CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 211Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingBehavioral Health and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Healthy and unhealthy social norms and food selection. Findings from a field-experiment

Open access
Mollen, Saar, Rimal, Rajiv N., Ruiter, Robert A.C., Kok, Gerjo·2013·Appetite
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2013.01.020
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The behavior of others in people's social environment (i.e., descriptive norms), as well as their opinions regarding appropriate actions (i.e., injunctive norms) strongly influence people's decisions and actions. The goal of this study was to extend prior laboratory research on the influence of social norms on food choices, by conducting a field-experiment in an on-campus food court. One of three different messages was posted on a given day: a healthy descriptive norm, healthy injunctive norm, or an unhealthy descriptive norm. Effects of these social norms messages on food choice were compared against each other and a no-message control condition. In total, 687 students reported their food choice through a questionnaire provided to them. Food choices were analyzed for participants who reported being exposed to one of the social norms signs and those in the control condition (N=220). Findings showed that the healthy descriptive norm resulted in more healthy food choices, compared to an unhealthy descriptive norm, as well as the control condition. The difference between the injunctive healthy norm and the control condition was not significant, though those in the injunctive norm condition did make more healthy decisions, than those in the unhealthy descriptive norm condition. Implications with regard to theory and practice are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2013.01.020

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. McGuire, 1985, Vol. 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 211

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Kok, G.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • George Washington University (US)
Corresponding author
Mollen, Saar
ORCID
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
65
Pages
83-89
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.appet.2013.01.020
OpenAlex
W2125219736
Cited by
210
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
8.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
social norms, descriptive norms, injunctive norms, food choice, healthy eating, food court, university students, field experiments
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Diet, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Conformity, Social Environment, Social Values, Students, Health Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review