Consumers’ avoidance of information on red meat risks: information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge

Abstract

(2015): Consumers' avoidance of information on red meat risks: information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge, Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.1003318 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. In accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, individuals generally avoid information that is not consistent with their cognitions, to avoid psychological discomfort associated with tensions arising from contradictory beliefs. Information avoidance may thus make risk communication less successful. To address this, we presented information on red meat risks to red meat consumers. To explore information exposure effects, attitudes toward red meat and perceived knowledge of red meat risks were measured before, immediately after, and two weeks after exposure. We expected information avoidance of red meat risks to be: positively related to (1) study discontentment; and (2) positive attitudes toward red meat; and negatively related to (3) information seeking on red meat risks; and (4) systematic and heuristic processing of information. In addition, following exposure to the risk information, we expected that (5) individuals who scored high in avoidance of red meat risks information to change their attitudes and perceived risk knowledge less than individuals who scored low in avoidance. Results were in line with the first three expectations. Support for the fourth was partial insofar as this was only confirmed regarding systematic processing. The final prediction was not confirmed; individuals who scored high in avoidance decreased the positivity of their attitudes and increased their perceived knowledge in a similar fashion to those who scored low in avoidance. These changes stood over the two-week follow-up period. Results are discussed in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, with the possible use of su...

Less Meat Initiatives at Ghent University: Assessing the Support among Students and How to Increase It

“…The information consisted of a fact sheet on the impact of meat on the climate, making clear that emissions of greenhouse gases can be reduced by eating less meat and that beef and mutton have significantly higher emissions costs than other meats (see online supplemental material for more details). We used a timer to measure the students' residence time on the page as we expected that the students receiving the information would not be equally motivated to process the information [49,50].…”

“…Higher residence times may indicate a higher motivation to process information, while very low residence times may indicate information avoidance. Avoidance of information related to meat issues is not uncommon [36,49,50,55]. Many people have conflicting thoughts about meat: they love eating meat, but they also do not like its harmful impact (e.g., on animal welfare, health or the environment).…”

Risk and benefit perceptions of human enhancement technologies: The effects of Facebook comments on the acceptance of nanodesigned food

“…Cognitive dissonance theory and empirical evidence demonstrated that initial attitudes may moderate the effect of risk–benefit messages (Frewer et al, ; Gaspar et al, ; Narayan et al, ). Distinguishing between initial feelings of dread and optimism, we studied whether this also held for nanodesigned food.…”

“…Secondly, initial attitudes may affect the impact of the provided information. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that individuals are likely to stick to their opinions, which might affect the way they seek, process and avoid new information (Deline & Kahlor, 2019;Gaspar et al, 2016;Kuhn, 2000;Narayan, Case, & Edwards, 2011). The empirical evidence on the effects of prior attitude in risk communication is fragmented (Frewer et al, 2016).…”

Barriers to and Facilitators of Older Adult's Adherence to Health Recommendations

“…Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that some people show a tendency to avoid information that is communicated by health practitioners (Brashers, Goldsmith, & Hsieh, 2002). For example, as shown by Gaspar et al (2015), if an information on risk-benefits (e.g. maximum daily amount of red meat consumption) somewhat contradicts the previous information individual's had, their existing attitudes (e.g.…”