Increasing meat-free meal selections: The role of social identity salience and identity-related meal names.

Avoiding meat overconsumption is good for the environment and people's health. Changing meal names represents a simple, cost-effective way of increasing meat-free meal selection in restaurants. In the past, however, this approach has shown limited effectiveness. The activation of different social identities may explain inconsistencies in prior findings and offer a powerful leverage point for influencing meal choices. We recruited participants (N = 899) who identified as "meat-eaters" for an online experiment in which they were asked to select a meal from a menu that included meat-free and meat-based burgers. We manipulated (1) social identity salience (meat-eater identity; sustainable identity; personal identity) and (2) the meal names on the menu (vegetarian name; sustainable name; neutral name). Our findings show that activating a sustainable identity significantly increases the odds of selecting a meat-free burger (22%) compared to alternative identity conditions (meat-eater identity 12%, personal identity 12%). Sustainable meal names outperform vegetarian but not neutral meal names (sustainable name 20%, vegetarian name 12%, neutral name 15%). When participants who previously selected a meat-based burger (N = 760) were limited to meat-free menu options, satisfaction and enjoyment ratings dropped steeply. This drop was significantly stronger in the meat-eater identity condition. Accounting for identity salience can lead to more targeted, improved interventions that increase meat-free meal selections by accounting for people's different social identities and the social context in which food consumption tends to occur.

Can we prevent social identity switches? An experimental-computational investigation.

Previous studies suggested that social identity switches are rapid and highly effective, raising the question of whether people can intentionally control such switches. In two studies, we tested if participants could exert top-down control to prevent a social identity switch triggered by the experimental context. In Study 1, participants (N = 198) were given a writing task aimed at prompting a switch from their parent identity to their feminist identity. Before the prompt, half of the participants (the experimental group) were instructed to remain in their parent identity, avoiding an identity switch; the control group was not given such instructions. We found no significant difference between the groups in either self-reported salience or the implicit computational measure of salience based on participants' linguistic style, both measures suggesting a switch in both groups. Study 2 (N = 380) followed the same design but included a monetary incentive to prevent the switch in the experimental group. The groups differed significantly in their self-reported salience but not in the implicit measure, which suggests limited ability to avoid the switch even when participants report being able to do so. These results point to limited intentional control over exogenously triggered identity switches, with important practical implications.

Trust predicts COVID-19 prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions in 23 countries.

The worldwide spread of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) since December 2019 has posed a severe threat to individuals' well-being. While the world at large is waiting that the released vaccines immunize most citizens, public health experts suggest that, in the meantime, it is only through behavior change that the spread of COVID-19 can be controlled. Importantly, the required behaviors are aimed not only at safeguarding one's own health. Instead, individuals are asked to adapt their behaviors to protect the community at large. This raises the question of which social concerns and moral principles make people willing to do so. We considered in 23 countries (N = 6948) individuals' willingness to engage in prescribed and discretionary behaviors, as well as country-level and individual-level factors that might drive such behavioral intentions. Results from multilevel multiple regressions, with country as the nesting variable, showed that publicized number of infections were not significantly related to individual intentions to comply with the prescribed measures and intentions to engage in discretionary prosocial behaviors. Instead, psychological differences in terms of trust in government, citizens, and in particular toward science predicted individuals' behavioral intentions across countries. The more people endorsed moral principles of fairness and care (vs. loyalty and authority), the more they were inclined to report trust in science, which, in turn, statistically predicted prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions. Results have implications for the type of intervention and public communication strategies that should be most effective to induce the behavioral changes that are needed to control the COVID-19 outbreak.