Abstract
Behavioural factors are central in determining food choices, yet empirical evidence on how cognitive biases influence nutrition- and sustainability-related decisions in diverse populations remains limited. This study investigated how familiarity heuristics, cognitive dissonance and priming shape food-related decisions among an international sample, despite the specific interest and potential knowledge about the agro-food systems, to provide implications for agro-food policy design.
Two online information experiments were conducted (n=1,845), participants who registered for the FAO World Food Forum (WFF) 2024 were recruited one week before and during the event. The study complied with ethical standards for human subjects research, and informed consent was obtained.
In Experiment 1, participants evaluated two food products (almonds and either tarwi or legume) differing in familiarity, the nutritional profile and environmental impact. Participants consistently rated familiar option more favourably than the alternative regardless of the mentioned nutritional and environmental quality, indicating a strong familiarity heuristic. Positive evaluations of almonds despite known sustainability concerns suggested cognitive dissonance. In Experiment 2, participants allocated a hypothetical budget (€150) across four policy options representing self-interest, local food investment, agricultural subsidies and equity-driven food initiatives; half of the sample received an inclusivity priming intervention. Inclusivity priming shifted resource allocation toward equity-oriented food system investments with a small effect.
Familiarity and cognitive dissonance shape food-related judgements, whereas light-touch informational primes may be insufficient to shift policy preferences. Integrating behavioural insights into dietary related and food-system interventions may therefore be essential to accelerate transitions toward healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable food environments.