Overview of Lab
Given limited resources, how can we most effectively reduce societal meat consumption? To answer this challenging question, the "Reducetarian Lab," the research arm of the Reducetarian Foundation (RF), conducts first-rate scientific studies on the relative effectiveness of various messages (i.e. eat less meat, go vegetarian, go vegan, etc.), framings (health, environmental, animal rights, etc.) and modes of delivery (videos, leaflets, articles, etc.). At RF, in the spirit of "effective altruism," we are committed to 1) revising our strategies in accordance with these results and to 2) making these results publicly available for the benefit of the entire community.
Messaging Study #1
Cut back or give it up? The effectiveness of reduce and eliminate appeals and dynamic norm messaging to curb meat consumption. [Full Paper here.]
Abstract
Research has recently started investigating possible methods to encourage consumers to reduce meat consumption. However, few studies examine highly scalable messaging techniques, whether they have long-term effects, and how to best craft such appeals. This includes whether it is more effective to use “reduce” appeals to eat less meat or “eliminate” appeals to categorically stop eating meat. We examine these questions in the context of a recently proposed social psychological technique to curb meat consumption: conveying dynamic norm information that more and more people are starting to curb their meat consumption. In a multi-wave longitudinal survey experiment, we contrast the effectiveness of reduce and eliminate appeals in a scalable medium: an op-ed. We find that the reduce appeal effectively reduced meat consumption in dietary reports five months out from reading the op-ed compared to a control, while the eliminate appeal did not. Further, a second longitudinal experiment assesses the heterogeneity of this effect among a national sample, and finds that these effects exist specifically among populations that are younger, more liberal, more educated, and less wealthy.
Messaging Study #2
Project Summary
The choice whether or not to consume fish is a complex one for many consumers. The negative environmental and animal welfare implications of both farmed and wild-caught fish are well-documented. But, fish is often championed as an ethical and sustainable alternative to other forms of meat. This can make campaigns to reduce fish consumption tricky: if you emphasize the importance of healthy eating, for example, will this encourage people to consume less fish, as fish is known to contain dangerous heavy metals, or more fish, because people think of fish as a “heart-healthy” protein? These conflicting considerations are true for a range of domains (e.g., animal welfare, sustainability, etc.). This project investigated the importance of a variety of (sometimes contradictory) norms surrounding fish consumption to design an effective behavioral intervention to encourage people to eat less fish. [Preprint here]