Legumes or Meat? The Effectiveness of Recommendation Messages towards a Plant-Based Diet Depends on People’s Identification with Flexitarians
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. How to Formulate Persuasive Messages to Promote the Consumption of Legumes
Research Question 1 (RQ1). To what degree are addition and replacement messages, with or without a reference to a dynamic norm, effective in influencing consumers’ diets?
2.2. The Moderating Role of Attitude toward and Identification with Flexitarians
Research Question 2 (RQ2). Do changes in participants’ consumption of legumes and meat after message exposure remain stable one month after the end of the message intervention?
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and Procedure
3.2. Measures at Time 1
3.3. Messaging Intervention
3.4. Measures at Time 2
3.5. Measures at Time 3
4. Results
4.1. Preliminary Analysis
4.2. Message Evaluation
4.3. Effects of Messages on Legume and Meat Consumption at Time 2
4.4. The Moderating Role of Identification with and Attitude towards Flexitarians at Time 2
4.5. The Moderating Role of Identification with and Attitude towards Flexitarians at Time 3
5. Discussion
5.1. Short-Term Effects of Message Intervention on the Consumption of Legumes and Meat
5.2. Long-Term Effects of Message Intervention on the Consumption of Legumes and Meat
5.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications
5.4. Study Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Addition Condition | Replacement Condition | Addition + Dynamic Norm Condition | Replacement + Dynamic Norm Condition |
---|---|---|---|
Legume cultivation (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) increases nitrogen quantity in fields, which enhances soil fertility. If you eat legumes, you protect soil fertility. | Legume cultivation (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) increases nitrogen quantity in fields, which enhances soil fertility. Cultivation for livestock feeding does not have this property. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you protect soil fertility. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas). Legume cultivation increases nitrogen quantity in fields, which enhances soil fertility. If you also eat legumes, you protect soil fertility. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas), instead of meat. Legume cultivation increases nitrogen quantity in yields, which enhances soil fertility. Cultivation for livestock feeding does not have this property. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you protect soil fertility. |
Legume cultivation requires limited use of fertilizers. Thus, it has a low pollution impact. If you eat legumes, you protect the planet from pollution. | Compared to livestock feeding production, legume cultivation (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) requires a lower use of fertilizers. Thus, it has a lower pollution impact. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you protect the planet from pollution. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas). Legume cultivation requires limited use of fertilizers. Thus, it has a low pollution impact. If you also eat legumes, you protect the planet from pollution. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes ((e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) instead of meat. Compared to livestock feeding production, legume cultivation (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) requires a lower use of fertilizers. Thus, it has a lower pollution impact. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you protect the planet from pollution. |
The limited use of fertilizers for legume cultivation (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) reduces greenhouse gas emissions. If you eat legumes, you reduce greenhouse gas emissions. | The limited use of fertilizers for legume cultivation (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Meat production releases many greenhouse gases. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce greenhouse gas emissions. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) is increasing. The limited use of fertilizers for legume cultivation reduces greenhouse gas emissions. If you also eat legumes, you reduce greenhouse gas emissions. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes (e.g., beans, chickpeas, lentils, peas) instead of meat is increasing. The limited use of fertilizers for legume cultivation reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Meat production releases many greenhouse gases. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce greenhouse gas emissions. |
Legume cultivation for human feeding promotes crop variety and, therefore, protects biodiversity. If you eat legumes, you protect biodiversity. | Legume cultivation for human feeding promotes crop variety and, therefore, protects biodiversity. Instead, livestock-feeding production promotes monocultures. If you substitute meat with legumes, you protect biodiversity. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation for human feeding promotes crop variety and, therefore, protects biodiversity. If you also eat legumes, you protect biodiversity. | Nowadays, the number of people who substitute meat with legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation for human feeding promotes crop variety and, therefore, protects biodiversity. Instead, livestock-feeding production promotes monocultures. If you also substitute meat with legumes, you protect biodiversity. |
The roots of legumes allow ventilating soil, improving its structure. If you eat legumes, you limit soil degradation. | The roots of legumes allow ventilating soil, improving its structure. Instead, the hooves of animals for meat production compact and erode the soil.If you eat more legumes and less meat, you reduce soil degradation. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes. The roots of legumes roots allow ventilating soil, improving its structure. If you also eat legumes, you limit soil degradation. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes instead of meat. The roots of legumes allow ventilating soil, improving its structure. Instead, the hooves of animals for meat production compact and erode the soil. If you also eat more legumes and less meat, you reduce soil degradation. |
Legume cultivation requires little room, protecting the ecosystem and reducing the conversion of lands into cultivated fields. If you eat legumes, you protect ecosystems. | Legume cultivation requires less room compared to meat production, protecting ecosystems, and reducing the conversion of lands into cultivated fields. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you protect ecosystems. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation require little room, protecting the ecosystem and reducing the conversion of lands into cultivated fields. If you also eat legumes, you protect the ecosystem. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation requires less room compared to meat production, protecting ecosystems, and reducing the conversion of lands into cultivated fields. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you protect the ecosystems. |
Legume plants increase the soil’s ability to retain water. Therefore, they reduce water usage. If you eat legumes, you reduce water usage. | Legume plants increase the soil’s ability to retain water. Therefore, they reduce water usage. Instead, meat production needs a great amount of water. If you substitute meat with legumes, you reduce water usage. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes. Legume plants increase the soil’s ability to retain water. Therefore, they reduce water usage. If you also eat legumes, you reduce water usage. | Nowadays, more and more people substitute meat with legumes. Legume plants increase the soil’s ability to retain water. Therefore, they reduce water usage. Instead, meat production needs a great amount of water. If you also substitute meat with legumes, you reduce water usage. |
Legume cultivation for human consumption requires little room. If you eat legumes, you reduce soil usage. | Animal feeding production requires more room than legume cultivation for human consumption. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce soil usage. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes. Legume cultivation for human consumption requires little room. If you also eat legumes, you reduce soil usage. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes instead of meat. Animal feeding production requires more room than legume cultivation for human consumption. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce soil usage. |
Legume cultivation determines little greenhouse gas emission, which is responsible for climate change. If you eat legumes, you reduce climate change. | Legume cultivation determines little greenhouse gas emission, which is responsible for climate change. Instead, meat production is responsible for a large release of greenhouse gas. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce climate change. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes. Legume cultivation determines little greenhouse gas emission, which is responsible for climate change. If you also eat legumes, you reduce climate change. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes instead of meat. Legume cultivation determines little greenhouse gas emission, which is responsible for climate change. Instead, meat production is responsible for a large release of greenhouse gas. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce climate change. |
Increasing the variety of crops by combining legumes with other cultivations reduces the risk of parasites spreading and, therefore, it requires fewer pesticides. If you eat legumes, you reduce pesticides usage. | Increasing the variety of crops by combining legumes with other cultivations reduces the risk of parasites spreading and, therefore, it requires fewer pesticides. Monocultures for animal feeding production require more pesticides usage. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce pesticides usage. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes. Increasing the variety of crops by combining legumes with other cultivations reduces the risk of parasites spreading and, therefore, it requires fewer pesticides. If you also eat legumes, you reduce pesticides usage. | Nowadays, more and more people eat legumes instead of meat. Increasing the variety of crops by combining legumes with other cultivations reduces the risk of parasites spreading and, therefore, it requires fewer pesticides. Monocultures for animal feeding production require more pesticides usage. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce pesticides usage. |
Legume cultivation requires little energy, in terms of using agricultural machinery and irrigation. If you eat legumes, you reduce environmental impact deriving from energy usage. | Legume cultivation requires little energy, in terms of using agricultural machinery and irrigation. Instead, meat production requires a larger usage of energy. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce environmental impact deriving from energy usage. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation requires little energy, in terms of using agricultural machinery and irrigation. If you also eat legumes, you reduce environmental impact deriving from energy usage. | Nowadays, people who eat legumes instead of meat is increasing. Legume cultivation requires little energy, in terms of using agricultural machinery and irrigation. Instead, meat production requires a larger usage of energy. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you reduce environmental impact deriving from energy usage. |
Legume cultivation nourishes the microorganisms present in soil, increasing their health. If you eat legumes, you promote soil healthiness. | Legume cultivation nourishes the microorganisms present in soil, increasing their health. Instead, large-scale animal feeding production depletes the soil of its nutrients. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you promote soil healthiness. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation nourishes the microorganisms present in soil, increasing their health. If you also eat legumes, you promote soil healthiness. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes instead of meat is increasing. Legume cultivation nourishes the microorganisms present in soil, increasing their health. Instead, the large-scale animal feeding production depletes the soil of its nutrients. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you promote soil healthiness. |
Legume cultivation allows an efficient use of natural resources. If you eat legumes, you promote an excellent use of natural resources. | Legume cultivation allows an efficient use of natural resources. Instead, intensive animal farming requires a large amount of resources but returns, for the same weight, few calories. If you substitute meat with legumes, you promote an excellent use of natural resources. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation allows an efficient use of natural resources. If you also eat legumes, you promote an excellent use of natural resources. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation allows an efficient use of natural resources. Instead, intensive animal farming requires a large amount of resources but returns, for the same weight, few calories. If you also substitute meat consumption with legumes, you promote an excellent use of natural resources. |
Legume cultivation for human feeding requires a limited amount of polluting fossil fuels. If you eat legumes, you limit pollution deriving from fossil fuels. | Legume cultivation for human feeding requires a limited amount of polluting fossil fuels. Instead, animal feeding production requires a larger amount of fossil fuels. If you eat legumes instead of meat, you limit pollution deriving from fossil fuels. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation for human feeding requires a limited amount of polluting fossil fuels. If you also eat legumes, you limit pollution deriving from fossil fuels. | Nowadays, the number of people who eat legumes is increasing. Legume cultivation for human feeding requires a limited amount of polluting fossil fuels. Instead, animal feeding production requires a larger amount of fossil fuels. If you also eat legumes instead of meat, you limit pollution deriving from fossil fuels. |
Appendix B
b | se | t | p | 95%CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DV = Change in Consumption of Legumes (Time 2 –Time 1) | |||||
Constant | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.74 | [−0.30, 0.42] |
ADD | 0.39 | 0.25 | 1.55 | 0.12 | [−0.10, 0.89] |
REP | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.86 | 0.40 | [−0.30, 0.75] |
ADD + DYN | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.84 | 0.40 | [−0.30, 0.74] |
REP + DYN | 0.35 | 0.26 | 1.34 | 0.18 | [−0.16, 0.85] |
Identification with Flexitarians | 0.02 | 016 | 0.13 | 0.89 | [−0.30, 0.35] |
Identification with Flexitarians XADD | −0.19 | 0.20 | −0.94 | 0.35 | [−0.58, 0.20] |
Identification with Flexitarians X REP | −0.14 | 0.21 | −0.66 | 0.51 | [−0.55, 0.27] |
Identification with Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.49 | 0.62 | [−0.31, 0.52] |
Identification with Flexitarians X REP + DYN | −0.16 | 0.20 | −0.81 | 0.42 | [−0.56, 0.23] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.29 | 0.78 | [−0.21, 0.28] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD | −0.46 | 0.17 | −2.61 | 0.01 | [−0.80, −0.11] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.42 | 0.67 | [−0.27, 0.42] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.13 | 0.17 | −0.77 | 0.44 | [−0.47, 0.21] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP + DYN | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.64 | 0.52 | [−0.23, 0.46] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians | 0.12 | 0.10 | 1.13 | 0.26 | [−0.09, 0.32] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians * ADD | 0.24 | 0.13 | 1.93 | 0.05 | [0.01, 0.42] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians * REP | −0.26 | 0.13 | −0.53 | 0.05 | [−0.53, −0.01] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians * ADD + DYN | −0.07 | 0.13 | −1.85 | 0.59 | [−0.33, 0.19] |
Identification with Flexitarian X Attitude towards Flexitarians * REP + DYN | 0.23 | 0.12 | −1.92 | 0.05 | [−0.47, −0.01] |
Conditional Effects of Message Condition on Change in Consumption of Legumes at Different Levels of Attitude toward Flexitarians | |||||
Negative Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 1.26 | 0.38 | 3.31 | 0.001 | [0.51; 2.00] |
REP | −0.03 | 0.36 | −0.07 | 0.94 | [0.73; −0.67] |
ADD + DYN | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.099 | 0.32 | [−0.36; 1.08] |
REP + DYN | 0.20 | 0.39 | 0.51 | 0.61 | [−0.56; 0.96] |
Neutral Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 0.55 | 0.25 | 2.16 | 0.03 | [−0.05; 1.04] |
REP | 0.04 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.86 | [−0.47; 0.57] |
ADD + DYN | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.91 | 0.36 | [−0.29; 0.74] |
REP + DYN | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.86 | 0.39 | [−0.27; 0.74] |
Positive Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.16 | 0.36 | −0.45 | 0.65 | [−0.87; 0.54] |
REP | 0.12 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.76 | [−0.65; 0.39] |
ADD + DYN | 0.12 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.74 | [−0.62; 0.86] |
REP + DYN | 0.25 | 0.36 | 0.71 | 0.48 | [−0.45; 0.96] |
Conditional Effects of Message Condition on Change in Consumption of Legumes at Different Levels of Identification with Flexitarians and Attitude toward Flexitarians | |||||
Weak Identification with Flexitarians and Negative Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 1.91 | 0.45 | 4.23 | 0.001 | [1.02, 2.80] |
REP | −0.26 | 0.44 | −0.59 | 0.55 | [−1.13, 0.60] |
ADD + DYN | 0.12 | 0.47 | 0.25 | 0.80 | [−0.82, 1.04] |
REP + DYN | −0.09 | 0.48 | −0.20 | 0.84 | [−1.04, 0.84] |
Weak Identification with Flexitarians and Neutral Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 0.67 | 0.38 | 1.76 | 0.05 | [0.17, 1.40] |
REP | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.98 | 0.33 | [0.33, 1.29] |
ADD + DYN | 0.07 | 0.43 | 0.16 | 0.87 | [0.87, 0.91] |
REP + DYN | 0.58 | 0.10 | 1.44 | 0.15 | [0.15, 1.38] |
Weak Identification with Flexitarians and Positive Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.58 | 0.63 | −0.90 | 0.36 | [−1.84, 0.67] |
REP | 1.12 | 0.72 | 1.55 | 0.12 | [−0.31, 2.55] |
ADD + DYN | 0.01 | 0.72 | 0.02 | 0.99 | [−1.40, 1.44] |
REP + DYN | 1.27 | 0.66 | 1.91 | 0.05 | [0.01, 2.57] |
Medium Identification with Flexitarians and Negative Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 1.09 | 0.38 | 2.88 | 0.00 | [0.35, 1.84] |
REP | 0.11 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.74 | [0.74, 0.81] |
ADD + DYN | 0.42 | 0.35 | 1.19 | 0.23 | [0.23, 1.12] |
REP + DYN | 0.17 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.64 | [0.64, 0.92] |
Medium Identification with Flexitarians and Neutral Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 0.39 | 0.25 | 1.55 | 0.12 | [−0.10, 0.89] |
REP | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.85 | 0.40 | [−0.30, 0.76] |
ADD + DYN | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.84 | 0.40 | [−0.30, 0.74] |
REP + DYN | 0.35 | 0.26 | 0.18 | 0.18 | [−0.16, 0.85] |
Medium Identification with Flexitarians and Positive Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.31 | 0.36 | −0.86 | 0.39 | [−1.01, 0.39] |
REP | 0.34 | 0.40 | 0.85 | 0.40 | [−0.45, 1.13] |
ADD + DYN | 0.01 | 0.39 | 0.4 | 0.97 | [−0.76, 0.79] |
REP + DYN | 0.52 | 0.36 | 1.42 | 0.16 | [−0.20, 1.24] |
High Identification with Flexitarians and Negative Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 0.27 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.64 | [−0.87, 1.42] |
REP | 0.50 | 0.56 | 0.88 | 0.38 | [−0.60, 1.60] |
ADD + DYN | 0.73 | 0.53 | 1.38 | 0.17 | [−0.31, 1.78] |
REP + DYN | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.82 | 0.41 | [−0.63, 1.52] |
High Identification with Flexitarians and Neutral Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 0.12 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.76 | [−0.65, 0.89] |
REP | 0.03 | 0.37 | 0.08 | 0.94 | [−0.70, 0.76] |
ADD + DYN | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.98 | 0.32 | [−0.37, 1.12] |
REP + DYN | 0.11 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.78 | [−0.63, 0.85] |
High Identification with Flexitarians and Positive Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.04 | 0.50 | −0.07 | 0.94 | [−1.03, 0.95] |
REP | −0.44 | 0.52 | −0.84 | 0.40 | [−1.46, 0.58] |
ADD + DYN | 0.01 | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.98 | [−0.97, 1.00] |
REP + DYN | −0.23 | 0.48 | −0.48 | 0.63 | [−1.18, 0.72] |
b | se | t | p | 95%CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DV = Change in Consumption of Meat (Time 2 –Time 1) | |||||
Constant | 0.09 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.76 | [−0.55, 0.71] |
ADD | −0.43 | 0.42 | −1.02 | 0.31 | [−1.26, 0.39] |
REP | −0.97 | 0.44 | −2.18 | 0.03 | [−1.85, −0.09] |
ADD + DYN | −0.92 | 0.45 | −2.05 | 0.04 | [−1.80, −0.03] |
REP + DYN | −0.28 | 0.43 | −0.65 | 0.52 | [−1.14, 0.57] |
Identification with Flexitarians | −0.01 | 0.29 | −0.03 | 0.97 | [−0.57, 0.55] |
Identification with Flexitarians X ADD | −0.00 | 0.36 | −0.00 | 1.00 | [−0.70, 0.70] |
Identification with Flexitarians * REP | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.83 | 0.40 | [−0.42, 1.04] |
Identification with Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.02 | 0.38 | −0.04 | 0.96 | [−0.76, 0.52] |
Identification with Flexitarians X REP + DYN | −0.02 | 0.36 | −0.07 | 0.95 | [−0.74, 0.23] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians | 0.23 | 0.21 | 1.10 | 0.27 | [−0.18, 0.47] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD | −0.10 | 0.29 | −0.35 | 0.73 | [−0.67, −0.47] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP | −0.71 | 0.29 | −2.45 | 0.01 | [−1.28, −0.14] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.18 | 0.29 | −0.62 | 0.53 | [−0.74, 0.39] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP + DYN | −0.35 | 0.29 | −1.21 | 0.22 | [−0.92, 0.22] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians | 0.27 | 0.21 | 1.29 | 0.20 | [−0.14, 0.67] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD | −0.20 | 0.24 | −0.83 | 0.40 | [−0.68, 0.27] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP | −0.17 | 0.27 | −0.65 | 0.52 | [−0.70, −0.36] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.22 | 0.24 | −0.92 | 0.36 | [−0.70, 0.26] |
Identification with Flexitarian X Attitude towards Flexitarians * REP + DYN | −0.27 | 0.25 | −1.10 | 0.27 | [−0.76, −0.21] |
Conditional Effects of Message Condition on Change in Consumption of Meat at Different Levels of Attitude toward Flexitarians | |||||
Negative Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.46 | 0.50 | −0.92 | 0.35 | [−1.46, 0.53] |
REP | −0.35 | 0.48 | −0.71 | 0.47 | [−1.30, 0.61] |
ADD + DYN | −0.87 | 0.50 | −1.75 | 0.08 | [−1.85, 0.10] |
REP + DYN | −0.06 | 0.52 | −0.11 | 0.91 | [−1.08, 0.96] |
Neutral Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.52 | 0.39 | −1.31 | 0.19 | [−1.29, 0.26] |
REP | −0.94 | 0.41 | −2.29 | 0.03 | [−1.76, −0.13] |
ADD + DYN | −1.00 | 0.41 | −2.42 | 0.01 | [−1.81, −1.19] |
REP + DYN | −0.38 | 0.41 | −0.92 | 0.36 | [−1.19, 0.43] |
Positive Attitude towards Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.62 | 0.64 | −0.96 | 0.33 | [−1.89, 0.64] |
REP | −2.14 | 0.69 | −3.09 | 0.00 | [−3.50, −0.77] |
ADD + DYN | −1.26 | 0.66 | −1.90 | 0.06 | [−2.57, 0.04] |
REP + DYN | −1.02 | 0.63 | −1.60 | 0.11 | [−2.26, 0.23] |
b | se | t | p | 95%CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DV = Change in Consumption of Legumes (Time 3 –Time 1) | |||||
Constant | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.43 | 0.67 | [−0.35, 0.54] |
ADD | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.12 | 0.90 | [−0.58, 0.66] |
REP | 0.36 | 0.31 | 1.15 | 0.25 | [−0.25, 0.96] |
ADD + DYN | 0.10 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.75 | [−0.51, 0.71] |
REP + DYN | 0.52 | 0.30 | 1.69 | 0.09 | [−0.08, 1.11] |
Identification with Flexitarians | −0.60 | 0.20 | −2.96 | 0.001 | [−0.99, −0.20] |
Identification with Flexitarians X ADD | 0.64 | 0.16 | 2.49 | 0.01 | [0.13, 1.15] |
Identification with Flexitarians X REP | 0.47 | 0.26 | 1.85 | 0.05 | [0.01, 0.98] |
Identification with Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | 0.72 | 0.25 | 2.84 | 0.001 | [0.01, 1.22] |
Identification with Flexitarians X REP + DYN | 0.50 | 0.26 | 1.95 | 0.05 | [0.01, 1.22] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians | −0.00 | 0.15 | −0.03 | 0.98 | [−0.30, 0.29] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.96 | [−0.41, 0.44] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP | −0.01 | 0.21 | −0.03 | 0.97 | [−0.43, 0.41] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.18 | 0.19 | −0.92 | 0.36 | [−0.56, 0.20] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP + DYN | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.94 | [−0.38, 0.41] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.62 | 0.54 | [−0.26, 0.50] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD | −0.29 | 0.19 | −1.49 | 0.14 | [−0.68, 0.09] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.84 | [−0.32, −0.38] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.10 | 0.19 | −0.52 | 0.60 | [−0.48, 0.28] |
Identification with Flexitarian X Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP + DYN | −0.27 | 0.25 | −1.10 | 0.27 | [−0.76, −0.21] |
Conditional Effects of Message Condition on Change in Consumption of Legumes at Different Levels of Attitude toward Flexitarians | |||||
Weak Identification with Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | −0.77 | 0.43 | −1.78 | 0.07 | [−1.62, 0.08] |
REP | −0.52 | 0.47 | −1.09 | 0.27 | [−1.44, 0.41] |
ADD + DYN | −0.67 | 0.48 | −1.39 | 0.16 | [−1.61, 0.27] |
REP + DYN | −0.20 | 0.47 | −0.44 | 0.66 | [−1.13, 0.72] |
Medium Identification with Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 0.14 | 0.29 | 0.49 | 0.62 | [−0.43, 0.72] |
REP | 0.14 | 0.30 | 0.47 | 0.63 | [−0.44, 0.73] |
ADD + DYN | 0.17 | 0.30 | 0.58 | 0.56 | [−0.41, 0.46] |
REP + DYN | 0.48 | 0.30 | 1.61 | 0.11 | [−0.11, 1.06] |
Strong Identification with Flexitarians | |||||
ADD | 1.06 | 0.42 | 2.51 | 0.01 | [0.23, 1.89] |
REP | 0.80 | 0.39 | 2.05 | 0.04 | [0.03, 1.57] |
ADD + DYN | 1.01 | 0.37 | 2.71 | 0.01 | [0.28, 1.75] |
REP + DYN | 1.12 | 0.41 | 2.85 | 0.001 | [0.36, 1.96] |
b | se | t | p | 95%CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DV = Change in Consumption of Meat (Time 3 –Time 1) | |||||
Constant | 0.96 | 0.39 | 2.43 | 0.01 | [0.18, 1.74] |
ADD | −1.40 | 0.54 | −2.57 | 0.01 | [−2.47, −0.32] |
REP | −1.40 | 0.54 | −2.59 | 0.01 | [−2.46, −0.33] |
ADD + DYN | −1.86 | 0.53 | −3.45 | 0.001 | [−2.93, −0.80] |
REP + DYN | −2.03 | 0.26 | −3.84 | 0.001 | [−3.08, −0.99] |
Identification with Flexitarians | 0.10 | 0.45 | 0.30 | 0.77 | [−0.59, −0.80] |
Identification with Flexitarians X ADD | 0.30 | 0.45 | 0.67 | 0.50 | [−0.59, −1.19] |
Identification with Flexitarians X REP | 0.58 | 0.44 | 1.29 | 0.20 | [−0.30, 1.46] |
Identification with Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.04 | 0.46 | −0.09 | 0.93 | [−0.91, 0.83] |
Identification with Flexitarians X REP + DYN | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.17 | 0.87 | [−0.82, 0.98] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians | 0.08 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.76 | [−0.44, 0.60] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD | −0.31 | 0.37 | −0.81 | 0.42 | [−1.05, 0.44] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP | −0.33 | 0.33 | −0.88 | 0.38 | [−1.06, 0.40] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | 0.04 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.89 | [−0.61, 0.71] |
Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP + DYN | −0.07 | 0.35 | −0.20 | 0.84 | [−0.77, 0.62] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.59 | 0.56 | [−0.39, 0.72] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD | −0.33 | 0.34 | −0.99 | 0.32 | [−1.00, 0.33] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP | −0.22 | 0.34 | −0.66 | 0.51 | [−0.90, 0.45] |
Identification with Flexitarians X Attitude towards Flexitarians X ADD + DYN | −0.14 | 0.31 | −0.46 | 0.64 | [−0.76, 0.74] |
Identification with Flexitarian X Attitude towards Flexitarians X REP + DYN | −0.36 | 0.34 | −1.07 | 0.28 | [−1.02, 0.30] |
References
- Vermeulen, S.J.; Campbell, B.M.; Ingram, J.S.I. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 195–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gibbs, H.K.; Ruesch, A.S.; Achard, F.; Clayton, M.K.; Holmgren, P.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS 2010, 107, 16732–16737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- HLPE. Water for Food Security and Nutrition; A Report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; HLPE: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez-Zavaglia, A.; Mejuto, J.C.; Simal-Gandara, J. Mitigation of emerging implications of climate change on food production systems. Food Res. Int. 2020, 134, 109256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allen, A.M.; Hof, A.R. Paying the price for the meat we eat. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 97, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twine, R. Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baroni, L.; Cenci, L.; Tettamanti, M.; Berati, M. Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schmidt, C.V.; Mouritsen, O.G. The Solution to Sustainable Eating Is Not a One-Way Street. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Boer, J.; Schösler, H.; Aiking, H. ‘Meatless days’ or ‘less but better’? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 2014, 76, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurispes. Risultati del Rapporto Italia. 2021. Available online: https://eurispes.eu/news/risultati-del-rapporto-italia-2021/ (accessed on 18 November 2022).
- Statista. Meat trends in Europe. 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/study/70192/meat-trends-in-europe/ (accessed on 18 November 2022).
- Smart Protein. Plant-Based Foods in Europe: How Big Is the Market? 2021. Available online: https://smartproteinproject.eu/plant-based-food-sector-report (accessed on 18 November 2022).
- Dagevos, H. Flexibility in the Frequency of Meat Consumption—Empirical Evidence from The Netherlands. EuroChoices 2014, 13, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metzger, M.J.; Murray-Rust, D.; Houtkamp, J.; Jensen, A.; La Riviere, I.; Paterson, J.S.; Valluri-Meynard, J.M. Innovating in cropping and farming systems. In Renewing Innovation Systems in Agriculture and Food; Coudel, E., Devautour, H., Soulard, C., Faure, G., Hubert, B., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cusworth, G.; Garnett, T.; Lorimer, J. Legume dreams: The contested futures of sustainable plant-based food systems in Europe. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2021, 69, 102321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margier, M.; Georgé, S.; Hafnaoui, N.; Remond, D.; Nowicki, M.; Du Chaffaut, L.; Amiot, M.-J.; Reboul, E. Nutritional composition and bioactive content of legumes: Characterization of pulses frequently consumed in france and effect of the cooking method. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Watson, C.A.; Reckling, M.; Preissel, S.; Bachinger, J.; Bergkvist, G.; Kuhlman, T.; Lindström, K.; Nemecek, T.; Topp, C.F.E.; Vanhatalo, A.; et al. Grain legume production and use in european agricultural systems. Adv. Agron. 2017, 144, 235–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lampkin, N.; Pearce, B.; Leake, A.; Creissen, H.; Gerrard, C.L.; Gerling, R.; Vieweger, A. The Role of Agroecology in Sustainable Intensification; A Report for the Land Use Policy Group; Organic Research Centre and Game: Newbury, UK; Wildlife Conservation Trust: Fordingbridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Lötjönen, S.; Ollikainen, M. Does crop rotation with legumes provide an efficient means to reduce nutrient loads and GHG emissions? Rev. Agric. Food Environ. 2017, 98, 283–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kwasny, T.; Dobernig, K.; Riefler, P. Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite 2022, 168, 105739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herchenroeder, L.; Forestell, C.A.; Bravo, A.J. The effectiveness of animal welfare-, environmental-, and health-focused video appeals on implicit and explicit wanting of meat and intentions to reduce meat consumption. J. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, V.; Bertolotti, M.; Catellani, P. Informational and emotional daily messages to reduce red and processed meat consumption. Appetite 2019, 141, 104331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, V.; Catellani, P.; Caso, D.; Conner, M. How to reduce red and processed meat consumption by daily text messages targeting environment or health benefits. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, V.; Morandi, M.; Catellani, P. The influence of message framing on consumers’ selection of local food. Foods 2022, 11, 1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stea, S.; Pickering, G.J. Optimizing messaging to reduce red meat consumption. Environ. Commun. 2019, 13, 633–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolstenholme, E.; Poortinga, W.; Whitmarsh, L. Two birds, one stone: The effectiveness of health and environmental messages to reduce meat consumption and encourage pro-environmental behavioral spillover. Front. Psychol 2020, 11, 577111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palomo-Vélez, G.; Tybur, J.M.; Van Vugt, M. Unsustainable, unhealthy, or disgusting? Comparing different persuasive messages against meat consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 58, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vainio, A.; Irz, X.; Hartikainen, H. How effective are messages and their characteristics in changing behavioural intentions to substitute plant-based foods for red meat? The mediating role of prior beliefs. Appetite 2018, 125, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sobal, J.; Bisogni, C.A.; Devine, C.M.; Jastran, M. A conceptual model of the food choice process over the life course. In The Psychology of Food Choice; Sherperd, R., Raats, M., Eds.; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Carfora, V.; Morandi, M.; Catellani, P. Predicting and promoting the consumption of plant-based meat. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 4800–4822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mollen, S.; Rimal, R.N.; Ruiter, R.A.; Kok, G. Healthy and unhealthy social norms and food selection. Findings from a field-experiment. Appetite 2013, 65, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stok, F.M.; De Ridder, D.T.; De Vet, E.; De Wit, J.B. Don’t tell me what I should do, but what others do: The influence of descriptive and injunctive peer norms on fruit consumption in adolescents. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harguess, J.M.; Crespo, N.C.; Hong, M.Y. Strategies to reduce meat consumption: A systematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite 2020, 144, 104478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparkman, G.; Walton, G.M. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 28, 1663–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Goldstein, N.J. Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004, 55, 591–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Demaine, L.J.; Sagarin, B.J.; Barrett, D.W.; Rhoads, K.; Winter, P.L. Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Soc. Influ. 2006, 1, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graupensperger, S.; Lee, C.M.; Larimer, M.E. Leveraging dynamic norms to reduce alcohol use among college students: A proof-of-concept experimental study. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2021, 45, 2370–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparkman, G.; Walton, G.M. Witnessing change: Dynamic norms help resolve diverse barriers to personal change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 82, 238–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparkman, G.; Weitz, E.; Robinson, T.N.; Malhotra, N.; Walton, G.M. Developing a scalable dynamic norm menu-based intervention to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carfora, V.; Zeiske, N.; van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Catellani, P. Adding dynamic norm to environmental information in messages promoting the reduction of meat consumption. Environ. Commun. 2022, 16, 900–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boenke, L.; Panning, M.; Thurow, A.; Hörisch, J.; Loschelder, D.D. Who can nudge for sustainable development? How nudge source renders dynamic norms (in-) effective in eliciting sustainable behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 368, 133246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldoh, A.; Sparks, P.; Harris, P.R. Dynamic norms and food choice: Reflections on a failure of minority norm information to influence motivation to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çoker, E.N.; Pechey, R.; Frie, K.; Jebb, S.A.; Stewart, C.; Higgs, S.; Cook, B. A dynamic social norm messaging intervention to reduce meat consumption: A randomized cross-over trial in retail store restaurants. Appetite 2022, 169, 105824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparkman, G.; Macdonald, B.N.; Caldwell, K.D.; Kateman, B.; Boese, G.D. Cut back or give it up? The effectiveness of reduce and eliminate appeals and dynamic norm messaging to curb meat consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 75, 101592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, A.; Platow, M.J. “I’ll eat meat because that’s what we do”: The role of national norms and national social identification on meat eating. Appetite 2021, 164, 105287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pabian, S.; Ouvrein, G.; Van Royen, K.; Folkvord, F.; Poels, K.; Vandebosch, H.; De Backer, C. “Meating halfway”: Exploring the attitudes of meat eaters, veg* ns, and occasional meat eaters toward those who eat meat and those who do not eat meat. J. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenfeld, D.L.; Rothgerber, H.; Tomiyama, A.J. From mostly vegetarian to fully vegetarian: Meat avoidance and the expression of social identity. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 85, 103963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thürmer, J.L.; Stadler, J.; McCrea, S.M. Intergroup sensitivity and promoting sustainable consumption: Meat eaters reject vegans’ call for a plant-based diet. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escalas, J.E.; Bettman, J.R. You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 2003, 13, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guidetti, M.; Carraro, L.; Cavazza, N. Dining with liberals and conservatives: The social underpinnings of food neophobia. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martinelli, E.; De Canio, F. Non-vegan consumers buying vegan food: The moderating role of conformity. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritsche, I.; Barth, M.; Jugert, P.; Masson, T.; Reese, G. A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychol. Rev. 2018, 125, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leach, C.W.; Van Zomeren, M.; Zebel, S.; Vliek, M.L.; Pennekamp, S.F.; Doosje, B.; Ouwerkerk, J.W.; Spears, R. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. J. Pers Soc. Psychol. 2008, 95, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phua, J.; Jin, S.V.; Kim, J. The roles of celebrity endorsers’ and consumers’ vegan identity in marketing communication about veganism. J. Mark. Commun. 2020, 26, 813–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bresnahan, M.; Zhuang, J.; Zhu, X. Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? Understanding vegan stigma. Stigma Health 2016, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoner, J.; Perrewé, P.L.; Hofacker, C. The development and validation of the multi-dimensional identification scale (MDIS). J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 41, 1632–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruby, M.B.; Alvarenga, M.S.; Rozin, P.; Kirby, T.A.; Richer, E.; Rutsztein, G. Attitudes toward beef and vegetarians in Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA. Appetite 2016, 96, 546–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, V.; Morandi, M.; Catellani, P. The effect of message framing in promoting the Mediterranean diet: The moderating role of eating self-efficacy. Foods 2022, 11, 1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J. Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, 2nd ed.; Hancock, G.R., Muller, R.O., Eds.; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, CN, USA, 2013; pp. 219–266. [Google Scholar]
- Bachmeyer, M.H. Treatment of selective and inadequate food intake in children: A review and practical guide. Behav. Anal. Pract. 2009, 2, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brockner, J.; Elkind, M. Self-esteem and reactance: Further evidence of attitudinal and motivational consequences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1985, 21, 346–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brehm, S.; Brehm, J.W. A Theory of Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Control and Freedom; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Lalot, F.; Falomir-Pichastor, J.M.; Quiamzade, A. Compensation and consistency effects in proenvironmental behaviour: The moderating role of majority and minority support for proenvironmental values. GPIR 2018, 21, 403–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mortensen, C.R.; Neel, R.; Cialdini, R.B.; Jaeger, C.M.; Jacobson, R.P.; Ringel, M.M. Trending norms: A lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2019, 10, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moscovici, S. Toward a theory of conversion behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 13, 209–223. [Google Scholar]
- Carfora, V.; Pastore, M.; Catellani, P. A cognitive-emotional model to explain message framing effects: Reducing meat consumption. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 583209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catellani, P.; Carfora, V.; Piastra, M. Framing and tailoring prefactual messages to reduce red meat consumption: Predicting effects through a psychology-based graphical causal model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 106, 825602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, V.; Conner, M.; Caso, D.; Catellani, P. Rational and moral motives to reduce red and processed meat consumption. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 50, 744–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caso, D.; Carfora, V.; Conner, M. Predicting intentions and consumption of fruit and vegetables in Italian adolescents. Effects of anticipated regret and self-identity. Psicol. Soc. 2016, 11, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, V.; Cavallo, C.; Catellani, P.; Del Giudice, T.; Cicia, G. Why do consumers intend to purchase natural food? Integrating theory of planned behavior, value-belief-norm theory, and trust. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sahakian, M.; Godin, L.; Courtin, I. Promoting ‘pro’, ‘low’, and ‘no’ meat consumption in Switzerland: The role of emotions in practices. Appetite 2020, 150, 104637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Control Condition | Addition Condition | Replacement Condition | Addition + Dynamic Norm Condition | Replacement + Dynamic Norm Condition | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | |
M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | |
Identification with Flexitarians | 2.81 (1.26) | - | - | 2.65 (1.32) | - | - | 2.92 (1.29) | - | - | 3.02 (1.34) | - | - | 2.82 (1.39) | - | - |
Intergroup Attitude towards Flexitarians | 5.29 (1.30) | - | - | 5.15 (1.50) | - | - | 4.95 (1.61) | - | - | 5.24 (1.44) | - | - | 5.13 (1.48) | - | - |
Message View Frequency | - | - | - | - | 10.84 (4.09) | - | - | 11.68 (3.46) | - | - | 11.94 (3.23) | - | - | 11.05 (3.75) | - |
Message Readings Frequency | - | - | - | - | 3.63 (0.72) | - | - | 3.73 (0.67) | - | - | 3.71 (0.62) | - | - | 3.59 (0.71) | - |
Message Involvement | - | - | - | - | 5.00 (1.28) | - | - | 5.12 (0.94) | - | - | 5.16 (1.12) | - | - | 5.03 (1.33) | - |
Message Trust | - | - | - | - | 4.90 (0.93) | - | - | 4.88 (0.77) | - | - | 5.00 (0.90) | - | - | 4.72 (0.89) | - |
Systematic Processing | - | - | - | - | 4.99 (0.85) | - | - | 4.75 (1.19) | - | - | 4.88 (0.93) | - | - | 4.98 (1.25) | |
Legume Consumption | 1.84 (1.36) | 1.84 (1.24) | 1.51 (0.85) | 1.89 (1.53) | 2.46 (2.08) | 1.77 (1.50) | 1.85 (1.35) | 2.05 (1.71) | 1.98 (1.09) | 1.91 (1.42) | 2.27 (1.49) | 2.26 (2.02) | 1.86 (1.32) | 2.22 (1.23) | 2.16 (1.27) |
Meat Consumption | 6.78 (2.32) | 6.80 (2.62) | 7.43 (2.74) | 6.77 (1.99) | 6.49 (2.24) | 6.19 (2.38) | 6.70 (2.48) | 6.00 (2.66) | 6.16 (2.58) | 6.90 (2.13) | 5.82 (2.43) | 5.65 (2.76) | 6.71 (2.05) | 6.37 (2.87) | 5.48 (2.59) |
df | F | p | ηp2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Multivariate Effects | ||||
Time | 4213 | 5.77 | 0.001 | 0.10 |
Time X Message Condition | 16,864 | 2.73 | 0.001 | 0.05 |
Message Condition | 8432 | 1.01 | 0.42 | 0.02 |
Univariate Effects on Legume Consumption | ||||
Time | 2432 | 6.34 | 0.002 | 0.03 |
Time X Message Condition | 8432 | 1.93 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
Univariate Effects on Meat Consumption | ||||
Time | 2432 | 5.37 | 0.005 | 0.03 |
Time X Message Condition | 8432 | 3.82 | 0.001 | 0.07 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Carfora, V.; Catellani, P. Legumes or Meat? The Effectiveness of Recommendation Messages towards a Plant-Based Diet Depends on People’s Identification with Flexitarians. Nutrients 2023, 15, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15010015
Carfora V, Catellani P. Legumes or Meat? The Effectiveness of Recommendation Messages towards a Plant-Based Diet Depends on People’s Identification with Flexitarians. Nutrients. 2023; 15(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15010015
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarfora, Valentina, and Patrizia Catellani. 2023. "Legumes or Meat? The Effectiveness of Recommendation Messages towards a Plant-Based Diet Depends on People’s Identification with Flexitarians" Nutrients 15, no. 1: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15010015