IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i19p11948-d921157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Framing Plant-Based Products in Terms of Their Health vs. Environmental Benefits: Interactions with Individual Wellbeing

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Isham

    (Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP), University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Judith Geusen

    (School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Birgitta Gatersleben

    (Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP), University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
    School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

Abstract

Significant reductions in the consumption of meat and dairy products are required to limit environmental damage and meet climate targets. However, individuals choosing to adopt plant-based diets still form a minority. Whilst different types of message framings have been suggested to be a potential means of encouraging the uptake of plant-based diets, recent findings have often failed to document any differences in people’s willingness to reduce their consumption of animal products based on whether messages emphasize the health or environmental benefits of plant-based diets. This research examined whether individual wellbeing might interact with health versus environmental message frames to determine people’s liking and willingness to pay for plant-based products. Across two experiments with a university (Study 1) and a non-student, adult sample (Study 2), participants were exposed to different hypothetical labels for plant-based foods and asked to rate their liking and willingness to pay for each. In line with existing findings, results demonstrated a trend whereby showing health (versus environmental) information on food labels did not in itself influence participants perceptions of the food products. Higher levels of positive wellbeing were associated with greater liking and willingness to pay for the plant-based foods (B values ranging from 0.04 to 0.45). Further, there was an interaction effect whereby levels of negative affect were differentially linked to liking and willingness to pay across the health and environmental framing conditions (B values ranging from 0.03 to 0.38). In particular, negative affect appears to have a greater negative impact on the product liking and willingness to pay when environmental label framings are used. This effect was most pronounced for the product liking dependent variable (B = −0.29 in the environmental framing condition). This research therefore extends understandings of the more specific instances in which message framings can impact perceptions of plant-based foods. The implications of the findings for understanding how best to promote uptake of plant-based diets are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Isham & Judith Geusen & Birgitta Gatersleben, 2022. "The Influence of Framing Plant-Based Products in Terms of Their Health vs. Environmental Benefits: Interactions with Individual Wellbeing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-17, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:11948-:d:921157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/11948/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/11948/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lange, Florian & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2020. "Positive affect and pro-environmental behavior: A preregistered experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. András Fehér & Michał Gazdecki & Miklós Véha & Márk Szakály & Zoltán Szakály, 2020. "A Comprehensive Review of the Benefits of and the Barriers to the Switch to a Plant-Based Diet," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Ibanez, Lisette & Moureau, Nathalie & Roussel, Sébastien, 2017. "How do incidental emotions impact pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from the dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 150-155.
    4. Emma J. Frew & David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme, 2003. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 150-159, March.
    5. Quirin Schiermeier, 2019. "Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet," Nature, Nature, vol. 572(7769), pages 291-292, August.
    6. Patrick Schenk & Jörg Rössel & Manuel Scholz, 2018. "Motivations and Constraints of Meat Avoidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Leach, Allison M. & Emery, Kyle A. & Gephart, Jessica & Davis, Kyle F. & Erisman, Jan Willem & Leip, Adrian & Pace, Michael L. & D’Odorico, Paolo & Carr, Joel & Noll, Laura Cattell & Castner, Elizabet, 2016. "Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 213-223.
    8. Cordts, Anette & Nitzko, Sina & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(A), pages 1-24, March.
    9. Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2019. "Does life satisfaction matter for pro-environmental behavior? Empirical evidence from China General Social Survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 449-469, January.
    10. Anne M. van Valkengoed & Linda Steg, 2019. "Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 158-163, February.
    11. Himics, Mihaly & Giannakis, Elias & Kushta, Jonilda & Hristov, Jordan & Sahoo, Amarendra & Perez-Dominguez, Ignacio, 2022. "Co-benefits of a flexitarian diet for air quality and human health in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Kilian & Ulrich Hamm, 2021. "Perceptions of Vegan Food among Organic Food Consumers Following Different Diets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Bose, Neha & Hills, Thomas & Sgroi, Daniel, 2020. "Climate Change and Diet," IZA Discussion Papers 13426, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Xi Ouyang & Wen’e Qi & Donghui Song & Jianjun Zhou, 2022. "Does Subjective Well-Being Promote Pro-Environmental Behaviors? Evidence from Rural Residents in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Jana S. Kesenheimer & Tobias Greitemeyer, 2021. "Going Green (and Not Being Just More Pro-Social): Do Attitude and Personality Specifically Influence Pro-Environmental Behavior?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    5. Violeta Mihaela Dincă & Mihail Busu & Zoltan Nagy-Bege, 2022. "Determinants with Impact on Romanian Consumers’ Energy-Saving Habits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    7. Marijn H. C. Meijers & Christin Scholz & Ragnheiður “Heather” Torfadóttir & Anke Wonneberger & Marko Markov, 2022. "Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic to combat climate change: comparing drivers of individual action in global crises," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 272-282, June.
    8. Hilary Byerly Flint & Paul Cada & Patricia A. Champ & Jamie Gomez & Danny Margoles & James R. Meldrum & Hannah Brenkert-Smith, 2022. "You vs. us: framing adaptation behavior in terms of private or social benefits," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 701-723, January.
    10. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Angela Zinnai & Alberto Pardossi, 2018. "A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    11. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    12. Lisette Ibanez & Sébastien Roussel, 2022. "The impact of nature video exposure on pro-environmental behavior: An experimental investigation," Post-Print hal-03847453, HAL.
    13. Peter Slade & Mila Markevych, 2024. "Killing the sacred dairy cow? Consumer preferences for plant‐based milk alternatives," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 70-92, January.
    14. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Réquillart, Vincent & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Christopher J. Bryant, 2019. "We Can’t Keep Meating Like This: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    17. Laureti, Lucio & Costantiello, Alberto & Leogrande, Angelo, 2022. "Satisfaction with the Environmental Condition in the Italian Regions between 2004 and 2020," MPRA Paper 112460, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Adena, Maja & Huck, Steffen, 2022. "Voluntary ‘donations’ versus reward-oriented ‘contributions’: two experiments on framing in funding mechanisms," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 25(5), pages 1399-1417.
    19. Lange, Florian & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2020. "Positive affect and pro-environmental behavior: A preregistered experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. Chandni Singh & James Ford & Debora Ley & Amir Bazaz & Aromar Revi, 2020. "Assessing the feasibility of adaptation options: methodological advancements and directions for climate adaptation research and practice," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 255-277, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:11948-:d:921157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.