RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The persuasiveness of nutritional messages varies according to individual regulatory focus. However, so far research has focused on the negative or positive valence of the message, while we lack research on the differential effectiveness of health vs. well-being messages. We tested whether messages centred on negative health or well-being outcomes influenced the intention to eat red meat, and whether participants' predominant regulatory focus moderated this effect. METHODS: Participants (N = 207; 83 males, 124 females; mean age = 24.89, SD = 7.76) completed a questionnaire measuring dietary preferences and predominant regulatory focus. They were then presented with different versions of a message describing the negative effects of excessive red meat consumption on either health or well-being. They rated their involvement in the message and intention to eat red meat. RESULTS: Participants with a prevalent prevention focus showed greater involvement and lower intention to eat red meat after reading health messages than after reading well-being messages. No such difference was found in participants with a prevalent promotion focus. CONCLUSIONS: Emphasising the avoidance of organic diseases appears to be an effective strategy to involve individuals and reduce their intention to eat red meat, especially when they have a predominant prevention focus.