IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i9p4948-d796873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Interaction between Regulatory Focus and Message Framing in Determining Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes toward Artificial Meat

Author

Listed:
  • Hongxu Shi

    (School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China)

  • Peihua Ma

    (Department of Nutrition and Food Science, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA)

  • Yinchu Zeng

    (School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China)

  • Jiping Sheng

    (School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China)

Abstract

While production and consumption of meat cast a shadow over the prospects for sustainable development, artificial meat may be the solution. However, consumer acceptability of artificial meat is a major impediment to its use as a suitable alternative. This study analyzed the relationship between regulatory focus and consumer acceptance of artificial meat using randomized controlled trial data. Results showed that promotion focus results in a higher acceptance of artificial meat products due to a higher perceived benefit and lower perceived risk, whereas prevention focus results in a lower acceptance of artificial meat products due to perceived benefit being lower and perceived risk being higher. The moderating effect of the message framing was investigated employing structural equation modeling (SEM). It was discovered that a gain-oriented message framing could greatly strengthen the association between promotion focus and perceived benefit, whereas an avoidance-oriented message framing could significantly diminish the relationship between prevention focus and perceived risk. This study has crucial implications for how policymakers and industries communicate with consumers about artificial meat.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongxu Shi & Peihua Ma & Yinchu Zeng & Jiping Sheng, 2022. "Understanding the Interaction between Regulatory Focus and Message Framing in Determining Chinese Consumers’ Attitudes toward Artificial Meat," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:4948-:d:796873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/4948/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/4948/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Réquillart, Vincent & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Shaping food safety perceptions: The influence of informational nudges," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 139-151.
    3. Demsar, Vlad & Sands, Sean & Rosengren, Sara & Campbell, Colin, 2022. "Ad creativity in a negative context: How a thanking message frame enhances purchase intention in times of crisis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Nadia Palmieri & Maria Angela Perito & Claudio Lupi, 2020. "Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: some hints from Italy," Post-Print hal-03385175, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimitris Skalkos & Ioanna S. Kosma & Eleni Chasioti & Thomas Bintsis & Haralabos C. Karantonis, 2021. "Consumers’ Perception on Traceability of Greek Traditional Foods in the Post-COVID-19 Era," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Zheng, Han & Chen, Kai & Ma, Zhuoyuan, 2023. "Interactive effects of social norms and information framing on consumers' willingness of food waste reduction behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Lucia A Reisch, 2021. "Shaping healthy and sustainable food systems with behavioural food policy [The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 665-693.
    4. Lehberger, Mira & Grüner, Sven, 2021. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for plants protected by beneficial insects – Evidence from two stated-choice experiments with different subject pools," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Zhang, Jun & Shi, Hongxu & Sheng, Jiping, 2022. "The effects of message framing on novel food introduction: Evidence from the artificial meat products in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    6. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    7. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    9. Berg, Joyce E. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2019. "Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 271-287.
    10. Reckers, Philip M.J. & Sanders, Debra L. & Roark, Stephen J., 1994. "The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 47(4), pages 825-836, December.
    11. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    12. Sitinjak Elizabeth Lucky Maretha & Haryanti Kristiana & Kurniasari Widuri & Sasmito Yohanes Wisnu Djati, 2019. "Investor behavior based on personality and company life cycle," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 23-38, August.
    13. Theo Arentze & Tao Feng & Harry Timmermans & Jops Robroeks, 2012. "Context-dependent influence of road attributes and pricing policies on route choice behavior of truck drivers: results of a conjoint choice experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1173-1188, November.
    14. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    15. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    16. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ran Sun Lyng & Jie Zhou, 2019. "Household Portfolio Choice Before and After a House Purchase," Economics Working Papers 2019-01, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    18. Homonoff, Tatiana & Spreen, Thomas Luke & St. Clair, Travis, 2020. "Balance sheet insolvency and contribution revenue in public charities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    19. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:4948-:d:796873. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.