Debating feelings over cold, hard evidence in defense of plant-based diets
In a groundbreaking study published by 360infoTM, researchers from Italy are exploring the potential of using emotional and moral appeals to reduce meat consumption. The study, directed by Professor Patrizia Catellani of the Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, and conducted at her Psychology, Law and Policy Lab (PsyLab), sheds light on the psychological barriers to dietary change and the role of emotions, values, and social norms in shaping behavior.
The study offers insights into the psychological barriers to dietary change, suggesting that appeals focusing solely on health or climate impact may not be enough to overcome the emotional satisfaction that many consumers derive from eating meat. Instead, the researchers propose integrating disgust-based appeals into strategies to reduce meat consumption.
Disgust can be a powerful tool to challenge deeply held beliefs and habits regarding meat consumption. The study investigates whether appeals triggering physical or moral disgust can weaken people's enjoyment of meat or their ability to morally disengage from the consequences of animal suffering.
The physical disgust message in the study reduced participants' enjoyment of meat eating, leading to a higher likelihood of choosing plant-based foods. On the other hand, moral disgust had a different trajectory; it did not significantly reduce moral disengagement across the sample, but among participants who believed moderately to strongly in human supremacy, the message decreased moral disengagement.
Challenging moral distance through targeted messaging may be more effective for those strongly believing in human superiority. The findings support a broader shift in behavioral science and public health communication recognizing the limitations of rational appeals.
Interestingly, participants with lower levels of belief in human supremacy were less influenced by moral disgust messages, as their meat consumption may be more likely due to habit or enjoyment rather than moral disengagement.
The study also found a marginal effect of the physical disgust message on moral disengagement, suggesting that visceral reactions to unhygienic or violent images could disrupt moral rationalizations, though not strongly enough to change food choices on their own.
The new Italian study suggests that emotional and moral appeals may be more effective than facts alone in encouraging dietary change. Communicators can frame meat consumption as emotionally and morally reprehensible to promote a plant-based diet.
Key motives for reducing meat consumption in Europe include health benefits, animal welfare, and climate protection. However, the study's findings offer a unique perspective, focusing on the role of emotions and morality in shaping food choices.
For detailed findings from the Italian study, it may be necessary to consult the study directly or await further publications. The research underscores the importance of understanding the psychological factors influencing dietary choices and the potential of emotional and moral appeals in promoting sustainable food habits.
- The study reveals that emotional and moral appeals could be more effective than facts alone in encouraging dietary change, such as reducing meat consumption.
- In the study, moral disgust had a different trajectory, reducing moral disengagement among participants who believed strongly in human supremacy.
- The study also found that physical disgust reduced participants' enjoyment of meat eating, potentially leading to a higher likelihood of choosing plant-based foods.
- By framing meat consumption as emotionally and morally reprehensible, communicators can promote a plant-based diet, aligning with key motives like health benefits, animal welfare, and climate protection in Europe.
- The findings of the Italian study highlight the importance of understanding the psychological factors influencing dietary choices and the potential of emotional and moral appeals in promoting sustainable food habits.
