RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This research examines differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals as a fuction of individuals' personalities. BACKGROUND: Ethical 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). METHODS: We 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). RESULTS: Both 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. CONCLUSION: Ethical 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.
