Does Anticipated Pride for Goal Achievement or Anticipated Guilt for Goal Failure Influence Meat Reduction?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

This manuscript explores the impact of anticipated emotions, specifically pride and guilt, on reducing meat consumption. The topic is timely and relevant, especially in the context of promoting sustainable and ethical dietary behaviors. The experimental design is thoughtful, and the preregistration is commendable. However, several methodological and interpretive issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Below is a detailed, section-by-section review.

 

Abstract

- The abstract does not clearly state the research question or the specific objectives of the study. It would benefit from a more direct articulation of what the authors aimed to test.

- The methodological description is vague. For instance, it mentions scenarios but does not clarify that this was a between-subjects experimental design with seven conditions.

- The results are summarized too broadly. It’s unclear which scenarios were most effective and through which mechanisms.

- The conclusion lacks a clear statement of the study’s practical implications or its unique contribution to the literature.

 

Introduction

- The introduction provides a solid rationale for reducing meat consumption, citing health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns. However, it could be strengthened by engaging more critically with recent literature on emotional appeals in dietary behavior change.

- The authors mention that prior studies have not sufficiently addressed the role of emotions, but they do not provide a systematic overview of what has been done and what remains unexplored.

- The research gap is identified, but the objectives are not clearly operationalized. A more structured presentation of the hypotheses and research questions would help.

- Although the MAESC model is introduced, the conceptual framework linking anticipated emotions to behavior could be more clearly articulated.

 

Problem Statement and Rationale

- The rationale for focusing on pride and guilt is reasonable, but the manuscript does not convincingly argue why these emotions are more effective than other persuasive strategies.

- The problem statement would benefit from more concrete examples and a clearer articulation of the research questions early in the text.

Methodology

- The study design is well-documented, and the preregistration and open data practices are commendable.

- The sample is appropriate for the statistical power required, but the use of a convenience sample from Italy limits generalizability. This limitation should be more explicitly acknowledged.

- The experimental conditions are clearly described, but the manipulation checks reveal that only pride was effectively elicited. This undermines the validity of half the experimental conditions.

- The use of self-report measures is a limitation, especially given the reliance on simulated food choices rather than actual behavior.

- The decision to remove negative anticipated emotions from the final model due to lack of manipulation success is methodologically sound but raises concerns about the robustness of the experimental design.

 

Results

- The preliminary analyses are thorough and confirm the adequacy of randomization.

- However, the failure to elicit guilt significantly weakens the conclusions that can be drawn about its role in behavior change.

- The mediation analyses are well-executed, but the effects are modest and limited to a few conditions. The indirect effects are not consistently significant.

- The tables are comprehensive but dense. A visual summary (e.g., a simplified mediation diagram highlighting significant paths) would greatly enhance clarity.

 

Discussion

- The discussion is well-structured and connects the findings to existing literature. However, the interpretation of guilt effects via positive emotions is speculative and not fully supported by the data.

- The analysis of differences between health, environmental, and animal welfare goals is insightful, but the discussion could go deeper into why animal welfare scenarios were less effective.

- The integration with the MAESC model is appropriate, though the empirical support is partial at best.

 

Limitations

- The limitations section is detailed and acknowledges key issues such as the use of self-report data and the simulated nature of the food choice task.

- However, it is overly long and somewhat repetitive. The authors could streamline this section while still addressing the main concerns.

- There is insufficient reflection on the implications of the failed manipulation of guilt.

 

Conclusion

- The conclusion summarizes the findings but does not clearly articulate the study’s original contribution.

- Practical implications are not well-developed. The authors should consider offering concrete recommendations for designing effective communication strategies based on their results.

 

Additional Comments

 

- Key terms such as “anticipated emotions” should be clearly defined early in the manuscript.

- The integration of tables and figures with the text is weak. Figures are referenced but not adequately discussed.

- The limited success in manipulating guilt is a major methodological concern that should be addressed more directly.

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

General Comments

Comments 1: This manuscript explores the impact of anticipated emotions, specifically pride and guilt, on reducing meat consumption. The topic is timely and relevant, especially in the context of promoting sustainable and ethical dietary behaviors. The experimental design is thoughtful, and the preregistration is commendable. However, several methodological and interpretive issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Below is a detailed, section-by-section review.

Response 1: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the time and effort thier invested in reviewing our manuscript, as well as for the suggestions that have improved our paper.  Below, we address each of the points raised in detail and outline the revisions made to improve the clarity and overall quality of our manuscript. The modified sentences are red-colored in the text.

 

Abstract

Comments 2: The abstract does not clearly state the research question or the specific objectives of the study. It would benefit from a more direct articulation of what the authors aimed to test.

Response 2: As suggested, we have revised the abstract to explicitly state the specific objectives of the study (p. 1, lines 18-22):

 

“This study examined whether scenarios evoking anticipated pride for achieving, or anticipated guilt for failing, a meat reduction goal —focused on protecting health, the environment, or animal welfare—would affect participants’ anticipated emotions, desire and intention to eat less meat, and ultimately their selection of meat-based food.”

 

Comments 3: The methodological description is vague. For instance, it mentions scenarios but does not clarify that this was a between-subjects experimental design with seven conditions.

Response 3: Considering the Reviewer’s comment, we have specified that the study employed a between-subjects experimental design with seven conditions (six experimental and one control conditions (p. 1, lines 22, 23).

 

Comments 4: The results are summarized too broadly. It’s unclear which scenarios were most effective and through which mechanisms.

Response 4: We thank the Reviewer for pointing this out. We have more clearly specified that the effectiveness of the scenarios varied depending on the goal addressed and the emotion elicited (p. 1, lines 25-27):

“Results showed that scenarios varied in effectiveness depending on the goal addressed and emotion elicited.”

 

Comments 5: The conclusion lacks a clear statement of the study’s practical implications or its unique contribution to the literature.

Response 5: As suggested, we have included a sentence about the practical implications of the study (p. 1, lines 32-34):

 

“This study highlights that emotional appeals—particularly pride for achieving meat reduction goals—may serve as a promising lever for developing impactful communication strategies.”

 

Introduction

Comments 6: The introduction provides a solid rationale for reducing meat consumption, citing health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns. However, it could be strengthened by engaging more critically with recent literature on emotional appeals in dietary behavior change.

Response 6: We thank the Reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We have revised the introduction to include recent literature examining emotional appeals in dietary behaviors (e.g., Carfora et al., 2025; Trudel-Guy et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021). Additionally, we have made the rationale and contribution of our study more explicit by clearly outlining how it addresses specific gaps in the existing literature. These additions help to provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date context for our study:

p. 2, lines 71-86

“Emotional appeals—whether centered on evoking negative or positive emotions—have been shown to significantly improve dietary behaviors [22-25]. For example, among participants with poor diet quality, pleasure-oriented messages were found to be as effective as traditional health-focused messages in promoting healthier food choices [24]. Similarly, positive emotional appeals enhanced both favorable emotions and the effectiveness of organic advertising, increasing purchases of products such as organic milk [25]. Negative emotions, such as physical and moral disgust, have also been effec-tive in promoting plant-based choices. Physical disgust reduced the hedonic appeal of meat, while moral disgust lowered moral disengagement—especially among individuals with moderate to high beliefs in human supremacy—leading to increased plant-based food selection [23]. However, only a limited number of studies have employed emotional appeals to promote meat reduction—mostly relying on text messages [22,23]—and, to date, no study has examined the effectiveness of presenting different underlying motivations for meat reduction (i.e., protecting health, the environment, or animal welfare) through emotionally framed hypothetical scenarios capable of eliciting both positive and negative emotions.”

p. 5, lines 195-208

“To the best of our knowledge, no study so far has investigated the effectiveness of the different types of motivations underlying meat reduction (protecting health, environment, and animal welfare) when presented as potential scenarios that elicit positive or negative anticipated emotions. This lack of research leaves a critical gap in our understanding of how different combinations of appeals affect meat consumption. Furthermore, although previous studies suggest that activating self-conscious emotions such as pride and guilt can influence goal-directed behavior, it remains unclear whether these emotions can also produce indirect effects—namely, a spillover—on other positive or negative anticipated emotions, which in turn may reinforce people’s desire, intention, and meat-based food selection. This mechanism may be particularly relevant in the context of complex decisions like food choices, where emotional coherence across different anticipated emotions could amplify desire and intention to reduce meat consumption. Investigating this potential emotional spillover could thus provide novel insights into how emotional interventions operate and compound their effects across multiple psychological pathways.”

 

 

Comments 7: The authors mention that prior studies have not sufficiently addressed the role of emotions, but they do not provide a systematic overview of what has been done and what remains unexplored.

Response 7: As suggested, we have expanded the introduction by incorporating previous work on emotional appeals in the context of dietary behaviors and have outlined the aspects that remain under-investigated. The revised text can be found in the previous response (p. 2, lines 71-86).

 

Comments 8: The research gap is identified, but the objectives are not clearly operationalized. A more structured presentation of the hypotheses and research questions would help.

Response 8: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. To improve clarity, we have revised the introduction by clearly specifying the aims of the study and explicitly stating the guiding hypotheses and research questions (p. 3, lines 108-126):

“Based on the above, the present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of emotionally framed scenarios—specifically, those activating either a positive anticipated emotion (i.e., pride) or a negative one (i.e., guilt)—in reducing the selection of meat-based foods. These scenarios were constructed to emphasize one of three widely recognized motivations for reducing meat consumption: protecting personal health, the environment, or animal welfare. By eliciting anticipated pride for meeting these goals, or anticipated guilt for failing to meet them, we sought to examine how these emotional activations influence individuals’ food choice. Specifically, we expected that the activation of anticipated pride and guilt would generate a spillover effect on positive and negative anticipated emotions [39], which, in turn, would strengthen the desire and intention to reduce meat consumption, and ultimately leading to a decreased meat-based food selection. This emotional mechanism has been underexplored in previous interventions promoting meat reduction. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically test this process across different goal framings. The study thus addresses two main objectives. First, it examines whether scenarios evoking pride or guilt effectively shape anticipated emotions, enhance desire and intention, and influence food choices. Second, it compares the relative impact of the three goal framings—health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare—on these outcomes, assessing whether some goals are more persuasive than others when emotionally framed.”

 

Comments 9: Although the MAESC model is introduced, the conceptual framework linking anticipated emotions to behavior could be more clearly articulated.

Response 9: We thank the Reviewer for this helpful comment. To enhance clarity, we have revised the theoretical section to better explain how anticipated emotions relate to behavior. Specifically, we clarified this connection both in relation to the MAESC model and by emphasizing the role of anticipated emotions as self-conscious emotions involved in self-regulation processes:

p. 4, lines 147-156

“According to this model, when individuals encounter self-control dilemmas, they en-gage in mental simulations of possible outcomes and anticipate the emotional reactions they may experience depending on their choice. These anticipated emotions are not only prospective affective responses but also serve a functional role in guiding decision-making, as they allow individuals to evaluate the emotional significance of goal-congruent versus goal-incongruent behaviors before acting In this sense, anticipated emotions act as motivational forces that shape behavior by highlighting the psychological consequences of one’s actions. Specifically, the model emphasizes the role of self-conscious emotions as guilt and pride which are elicited through the simulation of either failing to meet or successfully adhering to one’s goals.”

p. 4, lines 174-183

“Among the range of emotions, anticipated guilt and pride have emerged as particularly relevant in promoting sustainable and healthy behaviors [47]. As self-conscious emotions, they are triggered by evaluations of specific actions in relation to internalized personal or social standards [48,49]. Rather than involving general self-evaluations, these emotions focus attention on specific behaviors—such as choosing to reduce meat consumption—making them especially actionable [47]. Moreover, guilt and pride serve as self-regulatory mechanisms, encouraging individuals to align their behavior with personal goals and shared social norms [50-52]. This dual personal–social nature makes them particularly powerful in guiding choices that reflect values like health, environ-mental sustainability, and animal welfare.”

 

Problem Statement and Rationale

Comments 10: The rationale for focusing on pride and guilt is reasonable, but the manuscript does not convincingly argue why these emotions are more effective than other persuasive strategies.

Response 10: Considering this suggestion, we have better justified the focus on pride and guilt by highlighting their unique relevance to the objectives of the study. The revised text can be found in the previous response (p. 4, lines 174-183).

 

Comments 11: The problem statement would benefit from more concrete examples and a clearer articulation of the research questions early in the text.

Response 11: We thank the Reviewer for this feedback. We have revised and restructured the introduction to better clarify the objective of the study, making the research purpose more explicit and easier to follow from the beginning (see response 8).

Methodology

Comments 12: The study design is well-documented, and the preregistration and open data practices are commendable.

Response 12: We thank The Reviewer for acknowledging the clarity of our study design and our efforts toward transparency and open science through preregistration and data sharing. We greatly appreciate this positive feedback.

 

Comments 13: The sample is appropriate for the statistical power required, but the use of a convenience sample from Italy limits generalizability. This limitation should be more explicitly acknowledged.

Response 13: As suggested, we have made the limitation regarding the use of a convenience sample from Italy more explicit in the revised manuscript (p. 19, lines 646-649):

"Second, our study involved an Italian convenience sample; thus, this may limit the generalizability of our findings to other populations. Specifically, it may not capture the diversity of perspectives, cultural values, and eating behaviors that may be found in other countries. This limitation should be explicitly considered when interpreting the scope of our conclusions."

 

Comments 14: The experimental conditions are clearly described, but the manipulation checks reveal that only pride was effectively elicited. This undermines the validity of half the experimental conditions.

Response 14: It is correct that only the pride-based messages significantly increased the corresponding anticipated emotion compared to the control group. This finding confirms that pride can be effectively elicited via textual scenarios, and our analyses further show that pride-based framing had motivational and behavioral effects on reducing meat consumption.

However, we believe it would be reductive to interpret the absence of increased anticipated guilt as invalidating the guilt-based conditions. Although the guilt-framed messages did not significantly increase self-reported anticipated guilt, two of them nonetheless produced relevant psychological and behavioral effects. The anticipated guilt + environmental goal (GE) significantly increased anticipated positive goal achievement, and this variable mediated its effect on meat choice. The anticipated guilt + animal welfare goal (GA), in turn, showed a significant total effect on meat choice, even without mediation by any of the measured psychological variables.

These findings suggest that guilt-based messages may influence behavior through more complex or indirect mechanisms. In particular, the increase in anticipated goal achievement observed in the GE condition may reflect a motivated cognitive response—a way to reaffirm one’s intention to reduce meat consumption, possibly as a defensive reaction to an implicit sense of guilt. It is plausible that participants initially experienced guilt when exposed to the message but rejected it, instead reporting positive goal-related expectations or even anticipated pride. In this sense, the activation of pride could be interpreted not as the direct effect of the message, but rather as a compensatory response to the moral threat posed by guilt. This defensive mechanism would be consistent with prior research (Kunda, 1990; Mazar et al., 2008) showing that individuals often engage in motivated reasoning to preserve a positive moral self-image when confronted with ethically challenging information.

Therefore, we argue that our study does not show that guilt is ineffective. Rather, it highlights the possibility that guilt operates differently than pride, potentially through processes that are less accessible to conscious emotional self-report. This study offers a prior contribution on this topic and opens the door to future research exploring whether guilt framing triggers defensive mechanisms, goal compensation, or affective resistance, and whether stronger or multimodal emotional cues might reveal different pathways of influence. We have revised the discussion to include this more nuanced perspective, which we believe strengthens the theoretical contribution of our work.

 

Comments 15: The use of self-report measures is a limitation, especially given the reliance on simulated food choices rather than actual behavior.

Response 15: Considering the Reviewer’s comment, we have further emphasized the limitation concerning the use of self-report measures and the reliance on simulated food choices (p. 19, lines 637-646):

“First, the variables were assessed using self-report measures, which might be susceptible to social desirability bias. Additionally, respondents might have provided inaccurate answers to some of the survey questions. Although behavioral measures could offer a more objective assessment by observing actual behaviors rather than relying on self-reported data, their implementation often involves practical challenges and resources that were not available for this study. Moreover, the use of a simulated food choice task, although more behaviorally oriented than other self-reported measures, still cannot fully capture actual food behavior in real-life settings. Therefore, the reliance on simulated rather than observed consumption constitutes a limitation that requires caution in interpreting the outcomes.”

 

Comments 16: The decision to remove negative anticipated emotions from the final model due to lack of manipulation success is methodologically sound but raises concerns about the robustness of the experimental design.

Response 16: We understand the Reviewer’s concern. The removal of negative anticipated emotions from the model was based on the lack of successful manipulation and was intended to preserve the internal validity of the analysis. However, we agree that this limitation deserves attention. For this reason, although we did not retain these variables in the final statistical model, we included a more speculative interpretation in the Discussion, acknowledging that guilt may still have played a role through implicit or defensive mechanisms (p. 18, lines 592-613).

 

Results

Comments 17: The preliminary analyses are thorough and confirm the adequacy of randomization.

Response 17: We thank the Reviewer for this positive feedback. We are glad that the preliminary analyses and the adequacy of the randomization procedure were deemed thorough and appropriate.

 

Comments 18: However, the failure to elicit guilt significantly weakens the conclusions that can be drawn about its role in behavior change.

Response 18: We acknowledge that the failure to elicit anticipated guilt through self-report limits the strength of conclusions that can be drawn about its explicit role in behavior change. However, we believe that the observed effects of some guilt-framed scenarios—particularly the significant total effect of the guilt–animal welfare scenario and the indirect effect of the guilt–environment scenario via anticipated goal achievement—suggest that guilt may still exert influence through implicit or defensive processes. We now emphasize this interpretation more clearly in the revised Discussion section and highlight the need for future studies to investigate the multiple ways guilt may operate, including non-conscious or affectively reappraised pathways (p. 18, lines 592-613; p. 19, lines 673-678).

 

Comments 19: The mediation analyses are well-executed, but the effects are modest and limited to a few conditions. The indirect effects are not consistently significant.

Response 19: We appreciate the Reviewer’s evaluation of the mediation analyses. We agree that the effects are modest and not consistent across all conditions. However, given the complexity of moral emotions and the subtle nature of text-based manipulations, we believe that even small and selective effects—such as those observed for the pride–environment and guilt–environment conditions—offer meaningful insights into the psychological pathways involved in meat reduction. We now clarify in the Discussion that these results should be interpreted as initial evidence, and that further research is needed to confirm and extend these findings (p. 17, lines 530-533; p.19, lines 673-678).

 

Comments 20: The tables are comprehensive but dense. A visual summary (e.g., a simplified mediation diagram highlighting significant paths) would greatly enhance clarity.

Response 20: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion, we added a Figure showing only significant paths at page 15.

 

Discussion

Comments 21: The discussion is well-structured and connects the findings to existing literature. However, the interpretation of guilt effects via positive emotions is speculative and not fully supported by the data.

Response 21: We agree with the Reviewer that the interpretation of guilt effects via positive anticipated emotions is speculative. For this reason, we have presented it explicitly as a hypothesis-generating insight rather than a confirmed mechanism. However, we believe that advancing theoretical understanding sometimes requires exploring novel interpretations—especially when empirical patterns, like the indirect effect of the guilt–environment message via anticipated goal achievement, suggest underlying processes not captured by traditional models. We hope that this study can serve as a foundation for future research to test such mechanisms more directly. After all, scientific progress often involves moving beyond established findings to explore new theoretical ground. 

 

Comments 22: The analysis of differences between health, environmental, and animal welfare goals is insightful, but the discussion could go deeper into why animal welfare scenarios were less effective.

Response 22: As suggested, we have expanded the discussion of the differences between goal types, providing a more detailed reflection on why the animal welfare scenarios were less effective (pp. 17, 18, lines 562-579):

“Unlike the health and environment pride scenario, which directly influenced behavior, the animal welfare pride scenario indirectly reduced meat choice by increasing anticipated positive emotions. However, this indirect effect did not reach statistical significance. This suggests that while participants might feel proud of supporting animal welfare, this pride alone may not be sufficient to drive behavior change unless it is reinforced by the anticipation of additional positive emotional outcomes. This difference may be partly explained by the psychological distance of the animal welfare goal. Unlike health and environmental protection, which are often perceived as personally relevant and urgent, animal welfare may be viewed as a more abstract or external concern. As a result, individuals might experience weaker emotional engagement or perceive less direct responsibility for change. Moreover, the perceived controllability of outcomes—i.e., the belief that one’s meat choices can significantly impact animal welfare—may be lower, reducing motivation to act. This lower effectiveness may also reflect differences in motivational salience across goals. For instance, empirical evidence suggests that health-related goals are more widely endorsed and more consistently predictive of behavior than animal welfare goals, which tend to be less central to individuals’ values and more context-dependent [14]. These factors could weaken the impact of animal-related scenarios, particularly when compared to health or environmental goals.”

 

Comments 23: The integration with the MAESC model is appropriate, though the empirical support is partial at best.

Response 23: We thank the Reviewer for this observation. As noted, we acknowledge in the discussion section that the empirical support for the MAESC model is only partial. To address this point more clearly, we have revised the discussion to clarify the partial support for the MAESC model, particularly regarding guilt-related mechanisms. We also discuss how guilt may still exert influence through implicit or defensive processes (p. 18, lines 586-613):

 “However, the hypothesized emotional pathways—involving pride were not consistently observed across all conditions, while those involving guilt were not supported. Nevertheless, the effects of anticipated emotions differed across goal domains (health vs. environment vs. animal welfare), suggesting that their influence on self-control may depend on the perceived relevance, urgency, and personal connection to each goal. In addition, although the guilt-framed scenarios did not significantly increase self-reported anticipated guilt, some of them produced relevant psychological and behavioral effects. Indeed, the guilt scenario for not protecting the environment significantly increased anticipated positive goal achievement, and this variable mediated its effect on meat choice, while the guilt scenario focused on animal welfare goals showed a significant total effect on meat choice. This suggests that guilt-based scenarios may influence behavior through more complex or indirect mechanisms. In particular, the observed increase in anticipated positive goal achievement in the guilt scenario related to environmental harm may reflect a motivated cognitive response—a way to reaffirm one's intention to reduce meat consumption, possibly as a defensive reaction to an implicit sense of guilt. It is plausible that participants initially experienced guilt when exposed to the message but rejected it, instead reporting positive goal-related expectations or even anticipated pride. In this sense, the activation of pride could be interpreted not as the direct effect of the message, but rather as a compensatory response to the moral threat posed by guilt. This defensive mechanism would be consistent with prior research [65,66] showing that individuals often engage in motivated reasoning to preserve a positive moral self-image when confronted with ethically challenging information. Thus, our results offer a novel contribution to this topic, highlighting the possibility that guilt operates differently than pride, potentially through processes that are less accessible to conscious emotional self-report. Future research should explore whether guilt framing triggers defensive mechanisms, goal compensation, or affective resistance, and whether stronger or multimodal emotional cues might reveal different pathways of influence.”

 

 

Limitations

Comments 24: The limitations section is detailed and acknowledges key issues such as the use of self-report data and the simulated nature of the food choice task.

Response 24: We thank the Reviewer for this positive comment. We are pleased that the limitations section is considered detailed and that it effectively discusses methodological constraints.

 

Comments 25: However, it is overly long and somewhat repetitive. The authors could streamline this section while still addressing the main concerns.

Response 25: We thank the Reviewer for this helpful observation. In response, we have streamlined the limitations section to improve clarity and reduce redundancy, while ensuring that all key concerns remain fully addressed (p. 19, lines 635-668):

 

Comments 26: There is insufficient reflection on the implications of the failed manipulation of guilt.

Response 26: Considering the Reviewer’s comment, we have expanded our discussion to more explicitly address the implications of the unsuccessful manipulation of anticipated guilt and to emphasize the need for future studies to develop more effective strategies for eliciting guilt-based responses (p. 19, lines 663-668):

“Finally, the limited success in manipulating anticipated guilt represents a major methodological limitation, as it complicates the interpretation of guilt-related effects on participants’ simulated food choices. Nonetheless, guilt-based scenarios may still influence dietary decisions indirectly—by enhancing positive emotions like pride. Future research should further clarify these emotional pathways to support the design of targeted interventions.”

 

 

Conclusion

Comments 27: The conclusion summarizes the findings but does not clearly articulate the study’s original contribution.

Response 27: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the conclusion to better highlight the novelty and contribution of the study (pp. 21, 22, lines 770-777).

“Despite these limitations, the study offers an original contribution by being among the first to experimentally compare anticipated pride and guilt across different motiva-tional goals—namely health, environment, and animal welfare—in the context of meat reduction. It also provides preliminary evidence that guilt may operate differently from pride, possibly through implicit or defensive mechanisms, and that the effectiveness of emotional appeals may depend not only on the type of emotion but also on the relevance and framing of the underlying goal. These findings provide a foundation for future re-search aimed at confirming and expanding our understanding of these mechanisms.”

 

 

Comments 28: Practical implications are not well-developed. The authors should consider offering concrete recommendations for designing effective communication strategies based on their results.

Response 28: We thank the Reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have expanded the discussion of the practical implications by offering more concrete recommendations for communication strategies (p. 21, lines 734-743):

“To enhance the impact of such strategies, messages should be tailored to match the relevance of the underlying goal for the target audience—whether health, environmental, or animal welfare—as individuals may respond more strongly to messages aligned with their personal values. In addition, digital tools can be used not only to deliver information but also to evoke pride through personalized feedback on receivers’ progress and impact, such as environmental benefits or goal tracking, reinforcing motivation in real time. Communication efforts should also consider segmenting the audience and pre-testing emotional framings to ensure their effectiveness across different motivational profiles. These refinements may help strengthen engagement and increase the likelihood of behavior change.”

 

Additional Comments

 Comments 29: Key terms such as “anticipated emotions” should be clearly defined early in the manuscript.

Response 29: As suggested, we have moved the definition of anticipated emotions to the introduction section. This change ensures that the concept is clearly defined early in the manuscript, improving clarity and facilitating understanding for the reader (p. 2, lines 87, 88).

 

Comments 30: The integration of tables and figures with the text is weak. Figures are referenced but not adequately discussed.

Response 30: We tried to improve the integration of tables and figures with the text:

Page 8

“As illustrated in Table 1, participants in the experimental conditions were asked to imagine that they had set a goal to reduce meat consumption in the last week. For scenarios eliciting anticipated guilt (guilt scenario: GH, GE, and GA scenarios), they read that they had failed to achieve their goal of meat reduction and that they would feel guilty if they continued to eat too much meat in the future. (...) Conversely, those exposed to scenarios evoking anticipated pride (pride scenario: PH, PE, PA scenarios) read that they had succeeded in achieving their goal of meat reduction and that they would feel proud if they continued to eat little meat in the future. (...) Half of the participants read that they had failed to achieve their goal of sugar reduction and that if they continued to eat foods with too much sugar, they would feel guilty, while the other half read that they had succeeded in achieving their goal of sugar reduction and that if they continued to eat foods with little sugar, they would feel proud (see Table 1)."

 

Page 10

“Descriptive statistics for the key variables used in the present study are presented in Table 2. Participants were more inclined to anticipate feelings of pride and other positive emotions rather than guilt and negative emotions (see Table 2). As reported in Table 2, pride, guilt, positive emotions and negative emotions were positively correlated. Furthermore, the strong positive correlations between pride and positive emotions, and between guilt and negative emotions, support the presence of the expected spillover effect (see 1. Introduction)."

 

Page 16

“Specifically, as shown in Figure 1, we hypothesized that these scenarios would decrease meat-based food selection by enhancing individuals’ anticipated emotional responses, which in turn should affect desire and intention."

“Furthermore, as highlighted in Figure 2, compared to the control condition, the scenario eliciting anticipated guilt toward failing to protect animals had a total negative impact on meat choice, but not mediated by anticipated emotions, desire, and intentions.”

“Specifically, when individuals read a guilt scenario for not adhering to moral standards related to environmental protection, their behavioral response (i.e., reducing meat choice) appeared to be influenced by whether they could foresee positive emotional outcomes from correcting their behavior (see Table 3)."

Page 17

“Conversely, compared to the control condition, scenarios eliciting anticipated pride for the health and environmental goals of meat reduction directly decreased the meat-based food selection, regardless of the resulting emotional anticipations (see Table 3).”

 

Comments 31: The limited success in manipulating guilt is a major methodological concern that should be addressed more directly.

Response 31: We agree that the limited success in eliciting anticipated guilt represents a significant methodological concern. As suggested, we have now addressed this issue more directly in the revised limitations section, discussing its impact on the interpretation of guilt-related effects and outlining implications for future research (see response 26).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a study of how emotions and goals potentially relate to reported intentions to consume meat. Specifically, how do emotions (pride and guilt) and goals (health, environmental, animal welfare) about meat consumption relate to reported intentions to consume meat. The topic of the manuscript is both interesting and timely. The design of the study and resultant data make sense given the hypotheses. However, the analyses and discussion of results require revision prior to the manuscript being suitable for publication.

Here are my reservations regarding the suitability of this manuscript for publication in its current form:

1. A major concern with the present manuscript is that although the manipulation did not work, the authors go on to interpret the results as if the manipulation was effective. For the work to make sense for publication, I suggest rerunning the study with a stronger manipulation before testing for the hypothesized relationships. Should the authors choose to collect new data, I suggest making the following changes when revising the manuscript.
2. Sugar consumption is presented as a control condition but may not be neutral. Was pretesting completed to ensure sugar was a neural option? Sugar consumption has many societal implications linked to diet culture and health issues, so it may not be an ideal control group. If pretesting was conducted, describe that in the manuscript.
3. Include gender and age in the correlation table.
4. Although comparing the conditions to a control group makes some sense given the pre-registered hypotheses, it makes interpreting the results cumbersome. It might be useful to conduct a 2 (emotion: pride vs. guilt) x 3 (goal: health vs. environment vs. animal) ANOVA to test for interactions between the conditions. Doing so would make presenting and explaining the results clear. Along similar lines, the authors might revise their model to include the indirect effects of an interaction between emotion and goal on the outcome variables.
5. What is the proposed mediator (goals or emotions)? Based on the path presented in figure one, it seems like the authors are proposing that the relationship between goal (health vs. environment vs. animal) and desire to reduce consumption is mediated by emotion (pride vs. guilt). If that is the case, revise the path model to show that. Additionally, isn’t it also possible that rather that a mediating relationship, it is instead an interaction? That is, rather than emotion mediating the relationship between goal and desire, emotion and goals interact to predict desire to reduce meat consumption.
6. In addition to the above concern, the authors must be careful in their use of the terms mediate and mediation. Given the design of the study, only emotion (or goal, depending on the model the authors intend to test) should be described as a mediator. The other variables are measured and therefore should not be described as mediators. To avoid issues with the language used, I suggest referring to the tested relationships as indirect effects throughout the manuscript.
7. In addition to table three, present the path model for the key hypothesized effects.

 

A major revision, including a new data collection, would be required before the manuscript would be considered suitable for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments 1: The manuscript presents a study of how emotions and goals potentially relate to reported intentions to consume meat. Specifically, how do emotions (pride and guilt) and goals (health, environmental, animal welfare) about meat consumption relate to reported intentions to consume meat. The topic of the manuscript is both interesting and timely. The design of the study and resultant data make sense given the hypotheses. However, the analyses and discussion of results require revision prior to the manuscript being suitable for publication.

Here are my reservations regarding the suitability of this manuscript for publication in its current form:

Response 1: We wish to thank the Reviewer for their thorough review of our manuscript and the valuable feedback that has enhanced the quality of our work. In the following sections, we provide detailed responses to each comment and describe the corresponding modifications made to strengthen the manuscript's clarity and overall contribution. The modified sentences are red-colored in the text.

 

Comments 2: A major concern with the present manuscript is that although the manipulation did not work, the authors go on to interpret the results as if the manipulation was effective. For the work to make sense for publication, I suggest rerunning the study with a stronger manipulation before testing for the hypothesized relationships. Should the authors choose to collect new data, I suggest making the following changes when revising the manuscript.

Response 2: We fully understand the reviewer’s concern. It is true that the manipulation did not elicit anticipated guilt at a statistically significant level across all guilt-framed conditions. For this reason, we explicitly state in the manuscript that the manipulation was only partially successful and have revised the text to clarify this point throughout. However, we respectfully believe that rerunning the entire study is not necessary for publication at this stage. Although the manipulation of anticipated guilt was not successful overall, two guilt-framed messages still had significant effects—one (guilt–animal welfare) showed a significant total effect on meat choice, and another (guilt–environment) showed a significant indirect effect via anticipated positive goal achievement. These results suggest that guilt might exert influence through indirect, defensive, or implicit pathways, a possibility we now emphasize more clearly in the revised Discussion. We also note that the pride manipulation was successful, and that the predicted pathways from anticipated pride to reduced meat consumption were supported, strengthening the overall contribution of the study. We have revised the manuscript to reflect a more cautious interpretation of the findings, highlighting their exploratory and hypothesis-generating nature. We believe this is in line with the scientific process, which also relies on publishing studies that identify partial effects and point to theoretical refinements to be tested in future research (p. 17, lines 530-533; p. 18, lines 592-613; p. 19, lines 673-678).

 

Comments 3: Sugar consumption is presented as a control condition but may not be neutral. Was pretesting completed to ensure sugar was a neural option? Sugar consumption has many societal implications linked to diet culture and health issues, so it may not be an ideal control group. If pretesting was conducted, describe that in the manuscript.

Response 3: We confirm that we verified that sugar consumption is a valid control condition for meat (p. 5, lines 216-220):

 

 “These scenarios were compared to a control condition regarding the goal of reducing sugar consumption (either eliciting pride for meeting the goal or guilt for failing). The neutrality of this control condition, and its suitability as a baseline in experiments on meat consumption, had already been established in a previous study [35].”

 

Comments 4: Include gender and age in the correlation table.

Response 4: We included gender and age in the correlation table (p. 11).

 

Comments 5: Although comparing the conditions to a control group makes some sense given the pre-registered hypotheses, it makes interpreting the results cumbersome. It might be useful to conduct a 2 (emotion: pride vs. guilt) x 3 (goal: health vs. environment vs. animal) ANOVA to test for interactions between the conditions. Doing so would make presenting and explaining the results clear. Along similar lines, the authors might revise their model to include the indirect effects of an interaction between emotion and goal on the outcome variables.

Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for their comment. While we acknowledge that the structure of our conditions technically corresponds to a 2 (emotion: pride vs. guilt) × 3 (goal: health vs. environment vs. animal welfare) factorial design, we intentionally chose not to adopt a factorial analytical approach. This was not an oversight, but a deliberate epistemological choice grounded in the applied aims of our research. Our perspective is that real-world persuasive communication rarely operates through orthogonal manipulations of isolated psychological variables. Instead, emotional tone and motivational goal are often semantically and pragmatically entangled, forming message units that are coherent precisely because of their internal consistency. Our study reflects this reality. We crafted each condition as a contextually meaningful and theoretically grounded message, not as an abstract cell in a factorial matrix. While we recognize that a factorial ANOVA could offer statistical clarity, we believe it would come at the cost of ecological validity and theoretical coherence. Treating emotion and goal as orthogonal factors would impose a structure that does not align with how persuasive messages are actually processed or produced. Rather than artificially deconstructing messages to fit a factorial logic, our approach sought to capture the holistic impact of message framing as it occurs in applied settings—an approach increasingly advocated in communication and behavioral intervention research. We fully agree that future studies might adopt a factorial design to isolate the effects of emotion and goal separately. In fact, we highlight this as a recommendation in the revised Discussion (p. 20, lines 682-685). However, we believe that both approaches—factorial and integrative—offer complementary insights, and that the value of research does not lie solely in its ability to test orthogonal main effects, but also in its capacity to reflect and inform how communication functions in the real world.

 

Comments 6: What is the proposed mediator (goals or emotions)? Based on the path presented in figure one, it seems like the authors are proposing that the relationship between goal (health vs. environment vs. animal) and desire to reduce consumption is mediated by emotion (pride vs. guilt). If that is the case, revise the path model to show that. Additionally, isn’t it also possible that rather that a mediating relationship, it is instead an interaction? That is, rather than emotion mediating the relationship between goal and desire, emotion and goals interact to predict desire to reduce meat consumption.

Response 6: We corrected Figure 1 to show that each dummy is compared with the control condition (p. 6).

 

Comments 7: In addition to the above concern, the authors must be careful in their use of the terms mediate and mediation. Given the design of the study, only emotion (or goal, depending on the model the authors intend to test) should be described as a mediator. The other variables are measured and therefore should not be described as mediators. To avoid issues with the language used, I suggest referring to the tested relationships as indirect effects throughout the manuscript.

Response 7: When needed, we corrected our language.

Page 16, lines 495-498:

“Furthermore, compared to the control condition, the scenario eliciting anticipated guilt toward failing to protect animals had a total negative impact on meat choice, but we failed to find any indirect effect through anticipated emotions, desire, and intentions."

Page 17, lines 562-565:

“Unlike the health and environment pride scenario, which directly influenced behavior, the animal welfare pride scenario indirectly reduced meat choice by increasing anticipated positive emotions. However, this indirect effect did not reach statistical significance.”

 

Comments 8: In addition to table three, present the path model for the key hypothesized effects.

Comments 8: We added a path model highlighting only the significant paths, as requested by another Reviewer (p. 15).

 

A major revision, including a new data collection, would be required before the manuscript would be considered suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this is a good study that hypothesized emotional or cognitive variables that could affect meat consumption and verified their effects through various experimental conditions. The design of the study and the method of measuring variables are valid, the statistical analysis is appropriate, and there are no major problems with the writing of the paper. Therefore, if only a few things are improved, it is considered suitable for publication in an academic journal. Here are somethings I would like you to improve it:

 

1. The introduction and theoretical background contain many sentences supporting the results of previous studies, the necessity of this study, and the rationale of the research design. However, it would be better if you could organize it better to explain the necessity of this study and how much this study can fill the research gap, so that it is easier for readers to understand and increase readability.

 

2. Did this study analyze the path model presented in Figure 1? It doesn't seem to be like that, as described in the research method. Isn't it verifying the differences in meat consumption intention or meat consumption behavior according to different scenarios? If you want to verify the model you presented in Figure 1, you will probably need to do path analysis with SEM.

 

3. It would also be good to present the percentage distribution of participants by age group.

 

4. If you could describe in detail what controls were used to ensure the internal validity of the results of this study, the significance of the results of this study could be made more certain.

 

5. It would be a better contribution to readers if the clinical implications of these research results were presented more specifically in the context of clinical nutrition, health psychology, or public health.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments 1: I believe this is a good study that hypothesized emotional or cognitive variables that could affect meat consumption and verified their effects through various experimental conditions. The design of the study and the method of measuring variables are valid, the statistical analysis is appropriate, and there are no major problems with the writing of the paper. Therefore, if only a few things are improved, it is considered suitable for publication in an academic journal. Here are somethings I would like you to improve it:

Response 1: We wish to thank the Reviewer for the time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript, and for suggestions that have improved our paper. The modified sentences are red-colored in the text.

 

 

Comments 2: The introduction and theoretical background contain many sentences supporting the results of previous studies, the necessity of this study, and the rationale of the research design. However, it would be better if you could organize it better to explain the necessity of this study and how much this study can fill the research gap, so that it is easier for readers to understand and increase readability.

Response 2: Thank the Reviewer for this helpful comment. To increase readability and clarity, we have made the rationale and contribution of the study more explicit by clearly outlining how it addresses specific gaps in the existing literature:

p. 3, lines 115-131

“Specifically, we expected that the activation of anticipated pride and guilt would generate a spillover effect on positive and negative anticipated emotions [35], which, in turn, would strengthen the desire and intention to reduce meat consumption, and ultimately leading to a decreased meat-based food selection. This emotional mechanism has been underexplored in previous interventions promoting meat reduction, and our study contributes by systematically testing this process across different goal framings. The study thus addresses two main objectives. First, it examines whether scenarios evoking pride or guilt effectively shape anticipated emotions, enhance desire and intention, and influence food choices. Second, it compares the relative impact of the three goal framings—health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare—on these outcomes, assessing whether some goals are more persuasive than others when emotionally framed. By exploring these mechanisms, the study seeks to fill a critical gap in the literature regarding the role of anticipated self-conscious emotions and the salience of different meat reduction goals. The findings may support the development of emotionally resonant communication strategies to foster healthier, more sustainable, and animal welfare-conscious food choices.”

p. 5, lines 195-208

“To the best of our knowledge, no study so far has investigated the effectiveness of the different types of motivations underlying meat reduction (protecting health, environment, and animal welfare) when presented as potential scenarios that elicit positive or negative anticipated emotions. This lack of research leaves a critical gap in our understanding of how different combinations of appeals affect meat consumption. Furthermore, although previous studies suggest that activating self-conscious emotions such as pride and guilt can influence goal-directed behavior, it remains unclear whether these emotions can also produce indirect effects—namely, a spillover—on other positive or negative anticipated emotions, which in turn may reinforce people’s desire, intention, and meat-based food selection. This mechanism may be particularly relevant in the context of complex decisions like food choices, where emotional coherence across different anticipated emotions could amplify desire and intention to reduce meat consumption. Investigating this potential emotional spillover could thus provide novel insights into how emotional interventions operate and compound their effects across multiple psychological pathways.”

 

Comments 3: Did this study analyze the path model presented in Figure 1? It doesn't seem to be like that, as described in the research method. Isn't it verifying the differences in meat consumption intention or meat consumption behavior according to different scenarios? If you want to verify the model you presented in Figure 1, you will probably need to do path analysis with SEM.

Response 3: We thank the Reviewer for raising this point. Figure 1 presents a conceptual model that guided our hypotheses and the regression-based mediation analyses. As correctly noted, we did not use SEM; instead, we employed GLM Mediation model to test specific indirect effects of each scenario condition (vs. control) through anticipated emotions. We have now clarified in the manuscript that this figure illustrates the theoretical structure, not a structural path model (p. 6, lines 240, 241). We believe this visual summary remains useful to frame the logic of our design and analysis.

 

Comments 4: It would also be good to present the percentage distribution of participants by age group.

Response 4: We thank the Reviewer, we added this information (p. 7, lines 298-300).

 

Comments 5: If you could describe in detail what controls were used to ensure the internal validity of the results of this study, the significance of the results of this study could be made more certain.

Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for this important point. Several procedures were implemented to ensure the internal validity of our study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions, and message texts were standardized in terms of length, tone, and structure. We conducted manipulation checks to assess whether the intended emotions (pride and guilt) were elicited, and we used attention checks to ensure data quality. In addition, we controlled for relevant covariates (e.g., demographic variables and baseline meat consumption) in the analyses. The study and analysis plan were preregistered, reducing analytic flexibility. We have now clarified these elements more explicitly in the Method section (p. 6, lines 255-259; p. 7, lines 320, 321; p. 9, lines 360-364; p. 10, lines 393-400).

 

Comments 6: It would be a better contribution to readers if the clinical implications of these research results were presented more specifically in the context of clinical nutrition, health psychology, or public health.

Response 6: We appreciate this valuable comment. In response, we have integrated a dedicated section within the Implications section that focuses on the clinical relevance of our findings (p. 21, lines 744-755).

“From a clinical perspective, these insights may inform interventions in clinical nutrition, health psychology, and public health. Emotionally framed messages—particularly those promoting pride for making healthy and sustainable choices—can be integrated into dietary counseling, preventive health programs, and digital health platforms. Encouraging individuals to anticipate pride in achieving health or environmental goals may support more deliberate and lasting behavior change. Such strategies could help improve adherence to dietary recommendations and contribute to the prevention of chronic diseases related to excessive meat consumption, such as cardiovascular conditions, metabolic disorders, and many cancers. Future research should test these approaches in clinical and real-world settings, evaluating their long-term effectiveness, to develop interventions that are applicable and effective in broader population settings.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, as it stands, fully meets the quality criteria required by the journal. The scientific contributions are clear, well-motivated, and supported by sound analysis. The structure of the paper is consistent, the writing is fluent and understandable, and the conclusions are well grounded. Revisions made in response to previous comments have significantly improved the paper. I have no additional editing requests. I believe the paper is ready for publication.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments 1: The manuscript, as it stands, fully meets the quality criteria required by the journal. The scientific contributions are clear, well-motivated, and supported by sound analysis. The structure of the paper is consistent, the writing is fluent and understandable, and the conclusions are well grounded. Revisions made in response to previous comments have significantly improved the paper. I have no additional editing requests. I believe the paper is ready for publication.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the positive and encouraging feedback. We are pleased to know that the revisions have improved the manuscript and that it is now considered ready for publication. We truly appreciate your thoughtful evaluation and careful reading of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 2

Comments 1: The manuscript presents a study of how emotions and goals potentially relate to reported intentions to consume meat. Specifically, how do emotions (pride and guilt) and goals (health, environmental, animal welfare) about meat consumption relate to reported intentions to consume meat. The topic of the manuscript is both interesting and timely. The design of the study and resultant data make sense given the hypotheses. However, the analyses and discussion of results require revision prior to the manuscript being suitable for publication.

Here are my reservations regarding the suitability of this manuscript for publication in its current form:

Response 1: We wish to thank the Reviewer for their thorough review of our manuscript and the valuable feedback that has enhanced the quality of our work. In the following sections, we provide detailed responses to each comment and describe the corresponding modifications made to strengthen the manuscript's clarity and overall contribution. The modified sentences are red-colored in the text.

Reviewer 2 response: The authors thoughtfully revised the manuscript, however additional revisions are required before the manuscript might be ready for publication.

Comments 2: A major concern with the present manuscript is that although the manipulation did not work, the authors go on to interpret the results as if the manipulation was effective. For the work to make sense for publication, I suggest rerunning the study with a stronger manipulation before testing for the hypothesized relationships. Should the authors choose to collect new data, I suggest making the following changes when revising the manuscript.

Response 2: We fully understand the reviewer’s concern. It is true that the manipulation did not elicit anticipated guilt at a statistically significant level across all guilt-framed conditions. For this reason, we explicitly state in the manuscript that the manipulation was only partially successful and have revised the text to clarify this point throughout. However, we respectfully believe that rerunning the entire study is not necessary for publication at this stage. Although the manipulation of anticipated guilt was not successful overall, two guilt-framed messages still had significant effects—one (guilt–animal welfare) showed a significant total effect on meat choice, and another (guilt–environment) showed a significant indirect effect via anticipated positive goal achievement. These results suggest that guilt might exert influence through indirect, defensive, or implicit pathways, a possibility we now emphasize more clearly in the revised Discussion. We also note that the pride manipulation was successful, and that the predicted pathways from anticipated pride to reduced meat consumption were supported, strengthening the overall contribution of the study. We have revised the manuscript to reflect a more cautious interpretation of the findings, highlighting their exploratory and hypothesis-generating nature. We believe this is in line with the scientific process, which also relies on publishing studies that identify partial effects and point to theoretical refinements to be tested in future research (p. 17, lines 530-533; p. 18, lines 592-613; p. 19, lines 673-678).

Reviewer 2 response: The authors have sufficiently addressed the concern about the manipulation not working by softening the language throughout.

Comments 3: Sugar consumption is presented as a control condition but may not be neutral. Was pretesting completed to ensure sugar was a neural option? Sugar consumption has many societal implications linked to diet culture and health issues, so it may not be an ideal control group. If pretesting was conducted, describe that in the manuscript.

Response 3: We confirm that we verified that sugar consumption is a valid control condition for meat (p. 5, lines 216-220):

 

 “These scenarios were compared to a control condition regarding the goal of reducing sugar consumption (either eliciting pride for meeting the goal or guilt for failing). The neutrality of this control condition, and its suitability as a baseline in experiments on meat consumption, had already been established in a previous study [35].”

Reviewer 2 response: Sufficiently addressed.

Comments 4: Include gender and age in the correlation table.

Response 4: We included gender and age in the correlation table (p. 11).

Reviewer 2 response: Sufficiently addressed.

Comments 5: Although comparing the conditions to a control group makes some sense given the pre-registered hypotheses, it makes interpreting the results cumbersome. It might be useful to conduct a 2 (emotion: pride vs. guilt) x 3 (goal: health vs. environment vs. animal) ANOVA to test for interactions between the conditions. Doing so would make presenting and explaining the results clear. Along similar lines, the authors might revise their model to include the indirect effects of an interaction between emotion and goal on the outcome variables.

Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for their comment. While we acknowledge that the structure of our conditions technically corresponds to a 2 (emotion: pride vs. guilt) × 3 (goal: health vs. environment vs. animal welfare) factorial design, we intentionally chose not to adopt a factorial analytical approach. This was not an oversight, but a deliberate epistemological choice grounded in the applied aims of our research. Our perspective is that real-world persuasive communication rarely operates through orthogonal manipulations of isolated psychological variables. Instead, emotional tone and motivational goal are often semantically and pragmatically entangled, forming message units that are coherent precisely because of their internal consistency. Our study reflects this reality. We crafted each condition as a contextually meaningful and theoretically grounded message, not as an abstract cell in a factorial matrix. While we recognize that a factorial ANOVA could offer statistical clarity, we believe it would come at the cost of ecological validity and theoretical coherence. Treating emotion and goal as orthogonal factors would impose a structure that does not align with how persuasive messages are actually processed or produced. Rather than artificially deconstructing messages to fit a factorial logic, our approach sought to capture the holistic impact of message framing as it occurs in applied settings—an approach increasingly advocated in communication and behavioral intervention research. We fully agree that future studies might adopt a factorial design to isolate the effects of emotion and goal separately. In fact, we highlight this as a recommendation in the revised Discussion (p. 20, lines 682-685). However, we believe that both approaches—factorial and integrative—offer complementary insights, and that the value of research does not lie solely in its ability to test orthogonal main effects, but also in its capacity to reflect and inform how communication functions in the real world.

 Reviewer 2 response: The authors note that the nature of the results presented in the manuscript are hypothesis generating in nature, therefore including the full factorial design makes sense. The current analyses are cumbersome and difficult to interpret.

 

Comments 6: What is the proposed mediator (goals or emotions)? Based on the path presented in figure one, it seems like the authors are proposing that the relationship between goal (health vs. environment vs. animal) and desire to reduce consumption is mediated by emotion (pride vs. guilt). If that is the case, revise the path model to show that. Additionally, isn’t it also possible that rather that a mediating relationship, it is instead an interaction? That is, rather than emotion mediating the relationship between goal and desire, emotion and goals interact to predict desire to reduce meat consumption.

Response 6: We corrected Figure 1 to show that each dummy is compared with the control condition (p. 6).

 Reviewer 2 response: This design is confusing, given the nature of the chosen analyses. The authors are hesitant to use a factorial design to remain theoretically consistent, but for the nature of their work it would improve clarity and support hypothesis generation for future work. Paired with the failed manipulation check, the data are difficult to interpret. Additionally, at present the authors do not test for interactions but in the presented figures use “x” which is usually associated with interactions (e.g., pride x animals). I suggest changing how that is presented to clarify what relationships are being tested.

Comments 7: In addition to the above concern, the authors must be careful in their use of the terms mediate and mediation. Given the design of the study, only emotion (or goal, depending on the model the authors intend to test) should be described as a mediator. The other variables are measured and therefore should not be described as mediators. To avoid issues with the language used, I suggest referring to the tested relationships as indirect effects throughout the manuscript.

Response 7: When needed, we corrected our language.

Page 16, lines 495-498:

“Furthermore, compared to the control condition, the scenario eliciting anticipated guilt toward failing to protect animals had a total negative impact on meat choice, but we failed to find any indirect effect through anticipated emotions, desire, and intentions."

Page 17, lines 562-565:

“Unlike the health and environment pride scenario, which directly influenced behavior, the animal welfare pride scenario indirectly reduced meat choice by increasing anticipated positive emotions. However, this indirect effect did not reach statistical significance.”

 Reviewer 2 response: The authors continue to state they are testing for mediation and use language that suggests they are testing for mediation which the nature of their data does not support. The authors should amend their language further to ensure they are attempting to test for patterns consistent with mediation or indirect effects.

Comments 8: In addition to table three, present the path model for the key hypothesized effects.

Comments 8: We added a path model highlighting only the significant paths, as requested by another Reviewer (p. 15).

  Reviewer 2 response: Sufficiently addressed.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Authors’ response: We would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable feedback and insightful suggestions, which have helped us to further improve and refine the revised version of the manuscript. The modified sentences are red-colored in the text.
Below, we address the specific points raised by the Reviewer that are still to be addressed in this revision.

 

Comments 5: Although comparing the conditions to a control group makes some sense given the pre-registered hypotheses, it makes interpreting the results cumbersome. It might be useful to conduct a 2 (emotion: pride vs. guilt) x 3 (goal: health vs. environment vs. animal) ANOVA to test for interactions between the conditions. Doing so would make presenting and explaining the results clear. Along similar lines, the authors might revise their model to include the indirect effects of an interaction between emotion and goal on the outcome variables.

Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for their comment. While we acknowledge that the structure of our conditions technically corresponds to a 2 (emotion: pride vs. guilt) × 3 (goal: health vs. environment vs. animal welfare) factorial design, we intentionally chose not to adopt a factorial analytical approach. This was not an oversight, but a deliberate epistemological choice grounded in the applied aims of our research. Our perspective is that real-world persuasive communication rarely operates through orthogonal manipulations of isolated psychological variables. Instead, emotional tone and motivational goal are often semantically and pragmatically entangled, forming message units that are coherent precisely because of their internal consistency. Our study reflects this reality. We crafted each condition as a contextually meaningful and theoretically grounded message, not as an abstract cell in a factorial matrix. While we recognize that a factorial ANOVA could offer statistical clarity, we believe it would come at the cost of ecological validity and theoretical coherence. Treating emotion and goal as orthogonal factors would impose a structure that does not align with how persuasive messages are actually processed or produced. Rather than artificially deconstructing messages to fit a factorial logic, our approach sought to capture the holistic impact of message framing as it occurs in applied settings—an approach increasingly advocated in communication and behavioral intervention research. We fully agree that future studies might adopt a factorial design to isolate the effects of emotion and goal separately. In fact, we highlight this as a recommendation in the revised Discussion (p. 20, lines 682-685). However, we believe that both approaches—factorial and integrative—offer complementary insights, and that the value of research does not lie solely in its ability to test orthogonal main effects, but also in its capacity to reflect and inform how communication functions in the real world.

 Reviewer 2 response: The authors note that the nature of the results presented in the manuscript are hypothesis generating in nature, therefore including the full factorial design makes sense. The current analyses are cumbersome and difficult to interpret.

Authors’ response: The requested factorial analyses have been added to the Supplementary Material and are referenced on page 12:

“To further explore the pattern of results observed in the main analyses, we conducted additional exploratory analyses that test the underlying factorial structure of the present experimental design. Specifically, we ran a 2 (Emotion: pride vs. guilt) × 4 (Goal: health vs. environment vs. animal welfare vs. sugar) ANOVA on the outcome variables, along with an analysis in which the interaction between emotions and goal predicted meat choice indirectly via anticipated positive emotions, desire, and intention to reduce meat choice. These analyses were not pre-registered and are fully reported in the Supplementary Materials.

No main effects of emotions (p > .178) nor interaction with the four goals (p > .176) were observed. However, goals showed significant main effects on positive emotions (p =.028) and meat choice (p = .031). The analysis of the indirect effects revealed a significant total negative effect of the scenarios related to environment (b = -.60, SE = .22, 95% CI [-1.03, -.18], β = -.18, p = .005) and animal welfare (b = -.51, SE = .22, 95% CI [-.95, -.08], β = -.15, p = .020). The scenarios about environment also had a direct effect on meat choice (b = -.44, SE = .18, 95% CI [-.80, -.09], β = -.13, p = .013), whereas no significant direct of indirect effects were found for the animal welfare scenarios (p ≥ .055). The scenarios about health did not significantly differ from the control condition about sugar consumption for any outcome (p ≥ .111)”

The discussion was also revised accordingly. For instance, on pages 16 and 17: “Overall, our main analyses (Table 3), as well as the replication using a factorial design (Supplementary Table 4), converge in showing that, when framed using affective language, health-related motivations appear to be less compelling to our sample than the ethical concerns related to environmental protection and animal welfare. Indeed, only the health-focused scenarios failed to produce any total effect on meat choice. Notably, the guilt scenario for not protecting one’s health was the only condition that had no detectable effects on participants’ meat choice, whereas the corresponding pride scenario yielded only a direct effect. Finally, unlike the other two goals, health protection never significantly differed from control in the factorial analyses either. 

Beyond the scenario eliciting anticipated pride for protecting one’s health, the corresponding scenario about the environmental goal directly decreased the selection of meat-based food too (see Table 3).”

In addition, on pages 18 and 19:

"Notably, this interpretation of our results—namely, that the persuasive impact of affective messages varies depending on the motivational goal they target—suggests the presence of an interaction between emotion and goal that did not emerge in the factorial analyses reported in the Supplementary Material. However, the interpretation of these factorial analyses requires caution. As outlined in the main text, our primary aim was not to isolate the effects of emotion and goal as independent variables, but to evaluate the persuasive impact of ecologically coherent and semantically integrated messages. In our design, emotional tone and motivational goal were purposefully entangled to mirror how real-world persuasive communications are typically constructed and perceived.

The main drawback of the factorial analyses, nevertheless, is that a pure control condition (i.e., non-emotional message) was lacking: pride and guilt are compared with each other rather than to a neutral condition. This probably explains the non-significant difference between pride and guilt: it does not imply that affective appeals are ineffective; rather, it suggests that using affectively framed messages about protecting the environment or animal welfare (regardless of whether they evoke pride or guilt) may be more comparably persuasive than suggested by the main analyses. However, while these additional factorial analyses provide relevant complementary insights, we maintain that the primary analytical approach remains more consistent with the applied and theoretical goals of our study."

Comments 6: What is the proposed mediator (goals or emotions)? Based on the path presented in figure one, it seems like the authors are proposing that the relationship between goal (health vs. environment vs. animal) and desire to reduce consumption is mediated by emotion (pride vs. guilt). If that is the case, revise the path model to show that. Additionally, isn’t it also possible that rather that a mediating relationship, it is instead an interaction? That is, rather than emotion mediating the relationship between goal and desire, emotion and goals interact to predict desire to reduce meat consumption.

Response 6: We corrected Figure 1 to show that each dummy is compared with the control condition (p. 6).

Reviewer 2 response: This design is confusing, given the nature of the chosen analyses. The authors are hesitant to use a factorial design to remain theoretically consistent, but for the nature of their work it would improve clarity and support hypothesis generation for future work. Paired with the failed manipulation check, the data are difficult to interpret. Additionally, at present the authors do not test for interactions but in the presented figures use “x” which is usually associated with interactions (e.g., pride x animals). I suggest changing how that is presented to clarify what relationships are being tested.

Authors’ response: Thank you, we corrected the Figures.

 

Comments 7: In addition to the above concern, the authors must be careful in their use of the terms mediate and mediation. Given the design of the study, only emotion (or goal, depending on the model the authors intend to test) should be described as a mediator. The other variables are measured and therefore should not be described as mediators. To avoid issues with the language used, I suggest referring to the tested relationships as indirect effects throughout the manuscript.

Response 7: When needed, we corrected our language.

Page 16, lines 495-498:

“Furthermore, compared to the control condition, the scenario eliciting anticipated guilt toward failing to protect animals had a total negative impact on meat choice, but we failed to find any indirect effect through anticipated emotions, desire, and intentions."

Page 17, lines 562-565:

“Unlike the health and environment pride scenario, which directly influenced behavior, the animal welfare pride scenario indirectly reduced meat choice by increasing anticipated positive emotions. However, this indirect effect did not reach statistical significance.”

 Reviewer 2 response: The authors continue to state they are testing for mediation and use language that suggests they are testing for mediation which the nature of their data does not support. The authors should amend their language further to ensure they are attempting to test for patterns consistent with mediation or indirect effects.

Authors’ response: We have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript to remove any language that implies a causal mediation analysis. Specifically, we replaced all instances of the term “mediation analysis” with “analysis of indirect effects” and clarified throughout the text that our study explores patterns consistent with hypothesized indirect associations rather than testing for mediation.
Importantly, we now explicitly acknowledge in the manuscript that the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow for causal inferences. This point has also been added to the Limitations section, where we recommend that future research adopt longitudinal or experimental designs to rigorously test mediation effects (p. 19).

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions. I now find the manuscript suitable for publication.