My Master's Thesis
Danger Ahead! How Canadians Respond to Information About the Risks of Eating Meat
This was the title of my Master’s thesis, which you can find here. It’s quite long (about 100 pages), but the Literature Review section provides an interesting overview of problems, trends, and consumer psychology related to meat consumption. Since defending my Master’s thesis, this research has also been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This article is shorter (about 20 pages), but it’s okay if you still don’t want to read it - that’s what this blog post is for!
If you’re thinking about reading my original work, please note that the peer-reviewed journal, while shorter, is of much higher quality in terms of its methods, results, and discussion (but the literature review from my original Master’s thesis is much more thorough). Since my Master’s thesis was my first time really conducting data analysis, the methods are fairly weak, so I wouldn’t recommend interpreting the results with much confidence. Through the peer-review process, my work became much stronger, and although a lot has changed in the more recent version, the primary investigation remains the same.
Anywho, please proceed to the short summary of my Master’s research below.
Background
Research shows that diets high in animal products are harmful to both the planet and our health. They contribute greatly to global greenhouse gas emissions and increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. On the other hand, vegan and vegetarian diets are much better for the environment and can help lower the risk of many illnesses. This makes them a powerful tool for fighting climate change and reducing deaths linked to poor nutrition.
However, getting people to understand the risks of eating meat can be tricky. Studies have found that people engage in selective exposure, meaning they prefer information that supports their current attitudes and beliefs about meat rather than information that challenges them. This selective exposure bias is a problem because it makes people resist information that contradicts their pre-existing attitudes, values or beliefs, which can lead to the spread of misinformation. Fortunately, research suggests that selective exposure may be influenced by information utility, or how useful people believe the information will be in helping them make future decisions.
Hypotheses & Research Questions
Hypothesis 1: Participants will preferentially select information about the benefits of eating meat over information about its risks
Hypothesis 2: Information utility framing will increase participants’ likelihood of selecting meat-related risk information compared with standard framing
Research Question 1: Does selective exposure vary as a function of participants’ meat-related attitudes, attachment, and perceived risk?
Research Question 2: Can information utility decrease perceived positive attitudes toward meat consumption?
Research Question 3: Can information utility increase willingness to reduce meat consumption?
Methodology
To test its hypotheses and answer the research questions listed above, this study used Qualtrics survey software to conduct a baseline survey, an experiment, and a post-experiment survey. All three parts of the study were conducted consecutively, and the entire process took participants approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
Participants began by completing the baseline survey, which collected information on their demographic variables, meat consumption behaviours, meat attitudes, meat attachments, awareness of meat risks and benefits, and diet-related environmental beliefs.
In the experiment, participants were randomly assigned to either the control or the experimental group, and they were provided with several statements on the risks and benefits of meat consumption.
Participants in the control group were given four statements to choose from, none of which were framed using information utility. Participants in the experimental group were given the same four statements to choose from, plus two additional statements framed using information utility.
After selecting a statement, participants were provided with information about their chosen topic.
Finally, participants completed the post-experiment survey, which collected information on the reasons for their statement selection, their attitudes toward meat, their willingness to reduce their meat intake, and whether they learned anything new.
Key Results
The majority of participants reported eating meat daily (59%), expressed highly positive attitudes toward meat (61%), were categorized as having “high” meat attachment (54%), and believed that meat is an important part of a healthy diet (74%).
Participants appeared to have a generally low awareness of the environmental and health risks associated with meat consumption.
32% of participants agreed that “meat production is harmful to the environment,” 26% agreed that “meat production is beneficial to the environment,” and 34% agreed that “meat-rich diets increase the risk of disease.”
Participants engaged in selective exposure to meat-related health information (but not environmental information), preferring material that aligned with their pre-existing dietary choices.
Perceived risk appeared to have contributed to selective exposure, as participants with lower perceptions of meat-related risks were more likely to select benefit-framed information.
Information utility appeared to marginally influence selective exposure to meat-related risk information, making risk messaging slightly more attractive in free-choice environments such as the internet.
However, information utility framing was not a significant predictor of attitude change or willingness to reduce meat consumption, indicating that while the strategy may be useful for increasing message engagement, it is unlikely to independently shift motivations or behavioural intentions.
Discussion & Conclusion
This research suggests that Canadian consumers engage in selective exposure to meat-related risk information, preferring material that reinforces their pre-existing dietary patterns and aligns with their beliefs. Information utility framing had limited effectiveness in influencing selective exposure tendencies, and while the strategy may persuade some individuals to engage with risk information, it is unlikely to motivate the majority of Canadian omnivores. It is possible that information utility may act as a final “push” that some consumers need to interact with meat-related risk information; however, further research is needed to better understand the framing strategy in this context.
Taken together, the results suggest that Canadians’ limited knowledge of the environmental and health risks of meat may stem from more than just a lack of information. It is likely that, due to their affinity for meat, consumers actively avoid information about its drawbacks, further perpetuating knowledge deficits. Furthermore, even when exposed to risk information, meat-related attitudes and intentions remain largely unchanged, highlighting the relatively stable nature of these sentiments.
Overall, the study highlights that pre-existing behaviours and beliefs often play a more central role in behaviour than knowledge or information provision. People are not blank slates needing “correct information” but rather, complex beings who filter information through their past experiences and current perspectives. Accordingly, further research is needed on communication strategies to effectively counter selective exposure biases and psychological resistance to meat-related risk information, thereby encouraging the adoption of sustainable diets in Canada and other high-income countries.
