PONE-D-20-39949

The Cost of Implying Blame when Raising Awareness to Animal Suffering in Factory Farming: Defensiveness and Resistance to Change

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shulman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Indeed, I have read with great pleasure your manuscript, which is interesting, deals with an important topic, is well written and engaging. The transparency of the research, i.e., the fact that two of the studies are pre-registered, with data available in an open archive, is definitely a plus. It would have been even better if the data had been made available for the review process, which I would suggest for the next step of the revision process, for the sake of full transparency.

I would like to express my thanks to the two reviewers for their precious work. As you will see, they share with me the positive assessment and provide interesting suggestions to improve the manuscript. Indeed, they pointed to important aspects that should be elaborated upon, in the introduction and in the discussion, and provided useful references.

All the points raised by the reviewers deserve careful attention and should be addressed in your rebuttal letter.

Among other things, I agree with the observation that there are terms in the manuscript that might be obscure to some of the larger audience, hence brief explanations might be useful, and that it would be appropriate to provide some more information about the most widespread dietary habits in Israel, which you write to be characterized by the fact that the ‘animal product consumption is common' (page 5). First (but this is a very minor point), it is not clear whether (page 5) if it is meant here that in Israel most people are omnivore, or that they are not vegan. In other words, here with ‘animal product’ are you referring to ‘meat’ or also eggs and milk products? More importantly, regarding meat and animal product consumption in Israel, are these similar or different from those of highest meat consumption countries (e.g., US, Argentina, Australia)? Is the consumption of meat and animal products increasing, decreasing, or stable in Israel? Especially considering the question of generalizability of your results to other countries, this is important information for the reader.

The difference between the results of study 2a, and those of the other two studies is very interesting and it may be theoretically relevant. Self-selection may be at stake in studies 1 and 2b, meaning that those people who are already interested in veg* eating styles are more likely to be affected by the message and/or its characteristics, and this should be addressed in the limitations. 

Finally, I have some methodological notes:

More information should be provided for the power analysis (in all studies). E.g., Study 1:  “a minimum of 260 participants were required, if this study was to have a power of 0.80, alpha = .05, and a small/medium effect size of d = .35.” 

Please clearly state for what test this number of participants is adequate: Is it for an independent samples t-test? or for the mediation analysis? Furthermore, when chosing the alpha level, how was the number of tests considered (e.g., through Bonferroni correction?)

Minor points: 

1. I found the wording “independent T-tests” (e.g., Page 8, “results and discussion” section) a bit confusing. I suggest to write: “independent sample t-tests” (lowercase)
2. Page 9, also the following sentence was a bit confusing: “model 4 was used to test parallel mediation).” What do you mean exactly? Does it mean that you run two separate analyses, one for each dependent variable?
3. Study 1, the mediation analyses would be easier to follow if you could present them graphically, in a similar way to what you did for study 2b

Besides, I wonder why you chose to name them Study 1 - 2a - 2b, instead of Study 1 - 2 -3, especially because 2a and 2b are not identical to each other, so I found this a bit confusing (but this may be a matter of personal preferences).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cristina Zogmaister, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for including me in this process. I thoroughly enjoyed the paper and think that it is a valuable contribution to the field.

The main issue I have with the manuscript is the exclusion of many relevant studies in the introduction, and especially in the discussion. I have suggested a few (there are more) at the end of the review. This literature will help unpack and discuss results in relation to possible contextual features, moralisation/demoralisation, efficacy etc.

I was also expecting a discussion on identities/values attached to groups, such as the issues with merging all non-meat eaters even though you are focusing on omnivores.

I think it would be useful to expand on the discussion about the Israeli diet context you touch upon that there is a need to test this in further contexts (p.27), but it would be useful for the reader to know more about the Israeli context and why there might be contextual differences (or not) – see for example Schwartz, 2020).

The context could also feed into the moralisation/demoralisation in terms of group belonging/cultural belonging evoked by the different condition texts – you almost touch upon this on p.27 (“but further research is merited to examine which are the more meaningful defense mechanisms and for whom.”) but I think you could elaborate with a sentence or two.

The efficacy discussion could be related to a lot of the diet sustainability literature.

Finally, I am missing a more direct discussion of the practical implications of your research, you have a brief description of what to do and not, but this could be elaborated more on in terms of value for campaigns, social movements etc. (even beyond the veganism) to emphasise the usability.

Some minor (grammatical) points:

Inconsistent use of v*gn and veg*n

(p.20) “Furthermore, those the blaming text was perceived as significantly more blaming” – missing a ‘reading/assigned’

Some suggested references:

Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2017) Solidarity with animals: Assessing a relevant dimension of social identification with animals. PLoS ONE, 12(1): e0168184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168184

Becker, J. C., Radke, H. R. M., & Kutlaca, M. (2019). Stopping wolves in the wild and legitimizing meat consumption: Effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance on animal-related behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 804–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218824409

Caviola, L., Everett, J., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(6), 1011–1029. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000182

Cruwys, T., Norwood, R., Chachay, V. S., Ntontis, E., & Sheffield, J. (2020). "An important part of who I am": The predictors of dietary adherence among weight-loss, vegetarian, vegan, paleo, and gluten-free dietary groups. Nutrients, 12(4), 970. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12040970

Leach, S., Sutton, R. M., Dhont, K., & Douglas, K. M. (2020). When is it wrong to eat animals? The relevance of different animal traits and behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2718

Leite, A. C., Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2019). Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetariaism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2497

Finally, I would again like to thank the editor and authors for including me in this process. I think the paper is very interesting and a valuable contribution to the field.

Reviewer #2: Regarding the literature review: You do a good job of showing the practical problems with using a blame frame (efficacy issues in having it backfire psychologically resulting in rejection), but I think you should also mention what benefits may come from using a frame that puts some responsibility on the consumers themselves who finance this industry (or them as citizens who elect political leaders that endorse these farming laws and practices). If the blame is warranted, is there something valuable in admitting a consumer’s culpability in the problem while also showcasing how they are then a part of the solution? Or is the ultimate test of whether a campaign is “successful” based on immediate responses to messages and short term behavior change? Might there be long-term or deeper benefits to assigning a blame frame that an experiment cannot measure? (to add to your limitations section). This could be acknowledged.

Your own study’s findings in the end conclude “This work indicates that it

may be more effective to alleviate people of responsibility for their past harmdoing while

informing them about the harm in which they are involved, in order to increase receptiveness

to information about harm and consequently bring about change.”

A question to consider (although it was not tested in the study but could be acknowledged as an area for future research): Could the blame be allocated more collectively/socially (our society/culture is problematic because it validates and socially sanctions this mass consumption of animals) rather than aimed directly at them as one individual consumer? And would this not reduce the defensiveness and perhaps engage people in terms of citizenship (not just their role as consumer).

METHOD: Decent sample size of 300+ study 1 –recruited via social media (and had more women). Doubled for study 2a bc paid participants from a hired survey company. Good that you noted the differences in sample sourcing may affect results. Study 2b (316 participants, many more women). Plus a mini meta analysis. While I am not a quantitative researcher, from what I could assess, I found the three messages (blaming, absolving, and neutral) to be appropriate as a testing tool, as well as the measures for other categories such as 4Ns, human superiority, dietary change efficacy, etc. (in reading your supplementary materials). I could tell you as researchers understand vegan advocacy and animal rights issues.

I like that in study 2a you considered contravening variables and “therefore, measured efficacy beliefs as an exploratory variable, and considered that reduced efficacy beliefs may be an additional defense mechanism utilized by those who are blamed.” In general, I find that the researchers were self aware in acknowledging weaknesses/limitations and potential confounding variable.

I also like that you ran an extra test with study group one to test some inconsistencies from Study 2a: “Given the inconsistency between the strong effects in Study 1 and the null effects in

Study 2a, we decided to re-run the study with participants recruited via social media like in

Study 1.” (133 participants: many more women)

I think you should explain further what is meant by this finding in study 2b using terms that activists could understand. “There were several defense mechanisms that mediated these effect namely,

demoralization, reduced efficacy beliefs, and reactance, though not human superiority.” What implication does this have as far as providing tangible guidance for campaign designers? (add that to the conclusion).

From the conclusion:

This is quite significant: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first

demonstration of the costly effects of blame in persuasion efforts, and specifically with

regards to raising awareness of animal suffering in factory farming.”

A question that arose for me after reading study 1: Are you saying that being blamed for farmed animal suffering won’t make you rationalize meat eating as much as it will make you defend your human superiority over other animals? (although either as well as both would be detrimental to dietary behavior change). This would be an area for more granular/nuanced study in what messages may be effective here in seeing if it is human superiority beliefs that most need changing among omnivores rather than focusing on changing beliefs about meat eating. Or perhaps you can think of more specific ways this finding is significant for vegan advocacy campaign designers and could be further examined by scholars.

Typo pg 18: make “effect” plural in the middle sentence “There were several defense mechanisms that mediated these effect namely”

Important study. Useful. Well done.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sara Vestergren

Reviewer #2: Yes: Carrie P. Freeman

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The Cost of Attributing Moral Blame to Omnivores when Raising Awareness to Animal Suffering in Factory Farming: Defensiveness and Resistance to Change

PONE-D-20-39949R1

Dear Dr. Reifen-Tagar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Cristina Zogmaister, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I have read with great pleasure the new version of your article. I believe that you have responded convincingly to the points raised by me and the reviewers and that your work is a useful research. It is therefore with great pleasure that I accept your publication of this research.

Reviewers' comments: