IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i5p2919-d762754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing Environmental Messages to Discourage Red Meat Consumption: An Online Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Wistar

    (Program in Global Health and Health Policy, Center for Health and Wellbeing, Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA)

  • Marissa G. Hall

    (Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA)

  • Maxime Bercholz

    (Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA)

  • Lindsey Smith Taillie

    (Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA
    Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

Abstract

Reducing red meat consumption in high-consuming countries is critical for mitigating climate change and preventing chronic disease. This study tested the effectiveness of messages conveying the worsening or reduction of environmental harms at discouraging red meat consumption. 1078 U.S. adults viewed seven messages in an online survey highlighting the reduction or worsening of environmental harms associated with eating red meat (between-subjects factor) and rated the messages on how much they discouraged them from wanting to buy beef. Each message highlighted a different environmental harm: deforestation, climate change, water shortages, biodiversity loss, carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, or environment (within-subjects factor). No statistically significant difference was found between the reduction and worsening of environmental harms conditions for most topics, though the worsening of harms frame slightly outperformed the reduction of harms frame for the ‘environment’ topic. ‘Environment’ was also the message topic that elicited the strongest response from participants overall. Latino participants, those with more than a high school degree, and those who consume beef once a week or less rated messages as more effective than non-Latino participants, those who completed high school or less, and those who consumed beef more than once a week. Future research should explore the effect of messages on behavioral outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Wistar & Marissa G. Hall & Maxime Bercholz & Lindsey Smith Taillie, 2022. "Designing Environmental Messages to Discourage Red Meat Consumption: An Online Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2919-:d:762754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2919/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2919/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Ruben Sanchez-Sabate & Joan Sabaté, 2019. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Environmental Concerns of Meat Consumption: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-37, April.
    3. Anna H Grummon & Marissa G Hall, 2020. "Sugary drink warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-21, May.
    4. 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.
    5. David Tilman & Michael Clark & David R. Williams & Kaitlin Kimmel & Stephen Polasky & Craig Packer, 2017. "Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention," Nature, Nature, vol. 546(7656), pages 73-81, June.
    6. Benjamin De Groeve & Brent Bleys, 2017. "Less Meat Initiatives at Ghent University: Assessing the Support among Students and How to Increase It," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Fredrik Hedenus & Stefan Wirsenius & Daniel Johansson, 2014. "The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 79-91, May.
    8. Bingli Clark Chai & Johannes Reidar van der Voort & Kristina Grofelnik & Helga Gudny Eliasdottir & Ines Klöss & Federico J. A. Perez-Cueto, 2019. "Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Ropret Homar, Aja & Knežević Cvelbar, Ljubica, 2021. "The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    10. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    11. Janet Ranganathan & Daniel Vennard, 2016. "Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future," Working Papers id:10890, eSocialSciences.
    12. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laiza Andriolo da Rocha Ramos & Francesco Zecca & Claudio Del Regno, 2022. "Needs of Sustainable Food Consumption in the Pandemic Era: First Results of Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Wei Li & Si Chen & Zhihao Wang & Guomin Li & Xiaoguang Liu, 2022. "The Influence of Message Framing on Residents’ Waste Separation Willingness—The Mediating Role of Moral Identity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-18, May.

    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. Marthe Hårvik Austgulen & Silje Elisabeth Skuland & Alexander Schjøll & Frode Alfnes, 2018. "Consumer Readiness to Reduce Meat Consumption for the Purpose of Environmental Sustainability: Insights from Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, August.
    2. Scott T. Armbruster & Rajesh V. Manchanda & Ngan Vo, 2022. "When Are Loss Frames More Effective in Climate Change Communication? An Application of Fear Appeal Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, June.
    3. David Bryngelsson & Fredrik Hedenus & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Christian Azar & Stefan Wirsenius, 2017. "How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Hernando Barreto Riaño & John Willmer Escobar & Rodrigo Linfati & Virna Ortiz-Araya, 2022. "Disciplinary Categorization of the Cattle Supply Chain—A Review and Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-44, November.
    5. 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).
    6. Bazoche, Pascale & Guinet, Nicolas & Poret, Sylvaine & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Does the provision of information increase the substitution of animal proteins with plant-based proteins? An experimental investigation into consumer choices," Working Papers 313663, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    7. Perino, Grischa & Schwirplies, Claudia, 2022. "Meaty arguments and fishy effects: Field experimental evidence on the impact of reasons to reduce meat consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Daniel H. Pope & Johan O. Karlsson & Phillip Baker & David McCoy, 2021. "Examining the Environmental Impacts of the Dairy and Baby Food Industries: Are First-Food Systems a Crucial Missing Part of the Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems Agenda Now Underway?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Laura Abrardi, 2019. "Behavioral barriers and the energy efficiency gap: a survey of the literature," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(1), pages 25-43, March.
    10. Wang, Jianming & Li, Yongqiang & He, Zhengxia & Gao, Jian & Wang, Jianguo, 2022. "Scale framing, benefit framing and their interaction effects on energy-saving behaviors: Evidence from urban residents of China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    11. Bianca Blum & Bernhard K. J. Neumärker, 2021. "Lessons from Globalization and the COVID-19 Pandemic for Economic, Environmental and Social Policy," World, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-26, June.
    12. Siqi Dai & Kai Chen & Rui Jin, 2022. "The effect of message framing and language intensity on green consumption behavior willingness," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2432-2452, February.
    13. Brunner, Florentine & Kurz, Verena & Bryngelsson, David & Hedenus, Fredrik, 2018. "Carbon Label at a University Restaurant – Label Implementation and Evaluation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 658-667.
    14. Ruben Sanchez-Sabate & Joan Sabaté, 2019. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Environmental Concerns of Meat Consumption: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-37, April.
    15. Lingyun Mi & Jiali Han & Ting Xu & Xuejiao Wang & Lijie Qiao & Tianwen Jia & Xiaoli Gan, 2023. "Evaluating Whether and How Public Health Event Information Frameworks Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Charles Collet & Pascal Gastineau & Benoit Chèze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Frederic Martinez, 2022. "Combining economics and psychology: Does CO2 framing strengthen pro-environmental behaviors?," Working Papers hal-03321706, HAL.
    17. Mieko Fujisawa & Kazuhisa Takemura & Yukihiko Funaki & Nobuyuki Uto & Ryo Takahashi, 2020. "An Experimental Study of the Effect of Energy Label Design on the Correct Evaluation of Buildings' Energy Performance and Promotion of Energy Saving," International Real Estate Review, Asian Real Estate Society, vol. 23(1), pages 733-762.
    18. Dominik Bär & Stefan Feuerriegel & Ting Li & Markus Weinmann, 2023. "Message framing to promote solar panels," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2021. "The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    20. Rui Pedro Fonseca & Ruben Sanchez-Sabate, 2022. "Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-23, December.

    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:5:p:2919-:d:762754. 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.