ArticlePloS one2021
A randomised experiment of health, cost and social norm message frames to encourage acceptance of swaps in a simulation online supermarket.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of social norms messaging approaches for improving health behaviours in developed countries.Nature human behaviour · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of food swap recommendations on the healthfulness and carbon footprint of grocery purchases in a naturalistic online store: A randomized parallel trial.PLoS medicine · 2026Trial
- Nudging Toward Sustainable and Healthy Diets: A Randomized Trial of Young Adults.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Perceptions of social norms around healthy and environmentally-friendly food choices: Linking the role of referent groups to behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Offering lower-energy food swaps to customers of online supermarkets could help to decrease energy (kcal) purchased and consumed. However, acceptance rates of such food swaps tend to be low. This study aimed to see whether framing lower-energy food swaps in terms of cost savings or social norms could improve likelihood of acceptance relative to framing swaps in terms of health benefits. Participants (n = 900) were asked to shop from a 12-item shopping list in a simulation online supermarket. When a target high-energy food was identified in the shopping basket at check-out, one or two lower-energy foods would be suggested as an alternative (a "swap"). Participants were randomised to only see messages emphasising health benefits (fewer calories), cost benefits (lower price) or social norms (others preferred this product). Data were analysed for 713 participants after exclusions. Participants were offered a mean of 3.17 swaps (SD = 1.50), and 12.91% of swaps were accepted (health = 14.31%, cost = 11.49%, social norms = 13.18%). Swap acceptance was not influenced by the specific swap frame used (all p > .170). Age was significantly and positively associated with swap acceptance (b = 0.02, SE = 0.00, p < .001), but was also associated with smaller decreases in energy change (b = 0.46, SE = .19, p = .014). Overall, offering swaps reduced both energy (kcal) per product (b = -9.69, SE = 4.07, p = .017) and energy (kcal) per shopping basket (t712 = 11.09, p < .001) from pre- to post-intervention. Offering lower-energy food swaps could be a successful strategy for reducing energy purchased by customers of online supermarkets. Future research should explore alternative solutions for increasing acceptance rates of such swaps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.