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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sustainability
Published
2025-08-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167231
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.29
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Margherita Guidetti, Michela Lenzi, Sara Pompili, Valentina Carfora et al.
3 citations
Sustainability
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
4.29
article

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

Margherita Guidetti, Michela Lenzi, Sara Pompili, Valentina Carfora, Giulia Scaglioni, Mark Conner, Luciana Carraro, Simone Festa, Italo Azzena
article en
3 citations

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.

SustainabilityVol. 17(16)
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT), University of Leeds (GB), University of Padua (IT), Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
4.29
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.