Evaluating the effectiveness of vegetarian appeals in daily life: Comparing positive and negative imagery, and gauging differential responses

Tan, Nicholas Poh-Jie; Bastian, Brock; Smillie, Luke D.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106358

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the interventions in our studies were very similar in brevity and intensity to those reported in previous work. That being said, Tan et al (2023) recently found that showing participants negative or positive images of farmed animals daily for 2 weeks impacted intentions, suggesting that one way to increase the power of intervention designs like the ones tested here might be to repeat them. There may be other ways to increase the impact of such messages, such as making the appeals more detailed, emotionally resonant, or personalized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…We are skeptical, based on the current findings, that very brief and low‐intensity interventions will be all that powerful for changing intentions, let alone producing enduring behavior change. Indeed, Tan et al (2023) showed that even when intentions changed as a function of their two‐week intervention, this did not translate to actual meat reduction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research suggests robust connections between personality traits and a vegetarian diet (Forestell & Nezlek, 2018;Holler et al, 2021;Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018;Tan et al, 2021). Reist (2022) recently meta-analyzed this literature and found the most robust effect to be that people who are higher in Openness to Experience are more likely to be vegetarian.…”

Section: Individual Differences In Meat Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Personality, self‐knowledge, and meat reduction intentions

Hopwood

Stahlmann

Bleidorn

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveMeat consumption has a host of serious negative consequences for nonhuman animals, underprivileged humans, and the natural environment. Several interventions have been developed to encourage meat reduction but to relatively limited effect. There is also a range of established predictors of meat consumption, but much less is known about the factors that predict intentions to reduce meat consumption. The goal of this study was to determine the roles of personality and self‐knowledge in meat reduction intentions.MethodIn this set of three preregistered studies, we tested brief interventions to encourage meat reduction intentions and examined personality predictors of intentions to reduce meat consumption.ResultsWe found no evidence that brief interventions with or without a self‐knowledge component had a meaningful effect on changing meat reduction intentions. However, we found robust evidence for relatively small associations between intending to eat less meat and high Openness to Experience, high Emotionality, and perceiving meat reduction as moral behaviors.ConclusionIndividual differences may be a more influential predictor of meat reduction intentions than brief interventions. Implications for promoting meat reduction are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Differences In Meat Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personality, self‐knowledge, and meat reduction intentions

Hopwood

Stahlmann

Bleidorn

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there is evidence that changes in intentions translate to changes in behavior, effects on behavior tend to be relatively weaker (e.g., Webb & Sheeran, 2006), in line with the notion of an intention/behavior gap (e.g., Sniehotta et al, 2005). Whereas our focus in the present research was on immediate differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals—chiefly, their perceived effectiveness—it would be valuable in future studies to examine the degree to which these responses are sustained over time and translate into actual reductions in meat‐eating (see Tan et al, 2023, for a recent example).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals: Exploring the role of traits, beliefs, and motives

Smillie

Ruby

Tan

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis research examines differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals as a fuction of individuals' personalities.BackgroundEthical vegetarian appeals are persuasive messages promoting the adoption of a plant‐based diet on moral grounds. Individuals may vary in their receptivity to such appeals, depending on their morally relevant traits (e.g., agreeableness), beliefs (e.g., speciesism), and motives (e.g., concerns about animal welfare).MethodsWe explored (Study 1, N = 907) and then attempted to confirm (Study 2, N = 980) differential responses to three vegetarian appeals—two highlighting moral concerns (animal welfare, the environment) and a third focusing on individual health (control condition).ResultsBoth studies revealed several differential effects of our vegetarian appeals on the perceived effectiveness of the appeal and resultant intentions to reduce meat consumption. These mostly consisted of differences in receptivity to appeals focused on animal welfare. However, only one such effect observed in Study 1 was clearly replicated in Study 2: People who more strongly believed that eating meat was “normal” rated the vegetarian appeals focused on animal welfare as less effective.ConclusionEthical vegetarian appeals may elicit different responses from different people, particularly those focused on animal welfare, depending on how normative one believes meat‐eating to be. Such insights can inform behavior change efforts in this area.

show abstract