Evaluating the effectiveness of vegetarian appeals in daily life: Comparing positive and negative imagery, and gauging differential responses.

ABSTRACT

Persuasive appeals designed to reduce meat consumption often employ graphic images of the harms perpetuated by eating meat (e.g., cruel factory farming practices). However, because people are motivated to see themselves as moral, appeals that highlight omnivores' moral failings might be resisted or even backfire. Furthermore, individuals differ in ways that may influence their motivations and attitudes toward animals and meat-eating, and their responses to these appeals. Thus, in a two-week intervention study (N = 427), we compared effects of two vegetarian appeals-one employing graphic negative imagery (footage of factory farming cruelty), the other employing positive imagery (footage from farmed animal sanctuaries)-on daily meat consumption and related affects and cognitions. We also examined several personality traits and other individual differences that may confer differential effects of these appeals. Although neither appeal significantly reduced meat consumption, both the positive and negative appeal increased intentions to eat less meat, and led to more negative affect and cognition when eating meat. Moreover, several individual difference variables moderated the effects of these appeals on actual and intended meat consumption. Findings are discussed in relation to the difficulty of changing morally troublesome behaviour, and the use of graphic appeals despite their unclear impact on behaviour.