The Social Psychology of Veganism – Reciprocity Norm

The reciprocity norm suggests that people are likely to help those who have helped them in the past.  The feeling of reciprocity can be increased if the relationship is a sustained one, and, it can still occur even when the help is given anonymously.

The vegan activist special offering cupcakes for conversations is an excellent example of how to engage the reciprocity norm. If someone is given a cupcake, they will feel obligated to return the favor by lending an ear. Nonprofits that send out stationary or calendars in hopes of soliciting donations in return also improve the help they receive by offering these freebies first.

Reciprocity has its limits. Not everyone has the ability to reciprocate adequately or at all. Activists should be careful to utilize this technique only in ways that will not threaten the self-esteem of the recipients. Research finds that older persons can become resentful if they believe they are being patronized, for instance. Offers and subsequent expectations should be relatively modest.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Give a little, get a little
  • Don’t apply this norm to those who can’t reciprocate, it may backfire

References

Burger, J., J. Sanchez, J. Imberi, and L. Grande. 2009.  “The Norm of Reciprocity as an Internalized Social Norm:  Returning Favors Even When No One Finds Out.”  Social Influence 4:  11-17.

Gouldner, A.  1960.  “The Norm of Reciprocity:  A Preliminary Statement.”  American Sociological Review 25:  161-178.

Myers, D. 2013. Social Psychology, 11th ed. McGraw Hill.

Nadler, A. and J. Fisher. 1986.  “The Role of Threat to Self-Esteem and Perceived Control in Recipient Reaction to Help:  Theory Development and Empirical Validation.”  In I. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19).  Orlando, FL:  Academic Press.

Newsom, J.  1999.  “Another Side to Caregiving:  Negative Reactions to Being Helped.”  Institute on Aging.  Portland State University.

 


 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Reciprocity Norm

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Door-in-the-Face

The door-in-the-face phenomenon suggests that, if one makes an over-the-top request that is likely to be denied and then counters with a more reasonable request, audiences will be much more likely to agree to the second request.

Psychologist Robert Cialdini and his colleagues were able to demonstrate the effectiveness of door-in-the-face by asking participants to agree to two years of volunteer work and then followed up asking for a lesser commitment. The first request of two years was predictably refused, but the second request was more successful. Over 50% more people agreed to the smaller concession in the group that was first presented with the large request than the comparison groups that received only the small request. The researchers also indicate that the second request need not be that small, but only smaller by comparison to the first.

It is thought that people will be more likely to concede to this smaller request in order to relieve the pressure of social norms. Consequently, the requester does not have to personally know the individuals in their audience in order for this technique to be effective.

Welfare reformers in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement might decide that asking their audience first to go vegan (expecting a rejection) and then asking them to reduce consumption (a smaller concession) might be a good application of this theory.  However, recall that it is not how small the followup request is that is important, only that it is smaller.  Therefore, vegan activists might first ask interested parties to become an activist and begin volunteering (a potentially overwhelming lifestyle decision that might put off some), but then counter with a request that they simply go vegan, ease into veganism over the course of a few weeks, or, perhaps, commit to signing up for a vegan newsletter.

Cialdini and his colleagues tested this effect in face-to-face interactions, so it is likely that the door-in-the-face method would apply well to vegan tabling, teaching, or lecturing. The fact that personal familiarity did not reduce effectiveness is also promising for those advocating veganism to the public. It is unclear, however, if this technique would work as well in online advocacy.


For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Start with a large request, then follow it up with a smaller request
  • Second request can be substantial as long as it is smaller than the first
  • Does not require personal acquaintanceship to work

 

References

Cialadini, R. et al.  1975.  “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance:  The Door-in-the-Face Technique.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:  206-215.

 


 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Door-in-the-Face

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Just-World Phenomenon

The just-world phenomenon asserts that people, to protect their peace of mind, tend to believe that bad things happen only to those who deserve it. This phenomenon surfaced in Nazi Germany where Jews were blamed for the violence they endured. Similarly, survivors of rape are often blamed for the assault and asked to account for their own behavior. Some have even rationalized that the gay community solicited the AIDS epidemic as a result of its “sinfulness.”

The flip side of this concept is that those who enjoy a privileged position may feel confident that they deserve their success. The just-world phenomenon discourages an acknowledgement of substantial, unearned privileges that create most wealth, including being born of wealthy parents, living in a safe neighborhood, attending well-funded schools, and so on.

This does not bode well for Nonhuman Animal rights activists. Audiences are likely to believe that other animals deserve their speciesist treatment. This block against empathy is a difficult barrier to overcome. Nonhuman Animals are frequently dismissed as “dumb,” “dirty,” “uncooperative,” and “ungrateful.” Audiences may also claim that a higher power created other animals to be human resources, and, thus, nonhumans willingly fulfill this divinely-sanctioned role in providing their bodies and labor. Likewise, the Suicide Food blog documents hundreds of advertisements produced by the food industry in which victims appear to be delighted by their own torture and death. Subsequently, audiences need not acknowledge that exploiting other animals is wrong, as victims are portrayed as willing and deserving participants.

Complicating matters is the feeling of entitlement that privileged humans often harbor. Remember that the just-world phenomenon encourages humans to think that bad things happen to those who deserve it, but also that good things happen to good people who deserve it. This explains the biased construction of food chains and evolutionary charts which frequently place human beings at the top. This superiority is believed to have been earned as a result of cunning and skill. Some believe this hierarchy is divinely sanctioned. In any case, it is a privilege believed to be deserved. The tendency for humans to blame victims and see privilege as deserved will be a particularly difficult hurdle for activists to overcome.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Challenge victim-blaming
  • Highlight that other animals are not willing participants
  • Challenge individualistic understandings of oppression; focus on systems

References

Carli L. et al. 1999. “Cognitive Reconstruction, Hindsight, and Reactions to victims and Perpetrators.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 966-979.

Imhoff, R. and R. Banse. 2009. “Ongoing Victim Suffering Increases Prejudice: The Case of Secondary Anti-Semitism.” Psychological Science 20: 1443-1447.

Lerner, M. 1980. The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum.

 


 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Just-World Phenomenon

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Selective Exposure

Frustrated activists often lament that audiences simply do not want to listen to them. “I just don’t want to know!” is a commonly-heard refrain. They will not be surprised to learn that social psychology supports this observation.

Researchers have found that most people rely on a system of selective exposure in which they seek out and pay attention to information that supports their preexisting views. As Sweeny et al. (2010) describe, “…people often opt to remain ignorant.” The worry is that this deliberate close-mindedness will impact sound decision-making and hinder social movement success.

According to these researchers, a multitude of personality traits interact to influence a person’s tendency toward selective exposure. For instance, some engage information as a coping mechanism; while others ignore information as a coping mechanism. Likewise, some people are more comfortable with uncertainty than others. Ease of obtaining and interpreting information, as well as the amount of control a person feels over the consequences of that information are also critical.

Therefore, sensitivity to individual characteristics is important for activists. Personal dispositions of audience members are largely outside of an activist’s control, but veganism can be presented as an attainable and viable alternative. Information about the transition to veganism should be easy to access and a variety of strategies for achieving this transition should be provided to reduce the potential for selection bias to surface.

Hart et al. (2009) found that selection bias was highest when it was relevant to accomplishing a goal. For instance, a nonvegan person wishing to lose weight may seek out diets that affirm their flesh-based consumption patterns, such as the Atkin’s Diet. This bias can be reduced if an individual’s attitudes are supported prior to their seeking information, but only if their attitudes are not strongly held or relevant to their values.

For instance, an activist may acknowledge that switching to a plant-based diet will mean forgoing traditional “meat” and dairy fare and offer some tempting alternatives to prevent selection bias from emerging. Activists must also be strategic in their timing, and may gear up for food-centered holidays when people are likely to start thinking about seeking information on their diet. Planning ahead for New Year’s when resolutions are made and information is sought would be another wise strategy.

Other inhibiting factors that activist should be aware of include the individual’s level of close-mindedness and confidence in their attitudes. Those who are particularly confident may not feel threatened by exposure to opposing information and are consequently less likely to exhibit information avoidance. Strength of attitude, it turns out, is not as influential to resistance as is the existence of a particular goal.

If that goal includes harm to other animals, persuasion may be difficult. The Bill and Lou controversy is an excellent example of this phenomenon. Bill and Lou were two oxen that labored for years in the agricultural program at Green Mountain College in Vermont. As they grew older and were no longer economically useful, the university decided to slaughter the pair. Publically, it claimed to encourage an open discourse on this decision, but the onslaught of opposing information that the university quickly received from horrified animal allies did little to sway the decision. Instead, the college selectively exposed itself to information that touted human supremacism and sustainability, information which supported its determined goal to kill Bill and Lou.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Avoid selective exposure tendencies by using two-sided appeals
  • Make information easily accessible
  • Provide alternative strategies for goal attainment
  • Employ persuasive appeals before the audience begins the process of information seeking
  • Avoid selective exposure by targeting audiences without strong preexisting attitudes about speciesism

References

Fischer, P. and T. Greitemeyer. 2010. “A New Look at Selective-Exposure Effects: An Integrative Model.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 19: 384-389.

Hart, W., D. Albarracin, A. Eagly, I. Brechan, M. Lindberg, and L. Merrill. 2009. “Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin 135: 555-588.

Sweeny, K., D. Melnyk, W. Miller, J. Shepperd. 2010. “Information Avoidance: Who, What, When, and Why.” Review of General Psychology 14: 340-353.

 

 


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Selective Exposure

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Opinion Leaders

Social psychological research on the absorption of media indicates that media frequently operates in a two-step flow. Media first hits opinion leaders and then disseminates to friends, family, colleagues, and others. Messages become popular as they are filtered through popular people.

Consider the Girls Intelligence Agency, for example, which targets popular preteen girls, sending them boxes of products to test on their friends at parties and sleepovers. Oprah is another good example. Having a product featured on Oprah is a near guarantee that sales will skyrocket, a phenomenon known as the “Oprah Effect.” Popular preteens and Oprah are effective persuaders because they are trendsetters. Audiences will seek to emulate their attitudes and behaviors.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has long exploited the effect of opinion leaders in soliciting celebrities to endorse animal welfare messages. Many cannot help but get excited when influential celebrities like talk show hosts Ellen DeGeneres and Oprah go vegan (if only temporarily) and promote veganism to their audiences.

Of course, many of these celebrity endorsements are seriously problematic. During her brief stint with veganism, Ellen remained the face of CoverGirl, a company that sells products made from the flesh of other animals and also tests on other animals. Most of the celebrities featured in PETA advertisements are not vegan either. Yet, while opinion leaders often fall short of a clear vegan message, their influence cannot be underestimated. As more and more trendsetters go vegan, they both encourage and normalize veganism.

Activists would do well to invest in media, specifically aiming to influence the influentials. Beyond the media sphere, real world networks count, too. Sociological research supports that individuals are more likely to go vegan if they have others in their social networks who are vegan. These networks normalize veganism and ease the transition for newcomers.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Encourage well-known people to promote the message
  • Facilitate supportive networks to normalize veganism and prevent recidivism

References

Cherry, E. 2003. “‘It’s Not Just a Diet’: Identity, Commitment, and Social Networks in Vegans.” MA Thesis, University of Georgia.

Katz, E. 1957. “The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on a Hypothesis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 21: 61-78.

Keller, E. and B. Berry. 2003. The Influential: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy. New York: Free Press.

 


 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Opinion Leaders

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Dissemination Channels

A message can be broadcast by face-to-face contact, video, audio, or written word. With so many options, which is the most effective? It depends.

Speaking with audiences in person seems to be the most effective overall.  Medical practitioners have found that they can improve the health habits of their patients by speaking with them face-to-face, as opposed to simply handing them brochures. Vegan tabling and presentations that utilize similar techniques to persuade lifestyle changes are thus advantageous.

This approach has its limits, however. In one study, only 10% of participants were able to recall church sermons on egalitarian attitudes. Simply lecturing at folks can tax their short-term memory. Vegan activists may thus wish to explore alternative channels or mix and match.

Visually-based channels can also be effective, but only for certain types of messages. Complex messages are easily lost if viewers become distracted by other things going on in the medium, such as the actors or flashing lights. Morally shocking images favored by advocates and non-profits may thus have shortcomings. Indeed, many viewers become preoccupied in the shock value of Nonhuman Animals suffering and do not absorb vegan or anti-speciesist arguments.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Give preference to face-to-face channels
  • Avoid visual channels for complex messages
  • Use written forms for complex messages

References

Chaiken, S. and A. Eagly 1983.  “Communication Modality as a Determinant of Persuasion:  The Role of Communicator Salience.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:  241-256.


Crawford, T.  1974.  “Sermons on Racial Tolerance and the Parish Neighborhood Context.”  Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4:  1-23.


Eldersveld, S. and R. Dodge.  1954.  “Personal Contact or Mail Propaganda?  An Experiment in Voting Turnout and Attitude Change.”  In D. Katz, D. Cartwright, S. Eldersveld, and A. Lee (Eds.), Public Opinion and Propaganda.  New York:  Dryden Press.


Farquhar, J. et al.  1977.  “Community Education for Cardiovascular Health.”  Lancet:  1192-1195, June 4.


Maccoby, N.  1980.  “Promoting Positive Health Behaviors in Adults.”  In L. Bond and J. Rosen (eds.), Competence and Coping During Adulthood.  Hanover, NH:  University Press of New England.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

 

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Dissemination Channels

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Mere Exposure Effect

When an observer is repeatedly exposed to a message, they are more likely to form a positive attitude about it.  This happens because becoming familiar with a person, thing, or idea breeds fondness.

To illustrate this point, social psychologist David Myers (2013) points to the Eiffel Tower. Once despised by Parisians, it is now a beloved symbol. Overlooking Paris for over a century, folks got quite used to it. Relatively unknown political candidates have successfully used this tactic to increase their popularity through repeating advertisements as well. After watching the same commercial over and over and reading the same yard signs over and over, it starts to seep in.

This effect can be easily harnessed by vegans, too.  Activists who leaflet or table can increase their persuasiveness by maintaining a regular presence in the community.  Online activists can also engage the mere exposure effect with continued presence in forums, chatrooms, and other social media spaces with consistent posts about anti-speciesism. Even wearing a vegan t-shirt regularly can breed familiarity and positive association. Reliably bringing vegan food to company picnics, potlucks, and other events can as well.  Activists who are advertising for a local group meeting or event should post lots of fliers.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Increase audience exposure to message as much as possible
  • Maintain a regular presence and encourage familiarity

References


Bornstein, R.  1989.  “Exposure and Affect:  Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968-1987.”  Psychological Bulletin 106:  265-289.


McCullough, J. and T. Ostrom.  1974.  “Repetition of Highly Similar Messages and Attitude Change.”  Journal of Applied Psychology 59:  395-397.


Myers, D.  2013.  Social Psychology, 11th ed.  McGraw Hill.


Winter, F.  1973.  “A Laboratory Experiment of Individual Attitude Response to Advertising Exposure.”  Journal of Marketing Research 10: 130-140.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

 

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Mere Exposure Effect

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Primacy and Recency Effects

The Primacy effect manifests to increase persuasion if the message is simply presented first among competing messages. Candidates listed first on the ballot have an advantage, for instance. In the courtroom, the testimony that goes first is most likely to convince jurors. Therefore, if vegan advocates are ever in a position to place their message before others, they would be wise to do so. Placing vegan options at the top of a menu, for instance, might improve their popularity.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for occupying recent memory. The recency effect suggests that if a message is fresh in someone’s mind (and a counterargument is too far in the past or otherwise too forgotten to compete) it will be more likely to persuade.

So, should activists shoot for being first or being most recent? Experimental research supports that the primacy effect tends to trump the recency effect. One study on internet behavior found that participants were most likely to click links located near the top of the page, but they might also opt for the most recently viewed link posted at the bottom of a list. Subsequently, researchers suggest that activists would benefit by lumping the most important information at the beginning of a message while saving some critical material for the end to trigger the short-term memory of recipients.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Present your argument first for more credibility
  • Or, present your argument last to improve remembrance
  • Try to combine the two
  • Primacy effect is usually more powerful than recency effect

References

Asch, S.  1946.  “Forming Impressions of Personality.”  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 41:  258-290.

Carney, D. and M. Banaji.  2012.  “First is Best.”  PLoS One 7 (6).

Miller, N. and D. Campbell. 1959.  “Recency and Primacy in Persuasion as a Function of the Timing of Speeches and Measurements.”  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59:  1-9.

Murphy, J., C. Hofacker, and R. Mizerski.  2006.  “Primacy and Recency Effects on Clicking Behavior.”  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (2), article 7.

Stewart, D., B. Khan, and K. Moore.  2008.  “Ballot Order Effect.”  Vermont Legislative Research Shop.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

 

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published on The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Primacy and Recency Effects

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Two-Sided Appeals

Should activists acknowledge counterarguments in their appeals? Some research suggests that doing so will increase the speaker’s credibility.

With any persuasive measure, audience matters. If an audience is not aware of the opposing argument or already agrees with the message, two-sided appeals are not necessary. For vegans, it is likely that their nonvegan audience is unfamiliar with the anti-speciesist claimsmaking and would benefit from a two-sided appeal.

However, when addressing an audience that is already vegan or is at least predisposed to veganism, two-sided appeals may not be needed. Research suggests that, if an audience already agrees, it is actually a one-sided appeal that will strengthen attitudes.

Otherwise, confronting a counterargument head on does tend to increase persuasiveness. In one study testing the persuasiveness of recycling signs, signs that addressed the counterargument proved more effective: “It may be inconvenient, but …” Vegan Outreach has a pamphlet that utilizes this method: Even if You Like Meat….  Unfortunately, instead of pushing a clear, vegan message, the Vegan Outreach pamphlet only suggests individuals reduce their consumption of other animals and their products. Vegans can easily tweak this approach for a more ethically consistent message.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • If your audience is in agreement, use one-sided appeal
  • If your audience is not in agreement, use a two-sided appeal and address counterarguments

References

Hovland, C. , A. Lumsdaine, and F. Sheffield.  1949.  Experiments on Mass Communication.  Studies in Social Psychology in World War II (Vol. III).  Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press.

Jones, R. and J. Brehm.  1970.  “Persuasiveness of One- and Two-Sided Communications as a Function of Awareness There are Two Sides.”  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 6:  47-56.

Lumsdaine, A. and I. Janis.  1953.  “Resistance to ‘Counter-Propaganda’ Produced by One-Sided and Two-Sided ‘Propaganda’ Presentations.”  Public Opinion Quarterly 17:  311-318.

Werner, C., R. Stoll, P. Birch., and P. White.  2002  “Clinical Validation and Cognitive Elaboration:  Signs that Encourage Sustained Recycling.”  Basic and Applied Social Psychology 24:  185-203.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

 

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published on The Examiner in 2012.

 

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Two-Sided Appeals

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Fear-Framed Persuasion

"Not Ready to Meat Your Maker? Fight Obesity: GO VEGAN. PETA." Image of a pot pie in the shape of a coffin; font used is gothic in white and blood red.

Fear creates vulnerability which, in turn, facilitates response. For this reason, fear tactics are often applied in public health campaigns such as those designed to curb smoking and tanning. One French study found that fear-arousing images on television altered youth attitudes towards alcohol consumption. Another study found that two-thirds of participants who viewed a fear-framed message about breast cancer got a mammogram within 12 months (versus only one half of the sample who viewed the positive message).

Importantly, if an alternative plan or solution is offered, a fear-framed message will be more effective. So, for instance, vegan campaigning that stokes fear about the consumption of Nonhuman Animal products as linked to chronic health problems should also highlight plant-based alternatives as the solution. Likewise, framing messages as something gained rather than lost is more useful. Rather than emphasize what vegans must give up, campaigning should emphasize the ethical benefits and the variety of tempting plant-based foods available.

As with eliciting good feelings, negative feelings, too, can backfire if they push audiences to adopt veganism without having to seriously consider the message. Implicit attitude change is rarely as deeply rooted and lasting as explicit, cognitively-involved attitude change. Finally, persuasion that banks on social stigma to scare audiences into compliance also runs into trouble by engaging the very ideologies of oppression the movement wishes to undermine. PETA’s advertisements (such as the fat-shaming one pictured above) are notorious for making this mistake.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Fear tactics should be presented with alternatives to undesirable behavior
  • Frame messages as something gained, not lost
  • Utilize fear tactics carefully to avoid weak behavior change or recidivism
  • Avoid the employment of stigma and discrimination as a fear tactic

References

Banks, S., P. Salovey, S. Greener, A. Rothman, A. Moyer, J. Beauvais, and E. Epel. 1995. “The Effects of Message Framing on Mammography Utilization.” Health Psychology 14: 178-184.

de Hoog, N. W. Stroebe, and J. de Wit. 2004. “Charismatic Leadership, Environmental Dynamism, and Performance.” European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 13: 447-471.

Devos-Comby, L. and P. Salovey. 2002. “Applying Persuasion Strategies to Alter HIV-Relevant Thoughts and Behavior.” Review of General Psychology 6: 287-304.

Levy-Leboyer, C. 1988. “Success and Failure in Applying Psychology.” American Psychologist 43: 779-785.

Maddux, J. and R. Rogers. 1983. “Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19: 469-479.

O’Keefe, D. and J. Jensen. 2011. “The Relative Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Persuasive Appeals Concerning Obesity-Related Behaviors: Meta-Analytic Evidence and Implications.” In R. Batra, P. Keller, and V. Strecher (Eds.), Leveraging Consumer Psychology for Effective Health Communications: The Obesity Challenge (pp. 171-185). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Ruiter, R., C. Abraham, and G. Kok. 2001. “Scary Warnings and Rational Precautions: A Review of the Psychology of Fear Appeals.” Psychology and Health 16: 613-630.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

 

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published on The Examiner in 2012.

whyveganism.com

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Fear-Framed Persuasion

Filed under Essays