Abstract
Meat consumption has been linked to some negative health and environmental outcomes. Studies have assessed motivations among those who have reduced or eliminated meat consumption; less work identifies strategies to reduce meat consumption among those who consume meat. This paper describes factors associated with lower meat consumption and reviews experimental studies that targeted those factors to either change behavior or intention/willingness to reduce meat. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted among four databases. Inclusion criteria were experimental and quasi-experimental designs and studies that measured variables indirectly or directly related to meat consumption. Results: Twenty-two articles were identified. These studies targeted factors such as knowledge and skills with informational provisions about health and the environment; values and attitudes concerning the relationship between social dominance and meat; evocation of emotion such as empathy and disgust; social norms both dynamic and growing; changes to the food environment with default vegan menu options, perceived behavioral control, and intentions. The majority of studies (n=15) investigated the effects of providing information such as personal health effects of meat consumption. In general, increasing knowledge alone or when combined with other methods was shown to successfully reduce meat consumption behavior or intentions/willingness to eat meat. Evoking emotions with animal images and making changes to the environment proved effective. Discussion: Factors identified in correlational studies were generally found to be useful agents of behavior change in experimental studies. However, several factors have not been tested experimentally. More experimental studies are required to confirm the results of this review; for example, experiments focused on modifications of the food environment such as increasing the number of meatless meals on restaurant menus.
Generated Summary
This systematic literature review examines experimental studies focused on reducing meat consumption behavior. The study employed a review of the literature, including experimental and quasi-experimental designs, and studies measuring variables related to meat consumption. Inclusion criteria involved studies written in English and sourced from Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycInfo databases. The review identified 22 articles that targeted factors to change behavior or intention/willingness to reduce meat consumption, such as knowledge and skills, values and attitudes, emotions, and changes to the food environment. The majority of studies investigated the effects of providing information, and results were evaluated to ascertain which factors effectively reduce meat consumption behavior or intentions. The study’s aim was to inform future strategies for evidence-based practices targeting meat consumption behaviors.
Key Findings & Statistics
- A total of 4,078 articles were initially identified through database searching.
- After removing duplicates, 3,936 unique articles were screened.
- Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria.
- The oldest article identified was published in 2002.
- Eighty-eight percent of the experiments were successful in changing meat consumption behavior and/or intentions.
- Four studies were effective at increasing intention or willingness to reduce meat consumption with information provision alone. Fehrenback (2015) showed participants who watched a video with an informational message on meat consumption and personal health showed a significantly higher intent (M = 3.58) to reduce meat consumption compared to the no-message control group (M = 2.57, p < .01).
- The study by Cordts, Nitzko, and Spiller (2014) reported that, on average, reading fictitious newspaper articles about the negative effects of meat consumption on a variety of topics resulted in significantly higher intentions (20.7%) to reduce meat consumption compared to control (12.8%, p < .05).
- Scrimgeour (2012) found participants given three successive informational provisions significantly increased their intent (M = 2.28) to reduce meat consumption compared to their baseline intention (M = 2.18, p < .01).
- Graham and Abrahamse (2017) found that an overall information provision regarding the effects of meat on the environment reduced intentions to eat meat (M = 3.9) compared to a no-information control group (M = 4.2, p < .01).
- Carfora, Caso, and Conner (2017a) found that when participants were informed of dietary recommendations of meat consumption, there was an effect only when treatment participants received daily text message reminders.
- Loy, Wieber, Gollwitzer, and Oettingen (2016) found that participants who received an information provision and journaled daily, significantly reduced their self-reported meat consumption from baseline (M = 97.6) to a follow-up (M = 59.7, p = .01).
- Campbell-Arvai, Arvai, and Kalof (2014) found that an environmental information-only provision on a restaurant menu was not effective (OR = 1.09, p = .53) at increasing the odds of selecting a meatless meal option.
- Amiot et al., (2018) implemented a multi-component, four-week intervention to assess the effects on self-reported meat consumption in a sample of men. Those in the treatment group self-reported less red meat consumption at the end of the study (M = 129.06) compared to the start of the study (M = 315.13, p = .025).
- Bertolotti, Chirchiglia, and Catellani (2016) found that when presenting health and well-being messages to elderly participants, the effect depended on how the message was framed.
- Kunst and Hohle (2016) found that when shown an image of meat with the head attached, disgust predicted less willingness to eat the animal.
- Kunst and Hohle (2018) found that state dissociation increased when viewing meat alone (M=4.00) compared to viewing meat with the head attached (M = 2.5, p < .01) and increased willingness to eat the meat.
- Campbell-Arvai et al., (2014) found that providing meat-free meals as the default options on a hypothetical restaurant menu significantly increased the probability (OR = 4.10) that participants would choose a meat-free meal compared with those participants who received a regular menu with meat-based meals as the default option (OR = 2.05, p < .01).
- The study found that 88% of the experiments were successful in changing meat consumption behavior and/or intentions.
Other Important Findings
- Factors associated with lower meat consumption and experimental studies that targeted those factors were reviewed.
- The majority of studies investigated the effects of providing information, such as personal health effects of meat consumption.
- In general, increasing knowledge alone or when combined with other methods was shown to successfully reduce meat consumption behavior or intentions/willingness to eat meat.
- Evoking emotions with animal images and making changes to the environment proved effective.
- Factors identified in correlational studies were generally found to be useful agents of behavior change in experimental studies.
- More experimental studies are required to confirm the results of this review; for example, experiments focused on modifications of the food environment such as increasing the number of meatless meals on restaurant menus.
- The research identified that interventions targeting factors such as knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes, were successful.
- It was found that contextual framing of information and how messages are presented is crucial.
- The results also highlight the impact of visual cues, particularly those that evoke empathy or disgust, such as images of animals or meat.
- Providing default vegan menu options and highlighting social norms were other successful interventions.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The review’s limitations include the involvement of a single researcher in the article review and selection process.
- The search terms may have been too narrow, potentially excluding relevant articles.
- The study primarily relies on self-reported measures, with less emphasis on observable behaviors.
- The conceptual model does not fully delineate the directionality of associations between factors influencing meat-eating behavior.
Conclusion
The review of experimental studies supports the potential of interventions targeting meat consumption, showing that several strategies can effectively change intentions and behaviors. The most successful interventions employed a multi-faceted approach, combining informational provisions with other components, such as text message reminders, contextual framing, and the use of visual cues to evoke emotions. The studies emphasize the importance of tailoring messages to specific audiences. The study also reinforces the need for further research to validate the role of factors not yet fully explored, like social identity and taste, in driving meat consumption behavior. The effectiveness of interventions, such as those that reframe information or provide plant-based options, aligns with the model adapted by Stoll-Kleemann & Schmidt (2017), suggesting that addressing knowledge, values, emotions, social norms, and the food environment can significantly influence meat consumption. Further research should be conducted to determine if changing intentions to eat meat is associated with changes in actual meat consumption and to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in real-world settings. The findings underscore the need for studies that include realistic contexts and address potential factors, such as policies and economics, to support behavior change and improve food systems.