Two Sides of the Same Coin: Environmental and Health Concern Pathways Toward Meat Consumption

Abstract

The dramatic increase of meat production in the last decades has proven to be one of the most impacting causes of negative environmental outcomes (e.g., increase of greenhouse emissions, pollution of land and water, and biodiversity loss). In two studies, we aimed to verify the role of key socio-psychological dimensions on meat intake. Study 1 (N = 198) tested the predictive power of an extended version of the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) model on individual food choices in an online supermarket simulation. In an online survey, participants were directed to a virtual shop and asked to buy food within a set amount of money. Subsequently, they completed measures of behavioral intention, the VBN constructs (values, general pro-environmental beliefs, awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, and personal norm), and social norms (injunctive and descriptive). The outcome variable was operationalized in terms of percentage of expenses dedicated to meat and processed meat items, which provided a more robust behavioral measure than the common self-reported ones. Results confirmed the VBN sequential path, showing direct effects of biospheric values and descriptive norm on personal norm. Furthermore, a proof of validity for the new behavioral measure was provided (medium-sized correlation with behavioral intention). Study 2 (N = 218) aimed at verifying whether the meat consumption could be also motivated by a health concern, reflecting individual (cost/benefit) considerations, besides pro-environmental drivers. Results showed the direct impact of health concern and confirmed the indirect role of biospheric values and descriptive norm (via personal norm) on meat intake. This evidence would suggest the use of multiple-frame messages, highlighting both pro-environmental and health consequences, for meat consumption reduction. Nevertheless, the different implications of moral (e.g., environmental concern) vs. non-moral motivators (e.g., health concern) for reducing meat intake need to be stressed: indeed, the first drivers are more central for self-identity and for engaging in environmental citizenship behaviors.

Lowering Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption With Environmental, Animal Welfare, and Health Arguments in Italy: An Online Experiment

“…The finding that environmental arguments are not always effective in the general population is in line with earlier findings (de Boer et al, 2013 ). They propose to develop messages that address multiple values (Lai et al, 2020 ; Wolstenholme et al, 2020 ). However, the environmental and animal welfare consequences of meat consumption are complex and can be formulated in different ways to motivate people (Giacoman et al, 2021 ; de Boer and Aiking, 2022a ).…”

Be Yourself: The Relative Importance of Personal and Social Norms for Adolescents’ Self-Presentation on Instagram

“…We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with German Instagram users between May and June 2019. Although the concepts of personal and social norms are well defined in the literature and in various scales (e.g., Chen, 2020;Doran & Larsen, 2016;Geber et al, 2021;Lai et al, 2020;Rimal & Real, 2005), a qualitative research approach was deliberately chosen. This approach is well-suited for examining mindsets, opinions, and behaviors (Flick, 2018) because it is often difficult for adolescents to express themselves about complex and subconscious perceptions or to scale approval or rejection.…”

“…When studying the influence of personal norms on behavior, researchers have mainly relied on the Norm-Activation Model (NAM, Schwartz, 1977; e.g., Ho et al, 2016; Lai et al, 2020), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB, Ajzen, 1991, e.g., Schaffner et al, 2017), or a combination of both (e.g., Bamberg et al, 2007; Chen, 2020). The NAM conceptualizes personal norms as a direct predictor of behavior.…”

“…The NAM conceptualizes personal norms as a direct predictor of behavior. Originally developed to explain helping people in need, the model has been extended to the self (Stern et al, 1999), and has been successfully tested in studies on pro-environmental (Bamberg et al, 2007; Lai et al, 2020; Schaffner et al, 2017) or health behavior (Ho et al, 2016).…”

Theory enhances impact. Reply to: ‘The case for impact-focused environmental psychology’

“…The first assumption is that theory-driven research in environmental psychology has led to 'systematic neglect of some particularly impactful behaviours and their determinants', such as 'home and vehicle purchases, investment in solar panels, and decisions about family size' (Nielsen et al, 2021, p. 1). Yet, many theory-based studies in environmental psychology have focused on these and other behaviours that are identified as highly impactful (Ivanova et al, 2020), such as (but not limited to) energy use, consumption of animal products, purchase of material goods, and car use (e.g., Abrahamse et al, 2005;Büchs, 2017;Fielding et al, 2008;Gatersleben et al, 2002;Graham & Abrahamse, 2017;Hahnel et al, 2020;Lai et al, 2020;Namazkhan et al, 2020;Nordlund, 2003;Pahl et al, 2016;Ruby et al, 2020;Schultz et al, 2015;Tan & Goh, 2018;Whitmarsh et al, 2020;Wolske et al, 2017, and many more).…”