Abstract
Numerous public initiatives aim to influence individual food choices by informing about what is considered 'healthy', 'climate-friendly', and generally 'sustainable' food. However, research suggests that rather than public authorities, social influence is more likely to affect people's behaviour. Using a randomised controlled trial, this study investigated if and how the two kinds of influences (factual versus social) could affect the real-life, self-reported intake of plant- and animal-based foods. In a four-month randomised controlled trial, a self-selected sample of adults living in Sweden (N = 237) tracked their daily food consumption several times per week using a tailored mobile phone app. Participants were randomised into one of three groups: two treatment groups receiving factual or social information about plant- and animal-based food consumption, or a control group receiving no information. Pre- and post-questionnaires provided additional background information about the participants. Participants' food habits varied from week to week, and an explorative analysis pointed to a slight decrease in the consumption of animal-based food in the group that received social information. However, the longer-term patterns remained relatively constant in all groups, showing no substantial shift regardless of the kind of cues that the participants received. By investigating the roles of two common types of information about food and dietary change, the results contribute to discussions about how and by whom effective and efficient measures can be implemented to transform food habits. The results suggest there is limited potential for sustained and substantial behavioural changes through both social and factual information campaigns.