Risks of meat: the relative impact of cognitive, affective and moral concerns

被引:38
作者
Berndsen, M
van der Pligt, J
机构
[1] Flinders Univ S Australia, Univ Amsterdam, Dept Social Psychol, Sch Psychol, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Dept Social Psychol, NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
meat consumption; personal health risks; moral risks; cognitive focus; affective focus; moral focus; judgments of risk; attitude and behavioural change;
D O I
10.1016/j.appet.2004.10.003
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The purpose of the present research was, first, to examine the impact of particular perspectives (Study 1: cognitive and affective; Study 2: moral) on the perception and acceptance of risks associated with meat consumption, and intention to reduce meat consumption in the future. The first study showed that an affective focus generally had a stronger impact on risk perception and acceptance, and intention to reduce meat consumption, than a more cognitive focus. Moreover, moral considerations had a clear impact in all conditions. Results of a second study confirmed that a moral focus has powerful effects on all the dependent variables. The second purpose of the research was to examine the perseverance of the impact of cognitive, affective and moral perspectives. In both studies, a follow-up after three weeks showed increased perception of moral risks and a strong intention to reduce future meat consumption. Moreover, attitude towards meat consumption became less positive in the conditions with an affective and moral focus. There were also significant relations between intention to reduce meat consumption, actual reduction, and intention to adhere to this level in the future. Overall, risk acceptance was mediated by perceived health and moral risks, whereas intention about meat consumption was mediated by risk acceptance. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:195 / 205
页数:11
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], ESSAYS MORAL DEV
[2]  
[Anonymous], HLTH ED J
[3]   Ambivalence towards meat [J].
Berndsen, M ;
van der Pligt, J .
APPETITE, 2004, 42 (01) :71-78
[4]  
BERNDSEN M, UNPUB ATTITUDES FISH
[5]   The moral complexion of consumption [J].
Borgmann, A .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 2000, 26 (04) :418-422
[6]  
Finucane ML, 2000, J BEHAV DECIS MAKING, V13, P1, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO
[7]  
2-S
[8]   MORAL OBLIGATION AND ATTITUDES - THEIR RELATION TO BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS [J].
GORSUCH, RL ;
ORTBERG, J .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1983, 44 (05) :1025-1028
[9]   How (and where) does moral judgment work? [J].
Greene, J ;
Haidt, J .
TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2002, 6 (12) :517-523
[10]  
Higgins E.T., 1996, SOCIAL PSYCHOL HDB B