Combining nudging and price incentives to promote climate friendly food consumption

Last registered on April 17, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Combining nudging and price incentives to promote climate friendly food consumption
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013228
Initial registration date
April 08, 2024

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
April 16, 2024, 1:06 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
April 17, 2024, 2:05 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
CICERO Center for International Climate Research

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
CICERO Center for International Climate Research
PI Affiliation
CICERO Center for International Climate Research
PI Affiliation
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
PI Affiliation
Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-04-18
End date
2024-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
In the current nudging literature, several have called for more research on the combination of behavioral interventions as a promising avenue to see larger effects (Nisa et al., 2019), and it has also been claimed that combinations of nudges and monetary interventions may be particularly effective in promoting pro-environmental behavior (see e.g. Alt et al., 2024). Most of the research on policy mixes has been done in the energy domain (Allcott et al., 2014; Drews et al., 2020; Fanghella et al., 2021) and there is a lack of research on policy mixes in the food domain. Furthermore, the existing research on policy mixing in the food domain mainly focuses on promoting healthy food products (Ahn & Lusk, 2021; Papoutsi et al., 2015; Vo et al., 2022). The purpose of this study is, first, to investigate the effect of combining a climate label on food with a climate rebate, and second, to examine how effects of each incentive individually and in combination interact with personal norms for climate friendly behavior. We contribute to the literature on incentives to promote climate friendly food consumption by combining a positive incentive with a positive label. Both the label and the price reduction presentation are developed in cooperating with an online food retailer to increase the realism of the choice tasks. The motivation for focusing on strategies that can be implemented by an online supermarket is to increase the relevance and realism of the choice experiment, since national level policies to reduce emissions from food production through reducing demand for meat are not currently politically feasible in Norway (see e.g. Larsson and Vik, 2023). However, the design is still relevant for understanding the potential effects of government policies, such as mandatory climate labels, or subsidies for less emission intensive foods. An important contribution will be to investigate synergies between financial incentives and food labeling.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Aasen, Marianne et al. 2024. "Combining nudging and price incentives to promote climate friendly food consumption." AEA RCT Registry. April 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13228-1.2
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Respondents in an online survey (a subset of a larger number of respondents from CICEROs climate survey) will be asked to complete choice tasks where they choose between five different mince products; beef, chicken, pork, plant based, or 50/50 beef/plant based. Respondents can also choose not to purchase any of the products. The respondents are divided into four equally sized groups (one control and three treatment groups).
Treatment 1: Climate label on the plant based mince
Treatment 2: 15 % price promotion on the plant based mince
Treatment 3: Climate label + 15 % price promotion on the plant based mince
Control: No label or promotion
Intervention Start Date
2024-04-18
Intervention End Date
2024-05-26

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our main outcome variable is the sequence of product choices made by each individual in the six choice tasks, and our outcome of interest is the probability of choosing the plant based mince alternative.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Our study is a choice experiment with a d-efficient design where respondents choose between five products and a "no purchase" option. Product prices for each mince product vary at five levels; market price / 80 % of market price, 90 % of market price / 110 % of market price / 120 % of market price. Price is the only varying attribute in the choice experiment. The market price is a mean price of prices of each product collected from the online grocery store and physical supermarkets in February 2024. The design was results in 40 choice cards. Respondents are presented with six choice cards, chosen randomly from the total sample of 40 cards. The choice alternatives in each choice card are presented in random order (except opt-out which is always last).

The interventions are varied between-subject. Respondents are divided into four groups of equal size (one control, three treatment groups), and the sample of choice cards varies between the treatment groups and the control group as described above.


Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
The randomization into three treatment groups and a control group is done by the survey company Verian. We will check that the randomization has been implemented correctly by conducting balance checks for observable characteristics of the respondents such as age and gender, and previous experience with online grocery shopping (number of times the respondent has previously shopped in online supermarket).
Randomization Unit
Randomization at the respondent level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
0
Sample size: planned number of observations
2000
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
500
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The minimum detectable effect size is 0.0595 (difference in proportion) for a two-sample proportions test with an assumed control group proportion of 0.1, at power of 80 % and significance level of 5 %.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information