Differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals: Exploring the role of traits, beliefs, and motives

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 receptivit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of personality 2024-06, Vol.92 (3), p.800-819
Main Authors: Smillie, Luke D., Ruby, Matthew B., Tan, Nicholas P., Stollard, Liora, Bastian, Brock
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Agreeableness
Animal welfare
Animal Welfare - ethics
Animals
Behavior change
Diet
Diet, Vegetarian
Ethics
Female
Food consumption
Humans
Male
Meat
Middle Aged
Morals
Motivation
Personality
personality traits
Persuasive Communication
Receptivity
the 4Ns
vegetarian appeals
vegetarian motives
Vegetarians
Welfare
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0022-3506
1467-6494
DOI:10.1111/jopy.12866