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

Abstract

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.

Why moral psychology needs personality psychology

“…First, there are main effects of personality traits on morally relevant outcomes (Hopwood et al, 2024;Pringle et al, 2024;Wilks et al, 2024;Zher-Wen et al, 2024) that do not necessarily interact with situational factors (Thielmann et al, 2024). Second, the effect of situational influences may depend on personality traits (Smillie et al, 2024). Third, the effect of personality traits on outcomes may depend on the context (Hudson & Uenal, 2024).…”

“…Likewise, applying this framework to the study of moral personality, McAdams and Mayukha (2024) propose that we can conceive of morality in terms of (1) moral traits, (2) values and moral reasoning, and (3) an integrative moral life story. Adopting a similar integrative approach, Smillie and colleagues (2024) assess different kinds of personality constructs—traits, beliefs, and motives—that might capture differential responses to ethically framed messages promoting plant‐based diets.…”

“…Baumert and colleagues (2024) use the experience sampling method to capture real‐world instances of moral courage when people are confronted with others' norm violations. Finally, three articles shed light on the personality predictors of consequential real‐world outcomes: COVID vaccination uptake (Zher‐Wen et al., 2024), receptiveness to ethically‐framed vegetarian advertisements (Smillie et al., 2024), and pledging to donate a substantial portion of one's lifetime income (Wilks et al., 2024).…”

“…Against the idea that honest people might be more willing to lie to benefit others, the authors found no evidence of a person x situation interaction—those high in honesty‐humility were unwilling to lie irrespective of whether doing so would benefit themselves, another person, or a needy other. Conversely, two other articles find at least some evidence for person x situation interactions: Smillie and colleagues (2024) examined whether the persuasiveness of ethical vegetarian appeals (i.e., those focused on animal welfare or the environment) might depend on an individual's traits, beliefs, or motives. Although the most robust findings across the two studies were main effects of personality, they also found (in both studies) that people who more strongly believed that eating meat was “normal” rated animal welfare appeals as being less effective.…”

Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Vegetarian Diets and the Environmental Impact of Meat-Eating

“…This could help uncover which campaigns are most practically effective and could guide bespoke initiatives and campaigns, rather than trying a 'one size fits all' approach. For example, recent work by Smillie and colleagues with adults in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA found that persuasive messaging promoting the adoption of plant-based diets to reduce one's carbon footprint was more effective for people who scored higher on the personality trait of openness/intellect [55].…”