Fig 1.
Visual presentation of the control serving.
Fig 2.
Visual presentation of the experimental setting: Priming.
A green ambiance was created using plants and herbs.
Fig 3.
Visual presentation of the experimental setting: Default.
The salad was pre-portioned into transparent bowls of 150g of the white salad and 50g of the red salad.
Fig 4.
Visual presentation of the experiment setting: Perceived variety.
The salad was split up to its component, increasing the visual variety and allowing participants to compose their own salad.
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants—Divided by choice architecture approaches: Priming, default and variety.
Table 2.
Appetite score from control day and intervention day.
Measurement scale used: 10 point Likert scale anchored from “I am not at all” (score: 1) to “I have never been more” (score: 10).
Table 3.
Intake in grams (g) divided by food group: Vegetables, rice and chilli con carne.
Presented using means and SD. Test of significance using mixed modelling. Default n = 33, Priming n = 24, Perceived variety n = 31. “How hungry are you?” and “How much do you think you can eat?” were included as covariates in the analysis. “Can you eat more?” was further included as a covariate in the analysis for the Default nudge.
Table 4.
Observed difference in energy intake (gram) session compared, divided by food group: Vegetables, rice and chilli con carne.
Statistical test for significance of the three interventions compared to each other using one-way ANOVA with a post hoc test.