MSc Communication Science
Persuasive Communication
Master thesis
Eating less meat or more plants?
The effect of Instagram post frame on willingness and intention to
follow a more plant-based diet
Author: Amber Broek Student number: 12525413
University of Amsterdam Supervisor: dr. B.C. Schouten
Word count: 7813 June 25, 2020
Abstract
Despite the health and environmental benefits of eating less meat and adopting a more plant-based diet, many consumers do not seem to have the intention to eat a plant-plant-based diet or to reduce their meat consumption. Providing target information and campaigns to encourage people to consume a more plant-based diet is necessary and social media platforms as Instagram have a high potential for reaching people. This study examines whether a post on Instagram promoting the consumption of more plant-based foods (a pull-frame) would lead to higher willingness and intention to follow a more plant-based diet, compared to an Instagram post promoting reduced consumption of meat (a push-frame), and what role meat-eating justifications and meat attachment play in this effect. Results of an online experiment (N=113) indicate no significant difference in effect between the two Instagram post frames. Also, no mediation by meat-eating justifications was found. However, results show that the expression of meat-eating justifications leads to lower willingness and intention to follow a more plant-based diet. Furthermore, participants who are attached to meat are more prone to express meat-eating justifications. More research is needed into the use of Instagram and push – and pull frames to encourage people to adopt a more plant-based diet. Thereby meat
attachment and meat-eating justifications are important underlying concepts to consider. Keywords: Instagram posts, push- and pull frames, meat consumption, plant-based diet,
Introduction
During recent decades, the consumption of meat and animal-based products in general has massively increased, whereas the consumption of plant-based foods has decreased (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015). For example, where in 1961 globally 23.08 kilograms of meat per capita were consumed, in 2013 this was 43.22 kilograms per capita (Ritchie & Roser, 2017). Meat has become a symbol of food itself; it has become an item which many people take for granted and feel they are naturally entitled to (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015).
However, a diet consisting for a large part of meat and other animal products and of fewer plant-based products, brings along major health risks. High consumption of red and processed meat, and a lower consumption of fruits and vegetables are important diet-related risk factors, which contribute to early mortality, since they are linked to obesity and being overweight (Springmann, Godfray, Rayner, & Scarborough, 2016). Furthermore, high meat intake has been linked to an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and different types of cancer (Yip, Lam, & Fielding, 2018). Besides the health risks, the consumption of animal products also has serious consequences for the planet. The production of meat and dairy products is associated with CO2 emissions that are estimated to account for 14.5% of the global total (Rees et al., 2018). The production of animal products accounts for 30% of the land surface of the planet and negatively affects the soil by erosion and loss of nutrients. Lastly, extensive amounts of water are used for meat and dairy production, which leads to water depletion and pollution (Zur & Klöckner, 2014).
A global transition towards plant-based dietscould prevent these health and
environmental risks in the future. A plant-based diet can be defined as “an eating pattern that is dominated by fresh or minimally produced plant foods and decreased consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products.” (Lea, Crawford, & Worsley, 2006, p.342). The diet involves
legumes, nuts and seeds, in comparison to a meat-centered diet.” (Lea, Crawford, & Worsley, 2006, p. 342). Springmann et al. (2016) predict that dietary changes toward fewer animal and more plant-based foods may reduce global mortality by 6-10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29-70% in 2050.
Despite these benefits, many consumers do not seem to have the intention to eat a plant-based diet or to reduce their meat consumption (Graça, Oliveira, & Calheiros, 2015). Previous research described a paradox of eating animal-based products: people have negative attitudes towards the impact of the production and consumption of animal-based product on health, environment and animal welfare, yet are unwilling to change their dietary habits (Macdiarmid, Douglas, & Campbell, 2016). People still have multiple motivations to continue eating meat: the pleasurable taste of meat, the importance of perceived tradition, beliefs about the role of meat in the diet (e.g. ‘a proper meal has to include meat’, ‘it is part of a healthy diet’, ‘meat fills you up’), the belief that human beings should eat meat (e.g. ‘people have always eaten meat’), and the influence of external social pressures (Macdiarmid et al., 2016). This indicates that eating meat is still very normal in society and therefore something that is difficult to change for a lot of people.
An important intervention suggestion to encourage people to eat less meat and more plant-based products, is providing targeted health information and campaigns for encouraging substitution of meat (Apostolidis & McLeay, 2016; Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015). The current digital age has a high potential for targeting and reaching people via online channels (Dunlop, Freeman, & Jones, 2016). For example, the social media platform Instagram has more than 1 billion active users per month (Statista, 2018). Social media provide opportunities for spreading health information and changing health-related attitudes and behaviors (Mou & Shen, 2018), and it is argued that social media could be an important factor contributing to someone’s diet (Vaterlaus, Patten, Roche, & Young, 2015). The role of social media in
promoting plant-based diets or reduced meat consumption has thus far not been studied. Hence, research is needed to investigate the persuasiveness of social media posts in increasing intentions to eat less meat and more plant-based foods.
This thesis questions if directly promoting reduced meat consumption is an effective way to generate this dietary change. Graça, Oliveira, and Calheiros (2015) raise the
hypothesis that mere exposure to information on the impact of meat consumption would not be enough to increase intention to change meat consumption. Instead, encouraging reduced meat consumption could increase rationalizing of the current consumption pattern by
entrenchment in meat-eating justifications (Graça, Oliveira & Calheiros, 2015). Rationalizing enables people to continue to eat meat, while feeling less guilty about their consumption. (Piazza et al., 2015). In contrast, information promoting the increase of plant-based foods into the diet could generate a different and more positive response, since it does not focus directly on meat consumption and such meat-eating justifications will not be triggered. As no research has been conducted to test these assumptions, the current study will examine to what extent exposure to an Instagram post promoting reduced meat consumption or promoting increased plant-based consumption will lead to meat-eating justifications and how this has an effect on willingness and intentions to reduce meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet.
Returning to the beforementioned meat paradox, another aspect that could explain this paradox is meat attachment. Meat attachment can be defined as having a positive bond
towards meat consumption (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015). An important characteristic of the concept of attachment is the desire to maintain closeness to the object of attachment (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001), and therefore attachment to meat could hinder willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015). Particularly people who are attached to meat are willing to maintain their meat-centered diet, and it could therefore be expected that especially among more meat attached consumers, encouraging
reduced meat consumption will lead to entrenchment in meat-eating justifications (Graça, Oliveira, & Calheiros, 2015). Meat attachment will thus be studied as a moderator in the effect of Instagram posts frame on meat-eating justification.
This study has both theoretical and societal contributions. Firstly, the study contributes to a better understanding of the effectiveness of Instagram posts in influencing healthy and sustainable eating behavior. Secondly, it provides insight in how different framing of a campaign message could affect willingness and intentions to reduce meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet, and how this differs between people with different levels of meat attachment. The findings provide new insights in the use of social media for social marketing and can be used to effectively target the population to create intentions to follow a more plant-based diet. These intentions could lead to reduced consumption of animal products and thereby a decrease of health and environmental risks. The main research question that will be investigated in the current study is:
How do Instagram posts promoting reduced meat consumption versus promoting plant-based foods consumption influence willingness and intentions to reduce meat
consumption and follow a more plant-based diet, and what is the mediating and moderating role of meat-eating justifications and meat attachment?
Theoretical Background
The outcome measures of this study are willingness and intention to reduce meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet. Willingness is the extent to which people are willing to perform a type of behavior, their openness to opportunity, where intentions are actual plans to engage in a behavior (Pomery, Gibbons, Reis-Bergan, & Gerrard, 2009). In general, the stronger the willingness and intention to engage in a particular behavior, the more likely people will actually perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Meat reduction vs. increased plant-based consumption
Message framing can be defined as “the process of relaying information in different ways, which can have an effect on how a message is used and interpreted by the audience receiving it.” (Graham & Abrahamse, 2017, p. 100). There are different ways to frame a message, where one of them is the use of gain- and loss-frames. Information about a health behavior can be gain-framed, which means the benefits of taking action are emphasized. It can also be loss-framed, which means emphasizing the costs of not taking action (Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006). People can respond differently to messages that are gain-framed compared to messages that are loss-framed. Rothman et al. (2006) propose that gain-framed messages are more effective when they target behaviors that prevent negative health
outcomes, whereas loss-framed messages are more effective for behaviors that detect a possible disease. Applying this theory to the current study, eating a plant-based diet can be seen as a prevention behavior: it minimizes the chance of the negative health outcomes of eating a meat-centered diet. According to Rothman’s theory it is therefore expected that a gain frame, emphasizing the benefits of a plant-based diet or the benefits of reducing meat
consumption, is more effective to change people’s intention to eat more plant-based compared to a loss-framed message. Hence, the current study will make use of gain-framed messages.
Another way a choice can be framed, is by emphasizing an opportunity or an
avoidable risk. Kees, Burton, and Tangari (2010) found that an ad promoting eating healthy foods and exercising, thus an opportunity, was more positively received than an ad promoting avoidance of consuming unhealthy foods and inactivity, an avoidable risk. In a similar way a message to increase people’s willingness and intentions towards a more plant-based diet can be designed in two ways. The campaign message can promote eating less meat, to avoid the health risks of following a meat-centered diet, but the message could also focus on increased consumption of plant-based foods, which can be seen as an opportunity to follow a healthier diet. De Boer and Aiking (2017) distinguish push frames and pull frames: the first frame pushes consumers away from routine meat consumption, whereas the second frame encourages people to consume alternatives. There are concerns that campaigns that try to encourage reduced meat consumption, i.e. a push message, will not be effective in guiding consumers in the desired direction (De Boer & Aiking, 2017) and could be at risk of being accused of questioning consumer’s right to consume what they want (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015). Instead, it is argued that instead of challenging the centrality of meat in the diet, it could be more effective to encourage people to incorporate plant-based foods into their diet that could replace the central role of meat (Lacroix & Gifford (2019), i.e. a pull message, because past transitions in food consumption patterns in society, happened by substitution of a product that could replace the food product that fell away (Graça, Oliveira, & Calheiros, 2015).
Based on the above, it can be expected that people will receive information on increased plant-based consumption more positively than information on reduced meat consumption, and therefore the first frame is more effective in changing willingness and intention than the latter. Therefore, it is hypothesized that promoting plant-based consumption
will lead to higher willingness and intentions to follow a more plant-based diet, than the promotion of reduced meat consumption. The first hypotheses of the current study are:
An Instagram post promoting plant-based consumption leads to higher willingness (H1a) and intentions (H1b) to reduce meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet, than an Instagram post promoting meat consumption reduction.
Meat-eating justifications
When people who like to eat meat are exposed to information on reducing their meat
consumption, this will likely arouse dissonance. Cognitive dissonance can be described as an uncomfortable feeling that people experience when they face inconsistencies between two or more of the cognitions they hold, or between cognitions and behavior (Festinger, 1957). Meat-related cognitive dissonance is specifically related to someone’s status as a meat eater: it is the dissonance that people experience when they face beliefs, attitudes or values that
contradict their meat consumption (Rothgerber, 2020). To reduce this meat-related
dissonance, people can change their behavior and reduce their meat consumption, so that their behavior aligns the inconsistent information. Another way to reduce the dissonance is by rationalizing their current consumption. Rationalization can be defined as “providing reasonable justifications for one’s behavior when it comes under scrutiny or criticism, or when one’s behavior is perceived as discrepant with an integral aspect of one’s character” (Piazza et al., 2015, p. 114).
People use different rationalizations to justify their meat consumption, which can be summarized to the 4N’s: the belief that consuming meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice (Piazza et al., 2015). Piazza et al. (2015) found that there was a large effect of level of meat restriction on endorsement of the 4N’s: omnivores significantly endorsed the 4Ns at a higher rate than restricted omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. Furthermore, endorsement of
the 4Ns was significantly correlated with meat consumption and negatively correlated with animal product restriction: individuals who endorsed the 4Ns were less likely to move
towards reduced meat consumption (Piazza et al., 2015). Similar results were found in a study by Hartmann and Siegrist (2020), who found that meat-eating justifications were significant negative predictors of people’s willingness to reduce or substitute their meat consumption.
Coming up with meat-eating justifications allows people to maintain their current diet, without feeling uncomfortable or guilty. In the current study it can be expected that an
Instagram post that promotes meat consumption will lead to meat-eating justifications among meat eaters, because the post reminds people of the consequences of their meat eating
behavior. When participants use justifications to rationalize their meat consumption to cope with the cognitive dissonance, they will not likely develop the willingness or intention to change their diet.
A different response can be expected when the post promotes increased consumption of plant-based foods. A previous study found that people were more likely to experience cognitive dissonance on their meat consumption when presented with a description of a vegetarian person, than when exposed to a description of a person who followed a gluten-free diet (Rothgerber, 2014), because the description of a gluten-free person reminded the
participants less of their meat eating behavior than the description of the vegetarian person. When the Instagram post in the current study promotes plant-based consumption, consumers are not directly reminded of their meat consumption and will likely experience less cognitive dissonance, and thus makes them less prone to rationalize their behavior with meat-eating justifications. As a result, participants exposed to this post will be more likely persuaded by the message and are more willing and intending to change their diet. Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
The effect of Instagram posts (promoting meat reduction vs. promoting plant-based consumption) on willingness and intentions to reduce meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet is mediated by meat-eating justifications, in a way that a post promoting meat consumption reduction leads to higher meat-eating justifications (H2), which leads to lower willingness (H3a) and intentions (H3b) to reduce meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet.
Meat attachment
An important concept when it comes to meat consumption and reduction, is the extent to which people are attached to meat. Meat attachment is associated with “high positive affect and dependence towards meat, and feelings of sadness and deprivation when considering abstaining from meat consumption.” (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015, p. 114). Meat attachment consists of four dimensions: hedonism (meat as a source of pleasure), affinity (affinity towards meat consumption, measured as the opposite of feelings of
repulsion), entitlement (feelings of entitlement towards meat consumption) and dependence (feelings of dependence on meat consumption) (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015). Meat attachment was found to be a significant negative predictor of willingness and intentions to reduce meat consumption and to follow a plant-based diet (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2016; Lentz, Connelly, Mirosa, & Jowett, 2018).
As mentioned before, encouraging meat reduction could trigger defense or loss-aversion mechanisms and lead to meat-eating justifications (Graça, Calheiros & Oliveira, 2015). It is expected that this is especially true for people that are highly attached to meat (Graça, Calheiros & Oliveira, 2015; Graça, Oliveira & Calheiros, 2015). Previous research supports this expectation: people that were meat attached resolved meat-related dissonance by resorting to pro-meat justifications, whereas people that did not have an affective connection
towards meat appeared to resolve eventual dissonance by expressing willingness to reduce their meat consumption and adopt a plant-based diet (Loughnan, Bastian, & Haslam, 2014).
The moderating role of meat attachment in the relation between the Instagram post and meat-eating justifications, can be explained with identity theory (Stryker, 1968). Self-identity is an aspect of one’s self perception, that is related to the individuals’ different roles in social contexts. These roles come with expectations about appropriate behavior according to the role. This means that consuming products that are in line with someone’s self-presentation, can serve as a strategy for expressing one’s self-identity to others (Carfora, Caso, & Conner, 2017). Eating meat could for some people be a behavior that is consistent with how they perceive themselves, and therefore something they are not willing to let go of. It could be expected that for highly attached meat consumers, eating meat is an important part of their identity.
As mentioned before, rationalizing meat consumption by expressing meat-eating justifications allows people to not change their diet, without feeling uncomfortable or guilty. Based on the above it can be expected that especially meat attached consumers will be prone to rationalize their meat consumption. Therefore, the following interaction effect could be hypothesized:
The effect of Instagram posts (promoting meat reduction vs. promoting plant-based consumption) on meat-eating justifications will be moderated by meat attachment in such a way that the Instagram posts promoting meat consumption reduction will lead to higher meat-eating justifications, and that this effect is even stronger for people who have a high meat attachment, compared to people with a low meat attachment (H4).
Method Design
For this study an online experiment was conducted. For the experiment, a single factor between-subjects design with two levels was implemented: plant-based consumption frame vs. meat reduction frame. Meat attachment was a moderator, meat-eating
justifications a mediator and intentions and willingness to reduce meat consumption and follow a plant-based diet were the dependent variables. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the two conditions in which they were exposed to an Instagram post promoting meat reduction or promoting plant-based consumption.
Sample
All participants were recruited by making use of convenience sampling via Facebook and private messaging. With this sampling technique a large sample size can be
achieved relatively fast. Disadvantage of the technique are the chance of biases and that the sample is not representative of the entire population that is being studied (Laerd Dissertation, n.d.). Inclusion criteria were being 18 years old or older and not adhering to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Five participants were removed from the sample because they reported not having eaten meat in the past month. A final sample of 113
participants was used. Participants ranged from 18 to 85 in age, with a mean age of 28.88 (SD = 15.19) and 54.9% was female (N = 62). Most participants 46 % had
completed or were enrolled in a bachelor’s degree (46%) or a master’s degree (28.3%).
Procedure
Data were collected between 20 and 24 May 2020, with a survey via the platform Qualtrics. Invitations with a link to the questionnaire were distributed via Facebook
and WhatsApp. By clicking on the link, participants entered the online experiment, where they were informed on the subject of the study. Furthermore, they were
informed about their right to withdraw from the study and their ensured anonymity, as well as provided with contact information in case of questions concerning the research. In order to participate in the study, participants had to sign the informed consent and confirm the inclusion criteria. The questionnaire started with general questions on age, gender, educational level, Instagram use and current consumption of various food groups. Afterwards, participants were exposed to one of the two Instagram posts and were asked to attentively observe the post they were exposed to and to read the caption. After 15 seconds they were able to click further. Thereafter, they had to fill out questions concerning meat-eating justifications, meat attachment, willingness and intentions reduce meat consumption and follow a plant-based diet. Before assessing willingness and intentions, the definition of plant-based diets as mentioned in the introduction was shown. The final two questions tested whether the manipulation was done successfully. Finally, the participants were thanked for their contribution and the experiment ended.
Stimulus material
Two Instagram posts were used in the experiment as stimulus material. The posts included the same picture of a plant-based meal and were both posted by an account called “Dutch Nutrition Center”, but the added caption was different. One post was accompanied with a caption promoting reducing meat consumption and the other caption promoted plant-based food consumption. The two posts discussed the same health benefits. To keep the material homogenous in all aspects except for the message, it was necessary to keep the rest of the post identical.
The post promoting reducing meat consumption included the following caption:
The post promoting plant-based consumption included the following caption:
Measurements
Meat-eating justifications were assessed with the 4N Scale by Piazza et al. (2015). Previous research by Piazza et al. (2015) indicates that this scale is reliable: the Cronbach’s alpha of the final full 4N Scale was .93 and the Cronbach’s alpha of the subscales (Natural, Necessary, Normal and Nice) varied between .71 and .92. Participants had to rate 16 statements, as “Meals without meat would just be bland and boring”, on a 7-point scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). All the items were averaged to a score between 1 and 7, with higher scores indicating more meat-eating justifications. In the current study the 16 items were averaged to one scale for meat-eating justifications (α =
EAT LESS MEAT
Reducing your meat consumption has a positive effect on your health!
Eating a diet that contains low amounts of meat makes you feel strong, fit and energetic. Moreover, you prevent the development of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and some types of cancer.
What are you waiting for? Cook for example this delicious meat-free buddha bowl! You can find the link to the recipe in our bio.
Are you already trying to reduce your meat consumption?
EAT MORE PLANTS
Eating more plant-based foods has a positive effect on your health!
Eating a diet that contains high amounts of vegetables, beans and grains makes you feel strong, fit and energetic. Moreover, you prevent the development of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and some types of cancer.
What are you waiting for? Cook for example this delicious plant-based buddha bowl! You can find the link to the recipe in our bio.
Meat attachment was assessed with the Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ) by Graça, Calheiros, and Oliveira (2015). This questionnaire consists of 16 statements addressing a positive bond towards meat consumption, such as “Meat is irreplaceable in my diet”. Previous research by Graça, Calheiros, and Oliveira (2015) indicated that the global MAQ scale was highly reliable (α = 0.95), just as the four subscales, hedonism (α = .92), affinity (α = .88), entitlement (α = .86) and dependence (α =.91). Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Five items were reverse scored. Each group of statements was averaged to the subscales, and all items were averaged to create a global scale score, both varying from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher levels of meat attachment. In the current study the 16 statements were averaged to one MAQ scale
(α = .877).
Willingness and intentions to reduce meat consumption and follow a plant-based diet were assessed with two questions by Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira (2015).
Participants had to report their willingness ( “Please indicate your willingness to …”) and their intentions (“Specifically, in the next six months, do you intent to…”) to (i) reduce their meat consumption, (ii) avoid eating meat, and (iii) follow a plant-based diet. The scales ranged from 1 (“very unwilling”) to 5 (“very willing”) and from 1 (“definitely no”) to 5 (“definitely yes”). In the previous study by Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira (2015), the responses were averaged to two reliable general measures of willingness (α = .91) and intentions (α = .90). The same was done in the current study, where willingness had a reliability of α = .733 and intentions had a reliability of α = .613.
Additional measures
about their gender, age, educational level, Instagram usage and past consumption behavior.
Past consumption behavior was assessed with the question “In the last month, how often have you eaten…?” for the following food products/product groups: meat, meat replacers, eggs, dairy products, grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts and seeds. Participants had to rate the frequency on a scale from 1 (“never”) to 7 (“multiple times per day”). The scales of meat replacers, grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts and seeds were averaged to one scale of ‘past consumption of plant-based foods’ (α = .561).
Instagram usage was assessed with the question “Do you use an Instagram account, or have you ever used Instagram?” (yes/no) and “How often do you use Instagram?” (ranging from 1: “less than once a month” to 7: “several times a day”).
Manipulation check
In order to find out whether participants perceived the Instagram posts as intended, two questions were asked. The questions were: “To what extent do you think the Instagram post you just saw was about eating less meat?” and “To what extent do you think the Instagram post you just saw was about eating more plant-based products?”. All participants had to rate the two questions on a scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“very much”).
Results
Randomization check
The results show that the two experimental groups did not differ with respect to age, F (1, 112) = 1.664, p =.200, Instagram use, χ2 (1) = .024, p = .877, level of education, F (1, 112) = 1.790, p = .184, past meat consumption, F (1, 112) = .418, p = .519 and past consumption of plant-based foods, F (1, 112) = .136, p = .713. The two groups did differ significantly for gender, χ2 (1) = 7.37, p = .007. An independent samples t-test with gender as grouping variable and meat attachment as test variable, indicated that male participants were
significantly more attached to meat (M = 4.36 , SD=.13) than female participants (M = 3.73,
SD = .09), t (111) = 3.98, p < 0.001, 95% CI [.318, .948]. Furthermore, female participants
had significantly higher intentions to follow a plant-based diet (M = 2.76, SD = .80) than male participants (M = 2.42, SD = .82), t (111) = -2.26, p = .026, 95% CI [-.65, -.04]. This was not the case for willingness, where female participants still were more willing to follow a plant-based diet (M = 2.72, SD = .77), than male participants (M = 2.58, SD = .87), but this
difference was not significant, t (111) = -.897, p = .377, 95% CI [-.45, .17]. Gender therefore was used in the analyses with meat attachment and intention as outcome variables as a control variable.
Manipulation check
Two independent samples t-tests indicate that the manipulation of the frame of the Instagram post was only partially successful. Manipulation of the reduced-meat consumption frame was successful, a marginal significant effect was found, t (111) = -1.891, p = .061, 95% CI [-1.365, -.032]. The participants who were exposed to the reduced meat consumption frame indicated more highly having seen a post about reducing meat consumption (M = 4,78, SD = 2.04), than participants who were exposed to the plant-based framed post (M = 4.11, SD =
1.69). Participants in the plant-based condition also reported having seen a post about consuming plant-based food products (M = 5.47, SD = 1.501) more highly than participants who were exposed to the meat consumption reduction frame (M= 5.22, SD=1.768), but this difference was not significant, t (111) = -1.891, p = .423, 95% CI [-.364, .862]. Hence, the manipulation was only partially successful, and should be kept in mind when interpreting the results. Despite these results, it has been chosen to continue analyzing the experiment, because the upcoming analyses also were separately conducted for respondents who successfully recognized the manipulation, but these results did not differ significantly from the results of the analyses on all participants. Therefore, only the results of the analyses on all respondents will be reported. In Table 1 an overview of the means and standard deviations on the main variables per experimental group is given.
Table 1
Scores on variables meat-eating justifications, meat attachment, willingness to follow a more plant-based diet and intentions to follow a more plant-based diet, in the two different framing conditions and in total
Meat reduction frame (n = 58) Plant-based consumption frame (n = 55) Total (n = 113) Meat-eating justifications M = 3.64 (SD = .80) M = 3.70 (SD = .97) M = 3.67 (SD = .89) Meat attachment M = 3.96 (SD = .80) M = 4.07 (SD = .98) M = 4.01 (SD = .90) Willingness to follow a more plant-based diet M = 2.64 (SD = .87) M = 2.67 (SD = .77) M = 2.66 (SD = .82) Intention to follow a more plant-based diet M = 2.65 (SD =.74) M = 2.56 (SD =.90) M = 2.61 (SD = .82)
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 stated that participants who were exposed to an Instagram post promoting plant-based food consumption would have a higher willingness and intention to reduce meat consumption and follow a plant-based diet, compared to participants who were exposed to an Instagram post promoting reduced meat consumption. An independent samples t-test
indicated that the willingness in the plant-based condition (M = 2.67, SD = .77), did not differ significantly from willingness in the meat condition (M = 2.64, SD = .87), t (111) = .188, p = .851.
An ANCOVA indicated there also was no significant effect of Instagram post frame on intention to follow a more plant-based diet after controlling for the effect of gender, F (1, 109) = .015, p = .904, η2 < .001. Participants who were exposed to an Instagram post
promoting plant-based food consumption (M = 2.56, SD = .90) did not have higher intentions than participants who were exposed to an Instagram post promoting reduced meat
consumption (M = 2.65, SD = .74). Equal variances can be assumed, Levene’s F (1, 111) = 1.86, p = .176. Thus, H1a and H1b have to be rejected.
Hypotheses 2 and 3
To test Hypothesis 2 and 3, whether the influence of the Instagram post frame on willingness and intentions to reduce meat consumption and follow a plant-based diet is mediated by meat-eating justifications, two mediation analyses were conducted using Model 4 of the SPSS Hayes macro PROCESS. PROCESS conducts an OLS-regression-based path analysis to estimate the direct and indirect effects (Hayes, 2013). The models with 5,000 bootstrap samples assessed the expected mediations. In the model with intention as outcome variable, gender was added as covariate.
As illustrated in Table 2 and 3, the results did not reveal a significant effect of Instagram post frame on participants willingness to follow a more plant-based diet (b = -.06, p = .646) or intention to follow a more plant-based diet (b = .00, p = .979). Additionally, there was no significant effect of Instagram post frame on meat-eating justifications (b = .01, p = .940). Nonetheless, a significant direct effect was found regarding meat-eating justifications on willingness to follow a more plant-based diet (b = -.52, p = .000) and intention to follow a more plant-based diet (b = -.44, p = .000). The higher the meat-eating justifications, the lower the willingness and intention to reduce meat consumption and follow a plant-based diet. Thus, H3a and H3b are supported. However, the total indirect effect of Instagram post frame on participants’ willingness to follow a more plant-based diet was not significant (Indirect effect -.030, boot SE = .09, BCI [-.16,.19], and neither on participants’ intention to eat plant-based (Indirect effect -.062, boot SE =.08, BCI [-.16, .15]. Hence, there is no mediation and H2a and H2b have to be rejected.
Table 2
Results of the Mediation Analyses predicting willingness to follow a more plant-based diet.
Meat-eating justifications B SE LLCI ULCI t p Constant 3.70 .120 3.46 3.93 30.76 .000 Instagram post frame -.06 .168 -.39 . 27 -.34 .732
Willingness to follow a more plant-based diet
B SE LLCI ULCI t p
Constant 4.60 .28 4.04 5.16 16.25 .000
Instagram post frame
Meat-eating justifications
-.52 .07 -.66 -.38 -7.19 .000
Table 3
Results of the Mediation Analyses predicting intention to follow a more plant-based diet Meat-eating justifications B SE LLCI ULCI t P Constant 4.09 .273 3.55 4.63 14.99 .000 Instagram post frame .01 .172 -.32 . 35 -.08 .940 Gender -.28 .173 -.62 .07 -1.60 .112
Intention to follow a more plant-based diet
B SE LLCI ULCI t P Constant 3.88 .38 3.12 4.64 10.11 .000 Instagram post frame .00 .14 -.27 -.28 .03 .979 Meat-eating justifications -.44 .08 -.59, -.29 -5.74 .000 Gender .22 .14 -.06 .50 1.58 .117
Hypothesis 4
To test the whole model, Hayes PROCESS macro was used and two moderated regression analyses with model 7 were carried out. First, the analysis was tested with willingness to follow a more plant-based diet as the dependent variable, Instagram post frame as
independent variable, meat-eating justifications as mediator and meat attachment as
moderator. The strength of the prediction of the total model is moderate: 32% of the variation in willingness to follow a more plant-based diet can be predicted by all variables in the model (R2 = .320). Results of the moderated mediation show that meat attachment had a significant main effect on meat-eating justifications (b = .68, t = 7.38, p = .000, SE = .09, 95% CI [.50, .86]), but meat attachment did not significantly moderate the associations between Instagram post frame and meat-eating justifications (b = -.03, t =-.20, p = .839, SE = .14, 95% CI [-.31,.25]). Thus, H4a is rejected. For more details, see Table 4.
Table 4
Results of the Moderated Mediation Analysis predicting willingness to follow a more plant-based diet
Meat-eating justifications
B SE LLCI ULCI t p
Constant .93 .39 .16 1.69 2.41 .018
Instagram post frame .13 .59 -1.03 1.29 .23 .822
Meat attachment .68 .09 .50 .86 7.38 .000
Instagram post frame x Meat attachment
-.03 .14 -.31 .25 -.20 .839
Willingness to follow a more plant-based diet
B SE LLCI ULCI t p
Instagram post frame -.06 .13 -.31 .19 -.46 .646 Meat-eating
justifications
-.52 .07 -.66 -.38 -7.19 .000
Second, the analysis was conducted with intentions to eat plant-based as the dependent
variable, Instagram post frame as independent variable, meat-eating justifications as mediator, meat attachment as moderator and gender as covariate. The strength of the prediction of the total model is low: 27% of the variation in intentions can be predicted by all variables in the model (R2 = .266). Results of the moderated mediation show that Meat attachment had a significant main effect on meat-eating justifications (b = .71, t = 7.49, p =.000, SE = .10, 95% CI [.52, .90]), but meat attachment did not significantly moderate the relation between
Instagram post frame and meat-eating justifications (b = -.02, t = -.14, p = .888, SE = .14, 95% CI [-.30,.26]). Thus, H4b is rejected. For more details, see Table 5.
Table 5
Results of the Mediation Analysis predicting intentions to follow a more plant-based diet Meat-eating justifications
B SE LLCI ULCI t p
Constant .56 .48 -.40 1.52 1.16 .249
Instagram post .06 .59 -1.11 1.22 .09 .926
Meat attachment .71 .10 .52 .90 7.49 .000
Instagram post frame x Meat attachment
-.02 .14 -.30 .26 -.14 .888
Gender .18 .14 -.10 .45 1.27 .209
Intention to follow a more plant-based diet
Constant 3.88 .38 3.12 4.64 10.11 .000
Instagram post frame .00 .14 -.27 -.28 .03 .979
Meat-eating justifications
-.44 .08 -.59 -.29 -5.74 .000
Discussion
In an attempt to encourage people to adopt a more plant-based diet, this research investigated the extent to which Instagram posts promoting increased consumption of plant-based food products or promoting decreased meat consumption could influence willingness and
intentions to reduce meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet. Furthermore, the role of meat attachment and the expression of meat-eating justifications were assessed.
Results were not consistent with the posed hypotheses. Exposure to an Instagram post promoting increased consumption of plant-based foods did not have a significant different effect on willingness and intentions to follow a more plant-based diet, than an Instagram post promoting reduced meat consumption. This effect was also not found when mediated by meat-eating justifications. This contradicts the expectations of Lacroix and Gifford (2019), who proposed that encouraging consumers to incorporate plant-based products that could replace the central role of meat, would be more effective than challenging the central role meat has in the diet.
The manipulation check that was conducted in this study indicated that the
manipulation of the two frames did not fully succeed. This might mean that participants had not sufficiently noticed that the Instagram post they were exposed to either promoted
reduction of meat consumption or increased consumption of plant-based foods. Therefore, it is difficult to say if the absence of an effect of the Instagram post frame was due to the difference between the push-framed post and the pull-framed post. However, analyses also have been done separately for participants on whom the manipulation did succeed. This indicates that the results can, with some caution, be seen as reliable. Another explanation for the lack of difference in effect of the Instagram post frames could be the fact that participants were exposed to the Instagram post only once. A one-time exposure to an Instagram post
might not sufficient to gain a change in people’s willingness and intentions to change their diet.
As expected, the expression of meat-eating justifications did significantly predict willingness and intention: the more people expressed meat-eating justifications, the lower their willingness and intention to reduce their meat consumption and follow a more plant-based diet. This is in line with the results of Piazza et al. (2015) and Hartmann and Siegrist (2020), who also found that meat-eating justifications were significant negative predictors of willingness and intention to reduce or substitute meat consumption. Rationalizing meat consumption by expressing meat-eating justifications enables people to continue with their current diet without feeling bad about it (Piazza et al., 2015).
Furthermore, it was expected that the extent to which people are attached to meat would moderate the effect of Instagram post frame on the expression of meat-eating justifications. This moderation effect was not found. Even though meat attachment did not significantly moderate the effect of the Instagram post on expression of meat-eating
justifications, the results did indicate that the more people were meat attached, the more they entrenched meat-eating justifications. This is in line with the findings of the study by Graça, Oliveira, and Calheiros (2015), who also found that people who are strongly attached to meat, will make more of an effort to justify their meat consumption behavior.
Lastly, as in previous studies (e.g. Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Rothgerber, 2013; Dowsett, Semmler, Ankeny, & Chur-Hansen, 2018), the current study indicated an important role of gender in encouraging people to follow a more plant-based diet. Male participants were more attached to meat and had lower intentions to change their diet, compared to female participants. This gender difference can be explained with the
beforementioned identity theory (Stryker, 1968). Meat is often seen as a typical male food and therefore seen by men as part of their gender identity (Graça, Oliveira, & Calheiros, 2015).
This makes male consumers more attached to meat and less planning to change their meat-centered diet, compared to female consumers.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
There are several limitations to this study which will be discussed in the following. As mentioned before, failure of the manipulation makes it difficult to draw
conclusions upon the results. An explanation for not succeeding of the manipulation could be that participants did not properly read the caption that accompanied the Instagram post.
Furthermore, the manipulation check was assessed at the end of the survey. It could have been that, after answering the questions on meat-eating justifications and meat attachment,
participants did not remember what they read in the Instagram post and therefore were not able to answer the manipulation check question correctly. Future research should pre-test the stimulus material, to check how the stimuli are perceived and it should assess the
manipulation check after exposure to the manipulation. This will increase the chance that the manipulation will succeed for all participants.
The current study did not include a pre-measure: willingness and intention were not assessed before exposure to the Instagram post. As a consequence, we cannot know if participant’s willingness and intention to follow a more plant-based diet actually have changed after exposure to the Instagram post. Also, besides the two framing conditions, the study did not include a control group. Therefore, if there would have been a change in willingness and intention, we cannot know if the change was an effect of exposure to the Instagram post. If this study will be replicated in the future, a control group should be added in which participants are exposed to an Instagram post on an unrelated topic, and willingness and intention should be measured before and after exposure to the Instagram post. In this way
authors of the future study will be able to draw more conclusions on the effect of exposure to different Instagram posts.
The 4N scale by Piazza et al. (2015) was used as a measure for meat-eating
justifications. This scale does not leave room for justifications that arise spontaneously when exposed to cognitive dissonant information. It could actually be questioned if the scores on meat-eating justifications were evoked by exposure to the Instagram post, or that they were statements that people already agreed or disagreed on. Therefore, we cannot know if the fact that meat-eating justifications did not differ significantly per condition, was due to lack of difference in how the different frames of the Instagram posts were perceived by participants.
Finally, the Instagram posts used as stimuli in the current study focused on the health benefits of eating less meat or eating more plant-based foods. In previous studies meat-eating justifications and rationalization are mainly used after exposing people to material on the consequences of meat production for animals. According to Piazza et al. (2015), the 4Ns especially are a powerful tool that individuals can use to diffuse the guilt they experience when consuming animal products. It is possible that people experience more meat-related guilt and dissonance when confronted with the consequences of their consumption for animals, then when they are confronted with the consequences of their consumption for their own health. This could also indicate that the meat-eating justifications that people expressed, were not specifically evoked by the Instagram posts, and therefore did not significantly differ per condition.
Theoretical and practical implications
This study contributes to the literature on using push- and pull frames to influence willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. The results indicate that a pull-framed
higher willingness and intentions to follow a more plant-based diet than a push-framed Instagram post, promoting reduced meat consumption. More research is needed on the effectiveness of using push- and pull in communication. Push- and pull frames can for example be used in messages on other media than Instagram, in messages where people are exposed to more than once or when used by a different source (e.g. a peer or an influencer). Also, this study can be seen as a starting point for experimental testing on the use of platforms as Instagram to encourage people to follow a more plant-based diet.
Furthermore, results of the current study and previous studies (Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Lentz et al., 2018), indicate the
importance of the concept meat attachment. Meat attachment is related to lower willingness and intentions to follow a more plant-based diet and makes people more prone to rationalize their consumption behavior by entrenching meat-eating justifications. Future efforts to encourage people to follow a more plant-based diet should take into account that meat attachment is an obstacle on the road to dietary change. Where consumers with lower levels of meat attachment will be more open to information on the benefits of adopting a more plant-based diet, meat attached consumers will probably benefit from a more indirect approach (Graça, Oliveira, & Calheiros, 2015), it could for example be promising to nudge consumers into meals that do not need meat to be perceived as a complete meal (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017). Next to anticipating on meat attached consumers, structural changes can be made to prevent that people become meat attached. Therefore, more research is needed to find out how people become attached to meat and what factors strengthen or weaken this process.
Finally, in this study a significant difference between male and female participants was found. Rothgerber (2013) gives several important recommendations for addressing this gender effect, as raising awareness for gender socialization, influencing norm perception, and giving
appeals a masculine frame. These ideas need to be implemented in communication strategies to also make male individuals move towards a more plant-based diet.
Conclusion
The present study investigated the use of exposure to Instagram post to influence willingness and intention to follow a more plant-based diet. In this study, no effect of the use of different message frames on willingness and intention to follow a more plant-based diet was found, but more research on the use of these frames could lead to different results. However, results of this study confirm the importance of meat attachment and the expression of meat-eating justifications. This points out that in the shift towards more plant-based diets is a complicated process which requires more research. Overall, this research provided insights for the first steps in using push- and pull framed Instagram posts to encourage people to adopt a more plant-based diet, and the importance of psychological constructs that underlie this process.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2016). Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food policy, 65, 74-89.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.002
Carfora, V., Caso, D., & Conner, M. (2017). Correlational study and randomised controlled trial for understanding and changing red meat consumption: The role of eating identities.
Social Science & Medicine, 175, 244-252. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.005
Circus, V. E., & Robison, R. (2019). Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. British Food Journal. doi:10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0025
de Boer, J., & Aiking, H. (2017). Pursuing a low meat diet to improve both health and sustainability: How can we use the frames that shape our meals? Ecological Economics, 142, 238-248. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.037
Dowsett, E., Semmler, C., Bray, H., Ankeny, R. A., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2018). Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite, 123, 280-288. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005
Dunlop, S., Freeman, B., & Jones, S. C. (2016). Marketing to youth in the digital age: The promotion of unhealthy products and health promoting behaviours on social media.
Media and Communication, 4(3), 35-49. doi:10.17645/mac.v4i3.522
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to meat? (Un) Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 95, 113-125.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024
Graça, J., Oliveira, A., & Calheiros, M. M. (2015). Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet.
Appetite, 90, 80-90. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.037
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2016). Situating moral disengagement: Motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Personality and Individual Differences,
90, 353-364. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.042
Graham, T., & Abrahamse, W. (2017). Communicating the climate impacts of meat
consumption: The effect of values and message framing. Global Environmental Change,
44, 98-108. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.004
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 61, 11-25. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2020). Our daily meat: Justification, moral evaluation and willingness to substitute. Food Quality and Preference, 80, 103799.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103799
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-281.
Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. Journal of
Lacroix, K., & Gifford, R. (2019). Reducing meat consumption: Identifying group-specific inhibitors using latent profile analysis. Appetite, 138, 233-241.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.002
Laerd Dissertation (n.d.). Convenience sampling. Retrieved 15-05-2020 via http://dissertation.laerd.com/convenience-sampling.php
Lea, E. J., Crawford, D., & Worsley, A. (2006). Consumers' readiness to eat a plant-based diet. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60(3), 342-351.
doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602320
Lentz, G., Connelly, S., Mirosa, M., & Jowett, T. (2018). Gauging attitudes and behaviours: Meat consumption and potential reduction. Appetite, 127, 230-241.
doi:10.1080/17544750.2017.1386221
Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 104–108. Doi:
Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2016). Eating like there's no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite, 96, 487-493. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011
Mou, Y., & Shen, F. (2018). (Potential) patients like me: Testing the effects of user-generated health content on social media. Chinese Journal of Communication, 11(2), 186-201. Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman,
M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114-128. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011
Pomery, E. A., Gibbons, F. X., Reis-Bergan, M., & Gerrard, M. (2009). From willingness to intention: Experience moderates the shift from reactive to reasoned behavior. Personality
Rees, J. H., Bamberg, S., Jäger, A., Victor, L., Bergmeyer, M., & Friese, M. (2018). Breaking the habit: On the highly habitualized nature of meat consumption and implementation intentions as one effective way of reducing it. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
40(3), 136-147. doi:10.1080/01973533.2018.1449111
Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2017). Meat and dairy production. Our World in Data. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363. doi:10.1037/a0030379
Rothgerber, H. (2014). Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters. Appetite, 79, 32-41. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.00
Rothgerber, H. (2020). Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals. Appetite,
146, 104511. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511
Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change co-benefits of dietary change. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146-4151. doi:10.1073/pnas.1523119113 Statista. (2018). Number of monthly active Instagram users from January 2013 to June 2018
(in millions). Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-instagram-users/. Stryker, S., 1968. Identity salience and role performance: The importance of symbolic
interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 30, 558e564. doi:10.2307/349494
Vaterlaus, J. M., Patten, E. V., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2015). # Gettinghealthy: The perceived influence of social media on young adult health behaviors. Computers in
Human Behavior, 45, 151-157. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.013
Yip, C. S. C., Lam, W., & Fielding, R. (2018). A summary of meat intakes and health burdens. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72(1), 18-29.
doi:10.1038/ejcn.2017.117
Zur, I., & Klöckner, C. A. (2014). Individual motivations for limiting meat consumption.
Appendix A: Stimulus material
Stimulus 1: Reduced meat consumption frame
Appendix B: Questionnaire Q4 What is your gender?
o
Male (1)o
Female (2)o
Non-binary (3)o
Prefer not to say (4)Q5 What is your age? (in numbers)
Q6 What is your highest completed education or education you are currently enrolled in?
o
Less than high school (1)o
High school (2)o
Associate degree (3)o
Bachelor’s degree (4)o
Master’s degree (5)o
Ph.D. or higher (6) Other, namely (7) ________________________________________________ Q7 Do you use an Instagram account, or have you ever used Instagram?o
Yes (1)o
No (2)Q8 How often do you use, or have you used Instagram?
o
Less than once a month (1)o
Once a month (2)o
Weekly (3)o
A few times per week (4)o
Most days of the week (5)o
Every day (6)Q9 In the last month, how often have you eaten...?
Never (1) A few times (2) Multiple times per week (3) Every day (4) Multiple times per day
(5) Meat (1)
o
o
o
o
o
Meat replacers (2)o
o
o
o
o
Vegetables (3)o
o
o
o
o
Fruits (4)o
o
o
o
o
Eggs (5)o
o
o
o
o
Dairy products (6)o
o
o
o
o
Grains (bread, pasta etc.) (7)o
o
o
o
o
Legumes (beans, peas, etc.) (8)o
o
o
o
o
Nuts and seeds (9)o
o
o
o
o
Q10 You will now see an Instagram post, please take some time to look at it and read the caption carefully. After 15 seconds you can continue with the rest of the questions. Q19 To what extent do you agree to the following statements?
Strongl y disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) It is only natural to eat meat. (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
It is unnatural to eat an all plant-based diet. (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Our human ancestors atemeat all the time. (3)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Human beings naturally crave meat. (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
It is necessary to eat meat in order to be healthy. (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
You cannot get all theprotein, vitamins, and mineral you need on an all plant-based diet. (6)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Human beings need to eat meat. (7)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A healthy diet requires at least some meat. (8)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Not eating meat is socially unacceptable . (9)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
It is abnormal for humans not to eat meat. (10)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Most people I know eat meat. (11)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
It is normal to eat meat. (12)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Meat is delicious. (13)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Meat adds so much flavor to a meal it does not make sense to leave it out. (14)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The best tasting food is normally a meat based dish. (15)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Meals without meat would just be bland and boring. (16)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Strongl y disagree (14) Disagre e (15) Somewha t disagree (16) Neither agree nor disagre e (17) Somewha t agree (18) Agre e (19) Strongl y agree (20) To eat meat is one of the good pleasures in life. (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Meat is irreplaceable in my diet. (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
According to our position in the food chain, we have the right to eat meat (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I feel bad when I think of eating meat (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I love meals with meat (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
To eat meat is disrespectful towards life and the environment. (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
To eat meat is an unquestionabl e right of every person (7)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
A good steak is without comparison (8)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
By eating meat I'm reminded of the death and
suffering of animals (9)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I don't picture myself without eating meat regularly (10)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I would feel fine with a meatless diet (11)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I'm a big fan
of meat (12)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
If I couldn't eat meat, I would feel weak. (13)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
If I was forced to stop eating meat, I would feel sad. (14)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Meat reminds me of diseases (15)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Eating meat is a natural and undisputable practice (16)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Q14 Please read the following description.
A plant-based diet is an eating pattern that is dominated by fresh or minimally produced plant foods and decreased consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products. It involves increased consumption of a variety of grains (including whole grains), fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts,
and seeds, in comparison to a meat-centered diet.
Q15 Please indicate your willingness to... Not at all willing (1) Slightly willing (2) Moderately willing (3) Very much willing (4) Extremely willing (5) Reduce your meat consumption (1)
o
o
o
o
o
Avoid eating meat (2)o
o
o
o
o
Follow a plant-based diet (3)o
o
o
o
o
Q17 Specifically, in the next six months, do you intent to... Definitely not (1) Probably not (2) Might or might not (3) Probably yes (4) Definitely yes (5) Reduce your meat consumption? (1)
o
o
o
o
o
Avoid eating meat? (2)o
o
o
o
o
Follow a plant-based diet? (3)o
o
o
o
o
Q16 To what extent do you think the Instagram post you just saw was about reducing your meat consumption? 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at all
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Very much Q20 To what extent do you think the Instagram post you just saw was about eating more plant-based food products?1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not at
all
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Very much
