Abstract
Correcting misinformation about the health and environmental consequences of meat consumption is crucial, yet research on effective debunking techniques remains limited. Past research suggests that the truth sandwich text format can counter nutrition myths, but its effectiveness for meat myths, its long-term effects, and the role of potential moderators remain unclear. This study evaluates the short- and long-term effectiveness of the truth sandwich format in debunking meat myths and examines whether trust in science moderates these effects. A prestudy identified prevalent meat myths, from which two were selected for the main study. For the main study, we conducted a preregistered longitudinal study with a representative sample of 537 German meat consumers. The study used a 3 (text: truth sandwich about a health-related meat myth, truth sandwich about an environment-related meat myth, control text) x 2 (time: immediately, after two weeks) mixed experimental design. The dependent variables were agreement with a) the health-related meat myth and b) the environment related meat myth. We conducted analyses of variance and moderation analyses for each time point and each dependent variable. Results show that truth sandwich texts effectively reduced myth agreement in the short term. However, debunking effects were no longer present after two weeks. While higher trust in science was linked to lower myth agreement, it did not moderate the effects of truth sandwich texts. We conclude that the truth sandwich is a powerful text format for debunking meat myths in the short term, but additional strategies are needed to achieve long-term myth correction.
Generated Summary
This research employed a 3 (intervention text: truth sandwich about a health-related meat myth, truth sandwich about an environment-related meat myth, control text) x 2 (time: immediately, after two weeks) mixed experimental design to investigate the effectiveness of truth sandwich texts in debunking meat myths among German meat consumers. The study aimed to assess whether these texts could effectively reduce immediate agreement with health-related and environment-related meat myths and whether the effects would persist over time. Moreover, the research examined the potential moderating role of trust in science on the efficacy of these debunking messages. The main study involved a pre-registered, longitudinal study with a representative sample of 537 German meat consumers, following a prestudy to identify prevalent meat myths. The primary outcome was agreement with the health-related and environment-related meat myths, measured immediately after the intervention and again two weeks later. The researchers conducted analyses of variance and moderation analyses to evaluate the effects of the truth sandwich texts and the influence of trust in science.
Key Findings & Statistics
- A total of 1,005 participants completed the prestudy (women = 496, men = 504, non-binary = 5).
- The study used a 3 (intervention text: truth sandwich about a health-related meat myth, truth sandwich about an environment-related meat myth, control text) x 2 (time: immediately, after two weeks) mixed experimental design.
- In the final sample, 263 participants identified as women (48.98%) and 274 as men (51.02%).
- Participants were on average 45.26 years old (SD = 14.00) and spent 14.98 years on education (SD = 2.32).
- Most participants were employed (70.20%) and primarily responsible for grocery shopping (66.11%).
- On average, participants lived in households with two to three individuals (M = 2.31, SD = 1.25).
- The first study took approximately 8 minutes to complete and participants received a compensation of EUR 0.80.
- After two weeks, the 537 participants were invited to a follow-up measure, completed by 478 participants (89.01%). The follow-up took approximately 2 minutes and was compensated with EUR 0.30.
- The highest agreement in the prestudy was found for the health-related myth “Meat is a necessary part of a healthy diet” (M = 3.50, SD = 1.08). Only 20% of the participants correctly rejected this statement.
- The most endorsed environment-related myth was “Meat harms the environment just like plant-based foods (e.g. tofu)” (M = 2.93, SD = 1.11). Only 35% of the participants correctly rejected this statement, whereas 65% were unsure or agreed.
- At T1 (immediately after the intervention), agreement with the health-related meat myth differed significantly between groups, F(2, 534) = 20.91, p < .001, ng² = .073. The effect size can be considered as medium-to-large (Cohen, 1988).
- Participants who read the health truth sandwich (M = 3.49, SD = 1.71) indicated lower agreement with the health-related meat myth compared to participants who read the control text (M = 4.62, SD = 1.72, p < .001) or the environmental truth sandwich (M = 4.41, SD = 1.76, p < .001).
- Similarly, also the agreement with the environment-related meat myth at T1 differed between groups, F(2, 534) = 6.10, p = .002, ng² = .022, with a small-to-medium effect size.
- Participants who read the environmental truth sandwich (M = 3.17, SD = 1.72) indicated lower agreement with the environment-related meat myth compared to participants who read the control text (M = 3.62, SD = 1.70, p = .033) or the health truth sandwich (M = 3.76, SD = 1.60, p = .002).
- Two weeks later (T2), we found no group differences, neither for agreement with the health-related meat myth, F(2, 475) = 1.49, p = .227, ng² = .006, nor for agreement with the environment-related meat myth, F(2, 475) = 0.85, p = .430, ng² = .004.
- In the prestudy, participants consumed meat four to five times per week (M = 4.62, SD = 3.64) and indicated to rather trust science (M = 4.66, SD = 1.24).
- In the main study, participants reported eating meat four to five times per week (M = 4.86, SD = 3.72) and indicated to rather trust science (M = 4.83, SD = 1.25).
- Trust in science was a significant predictor of myth agreement (all ps < .005).
Other Important Findings
- The study found that truth sandwich texts effectively reduced immediate agreement with both health-related and environment-related meat myths.
- The effect size was medium-to-large for the health-related myth and small-to-medium for the environment-related myth.
- Truth sandwich texts reduced agreement only with the targeted myth, without affecting beliefs in other myths.
- The effectiveness of the truth sandwich texts did not persist after two weeks.
- Trust in science did not moderate the effectiveness of the truth sandwich texts.
- The control text was rated more positively than both the health and environment truth sandwich texts.
- In the prestudy, individuals who identified as men indicated lower trust in science and consumed more meat agreed stronger with the myths.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s exclusive focus on immediate effects of truth sandwich texts, leaving long-term effects unexamined.
- The study did not assess factors that may explain why the effects were not sustained.
- The study did not examine effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior, only myth agreement.
- The trust in science measures used by the study were different from some other studies.
Conclusion
The research successfully demonstrates the effectiveness of truth sandwich texts in debunking meat myths in the short term, offering a promising strategy for countering misinformation. The study’s findings highlight the immediate impact of these texts in reducing agreement with both health-related and environment-related meat myths among German meat consumers. The fact that the truth sandwich texts developed for this study were evaluated positively suggests their suitability for practical implementation. However, the lack of sustained effects over time and the absence of moderation by trust in science underscore the complexity of belief correction. The results align with prior research showing that debunking effects diminish over time, and the study suggests that additional strategies beyond the one-time presentation of truth sandwich texts are needed to achieve long-term belief change. The association between lower trust in science and higher agreement with meat myths, consistent with prior research, emphasizes the importance of addressing trust in science in future interventions. The study indicates that health-related meat myths are more prominent and that social media is the primary source of nutrition information. Furthermore, the study’s insights have practical implications for stakeholders, including health and nutrition institutions and organizations, by informing targeted communication efforts. The study suggests that the repetition of myth corrections, or combining them with additional interventions, such as those targeting social norms or modifying choice architecture, may enhance long-term effectiveness.