteau, T.M. Impact of increasing the proportion of healthier foods available on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias: A stepped wedge randomized controlled pilot trial. Appetite 2019, 133, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graça, J.; Calheiros, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Attached to meat?(Un) Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 2015, 95, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graça, J.; Oliveira, A.; Calheiros, M.M. Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 2015, 90, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Kleef, E.; Otten, K.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Healthy snacks at the checkout counter: A lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Itti, L.; Koch, C. Computational modelling of visual attention. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2001, 2, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Raghoebar, S.; van Rongen, S.; Lie, R.; de Vet, E. Identifying social norms in physical aspects of food environments: A photo study. Appetite 2019, 143, 104414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Reno, R.R.; Kallgren, C.A. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raghoebar, S.; Haynes, A.; Robinson, E.; Van Kleef, E.; De Vet, E. Served portion sizes affect later food intake through social consumption norms. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burger, J.M.; Bell, H.; Harvey, K.; Johnson, J.; Stewart, C.; Dorian, K.; Swedroe, M. Nutritious or delicious? The effect of descriptive norm information on food choice. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2010, 29, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prinsen, S.; de Ridder, D.T.D.; de Vet, E. Eating by example. Effects of environmental cues on dietary decisions. Appetite 2013, 70, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoemann, A.M.; Boulton, A.J.; Short, S.D. Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017, 8, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schösler, H.; De Boer, J.; Boersema, J.J. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 2012, 58, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Weijzen, P.; Engels, W.; Kok, F.J.; De Graaf, C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 2011, 56, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raghoebar, S.; Van Kleef, E.; De Vet, E. How subtle cues surrounding foods influence snack consumption: The case of covering foods. Manuscript submitted for publication. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Maas, J.; de Ridder, D.T.D.; de Vet, E.; De Wit, J.B.F. Do distant foods decrease intake? The effect of food accessibility on consumption. Psychol. Health 2012, 27, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feitosa, J.; Joseph, D.L.; Newman, D.A. Crowdsourcing and personality measurement equivalence: A warning about countries whose primary language is not English. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2015, 75, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, J.; Hoogland, C.T.; Boersema, J.J. Towards more sustainable food choices: Value priorities and motivational orientations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 985–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yzerbyt, V.; Muller, D.; Batailler, C.; Judd, C.M. New recommendations for testing indirect effects in mediational models: The need to report and test component paths. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 115, 929–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process. Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brock, T.C. Implications of commodity theory for value change. In Psychological Foundations of Attitudes; Greenwald, A.G., Brock, T.C., Ostrom, T.M., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968; pp. 243–275. [Google Scholar]
- Van Herpen, E.; Pieters, R.; Zeelenberg, M. When less sells more or less: The scarcity principle in wine choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 36, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gierl, H.; Huettl, V. Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of different types of scarcity signals with products’ suitability for conspicuous consumption. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2010, 27, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venema, T.A.G.; Kroese, F.M.; De Vet, E.; De Ridder, D.T.D. The One that I Want: Strong personal preferences render the center-stage nudge redundant. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lea, E.J.; Crawford, D.; Worsley, A. Consumers’ readiness to eat a plant-based diet. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 60, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brehm, S.S.; Brehm, J.W. Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Lea, E.J.; Crawford, D.; Worsley, A. Public views of the benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 60, 828–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Herpen, E.; Pieters, R.; Zeelenberg, M. When demand accelerates demand: Trailing the bandwagon. J. Consumer Psychol. 2009, 19, 302–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Libelle Zomerweek. CIJFERS&WEETJES. Available online: http://www.libellezomerweekexposanten.nl/cijfersweetjes/ (accessed on 6 April 2020).
- Vugts, A.; Van den Hoven, M.; De Vet, E.; Verweij, M. How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging. Behav. Public Policy 2018, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 2014, 67, 451–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sunstein, C.R. Nudges that fail. Behav. Public Policy 2017, 1, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobson, R.P.; Mortensen, C.R.; Cialdini, R.B. Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 100, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 24, 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgs, S. Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite 2015, 86, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stok, F.M.; de Vet, E.; de Ridder, D.T.D.; de Wit, J.B.F. The potential of peer social norms to shape food intake in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review of effects and moderators. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 326–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simons, D.J.; Chabris, C.F. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 1999, 28, 1059–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Boer, J.; Schösler, H.; Aiking, H. “Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 2014, 76, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coucke, N.; Vermeir, I.; Slabbinck, H.; Van Kerckhove, A. Show Me More! The Influence of Visibility on Sustainable Food Choices. Foods 2019, 8, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lea, E.; Worsley, A. Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2003, 6, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pechey, R.; Jenkins, H.; Cartwright, E.; Marteau, T.M. Altering the availability of healthier vs. less healthy items in UK hospital vending machines: A multiple treatment reversal design. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | Items |
---|---|
Hypothetical food choice | ‘Which [food option] would you choose to eat for dinner?’ |
Perceptions of salience | ‘To what extent did this [food option] stand out?’ (1: Not at all to 7: Very much) [25,26] |
Perceptions of descriptive norms | ‘How likely is it that other participants similar to you would choose this [food option]?’ (1: Not at all likely to 7: Extremely likely) [18,19,25] |
Perceptions of injunctive norms | ‘To what extent do other participants similar to you think you ought to choose this [food option]?’ (1: Not at all to 7: Very much) [18,19,25] |
Stage 1. Participants were informed that they were participating in a study about the influence of composing a meal on their mood (cover story). |
Stage 2. Eligible participants provided their informed consent and were instructed to complete the questionnaires on a desktop or laptop computer (programmed in Qualtrics). |
Stage 3. Participants completed an 8-item filler mood questionnaire about their current mood, also including one item measuring their hunger (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)). The items were shown in an evenly randomized order. |
Stage 4. Participants were asked to imagine the following: ‘It is 5 p.m. and you are in the supermarket. You are buying groceries for your evening meal, only for yourself, as you will eat alone. Burgers are on your menu’. |
Stage 5. Participants were instructed to hypothetically compose their own evening meal by selecting: (a) one burger from the array of different burgers available (Figure 1; the availability manipulation to which the participant was visually exposed was dependent upon the condition to which the participant was assigned); (b) one bun (to bolster the cover story; options: A white bun, a wholegrain bun, or a brown bun); (c) two out of five toppings (to bolster the cover story; options: Lettuce, tomatoes, pickles, onions, or jalapenos). Note: a, b, and c were presented on separate pages, and on each of these pages the hypothetical food choice item was presented. It was explicitly stated that they could not add anything to their burger at home. |
Stage 6. Participants completed: (a) the proposed mediator items. Each mediator item was presented on a separate page (shown below the relevant availability manipulation). The order of presentation of mediators was evenly randomized, as well as the order of presentation of burgers regarding each mediator; (b) the quality control question [27] (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)); (c) the liking and familiarity items (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)). The liking and familiarity items for each burger were presented on the same page, but the different burgers were presented on separate pages in an evenly randomized order; (d) the meat attachment items (items were presented per subscale); (e) the frequency of meat consumption item [28] (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)); (f) the same mood questionnaire as in Stage 3 (to corroborate the cover story); (g) their awareness of the study aim question [19] (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)); (h) their demographic information (age, sex, nationality, and education); (i) the question about any allergies or intolerances for the included burgers. |
Stage 7. Participants were debriefed and reimbursed. |
Increased Plant-Based Foods Condition (n = 90) | Increased Animal Source Foods Condition (n = 94) | |
---|---|---|
Mean (SD) or Number (%) | Mean (SD) or Number (%) | |
Age (years) | 27.10 (8.75) | 27.49 (9.77) |
Sex (female) | 21 (23.3%) | 37 (39.4%) |
Nationality (Dutch) | 85 (94.4%) | 88 (93.6%) |
Education (academic education) | 31 (34.4%) | 22 (23.4%) |
Hunger a | 3.41 (1.54) | 3.38 (1.66) |
Liking a | ||
Plant-based foods b | 7.18 (2.57) | 7.85 (2.60) |
Animal source foods b | 10.99 (1.70) | 10.77 (1.83) |
Familiarity a | ||
Plant-based foods b | 4.44 (2.95) | 5.28 (3.36) |
Animal source foods b | 10.56 (3.16) | 10.46 (2.79) |
Meat attachment a | 4.63 (1.17) | 4.42 (1.12) |
Frequency of meat consumption (range 0–7) | 5.86 (1.77) | 5.59 (1.64) |
Increased Plant-Based Foods Condition (n = 90) | Increased Animal Source Foods Condition (n = 94) | Test Statistic | p-Value | ηp2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) or Number (%) | Mean (SD) or Number (%) | ||||
Effect of condition on hypothetical food choice | |||||
Hypothetical food choice (plant-based foods) | 9 (10.0%) | 15 (16.0%) | X2(1) = 1.44 | 0.23 | - |
Effect of condition on the proposed mediators | |||||
Perceptions of salience a | |||||
Plant-based foods b | 7.61 (2.43) | 7.94 (2.23) | F(1, 182) = 0.89 | 0.35 | 0.01 |
Animal source foods b | 9.69 (2.34) | 9.51 (1.99) | F(1, 182) = 0.31 | 0.58 | 0.00 |
Perceptions of descriptive norms a | |||||
Plant-based foods b | 5.88 (2.44) | 6.72 (2.35) | F(1, 182) = 5.74 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
Animal source foods b | 10.46 (1.92) | 10.05 (1.75) | F(1, 182) = 2.21 | 0.14 | 0.01 |
Perceptions of injunctive norms a | |||||
Plant-based foods b | 6.13 (2.66) | 6.12 (2.88) | F(1, 182) = 0.00 | 0.97 | 0.00 |
Animal source foods b | 7.61 (2.86) | 7.82 (2.89) | F(1, 182) = 0.24 | 0.62 | 0.00 |
Stage 1. As in Study 1, participants were informed that they were participating in a study about the influence of composing a meal on their mood (cover story). |
Stage 2. Participants were verbally instructed about the procedure, which supported and corresponded to the questionnaire instructions. |
Stage 3. At the start of the questionnaire (programmed in Qualtrics, displayed on a tablet), participants provided their informed consent, after which the cover story was repeated. |
Stage 4. As in Study 1, participants completed an 8-item filler mood questionnaire about their current mood, again including one item measuring their hunger (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)). The items were shown in an evenly randomized order. |
Stage 5. Participants were asked to imagine the following: ‘You are coming home late tonight after the women’s summer fair and you are in the supermarket. You are buying groceries for your evening meal. You will cook something simple and only for yourself, as you will eat alone. Pasta is on your menu’. |
Stage 6. Participants were directed to a wooden product display in front of them, consisting of three shelves that were separately covered by white canvas, making the products initially invisible to participants (Figure 3b). Participants were instructed to compose their own evening meal by removing the cover and selecting: (a) one readymade pasta sauce from the upper shelf (the availability manipulation to which the participant was exposed was dependent upon the condition to which the participant was assigned); (b) one carbohydrate (pasta) from the middle shelf (to bolster the cover story; options: Fusilli or spaghetti); (c) one vegetable from the bottom shelf (to bolster the cover story; options: Zucchini or red pepper). Note: Participants were instructed to first remove the cover from the target shelf and to put their selected product directly in a paper bag in front of them before removing the following cover and selecting the following product (in the order a, b, c). It was explicitly stated that it was not possible to change their products after they made a choice and that they could not add anything to their pasta at home. |
Stage 7. Participants completed: (a) the proposed mediator items (as in Study 1). Each mediator item was presented on a separate page and the order of presentation of mediators was evenly randomized, as well as the order of presentation of pasta sauces regarding each mediator; (b) the perceptions of autonomy items (items were presented per subscale); (c) the liking and familiarity items (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)). The liking and familiarity items for each pasta sauce were presented on the same page, but the different pasta sauces were presented on separate pages in an evenly randomized order; (d) the frequency of meat consumption item [28] (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)); (e) the meat attachment items (as in Study 1; items were presented per subscale); (f) the same mood questionnaire as in Stage 4 (to corroborate the cover story); (g) their awareness of the study aim question [19] (see Supplementary Materials (Methods: Study 1)); (h) their demographic information (age, nationality, and education); (i) the question about considering themselves as a vegetarian; (j) the question about any allergies or intolerances for the included pasta sauces. |
Stage 8. All participants in the same time slot were jointly verbally debriefed. |
Stage 9. Without the presence of participants, the selected pasta sauce, carbohydrate (pasta), and vegetable were reported, as well as the time of participation. |
Increased Plant-Based Foods Condition (n = 93) c | Increased Animal Source Foods Condition (n = 87) | Control Condition (n = 96) | |
---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) or Number (%) | Mean (SD) or Number (%) | Mean (SD) or Number (%) | |
Age (years) | 48.33 (15.10) | 46.14 (15.73) | 47.16 (15.41) |
Nationality (Dutch) | 92 (98.9%) | 84 (96.6%) | 92 (95.8%) |
Education (academic education) | 4 (4.3%) | 3 (3.4%) | 12 (12.5%) |
Hunger a | 3.55 (1.66) | 3.44 (1.74) | 3.10 (1.61) |
Liking a | |||
Plant-based foods b | 9.96 (2.57) | 9.63 (2.65) | 9.49 (2.62) |
Animal source foods b | 8.90 (2.72) | 9.24 (2.78) | 8.84 (3.31) |
Familiarity a | |||
Plant-based foods b | 7.30 (3.67) | 6.61 (3.85) | 6.79 (3.51) |
Animal source foods b | 7.83 (3.78) | 7.84 (3.94) | 7.67 (3.74) |
Meat attachment a | 4.50 (0.91) | 4.05 (1.06) | 4.30 (1.07) |
Frequency of meat consumption (range 0–7) | 6.09 (1.43) | 5.31 (1.68) | 5.66 (1.84) |
Increased Plant-Based Foods Condition (n = 93) | Increased Animal Source Foods Condition (n = 87) | Control Condition (n = 96) | Test Statistic | p-Value | ηp2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) or Number (%) | Mean (SD) or Number (%) | |||||
Effect of condition on food choice | ||||||
Food choice (plant-based foods) | 52 (55.9%) | 43 (49.4%) | 54 (56.3%) | X2(2) = 1.07 | 0.59 | - |
Effect of condition on the proposed mediators | ||||||
Perceptions of salience a | ||||||
Plant-based foods b | 9.06 (2.75) | 8.85 (2.62) | 8.93 (2.41) | F(2, 273) = 0.16 | 0.85 | 0.00 |
Animal source foods b | 9.30 (2.58) | 9.02 (2.65) | 9.31 (2.20) | F(2, 273) = 0.39 | 0.68 | 0.00 |
Perceptions of descriptive norms a | ||||||
Plant-based foods b | 9.39 (2.30) c | 8.54 (2.52) c | 9.04 (2.37) | F(2, 273) = 2.84 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
Animal source foods b | 8.84 (2.37) d | 9.72 (2.06) d | 9.48 (2.27) | F(2, 273) = 3.79 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
Perceptions of injunctive norms a | ||||||
Plant-based foods b | 8.48 (2.65) | 8.02 (2.85) | 8.10 (2.67) | F(2, 273) = 0.75 | 0.47 | 0.01 |
Animal source foods b | 8.09 (2.63) | 8.53 (2.51) | 8.56 (2.63) | F(2, 273) = 0.98 | 0.38 | 0.01 |
Effect of condition on perceptions of autonomy | ||||||
Perceptions of autonomy a | 5.61 (1.11) | 5.72 (0.98) | 5.69 (1.11) | F(2, 273) = 0.27 | 0.77 | 0.00 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Raghoebar, S.; Van Kleef, E.; De Vet, E. Increasing the Proportion of Plant-Based Foods Available to Shift Social Consumption Norms and Food Choice among Non-Vegetarians. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135371
Raghoebar S, Van Kleef E, De Vet E. Increasing the Proportion of Plant-Based Foods Available to Shift Social Consumption Norms and Food Choice among Non-Vegetarians. Sustainability. 2020; 12(13):5371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135371
Chicago/Turabian StyleRaghoebar, Sanne, Ellen Van Kleef, and Emely De Vet. 2020. "Increasing the Proportion of Plant-Based Foods Available to Shift Social Consumption Norms and Food Choice among Non-Vegetarians" Sustainability 12, no. 13: 5371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135371