PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 29, 2026Behavioural Public Policy1 citationsOpen Access

Tailoring through choice: comparing the effect of randomly assigned and self-selected behavioural interventions in promoting healthier snack choice

SLStefan A. LipmanNational Institute for Public Health and the EnvironmentNCNatalie Alvarez ColicLeiden UniversityLSLeonora SukuricaErasmus University Rotterdam

Key Points

  • The study aims to determine if allowing individuals to choose their behavioural interventions leads to better snack choices compared to random assignment.
  • Field experiment with 839 university students
  • Three interventions: financial incentives, calorie information, social-norm nudges
  • Participants either chose their intervention or were randomly assigned to one
  • Self-selected interventions significantly increased healthy snack choices compared to no-intervention control
  • Randomly assigned interventions did not enhance healthy snack choices
  • Calorie labelling and social norms were effective for those who chose them, while financial incentives were not

Abstract

Abstract Public policy encourages healthier diets using interventions like financial incentives, calorie labelling or social-norm nudges. While evidence shows these interventions can influence behaviour, effects vary across individuals, indicating a need for tailored approaches. This study explores the effects of tailoring through choice, i.e., whether allowing individuals to choose interventions improves effectiveness. In a field experiment, 839 university students chose between healthier and less healthy snacks under three interventions: (i) small financial incentives, (ii) calorie information or (iii) a social-norm nudge (i.e., 60% chose healthily). Half the respondents were randomly assigned an intervention (or no-intervention control), while the rest selected and received their chosen intervention. Among respondents given a choice, 51%, 41% and 8% selected financial incentives, calorie labelling or social norms, respectively. Self-selected interventions (marginally) significantly increased healthy snack choices compared to the no-intervention control, while randomly assigned interventions did not. When accounting for individual characteristics, chosen calorie labelling and social norm nudges significantly increased healthy choices, while financial incentives did not. Allowing respondents to choose their intervention appears effective, while random assignment is not. This positive effect of choice may be driven by selection into calorie labelling and social norms, although respondent characteristics partially explain this effect.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lipman et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c8c336de0f0f753b39dd87https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2026.10036
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Unintended Effects of Health Communication Campaigns2006 · 369 citations
  2. 2Snacking: A cause for concern2018 · 90 citations
  3. 3That’s Not So Bad, I’ll Eat More! Backfire Effects of Calories-per-Serving Information on Snack Consumption2018 · 73 citations
  4. 4Health Public Policy Public opinion on food-related obesity prevention policy initiatives2012 · 70 citations
  5. 5Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge*2009 · 808 citations