For our behaviour change project, we decided to tackle
over consumption of meat. It was a topic that each member of the group had
recently become interested in; so, we set out to design a poster that could
influence people to eat less meat or cut it out entirely. The meat industry
plays a part in a whole host of environmental issues, as well as an array of
human health problems. For example, the per day carbon dioxide emissions for a
vegetarian or almost half that of a high meat eater, with meat farming
responsible for approximately 20% of all global greenhouse gas emissions
(Scarborough et al., 2014; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Moreover, red and processed
meat has also been strongly linked with cancer, diabetes and obesity (Leitzmann,
2005). Though, these are a just a glimpse of the issues that the meat industry
creates, the problems spreading much further.
We are also aware the reason for many individuals to
alter their diet is for ethical reasons – in other words they do not want to be
complicit in the pain and suffering of animals (Fox & Ward, 2008). A lot of
vegetarian media does tend to focus on this aspect of the meat industry, often
utilising distressing scenes to evoke sadness or guilt (PETA, 2017). However, we
noted that for us the most convincing arguments initially were those from a
conservational and health point of view. The argument of whether it is moral to
kill an animal seemed inherently subjective to us, though one cannot really
argue against the observable and empirically tested that meat consumption is
having on the planet and the body. We found this to be supported by evidence; people
report going vegetarian for a variety of reasons, and inducing emotions such as
guilt and sadness may not result in a message being perceived as more
persuasive (Fox & Ward, 2008; Dillard & Peck, 2000). Moreover, the overuse
of ethical treatment of animals as topic for persuasive media may be potentially
detrimental to long term behaviour change. Research suggests that excessive
repetition may actually decrease persuasive effectiveness (Cacioppo & Petty, 1980) .
As a result, we decided to use Petty and Cacioppo’s
(1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model as a framework to create an effective piece
of persuasive media. The large humorous pie chart in the middle is designed to
access to peripheral route to persuasion, which people utilise when they do not
have the time/motivation to process the message deeply. Humour has been shown
to be an effective tool to influence individuals when the message is being
processed peripherally (Bless
& Schwarz, 1999; Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 2002) with a likely
explanation being that humour induces a positive mood which facilitates
persuasion (Petty, Schumann, Richman, & Strathman, 1993) . Another way in
which we used this peripheral route is with social proof (Rao, Greve &
Davis, 2001). This suggests that people will perceive a behaviour to be of
higher value (e.g. they should be doing it) if it is what everyone else is also
doing (Pratkanis, 2007) . So, with our
question, we imply that there are many other people becoming vegetarians which
should be persuasive if the message is being processed heuristically.
We
also integrated more detailed and rational arguments around the outside of the
poster, which people could read if they have the time to do so. According to
Petty & Cacioppo (1986) logically sound arguments are the most persuasive
when the message is being processed by the central route and the use the of
statistics increases persuasion because it provides supporting evidence.
Callam Constant, Luke Harris and Enzo Gian
Callam Constant, Luke Harris and Enzo Gian
References
Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (1999).
Sufficient and necessary conditions in dual-process models. Dual- process
theories in social psychology, 423-440.
Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1980). Persuasiveness
of communications is affected by exposure frequency and message quality: A
theoretical and empirical analysis of persisting attitude change. Current
issues and research in advertising, 3, 97-122.
Fox, N., & Ward, K. (2008). Health,
ethics and environment: a qualitative study of vegetarian motivations. Appetite,
50, 422-429.
Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P.
(2002). The role of humor in the persuasion of individuals varying in need
for cognition. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 50-56.
PETA . (2017, March 11). Issues.
Retrieved from www.peta.org.uk: http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The
elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and
persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.
Petty, R., Schumann, D., Richman, S.,
& Strathman, A. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for
affect under high-and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 64, 5.
Pratkanis, A. (2007). Social influence
analysis: An index of tactics . The science of social influence: Advances
and future progress, 17-82.
Rao, H., Greve, H., & Davis, G.
(2001). Fool's gold: Social proof in the initiation and abandonment of
coverage by Wall Street analysts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,
502-526.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T.,
Castel, V., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock's long shadow: Environmental
issues and options. Food & Agriculture Org.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.