Increasing Sustainable Behaviour with New Approaches to Green Nudging: Introducing the Environmentalist Bias, Scientist Bias, Nudge by Proxy, and Polynudge

Chris Macdonald^1,

¹Fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge

Cite this paper:
Chris Macdonald. Increasing Sustainable Behaviour with New Approaches to Green Nudging: Introducing the Environmentalist Bias, Scientist Bias, Nudge by Proxy, and Polynudge. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 12(1):1-6. doi: 10.12691/rpbs-12-1-1

Abstract

This paper compares the efficacy of two green nudges that aim to increase low-emission meal choices. The paper explores a direct approach through the use of displaying carbon emissions data (a green nudge) as well as an indirect approach of displaying nutrient data (a green nudge 'by proxy'). In the reported experiment, carbon footprint labelling outperformed the control group by 11.5 percentage points whereas nutrient data labelling outperformed the control group by 24 percentage points. The experiment was conducted online with 600 UK students (every participant was male, aged 18-25, and was non-vegan and non-vegetarian). While further studies are required, the results suggest that simple low-cost or no-cost labelling and signage interventions may be an effective strategy for increasing more sustainable meal choices. The paper introduces and discusses the terms nudge by proxy, polynudge, environmentalist bias, and scientist bias. The paper makes the case for future experiments that further explore the potential of indirect and multidimensional approaches to non-prohibitive interventions.

Keywords:
behavioural economics behavioural science consumer psychology nudge theory green nudges product labels plant-based vegan sustainability nudge by proxy polynudge scientist bias environmentalist bias

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Evans N, Eickers S, Geene L, Geene T, Villmow A. 2017. Green Nudging: A discussion and preliminary evaluation of nudging as an environmental policy instrument. Environmental Policy Research Centre (FFU) Freie Universität FFU-Report 01-2017.
[2]	Schubert C. 2017. Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological Economics 132: 329-342.
[3]	Carlsson F, Gravert C, Johansson-Stenman O, Kurz V. 2021. The Use of Green Nudges as an Environmental Policy Instrument. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 15:(2) 216-237.
[4]	Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
[5]	Poore J, Nemecek T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 992: 987-992.
[6]	Kim BF, Santo RE, Scatterday AP, Fry JP, Synk CM, Cebron SR, Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra Y, de Pee S, Bloem MW, Neff RA, Nachman KE. 2019. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global Environ. Change 101926.
[7]	Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman, De Clerck F, Wood A, Jonell M, et al. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, 393: 447-492.
[8]	Vlaeminck P, Jiang T, Vranken L. 2014. Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: Experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket. Ecol. Econ. 108: 180-190.
[9]	Pelletier MCA, Sullivan C, Wilson PJ, Webb G, Egger G. 2016. Informing Food Consumption Choices: Innovations in Measuring and Labelling. Food Nutr. Sci. 07: 1149-1170.
[10]	Thøgersen J, Nielsen KS. 2016. A better carbon footprint label. Journal of Cleaner Production 125: 86-94.
[11]	Brunner F, Kurz V, Bryngelsson D, Hedenus F. 2018. Carbon label at a university restaurant – Label implementation and evaluation. Ecol Econom 146: 658-667.
[12]	Holenweger G, Stöckli S, Brügger A. 2023. Carbon footprint labels involving traffic lights foster sustainable food choices. Food Quality and Preference 106: 104813.
[13]	Garnett EE. 2023. Carbon and other environmental footprint food labels: potential and pitfalls. OSF Preprint March 7.
[14]	Meyerding SGH, Schaffmann AL, Lehberger M. 2019. Consumer preferences for different designs of carbon footprint labelling on tomatoes in Germany—does design matter? Sustainability 11.6: 1587.
[15]	Rondoni A & Grasso S. 2021. Consumers behaviour towards carbon footprint labels on food: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Journal of Cleaner Production 301: 127031.
[16]	Diepeveen S, Ling T, Suhrcke M, Roland M, Marteau TM. 2013. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health 13: 756.
[17]	Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillian.
[18]	Fishbach A, Friedman RS, Kruglanski AW. 2003. Leading us not unto temptation. Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84: 296-309.
[19]	Meule A, Papies EK, Kübler A. 2012. Differentiating between successful and unsuccessful dieters. Validity and reliability of the perceived self-regulatory success in dieting scale. Appetite 58: 822-826.
[20]	Houben K, Nederkoorn C, Jansen A. 2012. Too tempting to resist? Past success at weight control rather than dietary restraint determines exposure-induced disinhibited eating. Appetite 59: 550-555.
[21]	Sato W, Sawada R, Kubota Y, Toichi M, Fushiki T. 2016. Unconscious Affective Responses to Food. PLoS One 8:(11).
[22]	de Boer J, Boersema JJ, Aiking H. 2009. Consumers' motivational associations favoring free range meat or less meat. Ecological Economics 68:(3) 850-860.
[23]	Grunert KG, Hieke S, Wills J. 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44: 177-189.
[24]	Huseynov S, Palma MA. 2021. Food decision-making under time pressure. Food Quality and Preference 88.
[25]	Geuens M. 2023. Research on Influencing Factors of Food Choice and Food Consumption. Foods 12:(6).
[26]	Higgs S. 2015. Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite 86.
[27]	Sharps M, Robinson E. 2016. Encouraging children to eat more fruit and vegetables: health vs. descriptive social norm-based messages. Appetite 100: 18-25.
[28]	Cheah I, Shimul AS, Liang J, Phau I. 2020. Drivers and barriers toward reducing meat consumption. Appetite 149: 104636.
[29]	Suri G, Sheppes G, Schwartz C, Gross JJ. 2013. Patient inertia and the status quo bias: when an inferior option is preferred. Psychological science 24:(9) 1763-1769
[30]	Dean M, Kibris Ö, Masatlioglu Y. 2017. Limited attention and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Theory 169: 93-127.
[31]	Karl FM, Holle R, Schwettmann L, Peters A, Laxy M. 2019. Status quo bias and health. behavior: findings from a cross-sectional study. Eur J Public Health 29:(5) 992-997.
[32]	Ross L, Greene D, House P. 1977. The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13: 279-301.
[33]	Marks G, Miller N. 1987. Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 102: 72-90.
[34]	Mullen B, Atkins JL, Champion DS, Edwards C, Hardy D, Story JE, Vanderklok M. 1985. The false consensus effect: a meta-analysis of 155 hypothesis tests. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21: 262–283.
[35]	Dohmen T, Quercia S, Willrodt J. 2023. A note on salience of own preferences and the consensus effect. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 209: 15-21.
[36]	Bunker CJ, Varnum MEW. 2021. How strong is the association between social media use and false consensus? Computers in Human Behavior 125: 106947.
[37]	Capraro V, Jagfeld G, Klein R, Mul M, de Pol IV. 2019. Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges. Sci Rep 9: 11880.
[38]	Macdonald C. 2020. Avatars, Disconnecting Agents: Exploring the Nuances of the Avatar Effect in Online Discourse. Open Science Journal 5:(3).
[39]	Santos Silva M. 2022. Nudging and Other Behaviourally Based Policies as Enablers for Environmental Sustainability. Laws. 11:(1).
[40]	Macdonald C. 2023. 'Plant-based' versus 'Vegan' & 'High protein' versus 'Low carbon': Exploring Situational Myth-busting, Product Labels, and Green Nudges that Increase Sustainable Meal Choices. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 11:(1) 7-11.
[41]	Spaargaren G, Koppen CSAKV, Janssen AM, Hendriksen A, Kolfschoten CJ. 2013. Consumer responses to the carbon labelling of food : A real life experiment in a canteen practice. Sociol Rural 53:(4).
[42]	Osman M, Thornton K. 2019. Traffic light labelling of meals to promote sustainable consumption and healthy eating. Appetite 138: 60-71.
[43]	Slapø HB, Karevold KI. 2019. Simple eco-labels to nudge customers toward the most environmentally friendly warm dishes: An empirical study in a cafeteria setting. Front Sustain Food Syst 3: 1-9.
[44]	Lohmann PM, Gsottbauer E, Doherty A, Kontoleon A. 2022. Do carbon footprint labels promote climatarian diets? Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 114:(102693).
[45]	Macdonald C. 2020. Climate Psychology: What is preventing the uptake in lifestyle changes that would significantly reduce one’s environmental impact? Open Science Journal 5:(2).
[46]	Vomad. 2019. Global Vegan Survey. Vomad.
[47]	Veganuary. 2023. Official participant survey: Veganuary 2023. Veganuary.
[48]	Veganuary. 2022. Official participant survey: Veganuary 2022. Veganuary.
[49]	Neff RA, Edwards D, Palmer A, Ramsing R, Righter A, Wolfson J. 2018. Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours. Public Health Nutr 21:(10) 1835-1844.
[50]	Livingstone KM, Lamb KE, Abbott G, Worsley T, McNaughton SA. 2020. Ranking of meal preferences and interactions with demograhic characteristics: a discrete choice experiment in young adults. Int Behav Nutr Phys Act 17: 157.
[51]	Adams CJ. 1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York, NY: Continuum.
[52]	Thomas MA. 2016. Are vegans the same as vegetarians? The effect of diet on perceptions of masculinity. Appetite 97: 79-86.
[53]	Graça J, Calheiros MM, Oliveira A. 2015. Attached to meat? (Un) Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 95: 113-125.
[54]	Mensink, GBM, Lage Barbosa C, Brettschneider AK. 2016. Verbreitung der vegetarischen Ernährungsweise in Deutschland. J. Health Monit. 1: 2-15.
[55]	McCarthy J, Dekoster S. 2020. Nearly one in four U.S. Have cut back on eating meat. Gallup Jan 27 news.gallup.com/ poll/282779/ nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx.
[56]	Rosenfeld DL, Tomiyama AJ. 2021. Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Appetite 34166748.
[57]	Booth C, Pontin F, James W, Tong J, Jordan J, Ogundeji O. 2023. Carbon Footprint of Food at the University of Leeds. Consumer Data Research Centre, University of Leeds Jul 4.
[58]	Maryon-Davis A, Jolley R. 2010. Healthy Nudges: When the Public Wants Change But the Politicians Don’t Know It. Faculty of Public Health.
[59]	Branson C, Duffy B, Perry C, Wellings D. 2012. Acceptable behaviour: Public opinion on behaviour change policy. Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute.
[60]	NCB. 2007. Public health: ethical issues. Nuffield Council of Bioethics Nov 13.
[61]	Teng TS, Chin YL, Chai KF, Chen WN. 2021. Fermentation for future food systems: Precision fermentation can complement the scope and applications of traditional fermentation. EMBO Rep 5:(2) 22.
[62]	Chai KF, Ng KR, Samarasiri M, Chen WN. 2022. Precision fermentation to advance fungal food fermentations. Current Opinion in Food Science 47: 100881.
[63]	Young L, Swinburn B. 2002. Impact of the Pick the Tick food information programme on the salt content of food in New Zealand. Health Promot Int 17:(1).
[64]	Lee HC, Liu SF, Cheng YC. 2018. Positive or Negative? The Influence of Message Framing, Regulatory Focus, and Product Type. International Journal of Communication 12: 788-805.
[65]	Bandoim L. 2019. Why consumers prefer plant-based instead of vegetarian or vegan labels. Forbes Nov 30.
[66]	Vandevijvere S, Vermote M, Egnell M, Galan P, Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Hercberg S, Julia C. 2020. Consumers’ food choices, understanding and perceptions in response to different front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems in Belgium: results from an online experimental study. Arch Public Health 78: (30).
[67]	Rust NA, Ridding L, Ward C, Clark B, Kehoe L, Dora M, Whittingham MJ, McGowan P, Chaudhary A, Reynolds CJ, Trivedy C, West N. 2020. How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Sci Total Environ 718: 137208.
[68]	Cooper K, Dedehayir O, Riverola C, Harrington S, Alpert E. 2022. Exploring Consumer Perceptions of the Value Proposition Embedded in Vegan Food Products Using Text Analytics. Sustainability 14: 2075.
[69]	Rune CJB, Song Q, Clausen MP, Giacalone D. 2022. Consumer perception of plant-based burger recipes studied by projective mapping. Future Foods 6: 100168.
[70]	Marteau TM. 2018. Changing minds about changing behaviour. Lancet 391: 116-117.
[71]	Potter C, Bastounis A, Hartmann-Boyce J, Stewart C, Frie K, Tudor K, Bianchi F, Cartwright E, Cook B, Rayner M, Jebb SA. 2021. The Effects of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Selection, Purchase, and Consumption of Food and Drink Products: A Systematic Review. Environ. Behav. 53: 891-925.
[72]	Stanley SK, Day C, Brown PM. 2023. Masculinity Matters for Meat Consumption: An Examination of Self-Rated Gender Typicality, Meat Consumption, and Veg*nism in Australian Men and Women. Sex Roles 88: 187-198.