Dr James Reynolds

The research was carried out by the University of Birmingham’s Katie Edwards and Aston University’s Jackie Blissett and James Reynolds Both the availability of high-calorie options and their position on the menu affects teenagers’ choices Restaurants provide an important location for implementing low-cost and high-reach interventions to tackle obesity. New research from the University of Birmingham and Aston University has found that putting lower-calorie meal choices at the top of a restaurant menu, and reducing the availability of high-calorie options, makes teenagers more likely to order the healthier options. Childhood obesity rates have been increasing year on year, with government pledges and targets to reduce obesity unfulfilled or missed. Restaurants are a common food environment for adolescents, with one fifth of children consuming meals out at least once a week. The study has been published in the journal Appetite. Dr Katie Edwards, research fellow in psychology at the University of Birmingham and a visiting researcher at Aston University, who led the study, said: “Childhood obesity is a significant public health challenge. A key period for targeting dietary intervention is adolescence, when young people become more independent, making their own decisions about diet and socialising with friends more. Interventions have targeted healthy eating at home and at school, but we wanted to see how altering restaurant menus can impact the choices teenagers make.” The researchers asked 432 13 to 17-year-olds to take part in an online experiment. They presented the teenagers with three different menus, with five starters, ten main courses and five desserts in separate sections, as one would find on a standard restaurant menu. Each menu was slightly different; one which reduced the number of high-calorie options on offer, one with menu positioning of lowto high-calorie meals, one which combined the availability and position interventions, and then one ‘typical’ menu. The participants were asked to select a starter, main and dessert from each menu. The experiment showed that the availability and the position interventions resulted in significantly lower calorie meal choices, compared to the choices made from the menu with no intervention (the ‘typical’ menu). The average number of calories for a selected meal reduced from 2099.78 to 1992.13 when the items were ordered from least to highest calorie content. The availability intervention reduced it from 2134.26 kcal to 1956.18 kcal. The group who had the combined availability and positioning intervention menu saw their meals’ calorie value plummet from 2173.60 kcal to 1884.44 kcal. The study also found that the positioning intervention had the biggest impact on main course choices. The availability intervention and the combined interventions, on the other hand, did not have a big impact on the calorie value of main course choices. The availability intervention had the most impact on starter choices. None of the interventions had a significant impact on dessert choices. Dr Edwards said: “Main menu choices saw the biggest reduction in calories following the position intervention, going from 1104.17 kcal to 1045.16 kcal, while the availability intervention saw the biggest reduction in the starter option. While not all interventions saw statistically significant reductions for all courses, each intervention saw a significant reduction in the calorie content of the overall meals.” Dr James Reynolds, senior lecturer in psychology at Aston University, said: “People tend to consume higher calorie meals when they eat out, so restaurants provide an important location for implementing low-cost and high-reach interventions which can encourage healthier eating in teenagers. Many restaurants are already required to display calorie information on their menus, but our research has shown that tactics like altering the position or availability of high-calorie options on menus could also be a useful tool in trying to reduce obesity and help young people make healthier choices. The next step for this research would be to replicate the study in restaurant settings.” Read the full paper in the journal Appetite at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666324005749

Researchers looked at trust in scientists in 68 countries and found relatively high levels of trust everywhere The TISP Many Labs study of 71,922 people included those living in under-researched nations of the Global South The majority of survey participants believe that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. Public trust in scientists is still high, according to a survey carried out in 68 countries by an international team of 241 researchers, led by Dr Viktoria Cologna (Harvard University, ETH Zurich) and Dr Niels Mede (University of Zurich). The study found no evidence of the oft-repeated claim of a crisis of trust in science. The team, which included Aston University School of Psychology’s Dr James Reynolds and Dr Charlotte Pennington, also found that the majority of survey participants believed that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. This study is the result of the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study, a collaborative effort that allowed the authors to survey 71,922 people in 68 countries, including many under-researched countries in the ‘Global South’. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides global, representative survey data on the populations and regions of the world in which researchers are perceived to be most trustworthy, the extent to which they should engage with the public and whether science is prioritising important research issues. Dr Mede said: “The study is the most comprehensive post-pandemic snapshot of trust in scientists, societal expectations of their involvement in society and policymaking and public views on research priorities.” Across 68 countries, the study finds that the majority of the public has a relatively high level of trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale of 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust). The majority of respondents also perceive scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). However, the results also reveal some areas of concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to the views of others. Additionally, many people felt that the priorities of science are not always well-aligned with their own priorities. The researchers call upon scientists to take the results seriously and find ways to be more receptive to feedback and more open to dialogue. The findings confirm the results of previous studies that show significant differences between countries and population groups. In particular, people with right-wing political views in Western countries tend to have less trust in scientists than those with left-wing views. This suggests that attitudes toward science tend to polarise along political lines. In most countries, however, political orientation and trust in scientists were not related. A majority of respondents want science to play an active role in society and policymaking. Globally, 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate with the public about science, providing an impetus for increased science communication efforts. Only a minority (23%) believe that scientists should not actively advocate for specific policies. 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process. Participants gave high priority to research to improve public health, solve energy problems and reduce poverty. On the other hand, research to develop defence and military technology was given a lower priority. In fact, participants explicitly believe that science is prioritising the development of defence and military technology more than they would like, highlighting a potential misalignment between public and scientific priorities. Dr Cologna said: “Our results show that most people in most countries have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to play an active role in society and policymaking”. Dr Reynolds, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This research demonstrates that people from all around the globe still have high trust in science and want scientists involved in policymaking. When we face great challenges, such as threats to public health or energy crises, the public recognise the importance that scientists can play and want us involved. This is also true of the UK where levels of public trust in science is one of the highest globally.” Dr Pennington, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This project showcases the importance and power of big team science to answer fundamental questions about human behaviour. By pooling our expertise and resources, we were able to reach over 70,000 people and improve sample diversity and representation by recruiting from 68 countries. Overall, the study resulted in an optimistic finding – that people generally trust scientists and agree that they should engage more in society and policymaking. Such trust is important because it allows people to make research-informed decisions about their own lives.” Find out more about the research in Nature Human Behaviour by visiting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5.