The impact of nutritional labeling on adult snack choices: A controlled field experiment in a non-commercial professional setting.

Each year, 2.8 million people die because of comorbidities associated with being overweight. Snacking substantially contributes to people's calorie intake. One way to nudge consumers towards healthier alternatives is the implementation of nutritional labeling. This study reports on a controlled field experiment that evaluates the effect of two nutritional labels on free snack choices (n = 739). Participants at a conference could choose between nuts, cookies, and candy bars as a snack, presented at the bar at six different locations across 2 bar counters. The labels were set up in front of each snack in three conditions: no labeling (control), a calorie label, or a traffic light label (i.e., the Nutri-Score). The location of the snacks on the counter (Either side of the counter; Center, Right, Left) and the time-of-day (Morning (=reference) vs Afternoon) were statistically controlled for. The results show that calorie labels could not successfully nudge consumers toward healthier snack choices (nuts instead of candy bars or cookies). In contrast, the Nutri-Score label significantly increased the probability of choosing nuts over candy bars. The Nutri-Score also increased the chance of choosing nuts over cookies, but the difference was not significant. No prior studies to our knowledge have directly compared calorie labels to the Nutri-Score. This study suggests that the Nutri-Score label can be a more successful intervention than calorie labels to nudge consumers towards healthier choices in situations were free snacks are offered, like many modern workplaces. Changing snacking behavior is challenging and naturalistic field experiments like this one are needed to translate the theory from previous laboratory studies to real-life settings.

Evaluating an Intervention to Reduce Risky Driving Behaviors: Taking the Fear Out of Virtual Reality.

Educational programs are the most common type of intervention to reduce risky driving behavior. Their success, however, depends on the content of the material used and the mode of delivery. In the present study, we examined the impact of fear versus positively framed road safety films and traditional technologies (2D) versus emerging technologies (VR) on young drivers' self-reported risky driving behaviors. One hundred and forty-six university students completed a similar set of questionnaires pre-intervention and post-intervention, two weeks later. In addition, they were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (VR vs. 2D; positive vs. negative). In the VR conditions, the film was presented using an HTC VIVE Virtual Reality headset. In the 2D conditions, the film was presented on a computer screen. Measures evaluating attitudes toward risky driving behavior were completed at both time frames, questions regarding the participants' emotional arousal were asked at pre-intervention as a manipulation check, and questions regarding willingness to take risks in potentially dangerous driving situations were asked at follow-up. The findings indicate that the positively framed films significantly decreased self-reported risky driving behaviors in both modalities, but especially when viewed in VR format. In contrast, the fear appeal film, when shown in VR, failed to reduce risky driving behaviors, and in fact, increased young drivers' self-reported risky driving behaviors. Theoretical frameworks regarding the strengths and weaknesses of fear appeals and positively framed appeals are discussed to aid future research to reduce risky driving. Practical implications on the future usage of VR are also considered.