The present study investigates acceptance of intervention strategies for low-calorie snack choices that vary regarding the effect they have on consumers' freedom of choice (providing information, guiding choice through (dis)incentives, and restricting choice). We examine the mediating effects of perceived effectiveness and perceived fairness, and the moderating effects of barriers to choose low-calorie snacks and perceived responsibility for food choice. Data was collected through an online survey, involving three waves that were completed over a seven week timespan. Information was collected on barriers and perceived responsibility, and evaluations of a total of 128 intervention strategies with varying levels of intrusiveness that were further systematically varied in terms of source, location, approach/avoidance, type, and severity. A total of 1173 respondents completed all three waves. We found that the effect of intervention intrusiveness on acceptance was mediated by the perceived personal- and societal effectiveness, and the perceived fairness of interventions. For barriers and perceived responsibility, only main effects on intervention-specific beliefs were found. Government interventions were accepted less than interventions by food manufacturers. In conclusion, the present study shows that acceptance of interventions depends on perceptions of personal- and societal effectiveness and fairness, thereby providing novel starting points for increasing acceptance of both existing and new food choice interventions.
Keywords: beverages; consumer acceptance; effectiveness; fairness; healthy choices; intervention strategies; intrusiveness; low-calorie; obesity prevention; snack foods.