Previous research has shown that messages aimed at reducing red meat intake often do not have the expected effect. In the present study, we tested whether prefactual (“If… then”) or factual messages focused on health or wellbeing concerns have different persuasive effects depending on the recipient’s level of eating self-efficacy. Young adult participants (N = 247) completed a questionnaire measuring their eating self-efficacy and current red meat consumption. They were then presented with a prefactual or factual version of a message describing the possible negative impact of excessive red meat consumption on either health or wellbeing. After reading the message participants reported their involvement with the message and intention to eat red meat in the future. Results showed that prefactual wellbeing messages and factual health messages trigger participants’ involvement and, in turn, reduce their intention to eat red meat more than the other message combinations. Eating self-efficacy moderates these effects, with factual health messages persuading people with high self-efficacy and prefactual wellbeing messages persuading also receivers with an average level of self-efficacy. Discussion focuses on which message frames can be more effective in promoting a reduction in red meat consumption in a wider population.

In two experimental studies (conducted in Britain and Italy), participants read about a politician answering to leadership- versus morality-related allegations using either downward counterfactuals (“things could have been worse, if ...”) or upward counterfactuals (“things could have been better, if ...”). Downward messages increased the perception of the politician’s leadership, while both downward and upward messages increased morality perception. Political sophistication moderated the effect of message direction, with downward messages increasing perceived morality in low sophisticates and upward messages increasing perceived morality in high sophisticates. In the latter group, the acknowledgment of an intent to take responsibility mediated morality judgment. Results were consistent across different countries, highlighting previously unexplored effects of communication on the perception of the “Big Two” dimensions.

Citizens are increasingly polarized on climate change, making persuasive communication on the issue rarely effective. We investigated how individuals with different climate change beliefs evaluated gain- and loss-framed messages on the environmental and economic impact of a related policy. In Studies 1 & 2, we found that Italian (N = 240) and American (N = 172) participants evaluated the differently framed messages according to their initial climate change beliefs, except in the crucial case of loss-framed economic messages (i.e. stressing the financial burden of the policy), which were evaluated similarly by both climate believers and skeptics. Exposure to this frame also had a significant negative effect on support for the policy. In Study 3, the same effect was found with a nationally representative sample (N = 496) of Italian citizens. Discussion focuses on the benefits, and potential drawbacks, of communication regarding the economic consequences of climate change policies.