This randomised online experiment aimed to investigate how eco-labelling and social nudging influenced sustainable food choice, as well as consider the effect of motivation to act sustainably. Participants were UK adults ≥18 years (n = 1399). Participants were asked to choose a hypothetical meal (beef, chicken or vegetarian burrito) and were randomly allocated to one of three conditions varying in labelling: eco-labelling; social nudge or control (no label). Co-primary outcomes were the frequency that the vegetarian and chicken burritos were chosen (i.e., the more sustainable food choices). There was evidence that more vegetarian (OR = 3.3 [95% CI 2.0, 5.3]) and chicken (OR = 2.5 [95% CI 1.8, 3.4]) burrito choices were made in the eco-label condition, over the beef burrito, compared to the control condition. In the social nudge condition, there was evidence that participants chose a vegetarian burrito over a beef burrito (OR = 1.7 [95% CI 1.1, 2.7]), but not a vegetarian burrito over a chicken burrito (OR = 1.4 [95% CI 0.9, 2.2]). Although both labels were effective at promoting participants to make more sustainable food choices, the eco-label was the most effective. Choice of burrito was modified by motivation to act sustainably across all conditions. This study suggests that future policy could include eco-labelling and/or a social nudge to reduce meat consumption and meet global climate change targets.

Commercial practices such as drip pricing, reference pricing and best-price guarantee can be used to set higher prices and mislead consumers, but protective measures can restore efficiency. In a placebo-controlled market experiment, we examined a treatment allowing for the use and misuse of commercial practices. Three additional treatments tested the effects of formal sanctions, informal sanctions and a regret nudge. We found that commercial practices led to higher prices, cheating was systematic and regret nudging was ineffective. Furthermore, formal and informal sanctions reduced both the likelihood of using commercial practices and the likelihood of cheating, leading to welfare increases.

The serial rapist model claims that a small number of intentional, repeat offenders are responsible for the majority of sexual assaults on college campuses. The model has formed the dominant argument for some of the most popular forms of campus intervention programs and is cited by high profile advocates and policymakers. Despite enthusiasm for the serial rapist model, it is not empirically well-supported and is contradicted by recent robust data. In this article, we ask: why does the serial rapist model have such broad and enduring appeal? In two US-based samples, one convenience and one representative, we find that people’s endorsement of the serial rapist model correlates with worldviews that cohere around ideas of a just and good status quo, and a preference for simple stories. Specifically, we find a positive relationship between endorsement of the serial rapist model and belief in a just world, system justification, social dominance orientation, need for closure and essentialism.