Excessive meat consumption is detrimental to personal health, the environment, and animal welfare. This study examined whether scenarios evoking anticipated pride for achieving, or anticipated guilt for failing, a meat reduction goal—focused on protecting health, the environment, or animal welfare—would affect participants’ anticipated emotions, desire and intention to eat less meat, and ultimately their selection of meat-based food. A between-subjects experimental design was used, with 380 participants randomly assigned to one of seven conditions (six experimental and one control conditions). Experimental scenarios varied by emotion (pride vs. guilt) and goal domain (health, environment, animal welfare), while the control condition focused on sugar reduction. Results showed that scenarios varied in effectiveness depending on the goal addressed and emotion elicited. Specifically, scenarios emphasizing pride for protecting health or the environment reduced meat selection directly, while pride for protecting animals and guilt for harming the environment reduced meat choice indirectly through positive anticipated emotions, desire, and intention. The guilt scenario about endangering animal welfare and the pride scenario for protecting the environment had a total negative effect. This study highlights that emotional appeals—particularly pride for achieving meat reduction goals—may serve as a promising lever for developing impactful communication strategies.

Does Anticipated Pride for Goal Achievement or Anticipated Guilt for Goal Failure Influence Meat Reduction?

Lenzi, Michela;Carraro, Luciana;
2025

Abstract

Excessive meat consumption is detrimental to personal health, the environment, and animal welfare. This study examined whether scenarios evoking anticipated pride for achieving, or anticipated guilt for failing, a meat reduction goal—focused on protecting health, the environment, or animal welfare—would affect participants’ anticipated emotions, desire and intention to eat less meat, and ultimately their selection of meat-based food. A between-subjects experimental design was used, with 380 participants randomly assigned to one of seven conditions (six experimental and one control conditions). Experimental scenarios varied by emotion (pride vs. guilt) and goal domain (health, environment, animal welfare), while the control condition focused on sugar reduction. Results showed that scenarios varied in effectiveness depending on the goal addressed and emotion elicited. Specifically, scenarios emphasizing pride for protecting health or the environment reduced meat selection directly, while pride for protecting animals and guilt for harming the environment reduced meat choice indirectly through positive anticipated emotions, desire, and intention. The guilt scenario about endangering animal welfare and the pride scenario for protecting the environment had a total negative effect. This study highlights that emotional appeals—particularly pride for achieving meat reduction goals—may serve as a promising lever for developing impactful communication strategies.
2025
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
sustainability-17-07231.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Published (Publisher's Version of Record)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 675.93 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
675.93 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3560930
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact