IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i16p7231-d1721501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Anticipated Pride for Goal Achievement or Anticipated Guilt for Goal Failure Influence Meat Reduction?

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Pompili

    (Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy)

  • Giulia Scaglioni

    (Department of Communication and Economics, University of Modena-Reggio Emilia, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy)

  • Margherita Guidetti

    (Department of Communication and Economics, University of Modena-Reggio Emilia, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy)

  • Simone Festa

    (Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy)

  • Italo Azzena

    (Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy)

  • Michela Lenzi

    (Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, 35122 Padua, Italy)

  • Luciana Carraro

    (Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, 35122 Padua, Italy)

  • Mark Conner

    (School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Valentina Carfora

    (Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Excessive meat consumption is detrimental to personal health, the environment, and animal welfare. This study examined whether scenarios evoking anticipated pride for achieving, or anticipated guilt for failing, a meat reduction goal—focused on protecting health, the environment, or animal welfare—would affect participants’ anticipated emotions, desire and intention to eat less meat, and ultimately their selection of meat-based food. A between-subjects experimental design was used, with 380 participants randomly assigned to one of seven conditions (six experimental and one control conditions). Experimental scenarios varied by emotion (pride vs. guilt) and goal domain (health, environment, animal welfare), while the control condition focused on sugar reduction. Results showed that scenarios varied in effectiveness depending on the goal addressed and emotion elicited. Specifically, scenarios emphasizing pride for protecting health or the environment reduced meat selection directly, while pride for protecting animals and guilt for harming the environment reduced meat choice indirectly through positive anticipated emotions, desire, and intention. The guilt scenario about endangering animal welfare and the pride scenario for protecting the environment had a total negative effect. This study highlights that emotional appeals—particularly pride for achieving meat reduction goals—may serve as a promising lever for developing impactful communication strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Pompili & Giulia Scaglioni & Margherita Guidetti & Simone Festa & Italo Azzena & Michela Lenzi & Luciana Carraro & Mark Conner & Valentina Carfora, 2025. "Does Anticipated Pride for Goal Achievement or Anticipated Guilt for Goal Failure Influence Meat Reduction?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:16:p:7231-:d:1721501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7231/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7231/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    2. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    3. George, Jennifer M. & Dane, Erik, 2016. "Affect, emotion, and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 47-55.
    4. David Arthur Cleveland & Quentin Gee & Audrey Horn & Lauren Weichert & Mickael Blancho, 2021. "How many chickens does it take to make an egg? Animal welfare and environmental benefits of replacing eggs with plant foods at the University of California, and beyond," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 157-174, February.
    5. António Almeida & Joana Torres & Isilda Rodrigues, 2023. "The Impact of Meat Consumption on Human Health, the Environment and Animal Welfare: Perceptions and Knowledge of Pre-Service Teachers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-20, June.
    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. Bazoche, Pascale & Guinet, Nicolas & Poret, Sylvaine & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2023. "Does the provision of information increase the substitution of animal proteins with plant-based proteins? An experimental investigation into consumer choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Roosen, Jutta & Staudigel, Matthias & Rahbauer, Sebastian, 2022. "Demand elasticities for fresh meat and welfare effects of meat taxes in Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Wisdom Dogbe & Yihan Wang & Cesar Revoredo-Giha, 2024. "Nutritional implications of substituting plant-based proteins for meat: evidence from home scan data," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, December.
    4. Jörg Rieger & Florian Freund & Frank Offermann & Inna Geibel & Alexander Gocht, 2023. "From fork to farm: Impacts of more sustainable diets in the EU‐27 on the agricultural sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 764-784, September.
    5. Frontuto, Vito & Felici, Tommaso & Andreoli, Vania & Bagliani, Marco Maria & Corsi, Alessandro, 2025. "Is there an Animal Food Kuznets Curve, and does it matter?," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 14(1).
    6. Anthony Fardet & Marion Desquilbet & Edmond Rock, 2022. "The compliance of French purchasing behaviors with a healthy and sustainable diet: a 1-yr follow-up of regular customers in hypermarkets," Post-Print hal-03353849, HAL.
    7. Siegerink, Veerle E. & Delnoij, Joyce & Alpizar, Francisco, 2024. "Public preferences for meat tax attributes in The Netherlands: A discrete choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    9. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    10. Gerald Nelson & Jessica Bogard & Keith Lividini & Joanne Arsenault & Malcolm Riley & Timothy B. Sulser & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Brendan Power & David Gustafson & Mario Herrero & Keith Wiebe & Karen Coo, 2018. "Income growth and climate change effects on global nutrition security to mid-century," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 773-781, December.
    11. Dániel Fróna & János Szenderák & Mónika Harangi-Rákos, 2019. "The Challenge of Feeding the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Jindřich Špička & Zdeňka Náglová, 2022. "Consumer segmentation in the meat market - The case study of Czech Republic," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(2), pages 68-77.
    13. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Melanie Speck & Katrin Bienge & Lynn Wagner & Tobias Engelmann & Sebastian Schuster & Petra Teitscheid & Nina Langen, 2020. "Creating Sustainable Meals Supported by the NAHGAST Online Tool—Approach and Effects on GHG Emissions and Use of Natural Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Springmann, Marco & Mason-D'Croz, Daniel & Robinson, Sherman & Wiebe, Keith & Scarborough, Peter, 2016. "The health co-benefits of a global greenhouse-gas tax on food," Conference papers 332766, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    16. Abele Kuipers & Agata Malak-Rawlikowska & Aldona Stalgienė & Anita Ule & Marija Klopčič, 2021. "European Dairy Farmers’ Perceptions and Responses towards Development Strategies in Years of Turbulent Market and Policy Changes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, March.
    17. repec:ags:aaea22:335681 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Infante-Amate, Juan & Aguilera, Eduardo & de Molina, Manuel González, 2018. "Energy transition in Agri-food systems. Structural change, drivers and policy implications (Spain, 1960–2010)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 570-579.
    19. Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu & Nüfer Yasin Ateş, 2022. "Arguing to Defeat: Eristic Argumentation and Irrationality in Resolving Moral Concerns," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 519-535, January.
    20. Lu, Wen & Liang, Shu, 2023. "Direct emotional interaction in prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).
    21. Patricia Eustachio Colombo & Emma Patterson & Liselotte Schäfer Elinder & Anna Karin Lindroos & Ulf Sonesson & Nicole Darmon & Alexandr Parlesak, 2019. "Optimizing School Food Supply: Integrating Environmental, Health, Economic, and Cultural Dimensions of Diet Sustainability with Linear Programming," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:16:p:7231-:d:1721501. 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.