L.T. Plender | s3525872
MASTER MARKETING | RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN
What has changed in the
diet of Martin Garrix?
HOW REFERENCE GROUPS, TRENDING SOCIAL
NORMS, AND GUILTY FEELINGS INFLUENCE THE
INTENTION TO REDUCE MEAT CONSUMPTION
Preface
Before you, you find the thesis “What has changed in the diet of Martin Garrix? How reference groups, trending social norms and guilty feelings influence the intention to reduce meat consumption”. I have written this thesis, to fulfill the graduation requirements of the MSc Marketing Program at the University of Groningen.
Introduction
Humans have an impact on the environment and on climate change (Abrahamse & Steg, 2013). Carbon dioxide emissions and the use of fossil fuels have increased over the past decade (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, 2018). The BBC recently announced that the world is heading for the warmest decade ever since measurements began in the 1800s (BBC, 2019). Climate change can cause mass loss of animal species, topsoil erosion, loss of forests, and acidifying oceans (IPCC, 2018). Other issues such as land use and air pollution make it important to find out why people still engage in behavior that can damage the environment and how pro-environmental behavior (PEB) can be encouraged to stop the climate from changing (Laestadius, Neff, Barry, & Frattaroli, 2013; Steinfeld, et al., 2006). PEB is behavior that harms the ecosystems or the biosphere as little as possible or even benefits the ecosystem and biosphere (Stern, 2000). Many people still drive a car, buy fast fashion, eat meat, go on a holiday by airplane and use dairy products rather than changing their behavior due to the environmental consequences of that behavior (Demarque, Charalambides, Hilton, & Waroquier, 2015). The choice of food also has an impact on the environment. Tukker and Jansen (2006) believe that 20–30% of the impact on the environment is related to food consumption. Meat consumption causes among the highest carbon dioxide emissions and uses a substantial amount of water (Laestadius et al., 2013; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Land, water, and energy are needed to produce beef (World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF, 2019). Twenty-five percent of global land use, land-use change, and emissions are related to beef production (WWF, 2019). This includes the destruction of forests in the Brazilian Amazon (WWF, 2019). Research indicates that a diet without meat produces about 2.5 times less greenhouse gas emissions than a diet that includes one hundred grams of meat per day (Scarborough et al., 2014). From an environmental perspective, reducing meat consumption would result in a diet with less environmental impact (Tukker et al., 2011). Therefore, reducing meat consumption could be considered a form of PEB. However, reducing meat consumption requires behavioral change. The change in behavior that is required to eat less meat turns out not be that easy, since meat is one of the key ingredients in food around the world (Seleshe, Jo, & Lee, 2014; Twigg, 1984). This study aims to examine the circumstances in which individuals have the intention to change their behavior concerning meat consumption in the future.
to change their behavior as regards a diet with less meat because they predict that the prevalence of a certain behavior will continue to grow in the future (Mortenson et al., 2018). Hence, focusing on trending minority norms may be a way to encourage individuals to reduce their future meat consumption.
Research has not yet explained the circumstances in which trending social norms can change behavior. The present study argues that using trending social norms may become problematic if the social norm is applicable to a group that is disliked. ‘Reference groups are those groups that are used by people as a basis for comparison and guidance in forming beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015, p. 298).’ In order to improve the applicability of this concept, it is useful to know more about reference groups within the framework of trending minority norms. Additionally, research has not yet explained what the effect of a trending minority norm will be if the trend is perceived as being “less trendy” and thus is not encouraged by a greater number of the people. Research has also not yet explained if there is a potential moderating effect between “trendiness” and guilty feelings on one’s intention to reduce meat consumption. Within the framework of trending minority norms, this study attempts to explain people’s intention to reduce meat consumption by taking into account the trendiness of the trending minority norm, the behavior of reference persons and the moderating effect of guilty feelings, between “trendiness” and the intention to reduce meat consumption. This matter has not yet been investigated and therefore constitutes a “gap” or “puzzle” within the literature on trending minority norms. This leads to the following research statement: What is the influence of reference
groups and trendiness of minority norms on the intention to reduce meat consumption and what is the moderating role of guilty feelings on the relation between “trendiness” and the intention to reduce meat consumption?
This study offers valuable insights into understanding trending minority norms. It contributes to a better understanding of how trending minority norms can be used to change behavior in order to reduce meat consumption. Moreover, this study also provides insights into whether the “trendiness” of a minority norm, the use of reference groups or the moderating effect of between “trendiness” and guilty feelings can be employed as a strategy for organizations to
1. Theoretical Background
Researchers have used different terms to explain behavior that has a positive effect on the environment, namely: green consumption behavior, environmentally conscious behavior, environmentally responsible behavior, PEB, and environmental activism. (Lee, Kim, Kim, & Choi, 2014). There are many environmentally related behavioral terms, and they all explain environmentally related behavior differently (Lee et al., 2014). A useful definition for the term “pro-environmental behavior” comes from Stern (2000). It is behavior that has a positive effect on the availability of materials or energy and positively alters the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere (Stern, 2000). This definition states that PEB involves behavior that has a positive impact on materials, energy, and ecosystems. A more recent definition for PEB comes from Steg and Vlek (2009,). They describe PEB as “behavior that harms the environment as little as possible, or even benefits the environment” (p. 309). This definition explains PEB in a broader and easier way, though it does not specify what is meant by “environment.” Therefore, the definition is used for PEB in this study: PEB means acting in a way that harms ecosystems or the biosphere as little as possible or even benefits the ecosystem and biosphere. The definition of Steg and Vlek (2009) is extended with detailed information about the environment from Stern (2000). Research by Lee et al. (2014) shows that PEB comprises three types of behavior, namely green purchase behavior, good citizenship behavior, and environmental activist behavior. Green purchase behavior links environmental consequences to purchase-related activities, for example buying a particular product or service because it is better for the environment (Moisander, 2007; Scheffer, 1991). Green purchase behavior is specifically related to the purchase of green products (Lee et al., 2014). Good citizenship behavior, on the other hand, is a nonpurchase-related activity (Lee et al., 2014), for example, recycling or cleaning the environment. Environmental activists’ behavior involves participating in public actions such as talking to government representatives about addressing environmental concerns and supporting an environmental organization (Lee et al., 2014). Reducing meat consumption would result in a diet with less environmental impact (Tukker et al., 2011) because it has a positive effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Scarborough et al., 2014). Therefore, a meat-free diet may be considered a form of PEB. Specifically, a meat-free diet can be considered a form of good citizenship behavior.
Another important characteristic that distinguishes green purchase behavior from good citizenship behavior is the fundamental motivation for purchasing a green product or engaging in activities to protect the environment (Lee et al., 2014). Buying green products may be driven by both personal (e.g., acquiring and using organic products for the sake of one’s own well-being) and public reasons (e.g., purchasing an organic product to encourage environmentally friendly businesses). Reasons for participating in good citizenship behavior are mostly based on public reasons (Lee et al., 2014). If someone engages in good citizenship behavior, he or she thinks about the expected potential benefits for the environment and for society at large (Lee et al., 2014). For example, eating less meat, because not doing so can damage the environment. However, eating less meat can be inconvenient because searching for alternatives takes time and the alternative might be more expensive (Lee et al., 2014). Good citizenship behavior requires some sort of personal sacrifice. Therefore, it is considered a purer form of PEB (Lee et al., 2014). Eating less meat also requires a sacrifice: consumers need to stop purchasing meat and find alternatives.
as well as the unwritten assumptions and understandings that explain what we expect of others and what others expect of us (Young, 2015). For example, it is acceptable to eat meat and others expect us to eat meat when going out for diner in a restaurant.
Dynamic norms explain how the behavior of other people is changing over time (Sparkman & Walton, 2017) and, therefore, this theory shows similarities with that of trending minority norms. However, a dynamic norm is not specifically about a minority group. Research in the area of dynamic norms shows that a changing norm can motivate individuals to change, even though the current descriptive norm remains the same (Sparkman & Walton, 2017). Research also shows that a dynamic norm creates an interest in eating less meat in the future (Sparkman & Walton, 2017). Thus, focusing on trending minority norms may be a way to encourage individuals to reduce their future meat consumption. Research has not yet explained the circumstances in which trending minority norms can change behavior. In order to improve the applicability of this concept, it is useful to know more about reference groups within the framework of trending minority norms. Additionally, research in the area of trending (minority) norms indicates that trends occur at different levels (percentages) and that they may almost be a majority. “Trendiness” refers to the number of people with a vegetarian diet. The number of people can be explained by using an actual number, 15.000 Dutch citizens, or by using percentages (5% of the Dutch population). Studies in the area of trending minority norms focus mainly on percentages. For example, Mortenson et al. (2018) use different percentages to show respondents that there is an increase in vegetarians across the country. In this study, the number of people with a vegetarian diet increases from 17% to 48% (study 1) and from 37% to 48% (study 2). 48% indicates that the trend, of a vegetarian diet, is almost a majority. Sparkman and Walton (2017) do not describe a specific number when referring an increase in a vegetarian diet (trending descriptive norm). This study only mentions that the norm (eating less meat) has changed over the years and that it now applies to 30% of all Americans.
Research does not explain what the effect of a trending minority norm will be if the trend is perceived as “less trendy” and thus will not apply to the majority of people soon. This study uses the framework of trending descriptive norms to explain the circumstances in which trending minority norms are able to change people’s intention to reduce meat consumption. In this way, the trendiness of the trending minority norm and the behavior of reference groups are taken into account. These variables are discussed in the sections that follow.
1.2 Using Reference Groups to Change Behavior
differently (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). For example, by labeling a food product as 75% fat free, instead of as having 25% fat content, or by describing different percentages of trends, as is shown in the study of Mortenson et al. (2018). Message framing is an intervention that uses “priming” as a method to make socially normative messages more salient in the minds of respondents (Herman, Roth, & Polivy, 2003). In this study, reference groups and “trendiness” will be “framed”. “Trendiness” will be discussed in the following paragraph.
“Reference groups are those groups that are used by people as a basis for comparison and for guidance in forming beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors” (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015: 298). Individuals make decisions in a social setting (Videras, Owen, Conover, & Wu, 2012) and, therefore, their decision-making can be influenced when they see what other people buy (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). According to Szmigin and Piacentini (2015), reference groups can be divided into four categories: associative groups, disclaimaint groups, aspirational groups, and avoidance groups. Associative groups involve people who see each other often (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). For example, family, close friends, or people with mutual interests such as colleagues. Disclaimant groups are those that people belong to or used to belong to (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). What is important is that they no longer want to associate themselves with these groups (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). Disclaimant groups may involve friends from high school who have gone along different paths or a political group that someone does not want to tell their friends about (as he or she thinks that this might influence their perceptions of him or her) (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). Aspirational groups are those groups of people we admire or identify ourselves with (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). An aspirational group can also be an individual who represents some state or position people aspire to be like (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). They may respect them for their skills, style, or their lifestyle. For example, many people follow fitness and lifestyle celebrities on Instagram and Snapchat, such as Clean Eating Alice (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015) or Kylie Jenner. Avoidance groups are groups that people do not feel good about (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). Therefore, individuals want to avoid these groups (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). Avoidance groups differ from disclaimant groups in that the person concerned has never been a member of such a group (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). In addition, for a disclaimant group, feelings towards this group changed over time (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). With avoidance groups, individuals have a negative perception for the characters of the members of these groups, rather than their feelings towards them having changed over time (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015).
disclaimant group. This study is not designed for individuals who no longer want to be vegetarians; rather, it specifically examines the circumstances that make individuals want to reduce their meat consumption. Therefore, the aspirational group and the avoidance group are most interesting for encouraging a meat-free diet. The associative and the disclaimant group are not used in this study. If an individual is not a member of a group, but wishes to become one (aspirational group), he or she will take this group into account when forming attitudes and new behavior patterns. As such, the person will act accordance with the norms and standards of the group (Sherif, 1966).
For example, in an experimental study on the influence of reference groups, three different reference groups who were linked to veganism were studied (Tal & Wansink, 2016). The first group comprised celebrities, the second, “uncool” hippies, and the third group was a control group. In the results it becomes clear that individuals who perceived the celebrities as “cool”, liked the taste of a vegan cupcake better than those who perceived the hippie group as “uncool”. This research suggests that aspirational social images have an influence on the taste of a vegan cupcake; they may therefore also influence the intention to reduce meat consumption.
Using a reference group to influence behavioral intentions is useful if individuals experience some degree of conformity (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). “Conformity can be defined as the adoption of a behavior that results from real or perceived pressure to comply with a person or group” (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015: 307). For example, if one believes that a celebrity on Instagram really wants one to stop eating meat (perceived pressure), though one would prefer to eat meat. One may conform with her decision as shown on Instagram, because one wants to be like her even though one disagrees with her. Mann (1969) identifies four types of conformity: normative, informational, compliance, and internalization. Normative conformity means that someone wants to fit in with a group or is afraid of being rejected by it (Mann, 1969). Therefore, he or she will publicly accept the group’s view even if privately he or she does not agree with them (Mann, 1969). Informational conformity applies when someone looks for guidance from a group when they lack knowledge (Mann, 1969). Compliance means changing the behavior to fit in with the group. In private one may disagree (Mann, 1969). Internalization involves attitudinal and behavioral change in favor of the group (Mann, 1969).
& Piacentini, 2015). Both descriptive social norms and conformity guide behavior through peer pressure.
These theories differ in that the theory of social norms indicates that individuals can follow someone’s lead by thinking that a certain behavior is accepted (injunctive norm) or someone can change his or her behavior because someone else is doing it too (descriptive norm). The theory of conformity describes situations in which someone is using peer pressure, for example, because he or she wants to be liked. He or she may also be looking for more information (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). Reference groups may be considered a form of normative conformity. Reference groups define what everybody else is doing (descriptive social norm) or what everybody else thinks is the right thing to do (injunctive norm). Reference group also show a form of peer pressure for other individuals and can hence activate normative conformity. For example, if an aspirational reference group evidences a trend in meat-free diets (trending minority norm), someone will conform because he or she wants to fit in with the group. The individual wants to be like the person on Instagram, and therefore he or she will accept the view of this aspirational reference group (to eat less meat). Thus, a reference group fills the “gap” between a trending descriptive norm and creating the feeling of conformity through peer pressure. Therefore, in this study, a trending minority norm is viewed as a potential mechanism of why reference groups might result in compliance. Since the purpose of this study is to examine whether individuals have the intention to change their behavior, reference groups create normative conformity by making the trending minority norm salient in the minds of individuals.
It is expected that if an aspirational reference group shows a decrease in meat consumption (trending minority norm), individuals will experience some degree of conformity and might conform with this change by showing that they also intend to decrease their meat consumption (normative compliance). Therefore, it is expected that an aspirational reference group will influence the intention to reduce meat consumption in a positive way. “If an individual does not want to be a member of a group, he or she will avoid what the group is doing” (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015: 301) and will not take the new behavior into account when forming new attitudes and behaviors. Individuals may not want to be like the group or behave in the same way (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). As individuals do not want to be like the people in an avoidance group, it is expected that the avoidance reference group will not make individuals want to conform to the norm. Therefore, it is expected that an aspirational reference group showing a trending minority norm towards eating less meat will more positively influence the intention to reduce meat consumption than an avoidance group showing the intention to reduce future meat consumption. (Figure 1).
H1: An aspirational reference group, showing a trending minority norm towards eating less meat, will more positively influence the intention to reduce future meat consumption than an avoidance reference group showing a trending minority norm towards eating less meat.
in relation to a less trendy minority norm (Figure 1). However, it is expected that a low trending minority norm will still have a positive influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption. The trending minority norm will show individuals that the norm is becoming more popular, even if it is still in the minority. However, this influence will be weaker than that of a highly trending minority norm (Figure 1). H2: A high trending minority norm has a stronger positive influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption than a low trending minority norm.
It is also expected that there will be an interaction effect between trendiness and reference groups, especially when an avoidance group is involved. When a reference group is disliked, the level of trendiness can have the opposite effect. A high trending minority norm of an avoidance group can lead to a lower intention to reduce meat consumption compared to that of an aspirational reference group. The level of trendiness involves a higher trend, which implies that this trend is greater among members of the avoidance group. Individuals do not want to be associated with the avoidance group, and this will result in a lower intention to reduce meat consumption (Figure 1).
H3: An interaction effect occurs between trendiness and reference groups.
H3.1: A high trending minority norm results in a stronger negative influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption if it originates from an avoidance reference group than if it originates from an aspirational reference group. A low trending minority norm is expected to have a less positive influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption than is a high trending minority norm. Therefore, the involvement of an avoidance group will only weaken this relationship—because individuals do not want to be associated with an avoidance group. Therefore, it is expected that the involvement of a low level of trendiness and an avoidance reference group will not result in any intention to reduce future meat consumption.
H3.2: A low trending minority norm results in a stronger negative influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption if it originates from an avoidance reference group than if it originates from an aspirational reference group.
1.4 The Moderating Influence of Feelings of Guilt
An attitude is “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner in relation to some object” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975: 6). This definition states that attitudes are learned through experiences, that they have an evaluative dimension that is either favorable or unfavorable, that they have some sort of intensity (stronger vs. weaker attitudes), and that they have consistency and stability (Oskamp & Schultz, 2005). Nevertheless, attitudes are related to behavior and behavioral intentions (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015) and this is why attitudes are of interest as regards meat-free diets. If someone feels good about a meat-free diet, this might influence the relation between trending minority norms and the intention to change behavior. Attitudes are built on three components, namely feelings, behavior, and beliefs (Henderson & Hoque, 2010). Feelings refer to the emotional connection the consumer has with the target object about which the attitude is formed (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). As regards the emotion someone might feel about reducing meat consumption, the individual might feel sad because he or she does not want to stop eating meat. Behavior refers to the behavior that is associated with the attitude object (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). This may, for example, be the intention to stop eating meat. Beliefs are thoughts the individual has towards the object (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). For example, the belief that eating meat contributes to climate change.
The theory of cognitive dissonance states that individuals are looking for consistency between their own beliefs and their attitudes (Festinger, 1957). “Individuals will change their behavior or attitudes when feelings of unease (dissonance) are present when a behavior is inconsistent with some other information” (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015: 221). The behavior of eating meat is inconsistent with the idea that eating meat might be bad for the environment. This can result in a negative feeling for individuals, such as the feeling of guilt. Guilt is a negative emotion, that individuals experience after negative outcomes, caused by their own personal behavior (Cohen, 2010; Chun, Patrick, MacInnis, & California, 2007; Dahl, Honea, & Machanda, 2003). Therefore, the behavior of individuals and their knowledge of climate change can lead to an inconsistency between behavior, beliefs, and feelings. In this study, the feeling that is examined is that of guilt.
The feeling of guilt is already a topic in the airline industry: “fly shame”, or “the guilt that travelers experience when they fly off somewhere knowing they are contributing to climate change” (Theguardian, 2019).
opening social and political space for large-scale change. We tell a new story by changing how we live. The feeling of guilt occurs when an individual thinks the current situation is “bad” because he or she has violated an important personal or descriptive social norm, for example thinking about the environment while eating meat (Ortony, Clore, & Collings, 1988; Ketelaar & Clore, 1997; Ketelaar & Todd, 2001; Cotte, Coulter, & Moore, 2005). The feeling of guilt may result in someone attempting to remove the aversive state (Ketelaar & AU, 2003), as shown in the example about the airline industry at the beginning of this section. Guilty feelings are of interest because when the feeling of guilt is present, one is capable of being rid of this emotion by taking action (Lewis, 1993). Research shows that guilty feelings often lead to greater helpful behavior (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980; Regan, 1971; Regan, Williams, & Sparling, 1972; Isen & Simmonds, 1978). Therefore, it is expected that feelings of guilt will have a direct effect on one’s intention to reduce meat consumption. H4: Guilt will positively influence the intention to reduce meat consumption. The behavior of eating meat is inconsistent with the idea that eating meat might be bad for the environment. This can lead to feelings of guilt because individuals have violated the norm about thinking and caring about the environment. The feeling of guilt creates a state of cognitive dissonance; one could be rid of feeling guilty by either changing one’s behavior (“I will stop eating meat”) or by changing one’s belief (eating meat is not bad for the environment). However, when a trending minority norm is perceived to be trending, it shows that other people are willing to change their behavior. Based on theories of social norms (Section 1.1), it is expected that a trending minority norm influences the intention to reduce meat consumption. When someone feels guilty, it is expected that this influence will be even stronger. People would want to be rid of the guilty feeling and are therefore more likely to show an intention to reduce meat consumption. Thus, it is expected that the feeling of guilt will also positively moderate the relationship between the trendiness of a trending minority norm and the intention to reduce meat consumption (Figure 1).
H5: The relationship between the trendiness of the trending minority norm and the intention to reduce meat consumption will be positively moderated by feelings of guilt.
2.
Methodology
As indicated above, the research question that this study answers was: What is the influence of reference groups and trendiness of minority norms on the intention to reduce meat consumption? and what is the moderating role of feeling guilty on the relationship between trendiness and the intention to reduce meat consumption?
2.1 Research Design
In this study, a distinction was made between two reference groups (aspirational vs. avoidance) and between two levels of trendiness (low trend low vs. high a trend), resulting in a 2x2 between-subjects design. Additionally, there was a control group and the feeling of guilt was measured as a moderator. The dependent variable was intention to reduce meat consumption.2.2 Data Collection and Sampling
This study was undertaken on Dutch citizens. The nonprobability sampling techniques, convenience sampling and snowball sampling, were used for this study (Appendix C). Data was collected by contacting students from the University of Groningen, friends, and family members. The survey was shared via social media channels such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Individuals were asked to participate in this study on behalf of the University of Groningen and were asked whether they knew other people who were willing to participate. If respondents agreed to participate in this study, they could click on the link that was shared and on a message regarding participation. Thereafter, the online questionnaire was made available to them.
they accessed the questionnaire. Individuals reported the total number of days per week they intended to eat meat. This question measured whether participants were willing to eat less meat in a more precise way. The idea was that if situation X occurs, I will do Y. Such specificity makes the intention to eat less meat more concrete. Therefore, it became more likely that participants were reporting their true intention to reduce meat consumption. This way of questioning was based on the research of Milkman, Beshears, Choi, Laibson, and Madrian (2011). The moderating variable, feelings of guilt, was measured using an adapted scale of four items from Dahl, Honea, and Manchanda (2005). The moderation includes items such as “I feel irresponsible to eat meat,” and “I feel guilty when I eat meat”. However, research shows that a five-point Likert scale is more reliable than a four-point Likert scale, because it involves more response categories (Alwin, 1992). Additionally, a five-point Likert scale allows individuals to provide a neutral answer. Therefore, the feeling of guilt was measured using a five-point Likert scale (1= “completely agree” and 5 = “completely disagree”). A manipulation check was used to ascertain whether participants believed that eating less meat was a trend, whether it was perceived to be changing over time, and whether they were influenced by reference groups. All manipulation checks were measured by using a seven-point Likert scale (1= “completely agree” and 7 = “completely disagree”). For the independent variable, trendiness, participants were asked whether eating less meat is a trend. Thereafter, participants were asked whether eating meat is a relatively minor trend; this was followed by a question regarding whether eating meat is a relatively major trend.
Finally, by means of a seven-point Likert scale (1= “I like him/her very much” and 7 = “I do not like him/her at all”), all the participants in the aspirational reference group condition were asked to rate the likeability of the celebrities and all the participants in the avoidance group were asked to rate the likeability of anti-Zwarte Piet supporters. This was based on the pre-test (paragraph 2.4). The questionnaire with all items can be found in Appendix B.
2.4 Pre-test
Glennis Grace (M = 3.87, SD = 1.147, p = .011), and Taylor Swift (M = 4.13, SD = 1.074, p <.001). Doutzen Kroes (M = 2.72, SD = 1.054) was also significantly more liked than Kim Kardashian (M = 4.61, SD = 1.145, p <.001), Kylie Jenner (M = 4.29, SD = .976, p <.001), Davina Michelle (M = 3.64, SD = .952, p = .015), Inge de Bruijn (M = 3.83, SD = 1.020, p = .006), Glennis Grace (M = 3.87, SD = 1.147, p = .014), and Taylor Swift (M = 4.13, SD = 1.074, p = .019). Max Verstappen was significantly more liked than Kim Kardashian (M = 4.61, SD = 1.145, p <.001), Kylie Jenner (M = 4.29, SD = .976, p = .001), and Taylor Swift (4.13, SD = 1.074, p = .002). Finally, Arjen Robben was significantly more liked than Cristiano Ronaldo (M = 3.94, SD = 1.413, p = .003), Kim Kardashian (M = 4.61, SD = 1.145, p <.001), Inge de Bruijn (M = 3.83, SD = 1.020, p <.001), Davine Michelle (M = 3.64, SD = .952, p = .002), Glennis Grace (M = 3.87, SD = 1.147, p <.001), Kylie Jenner (M = 4.29, SD = .976, p <.001), and Taylor Swift (M = 4.13, SD = 1.074, p <.001). The four Dutch celebrities Chantal Janzen, Martin Garrix, Max Verstappen and Doutzen Kroes, were clearly more liked than the other celebrities (Appendix D). Arjen Robben was also liked, but he was also football player, and therefore a vegetarian diet could be perceived as unrealistic for him. This was the reason why Arjen Robben was not added to the experiment. The other four Dutch celebrities, who scored best on likeability (Chantal, Martin, Max and Doutzen) were used in the experiment, combined as a group called BN’ers (a Dutch term for famous Dutch celebrities).
For the avoidance group, a few minority groups were tested, such as “hippies” (Tal & Wansink, 2016), Japanese doll girls (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015, p. 301), and the PVV, which has Geert Wilders as its leader. The PVV is a political group in the Netherlands that is against immigrants and Muslims. They were often portrayed negatively in the news (BBC, 2017). Additionally, some extreme right and left groups were added to the pre-test, as where the anti-Zwarte Piet supporters. The pre-test contained images of these minority groups.
were significantly more liked than Anti-Zwarte Piet (M = 5.74, SD = 1.154, p = .004), and Alt-Right (M = 6.12, SD = 1.054, p <.001). The PVV (M = 5.22, SD = 1.408) was significantly more liked than Alt-Right (M = 6.12, SD = 1.054, p = .003). The Anti-Zwarte Piet supporters (M = 5.74, SD = 1.154) were significantly less liked than Japanese doll girls (M = 4.95, SD = 1.284, p = <.001), and hippies (M = 3.96, SD = 1.372, p = .004).
Results also showed that Alt-Right scored significantly higher compared to Japanese Ganguro girls (M = 4.95, SD = 1.284, p <.001), Hippies (M = 3.96, SD = 1.372, p <.001), PVV (M = 5.22, SD = 1.408, p = .003), and RAFF (M = 5.38, SD = 1.377, p <.001). However, 7 out of 32 respondents also reported they had never heard of Alt-Right before. Therefore, the decision was made to use the Anti-Zwarte Piet supporters in the experiment. The Anti-Zwarte Piet supporters were significantly different in likeability compared to Japanese Doll girls (p <.001) and Hippies (p = .004). Additionally, the Anti-Zwarte Piet supporters scored relatively high on perceived likeability (M = 5.742), and almost everybody knew who these supporters were.
The percentages that were used in this study were all below 50%, because a trending minority norm involves a minority group of individuals. Additionally, a trending minority norm involves an increase in the number of people that is involved in the trending minority norm (chapter 1.1), because it should represent a ‘trend’. When a trending minority norm increases, it can be perceived as a trend, and thus, as a change. Thus, for a trending minority norm, an increase is necessary. In this study, the increase was 5% for all conditions in order to ensure that the conditions were as similar as possible.
2.6 Procedure
First, respondents were introduced to the survey and research topic. The study was explained as follows: “My name is Lisa Plender (23) and I am studying marketing at the University of Groningen. I would like to ask you to participate in this research project for my thesis. Using this study, I hope to find out more about vegetarian diets. Your participation is very much appreciated. Additionally, your participation is completely anonymous. Your answers will only be used for this research project.”This introduction provides an explanation of what the respondents could expect, as well as indicating their rights should they participate in the research. Following this introduction, they could click on the option to agree to participate. What followed was the questionnaire.
The questionnaire began with questions about the current meat-eating behavior of the participants, such as what type of diet the respondent currently follows (vegan, vegetarian, or meat) and how many times per week they ate meat. These questions were useful to ask because individuals who were already vegan or a vegetarian could not participate in this study. Additionally, these questions were useful for measuring participants’ true intention to reduce meat consumption. At the end of the survey, participants were asked again how many days per week they were going to eat meat.
Following the questions about their diet, participants were randomly assigned to the primed conditions by using a randomization programming feature in Qualtrics. They could be primed either with an aspirational reference group or an avoidance reference group. The control group did not see any pictures or statements about a group or about the trendiness of the diet.
Participants read a short article about the trending minority norm. In the aspirational group, participants read: “BN’ers are following a vegetarian diet. Chantal Janzen, Martin Garrix,
After reading about the reference groups, participants were primed with information about the trendiness of the vegetarian diet. In the low popularity condition, participants read: “Research has found that more Dutch citizens have changed their diet in recent years and have
become a vegetarian. 15% of Dutch citizens have become a vegetarian. This has increased from 10% in 2017 (two years ago).” Participants in the high popularity condition read the following message:
“Research has found that more Dutch citizens have changed their diet in recent years and have
become a vegetarian. 35% of Dutch citizens have become a vegetarian. This has increased from 30% in 2017 (two years ago).” The control condition did not see any reference groups or percentages. Participants in the control condition read: “Research from (previous years) has found that Dutch citizens are becoming more interested in being vegetarians and wish to stop eating meat completely. Scientists say that the number of vegetarians is increasing every year. If someone is a vegetarian, it means that they do not eat any (red) meat. This includes beef, chicken, and meat for sandwiches.” To ensure that the participants would not become suspicious about the intention of the articles, an extra sentence was added to all of them: “Animal welfare, the environment, and health are reasons for people becoming vegetarian.” To ensure that all the participants had read the primed condition carefully, a free response question was added: “Why do you think this is?” Previous research has shown that adding a question like this can help to ensure respondents read the material more carefully (Sparkman & Walton, 2017). Following the primed condition, the intention to reduce meat consumption was measured. Thereafter, the individuals’ naturally anticipated feelings of guilt were measured. These questions were based on research by Dahl et al. (2005). The questions concerning guilt were asked after that on the dependent variable, because otherwise individuals might become suspicious about the emotional aspect of the research.
When all questions about guilt had been answered, participants answered the manipulation checks. Thereafter, they answered some general demographic questions. Finally, everybody was thanked for their participation in the research project and all the participants had the opportunity to read about the purpose of the study. The questionnaire with examples of the experimental conditions can be found in Appendix B.
2.8 Analysis
Multi-item scales should be evaluated for accuracy and applicability (Malhotra, 2010). Evaluating means estimating the reliability, validity and generalizability of the scale (Malhotra, 2010). Reliability refers to “the extent to which a scale creates the same results if measures are repeated (Malhotra, 2010).” “The validity of a scale means the extent to which differences in observed scale scores reflect true differences among participants on the characteristic being measured, rather than systematic or random error (Malhotra, 2010).” “If a measure is perfectly valid, it is also reliable (Malhotra, 2010).” Therefore, the validity will also be tested by using the Cronbach’s Alpha (Appendix C). Dummy variables were constructed to test the hypothesis for the five different categories (0 = control condition, 1= aspirational vs. low trend, 2 = aspirational vs. high trend, 3= avoidance vs. low trend and 4= avoidance vs. high trend). The hypothesis will be tested using an ANOVA analysis of variance. To test whether guilty feelings will moderate the relationship between trendiness and the intention to reduce meat consumption, an analysis will be performed using
3. Results
Chapter 3 provides detailed information about the results. First, the reliability will be checked for all variables. Thereafter, some information will be given about the participants in this study and the manipulations will be checked. Finally, the hypotheses will be tested. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests in this paper.3.1 Reliability Variables
Reference groups. The condition ‘reference group’ was measured by three items, such as: “I want to be associated with the group presented in the article (M = 5.44, SD = 1.39)”, “I admire the group that was presented in the article (M = 4.83, SD = 1.62),” “If others are showing that they are eating less meat, then I also want to eat less meat (M = 4.94, SD = 1.68))”, and “I want to avoid the group that was presented in the article (M = 3.67, SD = 1.732)”. The reliability of the different items for reference group was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha. The Cronbach’s Alpha was ⍺ =.710, suggesting high reliability of the different items (Malhotra, 2010). Therefore, the sum variable for the primed condition about reference groups includes all items measured.Likeability celebs. The likeability of the celebrities was measured again, just as it was
measured in the pre-test. By means of a seven-point Likert scale (1= “I like him/her very much” and 7 = “I do not like him/her at all”), all the participants in the aspirational reference group condition were asked to rate the likeability of the celebrities they had just seen in the survey. Chantal Janzen (M = 3.07, SD = 1.63), Martin Garrix, (M = 3.24, SD = 1.99), Doutzen Kroes (M = 3.11, SD = 1.29), and Max Verstappen (M = 3.12, SD = 1.29), were all perceived as relatively likeable. The reliability of the different items for the aspirational reference group was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha. The Cronbach’s Alpha was ⍺ =.767, suggesting high reliability of the different items (Malhotra, 2010). Therefore, the sum variable for the celebrities, includes all items measured.
Trendiness. The condition for trendiness was measured by asking three items, such as:
“Eating according to a vegetarian diet is a relatively small trend (M = 4.36, SD = 1.37)”, and “Eating according to a vegetarian diet is a relatively big trend (M = 3.41, SD = 1.48)”.
Trending minority norms. Trending social minority norms were used for all the five
conditions. The statements were checked by three items: “Compared to two years ago, more Dutch people are eating according to a vegetarian diet (M = 2.40, SD = .96)”, “More individuals are eating according to a vegetarian diet compared to two years ago, but this is among a minority group of people (M = 2.69, SD = 1.11)”, and “There is a change in eating according to a vegetarian diet, the number has grown over the past years (M = 2.39, SD = .91)”. The reliability of the different items for trending social minority norms was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha. The Cronbach’s Alpha was ⍺ =.589, suggesting an unsatisfactory internal consistency reliability of the different measures (Malhotra, 2010). When the second question about trending social minority norms was deleted: “More individuals are eating according to a vegetarian diet compared to two years ago, but this is among a minority group of people (M = 2.67, SD = 1.087)”, the Cronbach’s Alpha turned out to be ⍺ = .736. Therefore, the sum variable for the item “trending social minority norm” includes two items measured: “Compared to two years ago, more Dutch people are eating according to a vegetarian diet (M = 2.41, SD = .963)”, and “There is a change in eating according to a vegetarian diet, the number has grown over the past years (M = 2.39, SD = .915)”.
Intention to reduce meat consumption. The dependent variable was measured with
The mean age was 33 years old. 60% of the participants identified themselves as female. The other 38% was male and 0.4% did not report any gender. 69% of the respondents mentioned that they were working and 28% of the respondents was a student. The remaining participant were either unemployed (0.4%), retired (1.3%) or unable to work (1.3%). In line with these results, most individuals reported to be living with roommates (18.5%) or being married, living with their partner and children (22.4%). The remaining participants were being married (12.9%), living with friends (4.3%), living with partner (12.5%), living with partner and kids (6%), living alone (21.6%) or living alone with children (1.7%). 45.3% had a bachelor’s degree, 16.8% had a university degree and the remaining participants had a high school degree (15.1%), a primary school degree (1.3%), a lower education degree (20.7%) or an associate degree (0.9%). The demographics that were asked provided useful data about the different conditions. Gender was approximately equally divided across all conditions (Table 1), except for the condition with an aspirational reference group and a low trending minority norm. This condition had more male, than female participants in the sample, compared to the other conditions. The results also showed that the current study did not contain a representative sample compared to the Dutch population, because this study had more female than male participants. The dutch population has approximately 50% male and 50% females (CBSa, 2019). The other demographic factors were approximately equally divided across all conditions (Appendix E). Appendix E shows more details about the demographics per condition. Table 1 Gender across conditions
VARIABLE Aspirational group Avoidance group Trendiness low Man: 24 (57.1%) Female: 17 (40.5%) Man: 17 (36.2%) Female: 29 (61.7%) Trendiness high Man: 17 (34%) Female: 32 (64%) Man: 18 (37.5%) Female: 29 (60.4%) Control Man: 18 (36.7%) Female: 31 (63.3%) TOTAL 236 participants (100%)
3.3 Manipulation Checks
Reference Groups. To find out if the two reference groups who were used, were perceived
suggest that there was a significant mean difference between the aspirational reference group (M = 4.18, SD = 1.10) and the avoidance reference group (M = 5.10, SD = 1.32). Additionally, a one sample t-test was conducted to find out if there were any differences in perceived likeability between the aspirational reference group (M = 3.14, SD = 1.23) and the avoidance reference group (M = 5.66, SD = 1.62). The results from the t-test showed a significant difference in the perceived likeability, t (94) = 34.175, p <.01. As expected, the overall mean for the aspirational reference groups (M = 4.18, SD, = 1.10) was lower than the mean for the avoidance reference groups (M = 5.1, SD = 1.32). A lower mean indicates a higher likeability, and the aspirational reference group should be perceived as relatively likeable, compared to the avoidance reference group. Moreover, the aspirational reference group was significantly different from the avoidance reference group, thus, the manipulation for reference groups appears to be successful.
Trendiness. To find out if the lower trend condition was significantly different from the
higher trend condition, an ANOVA analysis (univariate analysis) was performed in SPSS. The results from the ANOVA analysis were not significant with F(1, 2) = .100, p >.05. These results suggest that there was no significant mean difference between a low trending minority norm (M = 2.96, SD = .88) or a high trending minority norm (M = 2.98, SD = .83). Thus, the manipulation for trendiness appeared not to be successful. Trending social minority norm. To find out if there was significant difference for the perceived trending social minority norm between the manipulated groups, an ANOVA analysis (univariate analysis) was performed in SPSS. The results from the ANOVA analysis were not significant with F(1,4) = 1.977, p >.05. These results suggest that there was no significant mean difference between the control condition (M = 2.63, SD = .83), the aspirational reference group and low trending minority norm (M = 2.29, SD = .80), the aspirational reference group with a high trending minority norm (M = 2.20, SD = .67), avoidance reference group with a low trending minority norm (M = 2.46, SD = 1.05), and the avoidance reference group with a high trending minority norm (M = 2.40, SD = .73). The manipulation for trending social minority norms seems to be successful, because there should be no differences between groups when it comes to trending social minority norms. All conditions were based on the theory of trending social minority norms.
3.4 The Influence of Reference Groups, Trendiness and Feelings of Guilt on
the Intention to Reduce Meat Consumption
followed (Malhotra, 2010). ‘The first assumption is that the categories of the independent variable were assumed to be random. This is the assumption of independence and it is assessed through the design of the study. This study was an experiment, and the results would only be generalized to the experimental values used in this particular study. Additionally, all participants were randomly assigned to conditions by a randomization feature provided by Qualtrics. Therefore, the first assumption is met. Meaning, that the different groups/levels were independent of each other. The second assumption is that the error term is normally distributed and not related to any of the categories (Malhotra, 2010). The dependent variable was tested on normality with every independent variable, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. This test was chosen, because it has proven to be effective for larger sample sizes (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Shapiro, Wilk, & Chen, 1968). The Shapiro-Wilk test was proven to be effective for sample sizes smaller than n= 50 (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Shapiro, Wilk, & Chen, 1968). None of the independent groups were found to be approximately normally distributed: Control condition (K = .189, p <.01), reference groups (K = .145, p < .01), and trendiness (K = .107, p < .01). No outliers were detected during the analysis of normality. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated a violation of normality. However, some researchers argue that these tests do not always provide the right statistics (Shapiro, Wilk, & Chen, 1968). Therefore, the histograms provided with these tests were also examined. The histograms showed that these results were not normally distributed (Appendix F). Therefore, the second assumption could not be met.
The third assumption for ANOVA is that the error terms should be uncorrelated (Malhotra, 2010). This is also referred to as homogeneity of variance (Malhotra, 2010). To test for uncorrelation, the Levene’s Test of Equality of Error was performed in SPSS. Variances were assumed to be equal for the dependent variable across the conditions (F = .572, p = .683). Therefore, homogeneity of variances was assumed, and the third assumption was met.
Results show that the first and third assumption have been met, except for the second assumption. Research showed that the ANOVA analysis is relatively robust to violations of normality (Driscol, W, 1996), therefore the analysis of variance was still used in this study to examine the results.
Reference groups. The 2 x 2 ANOVA1 indicated no significant main effect of reference
condition (M = 4.35, SD = 1.81). Thus, there was not enough evidence to conclude that an aspirational reference group, showing a trending minority norm towards eating less meat, would more positively influence the intention to reduce future meat consumption, than an avoidance reference group showing a trending minority norm towards eating less meat. Therefore, the first hypothesis was rejected. Trendiness. The 2 x 2 ANOVA indicated no significant main effect of trendiness, F(1, 1) = .655, p = .419, on the intention to reduce future meat consumption. A lower trending minority norm (M = 4.06, SD = 1.73) created no significant mean difference on the intention to reduce meat consumption, compared to a higher trending minority norm (M = 3.86, SD = 1.73), or the control condition (M = 4.35, SD = 1.82). Thus, there was not enough evidence to conclude that a high trending minority norm has a stronger positive influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption than a low trending minority norm. Therefore, the second hypothesis was rejected.
Trendiness and reference groups. The 2 x 2 ANOVA indicated no significant interaction
effect between trendiness and reference groups, F(1, 1) = 1.215, p = .271, on the intention to reduce future meat consumption. Thus, there was not enough evidence to conclude that an interaction effect occurs between trendiness and reference groups. Therefore, the third hypothesis is rejected. The third hypothesis was rejected, and therefore there was not enough evidence to conclude that a high trending minority norm resulted in a stronger negative influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption, if it originated from an avoidance reference group, than if it originates from an aspirational reference group. Moreover, there was also not enough evidence to conclude that a low trending minority norm resulted in a stronger negative influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption, if it originated from an avoidance reference group, than if it originates from an aspirational reference group. Therefore, hypothesis 3.1 and 3.2 were also rejected.
Feelings of guilt. To test whether guilty feelings moderated the relationship between
to reduce meat consumption, and there was not enough evidence to conclude that guilt was more effective in changing the relationship between the trending minority norms and the intention to reduce meat consumption, when the trending minority norm was high, rather than low. Thus, hypothesis 4.1 and 4.2 were also rejected. Table 2 provides an overall overview of all the hypotheses from this study.
Table 2
Overview hypothesis rejected or supported
Nr. Hypothesis Rejected/supported
H1 An aspirational reference group, showing a trending minority norm towards eating less meat, will more positively influence the intention to reduce future meat consumption than an avoidance reference group showing a trending minority norm towards eating less meat. Rejected H2 A high trending minority norm has a stronger positive influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption than a low trending minority norm. Rejected H3 An interaction effect occurs between trendiness and reference groups. Rejected H3.1 A high trending minority norm results in a stronger negative influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption if it originates from an avoidance reference group than if it originates from an aspirational reference group. Rejected H3.2 A low trending minority norm results in a stronger negative influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption if it originates from an avoidance reference group than if it originates from an aspirational reference group. Rejected H4 Guilt will positively influence the intention to reduce meat consumption Supported H5 The relationship between the trendiness of the trending minority norm
4. Conclusion and Discussion
The conclusion and general discussion will be discussed in this chapter. This chapter starts with the general discussion and it will end with the limitations and suggestions for future research.4.1 Conclusion and General Discussion
In the Netherlands it is the norm to eat meat, and therefore social norm-based messages are not applicable in the context of a meat-free diet. The current study extended research on trending social minority norms, by investigating two different circumstances in the context of a vegetarian diet. This study examined reference groups (aspirational reference group vs. avoidance reference group) and trendiness (low vs. high) as a way to encourage individuals to reduce their meat consumption. Additionally, this study examined guilty feelings as a moderator in the relationship between trendiness and the intention to reduce meat consumption.towards eating less meat was presented by an aspirational reference group, or an avoidance reference group. Thus, the first hypothesis was rejected.
It is important to mention that these results should not be interpreted to mean that the avoidance group is equal to an aspirational group. To distinguish between an aspirational reference group and the avoidance reference group was crucial, because both groups were different in perceived likeability. Therefore, they could elicit different types of behavior. However, in the context of this study, eating less meat, it can be argued that the behavioral intentions for individuals to eat less meat, will not change or differ if the meat-free diet was presented and encouraged by an aspirational reference group, or an avoidance reference group.
One of the reasons that individuals were not influenced by reference groups could be found in the theory of conformity. The theory about conformity stated that using a reference group to influence behavioral intentions is useful, if individuals experienced some degree of conformity (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). Conformity means the adoption of behavior that results from real or perceived pressure to comply with the behavior from a person or group (Szmigin & Piacentini, 2015). As was indicated, in an experimental study on the influence of reference groups, three different reference groups who were linked to veganism were studied (Tal & Wansink, 2016). The first group comprised celebrities, the second, “uncool” hippies, and the third group was a control group. The results showed that individuals in the “cool” celebrity group liked the taste of a vegan cupcake better than those in “uncool” hippie group. Indicating that the conformity, created by a reference group, can change one’s behavior. Research from Tal and Wansink (2016) used a context in which the participants could eat what they liked, namely the cupcake. Other research studies used a similar approach. For example, Hoonsopon and Puriwat (2016) found that aspirational reference groups can influence purchase intention in a positive way. In this study, reference groups were also examined in the context of buying behavior; meaning that the individuals wanted the product, and they could receive it too. Conversely, the current study examined a context in which individual were asked if they were willing to stop eating food they liked. This study investigated a different kind of behavior, namely the behavior that is encouraged, but not wanted by the participants. The participants were asked to ‘give up’ something they liked. Thus, in the context of meat-free diets, this study indicated that a reference group did not create enough conformity for individuals to change their behavioral intentions towards eating less meat, and thus no significant difference was found between the two reference groups on one’s intention to reduce meat consumption.
influence of descriptive social norms as follows: the more notable and trendier a behavior is, the more strongly the social norm influences behavior (Asch, 1955; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969), whereas trendiness refers to the number of people in The Netherlands that was engaging in a meat-free diet, respectively. Nevertheless, in study it appeared that there was no significant difference in intention to reduce meat consumption between a high trending minority norm, or a low trending minority norm. Thus, the second hypothesis was rejected.
evidence to conclude that a low trending minority norm resulted in a stronger negative influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption, if it originated from an avoidance reference group, than if it originates from an aspirational reference group. Therefore, hypothesis 3.1 and 3.2 were also rejected.
Furthermore, I explained that the feeling of guilt would have a positive influence on the intention to reduce meat consumption. The idea was that the behavior of eating meat is inconsistent with the thought that eating meat might be bad for the environment. This can lead to feelings of guilt because individuals have violated the norm about thinking and caring about the environment. In the context of this research, this turns out to be correct. Individuals with a relatively higher feeling of guilt, showed more intention to reduce their meat consumption, than individuals with a relatively lower feeling of guilt. The results were in line with findings from previous research. Lewis (1993) explained, for example, that when the feeling of guilt is present, one is capable of being rid of this emotion by taking action. Research also shows that guilty feelings often lead to greater helpful behavior (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980; Regan, 1971; Regan, Williams, & Sparling, 1972; Isen & Simmonds, 1978). However, guilty feelings did not moderate the relationship between trendiness and the intention to reduce meat consumption. Guilt was also not more effective in changing the relationship between trending minority norms and the intention to reduce meat consumption, when the trending minority norm was high, rather than low. As was indicated before. The number of people does, apparently, not play a role in creating the pressure to conform to the trending minority norm. That is also the reason why guilt does not moderate the relationship between trendiness and the intention to reduce meat consumption. The results suggested when someone feels relatively guilty, it does not matter if he or she had seen a lower trending minority norm or a higher trending minority norm. The trendiness of the trending minority norm does not create enough pressure for individuals to change their behavior even more to conform to the new norm. Conversely, guilty feelings do create enough pressure for individuals to conform to the new norm. If someone does not feel much guilt, one is also not intended to change the behavior towards eating less meat. Even if the high trending minority norm showed that other individuals were willing to change their behavior. If someone does feel guilty, one is intended to change the behavior towards eating less meat, even if the trending minority norm is low. Thus, indicating how small or big the minority group within trending minority norms is, does not create any more pressure to reduce meat consumption among individuals who feel guilty.
4.2 Practical Implications
creating a sustainable environment (CBS, 2019). Thus, if the government of The Netherlands wants to encourage individuals to reduce their meat consumption, and thereby increase their sustainable behavior, it is recommended not to use a reference group in trending social minority norm-based messages. The results from this study suggested that using an avoidance reference group does not create any differences in intention to reduce meat consumption when compared to an aspirational reference group. Neither did a different level in trendiness create more or less intention to reduce consumption. Therefore, this study indicates that using reference groups is not a way to encourage a diet with less meat. Additionally, talking about the trend, and thus describe how many Dutch citizens are a vegetarian, will not create any more or less intention to reduce one’s meat consumption. Therefore, according to this study, a specific number or percentage, is not necessarily needed if one wants to describe a trending minority norm in a message. Indicating that the norm is a trend should be sufficient.
A main effect for feeling guilty was found. This means that individuals who were feeling relatively more guilty, had more intention to reduce their meat consumption, compared to individuals who felt relatively less guilty. Thus, the government could focus, in their trending minority norm-based messages, on the circumstances or factors that can make someone feel guilty. Or they could focus on individuals who already feel relatively guilty, in their messaging. This way of communicating is well-known in social marketing campaigns. For example, in promotions such as health-related behavior or pro-environmental behavior (Antonetti, Baines, & Walker, 2015),
4.3 Limitations and Future Research
The sampling procedure for this study (Appendix C) was appropriate, but it did limit the generalizability of the results. However, generalizability was not the direct aim of this study. This study was more about internal validity than external validity. Nevertheless, future studies could experiment with more diverse samples, to extent the generalizability of the research.
type of behavior, when it will be mentioned in the beginning of the article. In the current research it was communicated in the last part of the article, making it harder to notice.
Appendix A: Pre-test questionnaire
Appendix A shows the questions from the pre-test. The pre-test was written in Dutch, but a translated version is included in this appendix as well. The original pre-test also showed pictures of these celebrities and groups along with their names. Due to the number of pictures, they were left out in the appendix. A1: Pre-test English Version Dear respondent,
A2: Pre-test Dutch Version (original)
Beste respondent.
Appendix B: Questionnaire
Appendix B shows the questionnaire as it was presented to the respondents. An English translation is provided for every answer and/or question that is presented. Introduction and outro are not translated.
Beste respondent,
