Psychophysiological Measures of Reactance to Persuasive Messages Advocating Limited Meat Consumption

Field Trial of a Shopworker Robot with Friendly Guidance and Appropriate Admonishments

We developed an admonishing service for a shopworker robot and conducted a field trial to investigate the impressions of a shop’s staff and customers. Applying the admonishing service in a real-world robot is difficult due to the high risk of rejection by society. We wanted to achieve an acceptable admonishing service while simultaneously avoiding the impression of a forceful request from a machine. We proposed a harmonized design that provided friendly and admonishing services. First, we interviewed a shop’s staff to learn their strategies for both friendly and admonishing services. From our evaluation of the interview results, we derived three design principles: friendly impressions, zero erroneous admonishments, and polite requests. Based on the design principles, we implemented our harmonized design on a social robot that guides customers to product locations and admonishes those who are not wearing face masks. We conducted a 13-day field trial in a retail shop and interviewed the customers and shopworkers to learn their impressions of our robot. The results of the field trial imply that our harmonized design approach is successful. Both the customers and the shop staff had overall positive impressions of the robot, its admonishing and friendly services, and expressed an intention to use it in the future. Furthermore, we studied the robot’s autonomous service-providing capability in the field and conducted an evaluation with hired participants to deepen our study of the robot’s mask recognition capability.

'Against the cult of veganism': Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans

Despite the established health and ecological benefits of a plant-based diet, the decision to eschew meat and other animal-derived food products remains controversial. So polarising is this topic that anti-vegan communities - groups of individuals who stand vehemently against veganism - have sprung up across the internet. Much scholarship on veganism characterizes anti-vegans in passing, painting them as ill-informed, uneducated, or simply obstinate. However, little empirical work has investigated these communities and the individuals within them. Accordingly, we conducted a study using social media data from the popular platform, Reddit. Specifically, we collected all available submissions (∼3523) and comments (∼45,528) from r/AntiVegan subreddit users (N = 3819) over a five-year period. Using a battery of computerized text analytic tools, we examined the psychosocial characteristics of Reddit users who publicly identify as anti-vegan, how r/AntiVegan users discuss their beliefs, and how the individual user changes as a function of community membership. Results from our analyses suggest several individual differences that align r/AntiVegan users with the community, including dark entertainment, ex-veganism and science denial. Several topics were extensively discussed by r/AntiVegan members, including nuanced discourse on the ethicality and health implications of vegan diets, and the naturalness of animal death, which ran counter to our expectations and lay stereotypes of r/AntiVegan users. Finally, several longitudinal changes in language use were observed within the community, reflecting enhanced group commitment over time, including an increase in group-focused language and a decrease in cognitive processing. Implications for vegan-nonvegan relations are discussed.

Lowering Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption With Environmental, Animal Welfare, and Health Arguments in Italy: An Online Experiment

Introduction

In addition to being a source of valuable nutrients, meat consumption has several negative consequences; for the environment, for animal welfare, and for human health. To persuade people to lower their meat consumption, it is assumed that the personal relevance of the topic of lowering meat consumption is important as it determines how people perceive the quality of the arguments.

Method

In an experimental exploratory field study (n = 139), participants recruited from the general Italian population were randomized to one of the four conditions with a text with pictures on the environmental, animal welfare, or health consequences of meat consumption, or a text on mustard (the control condition). The dependent variables were self-reported consumption of red meat and processed meat after 2 weeks. Personal relevance was assessed in the pre-test with self-reported meat consumption and intention.

Results

The interaction between pre-test meat consumption and condition was significant: In participants who scored high on pre-test meat consumption, the self-reported red meat consumption after 2 weeks in the health argument condition was significantly lower compared to the control condition and the environmental argument condition. The effects of pre-test intention as a moderator were less certain.

Discussion

The persuasive effects of the different arguments made a difference only in people who ate a relatively high level of meat in pre-test, and the type of arguments made a difference. Although the present outcomes are caused by the specific formulations of the arguments in this study, the results do show that it is relevant to choose the arguments carefully to ensure effectiveness.

Monitoring a meat-free pledge with smartphones: An experimental study

Pledges are a popular strategy to encourage meat reduction, though experimental studies of their efficacy are lacking. Three-hundred and twenty-five participants from three different countries (UK, Germany, Australia) were randomly assigned to pledge 28 days meat-free or not, and their behavior was tracked via smartphones. Participants answered daily surveys regarding their eating behavior, meat cravings, and shared photos of their meals. Baseline data was collected prior to the pledge, after the 28 days, and one-month post-intervention. Participants assigned to the pledge condition ate less meat across the 28 days, compared to control participants. Meat reductions, observed at outtake, did not endure one-month post-intervention. Overall, German participants ate the least amount of meat, and showed the sharpest decrease in consumption when pledging. Meat cravings tended to increase among pledgers, relative to control participants. Pledgers who reported high starting intentions and conflict about meat tended to eat less meat and reported fewer cravings. All participants reported reduced meat-eating justifications one-month post-intervention. These findings provide experimental evidence that pledges can encourage meat consumers to reduce their intake, though additional mechanisms are needed to sustain commitments.