A Cognitive-Emotional Model to Explain Message Framing Effects: Reducing Meat Consumption

Abstract

We tested the plausibility of a cognitive-emotional model to understand the effects of messages framed in terms of gain, non-loss, non-gain, and loss, and related to the health consequences of red/processed meat consumption. A total of 544 Italian participants reported their attitude toward reduced red/processed meat consumption and intention to eat red/processed meat (time 1 questionnaire). One week later, participants were randomly assigned to four different message conditions: (a) gain messages focused on the positive health outcomes associated with low meat consumption; (b) non-loss messages focused on the avoided negative health outcomes associated with low meat consumption; (c) non-gain messages focused on the missed positive health outcomes associated with high meat consumption; (d) loss messages focused on the negative health outcomes associated with high meat consumption (message sending). After reading the messages, participants answered a series of questions regarding their emotional and cognitive reactions to the messages, their evaluation of the messages, and again their attitude and intention toward red/processed meat consumption (time 2 questionnaire). Comparing different multivariate linear models under the Bayesian approach, we selected the model with the highest plausibility conditioned to observed data. In this model, message-induced fear influenced systematic processing, which in turn positively influenced message evaluation and attitude, leading to reduced intention to consume red/processed meat. Vice versa, message-induced anger reduced systematic processing, which in turn negatively influenced message evaluation, and led to no effect on attitude and intention. The comparison among message conditions showed that gain and non-loss messages activated integrated emotional and cognitive processing of the health recommendation, while loss and non-gain messages mainly activated emotional shortcuts toward attitude and intention. Overall, these results advance our comprehension of the effects of message framing on receivers' attitudes and intentions.

Framing and Tailoring Prefactual Messages to Reduce Red Meat Consumption: Predicting Effects Through a Psychology-Based Graphical Causal Model

“…The analysis of the GCM obtained through the simulated population supported our expectation that message exposure would predict intention change both directly and through the mediation of systematic processing. Consistent with previous research ( Carfora et al, 2021 ), when the messages induced further thoughts and reflections, they were also more likely to predict intention change. The analysis of the GCM also made it possible to identify which of the different psychological dimensions that weigh on the choice to consume red/processed meat are more likely to influence people exposed to messages with different frames in terms of outcome sensitivity ( Carfora et al, 2020b ).…”

“…At the same time, it showed the predictive weight of the considered dimensions differed, with only the most influential dimensions appearing in the final predictor. More specifically, it confirmed the opportunity to consider, in addition to TPB dimensions considered in the previous studies (Di Massimo et al, 2019;Carfora et al, 2021), other dimensions that contributed to increase the predictive power of the model as regards intention change after message exposure. Regulatory focus and individual differences in the perceived severity of the diseases that can be contracted were important predictors of the intention to reduce RPMC.…”

“…So far, some studies have considered the differential effects of gain, non-loss, non-gain, and loss messages on the promotion of physical activity ( Catellani et al, 2021 ) and adherence to environmental policies ( Bertolotti and Catellani, 2014 ). As to the effects of these four types of messages on the reduction of RPMC, Carfora et al (2020b , 2021) have showed that they differentially influence attitude and intention toward RPMC, and that this differential influence depends on some psychosocial characteristics of the receivers. These studies referred to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991 ) to identify some main antecedents of a change in the intention to eat red/processed meat after exposure to messages differing as to outcome sensitivity.…”

Integrating Personal and Pro-Environmental Motives to Explain Italian Women’s Purchase of Sustainable Clothing

“…. then") style, i.e., framing the consequences of sustainable behavior on the environment not as a direct and inescapable cause-effect link, but rather as the hypothetical future outcome of the adoption (or nonadoption) of a proposed behavior (e.g., "If you do purchase sustainable clothing, you will protect the environment"; [8,112,113]). This prefactual formulation may stimulate participants' anticipated evaluation of the positive environmental consequences of purchasing sustainable clothing and thus increase willingness to behave accordingly.…”

How Risky is it to Not Wear a Mask? Moral Emotions are Associated with Risk Perception and Public Health Behaviours During the Coronavirus Epidemic

“…focusing on avoided losses and positive health outcomes activate both emotional and cognitive processes (Carfora et al, 2021). The general consensus remains that effective message framing can contribute to the adoption of expert-recommended health behaviours (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012).…”