Developing a Scalable Dynamic Norm Menu-Based Intervention to Reduce Meat Consumption
, Neil Malhotra 4 and Gregory M. Walton 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is an extremely comprehensive paper on effects of meal-selection interventions. One point that should be clarified is whether “vegetarian” in the study’s context refers to meatless, and not vegan (I did notice cheese-containing dishes at least in the Italian restaurant menu). It is also not clear exactly how the studies were assessing control groups: was there comparison with menu selections prior to the interventions? On Tables 1-4, clarify somewhere exactly what the estimate refers to (and “OR” and “pp”). Also, the signage in Figure 1 is difficult to make out.
Author Response
It is an extremely comprehensive paper on effects of meal-selection interventions.
R1.1) One point that should be clarified is whether “vegetarian” in the study’s context refers to meatless, and not vegan (I did notice cheese-containing dishes at least in the Italian restaurant menu).
Thank you for raising this question. In all studies, “vegetarian” dishes refer to dishes that do not contain meat, but may contain other animal products which are not vegan (e.g. eggs, cheese). We now clarify this in the section 2, “Overview of Field Experiments”.
R1.2) It is also not clear exactly how the studies were assessing control groups: was there comparison with menu selections prior to the interventions?
In Studies 1, 3 and 4, days are randomized to either have an intervention menu or a control menu. In cases where there is historic data for individual customers (Study 1), we also included this data in mixed models. Otherwise, no historic data was used to assess effects. In Study 2, customers are randomized to either see an intervention menu or a control menu, and historic data for both the intervention and control customers are included in assessing effects. To clarify these study designs, we now provide a short summary of the study design in the introduction of each field study, in sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. This proceeds the more thorough discussion in the methods section of each study.
R1.3) On Tables 1-4, clarify somewhere exactly what the estimate refers to (and “OR” and “pp”).
Thank you for raising this point. We now clarify these points in the table title and table notes. Specifically, in Table 1, we now clarify in the that the estimate (pp.) is the percentage point increase in vegetarian dishes ordered in the intervention vs control group; while in Tables 2 - 4, we now clarify that estimates refer to odds ratios (OR) comparing the intervention and control group’s selection of vegetarian vs non-vegetarian dishes.
Also, the signage in Figure 1 is difficult to make out.
We now include panel C in this figure that is zoomed into the note.
Reviewer 2 Report
Esteemed Authors,
It has been a great honor, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled ”Developing a Scalable Dynamic Norm Menu-Based Intervention to Reduce Meat Consumption.”
The paper is of high value due to its original character, and it treats a specific subject that is of high interest for the domain of food science, consumer behavior, sociology, livestock production, sustainable development of agriculture and food security. With some minor exceptions (which refers to some descriptions necessary), all materials and methods are specified and described adequately.
All iconographic materials – ten tables and eight figures - were given accurate descriptions, and the results were described in great detail. From this point of view, the present paper approaches an exciting topic: even though the study does display certain limitations, the approach to the question itself is a solid one, well-argued, and straightforward.
The article is build following the classic model for this type of material (Research Article), and encompasses fourteen parts: Introduction; Overview of Field Experiments; Study 1: A Field Experiment at a Campus Sports Cafe; Study 2: A Field Experiment with an Online Lunch Ordering Service; Study 3: A Field Experiment with Lunch in a Fine Dining Restaurant; Study 4: A Field Experiment with Dinner in a Fine Dining Restaurant; Summary of Fields Studies and Overview of Online Studies; Study 5: Assessing the Field Study Menu Intervention Materials; Study 6: Assessing Psychological Reactance; Study 7: Increasing Visibility Via Note Position and Medium; Study 8: Improving the Norm Referent; Study 9: Comparison to Original Note; General Discussion, and Conclusion. The major components of the paper are organized judiciously and directly linked to one another.
The documentation is adequate, and all the authors are cited in the text of the paper. The authors of the article need to pay more attention to writing (editing of text): the existence of some small writing errors (errors of editing) makes it harder to check the citations (checking the authors from the bibliographic reference list), and it can create some confusion in terms of understanding specialized terms.
The provided scientific results are exact and precise. The goal of the conducted research is well specified and delineated. The work protocol is appropriate, and the used analysis methods are coherent with the proposed objectives.
Nevertheless, the detailed analysis of the paper has also highlighted some aspects that require revision, as follows below:
The bibliography is relevant but presents some minor lacks when it comes to citations and mentions. To clarify some aspects, I would suggest that the authors write the literature evenly: for example, journal papers require either the complete journal name, or the JCR abbreviation (in the case of ISI indexed or rated journals), or the ISO abbreviation (for BDI indexed journals); moreover, for journals, I suggest that the volume, number, and pages (as the case requires) be mentioned.
For example – page 41, lines 1311-1313, number 1 in the bibliographic references list: Gerber P.J., Steinfeld H., Henderson B., Mottet A., Opio C., Dijkman J., Falcucci A., Tempio G., 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ISBN 978-92-5-107920-1, pp. 1-115.
Another example: page 41, lines 1322-1323, number 5 in the bibliographic references list: Whitnall T., Pitts N., 2019. Global trends in meat consumption. Agricultural Commodities (or ISO Abbreviation – Agric. Commod.), 9, 1, 96-99.
Another example – page 41, lines 1334-1336, number 11 in the bibliographic references list: Mortensen C.R., Neel Rebecca, Cialdini R.B., Jaeger Christine, Jacobson R.P., Ringel Megan, 2019. Trending Norms: A Lever for Encouraging Behaviors Performed by the Minority. Social Psychological and Personality Science (or JCR Abbreviation – Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci.), 10, 2, 201-210; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617734615.
Under these circumstances, the additional mention of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) becomes optional.
The observation is valid for all the articles from the bibliographic references list that are incompletely formulated.
I would also recommend that more attention be paid when it comes to chapters from books and that the number of pages, publishing houses, and other identification elements (link, Digital Object Identifier – DOI, etc.) be mentioned, regardless of the reference type.
The authors should use a simple, homogeneous and efficient citation system: more precisely, papers with more than two authors are to be cited as ”Author et al. (year)”: only for the documents with two authors use the formula ”Author & Author (year).”
The mentioning of the authors in the list of references in alphabetical order, from A to Z, is also recommended: thus, the text becomes way more readable, and the cited authors are more visible and easy to find and verified. This is important because, generally, there are authors with works from different years. And another important point: usually, in the list of references, the authors must be written in this way: the name (family name) and then the first name/forename, abbreviated for men, or whole for women.
The authors should pay more attention to the use of certain abbreviations to avoid confusion; basically, all abbreviations are to be used in the text, only after at least one mention made in extenso. Usually, the acronym is presented in the article after the first use of expression in extenso.
The obtained results are interpreted correctly, and their practical value is visible: however, some data are not clearly expressed in the text, situations that need to be remedied by the authors.
The graphical representation of the results is adequate; as for the grammar of the paper, most of the text is very well written, with very few parts that would require some modifications – just a few small mistakes, as follows:
Page 1, line 30 – replace ‘’possibility’’ with ‘’the possibility’’;
Page 1, line 38 – replace ‘’is recommended’’ with ‘’recommended’’;
Page 3, line 102 – replace ‘’one third’’ with ‘’one-third’’;
Page 5, line 233 – replace ‘’presented dynamic’’ with ‘’presented the dynamic’’;
Page 6, line 242 – replace ‘’Combo’’ with ‘’The combo’’;
Page 7, line 262 – replace ‘’for customer’’ with ‘’for the customer’’;
Page 7, line 265 – replace ‘’spillover’’ with ‘’a spillover’’;
Page 7, line 272 – replace ‘’keeps repeat’’ with ‘’keeps repeating’’;
Page 7, line 277 – replace ‘’possible spillover’’ with ‘’a possible spillover’’;
Page 8, line 290 – replace ‘’has substantially’’ with ‘’substantially has’’;
Page 9, line 348 – replace ‘’something’’ with ‘’anything’’;
Page 10, line 396 – replace ‘’data reduces’’ with ‘’data reduce’’;
Page 11, line 398 – replace ‘’were dropped’’ with ‘’was dropped’’;
Page 11, line 431 – replace ‘’of menu’’ with ‘’of the menu’’;
Page 11, line 431 – replace ‘’with permission’’ with ‘’with the permission’’;
Page 12, line 442 – replace ‘’to referred’’ with ‘’to refer’’;
Page 12, line 462 – replace ‘’Estimate’’ with ‘’The estimate’’;
Page 13, line 487 - replace ‘’one third’’ with ‘’one-third’’;
Page 13, line 500 – replace ‘’lunch orders’’ with ‘’lunch order’’;
Page 14, line 524 – replace ‘’from historic’’ with ‘’from the historic’’;
Page 14, line 529 – replace ‘’for Monday through Saturday’’ with ‘’from Monday to Saturday’’;
Page 15, line 550 - replace ‘’of menu’’ with ‘’of the menu’’;
Page 15, line 550 - replace ‘’with permission’’ with ‘’with the permission’’;
Page 16, line 567 – replace ‘’an estimated’’ with ‘’an estimate of’’;
Page 16, line 590 – replace ‘’were analyzed’’ with ‘’was analyzed’’;
Page 18, line 628 - replace ‘’Estimate’’ with ‘’The estimate’’;
Page 18, line 652 – replace ‘’that menu’’ with ‘’that the menu’’;
Page 19, line 677 – replace ‘’examines’’ with ‘’examine’’;
Page 19, line 678 – replace ‘’impacts’’ with ‘’the impacts’’;
Page 20, line 762 – replace ‘’for general’’ with ‘’for the general’’;
Page 24, line 831 – replace ‘’tended’’ with ‘’have tended’’;
Page 25, line 865 – replace ‘’off of’’ with ‘’from’’;
Page 25, line 866 – remove ‘’however’’;
Page 27, line 939 – replace ‘’of request’’ with ‘’of the request’’;
Page 27, line 940 – replace ‘’differ significantly’’ with ‘’significantly differ’’;
Page 31, line 1040 – replace ‘’to participants’’ with ‘’to the participants’’;
Page 32, line 1063 – replace ‘’reduce meat’’ with ‘’reduce the meat’’;
Page 32, line 1073 – replace ‘’is leads’’ with ‘’it leads’’;
Page 33, line 1102 – replace ‘’are choosing’’ with ‘’chooses’’;
Page 35, line 1165 – replace ‘’coming from’’ with ‘’coming from the’’;
Page 35, line 1165 – replace ‘’of total’’ with ‘’of the total’’;
Page 36, line 1186 – replace ‘’match an’’ with ‘’match a’’;
Page 38, line 1230 – replace ‘’and web’’ with ‘’and the web’’;
Page 38, line 1238 – replace ‘’the smaller’’ with ‘’a smaller’’;
Page 38, line 1241 – replace ‘’at lunch’’ with ‘’with lunch’’;
Page 38, line 1249 – replace ‘’belonging’’ with ‘’belonged’’;
Page 39, line 1277 – replace ‘’the online’’ with ‘’online’’.
As a general conclusion regarding the grammar of the article, the text does not contain other mistakes that need to be corrected. Minor corrections and clarifications notwithstanding, the authors’ work and obtained results are highly commendable. They bring significant added value to the work and may constitute a launching pad for further useful studies.
Provided that the authors verify the paper and perform the required corrections, the article may be published in the Sustainability.
Best Regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Esteemed Authors,
It has been a great honor, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled ”Developing a Scalable Dynamic Norm Menu-Based Intervention to Reduce Meat Consumption.”
The paper is of high value due to its original character, and it treats a specific subject that is of high interest for the domain of food science, consumer behavior, sociology, livestock production, sustainable development of agriculture and food security. With some minor exceptions (which refers to some descriptions necessary), all materials and methods are specified and described adequately.
All iconographic materials – ten tables and eight figures - were given accurate descriptions, and the results were described in great detail. From this point of view, the present paper approaches an exciting topic: even though the study does display certain limitations, the approach to the question itself is a solid one, well-argued, and straightforward.
The article is build following the classic model for this type of material (Research Article), and encompasses fourteen parts: Introduction; Overview of Field Experiments; Study 1: A Field Experiment at a Campus Sports Cafe; Study 2: A Field Experiment with an Online Lunch Ordering Service; Study 3: A Field Experiment with Lunch in a Fine Dining Restaurant; Study 4: A Field Experiment with Dinner in a Fine Dining Restaurant; Summary of Fields Studies and Overview of Online Studies; Study 5: Assessing the Field Study Menu Intervention Materials; Study 6: Assessing Psychological Reactance; Study 7: Increasing Visibility Via Note Position and Medium; Study 8: Improving the Norm Referent; Study 9: Comparison to Original Note; General Discussion, and Conclusion. The major components of the paper are organized judiciously and directly linked to one another.
The documentation is adequate, and all the authors are cited in the text of the paper. The authors of the article need to pay more attention to writing (editing of text): the existence of some small writing errors (errors of editing) makes it harder to check the citations (checking the authors from the bibliographic reference list), and it can create some confusion in terms of understanding specialized terms.
The provided scientific results are exact and precise. The goal of the conducted research is well specified and delineated. The work protocol is appropriate, and the used analysis methods are coherent with the proposed objectives.
We appreciate this thorough review of our work, thank you.
Nevertheless, the detailed analysis of the paper has also highlighted some aspects that require revision, as follows below:
R2.1) The bibliography is relevant but presents some minor lacks when it comes to citations and mentions. To clarify some aspects, I would suggest that the authors write the literature evenly: for example, journal papers require either the complete journal name, or the JCR abbreviation (in the case of ISI indexed or rated journals), or the ISO abbreviation (for BDI indexed journals); moreover, for journals, I suggest that the volume, number, and pages (as the case requires) be mentioned.
For example – page 41, lines 1311-1313, number 1 in the bibliographic references list: Gerber P.J., Steinfeld H., Henderson B., Mottet A., Opio C., Dijkman J., Falcucci A., Tempio G., 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ISBN 978-92-5-107920-1, pp. 1-115.
Another example: page 41, lines 1322-1323, number 5 in the bibliographic references list: Whitnall T., Pitts N., 2019. Global trends in meat consumption. Agricultural Commodities (or ISO Abbreviation – Agric. Commod.), 9, 1, 96-99.
Another example – page 41, lines 1334-1336, number 11 in the bibliographic references list: Mortensen C.R., Neel Rebecca, Cialdini R.B., Jaeger Christine, Jacobson R.P., Ringel Megan, 2019. Trending Norms: A Lever for Encouraging Behaviors Performed by the Minority. Social Psychological and Personality Science (or JCR Abbreviation – Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci.), 10, 2, 201-210; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617734615.
Under these circumstances, the additional mention of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) becomes optional. The observation is valid for all the articles from the bibliographic references list that are incompletely formulated.
I would also recommend that more attention be paid when it comes to chapters from books and that the number of pages, publishing houses, and other identification elements (link, Digital Object Identifier – DOI, etc.) be mentioned, regardless of the reference type.
Thank you for highlighting these issues in the references section. We have now edited the references to meet the formatting and other requirements of Sustainability. Specifically, we have filled in any missing volume/page range for journal articles, publisher information for books, and used abbreviations for journal names.
R2.2) The authors should use a simple, homogeneous and efficient citation system: more precisely, papers with more than two authors are to be cited as ”Author et al. (year)”: only for the documents with two authors use the formula ”Author & Author (year).”
The mentioning of the authors in the list of references in alphabetical order, from A to Z, is also recommended: thus, the text becomes way more readable, and the cited authors are more visible and easy to find and verified. This is important because, generally, there are authors with works from different years. And another important point: usually, in the list of references, the authors must be written in this way: the name (family name) and then the first name/forename, abbreviated for men, or whole for women.
Thank you for raising this point. We followed the guide for authors for Sustainability which requires that we use the bracketed number citation system for inline references (e.g. “[1]”), and that we use the numeric citation system, in the order of appearance, in the references section.
R2.3) The authors should pay more attention to the use of certain abbreviations to avoid confusion; basically, all abbreviations are to be used in the text, only after at least one mention made in extenso. Usually, the acronym is presented in the article after the first use of expression in extenso.
We have corrected this throughout the paper. Specifically, in Table 1 “pp.”, Table 2-4 “OR” and “N. Obs.”, Table 6 note “SD”, Section 8.1.3.2. “CSR”.
R2.4) The obtained results are interpreted correctly, and their practical value is visible: however, some data are not clearly expressed in the text, situations that need to be remedied by the authors.
Thank you for noting this. Given the volume of results, we generally have chosen to use tables and figures where possible to substitute data represented in the text. But we have added back some central results in the data given this concern. Specifically, in Study 1: the estimate of effects for models that include historic data in Study 1 (section 3.2.1.), the estimate for the exploratory analysis of those who had purchased an entrée in the year prior and those who used a campus ID (section 3.2.2), as well as the percentage point estimate of the effect on red meat in Study 2 (section 4.2.2.1). These are meant to complement the more thorough statistics and confidence intervals given in the tables.
R2.5) The graphical representation of the results is adequate; as for the grammar of the paper, most of the text is very well written, with very few parts that would require some modifications – just a few small mistakes, as follows:
Page 1, line 30 – replace ‘’possibility’’ with ‘’the possibility’’;
Page 1, line 38 – replace ‘’is recommended’’ with ‘’recommended’’;
Page 3, line 102 – replace ‘’one third’’ with ‘’one-third’’;
Page 5, line 233 – replace ‘’presented dynamic’’ with ‘’presented the dynamic’’;
Page 6, line 242 – replace ‘’Combo’’ with ‘’The combo’’;
Page 7, line 262 – replace ‘’for customer’’ with ‘’for the customer’’;
Page 7, line 265 – replace ‘’spillover’’ with ‘’a spillover’’;
Page 7, line 272 – replace ‘’keeps repeat’’ with ‘’keeps repeating’’;
Page 7, line 277 – replace ‘’possible spillover’’ with ‘’a possible spillover’’;
Page 8, line 290 – replace ‘’has substantially’’ with ‘’substantially has’’;
Page 9, line 348 – replace ‘’something’’ with ‘’anything’’;
Page 10, line 396 – replace ‘’data reduces’’ with ‘’data reduce’’;
Page 11, line 398 – replace ‘’were dropped’’ with ‘’was dropped’’;
Page 11, line 431 – replace ‘’of menu’’ with ‘’of the menu’’;
Page 11, line 431 – replace ‘’with permission’’ with ‘’with the permission’’;
Page 12, line 442 – replace ‘’to referred’’ with ‘’to refer’’;
Page 12, line 462 – replace ‘’Estimate’’ with ‘’The estimate’’;
Page 13, line 487 - replace ‘’one third’’ with ‘’one-third’’;
Page 13, line 500 – replace ‘’lunch orders’’ with ‘’lunch order’’;
Page 14, line 524 – replace ‘’from historic’’ with ‘’from the historic’’;
Page 14, line 529 – replace ‘’for Monday through Saturday’’ with ‘’from Monday to Saturday’’;
Page 15, line 550 - replace ‘’of menu’’ with ‘’of the menu’’;
Page 15, line 550 - replace ‘’with permission’’ with ‘’with the permission’’;
Page 16, line 567 – replace ‘’an estimated’’ with ‘’an estimate of’’;
Page 16, line 590 – replace ‘’were analyzed’’ with ‘’was analyzed’’;
Page 18, line 628 - replace ‘’Estimate’’ with ‘’The estimate’’;
Page 18, line 652 – replace ‘’that menu’’ with ‘’that the menu’’;
Page 19, line 677 – replace ‘’examines’’ with ‘’examine’’;
Page 19, line 678 – replace ‘’impacts’’ with ‘’the impacts’’;
Page 20, line 762 – replace ‘’for general’’ with ‘’for the general’’;
Page 24, line 831 – replace ‘’tended’’ with ‘’have tended’’;
Page 25, line 865 – replace ‘’off of’’ with ‘’from’’;
Page 25, line 866 – remove ‘’however’’;
Page 27, line 939 – replace ‘’of request’’ with ‘’of the request’’;
Page 27, line 940 – replace ‘’differ significantly’’ with ‘’significantly differ’’;
Page 31, line 1040 – replace ‘’to participants’’ with ‘’to the participants’’;
Page 32, line 1063 – replace ‘’reduce meat’’ with ‘’reduce the meat’’;
Page 32, line 1073 – replace ‘’is leads’’ with ‘’it leads’’;
Page 33, line 1102 – replace ‘’are choosing’’ with ‘’chooses’’;
Page 35, line 1165 – replace ‘’coming from’’ with ‘’coming from the’’;
Page 35, line 1165 – replace ‘’of total’’ with ‘’of the total’’;
Page 36, line 1186 – replace ‘’match an’’ with ‘’match a’’;
Page 38, line 1230 – replace ‘’and web’’ with ‘’and the web’’;
Page 38, line 1238 – replace ‘’the smaller’’ with ‘’a smaller’’;
Page 38, line 1241 – replace ‘’at lunch’’ with ‘’with lunch’’;
Page 38, line 1249 – replace ‘’belonging’’ with ‘’belonged’’;
Page 39, line 1277 – replace ‘’the online’’ with ‘’online’’.
All of these edits have been made, with the exception of “are choosing” on page 35 since this was a direct quote from study materials and we’d like to portray it as it was originally displayed to participants.
As a general conclusion regarding the grammar of the article, the text does not contain other mistakes that need to be corrected. Minor corrections and clarifications notwithstanding, the authors’ work and obtained results are highly commendable. They bring significant added value to the work and may constitute a launching pad for further useful studies.
Provided that the authors verify the paper and perform the required corrections, the article may be published in the Sustainability.
Best Regards,
Reviewer
Thank you again for this thoughtful review.
