Different Frames to Reduce Red Meat Intake: The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy

Area of Science:

• Behavioral Science
• Health Communication
• Nutrition Psychology

Background:

• Previous attempts to reduce red meat intake through messaging have yielded limited success.
• Individual differences, such as eating self-efficacy, may influence message effectiveness.
• Understanding message framing (factual vs. prefactual) and focus (health vs. wellbeing) is crucial.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the persuasive effects of prefactual versus factual messages on red meat consumption.
• To examine the influence of health versus wellbeing concerns in these messages.
• To determine if eating self-efficacy moderates the impact of different message types.

Main Methods:

• 247 young adults completed questionnaires on eating self-efficacy and red meat consumption.
• Participants were exposed to either prefactual or factual messages about red meat's impact on health or wellbeing.
• Post-message assessments included message involvement and intention to consume red meat.

Main Results:

• Prefactual wellbeing messages and factual health messages increased message involvement and reduced red meat consumption intentions.
• Eating self-efficacy moderated message effectiveness.
• Factual health messages were effective for individuals with high eating self-efficacy; prefactual wellbeing messages were effective for those with average self-efficacy.

Conclusions:

• Message framing (prefactual vs. factual) and focus (health vs. wellbeing) interact with eating self-efficacy to influence red meat consumption intentions.
• Personalized messaging strategies, considering self-efficacy, are more effective for dietary change.
• Future interventions should leverage tailored message frames to promote reduced red meat intake in diverse populations.