Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Comprehension questions: Prior to task 1 and 2, we ask two questions each that must be passed to continue, with 5 possible rounds. After task 3, we ask participants to tick from a MC-list all the attributes that we did vary in the DCE, with additional options that we were not among the attributes.
Manipulation check, for conventional burger product and more novel sustainable alternative burger product:
In Tasks 1 and 2 that you just completed, what information was provided along with the product you see here? Please pick one of the possible statements below:
Popular choice due to its lower price.
Sustainable choice due to less CO2 emissions and more efficient land use.
Fair choice due to production under good working conditions.
Healthy choice due to less saturated fat and more fiber intake.
None of these statements was shown.
Salience climate and health treatment:
“You have read information about some of the food items, e.g., [treatment information text inserted here]. Were you aware of this information before participating in the survey?” (yes/no)
Ratings of taste expectations of the products from task 1 and 2 (on a scale from 1=does not taste good at all to 10=tastes very good)
Knowledge of products and previous purchase (yes/no).
Climate motivations (Efficacy beliefs, self-identity, present intention, future intention, self-efficacy), 7-Point-Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” except for self-efficacy
Efficacy beliefs: “I believe that my food choices have an influence on climate change.”
Self-identity: “I think of myself as someone who generally thinks carefully about the climate consequences of my food choices.” and “I think of myself as the sort of person who is concerned about the long-term climate effects of my food choices.” We will use the mean of these two items on the individual level.
Present intention/behavior: “I make an effort to eat a diet that is climate friendly.”
Future intention: “I intend to consume more climate friendly foods in the future.”
Self-efficacy: “How confident are you generally in making food choices that reflect climate awareness? Please indicate in percent (0 = not at all confident; 100 = completely confident).”
Construction: Items can be averaged into subscales (e.g., efficacy, identity, intentions) or one composite climate motivation index. Confidence is treated as a separate continuous variable (0–100).
Health motivations (Efficacy beliefs, self-identity, present intention, future intention, self-efficacy), 7-Point-Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” except for self-efficacy
Efficacy beliefs: “I believe that my food choices have an influence on my health”
Self-identity: “I think of myself as someone who generally thinks carefully about the health consequences of my food choices.” and “I think of myself as the sort of person who is concerned about the long-term health effects of my food choices.” We will use the mean of these two items on the individual level.
Present intention/behavior: “I make an effort to eat a diet that is healthy.”
Future intention: “I intend to consume more healthy foods in the future.”
Self-efficacy: ”How confident are you generally in eating healthily? Please indicate in percent (0 = not at all confident; 100 = completely confident).”
Construction: Items can be averaged into subscales (e.g., efficacy, identity, intentions) or one composite health motivation index. Confidence is treated as a separate continuous variable (0–100).
Social preferences
Donation task: “Imagine the following situation: you won 7.500 DKK in a lottery. Considering your current situation, how much would you donate to charity? (Values between 0 and 7500 are allowed)”.
Sharing willingness: “How do you assess your willingness to share with others without expecting anything in return when it comes to charity?”, scale from 0= “completely unwilling”-10=”very willing”.
Construction: Continuous measure of altruism via donation share (donated amount / 7,500).
Secondary measure via 0–10 sharing willingness
Time preferences
Intertemporal willingness: “In comparison to others, are you a person who is generally willing to give up something today in order to benefit from that in the future or are you not willing to do so?”, scale from 0= “completely unwilling”-10=”very willing”.
Construction: Higher values indicate more patience or future orientation.
Food neophobia
“How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?”, 7-Point Likert Scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”
If I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it.
I don’t trust new foods.
I eat almost anything. (reverse-coded)
Construction: average of items (reverse code last item); higher scores = greater neophobia.
Diet
Diet type: “What description best depicts your current diet?”, single-choice categorical from
“I eat everything (including meat, fish, dairy products etc.)” to “I eat vegan”.
Frequency of meat and fish consumption: “Please indicate the frequency of your meat and fish consumption.”, ordinal scale from “daily” to “only on special events, like celebrations”, dependent on being type 1-3.
Construction: categorical or ordinal variable, can be collapsed into plant-based vs. omnivorous group.
Importance ranking
“What are the most important dimensions you consider when making food choices? Please rank by dragging the items up and down. 1 = most important, 5 = least important”
Taste
Price
Healthiness
Sustainability
Convenience (it is easily available)
Construction: Top 3 ranked items
Knowledge about a healthy diet
“Think about the following main fillings/toppings of a sandwich. Rank these fillings from the most healthy (1st) to the least (5th) assuming a similar quantity and quality.”
Egg
Fish filet (breaded)
Roasted beef
Falafel (Chickpeas)
Chicken breast
Construction: Accuracy score compared to nutritional reference ranking (e.g., falafel > fish > egg > chicken > beef).
Knowledge about a climate-friendly diet
“Think about the following main fillings/toppings of a sandwich. Rank these fillings from the most climate friendly (1st) to the least (5th) assuming a similar quantity and quality.” Answer options as in previous question.
Construction: Accuracy score compared to scientific benchmark (e.g., falafel > egg > chicken > fish > beef).
Taste preferences
“Think about the following main fillings/toppings of a sandwich. Rank these fillings from the most tasty (1st) to the least (5th) assuming a similar quantity and quality.” Answer options as in previous question.
Construction: Used descriptively or to control for taste bias toward plant vs. meat products.
Burger eating habits
Frequency of consumption: “How often do you normally eat burgers?”, “never” to “several times per week“
Context of consumption: “Under which circumstances do you eat burgers? You can choose several answers.”, multiple choice of different contexts (e.g. at home, restraurant, with friends and family etc.)
Burger types consumed: “What kind of burgers do you normally consume? You can choose several answers.”, multiple choice of different burger types (e.g., beef burger, homemade burger, soy-based burger etc.)
Construction: Variables can be summarized as frequency, context diversity, and plant-based burger experience.
Meat attachment
Meat attachment
“How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements on meat eating?”, 7-Point-Likert Scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”
“I love meals with meat.”
“By eating meat I'm reminded of the death and suffering of animals.” (reverse-coded)
“It is undoubtedly natural to consume meat.“
“I find it hard to picture myself not eating meat regularly.”
Social norms of meat eating
Descriptive social norm: “Most of the people I know eat meat on a regular basis.” and
Injunctive social norm: “Most of the people I know are more likely to gain approval from others if they eat meat rather than follow a vegetarian diet.”
Construction: We will use the mean of these items on the individual level; higher = stronger attachment to meat. Subdimensions possible (hedonism, dependence, social norm).
Relevance of protein for WTP
“How important is protein content when deciding how much you would pay for a food item?”, 5 Point Likert Scale from “not at all important” to “very important”
Construction: Ordinal variable; higher values = greater importance of protein for valuation.
Social norms and personal norms of processed food consumption
“How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements on food processing? Processing relates to how the product is produced. Processing levels vary with adding ingredients or physically altering the food, like grinding or heating it.”, 7-Point-Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Social approval: “Most of the people I know are fine with eating processed food.”
and “Most of the people I know think it is safe to consume processed food.”
Personal norm: “I feel I should be cautious with the amount of processed foods I consume.”
(reverse-coded if constructing acceptance index).
Construction: Average of first two = social approval, last item separately as personal caution or personal norm.
Sociodemographics:
Age: open numeric input
Household net income: 5 categories (0–20k to >80k DKK)
Education: categorical (primary to Master’s/PhD)
Occupation: categorical (unemployed, student, employed, etc.)
Region: 5 Danish regions
Municipality: region-specific dropdown lists
Construction: Direct categorical and continuous variables; can be coded to national statistical categories.
We will apply for register data from Statistics Denmark, such as demographic data, income, occupation, education and household size etc.
Meta-data: Time and clicks per page