My Master's Thesis
Danger Ahead! How Canadians Respond to Information About the Risks of Eating Meat
If you’d like to read my entire Master’s thesis (or just the abstract), you can find it here.
If you’d like to learn a little more about my thesis but don’t have time to review all 100+ pages, you can read this blog post! Here, I provide more details than are given in the abstract, but I keep the reading length between 5 to 10 minutes.
Background
Research shows that diets based on animal products are bad for both the planet and our health. They contribute greatly to global greenhouse gas emissions and increase the risk of diseases like heart disease and diabetes. 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 beliefs about meat rather than information that challenges them. This selective exposure bias is a problem because it makes people resist information that goes against their beliefs and can lead to the spread of misinformation. Fortunately, selective exposure may be influenced by information utility, or how useful people believe the information will be in helping them make decisions in the future.
Statement of Purpose
This study explores how people's attitudes, attachment, and beliefs about meat (independent variables) affect selective exposure (dependent variable) in Canadian omnivores, using information utility as a moderator. It seeks to understand how selective exposure influences positive attitudes toward eating meat. The research also looks at how much people know about the environmental impact of meat production and how that knowledge might shape or be shaped by selective exposure. Additionally, the study examines whether information utility framing can overcome the selective exposure bias when communicating the risks of eating meat.
Research Questions
What level of knowledge do consumers in Canada have about the impacts of meat on the environment?
How do meat-related attitudes, attachments, and beliefs influence selective exposure to meat-related risk information for consumers in Canada?
How does information utility influence patterns of selective exposure to meat-related risk information for consumers in Canada?
Can information utility framing decrease positive attitudes toward meat consumption among Canadian consumers?
Methodology
To fulfill its purpose 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, beliefs about meat risks and benefits, and diet-related environmental beliefs.
In the experiment, participants were randomly assigned to either the control or experimental group, where they were provided with several statements related to 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 the amount of meat they eat, and whether they learned anything new.
Key Results
32% of participants agreed that “meat production is harmful to the environment,” while 29% disagreed, and 40% neither agreed nor disagreed. 26% of participants agreed that “meat production is beneficial to the environment,” while 26% disagreed, and 48% neither agreed nor disagreed.
34% of participants correctly indicated that eating less meat is a somewhat effective lifestyle change for fighting climate change. However, only 8% knew that a vegan diet is highly effective.
In the experiment, participants were provided with several statements related to the risks and benefits of meat consumption. The experiment aimed to explore whether participants selected a pro-meat or anti-meat statement and to what extent this selection aligned with their meat-related attitudes, attachment, and beliefs (collected in the baseline survey).
The most common reason for participants’ statement selection was to confirm their prior knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs. This finding indicates that individuals engaged in selective exposure.
In the control group, most participants said that the information provided did not change how they would make future dietary decisions, regardless of their statement selection. In the experimental group, most participants said that the information provided did not change how they would make future dietary decisions, regardless of their statement selection, except for those who read about health risks framed using information utility.
Participants who read about health risks (either framed with information utility or without) were most likely to say that the information made them less favourable toward eating meat. In the experimental group, a greater proportion of participants decreased their positive attitudes toward meat after reading about health risks with information utility framing than health risks without information utility framing.
Discussion
The research found that Canadians have a poor understanding of how meat production affects the environment. They also tend to engage in selective exposure, choosing to read information that supports their attachment to meat and aligns with their beliefs, rather than material that challenges them. Framing information as useful can influence this bias, but only for people already open to changing their eating habits. For those willing to engage, health risk messages framed with information utility can motivate dietary changes and reduce positive attitudes toward meat.
Overall, the results suggest that Canadians' lack of knowledge about the environmental impact of meat isn't just due to limited information. Many people actively avoid information that highlights the negative aspects of meat consumption, as shown by selective exposure in this study. Although information utility framing can impact selective exposure, it was effective for only a small group. For most Canadians, this approach is unlikely to encourage engagement with meat-related risk messages.