Don’t Eat Less Meat, It Is Really Not Necessary – A Research Report Examining The Effects of Reverse Psychology on Predictions of Reducing Meat Consumption
Submitted by: Stephanie Ophof – 11342900 Thesis supervisor: Birthe Lehmann
Word count: 7355
June 21st, 2020 Master Thesis PersCom Graduate School of Communication
Abstract
The effects of reducing meat consumption are imperative for human health and the environment. Therefore, the current study aims to examine the persuasive effect of different types of messages (reverse psychology versus direct message) on predictors of reducing meat consumption. While the main outcome is intention to reduce meat consumption, mediators were attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Gender was included as moderator. During an online Qualtrics experiment, 388 respondents between the age of 19 and 79 (M = 43.11, SD = 14.71) were exposed to either a reverse psychology or direct message about reducing meat consumption. After exposure respondents answered questions measuring attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and intention to reduce meat consumption. A univariate ANOVA and PROCESS Model 4 tested the hypotheses. Results showed that the type of message did not have a significant effect on attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and intention to reduce meat consumption. Nevertheless, a significant effect between attitude, subjective norms, and PBC on intention to reduce meat consumption was found. Additionally, it was found that males show less intention to reduce their meat consumption than females. From these results, it is concluded that the type of message has no effect on intention to reduce meat consumption. Yet, attitude, subjective norms, and PBC do influence intention to reduce meat consumption. It is advised for campaign makers to focus on positively emphasizing these predictors of intention in designing future campaigns that are aimed to persuade individuals to reduce meat consumption. Theoretical limitations are found in the lack of research on reverse psychology messages, thus, further theoretically motivated research is essential. As the current study found interesting results and offers new insights, it could be used as foundation for future research in this particular field.
Keywords: reverse psychology, Theory of Planned Behavior, intention to reduce meat consumption, direct message, attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms
The Netherlands is small, but the meat industry is enormous. Approximately 73 thousand animals are slaughtered for meat consumption every hour (CBS, 2020). But what if consumers would reduce their meat consumption? The intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studied the estimated impact of greenhouse-gas emissions of the world’s population adopting a variety of diets. Their study showed that the reduction of meat consumption leads to a grand decrease of greenhouse-gas mitigation and subsequently, a major opportunity for mitigating and adapting to climate change (Shukla et al., 2019). Furthermore, research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer has shown that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer (Bouvard et al., 2015). The carcinogenic effect of meat consumption was mainly observed in colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. The risk of developing these types of "meat-induced" cancers differs with the amount of meat consumed. It was found that every 50 gram serving of meat eaten daily increases the risk of developing cancer by 18%. Given the large number of people in the world consuming meat and the proven carcinogenic effects of meat consumption, public health recommendations support the reduction of meat consumption (Bouvard et al., 2015).
However, for many people meat is considered a high priority within the daily meal (Bakker & Dagevos, 2010) and unfortunately, there is a lot of resistance among meat-eaters to change their meat-eating behavior. Previous research found that this resistance is mainly prevalent among males as consuming meat is positively viewed by them and seen as a necessary part of a masculine character (Bakker & Dagevos, 2010; Hayley et al., 2014; Rothgerber, 2013; Sobal, 2005). Nevertheless, Hayley et al. (2014) found women to have a more positive attitude towards reducing their meat consumption as opposed to men. Hayley et al. (2014) also reveal a possible influence of social norms/social desirability on the intention to reduce meat consumption as these factors might be a motivation for the experienced resistance within meat-eaters. That social factors might affect the intention to reduce meat
consumption is supported by Graça et al. (2015). Although consuming less meat and meat-substitutes are increasingly connected to numerous benefits, such as health- and environmental benefits, it was found that a high consumption of meat products, a low appreciation for meat substitutes, and an absence in willingness to reduce meat consumption is still the leading socio-cultural pattern in most societies (Graça et al., 2015). This implies that the intention to reduce meat consumption could be influenced by the individual’s social environment and cultural background. Moreover, it was found that stimulating meat-eaters to reduce their meat consumption is challenging as they continue to show an overall negative attitude towards consuming a reduced amount of animal products (Hoek et al., 2016).
While the benefits of consuming less meat for individual health and the environment are strong, persuading consumers to reduce their meat consumption through persuasive communication messages is a big challenge due to resistance. The resistance experienced by meat-eaters is a well-known concept in which consumers often feel threatened in their freedom whenever they encounter these types of persuasive messages. However, Knowles and Linn (2004), defined a resistance-reducing technique that could be a solution for defensive meat consumers who are not open to behavioral change. This technique is called reverse psychology. Although reverse psychology could be a good way to promote a reduction in meat consumption among consumers, experimental research into the effectiveness of reverse psychology in reducing meat consumption is lacking. This study will be the first to do so, and will therefore fill a considerable gap in the literature. To further complement this study, multiple mediators and a moderator will be tested to examine their role in the effects of reverse psychology on the intention to reduce meat consumption. These mediators and moderators will be introduced in the theoretical framework.
The goal of this study is not to contest an environmentalist and/ or health position persuading consumers to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet and thus, proposing a total
banishment of meat consumption. Yet, it aims to identify a persuasive message strategy that will have a positive effect on persuading consumers to reduce their meat consumption, as the effect one could have by leaving out a meat meal even once a week is of great value for both human health and the environment. Moreover, this study aims to explore if a reverse psychology message strategy is effective in persuading consumers to reduce their meat consumption and if it is more effective than a direct message, which is viewed as the opposite of the reverse psychology message. To do so, the following research question will be answered: ‘What is the effect of a reverse psychology message on the intention to reduce meat consumption, as compared to a direct message?’
Theoretical Framework Resistance and Reverse Psychology
The main purpose of a persuasive message is to motivate change in the respondent’s behavior (van ‘t Riet & Ruiter, 2013). Persuasive messages could either motivate respondents to participate in a certain behavior (e.g., reducing meat consumption) or motivate respondents to quit certain behaviors (e.g. stop meat consumption). However, the main goal is to elicit change, which could be challenging because individuals are often quite reluctant to change their behavior and show resistance to behavioral change (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Resistance is described as the capability to withstand a persuasive attack, a reaction against change, and the exact opposite of persuasion (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Knowles and Linn (2004) designed the Approach-Avoidance Model of Persuasion. In this model, Omega strategies are described, which decrease avoidance influences, reduce motivation to move away from the goal, and in the end eliminating someone’s reluctance to change. One of the Omega strategies is “use resistance to promote change” or “reverse psychology.” Reverse psychology is specified as forbidding an action that is secretly desired, anticipating that the
reactance in the receiver will be adequately strong to initiate the forbidden action (Knowles & Riner, 2007). Thus, reverse psychology is a psychological trick in which the sender states the direct opposite of what he or she actually wants to achieve. According to the reactance theory of Brehm (1966), reverse psychology works through a boomerang effect. When one notices that his or her freedom to make his or her own choice is restricted, one experiences an uneasy feeling. This uncomfortable feeling that arises as a result of a threat to freedom, is reactance (Brehm, 1966). Reactance provides the motivation to resist the message (Knowles & Riner, 2007). When using reverse psychology, the receiver will eventually do exactly what the sender had always secretly envisioned, due to the development of reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). However, it is important to mention that using reverse psychology is not without risks. A negative effect could arise because the respondent might get confused about what the sender ultimately wants to achieve with the opposite information (Knowles & Linn, 2004; Knowles & Riner, 2007).
Theory of Planned Behavior
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was introduced by Ajzen (1991) as a framework for understanding, predicting, and changing human behavior. The TPB assumes that intention, which is the willingness or intent to perform a certain type of behavior, is the most crucial influencing determinant in the performance of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). When an individual has the intention to execute a behavior, there is a significant probability that the behavior will actually be executed. According to the TPB, intention is influenced by three factors, that is, attitude towards a behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). As stated by the TPB, to understand an individual’s choice to engage in a certain behavior, expectations about the pros and cons of performing the behavior (attitude), the normative pressure exerted with regard to behavioral performance (subjective norms), and the perception of the ability and control to perform the behavior (PBC) should be considered.
The TPB has been extensively applied, including in the domain of meat consumption (Berndsen & van der Plight, 2005; Povey et al., 2001; Saba & Di Natale, 1998). The study by Povey et al. (2001), investigated differences between the attitudes and beliefs among meat- eaters, meat-avoiders, vegetarians, and vegans and the extent to which attitudes affected the intentions to adhere to one of these diets. The TPB variables were observed to successfully predict intentions to consume meat, although subjective norms appeared as the weakest predictor. Furthermore, Berndsen and van der Pligt (2005) examined the effect of cognitive, affective, and moral perspectives on the future reduction of meat consumption. They found that affective perspectives and moral perspectives caused less positive attitudes towards meat consumption and have a stronger impact on the intention to reduce meat consumption as opposed to a cognitive perspective. Lastly, intentions to eat meat were proven to predict actual consumption (Berndsen & van der Pligt, 2005; Saba & Di Natale, 1998). Hence, as these three variables are proven important predictors of intention, it is crucial to investigate their mediating effects on the intention to reduce meat consumption and thus, investigate if these variables explain the relationship between the type of message and the intention to reduce meat consumption.
Outcome Variables and Hypotheses
In the current study, the type of message, with either a reverse psychology message or a direct message on the subject of reducing meat consumption is the independent variable. The intention to reduce meat consumption is the dependent variable. The relationship between the independent and dependent variable is mediated by three other variables, namely attitude, subjective norms, and PBC. The independent and dependent variables are moderated by gender. In this theoretical framework, the mediators and moderator will be explained within the context of reverse psychology. In addition, scientific evidence will be given of their positive effects on the mediators, moderator, and outcome variable. While previous studies
have proven reverse psychology strategies to be an effective form of marketing (Sinha & Foscht, 2007; 2016), as mentioned in the introduction, experimental research into the effectiveness and effect of reverse psychology in reducing meat consumption is lacking. Hence, as no general theory or effects could be deduced from the existing literature, parts of this study will be carried out using an exploratory design.
Intention. This concept is defined as the intent the respondent has to decrease their meat-eating habits (Bertolotti et al., 2020). The idea of reverse psychology is that by stating the opposite of what the sender actually wants to achieve, the receiver will eventually do exactly what the sender had always secretly envisioned, due to the development of reactance. Therefore, it is expected that the message containing reverse psychology will lead to a higher intention to reduce meat consumption, as compared to a direct message. Furthermore, the positive effect of reverse psychology messages on intention, as expected in the current study, has previously been shown in a study about advertisement and buying intention (Rauwers et al., 2018). The following hypothesis has been formulated:
H1: When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, intention towards reducing meat consumption will be higher.
Gender. Torgrimson and Minson (2005), state that sex is referring to the biology of the respondents (i.e., what is your biological sex). This could be either male or female. Previous research found that the resistance to reduce meat consumption is especially prevalent among males (Bakker & Dagevos, 2010; Hayley et al., 2014; Rothgerber, 2013; Sobal, 2005). For the current study, it is consequently expected that males experience more resistance to reduce their meat consumption than females. The following hypothesis has been formulated: H2: Intentions to reduce meat consumption will be lower for male respondents than for female respondents.
Attitude. The first investigated mediator is the variable attitude. Attitude is defined as the position the respondent takes towards engaging in a behavior, and more specifically, the extent to which the respondent has a positive or negative evaluation towards the behavior. In this study, the topic is the attitude towards reducing meat consumption. According to the TPB, the more positive the respondent’s attitude is, the higher the intention to engage in the behavior (Azjen, 2002). The type of message that is used must, therefore, result in a favorable attitude towards the reduction of meat consumption. The attitude towards behavior originates from behavioral beliefs (Azjen & Madden, 1986). A behavioral belief is the subjective likelihood that performing in a behavior will have a particular outcome. If the respondent expects the outcome of the behavior to be positive, the attitude towards performing the behavior will similarly be positive. It is expected that using a reverse psychology message will have a more favorable influence on attitude. The reverse psychology message might be perceived by the recipient as leaving them with a sense of freedom to choose whether they engage in the behavior or not. Thus, it is theorized that the reverse psychology message will be perceived by respondents as less threatening to their freedom, which could successfully neutralize resistance (i.e., reactance), subsequently leading to a more positive attitude.
H3: When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, attitude towards reducing meat consumption will be more positive.
H4: Attitude towards reducing meat consumption predicts the intention to reduce meat consumption.
Subjective norms. Subjective norms refer to the perceived social pressure the respondent experiences to either execute or not to execute the behavior (Azjen, 1991). When the respondent is confident that engaging in the behavior is serving a morally correct and collective goal and that other individuals expect them to comply with this behavior, the intention to partake in the behavior will be elevated. Hence, when someone indicates higher
subjective norms to reduce meat consumption, the intention to reduce meat consumption is also higher. Furthermore, in the study by Mollen et al. (2013) the injunctive norm sentence “have a tossed salad for lunch” is used. This sentence was comparable in the wording that was utilized for an injunctive norm in a study conducted by Cialdini et al. (2006) and could indicate that eating a salad for lunch is approved of by others. Therefore, while not intending to communicate social norms, the sentences in the current study that answer the question “eat less meat?” (“That is really not necessary, so don’t do it!” and “ That is absolutely necessary!”), could be perceived by the respondents as injunctive norms. While findings by Mollen et al. (2013) show no difference between the injunctive healthy norm and the control condition, it was found that respondents exposed to the injunctive norm did make more healthy food choices. Moreover, injunctive norms were found effective in the study by Cialdini et al. (2006). By stating that eating less meat is absolutely not necessary and that the respondent should not do it, they might think about people in their environment and what they might think of this statement. The following hypotheses have been formulated:
H5: When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, subjective norms towards reducing meat consumption will be higher.
H6: Subjective norms towards reducing meat consumption predicts the intention to reduce meat consumption.
Perceived Behavioral Control. PBC refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of executing a behavior (Azjen, 1991). It is the control that the respondent believes to have about executing the behavior. The PBC is determined by control beliefs, which are the respondent’s prospects about the presence of factors that affect the outcome of performing the behavior. If the respondent feels to have control over the behavior and assumes that the behavior is simple to perform, a greater intention to execute the behavior is present (Ajzen, 1991). The PBC is about the respondent’s perceived capability and autonomy to engage in a behavior. Although
no research was conducted on the effects of reverse psychology on PBC, it is expected that since a persuasive message tries to take away the respondent’s freedom, respondents will feel free to choose the opposite of the message. Thus, it is expected that when the message includes reversed psychology, PBC towards reducing meat consumption will be higher. Respondents in this condition are meat-eaters, that are told not to eat less meat. This is less forceful than telling meat-eaters directly to change their behavior and that they must eat less meat. Furthermore, reverse psychology is a strategy in which the recipient feels that his or her own freedom of choice and independence is maintained (MacDonald et al., 2011). Consequently, after being exposed to the reversed psychology message, it is hypothesized that the respondent will not feel a threat in their freedom of choice, however, they might realize that they actually will be able to perform the behavior, even when the message might tell them differently and feel free to choose the opposite as stated in the message. Therefore, the following hypotheses have been formulated:
H7: When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, PBC towards reducing meat consumption will be higher.
H8: PBC towards reducing meat consumption predicts the intention to reduce meat consumption.
Conceptual Model
In sum, it is expected that the type of message has a direct effect on the intention to reduce meat consumption. Additionally, it is expected that the reverse psychology message will result in a higher attitude, subjective norms, and PBC, as opposed to a direct message. These expected relationships are not based on previous literature and are therefore exploratory hypotheses. In turn, the mediating variables are expected to lead to a higher intention to reduce meat consumption. Lastly, it is expected that males have less intention to reduce their meat consumption than females. See Figure 1 for a conceptual model of the hypotheses.
Figure 1
Conceptual Model
Method Respondents
The current study was conducted in the Dutch language, therefore, the target group consisted of Dutch (native) speakers, aged eighteen and older. Since the intention to reduce meat consumption was measured, respondents who indicated to follow a vegetarian or vegan diet were excluded from the experiment. Respondents were recruited through snowball sampling via the researcher’s personal social media networking sites and contacts. Respondents did not receive any compensation for their participation in the study.
Overall, 451 respondents showed willingness to participate in the experiment. However, a final sample of 338 respondents was left after cleaning the data. Six respondents were deleted as they indicated to not wanting to participate in the study after reading the combined factsheet and did not give informed consent (i.e., ‘No, I do not agree with the above and do not want to participate in the study.’). Respectively, 19 responses were deleted,
H2 Type of message (reverse
psychology or direct) Attitude Subjective norms Perceived behavioral control Intention to reduce meat consumption H3 H4 H8 H1 H5 H6 H7 Gender
because the respondent indicated to follow a vegetarian or vegan diet and/or indicated to not consuming meat during the week. In addition, 88 respondents were deleted, as they did not complete the experiment. The final sample consisted of 115 males and 223 females. Randomization of conditions was well distributed, with 168 respondents in the reverse psychology message condition against 170 respondents in the direct message condition. At the time of the experiment, the youngest respondent was 19 years old, whereas the oldest respondent was 79 years old. The mean age of the respondents was 43.11 years old (SD = 14.71). Of the respondents, 111 (32.8%) were of a lower education level, whereas 227 respondents (67.2%) were of a higher education level, with higher professional education being the most prevalent (n = 141). Lastly, 2.4% of the respondents indicated to eat meat once a week, 5.9% twice a week, 8.6% three times per week, 16.3% four times per week, 19.8% five times a week, 18.6% six times a week, and the majority of the participants indicated to eat meat every day of the week (28.4%), the mean consumption of meat eaten per week was 5.15 days (SD = 1.65). See Table 1 for an overview of the sample characteristics.
Design and Procedure
This study took the form of an online one factorial between-subjects design. The experimental factor, message type, consisted of two levels, namely: an experimental group with a reverse psychology message versus a condition with a direct message. Data was collected via the University of Amsterdam’s online platform, Qualtrics. Invitations to participate in the experiment were distributed via several social media platforms (WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn). Before starting the experiment, participants were exposed to a factsheet including ethical information, and they were asked to give their informed consent before continuing with the experiment. Respondents were informed about their right to withdraw from the study, were ensured anonymity, and provided with contact information in case of questions/remarks regarding the research.
Table 1
Sample Characteristics Overview Variables Reverse psychology message (n = 168) Direct message condition (n = 170) Total (N = 338) Gender Males Females 54 114 61 109 115 (34%) 223 (66%) Age in years Min-Max Mean, SD 20-79 43.83, 14.75 19-77 42.39, 14.68 19-79 43.11, 14.71 Education level Lower Higher 53 115 58 112 111 (33%) 227 (67%) Frequency of meat consumed in days per week (1 to 7) Mean, SD Median 5.19, 1.57 5 5.11, 1.73 5 5.15, 1.65 5
Note: N = number of respondents, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Min = minimum, Max =
maximum
After the provision of informed consent, respondents were guided through several question sections. First, on the subject of demographic data in which they were asked about their gender, age, and educational level. Respondents were also asked to indicate if they follow a vegetarian or vegan diet. If the participant answered ‘yes’ to this last question they were not
eligible for the current research and were shown a message thanking them for their willingness to participate, however, the experiment ended here for them. When participants indicated to not follow a vegetarian or vegan diet, a question was asked measuring their current meat consumption. Consequently, respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions in which they were either exposed to a reverse psychology message or a direct message. After exposure to one of the two conditions, questions measuring the variables attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and the intention to reduce meat consumption were assessed, followed by a final manipulation check question. To conclude the experiment, respondents were shortly briefed about the purpose of the experiment and thanked for their participation.
All items used in the experiment were translated into the Dutch language and altered slightly in order to make the questionnaire easily executable for the respondents. Please consult Appendix 1 for an overview of the full questionnaire.
Materials
The material used for this experiment consisted of two different messages about reducing meat consumption, a reverse psychology message and a direct message. Translated from the Dutch language, the reverse psychology message, entailed the statement: “Eating less meat? That is really not necessary. So don't do it!”. In contrast, the statement made in the direct message said: “Eating less meat? That is absolutely necessary. So do it!”. The messages were exactly the same in format and structure. Both messages started with a question. However, the subsequent two sentences were opposing between conditions. Furthermore, the messages were almost similar in length, with the reverse psychology message being twelve words and the direct message being ten words. For an overview of the materials, see Figure 2. Pilot study. To ensure that the materials were well-understood by the respondents and suited for the experiment, a pilot study was carried out among twenty-eight respondents (n = 14 per condition). Respondents were exposed to one of the two conditions, following a
question asking them about the purpose of the message they encountered. Of the fourteen respondents in the reverse psychology message condition, thirteen indicated that the message’s purpose was not to encourage less meat consumption, however, in the direct message condition, all fourteen respondents indicated that the message’s purpose was intended to encourage less meat consumption (χ2 (1) = 24.27, p < .001).
Figure 2
Experimental Stimuli (left: reverse psychology message, right: direct message)
Measures
Attitude. The mediating variable attitude was measured using an existing scale constructed by Berndsen and Van der Pligt (2004). The scale was minimally altered to meet the purpose of the current study. A principal axis factor analysis demonstrated that all items loaded on one factor (eigenvalue = 4.67) which together explain 78.08% of the variance. The Cronbach's alpha also indicated that a scale with these items is very reliable; α = .94. The six semantic differential items with seven-points each (M = 4.82, SD = 1.50) measured respondents’ attitudes towards reducing meat consumption (e.g., “Complete the sentence below to what extent it applies to you, as a person. ‘I think eating less meat is: ...’”). The six
items were “unpleasant-pleasant”, “bad-good”, “harmful-beneficial”, “unfavorable-favorable”, “pointless-worthwhile”, and “negative-positive”. An overall attitude score was computed by taking the mean of the six items so that it ranged from one to five, with higher ratings indicating a more positive attitude.
Subjective norms. With regard to measuring subjective norms, two existing scales constructed by Povey et al. (2001) and Al-Swidi et al. (2014) were combined in order to construct a new scale. This was done because, while often being used in other studies, the scale constructed by Povey et al. (2001) only consisted of injunctive norm questions, thus, not measuring descriptive norm, which is considered an essential part of subjective norms. With regard to the scale used by Al-Swidi et al. (2014), this scale measures both injunctive norms and descriptive norms, however, Al-Swidi et al. (2014) also included a question measuring social support, which is not part of subjective norms. Some items were taken from these studies and were slightly rephrased in order to fit the purpose of the current study. Subsequently, subjective norms was measured with five items. The first item referred to injunctive norms and stated “People who are important to me think that I should eat less meat.”. The second item measured motivation to comply and stated “I would like to do what these important people would like me to do.”. The third item stated, “People around me generally believe that it is better to consume less meat”. The fourth and fifth items measured descriptive norms and stated “The trend of consuming less meat among people around me is increasing” and “People who are important to me are already consuming less (or no) meat”. A principal axis factor analysis showed that all items loaded on one factor (eigenvalue = 2.99) which together explain 59.85% of the variance. Furthermore, with an alpha of .83, this scale of five items is good and consequently, reliable. All items were measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree. One scale was constructed using mean scores of all items (M = 3.40, SD = 1.33).
Perceived behavioral control. The variable PBC was measured by means of an existing scale, constructed by Povey et al (2001). This scale consists of four items, which are: “How much personal control do you feel you have over consuming less meat?” (very little control – complete control), “To what extent do you see yourself as capable of consuming less meat?” (not very capable – very capable), “How easy or difficult do you think it would be to consume less meat?” (very difficult – very easy), and “Whether I consume less meat or not is completely up to me” (totally disagree – totally agree). A principal axis factor analysis showed that all items loaded on one factor (eigenvalue = 1.79) which explains 59.78% of the variance. With an alpha of .66, this scale of four items is questionable but reliable. These four items were scored on seven-point scales. One scale was constructed using mean scores of all four items (M = 5.43, SD = 1.06).
Intention. The intention to reduce meat consumption was measured by means of an existing scale, constructed by Carfora et al. (2017). This scale consists of three items, which were slightly altered to fit the purpose of the current study. The items were: “In the future, I intend to consume less meat”, “ In the future, I plan to consume less meat”, and “In the future, I want to consume less meat”. An extra item was added to measure the willingness of respondents to reduce their meat consumption in the future. This item stated: “I am willing to reduce my meat consumption in the future.” A principal axis factor analysis showed that all items loaded on one factor (eigenvalue = 3.66) which explains 91.50% of the variance. The alpha of this scale is .97, hence the scale is very good and reliable. The four items were answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = definitely do not to 7 = definitely do. One scale was constructed using mean scores of all four items (M = 4.24, SD = 1.76).
Manipulation Check
Once respondents answered the questions measuring demographics, attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and intention, a manipulation check was performed to evaluate if the
respondents recalled and understood the message they were exposed to. No existing manipulation check for these types of messages was found in previous studies, therefore, a question was constructed specifically for this study. Respondents were asked to complete the following statement: “The message I have seen aims to: …” (not to motivate me to consume less meat – motivate me to consume less meat). The item was scored on a five-point scale (M = 3.33, SD = 1.53).
Results
First, a randomization check was carried out on the demographic variables gender, age, education level, and frequency of meat consumption per week, to test whether respondents were evenly distributed across conditions and to exclude possible confounding factors. For the variable gender, a chi-square test was conducted. Gender was equally distributed across type of message conditions (χ2 (1) = .53, p = .468). The same test was carried out for educational level (χ2 (6) = 3.85, p = .696) and frequency of meat consumption per week (χ2 (6) = 4.55, p = .603). Both were equally distributed across type of message condition. For the variable age, an independent samples t-test was carried out. Results showed an equal distribution across type of message condition and age (t (336) = .90, p = .369). As the results of the randomization check showed no significant results on respondents’ gender, age, education level, and frequency of meat consumption per week, this gave certainty that these demographic variables formed no rivaling explanations for the results that were found, thus, no covariates were added in the analyses.
Next, a manipulation check was performed to assess if the manipulation was successful. To complete this check, an independent samples t-test was performed, in which type of message (reverse psychology/direct) was the independent variable and the manipulation item was the dependent variable. The mean scores of the manipulation check in
the reverse psychology message condition (M = 2.86, SD = 1.56) and direct message condition (M = 3.79, SD = 1.35 ) differed significantly (t (327) = -5.85, p < .001). Hence, statistically confirming the manipulation effective. Respondents perceived a difference in motivational goals between conditions (e.g., a lower mean shows that the respondents felt that the message they were exposed to was not aimed to motivate them to consume less meat (reverse psychology message), while a higher mean shows that they felt that the message they were exposed to aimed to motivate them to consume less meat (direct message)).
To test H1 (i.e., When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, intention towards reducing meat consumption will be higher) and H2 (i.e., Intentions to reduce meat consumption will be lower for male respondents than for female respondents), a univariate analysis of variance was carried out. Here, the independent variable was the type of message (reverse psychology/direct), the dependent variable was the intention to reduce meat consumption and gender was included as a moderator. However, it should be noted that the assumption of equal variances in the population has been violated, Levene's F (3, 334) = 3.30, p = .021. With regard to H1, the mean scores of intention in the reverse psychology message condition (M = 4.26, SD = 1.70) and direct message condition (M = 4.22, SD = 1.81) did not differ significantly (F (1, 334) = .14, p = .705). Consequently, H1 is rejected. Furthermore, results of the univariate analysis of variance showed that the mean scores of intention among males (M = 3.92, SD = 1.89) and females condition (M = 4.41, SD = 1.66) differed significantly (F (1, 334) = 5,76, p = .017). Thus, H2 is confirmed.
PROCESS Model 4 was used to test the predictions that the mediators attitude, subjective norms, and PBC mediate the relationship between the type of message and the intention to reduce meat consumption. The mediators were tested with one multiple mediation model with the mediators operating in parallel. In the model, 5000 bootstrap samples were used with biased corrected confidence intervals of 95%.
First, the results confirmed the univariate analysis of variance that was carried out to test H1 and similarly found no significant direct effect of the type of message on the intention to reduce meat consumption among the respondents (b = -.03, t (336) = -.17, p = .865). Furthermore, results showed no significant effects for H3 (i.e., When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, attitude towards reducing meat consumption will be more positive), b = .02, t (336) = .12, p = .903. Therefore, H3 is rejected. With regard to H4 (i.e., Attitude towards reducing meat consumption predicts the intention to reduce meat consumption), the model shows a positive, significant relationship between attitude and intention to reduce meat consumption (b = .45, t (333) = 8.48, p < .001). Consequently, confirming H4.
Moreover, H5 (i.e., When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, subjective norms towards reducing meat consumption will be higher), was shown not significant (b = -.12, t (336) = -.80, p = .425) Thus, rejecting H5. However, results showed H6 (i.e., Subjective norms towards reducing meat consumption predicts the intention to reduce meat consumption) to be significant (b = .50, t (333) = 8.67, p < .001). These results confirm H6.
With regard to H7 (i.e., When the message includes reverse psychology as compared to a direct message, PBC towards reducing meat consumption will be higher), results showed a non-significant outcome (b = .05, t (336) = .44, p = .659). Based on these results, H7 is refuted. Lastly, results showed a significant outcome for H8 (i.e., PBC towards reducing meat consumption predicts the intention to reduce meat consumption), b = .19, t (333) = 2.70, p = .007, thus confirming H8.
See Figure 3 for the PROCESS Path Model 4 and Tables 2 and 3 for a summary of the PROCESS Model 4 results.
Figure 3
Process Path Model
Note: *significant at the p < .001 level, ** significant at the p < .05 level.
Table 2
PROCESS Model 4 Summary Effects of Type of Message on (Mediating) Variables
Variables b se t (333) p 95% CI
Intention -.03 .19 -.17 .865 [-.41, .34]
Attitude .02 .16 .12 .903 [-.30, .34]
Subjective norms -.12 .15 .34 .425 [-.40, .17] Perceived behavioral control .05 .12 .13 .659 [-.18, .29]
Note: CI = confidence interval
Table 3
PROCESS Model 4 Summary Effects of Mediating Variables on Intention
Variables b se t (336) p 95% CI
Attitude .45 .05 8.48 .000 [.35, .56]
Subjective norms .50 .06 8.67 .000 [.39, .61]
Perceived behavioral control .19 .07 2.70 .007 [.05, .33]
Discussion
The current study aimed to investigate whether a reverse psychology message versus a direct message would influence attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and the intention to reduce meat consumption. Additionally, it was also tested if gender moderated the intention to reduce meat consumption. This research was the first to study the effectiveness of reverse psychology on reducing meat consumption while taking into account the proposed mediators and moderator. The main findings showed that the type of message (reverse psychology/direct message) did not have a significant effect on attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and intention to reduce meat consumption. However, it was found that there is a significant effect of attitude, subjective norms, and PBC on the intention to reduce meat consumption. Furthermore, it was found that gender influences intention to reduce meat consumption in the sense that males have less intention to reduce their meat consumption than females.
Findings and Implications
Not finding an effect of type of message on attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and intention to reduce meat consumption, was not only in contrast with the hypotheses but also in contrast with previous research and supporting literature. For instance, research by Rauwers et al. (2018) that showed that non-traditional ways of advertising (e.g., reverse psychology advertising) lead to higher behavioral intentions than traditional advertising. A possible explanation for the non-significant findings might be found in the manipulation material. Although the manipulation check proved a statistically significant manipulation, it could be that on a practical level, the manipulation was not strong enough. In addition, the non-significant findings could be explained by the topic of the experiment, namely reducing meat consumption as this could be a sensitive topic for some respondents. Literature showed that the topic of (reducing) meat consumption is debatable and people have different thoughts, knowledge, and opinions on this matter. Some people are not aware of the carcinogenic
effects of eating meat, while some think that meat-substitutes are just as bad for the environment as ‘normal’ meat. Moreover, people do not want to be told what to do or what is good or bad for them or the environment. They want to eat meat regardless of the fact that it is damaging to themselves and the environment (Leenaert, 2012). Furthermore, meat is still seen as a high priority within the daily meal (Bakker & Dagevos, 2010). Nevertheless, the results of this study did show that attitude, subjective norms, and PBC towards reducing meat consumption predict the intention to reduce meat consumption. Therefore, part of the findings are in line with hypotheses two, four, and eight, and in line with previous literature (Azjen, 1991; Azjen, 2002; Azjen & Madden, 1986; Berndsen & van der Pligt, 2005; Saba & Di Natale, 1998), which confirms predictions of the TPB. While both reverse psychology as the TPB-concepts are aimed at changing human behavior, no relationship between the type of message and the TPB-concepts was found. A possible explanation for why these concepts are not related could be that although reverse psychology might be a valuable message strategy, it simply does not work in the context of reducing meat consumption. Lastly, it was found that in both message types males have less intention to reduce their meat consumption than females. This was in line with hypothesis two (i.e., Intentions to reduce meat consumption will be lower for male respondents than for female respondents) and in line with previous research that found resistance to reduce meat consumption is especially prevalent among males (Bakker & Dagevos, 2010; Hayley et al., 2014; Rothgerber, 2013; Sobal, 2005).
The results of the current study add to the literature in several ways. This study was the first to examine the effectiveness of reverse psychology in reducing meat consumption while taking into account multiple possible mediator and a moderator. Based on the findings of the current study, some practical implications could be recommended. The current research does not provide guidance with regard to advising which message strategy is most effective to use in future campaigns targeting the reduction of meat consumption. However, the
identification of multiple contributing predictors that determine behavioral intentions points to the necessity for strategies employing an approach integrating attitude, subjective norms, and PBC in order to increase intention to reduce meat consumption. For instance, to change people’s attitudes to more favorable attitudes and to increase PBC with regard to reducing meat consumption, it might be beneficial to target individual’s confidence in their capability to reduce meat consumption, by emphasizing the means by which individuals could easily substitute their meat-meal for a vegetarian option and that it is still very tasty (e.g., “Did you know that you could make every meal with meat substitutes?” or “Meat substitutes lie next to meat in the supermarket, so you could easily buy it.”). Additionally, subjective norms could also be incorporated in future campaigns by encouraging the idea that it is found important by others to reduce meat consumption.
Limitations and Future Research
The current study comes with some limitations. A noteworthy limitation could be found in the used manipulation material. Although the manipulation check revealed statistically significant material across conditions and confirmed that respondents recalled and understood the message they were exposed to, it could have been that the manipulation was not strong enough in practice. For instance, the length of the text might have been too short to convey a strong message. It could have also been that the straightforward text used in the conditions (i.e., “Eating less meat? That is really not necessary. So don't do it!” and “Eating less meat? That is absolutely necessary. So do it!”) might have caused a threat in freedom among the respondents and gave them the feeling of being persuaded to act a certain way they do not want to behave in. This was also confirmed in feedback given by some respondents after participating in the experiment. Moreover, the feedback showed that the topic of meat consumption is a debatable topic, on which many people have different knowledge, thoughts, and opinions. For future research, it is advised to look into different types of messages that
desensitize possible controversialities (e.g., by using language, pictures, etc.) and to extensively pre-test these messages before carrying out the actual experiment. In addition, a limitation of the current study could be that it was carried out as an online experiment in which respondents were exposed to either one of the messages on their smartphone or laptop screen. Respondents had the option to proceed directly to the next page of the experiment. While the manipulation check suggests otherwise, respondents could have been slightly distracted while taking part in the experiment and gambled well on the manipulation question. Future research could examine the effects of reverse psychology messages versus direct messages in a laboratory setting, in which distracting factors could be controlled for, furthermore, it is advisable to change the answer category of the manipulation check from a five-point scale to a nominal scale with two answer options, this to ensure a more reliable manipulation. Another limitation was found in the sample size. Although the sample size was sufficient for a Master’s thesis and a proper distribution of factors across conditions was represented, the sample might not be generalizable to the Dutch population. Future research should focus on a larger sample size since this would generate more statistical power and would have more generalizable results.
To persuade consumers to reduce their meat consumption and increase the positive effects of reducing meat consumption on both the environment and human health, more research is necessary. Despite the non-significant results, the current study did find significant results and offers new insights. Therefore, it could be used as a foundation for future research in the particular field of reducing meat consumption. In addition, the current research contributes to science by proving once again that the TPB could provide innovative and useful insights when targeting consumer’s intention to reduce meat consumption. While the current study failed to explain the different results regarding the effects of the type of message (reverse psychology/ direct message) on the intention to reduce meat consumption, future
research could take into account different message types next to a reverse psychology message. Furthermore, different strategies could be integrated in the reverse psychology message. For instance, including celebrity endorsement in a reverse psychology message could be a promising message type, and this message could be tested against a reverse psychology message without celebrity endorsement. Celebrity endorsement is often used in advertising campaigns, so perhaps it might also appear to be effective for reducing meat consumption. Furthermore, since this area of research is completely novel, future research could focus on other theories and processes that could explain the theorized effectiveness of reverse psychology. Moreover, future research could focus more specifically on resistance-neutralizing aspects of reverse psychology messages.
Conclusion
To conclude, the aim of this study was to investigate whether a reverse psychology message versus a direct message would influence attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and intention to reduce meat consumption. Additionally, it was also tested if gender moderated the intention to reduce meat consumption. Results showed no influence in the type of message on attitude, subjective norms, PBC, and the intention to reduce meat consumption. Thus, while reverse psychology could be a valuable message strategy in changing behavior, it simply did not work in the context of reducing meat consumption. Nevertheless, it was found that attitude, subjective norms, and PBC have a positive effect on the intention to reduce meat consumption. Consequently, it is recommended to campaign makers to mainly focus on these three factors in creating new campaigns that are aimed to persuade individuals to reduce their meat consumption. Theoretical limitations are found in research on reverse psychology and more specifically, research on reverse psychology’s effects on reducing meat consumption. Thus, further theoretically motivated research is essential. As the current study found
interesting results and offers new insights, it could be used as a foundation for future research in this particular field. Nonetheless, it is of great scientific and societal relevance to keep searching for effective ways to persuade individuals to reduce their meat consumption in order to improve the quality of lives and the environment.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Al-Swidi, A., Huque, S. M. R., Hafeez, M. H., & Shariff, M. N. M. (2014). The role of subjective norms in theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption. British Food Journal, 116(10), 1561–1580.
Bakker, E., & Dagevos, H. (2010). Vleesminnaars, vleesminderaars en vleesmijders.
Duurzame eiwitproductie in een carnivore eetcultuur. LEI-rapport 2010-03, Den Haag, Universiteit van Wageningen.
Berndsen, M., & van der Pligt, J. (2005). Risks of meat: The relative impact of cognitive, affective and moral concerns. Appetite, 44(2), 195-205.
Bertolotti, M., Carfora, V., & Catellani, P. (2020). Different frames to reduce red meat intake: The moderating role of self-efficacy. Health Communication, 35(4), 475-482.
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., ... & Corpet, D. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed
meat. The Lancet Oncology, 16(16), 1599-1600. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
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.
CBS. (2020, March 31). Vleesproductie; aantal slachtingen en geslacht gewicht per diersoort. Retrieved from
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social influence, 1(1), 3-15. Czaja, R., Blair, J. (1996). Designing surveys – a guide to decisions and procedures.
Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Friestad, M., and P. Wright. 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
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.
Hayley, A., Zinkiewicz, L., & Hardiman, K. (2014) Values, attitudes, and frequencies of meat consumption. predicting meat-reduced diet in Australians. Appetite, 84, 98-106.
Hoek, A. C., Pearson, D., James, S. W., Lawrence, M. A., & Friel, S. (2016). Shrinking the food-print: A qualitative study into consumer perceptions, experiences and attitudes towards healthy and environmentally friendly food behaviours. Appetite, 108, 117-131. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.030
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Knowles, E. S., & Riner, D. D. (2007). Omega approaches to persuasion: Overcoming resistance. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress (pp. 83-114) New York: Psychology Press.
Leenaert, T. (2012). Chapter 16 Meat moderation as a challenge for government and civil society: The Thursday Veggie Day campaign in Ghent, Belgium. In A. Viljoen (Author), Sustainable food planning: Evolving theory and practice (pp. 189-196). Wageningen: Wageningen Acad. Publ.
exploration of strategic self-anticonformity. Social Influence, 6(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2010.517282
Mollen, S., Rimal, R. N., Ruiter, R. A., & Kok, G. (2013). Healthy and unhealthy social norms and food selection. Findings from a field-experiment. Appetite, 65, 83-89. Povey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat,
vegetarian and vegan diets: an examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37(1), 15-26.
Ratcliff, C. L. (online first). Characterizing reactance in communication research: A review of conceptual and operational approaches. Communication Research.
Rauwers, F., Remmelswaal, P., Fransen, M. L., Dahlén, M., & van Noort, G. (2018). The impact of creative media advertising on consumer responses: two field
experiments. International Journal of Advertising, 37(5), 749-768.
Riet, van ‘t, J. & Ruiter, R.A.C. (2013). Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: an overview and implications for future research. Health Psychology, 7(1), 104-136. Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the
justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363. Saba, A., & Di Natale, R. (1998). A study on the mediating role of intention in the impact
of habit and attitude on meat consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 10(1), 69-77.
Shukla, P. R., Skeg, J., Buendia, E. C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., ... & Ferrat, M. (2019). Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.
Sinha, I., & Foscht, T. (2007) Reverse psychology marketing: The death of traditional marketing and the rise of the new “pull” game. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sinha, I., & Foscht, T. (2007) Reverse psychology tactics in contemporary marketing. The Marketing Review, 16(3), 343-353.
Sobal, J. (2005). Men, meat, and marriage: Models of masculinity. Food and Foodways, 13(1- 2), 135-158.
Torgrimson, B. N., & Minson, C. T. (2005). Sex and gender: what is the difference? Journal of Applied Physiology, 99(3), 785-787
Appendix 1 – Questionnaire Combined Factsheet and Informed Consent
Beste lezer,
Hartelijk bedankt dat je interesse toont in deelname aan mijn afstudeeronderzoek, dat wordt uitgevoerd onder verantwoordelijkheid van de Graduate School of Communication, onderdeel van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Het onderzoek is getiteld ‘Vlees consumptie’ en gaat over je eigen consumptie van vlees. Aan dit onderzoek kan iedereen van 18 jaar of ouder deelnemen. Tijdens dit onderzoek zal ik je vragen een bericht te bekijken om hier vervolgens meerdere vragen over te beantwoorden. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 5 minuten. Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, heb je de garantie dat:
1) Je anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat je antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden worden verstrekt, tenzij je hiervoor van te voren
uitdrukkelijke toestemming hebt verleend.
2) Je zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of je deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken. Ook kun je achteraf (binnen 24 uur na deelname) je toestemming intrekken.
3) Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico’s of ongemakken met zich meebrengt en je niet met expliciet aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden geconfronteerd.
Voor meer informatie over dit onderzoek en de uitnodiging tot deelname kun je te allen tijde contact opnemen met de uitvoerder van dit onderzoek, Stephanie Ophof (stephanieophof@hotmail.com). Mochten er naar aanleiding van je deelname aan dit onderzoek klachten of opmerkingen bij je zijn, dan kun je contact opnemen met het lid van de
Commissie Ethiek van de afdeling Communicatiewetenschap, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Ethics Committee, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Een vertrouwelijke behandeling van je klacht of opmerking is daarbij gewaarborgd. Ik hoop je hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd.
Met het aanvinken van een van de onderstaande hokjes, geef je aan of je mee wilt doen het onderzoek en of je het met het bovenstaande eens bent.
□ Ja, ik ga akkoord met het bovenstaande en wil deelnemen aan het onderzoek. □ Nee, ik ga niet akkoord met het bovenstaande en wil niet deelnemen aan het
onderzoek.
Demographic Question Section
1) Wat is je geslacht? (man/vrouw) 2) Wat is je leeftijd in jaren?
3) Wat is je hoogst genoten opleidingsniveau? (Dit kan een opleiding zijn die je momenteel nog volgt) a. Basisschool b. VMBO c. HAVO d. VWO e. MBO f. HBO g. Universiteit
4) Volg je op dit moment een dieet waarbij je geen vlees of dierlijke producten eet? a. Nee
5) Hoeveel dagen in de week eet je gemiddeld vleesproducten? (bijvoorbeeld als broodbeleg, tussendoor, avondmaaltijd etc.)
Randomized Exposure to Manipulation Material
Hieronder zie je een bericht. Neem rustig de tijd om dit bericht in je op te nemen, hier volgen straks vragen over.
Hieronder zie je een bericht. Neem rustig de tijd om dit bericht in je op te nemen, hier volgen straks vragen over.
Attitude Question Section
Vul de onderstaande zin aan in hoeverre het voor jou van toepassing is. "Het verminderen van de hoeveelheid vlees die ik eet, vind ik:…” 1) 1 = Onaangenaam – 7 = Aangenaam 2) 1 = Slecht – 7 = Goed 3) 1 = Schadelijk –7 = Bevorderlijk 4) 1 = Ongunstig – 7 = Gunstig 5) 1 = Zinloos – 7 = Waardevol 6) 1 = Negatief – 7 = Positief
Subjective Norms Question Section
Geef voor de onderstaande stellingen aan in welke mate je het er mee eens bent. 1) Mensen die voor mij belangrijk zijn vinden dat ik minder vlees zou moeten eten.
1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens
2) Ik zou graag willen doen wat deze belangrijke mensen zouden willen dat ik doe. 1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens
3) Mensen in mijn omgeving zijn over het algemeen van mening dat het beter is om minder vlees te eten.
1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens
4) De trend om minder vlees te eten neemt toe bij mensen in mijn omgeving. 1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens
5) Mensen die voor mij belangrijk zijn consumeren al minder (of geen) vlees. 1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens
Perceived Behavioral Control Question Section
1 = Heel weinig controle – 7 = Volledige controle
2) In hoeverre zie je jezelf in staat om minder vlees te eten? 1 = Absoluut niet in staat – 7 = Absoluut in staat
3) Hoe gemakkelijk of moeilijk zou het zijn om minder vlees te eten? 1 = Heel erg moeilijk – 7 = Heel erg makkelijk
4) Of ik minder vlees eet of niet, is helemaal aan mij. 1 = Helemaal mee oneens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens Intention Question Section
Geef voor de onderstaande stellingen aan in welke mate je het er mee eens bent. 1) In de toekomst neem ik mij voor minder vlees te eten.
1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens 2) In de toekomst ben ik van plan minder vlees te eten.
1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens 3) In de toekomst wil ik minder vlees eten.
1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens
4) Ik ben bereid om mijn vleesconsumptie in de toekomst te verminderen. 1 = Helemaal niet mee eens – 7 = Helemaal mee eens
Manipulation Check Question
Je bent bijna aan het einde van het onderzoek. Hieronder volgt nog een laatste stelling over je beoordeling van het bericht over vlees eten dat je aan het begin te zien kreeg.
1) "Het bericht dat ik heb gezien heeft als doel:..."
1 = Mij niet te motiveren minder vlees te eten – 5 = mij wel te motiveren minder vlees te eten
