INTERVENTIONS
The impact of motivated reasoning on (un)sustainable food
decisions and sketching new pathways for effective
interventions
Literature thesis Final version
Author: Femke Sanne Paauwe Student number: 10747524
Supervisor: Dr. Lucas Molleman, University of Amsterdam: Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Co-assessor: Dr. Dianna Amasino, University of Amsterdam: Faculty of Economics and Business
Date of submission: 18-08-2020
Acknowledgements
Throughout the writing of this thesis, I have received a great deal of assistance and feedback. I would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr Lucas Molleman, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, whose expertise was invaluable. Thank you for thoroughly reading my drafts and providing constructive and valuable feedback.
Next, I want to thank Dr. Dianna Amasino, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business, for willing to be co-assessor and to grade my thesis.
Table of contents
ABSTRACT ... 5
GLOSSARY ... 7
1. INTRODUCTION ... 9
2. MOTIVATED REASONING IN (UN)SUSTAINABLE FOOD DECISION MAKING ... 13
2.1 (UN)SUSTAINABLE FOOD DECISION MAKING, MOTIVATED REASONING AND ITS POTENTIAL MECHANISMS INVOLVED ... 13
2.1.1 Food decision making. ... 13
2.1.2 Motivated reasoning. ... 13
2.1.2.1 Cognitive dissonance. ... 14
2.1.2.2 Moral disengagement ... 15
2.1.2.3 Loss aversion. ... 16
2.2 MOTIVATED REASONING INVOLVED IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD DECISION MAKING? ... 16
2.2.1 Cognitive dissonance in sustainable food decision making. ... 16
2.2.2 Moral disengagement and loss aversion in sustainable food decision making. .. 20
3. INTERVENTIONS AND MARKETING STRATEGIES THAT IMPACT MOTIVATED REASONING IN (UN)SUSTAINABLE FOOD DECISION MAKING 25 3.1 INTERVENTIONS IMPACTING MOTIVATED REASONING AND IMPROVING SUSTAINABLE FOOD CONSUMPTION ... 26
3.1.1 Behaviour change interventions. ... 27
3.1.2 Informational interventions. ... 28
3.1.3 Behaviour change interventions focused on motivated reasoning mechanisms. . 30
3.2 MARKETING STRATEGIES IMPACTING MOTIVATED REASONING AND IMPROVING
SUSTAINABLE FOOD CONSUMPTION ... 34
3.2.1 Nudging. ... 34
3.2.1.1 Use of social norms. ... 35
3.2.1.2 Increase ease and convenience. ... 36
3.2.1.3 Reminders. ... 38
3.2.2 Suggestions for improving marketing strategies. ... 40
4. DISCUSSION ... 42 5. CONCLUSION ... 47 REFERENCES ... 48 APPENDIX A ... 59 APPENDIX B ... 60 APPENDIX C ... 61 APPENDIX D ... 62 APPENDIX E ... 63
Abstract
One way to a more sustainable world is by changing the sustainable consumption habits of humans. Presently, it is still unclear how psychological factors, like motivated reasoning, affect the sustainable food decision-making process, whereas having an understanding of those factors is crucial for sustainable development. Motivated reasoning is the way people reason to conclusions they favour, with their preferences influencing the collection of evidence, processing of arguments, and recalling of memories. However, what motivated reasoning mechanisms precisely impact (un)sustainable food decision making is unknown. Moreover, new pathways for interventions and marketing strategies to increase sustainable food consumption in consumers should be discussed. Here I show that three psychological mechanisms (‘loss aversion’, ‘cognitive dissonance’, and ‘moral disengagement’) act together as a motivated reasoning process in meat consumption. Loss aversion reflects the behaviour that consumers tend to care much more about avoiding losses than about earning equivalent gains. Together with cognitive dissonance (a state of discomfort induced by a conflict between new information and current attitudes, beliefs or behaviours), this triggers moral disengagement. Moral disengagement is the selective deactivation of moral self-regulation, which reduces the dissonance while an individual performs unsustainable behaviours. These mechanisms act together on sustainable food consumption by preventing the shift from unsustainable to sustainable food decision making in individuals. These insights demonstrate that interventions and marketing strategies should reduce tendencies to use mechanisms of motivated reasoning in order to increase sustainable food consumption in consumers. Informational interventions, behavioural change interventions, descriptive norms, default-based interventions, and the use of reminders all have the potential to reduce
consumption. Finally, future studies should focus on how motivated reasoning mechanisms impact other sustainable food consumption domains than meat consumption.
Keywords: sustainable food decision making, sustainable consumption, meat consumption, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, loss aversion, moral disengagement, nudging, interventions
Glossary
Concept Definition
Cognitive dissonance The idea that a situation involving a conflict between new information and current attitudes, beliefs or behaviours causes an individual to be in a state of discomfort, also referred to as the ‘dissonance’ (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones, Amodio, & Harmon-Harmon-Jones, 2009).
Loss aversion Reflects the observed behaviour that consumers are more sensitive to losses than to gains, i.e., people tend to care much more about avoiding losses than about earning equivalent gains (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Köbberling & Wakker, 2005; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991).
Moral disengagement The idea that the process of moral self-regulation can be selectively deactivated in order to reduce dissonance
(Bandura, 1991; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996).
Motivated reasoning The way people reason to conclusions they favour, with their preferences influencing the collection of evidence, processing of arguments, and recalling of memories (Epley & Gilovich, 2016; Kunda, 1990)
Nudging A marketing strategy used to steer people’s behaviour in particular directions, but at the same time, allow people to go their own way (Sunstein, 2014; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008).
Sustainable food decision making
A decision-making process that not only takes into account individual needs and wants, but takes into account social responsibility and ethical factors too (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Meulenberg, 2003; Nemecek, Jungbluth, i Canals, & Schenck, 2016; Weatherell, Tregear, & Allinson, 2003).
1. Introduction
The attention towards climate change and the increasing awareness about the
importance of sustainable consumption and development has become essential and more urgent over the last couple of years. A definition of sustainable development, as stated in the seminal Brundtland Report released by the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED), is: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43). Furthermore, achieving sustainable development includes strategies to realize economic (profit), social (people), and environmental (planet) goals (The World Bank, 2003). Additionally, one way to a more sustainable world, according to De Bakker and Dagevos (2012), is by changing the sustainable consumption habits of humans. Presently, several world organisations and government policies are trying to motivate consumers to change their daily unsustainable decisions into more sustainable choices to contribute to a more sustainable world (e.g., eat less meat, less plastic use, less waste, green electricity, electric cars, and solar panels).
The global food production and consumption together are responsible for a large amount of the carbon, water, and ecological footprint people leave on earth and therefore lie at the heart of trying to tackle climate change (Ritchie & Roser, 2020). Moreover, sustainable food consumption is a broad concept that covers, amongst other, topics such as the
environment (organic food products), animal welfare (living conditions, the health of animals), and fair trade (fair prices, working conditions) (e.g., Clonan, Wilson, Swift, Leibovici, & Holdsworth, 2015; Thøgersen, 2010; O'Connor, Sims, & White, 2017).
Nowadays, studies on sustainable food decision making focus on a variety of aspects. These range from general aspects (e.g., availability of sustainable food, marketing strategies,
interventions, policies) to individual perspectives (e.g., health benefits, income, attitudes; Diaconeasa, Popescu, & Boboc, 2019). As a consequence, relatively much research has looked into external factors (e.g., interventions, marketing strategies, income, availability of food) related to sustainable food decision making, but not so much into internal (e.g., psychological) factors. Therefore, it is still unclear in what way psychological factors might be involved in the (un)sustainable decision-making process, whereas having an understanding of those factors is crucial for future sustainable development.
Consumers, unfortunately, cannot break their habits and change their food
consumption into a more sustainable pattern very quickly, since food decision making is a very complex process (Verain et al., 2012). People have daily confrontations with complex choices that are characterised by conflicting interests between individual short-term and long-term goals (Van Strien & Koenders, 2012). To better understand the decision process, it is necessary to acquire more understanding of what psychological underpinnings might be involved in the process. This acquiring of knowledge is necessary to be able to increase sustainable food decision making and consumption in individuals in the future. Specifically, psychological underpinnings that affect food decision processes may be implemented as points of engagement in order to improve interventions and marketing campaigns focused on sustainable consumption.
One of the underlying mechanisms that might influence (un)sustainable food decision making in consumers is called motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is described as the way people reason to conclusions they favour, with their preferences influencing the
collection of evidence, processing of arguments, and recalling of memories (Epley & Gilovich, 2016; Kunda, 1990). Motivated reasoning is known to be involved in different domains of decision making, such as politics, moral reasoning, and science communication
(Baekgaard, Christensen, Dahlmann, Mathiasen, & Petersen, 2019; Ditto, Pizarro, & Tannenbaum, 2009; Hart, & Nisbet, 2012; Kahan, 2013).
Recently, researchers began to look into the potential effects of motivated reasoning on sustainable food consumption and decision making in consumers (Graça, Calheiros, &
Oliveira, 2016). Three psychological mechanisms, ‘loss aversion’, ‘cognitive dissonance’, and ‘moral disengagement’, probably act together as a motivated reasoning process (Graça et al., 2016). These types of motivated reasoning processes, which will be explained in more depth in the second chapter, possibly act on sustainable food consumption by preventing the shift from unstainable to sustainable decision making in individuals (see Figure 1 for a visualisation of this proposition). Despite this promising research, it is not clear yet how motivated reasoning exactly affects sustainable food decision making in consumers.
Figure 1. Visualisation of how motivated reasoning potentially affects the shift from unsustainable food
decision making towards sustainable food decision making. The red arrow indicates the entry point of the proposed interventions (which will be discussed in chapter 3).
In order to get a better understanding of the psychological underpinnings involved in (un)sustainable food decision making, I will answer the following question in this literature thesis: How do motivated reasoning processes impact on (un)sustainable food decision making? Therefore, I will discuss what evidence the literature shows about motivated reasoning impacting sustainable food decision making. Moreover, section 2.2 will describe what mechanisms of motivated reasoning are affecting (un)sustainable food decision-making process.
In addition, it is essential to investigate if the psychological mechanisms discussed in the second chapter can be used as points of engagement for marketing purposes and
interventions. Therefore, I will review what types of marketing strategies and interventions have the potential to increase sustainable food consumption in consumers by reducing tendencies to apply motivated reasoning. Chapter 3 will start with an introduction on behaviour change interventions and pieces of advice, then moves on to discuss the use of informational interventions, interventions focusing on mechanisms underlying motivated reasoning, and different forms of nudging (e.g., the use of descriptive norms, default-based interventions and the use of reminders; Sunstein, 2014).
This thesis will end with suggestions on what future studies should focus when studying motivated reasoning and (un)sustainable food consumption and how to adapt interventions and marketing strategies in the future to increase sustainable food decision making in consumers effectively.
2. Motivated reasoning in (un)sustainable food decision
making
In this first section, I will elaborate on the concepts of food decision making and motivated reasoning. The section starts with an explicit description of sustainable food decision making. In the second subsection, the concept of motivated reasoning and its relation to food decision making is explained. After, a discussion of the psychological mechanisms that are involved in motivated reasoning will follow. Finally, in the last two larger subsections of this chapter, I will link these concepts to food decision making. It is important to mention, however, most studies only focused on meat-eating behaviour in individuals when studying motivated reasoning in sustainable food decision making. As a consequence, this chapter will dedicate much attention to only this aspect of sustainable food decision making.
2.1 (Un)sustainable food decision making, motivated reasoning and its potential mechanisms involved
2.1.1 Food decision making. Sustainable food consumption involves a food decision-making process that not only takes into account individual needs and wants (e.g., quality, convenience and price) but, besides, takes into account social responsibility and ethical factors (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Meulenberg, 2003; Nemecek, Jungbluth, i Canals, & Schenck, 2016; Verain et al., 2012; Weatherell, Tregear, & Allinson, 2003). Important to mention, everyday consumption practices are likely to be resistant to change, but due to the complexity and diversity of motivations involved, there might be a considerable opportunity for change (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006).
2.1.2 Motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is described as the way people’s motivations and preferences are affecting the collection and processing of evidence and arguments in order to reason their way to the conclusions they prefer (Epley & Gilovich,
2016; Kunda, 1990), i.e., the information process is biased. Therefore, it is suggested that motivation impacts the reasoning processes in subtle ways, leading to biased beliefs and decisions (Gilovich & Ross, 2015; Kunda, 1990; Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004). As mentioned, everyday consumption behaviours are not easy to change. However, there might be a window of opportunity due to the complexity and diversity of motivations involved. Moreover, beliefs, attitudes, and subjective norms predict purchase intentions for sustainable products (Kumar, Manrai, & Manrai, 2017; Robinson & Smith, 2002; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). The concept of motivated reasoning is related to these factors, most likely hindering the change. Nevertheless, motivated reasoning is complex to understand because people have many goals (Epley & Gilovich, 2016).
Kunda (1990) described that motivations may affect reasoning using a biased set of cognitive processes and that people are more likely to come to conclusions that they prefer. As briefly discussed in the introduction, three cognitive processes (‘loss aversion’, ‘cognitive dissonance’, and ‘moral disengagement’) possibly act together as a motivated reasoning process (Graça et al., 2016) in sustainable food decision making. These underlying mechanisms might act on sustainable food decision making by preventing the shift from unsustainable to sustainable consumption in individuals. Before elaborating on how these three mechanisms are potentially impacting sustainable food decisions individuals, I will briefly introduce and describe the concepts. Then, in the subsequent sections of the thesis, I will link these concepts to sustainable food decision making.
2.1.2.1 Cognitive dissonance. The first concept related to motivated reasoning is cognitive dissonance. This concept focuses on the idea that a situation involving a conflict between new information and current attitudes, beliefs or behaviours causes an individual to be in a state of discomfort, also referred to as the ‘dissonance’ (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones, Amodio, & Harmon-Harmon-Jones, 2009). To reduce the discomfort, the individual is
motivated to make the information more consistent in a variety of ways (e.g., by altering the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours; Festinger, 1957). According to the action-based model of dissonance (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009; Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2002), a negative affective state will arise because of the dissonance. It is because of this negative affective state that individuals are motivated to reduce cognitive conflicts that might interfere with their behaviour. Reducing cognitive conflicts that interfere with their behaviour leads to people reasoning to the conclusion they prefer, by changing their beliefs, motivations or behaviour. Lastly, cognitive dissonance intensifies when people are aware they participate in behaviours that are not in line with their attitudes (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones et al., 2009; Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2002).
2.1.2.2 Moral disengagement. The second concept involved in motivated reasoning is moral disengagement, a concept somewhat related to cognitive dissonance. This concept proposes the idea that the process of moral self-regulation can be selectively deactivated in order to reduce dissonance (Bandura, 1991; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). It explains the use of moral agency through self-regulatory processes (Bandura, 1991; Bandura et al., 1996). When an individual engages in moral disengagement, it allows the individual to participate in self-serving detrimental behaviours without experiencing
(adverse) emotional reactions (Bandura, 1999). According to Bandura et al. (1996), Bandura (1999), and Detert et al. (2008), moral disengagement is the result of eight cognitive
mechanisms that operate together in order to deactivate moral self-regulation (moral justification, euphemistic labelling, advantageous comparison, diffusion, displacement of responsibility, misrepresenting injurious consequences, dehumanization, and victim-blaming). This cooperation between cognitive mechanisms makes it possible for an individual to reason to conclusions they prefer, therefore able to show harmful behaviours while maintaining a positive self-image. Finally, research suggests that individuals who value
and desire the behaviour they perform incline to use moral disengagement mechanisms (Bandura, 1999; Bandura, 2002).
2.1.2.3 Loss aversion. The final concept that I will discuss is loss aversion. Loss aversion is a concept often studied in the field of behavioural economics and related to moral disengagement (section 2.2.2 explains this relation in more detail). In economic decision terms, loss aversion reflects the observed behaviour that consumers are more sensitive to losses than to gains, resulting in a utility function that is steeper for losses than gains
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Köbberling & Wakker, 2005; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). In other words, it means that people tend to care much more about avoiding losses than about earning equivalent gains (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). To avoid experiencing losses (e.g., give up unsustainable food decisions), it is beneficial for individuals to reason to conclusions they prefer, so that they can participate in behaviour they favour.
2.2 Motivated reasoning involved in sustainable food decision making? The following section presents the current evidence about motivated reasoning affecting the sustainable food decision-making process. Therefore, I will link cognitive dissonance, loss aversion, and moral disengagement to sustainable food decision making, since these mechanisms are suggested to be involved in motivated reasoning related to sustainable food decision making.
2.2.1 Cognitive dissonance in sustainable food decision making.In general, meat-eating is considered an unsustainable rather than a sustainable choice by many individuals. Still, a large number of people consume meat, even when they are aware of the negative consequences. This consumption of meat might cause cognitive dissonance within an individual. This cognitive dissonance related to meat-eating reflects the ‘meat paradox’: On
the one hand, people enjoy eating meat, but on the other hand, people love animals and do not like harming or killing them (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010).
Relatively recently, studies argued that in order to reduce meat-related cognitive dissonance, a motivated process that elicits the denial of mental capacities to food animals is activated. This denial of mind is, in the first place, the result of eating meat but regretting the harm it causes the animals (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam, & Radke, 2012). This finding emerged from a study that conducted three different experiments to test this hypothesis (Bastian et al., 2012). First, participants reported their perceptions of mental capacities and the edibility of animals, as well as their moral concern about eating each animal. The results showed that participants rated less mental capacities for animals considered more edible relative to less edible (Bastian et al. 2012). In congruence, the more individuals attributed mind to animals, the more this was associated with perceptions of moral worth, and the more wrong the consumption was perceived. A recent study revealing similar findings concluded that meat-eaters who perceived lower mental capacities of animals felt these animals used for meat were more edible than animals with higher mental capacities (Ang, Chan & Singh, 2019). Furthermore, participants were less likely to experience killing them for food as morally wrong (i.e., perceived less cognitive dissonance; Ang et al., 2019).
Next, Bastian et al. (2012) revealed that meat-eaters reminded of animal suffering associated with the production denied mental capacities to animals, but only in the event individuals expected to consume meat in the near future. This was revealed after participants watched pictures of cows and sheep either grazing in a herd or being bred to be slaughtered for consumption, and described their perceptions of the animals. The researchers argued that the denial of mind is motivated since meat-eaters are motivated to reduce the cognitive conflicts that interfere with their behaviour (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009; Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2002). This motivated denial of mind to food animals reduces the cognitive
dissonance between the behaviour and the concern for animal welfare in meat-eaters. Furthermore, it is most likely the commitment of meat-eaters to meat-eating behaviour increases the dissonance (Bastian et al., 2012). This suggestion is in line with earlier research noting that when people are aware they will perform the behaviour that is not congruent with their attitudes, feelings of cognitive dissonance intensify (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009;
Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2002).
Important to mention, in the study of Bastian et al. (2012), relatively more women participated than men, which might have affected the outcomes of the study. Recent investigation has noted significant gender effects on the meat paradox, where meat-eating women experienced increased dissonance, decreased meat attachment, and more significant concern for animal welfare than men when confronted with information regarding animal processing (Dowsett, Semmler, Bray, Ankeny, & Chur-Hansen, 2018). This finding has implications for interpreting the conclusion of Bastian et al. (2012) because their findings cannot be generalised to the general population. Furthermore, both studies took place in Australia, which might have led to biased outcomes, since the norms and values associated with meat might be different across countries and cultures. Lastly, cognitive dissonance was measured indirectly, i.e., experimentally manipulated and inferred from the outcome
variables.
Despite these limitations, Rothgerber (2014) investigated the different strategies meat-eaters used to reduce vegetarian-induced cognitive dissonance (e.g., avoidance, dissociation, denial of animal pain, denial of the animal mind, pro-meat justifications, and behaviour change) and found similar results as Bastian et al. (2012). The authors hypothesised meat-eaters would experience more cognitive dissonance when reading online scenarios about different types of vegetarians and therefore participate more in dissonance-reducing strategies (Rothgerber, 2014). As expected, the results showed that meat-eating individuals exposed to
information illustrating a vegetarian were more likely to deny mind to animals, used more justification strategies, believed in the necessity of eating meat, and denied the capacity of animals to feel pain. These results emerged from several experiments in which participants read vignettes with information either illustrating different types of vegetarians (e.g., vegetarian by choice, vegetarian by force, and consistent vegetarian) or control vignettes (gluten-free diet).
However, all sub-experiments measured cognitive dissonance indirectly too. In contrast to Bastian et al. (2012), Rothgerber (2014) noticed this issue and conducted a fifth study assessing the emotional states of participants associated with cognitive dissonance (anxiety, nervousness, tension, and discomfort) to threat. These emotional states were induced by vegetarians, while participants anticipated moral reproach from vegetarians. The researchers expected this scenario to activate cognitive dissonance in meat-eaters, as
measured by emotional states of tension and discomfort. Compared to a control group, the individuals who expected moral reproach from vegetarians indeed reported the most negative emotions (Rothgerber, 2014).
In short, motivated reasoning is the way people’s motivations and preferences are affecting the collection and processing of evidence and arguments in order to reason their way to the conclusions they prefer (Epley & Gilovich, 2016; Kunda, 1990). For meat-eaters, the preferred conclusion is that animals they consume have no mind, and therefore
experience no pain or emotions. To achieve this conclusion, the cognitive dissonance, that arises between meat-eating and moral concern for animals when the animal-meat link is salient, has to be reduced. The motivated mind denial that follows serves as a coping mechanism to reduce the cognitive dissonance and thereby sustains meat-eating behaviour. Besides, individuals who get exposed to information about vegetarians were more likely to deny mind to animals, used more justification strategies, and denied the capacity of animals
to feel pain. Therefore, meat-eating behaviours do not change because cognitive dissonance activates dissonance reducing strategies as an excuse.
2.2.2 Moral disengagement and loss aversion in sustainable food decision making. In addition to cognitive dissonance, moral disengagement is too involved as a motivated reasoning process and strongly related to dissonance. When the negative
consequences of behaviour become apparent, individuals often face a motivational conflict (Tsang, 2002). To reduce these feelings of dissonance, they might be willing to take steps to avoid the behaviour and minimise the damage, or they might be motivated to justify and defend the behaviour. People often choose the latter when getting rid of the ‘bad’ behaviour is associated with a considerable perceived cost for the individual (i.e., an individual
experiences loss aversion; Tsang, 2002). In that situation, a process of motivated reasoning starts that drives the cognitions of the individual in the direction of the preferred outcome (Tsang, 2002). As discussed earlier, to diminish cognitive dissonance that arises when one considers the negative effects associated with their decisions, the process of moral self-regulation is selectively deactivated by moral disengagement strategies (Bandura, 1990; Bandura et al., 1999).In line with this idea, recent evidence shows that moral disengagement indeed correlates with feelings of cognitive dissonance induced by meat-eating (Ang et al., 2019). In this study, meat-eaters perceived lower mental capacities for animals used for food than for pet animals and showed higher levels of moral disengagement (e.g., justification or mind denial, measured using the Moral Disengagement in Meat Questionnaire; Ang et al., 2019; Graça et al., 2016). Lastly, moral disengagement had a negative relation with the perceived mental capacity of animals used for meat, meaning higher moral disengagement activation across meat-eaters who see animals used for meat lacking mental capacities (Ang et al., 2019).
An earlier study that is in line with the findings of Ang et al. (2019) and Tsang (2002) reveals that when people are talking about the impacts of meat production and consumption during group interviews, several patterns of response comparable to moral disengagement theory were observed (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2014). This study explored whether consumers are motivated to use moral disengagement strategies when asked to consider the impacts of their food decisions and habits (see Appendix A for more details).
In total, Graça et al. (2014) found four potential moral disengagement mechanisms individuals could participate in, including the tendency to justify meat consumption patterns, obscuring personal responsibility, disregard for the negative consequences, and active avoidance and dissociation. They proposed the idea that the expression of these
disengagement mechanisms decreases potential feelings of guilt when debating the impacts of meat consumption (Graça et al., 2014). In addition, the process of moral disengagement seemed to be associated with the lack of willingness to consider the possibility of changing their habits into more sustainable, less harmful food choices. These findings are in line with the main idea of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1990; Bandura et al., 1999).
In a follow-up study, Graça, Oliveira and Calheiros (2015) conducted online
questionnaire research to investigate in more depth the psychosocial processes that hinder or facilitate the shift towards a more plant-based diet in consumers. They found that moral disengagement strategies make it possible for individuals to participate in meat consumption while having concerns about animal suffering, the environment, and public health (Graça et al., 2015).
Graça et al. (2015) suggested that an affective connection towards meat is associated with how the impacts of meat consumption are perceived and with the willingness to change food consumption habits. Furthermore, different consumers potentially hold on to a different set of rationales when considering the consequences of meat production, consumption, and
the opportunity to change habits (Graça et al., 2015). Three different clusters of consumers with an affective connection towards meat were described: an attachment group, a disgust group, and an avoidance group (Graça et al., 2015). The first group was associated with positive affect and related to feelings of sadness when considering withholding from meat consumption, whereas disgust was related to negative affect and repulsion and is related to moral internalisation (Graça et al., 2015). Assumed is that attached consumers will be motivated to use moral disengagement mechanisms (e.g., pro-meat justifications; self-exonerations) when continuing their meat-eating behaviours, and these mechanisms play a role in the possibility of changing habits. However, Graça et al. (2015) did not investigate this assumption, but based on the literature study, the assumption is justified. Attached meat-eaters were found to have more feelings of sadness when thinking about changing their food habits (e.g., loss-aversion). To reduce those feelings attached-meat eaters will use moral disengagement strategies to reason to conclusions they prefer and therefore are able to eat meat while having concerns.
The proposed theory behind the activation of moral disengagement is that while individuals are thinking about the impacts of meat production and consumption, this induces a state of cognitive dissonance in people who eat meat (Graça et al., 2014). As a
consequence, moral disengagement is potentially triggered as a coping mechanism, which causes people to be resistant to change even though they are aware of the negative impacts related to their food consumption. This theory can explain why people who morally care for the environment, public health and animals, endure meat consumption. The findings support the assumption that exposure to information and awareness about consequences might not be sufficient to help people realise how their (meat) eating habits have an impact on nature, the environment, and public health. Moreover, this exposure might also be too little to promote changes in their food habits (Graça et al., 2014; Graça et al., 2015).
As discussed, moral disengagement is most likely activated when a state of cognitive dissonance occurs in people who eat meat. A more recent study found evidence for this suggestion by concluding that moral disengagement might have a role as a cognitive process and comprises a sophisticated system of motivated reasoning (Graça et al., 2016). This conclusion was revealed after conducting an online questionnaire study, including questions about meat attachment, moral disengagement, eating habits, and willingness towards meat substitution. The authors suggested that moral disengagement can act as a motivated reasoning process, which is not only triggered by cognitive dissonance, but also by loss aversion (Graça et al., 2016). Thus, asking about the consequences of meat consumption triggers feelings of cognitive dissonance, which in order triggers moral disengagement as a loss-aversion mechanism (Graça et al., 2016). The mechanisms activated, in turn, act as a motivated reasoning process that defends and justifies the meat-eating behaviour of
individuals, despite the consequences of meat consumption (Graça et al., 2016). In short, the moral disengagement mechanism that acts as a motivated reasoning process reduces or avoids feelings of cognitive dissonance and loss-aversion that are caused by considering the adverse consequences of ones’ decisions.
Despite all these promising findings, the discussed studies mostly used questionnaires to measure moral disengagement and motivated reasoning, which might have led to skewed outcomes due to potential social-desirability bias.
In short, the results support the idea that the process of moral disengagement plays a role in inhibiting willingness to change food decisions and habits for the benefit of animals, public health, and the environment and point towards the relevance of further exploring this approach (see Figure 2 for a visualisation). Furthermore, an affective connection towards meat-eating is associated with how the impacts of eating meat are perceived and to the willingness to change food consumption habits. Lastly, the moral disengagement mechanism
that is triggered by cognitive dissonance and loss-aversion acts as a motivated reasoning process, therefore reducing and avoiding feelings of cognitive dissonance that are caused by considering the adverse consequences of ones’ behaviours. In the next chapter, I will discuss how to use this knowledge to create new pathways for effective interventions. However, it is important to mention that the outlined mechanisms might not generalise to other domains of sustainable food decision making than meat-eating (see 5. Discussion for more details).
Figure 2. Visualisation of how motivated reasoning mechanisms impact the shift from unsustainable food
decision making towards sustainable food decision making. Loss aversion and cognitive dissonance trigger the moral disengagement mechanism. These three mechanisms act as a motivated reasoning process to reason to the preferred conclusion. As a result, feelings of loss aversion and cognitive dissonance are reduced, and the shift towards sustainable food consumption is prevented.
3. Interventions and marketing strategies that impact
motivated reasoning in (un)sustainable food decision making
Interventions and marketing strategies would ideally lead to the decrease of moral disengagement and decreased feelings of loss-aversion and cognitive dissonance by addressing the underlying core motivations that trigger these processes (see Figure 3). Therefore, in addition to understanding motivated reasoning in (un)sustainable food decision making, it is essential to acquire knowledge on how to improve marketing strategies and interventions in order to achieve that goal. In the next chapter, I will discuss types of marketing strategies and interventions that have the potential to increase sustainable food consumption in consumers by using mechanisms of motivated reasoning as points of engagement and reducing tendencies to use those mechanisms. The first section will elaborate on several types of interventions and relate them to motivated reasoningmechanisms: I will start the section with behaviour change interventions, move on to discuss informational interventions, and then end with interventions focusing on motivated
reasoning. In the second section of this chapter, I will discuss different types of marketing strategies (e.g., uses of social norms, increase ease and convenience, and reminders) and how they can have an impact on motivated reasoning.
Figure 3. Visualisation of how effective marketing strategies and interventions should ideally impact on the
shift from unsustainable food decision making towards sustainable food decision making. When people are exposed to marketing strategies and interventions promoting sustainable food consumption, feelings of loss aversion and cognitive dissonance will decrease when choosing (un)sustainable food options. As a result, moral disengagement mechanisms will not be triggered, and people will not use the motivated reasoning mechanism to reason to conclusions they prefer. This leads to the transition from unsustainable to sustainable food decision making in individuals.
3.1 Interventions impacting motivated reasoning and improving sustainable food consumption
In this section, I will discuss the potential of interventions to affect and increase (un)sustainable food decision making in individuals. The first subsection will discuss in more detail several recommendations regarding behaviour change interventions. In the second subsection, the potential of using informational intervention strategies aimed to increase sustainable food decision making is discussed. Finally, this chapter will end with suggestions on how to improve and adapt interventions in order to be more effective in increasing
sustainable food consumption and reducing tendencies to use mechanisms of motivated reasoning.
3.1.1 Behaviour change interventions. When improving and adapting
interventions that aim to increase sustainable food decision making and to reduce motivated reasoning in individuals, it is beneficial if those interventions have a long-term impact. Addressing underlying motivations that trigger mechanisms of motivated reasoning and disrupting existing undesirable habits might lead to long-term impacts. Behaviour change interventions
have the potential to have a sustained long-term impact on behaviour and health (Lally & Gardner, 2013).
Lally & Gardner (2013) proposed three recommendations that ought to design
interventions focusing on disrupting existing undesirable habits and developing new desirable habits. First, using continued self-monitoring of behaviour and planning in order to identify contexts in which people perform new behaviours and inhibiting actions that might hinder the development of new behaviours. Additionally, when encouraging sustainable behaviour, people should recognize the behaviours that need to be changed and identify what main factors underly this behaviour (e.g., beliefs, preferences and motivations; Steg & Vlek, 2009). This is necessary because preferences and motivations affect the way evidence is collected, and arguments are processed. Therefore, to reduce tendencies to use motivated reasoning mechanisms, beliefs, preferences, and motivations have to be changed to prevent feelings of loss aversion and cognitive dissonance that trigger moral disengagement strategies.
Furthermore, positive feedback helps an individual to be more encouraged and motivated to repeat the behaviour. In general, developing a new behaviour does not require extrinsic rewards (e.g., monetary rewards) if individuals are intrinsically motivated (Lally & Gardner, 2013). Encouragement and support of a close-by socially important person (e.g.,
mentor to whom can relate) reinforce intrinsic motivation. Lastly, to break down unwanted behaviours, it can be helpful to change personal environments (Lally & Gardner, 2013; Verplanken & Roy, 2016). Recent research testing the ‘habit discontinuity hypothesis’, that assumes behaviour change interventions are more effective when conducted during life course changes, supports this recommendation (Verplanken & Roy, 2016; see Appendix B for detailed information). Considering that purposive context change is unachievable for an intervention that focuses on increasing sustainable food decision making in individuals, it is more realistic to self-report habitual activity that might reveal cues related to behaviour (Lally & Gardner, 2013). Nevertheless, every-day self-report takes and asks much
perseverance of individuals, since behaviours cannot change within a day. However, focusing on the habit formation process needed for behaviour change can help attempts to change behaviour to have a sustained long-term impact on behaviour and health, even after the intervention period.
3.1.2 Informational interventions. Besides disrupting existing habits, it is helpful to increase awareness and change perceptions and motivations of individuals on sustainable food consumption. Most of the time, people process information in order to reason their way to decisions they prefer (Epley & Gilovich, 2016). Motivations of individuals influence evidence collection and processing and, therefore, need to be altered. Changing beliefs and motivations is necessary in order to reduce tendencies to use mechanisms of motivated reasoning and to increase sustainable food decision making. Information intervention strategies are developed to change perceptions and motivations. These interventions aim to change perceptions, motivations, knowledge, and norms, without actually changing the external context in which choices are made (Steg & Vlek, 2009). This type of intervention is often used to increase the knowledge and awareness of individuals too.
Informational interventions promote environmental behaviours and sustainable consumption, as earlier research demonstrates (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2007; Staats, Van Leeuwen, & Wit, 2000). More recently, research revealed that the use of informational intervention strategies increases the purchasing of sustainable groceries (e.g., domestic and seasonal products, Hanss & Böhm, 2013). This finding emerged from a study investigating an informational intervention promoting not only intentions to purchase sustainable groceries, but also the actual purchases of sustainable groceries and sustainable development self-efficacy beliefs (see Appendix C for detailed information). Sustainable development self-efficacy is the degree to which individuals believe they can personally contribute to sustainable development (Hanss & Böhm, 2013) and is assumed to be a determinant of sustainable consumer behaviour (Hanss & Böhm, 2010).
After the intervention, individuals had higher intentions to buy sustainable products and, in addition, purchased more sustainable groceries. Even more, it seemed the intervention had long-term effects on purchasing intentions; individuals showed higher intentions to purchase sustainable groceries two weeks after the intervention and in the follow-up (six months later; Hanss & Böhm, 2013). In short, these findings show that providing information about reducing one’s environmental and social impact by changing everyday purchasing decisions, and about how individual sustainable consumption decisions might encourage other people to join, promotes sustainable consumption (Hanss & Böhm, 2013). However, no effects of the intervention on sustainable development self-efficacy were revealed.
In addition, informative messages reduce food waste by guests in a restaurant (Stöckli, Dorn, & Liechti, 2018). This was revealed after subjects were given a place card with either only informational messages on it or informational + normative messages on it (normative messages are descriptive and/or injunctive norms, this type of message is
how many subjects chose to take away or to dispose of leftovers, and both intervention groups chose the takeaway option significantly more often than the control group (Stöckli et al., 2018). Nevertheless, this study has some limitations, since the researchers did not explore the psychological mechanisms involved (e.g., motivations and beliefs, which are involved in motivated reasoning) and did conduct a follow-up to explore whether there were any long-term effects.
In sum, informational interventions show promising results in promoting sustainable food decision making in consumers. This type of intervention can create more awareness about the problems and consequences of food decision making. In addition, it might
therefore, change the beliefs and motivations of individuals with regards to sustainable food consumption, which is essential to reduce moral disengagement, and feelings of loss-aversion and cognitive dissonance. Individuals will, as a result, more likely to participate in
sustainable instead of unsustainable behaviour. However, no significant evidence in favour of these assumptions is revealed in the literature up until now. Future studies need to research this assumption since the first results look promising and are a good starting point in investigating how to address psychological mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning with informational interventions.
3.1.3 Behaviour change interventions focused on motivated reasoning mechanisms. In contrast to the results described in the previous section, only exposure to information focusing on the impact of current behaviours (e.g., attachment to meat) might not be sufficient to establish a change in decision making (Graça et al., 2015). Moreover, there is evidence that individuals who are confronted with consequences of food consumption and have a preference towards unsustainable food decisions tend to neglect opposing information and look for congruent information that drives their cognition in the direction of the preferred
outcome (Ong, Frewer, & Chan, 2017). Since much of our relationship with food decision making exists at an unconscious level within patterns of behaviour (Köster, 2009), these patterns likely hinder willingness to change food decisions and perceptions of moral
relevance. These unconscious patterns indicate that individuals are not actively aware of their motivations and perceptions on sustainable food decision making. However, being aware of motivations and perceptions is crucial for behavioural change. Furthermore, research
suggests that informational interventions that aim to encourage reducing meat-eating possibly even strengthen meat-eating justifications (i.e., moral disengagement strategies to reduce feelings of cognitive dissonance and loss-aversion; Graça et al., 2015; Rothgerber, 2014). This situation is probably more likely to occur among attached meat consumers since it has been proposed consumers with less attachment to meat are more open to information that focuses on the impact of current habits and the benefits of changing those (Graça et al., 2015; Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Rothgerber, 2014). To prevent the problem of
strengthened justifications, it is more effective to use indirect approaches (e.g., structural changes that make plant-based meals more accessible) to reach attached meat consumers without provoking loss-aversion mechanisms (Graça et al., 2015; Vinnari & Vinnari, 2014).
In short, it is clear that to elicit the willingness to change meat-eating habits and to adopt a more plant-based diet, interventions have to circumvent meat attachment and other barriers (i.e., moral disengagement strategies and feelings of cognitive dissonance and loss aversion) at the individual level. Interventions and policies invented to limit meat
consumption and to encourage a shift towards sustainable consumption will presumably be more effective when using more indirect approaches. Indirect approaches are less likely to trigger feelings of loss-aversion and cognitive dissonance, therefore, able to address the underlying motivations that trigger moral disengagement processes on a deeper level (Graça et al., 2016).
Furthermore, a recent study revealed that a new short-term intervention based on critical thinking and social regulation has the potential to reduce moral disengagement (Bustamante & Chaux, 2014). In this study, the indirect intervention lowered moral
justifications and moral disengagement related to steeling in teenage participants, relative to the control group and persuasion and behavioural journalism intervention group. However, it is not clear whether this type of short-term intervention leads to long-term behavioural changes in the participants, and if this intervention can be translated into sustainable food decision-making research. Moreover, the study has significant limitations and needs replication in the future. Only high academic level students participated, and they were not randomly assigned to the conditions. Furthermore, the questionnaire used did not measure all components of moral disengagement, such as emotional processes, and might have led to social-desirability bias. Future studies should try to account for these flaws by developing questionnaires that include all components of moral disengagement and improving their study paradigm.
3.1.4 Suggestions for improving interventions. As emphasised at the beginning of this chapter, interventions should lead to the inhibition of moral disengagement, and feelings of loss-aversion and cognitive dissonance. Then, the willingness to change food decisions and the likelihood that individuals will start making sustainable decisions will hopefully increase. Research suggests it is efficient to create interventions including both self-monitoring of behaviour and positive feedback to encourage individuals. Notably, the behaviour that needs to be changed has to be recognised, and underlying factors of this behaviour have to be identified before creating appropriate interventions. Identifying underlying factors of the behaviour will make individuals more aware of their motivations
and beliefs on the behaviour, probably leading to adapted feelings of cognitive dissonance and loss-aversion.
However, contrasting views still exist about how to shape interventions to reduce mechanisms of motivated reasoning. Contrasting views mainly exist about informational strategies showing information about one’s environmental and social impact, by everyday decisions, aiming to improve sustainable food consumption. Moreover, different groups of people might all react differently to informational interventions, by using moral
disengagement strategies or neglecting the information in favour of their preference (Graça et al., 2015; Ong et al., 2017; Rothgerber, 2014).
Therefore, I suggest that combining informational and indirect interventions that focus on circumventing underlying motivations that trigger moral disengagement and loss-aversion on a deeper level creates an intervention that is more effective in shifting behaviour of
individuals towards more sustainable consumption. As a result, individuals, especially attached individuals (Graça et al.,2015), might experience fewer feelings of cognitive
dissonance and reduced use of moral disengagement strategies. In turn, this hopefully leads to people showing the desired sustainable behaviour.
Besides, social support and social regulation are thought to have the power to
reinforce intrinsic motivation and to reduce moral disengagement mechanisms. This support and regulation might encourage people to participate in sustainable food behaviour and positively change beliefs and motivations. This change is necessary to reduce tendencies to use motivated reasoning strategies. Therefore, adding a social aspect to an intervention might be beneficial.
3.2 Marketing strategies impacting motivated reasoning and improving sustainable food consumption
In the following section, I will discuss several types of marketing strategies that have the potential to affect and increase sustainable consumption in individuals by addressing mechanisms of motivated reasoning. In the first subsection, I will shortly introduce the concept of ‘Nudging’. Then, in the following up subsections, three types of nudging and its impact on motivated reasoning mechanisms will be described. Finally, this section will end with suggestions on how to improve and adapt those marketing strategies in order to be more effective in improving sustainable food consumption and reducing the propensity to use mechanisms of motivated reasoning
3.2.1 Nudging. A popular marketing strategy often used in grocery shopping is called “nudging”. Nudging is a wide concept covering many sub-strategies and is used to steer people’s behaviour in particular directions, but at the same time allow people to go their own way (Sunstein, 2014; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). The idea is that small details can lead to significant changes in individuals' behaviour (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). With regards to motivated reasoning in individuals, this might mean that changing small details (such as availability of food) leads to changed motivations (easy and convenience vs. a lot of work and thinking) and beliefs. As a result, people might experience less loss-aversion or cognitive dissonance. An example of a successful nudge is placing healthy food in prominent positions in stores to encourage healthy behaviour, instead of making junk food illegal or taxing it (Wilkinson, 2013). In the following subsections, I will discuss three types of nudges: ‘Uses of social norms’, ‘Increase ease and convenience’, and ‘Reminders’ (Sunstein, 2014). After an intensive literature study, these three types of nudging turned out to be the most commonly investigated and promising in sustainable food consumption research. Therefore, the next
three paragraphs will cover these types of nudges and link them to motivated reasoning mechanisms.
3.2.1.1 Use of social norms. As discussed by Lally and Gardner (2013), intrinsic motivation can be reinforced by the encouragement and support of a close-by, socially important person. Furthermore, social support can strengthen the social norms of individuals. This strengthening might lead to reduced use of moral disengagement and feelings of loss-aversion and cognitive dissonance since preferences and motivations have changed, which is needed to reduce motivated reasoning. As a result, the likelihood that individuals are willing to change their food decision-making habits probably increases.
An example of a social norm as a nudge in sustainable food decision making is a descriptive norm. A descriptive norm describes the perception of the prevalence of behaviour most individuals perform (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). However, descriptive norms might
potentially have adverse side effects on environmental behaviour. Making people aware of the prevalence of behaviour can give the idea that undesired behaviour is common (i.e., the desired behaviour is rare). Accordingly, this may lead to individuals increasing their preference to participate in that behaviour (Cialdini, 2003). As a consequence of the
increased preference, individuals are more likely to use motivated reasoning mechanisms to reason to their preferred decision (Epley & Gilovich, 2016).
Nevertheless, recent research revealed evidence in favour of using descriptive norms to increase sustainable food consumption. Presenting strong and weak formulations of descriptive norms in virtual shopping areas had a positive effect on online eco-products purchasing and money spent on sustainable products (Demarque, Charalambides, Hilton, & Waroquier, 2015). Even if current levels of sustainable consumption might be relatively low, descriptive norms can be described in ways to promote sustainable consumption in a virtual shopping environment with real incentives (Demarque et al., 2015). Furthermore, the study
found different responses of the two populations on descriptive norms (e.g., the two study populations have different beliefs and motivations at baseline). These findings showed up after conducting two experiments showing descriptive norms in an online shopping environment. Different populations were tested in the two experiments (university and business population), and participants viewed either a control condition, a weak descriptive norm, strong descriptive norm 1, or strong descriptive norm 2 (see Appendix D for examples of norms used).
Both experiments showed that in all three conditions, individuals bought more sustainable products and spent more money on these products when compared to the control condition. Moreover, it was revealed that weak and strong norm conditions were more effective in the university population than in the business population. This difference in response suggests that the two populations have different beliefs and motivations regarding sustainable food consumption. These findings provide valuable insights about the use of descriptive norms, but also raise important questions which future research should answer.
In addition, there are some side notes when using descriptive norms to improve sustainable consumption. First, when providing practical information to consumers about the extent to which other consumers participate in pro-environmental behaviour, this can draw attention to the fact that many other people do not show pro-environmental behaviour (Cialdini, 2003; Demarque et al., 2015). As a consequence, individuals can give themselves an excuse to disregard the norm (e.g., justification, which is a form of moral disengagement; Cialdini et al., 2006) and reason to conclusions they prefer.
3.2.1.2 Increase ease and convenience. Besides using social norms as a nudge, it can be beneficial to increase ease and convenience (e.g., making healthy food options visible, availability, and costs of sustainable products; Sunstein, 2014). This is because convenience is an important decisions criterion for food consumption (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001;
Weatherell et al., 2003). Therefore, reducing barriers is often helpful to encourage the desired behaviour since resistance to change is often related to perceived difficulty (Sunstein, 2014). As discussed earlier, people’s motivations and preferences are affecting the collection and processing of evidence and arguments in order to reason their way to the conclusions they prefer. Thus, lowering the perceived difficulty and increasing convenience by reducing barriers should change motivations and perceptions of individuals. This change is necessary to reduce feelings of cognitive dissonance or loss aversion, and to reduce tendencies to use moral disengagement strategies.
To increase ease and convenience, using default-based interventions might be helpful. A default-based intervention recommends pre-set options of (sustainable) food, which
requires no or little reflection, therefore lowering effort for individuals to distinguish and decide between food options. The default-based effects can be explained by reference dependency (Smith, Goldstein, & Johnson, 2013). Reference dependency refers to
individuals evaluating outcomes and seeing the default as a reference point. This reference point gives decision-makers the feeling they have already made a choice and choosing
another option than the default may, therefore, be experienced as a loss. When translating this to loss-aversion, people care much more about avoiding losses than about earning equivalent gains, which would make changing from the default seem more negative (Dinner, Johnson, Goldstein, & Liu, 2011). This leads to individuals choosing the sustainable default option, even when other options are around.
Previous studies confirmed that default-based interventions are essential tools in motivating pro-environmental food choices and can provide information and education efforts over the long term (Campbell-Arvai, Arvai, & Kalof, 2014; van Kleef, Seijdell, Vingerhoeds, de Wijk, & van Trijp, 2018).
Campbell-Arvai et al. (2014) implemented a nudge to motivate participants to make pro-environmental food decisions. Participants were presented either a default menu
(presenting only appealing or unappealing meat-free meal options), a default+information menu, an information menu, or a more conventional menu (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014; see Appendix E for more details). Important to mention, when handed a default menu,
participants were informed that they could see a second menu that was posted on the wall if they wished to, and this secondary menu listed non-vegetarian meal options. The default menu increased the chance that participants chose a meat-free meal more than conventional menus, especially when the participants were showed appealing meat-free options
(Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014). Therefore, so-called default-based interventions could help support behaviour changes towards more sustainable behaviour (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014) by changing reference points and motivations. This finding can be explained by reference dependence, which gives the decision-maker the feeling they already made a choice. Deviating from this reference point can be experienced as a loss. To avoid feelings of loss-aversion, individuals stay with the default food option, even when other options are available. As a consequence, moral disengagement strategies are not activated, and people do not tend to apply other motivated reasoning mechanisms.
3.2.1.3 Reminders. The final type of nudge discussed in this thesis is the use of reminders. When reminders are around, individuals do not have to actively motivate themselves about deciding what sustainable food is and what is not. It lowers perceived barriers, making it more likely that individuals will make sustainable food decisions. As described in the previous section, this might cause people to perceive less cognitive dissonance, loss-aversion, and moral disengagement (i.e., reduce the use of motivated reasoning mechanisms).
Fair Trade emblems on food products (highlighting ethically sustainable production) remind individuals about sustainable food consumption. Earlier studies revealed a potential neural mechanism underlying the valuation processes of certified food products using this type of reminder (Enax et al., 2015; Linder et al., 2010). Participants had to conduct a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study in which they had to evaluate products with or without a Fair Trade emblem and also had to state their willingness to pay (WTP; Enax et al., 2015). Furthermore, participants tasted chocolates presented either with the Fair Trade emblem or as ‘conventionally’ produced. The researchers assumed the Fair Trade emblem would induce positive and rewarding information about an item. The results showed that WTP was significantly higher for Fair Trade products and functional activity in brain regions that are important for reward-processing and salience had increased (ventral striatum, anterior and posterior cingulate (ACC and PCC), superior frontal gyrus, ventromedial
prefrontal cortex (vmPFC); Enax et al., 2015). This network of reward-processing and salience might alter valuation processes, therefore changing beliefs and motivations on food products. Next, it turned out that participants experienced more taste pleasantness and intensity for the Fair Trade labelled chocolates, compared to chocolates without the emblem (Enax et al., 2015).
These findings can be explained by the fact that individuals might experience Fair Trade emblems as a form of social regulation since these emblems represent ethically sustainable production. Often, ethically sustainable production is evaluated as a positive outcome, therefore changing beliefs and motivations of people on a food product. This change in beliefs and motivations is necessary to reduce tendencies to use moral
disengagement strategies, and feelings of loss-aversion and cognitive dissonance. Previous fMRI studies investigating the neural bases of motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance have found an overlapping network of brain areas to be involved in motivated reasoning and
cognitive dissonance (vmPFC, ACC, and PCC; Kitayama, Chua, Tompson, & Han, 2013; Westen, Blagoy, Harenski, Kilts, & Hamann, 2006). Therefore, using reminders might affect neural mechanisms of motivated reasoning and lower tendencies to use those mechanisms. Future research should investigate this proposition.
3.2.2 Suggestions for improving marketing strategies. As for interventions, marketing strategies should also address motivations underlying motivated reasoning mechanisms (i.e., address feelings of loss aversion, cognitive dissonance, and moral disengagement) in order to be effective. If that is the case, it will become more likely that people are willing to make sustainable decisions.
First, this section showed why the use of descriptive norms to increase sustainable food decision making seems to be promising, even though using this strategy also has some side effects. As discussed, descriptive norms describing the prevalence of behaviour might draw attention to the fact that many other individuals do not participate in sustainable behaviour. Therefore, people can give themselves excuses to perform undesired behaviour (i.e., justification). Hence, to make sure this form of moral disengagement does not arise, descriptive norms have to be ‘framed’ in a positive way so that people are encouraged and motivated to show sustainable behaviour instead of bailing out. For example, adding an injunctive norm (i.e., perception of what other people approve or disapprove) to descriptive norms can account for the side effects of only using descriptive norms (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). The finding that the conjoint influence of social messages can result in more substantial behavioural changes than presenting only one of them supports this suggestion (Cialdini, 2003). Social norm communication, therefore, is likely to be most effective when combining the strengths of both descriptive and injunctive norm messages (Cialdini, 2003).
Besides using social norms, reducing barriers might help to encourage people to show sustainable behaviour since it decreases the perceived difficulty. This can be achieved by using default-based interventions recommending pre-set options of sustainable food. The default effect can be explained by reference dependence, which refers to people evaluating outcomes and seeing the default as a reference point. Deviating from this reference point gives the decision-maker feelings of loss aversion. To avoid this discomfort feeling, people often choose the default option, even when other options are around. Therefore, this strategy has the potential to change perceptions of people and, therefore, to reduce the tendency to use motivated reasoning mechanisms.
Lastly, combining these two earlier nudging strategies with reminders, such as Fair Trade emblems, might be useful for improving sustainable behaviour in individuals. It might be useful because individuals do not have actively decide what is sustainable food when reminders are around. This nudge lowers perceived barriers and might trigger feelings of social responsibility too, making it more likely individuals will make sustainable food
decisions. In addition, the reminder might work as social influence, motivating individuals to make the same sustainable decisions as other individuals do. As a consequence, people may perceive less cognitive dissonance, loss-aversion, and moral disengagement when making the desired sustainable decisions.
