Efficacy of a moralized counterattitudinal advocacy in changing meat-eating attitude and intention

Abstract

Global meat overconsumption poses significant threats to the environment, health, and animal welfare, calling for effective and scalable intervention strategies. This study test the efficacy of Moralized Counterattitudinal Advocacy (MCAA), a novel online intervention strategy based on counterattitudinal advocacy (CAA) methods, in changing meat-eating attitudes and meat-reducing intentions among young adult meat-eaters. Using a 3-arm, randomized control trial involving 104 meat-eaters with positive attitudes toward meat-eating, we compared the efficacy of MCAA, Non-moralized Counterattitudinal Advocacy (NCAA), and traditional Counterattitudinal Message (CAM) interventions. Results suggest that both CAA-based interventions surpassed CAM in influencing attitudes and intentions, with MCAA led to more pronounced attitudinal changes than NCAA. In addition, exploratory analysis unveiled that CAA-based interventions effectively counteracted the typical resistance in males toward CAM, whereas the moralization feature within MCAA significantly influenced females. Overall, these findings provide valuable insights into the roles of cognitive dissonance and moralization within the meat consumption context. It also highlighted a promising direction for incorporating CAA-based strategies and moralization aspects in interventions targeting meat eaters. Further research is recommended to delve into the psychological mechanisms underpinning these effects, potential long-term behavioral outcomes, and the differential impact of interventions across demographic groups.