Animal-rights, environmental or health? The effect of argument type on attitudes toward the restriction of the consumption of animal-derived products

From a number of perspectives, including individual/population health, environmental, and animal rights, it seems clear that a reduction in consumption of animal-derived products (ADP) or its complete cessation would bring benefits. We know little about the different effects of these types of arguments (health, environmental, and animal-rights) on the attitudes of meat-eaters toward reducing or ceasing ADP consumption. In this study, we will investigate such effects. We will present these types of arguments to the participants in the form of vignettes and include control conditions. We will evaluate how each one of these conditions impacts the levels of cognitive dissonance and the attitudes toward the propositions of reducing and ceasing ADP consumption. We will also analyse how gender, social dominance orientation and system justification influence these attitudes. Prior to preregistration, we conducted a pilot study using the vignettes and control conditions (N = 230). The exploratory analysis of the data from the pilot study indicated significant differences in the responses of women and men to the conditions. Therefore, we will adopt the Factorial ANOVA as the main analytical procedure. We will aim to investigate the interactions of gender and conditions (vignettes + control) on the targeted attitudes. We will also consider the pilot study to determine the hypotheses and smallest effect size of interest. Hypotheses HYPOTHESIS 1: Greater levels of cognitive dissonance will lead to greater levels of positive attitudes toward the propositions of reducing and ceasing ADP consumption. HYPOTHESIS 2: Among women and men, the conditions with vignettes will induce greater positive attitudes toward the propositions of reducing and ceasing ADP consumption in comparison to the control conditions.