Does Anticipated Pride for Goal Achievement or Anticipated Guilt for Goal Failure Influence Meat Reduction?

Sara Pompili, Giulia Scaglioni, Margherita Guidetti (), Simone Festa, Italo Azzena, Michela Lenzi, Luciana Carraro, Mark Conner and Valentina Carfora
Additional contact information
Sara Pompili: Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy
Giulia Scaglioni: Department of Communication and Economics, University of Modena-Reggio Emilia, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy
Margherita Guidetti: Department of Communication and Economics, University of Modena-Reggio Emilia, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy
Simone Festa: Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy
Italo Azzena: Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy
Michela Lenzi: Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, 35122 Padua, Italy
Luciana Carraro: Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padua, 35122 Padua, Italy
Mark Conner: School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
Valentina Carfora: Department of International Humanistic and Social Sciences, University of International Studies of Rome, 00147 Rome, Italy

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 16, 1-22

Abstract: Excessive meat consumption is detrimental to personal health, the environment, and animal welfare. This study examined whether scenarios evoking anticipated pride for achieving, or anticipated guilt for failing, a meat reduction goal—focused on protecting health, the environment, or animal welfare—would affect participants’ anticipated emotions, desire and intention to eat less meat, and ultimately their selection of meat-based food. A between-subjects experimental design was used, with 380 participants randomly assigned to one of seven conditions (six experimental and one control conditions). Experimental scenarios varied by emotion (pride vs. guilt) and goal domain (health, environment, animal welfare), while the control condition focused on sugar reduction. Results showed that scenarios varied in effectiveness depending on the goal addressed and emotion elicited. Specifically, scenarios emphasizing pride for protecting health or the environment reduced meat selection directly, while pride for protecting animals and guilt for harming the environment reduced meat choice indirectly through positive anticipated emotions, desire, and intention. The guilt scenario about endangering animal welfare and the pride scenario for protecting the environment had a total negative effect. This study highlights that emotional appeals—particularly pride for achieving meat reduction goals—may serve as a promising lever for developing impactful communication strategies.

Keywords: anticipated emotions; healthy eating; sustainability; meat intake reduction; animal welfare (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7231/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7231/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:16:p:7231-:d:1721501

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().