Promote health in schools and worksites
Explain the Food Dudes school programme and Fox et al.’s worksite safety token economy, comparing intervention mechanisms, outcome measures and generalisation limits.
Section OPTION-HE-3.5.2 · 3.5.2 Health promotion in schools and worksites
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Health Psychology sections 3.5.1–3.5.3, 2028–2030 Version 1. Example studies illustrate the syllabus and are not official Cambridge materials or mark schemes. This is psychology education, not medical or mental-health advice.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Health Psychology section 3.5.2. School food choice and mining safety are separate programme examples; compare only outcomes and contexts supported by their evidence.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What did Tapper et al.’s classroom example report?
What you will learn
- Healthy eating promotion in schools; Tapper et al. (2003)
- Worksite health-and-safety promotion; Fox et al. (1987)
School programmes can change the food environment and learning cues
Tapper, Horne and Lowe’s Food Dudes programme combined repeated tasting of fruit and vegetables, peer modelling through short stories or video, and small contingent rewards. The programme also used letters, home packs and staff materials. These elements aim to make trying healthy foods familiar and socially supported; the approach is broader than giving children nutrition facts.
In one classroom example described in the article, 26 children aged 5–6 could choose fruit, vegetables or snack foods at breaktime. Fruit consumption rose from 28% at baseline to 59% at a six-month follow-up, and vegetable consumption from 8% to 32%. This example used observed consumption and repeated measures in one small class, not a randomised school trial.
The article also describes wider whole-school evaluations across schools and a two-school comparison where the programme school increased fruit and vegetable consumption while the control school did not; increases remained at a four-month follow-up. These are separate programme evaluations. Overall, the work suggests that modelling, exposure, rewards and school routines can support choice, but the size and durability of effects depend on implementation and context.
Fox, Hopkins and Anger (1987) studied safety incentives at two open-pit mines
The researchers described a token economy using trading stamps to reinforce safe work. Employees and work groups could earn stamps for periods without lost-time injuries, avoiding equipment-damaging accidents, adopting safety suggestions and preventing incidents. Stamps were exchanged for items. The programme operated at two open-pit mines and their processing facilities.
After introduction of the programme, the authors reported reductions in lost-time injuries, days lost from work and accident costs; improvements were maintained over several years. The time series provides long-term workplace evidence and examines outcomes beyond a short attitude questionnaire.
The study involved two particular hazardous mining workplaces and was not a randomised comparison across many sites. Broader changes in equipment, staffing, reporting or safety management could contribute. Incentives tied to injury-free records can also create pressure not to report incidents, so reporting rules and independent safety indicators matter. The findings do not mean that rewards alone can replace safe equipment, staffing or organisational responsibility.
Compare school and worksite interventions at more than one level
Food Dudes sought to change repeated choices and norms in children’s food setting; Fox et al. targeted workplace safety behaviours with individual and group contingencies. Both involve situational cues and reinforcement, but their populations, outcomes and risks differ. A school taste choice cannot be compared directly with a mine injury rate.
An individual explanation considers children’s preferences or workers’ actions; a situational explanation examines availability, equipment, leadership, schedules and group norms. A holistic account asks how personal behaviour interacts with the environment. Programmes should avoid blaming a child or worker when the organisation controls access, hazards or resources.
Because children were involved in the school programme, evaluation needs age-appropriate assent, parental or school permissions where required, privacy and non-coercive rewards. Workplace evaluation should protect workers from unfair penalties and ensure incentives do not suppress reporting. Quantitative consumption and injury records can be combined with qualitative views from children, families, staff and workers.
Use longitudinal evidence without assuming effects generalise
Repeated observations and follow-up can show whether a change lasts beyond the first intervention period. A stable follow-up does not guarantee that a programme will work in another school, job type or culture. Researchers should describe where, when and how the programme was implemented and whether the measured outcome matches the health goal.
A stronger evaluation can compare several sites, include a suitable control and report baseline differences, exposure and follow-up. If random allocation is not feasible, an interrupted time series or matched comparison can help, while still leaving alternative explanations. Explain whether the result is observed behaviour, a self-report, an incident report, a health indicator or a broader outcome.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Tapper, Horne and Lowe (2003), The Food Dudes to the rescue!
- Fox, Hopkins and Anger (1987), The long-term effects of a token economy on safety performance in open-pit mining
Pause and explain
Which is an important limitation when interpreting Fox et al. (1987)?
Worked example
A school copies Food Dudes and observes more fruit eaten at breaktime. A manager claims the same reward plan will reduce injuries at a factory. Evaluate the inference.
Show the worked solution
- Identify what the school evidence measured and the population and setting.
- Explain that workplace hazards and injury outcomes differ from food choices and require a worksite-specific design.
- Propose a safe evaluation with suitable comparison and independent safety measures.
Answer The school result may support a change in fruit consumption in that school context. It cannot establish that the same programme reduces factory injuries: the behaviours, settings and outcomes differ. A worksite evaluation should assess the actual hazards, compare a defined intervention with suitable safety practice, monitor independent outcomes and protect workers from incentives that could discourage incident reporting.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
List the main Food Dudes techniques and explain how one could change behaviour without relying on information alone.
Give me a hint
Identify exposure, modelling and rewards, then connect one technique to a plausible learning process.
Compare my reasoning
- Repeated tasting provides exposure to foods that may initially be unfamiliar.
- Peer models show children enjoying the target foods, providing a social example.
- A small contingent reward can reinforce trying the food while it is being introduced.
- The outcome must still be measured; knowing why a programme might work does not prove its effect in every school.
Food Dudes combines repeated tasting, peer modelling and contingent rewards. Repeated exposure may increase familiarity, while models and reinforcement make trying food more likely in that setting. The approach changes cues and opportunities as well as knowledge; evaluation is still needed to show which elements contributed to a measured result.
Look for these in your work
- All three techniques identified
- A behaviour mechanism explained
- Evidence claim bounded
A worksite reports fewer lost-time injuries after introducing Fox et al.’s stamp rewards. Give one strength and two limitations of this evidence.
Give me a hint
Use the long follow-up and the particular mine settings, then consider how incentives might affect records.
Compare my reasoning
- A strength is that injury-related outcomes were followed across an extended period at real work sites.
- The intervention was implemented at two particular mines, limiting generalisation to other industries.
- Without randomised comparison, concurrent safety changes could contribute to the pattern.
- A reward tied to injury-free records may alter reporting, so injury counts should be checked against independent hazard and safety measures.
Long-term workplace outcomes provide relevant evidence, but the two-site programme was not a randomised test across mines. Equipment or management changes could contribute, and incentives linked to incident-free records could affect reporting. A careful conclusion is that injury indicators fell after implementation in these sites, not that tokens alone prevent injuries everywhere.
Look for these in your work
- Strength tied to evidence
- Two distinct limitations
- Causal claim appropriately limited
Plan a fair school evaluation of a new healthy-lunch programme. Include a comparison, one observed outcome, a follow-up and one safeguard for pupils.
Give me a hint
Measure behaviour rather than knowledge alone, and account for baseline differences between schools.
Compare my reasoning
- Compare several similar classes or schools using the programme and usual lunch provision, recording baseline intake.
- Observe or weigh a defined food choice or amount consumed using the same procedure at each site.
- Repeat measurement after the programme and at a later follow-up to examine maintenance.
- Use age-appropriate information, assent and privacy protections; avoid pressuring or shaming pupils about food.
A fair evaluation could compare several similar schools or classes with and without the programme, record baseline and follow-up consumption using the same observation method, and repeat measurement later. Pupils should receive age-appropriate information and privacy protection, and the programme should avoid pressure or stigma. School-level differences would still need consideration when interpreting results.
Look for these in your work
- Comparison and baseline included
- Observed outcome and follow-up specified
- Child safeguard included
Common mistakes
- Describing Food Dudes as information-only rather than a programme with modelling, exposure and reinforcement
- Combining the article’s different home, classroom and whole-school evaluations into one sample or result
- Assuming a small repeated-measures classroom example proves a universal school effect
- Treating lower reported injuries as conclusive proof of fewer hazards without checking reporting
- Applying rewards without considering child assent, worker safety, fairness or organisational conditions
What can you explain now?
Why should an evaluation report the exact setting and outcome measure?
Compare with the explanation
A programme’s effect on one observed behaviour in one setting does not establish the same effect on a different outcome or population.
Generalisation depends on evidence that settings, participants and measures are sufficiently comparable.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Compare Food Dudes and Fox et al. by intervention, outcome, duration and one limit on generalisation.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.