ArticleBMC medicine2025
Can (dynamic) social norms encourage plant-based food purchases? a quasi-experimental study in real-world Dutch supermarkets.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Social norm intervention in real-world supermarkets in the Netherlands: A quasi-experimental evaluation of effects on perceived social norms and meat substitute purchases.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunicating (dynamic) social norms is considered a promising tool to stimulate healthy and sustainable food choices. The aim of the present study was to evaluate to what extent a (dynamic) social norm intervention in real-world supermarkets could increase sales (grams per week) of meat alternatives (i.e. meat substitutes and legumes).
methodsA quasi-experimental study, including three intervention and three control supermarkets, was conducted during a 12-week period. The intervention supermarkets communicated dynamic norms textually on stickers and banners at different in-store locations (e.g. at the entrance, meat aisles). Moreover, the prominence of meat substitutes was (optically) increased and legumes were conveniently placed near the meat and meat substitutes section. Weekly sales data over a period of 75 weeks were obtained, 62 pre-intervention and 13 during intervention. Comparative interrupted time series analyses were conducted to analyse changes in meat alternative sales (in grams) during the intervention period in the intervention supermarkets compared to pre-intervention sales trends and to control supermarkets. Secondary outcomes included meat sales in grams per week and the ratio of protein content of meat alternatives to protein content of meat sales.
resultsAverage meat alternative sales in weekly grams before the intervention were M = 371,931.2 (SD = 113,055.3) in the control supermarkets and M = 299,012.5 (SD = 91,722.8) in the intervention supermarkets. The intervention did not change meat alternative sales in intervention supermarkets compared to pre-implementation sales trends and to control supermarkets (B = - 685.92, 95% CI [- 9904.8; 8525.7]). Sales of meats were also unaffected (B = - 130.91, 95% CI [- 27,127.50; 26,858.33]), as well as the ratio of protein content of meat alternatives to protein content of meat in grams sold per week (B = - 670.54, 95% CI [- 8990.6; 7644.4]).
conclusionsCommunicating (dynamic) social norms via textual and environmental cues (i.e. increasing the prominence of meat alternatives in supermarkets) did not increase meat alternative sales nor reduce meat sales. With supermarkets playing an important role in modulating sustainable food choices, more substantial effort or changes are needed to increase plant-based food purchases and lower meat purchases.
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.