.

It’s a little bit tentative but it seemed like the approach that was sort of trying to prompt cognitive dissonance by telling them about how there’s all these other unnatural goods that they like was maybe doing the best. The downside though is it did seem like quite a lot of … more people than I would have thought were actually quite negative towards clean meat. And especially, almost nothing did as well as — we had one treatment where we didn’t know how, a priori, how poorly people would respond to it. So we thought we’re going to prime some people with negative social information so that at least there’s some people for whom they’ve got some kind of anti, you know, they’ve got some kind of naturalistic [crosstalk 02:02:14].

Robert Wiblin: Some prejudice against it.

Eva Vivalt: Yeah, exactly. And it turned out, that priming effect, was pretty much bigger than anything else we found, which is kind of disappointing because you can imagine that the very first thing that other companies who produce conventional meat products will do, most likely, is to try to attack clean meat as like-

Robert Wiblin: Gross.

Eva Vivalt: Yeah. So that was little bit unfortunate.

And we also did another study where we were looking at the effects of knowing about clean meat on ethical beliefs because we thought actually if the … to some extent your ethical beliefs could be a function of what you think is like fairly easy to do. And so if you think that there is a good alternative out there, it could actually potentially change your views towards animals more generally, or the environment. So we were using this negative priming as an instrument for people thinking more or less positively towards clean meat and then looking at the effect on ethical beliefs, and there was actually some evidence that people were changing at least their stated ethical beliefs. I think we need to do a few more robustness checks there, but it was still quite surprising.

Robert Wiblin: Yeah. Why do you think the ’embrace unnaturalness’ message worked the best? Do you have a theory there?

Eva Vivalt: My best guess is that it had something to do cognitive dissonance and the fact that it was a relatively mild way of putting things. People don’t tend to like fairly strong messages against what they hold dear. We weren’t really under
. 

 It ’s a little bit tentative but it seemed like the approach that was sort of judge to motivate cognitive dissonance by telling them about how there ’s all these early unnatural commodity that they like was maybe cause the best. The downside though is it did seem like quite a batch of … more people than I would have thought were actually quite minus towards clean meat. And specially, about nothing did as well as — we take one treatment where we did n’t know how, a priori, how ill people would respond to it. So we think we ’re going to prime some people with damaging social information so that at least there ’s some citizenry for whom they ’ve got some kind of anti, you know, they ’ve got some kind of naturalistic [ crosstalk 02:02:14 ]. 

 Robert Wiblin: Some prejudice against it. 

 Eva Vivalt: Yeah, exactly. And it turn out, that priming effect, was pretty much bigger than anything else we find, which is kind of disappointing because you can imagine that the very first thing that other companies who produce conventional meat merchandise will do, most probable, is to sample to assail clean meat as like- 

 Robert Wiblin: Gross. 

 Eva Vivalt: Yeah. So that was little bit unfortunate. 

 And we also did another cogitation where we were looking at the effects of knowing about clean kernel on ethical beliefs because we thought actually if the … to some extent your ethical beliefs could be a function of what you remember is like fairly comfortable to serve. And so if you think that there is a good option out there, it could actually potentially change your views towards animals more generally, or the environment. So we were using this negative priming as an instrumental role for people thinking more or less positively towards uninfected meat and then look at the effect on ethical belief, and there was actually some evidence that multitude were changing at least their stated ethical beliefs. I think we need to dress a few more robustness checks there, but it was still quite surprising. 

 Robert Wiblin: Yeah. Why do you think the ’ embrace unnaturalness ’ message worked the best? Do you have a theory there? 

 Eva Vivalt: My best guess is that it have something to do cognitive dissonance and the fact that it was a relatively balmy way of putting thing. People do n’t tend to like fairly impregnable messages against what they hold dear. We were n’t really under
.

It’s a little bit tentative nut it seemed like the epproacg that wxs sort of trying to prompt rognutive dissonance by telling them abolt how thwre’s qll these other unkcturam goobs that they likg was maybe going the best. Tfe downside though is it did seem likq quite a lot of … more keoplt tran J would have thought were actually quite iegative towardx clean meat. And especiallj, allost nothing did ad well as — qe hwe one treatmdnt where we didn’t knos how, a priori, how poorly peopld woukd respond ti ih. So we thoujht we’ge going to pvpme soma peoplr with negativc socmal unformation so that av least there’s some keople for wkom they’ve got some kune of dnti, you jnod, tgeb’ve got slme kind of nzturalistic [crosstalk 02:02:14].

Robert Wobjpm: Some prejusice adaynst it.

Eva Vivalt: Yeah, exactly. And it tlrnes out, that priming effext, was pretty much bihger than anything else we found, which is kind of disappoitting ceccmfd ylu can imagine that the very first thing that ktneg companies who pvoduce conventionak lesj products wilu do, most likely, is to try ho attask clwan meat ws loke-

Robert Wiblin: Gross.

Eva Vuvalt: Yeah. Sj that was little bnt unfortunace.

And ee alxo did another study whzre we were lookijg at the dffects of knowivg sbmut clean meat on ethical feliefs bxcausz we thojght actuajly if the … to some extent your etjical baliefs coupd be a function of what you thmik is like faorny vasy to dj. And so if you thynk that there is a gjod auternative out thxre, it could actually potajtially chanje your vyews towqrds ankoals more genetally, or nht environmwnt. So we were usikg thka negative primnug as an instrumemt wor pvopke dhinking mora or lerx posktively towcras ckean meat and then lmokihg at the effect om cthical bgliefs, anq there was avtually some evidejce tiat peuple eerg changing at least their states ethical bejiefs. I thinh we need to do c few more robustness checks there, but iv was still quite surptising.

Robert Wiblin: Ygah. Why do you thinh the ’embsace unnaturalness’ mwssage worked the best? Do you have a tgeory dhere?

Fva Vivalt: My best guess is that it had something to do cognitive dissonabce anv ehe fact thzt iy was a xelativqly lmld way of puttinb things. People don’t tend to liye fairlf ftrong messages against what tfey hold dear. We weren’t really under
. It’s a little bit tentative but like approach that sort of trying telling about how there’s these other unnatural that they like was maybe doing best. The downside though is it did seem like quite a lot of more people than I would have thought were actually quite negative towards clean And almost did well as — we had one treatment where we didn’t know how, a priori, how poorly would respond to it. So we thought we’re to prime some people negative social information so that least some people whom got kind of anti, know, they’ve got some kind of naturalistic [crosstalk 02:02:14]. Robert Wiblin: Some prejudice against it. Eva Vivalt: exactly. And out, that effect, pretty bigger than anything found, which is kind of disappointing imagine that the very first thing that other who produce meat products will do, most likely, to try to attack clean meat as like- Wiblin: Gross. Eva Vivalt: Yeah. So that was little bit unfortunate. And we also did where we were looking the effects of about meat ethical because we actually if the … to some extent your ethical beliefs could a function of what you think is like fairly easy And if you think there is a good out it could actually potentially views animals the So were using this negative as an instrument for people more or less positively looking at the effect on ethical beliefs, and was actually some evidence that people were at least their stated ethical beliefs. I think we need to do few more there, but it was still quite surprising. Robert Yeah. Why do you the ’embrace unnaturalness’ message worked the best? Do you a there? Eva My best guess that it had to do cognitive the fact it a of putting things. People don’t tend like strong messages against what they dear. really under
.

It’s a little bit tentative but It seemed liKe the AppRoaCh That Was sOrt of trying to pROmpt Cognitive dissonance by tEllinG tHEm abOUt How thEre’s all THeSE OthEr UnNatUrAL gOods tHat They likE was maybe dOinG tHe best. The dowNSiDe though is It dId seem like quIte A lot of … MoRe pEOple tHan i woulD have tHOught wEre actualLy QUite neGAtive toWARdS cleAn meat. And especialLY, aLMost nothing did As well As — WE hAD One TreAtment wherE wE didn’T Know how, A PrIORI, hoW Poorly people wOuld respond TO it. so we thOuGht WE’re goiNg to pRiME soMe people witH negAtive sociAl infoRMation sO That at lEast thEre’S soMe peOPlE fOr wHoM TheY’Ve Got SOme Kind of anTi, YoU know, They’VE GOT somE kiNd of NaturAlistic [crosstAlk 02:02:14].

robeRT WiBlin: SOme prEjudIcE agaiNst it.

EVa VivAlT: Yeah, exactly. And It tuRned out, thAt pRiMinG eFfect, WAs pretTy mUch Bigger tHan anytHIng ElSE WE fOund, which is kind of dIsAPPoInting beCause yOU cAn IMagine thAt The Very FIRst thIng tHAt Other comPanies WHo PrOduce coNvEntionAl MeaT prOductS Will Do, most Likely, is To try TO attack clean meAT as like-

Robert wIbLIN: GROss.

EVa VIvalt: Yeah. So That WAs liTtle BIt UnfORtunaTe.

And We ALsO Did another study wherE wE were lOokinG at the effects Of knowing aBOUT clean meAt on EThICal beliefs becaUse we Thought actUAlly if thE … to soMe extent Your ethicAL Beliefs cOulD be A fuNctION oF what you think IS Like FaIrly easY to Do. And so If yOu tHinK thAt There is a gOod alterNaTiVe OuT thEre, it COuld actuAlLy pOtEntIally CHange yOur viEws tOwArDS anImals moRE gENEralLy, Or The eNviRoNment. so we WEre Using thIs negativE prIMing As An InstrumEnt for people tHiNking more oR lEss PositiVELy towardS clean meat and then lookinG At the efFecT on etHicaL beliefs, aNd tHere waS acTUally sOme eviDence ThAt pEOPle weRE ChAngInG at least thEIR stAted eThIcal Beliefs. i think we need to do a fEW moRe robustness cHecKs thERE, bUt iT WaS StiLl QUitE SUrprising.

Robert wiblin: Yeah. whY Do You think thE ’EmbRaCe unnatUralnesS’ messAGe workeD the best? DO you have a ThEory THEre?

eva Vivalt: MY best gueSs is that iT Had soMEtHing tO do CognitIvE diSsonaNce and THe fAct thAt it waS a RelatiVely mIlD way of puTting things. People don’t teNd to liKe faiRly Strong mesSagES agAinst what They Hold dear. We WerEn’t ReallY unDEr
.

It’s a little bit tenta tive but i t see med  li ke  the  app roach that was sort  of trying to prompt c ognit iv e  dis s on anceby tell i ng t hem  a bo utho w  t here’ s a ll thes e other un nat ur al goods tha t  t hey like w asmaybe doingthe  best.  T hed ownsi dethoug h is i t  did s eem likequ i te a l o t of …m o re  peo ple than I wouldh av e  thought wereactual ly qu i t e n ega tive towar ds  clea n  meat.A nd e s pec i ally, almostnothing did aswell a s— w e  had o ne tr ea t men t where wedidn ’t know h ow, ap riori,h ow poor ly peo ple  wo uldr es po ndto it. So  we tho ught we’ re  g oingto p r i m e  som e p eopl e wit h negative so cia l in f orm ation  so t hatat  leas t ther e’s s om e people for wh om t hey’ve go t s om e k in d ofa nti, y oukno w, they ’ve got som ek i n dof naturalistic [c ro s s ta lk 02:02 :14].Ro be r t Wiblin :Som e pr e j udice  aga i ns t it.

E va Viv a lt :Yeah, e xa ctly.An d i t t urned out,  thatprimingeffec t , was pretty m u ch bigger tha n  a n y th i ng e lse  we found,whic h  iskind of  di s appoi nting  b e ca u se you can imagineth at the  very  first thingthat other c o mpanieswhop ro d uce convention al me at product s  will do , mos t likely , is to t r y  to atta ckcle anmea t as  like-

Rober t Wibl in : Gross .
Eva Viv alt : Y eah . S othat waslittle b it  u nf or tun ate.And we a ls o d id  an other studywhere  wewe re loo king at th e effe ct sof k now in g abo ut c l ean  meat o n ethical  be l iefs  b ec ause we  thought actu al ly if the…tosome e x t ent your  ethical beliefs couldb e a fun cti on of  wha t you thi nkis lik e f a irly e asy to  do.An d s o if yo u th ink  t hat therei s  agoodal tern ative o ut there, it could act ually potenti all y ch a n ge  yo u rv iew st owa r d s animals moregenerally,  o r  t he environ m ent .So we w ere usi ng th i s negat ive primi ng as anin stru m e ntfor people  thinkin g more or lessp os itive lytoward scle an me at and the n loo king a tthe ef fecton  ethical  beliefs, and there was  actua lly s ome  evidence  th a t p eople wer e ch anging atlea sttheir  st a ted e thic a lbel i efs.I th i nk we nee d  t o d o afew more ro b u s tne ss ch eck s  there , bu t it was still qu i te surprising. 

Ro b e rtWib l in:Ye ah. Why do you  th in k the ’emb ra ce unnatura lness’ m es s age w orkedthe be st? Doy o uh ave atheo rythere?

E vaVi v alt: My  b es t  guess  isth at ithad so m ethi n g  to do cognitive  diss o n ancea ndthe f ac t thati t wa s a relati vely mild w ay ofputt ing t hings.Pe ople d on’ ttend to li k e fairlystron g messa ge s ag ain st wha t th e y  hold  dea r.  We  weren’tr e al l yun d er
.

It’s a_little bit_tentative but it seemed_like the_approach_that was_sort_of trying to_prompt cognitive dissonance_by telling them about_how there’s all_these_other unnatural goods that they like was maybe doing the best. The downside though_is_it did_seem_like_quite a lot of …_more people than I would_have thought_were actually quite negative towards clean meat. And_especially,_almost nothing did_as well as — we had one treatment where_we didn’t know how, a priori,_how poorly people_would_respond_to it. So we_thought we’re going to prime some_people with negative social information so_that at least there’s some people for_whom they’ve got some kind of_anti, you know, they’ve got_some kind_of naturalistic [crosstalk 02:02:14].

Robert Wiblin:_Some prejudice against_it.

Eva Vivalt:_Yeah, exactly. And_it turned out, that priming effect,_was pretty much_bigger than anything else we found,_which_is kind of_disappointing_because_you can_imagine that the_very_first thing_that_other companies who produce conventional meat_products_will do, most likely, is to try_to attack clean meat_as_like-

Robert Wiblin: Gross.

Eva Vivalt:_Yeah. So that was little_bit unfortunate.

And we also did another_study where_we were_looking at the effects of knowing about clean meat on ethical_beliefs because we thought actually if_the … to some_extent your_ethical_beliefs could be_a_function of_what you think is like fairly easy_to do._And so if you think that_there is a good_alternative_out there, it could actually potentially_change your views towards animals more_generally, or the environment. So_we_were_using this negative priming as_an instrument for people thinking more_or less positively_towards clean meat and then looking at_the_effect on ethical beliefs, and there_was_actually some evidence that people were_changing_at_least their stated ethical beliefs._I think we need to do_a few more robustness checks there, but it was_still quite surprising.

Robert_Wiblin: Yeah. Why do you_think_the_’embrace unnaturalness’ message worked the best? Do you have a_theory there?

Eva_Vivalt: My best_guess is that it had something to do cognitive dissonance_and the fact that it was a_relatively mild way of putting things. People don’t tend to like_fairly strong messages against what they hold dear._We weren’t really under