Abstract
Marketing plays an important role in shielding consumers of meat products from the apparent moral conflict that is associated with the killing of livestock. Research on the meat paradox suggests that moral concerns are habitually suppressed in order to facilitate this routine immoral behavior, which is not only associated with negative physical health effects, but also has considerable psychological cost. While there is ample evidence for the link between meat and masculinity, few studies have focused on how consumer behavior can be positively influenced by policy interventions to reduce meat consumption. Traditionally, men are highly attached to meat, encounter more social obstacles than women when attempting to change their diets, are targeted more aggressively by meat marketing, and are more likely to suffer from adverse individual health effects. Additionally, globally increasing meat consumption has a vast array of negative environmental impacts and abundant calls to public policy have been made to decrease meat consumption. Three studies investigate the effect of masculinity on meat-consumption related outcomes and the underlying psychological process. Results from three experimental studies indicate that threats to masculinity as well as compassion appeals can have unintended consequences. Implications to incorporate these findings into public policy are discussed.
Presenters
Attila PohlmannProfessor of Marketing, CADE, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Pichincha, Ecuador
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
Public Health Policies and Practices
KEYWORDS
Meat consumption, Public policy, Health intervention, Psychic cost, Ethical consumption
