Using if-then planning to change attitudes towards meat

negative association utilized in Experiment 1. We predict that a negative concept that elicits disgust will bias the attitude construction more negatively based on multiple aspects from research on disgust. In an article by Rozin and Fallon (1987) exclusively on this emotion, they explain how it has been found to be salient in determining people’s attitudes towards eating animal products. They state that almost all objects that are considered to be disgusting are related to animals. This could be either by being an animal, an animal part, animal product, resembling any of these or by having had contact with any of these. Considering our modern relationship to meat where consumption is high, it could seem odd that most disgusting objects are related to it. However, we should keep in mind how the majority of us disguise the origin of our food in the way that we prepare it. Seldom do we eat meat that includes distinctive parts such as their skin or head. This ties in with recent research in that domain. In a series of studies by Kunst and Hohle (2016), they found a relationship between levels of disgust and willingness to eat meat and willingness to consider an alternative vegetarian dish. Specifically, in study 2b, participants were presented with a picture of a pork roast that either had the pig’s head still visible or had it removed. Those who saw the beheaded pork roast showed less disgust, more willingness to eat the meat, and less willingness to consider a vegetarian alternative. In study 5 participants were shown a menu where the meat dishes either contained the words “beef/pork” or “cow/pig”. Those in the “cow/pig” condition showed higher levels of disgust, reduced willingness to eat the meat dishes and increased likelihood of choosing a vegetarian alternative. They concluded that the emotion disgust is an important mediator. Furthermore, in Martiny-Huenger and Roth’s (2017, in prep.) study on changing attitudes with if-then planning, they elicited disgust with the cognitive response of thinking about “disgusting USING IF-THEN PLANNING TO CHANGE ATTITUDES TOWARDS MEAT 27 fat”. They predicted that disgust would have this effect based on research on the effects of negative somatosensory responses. They argue that disgusting verbal content (e.g., “disgusting fat”) should activate for example olfactory brain areas known to be involved in processing during actual encounters. This has been documented with the word cinnamon (González et al., 2006). In addition to the change in context and adding disgust as an elicitation for the cognitive response, Experiment 2 also presents participants with the advertisement (independent variable) a second time. We predicted that repetition should strengthen the process of creating an associative link. Lastly, due to the unequal distribution of non-meat eaters in the two conditions in Experiment 1, we controlled for an equal distribution in Experiment 2 by starting the questionnaire with 3 “lifestyle questions”, including one about their diet. Based on their response to the diet question they were randomly assigned to either the if-then plan condition or the control condition. With these differences and changes taken into account, we maintain the same prediction for Experiment 2 as we had for the first experiment. We hypothesize that participants in the if-then plan condition will show more negative attitudes towards meat than participants in the control condition, and for attitudes towards fruit to be consistent between the two conditions. Method Participants and design. Data was collected in two rounds. The first round took place in November and December 2017, when students taking a social psychology course at the University of Tromsø were informed that they could receive course credit for participating in this experiment. After receiving the survey link from their course instructor, a total of 13 students participated. Considering that the course was taught in English and open for international students, all participants were given an English version of the experiment, despite this not necessarily being their native language. The second round of data collection occurred in January USING IF-THEN PLANNING TO CHANGE ATTITUDES TOWARDS MEAT 28 and February of 2018. This time the questionnaire was in Norwegian, as the majority of recipients were native Norwegians. A survey link was sent out via e-mail to 11 different Bachelor’s programs at the University of Tromsø. Included in the e-mail was the incentive of having the option to be in the drawing of a gift card that could be used at the local shopping center at a value of 500 NOK. This resulted in the recruitment of 58 participants. Using the same data exclusion criteria as in Experiment 1, we identified 3 participants to be excluded from further analyses. After combining data from both rounds we were left with a final sample of 68 (56 women, 12 men) participants between the ages of 18 and 44 (M = 24.12, SD = 4.77). Out of all the participants, 4.41% identified as vegetarian, 2.94% as pescatarian and 91.17% as omnivore. The experiment was designed identical to Experiment 1, with one between-participant factor information format (if-then plan [n = 37] vs. control [n = 31]) and one within-participant factor (meat vs. fruit). Our main dependent variable measured explicit attitudes towards meat (target object) and fruit (control object). Procedure and materials. The procedure for Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1. The questionnaire was created with the same research software as in Experiment 1, and participants were given the same information regarding the purpose of the study. To prevent an unequal distribution of non-meat eaters in either condition, participants were randomly assigned to either the if-then plan condition or the control condition based on their responses to a question about their diet. As in Experiment 1, participants saw the advertisement directly after being assigned to a condition. Between the independent and dependent variables they were given a distraction task. The dependent variable was the same measurement used in Experiment 1. After completing the dependent variable, participants rated on scales how much they agreed with statements related to animal welfare and eating less meat. The study ended with the same USING IF-THEN PLANNING TO CHANGE ATTITUDES TOWARDS MEAT 29 demographic questionnaire used in Experiment 1. In the following we will only highlight differences made in Experiment 2. Lifestyle questions. In order to prevent an unequal distribution of non-meat eaters in one of the two conditions, participants who had consented to participate were immediately asked 3 “lifestyle questions” that included one about their diet (see Appendix J. e.g., “Are you vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, none of the above? ”). It was based on their response to the diet question that they were randomly assigned to the if-then plan condition or the control condition. If-then plan (experimental manipulation). Our independent variable was created in the same way as in Experiment 1. The changes made were related to context and subsequent informational content. The advertisement contained factual information on the slaughtering process of pigs, cattle and sheep in Norway (e.g., “Each year approximately 81 million animals are slaughtered for meat”). Larger text printed diagonally across the advertisement was where the manipulation was presented. Participants in the if-then plan condition read the if-then plan; “If I see meat, then I will think of disgusting slaughterhouses! ”. Participants in the control condition saw the same advertisement but with the content in the text printed diagonally worded in a different way, “Slaughterhouses are where our meat comes from! ”. As in Experiment 1, the content and information remained identical for all participants, differing only in whether the diagonal text was worded as an if-then plan or not (see Appendix I for the two advertisements). In contrast to Experiment 1, this section was followed by a second presentation of the advertisement. Participants were told; “Please take a look at the advertisement again. On the following page you will be asked another question about the content of the advertisement”. After seeing the advertisement they were asked a yes or no question on whether they had noticed any changes in the second showing of the advertisement compared to the first. USING IF-THEN PLANNING TO CHANGE ATTITUDES TOWARDS MEAT 30 Distraction task. As in Experiment 1, the distraction task consisted of two open-ended questions about how advertisements should be designed to be effective. This time we emphasized the topic of advertisements for good causes, rather than advertisements in general. We listed examples of various causes (don’t drink and drive, anti-smoking, environmental issues) to increase the likelihood of participants thinking about something other than the relationship between meat and disgusting slaughterhouses (see Appendix L). Explicit attitude measurement (main dependent variable). The main dependent variable measuring explicit attitudes towards meat (target object) and fruit (control object) was the same measurement used in the Experiment 1. With satisfying Cronbach’s alpha values, we found internal consistency for the set of attributes used for both the target object (4 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77; N = 68) and the control object (4 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.46; N = 68). As a result, we were able to create a mean score for both attitudes towards meat and attitudes towards fruit to be used in further analyses. Additional questionnaires. We included two of the same additional variables used in Experiment 1; attitudes towards eating less meat (3 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76; N = 68) and the demographic questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha for attitudes towards meat was satisfying, enabling us again to combine them to a mean score. In addition to these we also measured