Consumers' motivational associations favoring free-range meat or less meat
Consumers' motivational associations favoring free-range meat or less meat
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.001
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-15
影响因子：
7
通讯作者：
Aiking, Harry
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
de Boer, Joop;Boersema, Jan J.;Aiking, Harry
本文分析了选择吃（1）小份肉类或（2）道德上独特的肉类（例如散养肉）的消费者的动机取向与其相反的动机取向。我们的工作超越了传统的消费者行为方法，建立在动机心理学的最新见解之上，即人们如何接近匹配或避免不匹配，以达到“通过吃正确的食物获得足够的营养”的理想最终状态。倾向于接近匹配的消费者通常专注于从他们的选择集中选择最佳替代品（长期促销焦点）。倾向于避免不匹配的消费者通常会专注于从他们的选择集中拒绝不可接受的替代品（长期预防焦点）。区分这两种动机取向为促进更可持续的粮食消费和生产模式的目标提供了科学依据。我们的方法涉及对消费者关于肉类选择的目标取向进行系统分析。我们研究了荷兰消费者样本（n = 939）如何描述他们对食物的长期动机取向、他们自己的肉类选择，以及大约两周后，他们偏爱小份肉类和散养肉类或相反的促进和预防导向的协会。我们发现，具有长期预防导向的消费者会避免“大份量”的不匹配，这在很大程度上符合我们的假设。此外，那些支付高价购买散养肉的人认为吃“集约化养殖生产的肉”是不匹配的。相反，如果长期注重促销的消费者支付高价的散养肉，他们就会认为这是他们选择中的最佳选择。因此，选择一小部分肉类通常是出于预防目的，而选择散养肉类则出于预防或促进目的。这些动机取向的差异强调，追求可持续性不仅需要仔细考虑不受欢迎的替代方案，而且还需要仔细考虑理想的替代方案。 (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 保留所有权利。
The present paper analyzed the motivational orientations of consumers who choose to eat (1) small portions of meat or (2) ethically distinctive meat, such as free-range meat, in relation to the motivational orientations of their opposites. Going beyond the conventional approach to consumer behavior, our work builds on recent insights in motivational psychology about the ways in which people may approach matches or avoid mismatches to the desired end-state of "getting enough nourishment by eating the right food". Consumers who tend to approach matches are often focused on choosing the best alternatives from their choice set (chronic promotion focus). Consumers who tend to avoid mismatches are often focused on rejecting unacceptable alternatives from their choice set (chronic prevention focus). Distinguishing these two motivational orientations provides a scientific basis for the aim to foster more sustainable food consumption and production patterns. Our approach involves a systematic analysis of consumers' goal orientations regarding meat choices. We examined how a sample of Dutch consumers (n = 939) described their chronic motivational orientations regarding food, their own meat choices and, about two weeks later, their promotion- and prevention-oriented associations favoring either small portions of meat and free-range meat or their opposites. Largely in line with our hypotheses we found that consumers with a chronic prevention orientation avoided the mismatch of "large portions". Also, those of them who paid the premium price of free-range meat considered eating "meat produced by intensive farming" a mismatch. Conversely, if consumers with a chronic promotion orientation paid the premium price of free-range meat, they considered this the best alternative from their choice set. Accordingly, choosing a small portion of meat was often approached with a prevention orientation and choosing free-range meat with either a prevention or a promotion orientation. These differences in motivational orientation underline that the pursuit of sustainability requires careful consideration of not just undesirable but also of desirable alternatives. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.