Reducing the Consumer Attitude⁻Behaviour Gap in Animal Welfare: The Potential Role of 'Nudges'.

Belinda Vigors
Author Information
  1. Belinda Vigors: Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3RG, UK. belinda.vigors@sruc.ac.uk. ORCID

Abstract

Citizen concern for the welfare of farm animals is well documented. However, there is a notable gap between people saying they want improved farm animal welfare and how they actually behave as a consumer. This is known as the citizen⁻consumer attitude⁻behaviour gap. As improvements in farm animal welfare can be affected by market demand, the choices consumers make become important. This paper introduces the concept of 'nudging' and discusses how it could be applied to reduce the attitude⁻behaviour gap amongst consumers. By designing the choice environment to better reflect the behavioural biases known to impact human decision-making, 'nudge' tools function to prompt individuals to make choices that are aligned with their stated intentions. Four 'nudge' tools: self-nudges, choice architecture, social norms and pre-commitments are discussed. The behavioural rationales for their use are reviewed and examples of how they might be applied to animal welfare provided. Improved farm animal welfare arguably requires improved pro-welfare consumer behaviour. This paper highlights how this might be encouraged by: self-nudging the salience of an ethical self-image; altering the choice architecture to influence decision-making; articulating social norms to impact behaviour; and using pre-commitment devices to overcome self-control issues.

Keywords

References

  1. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Dec;79(6):995-1006 [PMID: 11138768]
  2. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):727-41; discussion 742-80 [PMID: 11301545]
  3. Psychol Sci. 2002 May;13(3):219-24 [PMID: 12009041]
  4. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Nov;134(4):538-51 [PMID: 16316290]
  5. Health Commun. 2006;20(1):23-34 [PMID: 16813486]
  6. Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):429-34 [PMID: 17576283]
  7. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;34(7):913-23 [PMID: 18550863]
  8. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451-82 [PMID: 21126183]
  9. Appetite. 2012 Apr;58(2):597-607 [PMID: 22127269]
  10. BMJ. 2012 Jan 30;344:e522 [PMID: 22290100]
  11. JAMA. 2014 May;311(20):2065-6 [PMID: 24777472]
  12. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015 May-Jun;47(3):259-64 [PMID: 25959448]
  13. Animals (Basel). 2013 Aug 14;3(3):808-29 [PMID: 26479535]
  14. Animals (Basel). 2013 Jun 10;3(2):551-7 [PMID: 26487417]
  15. Health Mark Q. 2015;32(4):297-312 [PMID: 26569148]
  16. Prev Med Rep. 2015 Apr 18;2:287-91 [PMID: 26844084]
  17. Poult Sci. 2016 Jul 1;95(7):1555-63 [PMID: 26976912]
  18. Appetite. 2016 Oct 1;105:643-51 [PMID: 27378750]
  19. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 30;16:676 [PMID: 27475752]
  20. Appetite. 2016 Dec 1;107:311-322 [PMID: 27554182]
  21. Meat Sci. 2017 Mar;125:37-45 [PMID: 27886640]
  22. Front Psychol. 2018 May 15;9:738 [PMID: 29867691]
  23. Animals (Basel). 2018 Oct 03;8(10):null [PMID: 30282909]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0welfareanimalfarmchoicegapbehaviouralarchitecturesocialnormsbehaviourimprovedconsumerknownattitude⁻behaviourchoicesconsumersmakepaperappliedimpactdecision-making'nudge'pre-commitmentsmightCitizenconcernanimalswelldocumentedHowevernotablepeoplesayingwantactuallybehavecitizen⁻consumerimprovementscanaffectedmarketdemandbecomeimportantintroducesconcept'nudging'discussesreduceamongstdesigningenvironmentbetterreflectbiaseshumantoolsfunctionpromptindividualsalignedstatedintentionsFourtools:self-nudgesdiscussedrationalesusereviewedexamplesprovidedImprovedarguablyrequirespro-welfarehighlightsencouragedby:self-nudgingsalienceethicalself-imagealteringinfluencearticulatingusingpre-commitmentdevicesovercomeself-controlissuesReducingConsumerAttitude⁻BehaviourGapAnimalWelfare:PotentialRole'Nudges'changeeconomicsnudge

Similar Articles

Cited By