While gruesome and sometimes graphic warnings are common across cigarette packs, scientists are exploring how cigarette-style warnings in meat products could affect buyer behavior.
Meat Shaming
According to the Daily Mail, these warning labels may include sad animal images and strong messages like "Animals experience suffering whenever you eat meat." It could also include shots of destroyed forests coupled with texts like "Forests get destroyed when you eat meat."
This was the research focus of a study that is set to be included in the April edition of the Food Quality and Preference journal. They wanted to see if a confrontational and direct approach could affect meat-buying habits.
The authors wrote that messages regarding meat-shaming trigger embarrassment and other negative feelings that affect buyer behavior. More specifically, it decreases intentions to purchase meat. The analysis revealed that adding cigarette-style warning labels on meat products that alerted potential customers regarding the negative effects of the purchase, could be effective in influencing buyer behavior.
ALSO READ: How Do Supermarkets Manipulate People?
How Cigarette-Style Warning Labels on Meat Products Affect Buyer Behavior
The New York Post reports that the researchers conducted three different experiences with the use of meat-shaming messages. These messages tried to make potential customers experience negative feelings and change buyer behavior.
For the first experiment, there were 161 volunteers who were presented with one of two photos of a chicken breast packet. One of the snaps had a cigarette-style warning label, which included a shot of two battery chickens trapped within bars and a message that stated that eating meat leads to animal suffering.
The participants were then questioned regarding their likelihood of purchasing the product and their affective responses. Results showed that the label indeed reduced the inclination to purchase the chicken breasts. It even made them less motivated to consume meat in the future.
In the second experiment, 483 volunteers were presented with meat packets that had one out of six various meat-shaming warning labels. Each one also had a related image and message. These were related to environmental damage, health, and animal welfare. There was also a personal and informational message.
Participants were also surveyed afterward. Results showed that discouragement levels regarding meat-buying inclinations were not affected by the consequence type, be it health, animal welfare, or environment-related. The framing of the message, be it informational or personal, also did not impact the participants.
However, compared to the other two types, health-related messages generated a less emotional response. The others led participants to experience heightened guilt levels compared to shame. The researchers note that this could be because environmental and animal welfare consequences are more concrete compared to health.
In the last experiment, the researchers wanted to look at whether the source and perceived credibility of the warning message affected buyer behavior.
563 participants were shown one out of six labels. The researchers also mentioned that these were made by Greenpeace, the United Nations, or Green Eatz.
Results revealed that the source did not impact the effectiveness of the warning. However, if the buyer thought that the source was more reliable, it increased the likelihood of changing buyer behavior.
Interestingly, consumers were inclined to purchase products from a perceived reliable organization, despite the negativity of the message. The researchers note that this could be because the mere logo could serve as a cue for reliability even without processing the actual content. The label may have led to a halo effect of some sort and served as a promotion rather than a warning.
The researchers concluded that emotional warnings regarding the consequences of meat consumption on the environment and animal welfare can impact buyer behavior. This does not depend on its framing or source.
RELATED ARTICLE: Experts Weigh Benefits and Disadvantages of Plant-Based Fake Meats
Check out more news and information on Animal Welfare in Science Times.
