Message framing and visual attention in sustainable meat reduction campaigns: An eye tracking analysis

This study uses the framing theory to examine how viewers visually process message strategies used in meat reduction advertising campaigns. Because of ongoing environmental and health concerns linked to meat production, social marketers increasingly rely on framing strategies to encourage more sustainable diets, yet little is known about how such messages are visually processed as they are viewed. Using eye-tracking, we recorded the gaze of 82 participants (42 Italian, 40 Swedish) while they viewed eight advertisements that varied in emotional valence (positive vs. negative framing) and image-text congruence (congruent vs. incongruent). Across four Areas of Interest (Icon, Image, Main Message, Message), images attracted more, shorter fixations than text, consistent with faster visual scanning of images and more effortful reading of text. Incongruent stimuli elicited more fixations than congruent stimuli, consistent with the additional processing needed to resolve the mismatch between image and text. Negatively framed stimuli, however, received fewer fixations and shorter viewing durations than positively framed stimuli, particularly on the Image AOI, suggesting that participants may have looked away from threatening content rather than engaging with it further. Exploratory country analyses revealed a different fixation profile in the Swedish group: more fixations, but shorter average fixation durations and lower total fixation duration after adjustment for AOI and gender; gender effects were not statistically significant. These findings extend research on visual attention and framing by showing that negative framing can, under some conditions, reduce rather than increase visual engagement with meat reduction messages, and they offer practical guidance for designing multimodal campaigns that balance visual and textual elements without triggering avoidance. Given the limited number of stimuli used, these conclusions should be interpreted as an initial, exploratory contribution rather than a definitive account of framing effects.