IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0155995.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Acceptability in the UK and USA of Nudging to Reduce Obesity: The Example of Reducing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Consumption

Author

Listed:
  • Dragos C Petrescu
  • Gareth J Hollands
  • Dominique-Laurent Couturier
  • Yin-Lam Ng
  • Theresa M Marteau

Abstract

Background: “Nudging”—modifying environments to change people’s behavior, often without their conscious awareness—can improve health, but public acceptability of nudging is largely unknown. Methods: We compared acceptability, in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA), of government interventions to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Three nudge interventions were assessed: i. reducing portion Size, ii. changing the Shape of the drink containers, iii. changing their shelf Location; alongside two traditional interventions: iv. Taxation and v. Education. We also tested the hypothesis that describing interventions as working through non-conscious processes decreases their acceptability. Predictors of acceptability, including perceived intervention effectiveness, were also assessed. Participants (n = 1093 UK and n = 1082 USA) received a description of each of the five interventions which varied, by randomisation, in how the interventions were said to affect behaviour: (a) via conscious processes; (b) via non-conscious processes; or (c) no process stated. Acceptability was derived from responses to three items. Results: Levels of acceptability for four of the five interventions did not differ significantly between the UK and US samples; reducing portion size was less accepted by the US sample. Within each country, Education was rated as most acceptable and Taxation the least, with the three nudge-type interventions rated between these. There was no evidence to support the study hypothesis: i.e. stating that interventions worked via non-conscious processes did not decrease their acceptability in either the UK or US samples. Perceived effectiveness was the strongest predictor of acceptability for all interventions across the two samples. Conclusion: In conclusion, nudge interventions to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages seem similarly acceptable in the UK and USA, being more acceptable than taxation, but less acceptable than education. Contrary to prediction, we found no evidence that highlighting the non-conscious processes by which nudge interventions may work decreases their acceptability. However, highlighting the effectiveness of all interventions has the potential to increase their acceptability.

Suggested Citation

  • Dragos C Petrescu & Gareth J Hollands & Dominique-Laurent Couturier & Yin-Lam Ng & Theresa M Marteau, 2016. "Public Acceptability in the UK and USA of Nudging to Reduce Obesity: The Example of Reducing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155995
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155995
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155995&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0155995?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark D. White, 2013. "The Manipulation of Choice," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-31357-7, December.
    2. Pechey, Rachel & Burge, Peter & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Suhrcke, Marc & Marteau, Theresa M., 2014. "Public acceptability of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol consumption: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 104-109.
    3. Cantoni E. & Ronchetti E., 2001. "Robust Inference for Generalized Linear Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1022-1030, September.
    4. Mazzocchi, Mario & Cagnone, Silvia & Bech-Larsen, Tino & Niedźwiedzka, Barbara & Saba, Anna & Shankar, Bhavani & Verbeke, Wim & Traill, W Bruce, 2015. "What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 267-292, July.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:202-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reisch, Lucia A. & Sunstein, Cass R. & Gwozdz, Wencke, 2017. "Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Ismaël Rafaï & Arthur Ribaillier & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The impact on nudge acceptability judgments of framing and consultation of the targeted population," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-03228638, HAL.
    3. Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    4. Le Bodo, Yann & Etilé, Fabrice & Julia, Chantal & Friant-Perrot, Marine & Breton, Eric & Lecocq, Sébastien & Boizot-Szantai, Christine & Bergeran, Céline & Jabot, Françoise, 2022. "Public health lessons from the French 2012 soda tax and insights on the modifications enacted in 2018," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(7), pages 585-591.
    5. James P. Reynolds & Milica Vasiljevic & Mark Pilling & Marissa G. Hall & Kurt M. Ribisl & Theresa M. Marteau, 2020. "Communicating Evidence about the Causes of Obesity and Support for Obesity Policies: Two Population-Based Survey Experiments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Sandro Casal & Francesco Guala & Luigi Mittone, 2019. "On the Transparency of Nudges: An Experiment," CEEL Working Papers 1902, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    7. Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Mariusz Duplaga, 2020. "The Acceptance of Key Public Health Interventions by the Polish Population Is Related to Health Literacy, But Not eHealth Literacy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Hagmann, Désirée & Siegrist, Michael & Hartmann, Christina, 2018. "Taxes, labels, or nudges? Public acceptance of various interventions designed to reduce sugar intake," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 156-165.
    10. Vivica Kraak & Tessa Englund & Sarah Misyak & Elena Serrano, 2017. "Progress Evaluation for the Restaurant Industry Assessed by a Voluntary Marketing-Mix and Choice-Architecture Framework That Offers Strategies to Nudge American Customers toward Healthy Food Environme," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, July.
    11. Arthur Ribaillier & Ismaël Rafaï & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The Impact on Acceptability Judgments about Nudges of Framing and Consultation with the Targeted Population," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-12, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    12. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Agnieszka Piekara, 2022. "Sugar Tax or What? The Perspective and Preferences of Consumers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, October.
    14. Ori Katz & Eyal Zamir, 2021. "Do People Like Mandatory Rules? The Choice Between Disclosures, Defaults, and Mandatory Rules in Supplier‐Customer Relationships," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 421-460, June.
    15. Bialowolski, Piotr & Weziak-Bialowolska, Dorota & McNeely, Eileen, 2021. "A socially responsible financial institution – The bumpy road to improving consumer well-being," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Martha Bicket & Robin Vanner, 2016. "Designing Policy Mixes for Resource Efficiency: The Role of Public Acceptability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    6. Bianco, Ana M. & Martínez, Elena, 2009. "Robust testing in the logistic regression model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(12), pages 4095-4105, October.
    7. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    8. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    9. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    10. Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Neil Chalmers & Faical Akaichi, 2018. "Simulating the Impact of Carbon Taxes on Greenhouse Gas Emission and Nutrition in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    13. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    14. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    15. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    17. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    18. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    20. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155995. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.