Back to History Current Version

Meaty arguments: Field experimental evidence on the effectiveness of different reasons to reduce meat consumption

Last registered on November 21, 2018
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Meaty arguments: Field experimental evidence on the effectiveness of different reasons to reduce meat consumption
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003590
Initial registration date
November 21, 2018

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
November 21, 2018, 12:55 PM EST

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

Locations

Country
Germany
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Grischa Perino
Affiliation
University of Hamburg
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Claudia Schwirplies
PI Affiliation
University of Hamburg
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2018-11-25
End date
2018-12-05
Keywords
Environment & Energy, Health
Additional Keywords
meat consumption, intrinsic motivation, altruism, climate change, animal welfare
JEL code(s)
D12, D64, Q18, Q54
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Several lines of reasoning support the notion to reduce the consumption of meat in developed countries. We conduct a field experiment with a representative sample of the German population to test whether exposure to health (private good), animal welfare (public good, inter-species altruism) or climate change (public good, intra-species altruism) based reasons to reduce meat consumption are (more) effective in inducing dietary changes relative to a control group.
Furthermore, the experiment allows to gain further insights on the preferences-intention-behavior gap by observing all three components in a controlled setting.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Perino, Grischa and Claudia Schwirplies. 2018. "Meaty arguments: Field experimental evidence on the effectiveness of different reasons to reduce meat consumption." AEA RCT Registry. November 21. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3590-1.1
Former Citation
Perino, Grischa and Claudia Schwirplies. 2018. "Meaty arguments: Field experimental evidence on the effectiveness of different reasons to reduce meat consumption." AEA RCT Registry. November 21. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3590/history/197406
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2018-11-29
Intervention End Date
2018-11-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Frequency of meat product consumption, intention to change meat consumption
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study consists of several parts that each participant will complete in the following sequence:
• Recruitment and selection questionnaire: Provides details on the study, tasks, effort involved and payment offered. Potential participants are also asked to state dietary restrictions / preferences. This is used to focus on a sample that at least occasionally eats meat, fish and related products.
• Food diary part 1: Participants complete a brief survey for each of the main meals of a day for three subsequent days (Sun., Mon., Tue.) and are asked to provide a picture of the meal or a verbal description.
• Intermediate survey/intervention: After completing the previous stage, this survey asks for food shopping habits and other food related topics but most importantly contains the randomized treatments (details provided in 'intervention' section).
• Food diary part 2: Participants complete a brief survey for each of the main meals of a day for three subsequent days (Sun., Mon., Tue.) and are asked to provide a picture of the meal or a verbal description.
• Exit survey: Participants are asked a set of standard socio-economic characteristics and questions related to meat consumption.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
480 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
480 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
120 individuals for each of the four treatments
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Dean’s office, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Universität Hamburg
IRB Approval Date
2018-11-13
IRB Approval Number
N/A
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
November 30, 2018, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
December 08, 2018, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
559 over 4 treatments (incl. control group)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
559
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Control: 139 Personal health: 133 Climate change: 144 Animal welfare: 143
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Abstract
We report evidence from a field experiment (𝑁 = 561) on how different reasons for reducing
the consumption of red meat (health, climate and animal welfare) impact intentions to
change behavior, the consumption of red meat and the enjoyment of meals. Surprisingly, the
three concepts are not aligned. On average, two treatments affect intentions to reduce meat
consumption, only one affects behavior, while all affect enjoyment of meals containing red
meat. This contributes to the emerging discussion of the welfare effects of nudging. We find
that behavioral changes are driven by our female participants eating in company. This confirms
the importance of the social environment both in explaining gender differences and the channels
by which nudges affect behavior.
Citation
Perino, G., & Schwirplies, C. (2022). Meaty arguments and fishy effects: Field experimental evidence on the impact of reasons to reduce meat consumption. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 114, 102667.
URL
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102667

Reports & Other Materials