---
title: "Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations."
url: "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/"
type: "study"
language: de-DE
description: "Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up."
---
# Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.

> Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.: Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up. Evidenzgrad A, Risk of Bias unclear.

## Quelle

Autor:innen: Maya B Mathur, Jacob Peacock, David B Reichling, Janice Nadler, Paul A Bain, Christopher D Gardner
Jahr: 2021
Journal/Quelle: Appetite
DOI: 10.1038/s41371-018-0068-8
APA: Mathur, M. B., Peacock, J., Reichling, D. B., Nadler, J., Bain, P. A., Gardner, C. D., & Robinson, T. N. (2021). Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-018-0068-8


## Forschungsfrage / Summary

Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.


## Methode und Evidenzqualität

[Studien](/studien/)typ: Studie
Risk of Bias: unclear
Evidenzgrad: A


## Key Findings

Evidence-Fill Queue: Findings werden aus Volltext, Abstract und Review-Notizen konsolidiert.


## Effektgrößen / Outcomes

Evidence-Fill Queue: Effektgrößen und Outcomes werden aus Volltext-Extraktionen priorisiert.


## Conversion-Implikationen

Evidence-Fill Queue: Conversion-Implikationen werden nur ausgespielt, wenn Mechanismus, Kontext und Messgröße ableitbar sind.


## Limitationen

Evidence-Fill Queue: Limitationen werden aus Risk-of-Bias-, Sample- und Methodikfeldern ergänzt.


## Verknüpfte Konzepte

- [Social Proof](/konzepte/social-proof/)


## Unterstützte Claims

- [Der untersuchte Consumer-Psychology-Effekt ist potenziell relevant für Conversion-Optimierung, benötigt aber noch genauere Claim-Extraktion.](/claims/consumer-psychology-effect-relevant-to-conversion/)


## FAQ

### Worum geht es in dieser Studie?

Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.: Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up. Evidenzgrad A, Risk of Bias unclear.

### Welche Evidenz wird genutzt?

Die Seite nutzt Claims, Studien, Use Cases und Quellen aus dem SurrealDB Knowledge Graph der Conversion-Psychologie-Wissensbasis.

### Ist die Ausgabe auf Deutsch verfügbar?

Ja. Alle menschenlesbaren Inhalte und Agent-Ausgaben sind standardmäßig deutsch.

## Quellen

- Mathur, M. B., Peacock, J., Reichling, D. B., Nadler, J., Bain, P. A., Gardner, C. D., & Robinson, T. N. (2021). Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-018-0068-8 [Quelle öffnen](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-018-0068-8)

## JSON-LD

```json
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@graph": [
    {
      "@type": "WebSite",
      "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/#website",
      "url": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de",
      "name": "conversion.stevebaka.de",
      "description": "Deutschsprachige Wissensbasis und Audit-Plattform für evidenzbasierte Conversion-Psychologie.",
      "publisher": {
        "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/#organization"
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Organization",
      "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/#organization",
      "name": "conversion.stevebaka.de",
      "url": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de",
      "parentOrganization": {
        "@id": "https://stevebaka.de/#organization"
      },
      "sameAs": [
        "https://stevebaka.de"
      ]
    },
    {
      "@type": "Person",
      "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/autoren/steve-baka/#person",
      "name": "Steve Baka",
      "url": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/autoren/steve-baka/",
      "sameAs": [
        "https://stevebaka.de"
      ],
      "jobTitle": "Conversion- und AI-Infrastructure-Berater",
      "knowsAbout": [
        "Conversion-Psychologie",
        "Verkaufspsychologie",
        "Behavioral Science",
        "GraphRAG",
        "SurrealDB",
        "D-A-CH Conversion Optimierung"
      ]
    },
    {
      "@type": "WebPage",
      "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/#webpage",
      "url": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/",
      "name": "Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.",
      "description": "Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.",
      "inLanguage": "de-DE",
      "isPartOf": {
        "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/#website"
      },
      "breadcrumb": {
        "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/#breadcrumb"
      },
      "datePublished": "2026-07-01",
      "dateModified": "2026-07-04",
      "mainEntity": {
        "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/#article"
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "ScholarlyArticle",
      "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/#article",
      "headline": "Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.",
      "name": "Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.",
      "description": "Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.",
      "inLanguage": "de-DE",
      "author": {
        "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/autoren/steve-baka/#person"
      },
      "publisher": {
        "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/#organization"
      },
      "mainEntityOfPage": {
        "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/#webpage"
      },
      "datePublished": "2026-07-01",
      "dateModified": "2026-07-04",
      "citation": [
        "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-018-0068-8"
      ],
      "mentions": [],
      "text": "Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta analysis and evidence based recommendations.: Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk of bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short term studies of primarily self reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long term follow up. Evidenzgrad A, Risk of Bias unclear. Quelle. Autor:innen: Maya B Mathur, Jacob Peacock, David B Reichling, Janice Nadler, Paul A Bain, Christopher D Gardner Jahr: 2021 Journal/Quelle: Appetite DOI: 10.1038/s41371 018 0068 8 APA: Mathur, M. B., Peacock, J., Reichling, D. B., Nadler, J., Bain, P. A., Gardner, C. D., & Robinson, T. N. (2021). Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta analysis and evidence based recommendations. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371 018 0068 8 Forschungsfrage / Summary. Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk of bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short term studies of primarily self reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long term follow up. Methode und Evidenzqualität. Studientyp: Studie Risk of Bias: unclear Evidenzgrad: A Key Findings. Evidence Fill Queue: Findings werden aus Volltext, Abstract und Review Notizen konsolidiert. Effektgrößen / Outcomes. Evidence Fill Queue: Effektgrößen und Outcomes werden aus Volltext Extraktionen priorisiert. Conversion Implikationen. Ev",
      "learningResourceType": "Evidence source",
      "isBasedOn": [
        "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-018-0068-8"
      ],
      "about": []
    },
    {
      "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
      "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/#breadcrumb",
      "itemListElement": [
        {
          "@type": "ListItem",
          "position": 1,
          "name": "Startseite",
          "item": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/"
        },
        {
          "@type": "ListItem",
          "position": 2,
          "name": "Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.",
          "item": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "@type": "FAQPage",
      "@id": "https://conversion.stevebaka.de/studien/10-1038-s41371-018-0068-8/#faq",
      "inLanguage": "de-DE",
      "mainEntity": [
        {
          "@type": "Question",
          "name": "Worum geht es in dieser Studie?",
          "acceptedAnswer": {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations.: Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up. Evidenzgrad A, Risk of Bias unclear."
          }
        },
        {
          "@type": "Question",
          "name": "Welche Evidenz wird genutzt?",
          "acceptedAnswer": {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Die Seite nutzt Claims, Studien, Use Cases und Quellen aus dem SurrealDB Knowledge Graph der Conversion-Psychologie-Wissensbasis."
          }
        },
        {
          "@type": "Question",
          "name": "Ist die Ausgabe auf Deutsch verfügbar?",
          "acceptedAnswer": {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Ja. Alle menschenlesbaren Inhalte und Agent-Ausgaben sind standardmäßig deutsch."
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}
```