Defensive reactions to a meat reduction intervention.

Abstract

Shifting from meat-centric to plant-based diets can mitigate climate change, improve public health, and reduce animal suffering, among other socially beneficial outcomes. However, efforts to encourage these changes sometimes provoke defensive reactions, and there is limited experimental evidence on how and why such reactions occur. We tested a brief meat reduction intervention in a preregistered experiment with a demographically representative sample of 1070 UK meat-eaters (2 × 2 between-subjects design). The intervention had two components: a reflection prompt encouraging participants to consider how their meat consumption might conflict with environmental concerns, and an action plan prompt offering practical suggestions for reducing meat consumption. The action plan prompt backfired, decreasing willingness to reduce meat consumption and increasing psychological reactance. The reflection prompt also increased reactance. Additional analyses revealed that antisocial tendencies - traits such as low empathy and a lack of concern for the morality of one's actions - were associated with lower willingness to reduce meat consumption, reduced support for plant-based food policies, and greater reactance. These traits also amplified the backfire effects of the intervention, further decreasing willingness and policy support among participants higher in antisocial tendencies. These findings help to link defensive reactions and dispositional traits as barriers to sustainable food transitions.