IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05330418.html

The Effect of Social Norms on Parents' Beliefs and Food Choices: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Noémi Berlin

    (EconomiX - EconomiX - UPN - Université Paris Nanterre - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Tarek Jaber-Lopez

    (IPP - Instituto de politicas y Bienes Publicos - Centrode Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas)

  • Moustapha Sarr

    (EconomiX - EconomiX - UPN - Université Paris Nanterre - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In a lab-in-the-field experiment, we investigate the influence of social norms on 300 parents' beliefs regarding the nutritional quality of food items and their subsequent food choices. We use a 3 × 2 between-subject experimental design where we vary two factors: 1-the social norm provided to parents: a descriptive norm (what other parents choose) vs. an injunctive norm (what other parents approve of), and 2-the recipient of the food decisions made by parents: their own child vs. an unknown child. Parents participate in a two-stage process. In the first stage, we elicit their beliefs regarding the nutritional quality of various food items and ask them to make a food basket without specific information. In the second stage, based on their assigned treatment, they receive specific information and repeat the belief elicitation and the food basket selection tasks. We find that only the descriptive norm significantly reduces parents' overestimation rate of items' nutritional quality. Injunctive norm significantly improves the nutritional quality of both, the parent's and child's baskets. Descriptive norm significantly improves the nutritional quality of child's baskets only when parents are choosing for unknown child.

Suggested Citation

  • Noémi Berlin & Tarek Jaber-Lopez & Moustapha Sarr, 2025. "The Effect of Social Norms on Parents' Beliefs and Food Choices: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," Post-Print hal-05330418, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05330418
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2025.102463
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05330418v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05330418v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2025.102463?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schlag, Karl H. & van der Weele, Joël J., 2015. "A method to elicit beliefs as most likely intervals," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(5), pages 456-468, September.
    2. Diogo Gonçalves & Pedro Coelho & Luis F. Martinez & Paulo Monteiro, 2021. "Nudging Consumers toward Healthier Food Choices: A Field Study on the Effect of Social Norms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Kathryn N. Vasilaky & J. Michelle Brock, 2020. "Power(ful) guidelines for experimental economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 189-212, December.
    4. Marette, Stéphan & Issanchou, Sylvie & Monnery-Patris, Sandrine & Ginon, Emilie & Sutan, Angela, 2016. "Are children more paternalistic than their mothers when choosing snacks?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 61-76.
    5. Hogreve, Jens & Matta, Shashi & Hettich, Alexander S. & Reczek, Rebecca Walker, 2021. "How Do Social Norms Influence Parents’ Food Choices for Their Children? The Role of Social Comparison and Implicit Self-Theories," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 173-190.
    6. Papoutsi, Georgia S. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis & Drichoutis, Andreas C., 2015. "Fat tax, subsidy or both? The role of information and children's pester power in food choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 196-208.
    7. Burchardi, Henrike & Schroeder, Carsten & Thiele, Holger D., 2005. "Willingness-To-Pay for Food of the Own Region: Empirical Estimates from Hypothetical and Incentive Compatible Settings," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19365, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. V. Hotz & Juan Pantano, 2015. "Strategic parenting, birth order, and school performance," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 911-936, October.
    9. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    10. Michèle Belot & Noémi Berlin & Jonathan James & Valeria Skafida, 2024. "Changing Dietary Habits Early in Life: A Field Experiment with Low-Income Families," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 707-746.
    11. Diana C. Mutz & Robin Pemantle & Philip Pham, 2019. "The Perils of Balance Testing in Experimental Design: Messy Analyses of Clean Data," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(1), pages 32-42, January.
    12. Natalia Candelo & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson, 2018. "Social Distance Matters in Dictator Games: Evidence from 11 Mexican Villages," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, October.
    13. Young-Joo Kim, 2020. "Born to be more educated? Birth order and schooling," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 165-180, March.
    14. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    15. Paolo Crosetto & Anne Lacroix & Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2020. "Nutritional and economic impact of five alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence [Prospective association between a dietary quality index based on a nutrient profiling sy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(2), pages 785-818.
    16. Margherita d’Errico & Milena Pavlova & Federico Spandonaro, 2022. "The economic burden of obesity in Italy: a cost-of-illness study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 177-192, March.
    17. Jacopo Bonan & Cristina Cattaneo & Giovanna d’Adda & Massimo Tavoni, 2020. "The interaction of descriptive and injunctive social norms in promoting energy conservation," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 900-909, November.
    18. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke D. & Raschky, Paul A., 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(02), January.
    2. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Chambers, Catherine & Chambers, Paul & Johnson, David, 2025. "Charismatic species, matching, and demographics in conservation donations: An experimental investigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    5. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    6. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav, 2021. "Can time-inconsistent preferences explain hypothetical biases?," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    7. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    9. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    10. Kim, Jun Hyung & Wang, Shaoda, 2021. "Birth Order Effects, Parenting Style, and Son Preference," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1007, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Jerrod M. Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2021. "The Extent of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Accept," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 126-141, January.
    12. Andrea Morone & Paola Tiranzoni, 2020. "Bargaining in a "Pawn Shop": A field experiment to study WTA," Framed Field Experiments 00702, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Mariel, Petr & Scarpa, Riccardo & Vega-Bayo, Ainhoa, 2018. "Joint parental school choice: Exploring the influence of individual preferences of husbands and wives," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 23-35.
    15. Azevedo, C.D. & Crooker, J.R. & Pattiz, B., 2012. "Bid Imprecision As A Source Of Hypothetical Bias In Contingent Valuation Estimation: Analysis Of A Survey Of Respondent’S Attitudes For The Battle Of Lexington State Historic Site (Shs)," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 12(2).
    16. Jinkwon Lee & Uk Hwang, 2016. "Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 789-811, December.
    17. Zhang, Shumeng & Guo, Naijia & Zhang, Junsen, 2023. "Reexamining the effect of birth order on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities: New evidence from China," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    18. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. Cattaneo, Maria A. & Gschwendt, Christian & Wolter, Stefan C., 2025. "How scary is the risk of automation? Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    20. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05330418. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.