Data and images for 'The effect of meat shaming on meat eaters’ emotions and intentions to adapt behavior'
doi: 10.4121/21814983
We investigate meat-shaming as an example of a negative emotion-based communication strategy aimed at reducing consumers’ meat consumption. We empirically test the effect of shaming messages on products on the extent to which consumers experience shame and other negative emotions, and the extent to which they appear inclined to change their behavior. Specifically, we explore the effect of the presence of a message or not (Study 1); the content of the message (detrimental effect of eating meat on the environment, animal welfare, personal health) (Study 2); the framing of the message (informational, personal blaming) (Study 2); and its source (government, activist group, private person) (Study 3). Participants were asked to look carefully at one of the images and rated purchase intention and the extent to which they felt several emotions (guilt, shame, sadness, anger, disgust, anxiety, confusion, compassion) Then they indicated whether seeing the image affected their tendency (1) to change their meat consumption; (2) to restore their self-image; (3) to change nothing. They also indicated on how many days per week they generally ate meat or meat products. In Study 2 they also rated the credibility of the messages, while in Study 3 they evaluated the reliability of the organizations that were the alleged sources of the shaming messages.
The full description of the studies can be found in the paper. Here you can find files for the images we used in the three studies and we included the data files (SPSS files). The SPSS files contain the full variable descriptions and value labels.
The images of Figure 4 with organizational logos can be obtained from the authors through email h.n.j.schifferstein@tudelft.nl
- 2023-02-17 first online, published, posted
DATA
- 5,619,690 bytesMD5:
37d3785e6f05f4af7dcc9a4df654c3e3
Animal_01.jpg - 5,608,974 bytesMD5:
fda29643eb5ece590b5fb0e1da9fbf07
Animal_02.jpg - 4,060,609 bytesMD5:
02cedb0b8a9686cb3e19fe1140bc2e0a
Heart_01.jpg - 4,049,242 bytesMD5:
57eda28433462a1e3f248e24f9f848ad
Heart_02.jpg - 232,949 bytesMD5:
a1497e0b8405771cf027c2074fc0d91d
Meat shaming Study 1 Qualtrics.pdf - 47,856 bytesMD5:
c04ea119416cae1faa5b14c2a6542947
Meat shaming Study 1.sav - 645,525 bytesMD5:
9336cfd8edcb9ee9214d4d4ec7fa39e4
Meat shaming Study 2 Qualtrics.pdf - 52,085 bytesMD5:
e15478e6c45eab08aefd73286870a66f
Meat shaming study 2.sav - 393,788 bytesMD5:
60fe323707818763604c9d88a8d1b45f
Meat shaming Study 3 Qualtrics.pdf - 268,586 bytesMD5:
54388cec1308585b300d751d66df0dbe
Meat shaming study 3.sav - 8,432,704 bytesMD5:
6639eef05069660bb6fe9aae7f635ee7
Rainforest_01.jpg - 8,426,936 bytesMD5:
2145ec845b02b4f9a4ea3edafa0161c4
Rainforest_02.jpg - 2,147,789 bytesMD5:
1f92ac671b8580fc365f5c4d4056478c
Stimulus_chicken_breast.jpg - 2,150,991 bytesMD5:
166fa74dc355137f48e965097215dc78
Stimulus_chicken_breast_sticker.jpg -
download all files (zip)
42,137,724 bytes unzipped