ORCID Profile
0000-0001-5965-8040
Current Organisation
University of Amsterdam
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 12-09-2022
Abstract: How well can social scientists predict societal change, and what processes underlie their predictions? To answer these questions, we ran two forecasting tournaments testing accuracy of predictions of societal change in domains commonly studied in the social sciences: ideological preferences, political polarization, life satisfaction, sentiment on social media, and gender-career and racial bias. Following provision of historical trend data on the domain, social scientists submitted pre-registered monthly forecasts for a year (Tournament 1 N=86 teams/359 forecasts), with an opportunity to update forecasts based on new data six months later (Tournament 2 N=120 teams/546 forecasts). Benchmarking forecasting accuracy revealed that social scientists’ forecasts were on average no more accurate than simple statistical models (historical means, random walk, or linear regressions) or the aggregate forecasts of a s le from the general public (N=802). However, scientists were more accurate if they had scientific expertise in a prediction domain, were interdisciplinary, used simpler models, and based predictions on prior data.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 18-09-2020
Abstract: An increasing number of people are concerned about the ethics of eating meat despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking aimed at facilitating behavioral change. Study 1 drew on a 6-day food diary with 7,485 observations in a relatively representative s le to investigate the predictors of meat-related ambivalence and demonstrate its correlation with meat reduction. Two experiments showed that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the hypothesized process variables (Study 3 preregistered). These findings in erse s les from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1,192) indicate that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 23-03-2022
Abstract: An increasing number of people are concerned about eating meat, despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking for contents that facilitate meat reduction. Study 1 drew on a cross-sectional 6-day food diary with 7485 observations in a quota s le to investigate why meat-related ambivalence arises and to demonstrate the correlation of ambivalence with meat reduction. Two experiments investigated the causal direction of this association by showing that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their preexisting incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the aforementioned mechanisms involved (Study 3 preregistered). The studies utilized erse s les from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1192) and support the proposed model by indicating that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 22-12-2022
Abstract: Eating meat is a prime ex le of cognitive conflict. Research on meat-related conflict has focused on people who eat meat (omnivores), and mostly neglected that people who avoid eating meat (vegetarians and vegans veg*ans) can also experience conflict in the form of ambivalence. Here, we provide a conceptual model explaining how ambivalence comes to exist in omnivores and veg*ans, and how it is associated with dietary behavior. We hypothesize that ambivalence in omnivores arises when they become aware of the negative aspects of meat. Yet, even veg*ans, who predominantly hold negative attitudes towards meat, may experience ambivalence as long as past positive attitudes resurface. We investigated this model in a cross-sectional study (N = 1028) via the stages of change which explain qualitative steps in people’s adoption and maintenance of new behaviors such as a veg*an diet. Our data show that meat consumption decreases linearly across these stages of change. In line with our model, ambivalence increases from the pre-contemplation via the contemplation to the preparation stage among omnivores and decreases right after people become veg*ans (action stage) until they reached the maintenance stage. This inverted u-shaped function was accompanied by increasing negative associations towards meat from the pre-contemplation to the preparation stage, and by positive associations—especially hedonic ones—that do not simply vanish in the action stage after the adoption of a veg*an diet. We thus argue that the observed pattern of felt ambivalence might explain why a growing number of people become open to eschewing meat, and why veg*ans often eat meat and/or return to their omnivorous diets shortly after becoming veg*an.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 16-12-2022
Abstract: People are increasingly concerned about how meat affects the environment, human health, and animal welfare yet eating and enjoying meat remains a norm. Unsurprisingly, many people are ambivalent about meat—evaluating it as both positive and negative. Here, we propose that meat-related conflict is multidimensional and depends on people’s dietary group: Omnivores’ felt ambivalence arises from multiple negative associations that oppose a predominantly positive attitude towards meat, and veg*ans’ ambivalence arises from various positive associations that oppose a predominantly negative attitude. A qualitative study (N = 235 German) revealed that omnivores and veg*ans experience meat-related ambivalence due to associations with animals, sociability, sustainability, health, and sensory experiences. To quantify felt ambivalence in these domains, we developed the Meat Ambivalence Questionnaire (MAQ). We validated the MAQ in four pre-registered studies using self-report and behavioral data (N = 3,485 German, UK, representative US). Both omnivores and veg*ans reported meat-related ambivalence but with differences across domains and their consequences for meat consumption. Specifically, ambivalence was associated with less meat consumption in omnivores (especially sensory-/animal-based ambivalence) and more meat consumption in veg*ans (especially sensory-/socially-based ambivalence). Network analyses shed further light on the nomological net of the MAQ while controlling for a comprehensive set of determinants of meat consumption. By introducing the MAQ, we hope to provide researchers with a tool to better understand how ambivalence accompanies behavior change and maintenance.
Publisher: University of California Press
Date: 2023
Abstract: People are increasingly concerned about how meat affects the environment, human health, and animal welfare, yet eating and enjoying meat remains a norm. Unsurprisingly, many people are ambivalent about meat—evaluating it as both positive and negative. Here, we propose that meat-related conflict is multidimensional and depends on people’s dietary group: Omnivores’ felt ambivalence relates to multiple negative associations that oppose a predominantly positive attitude towards meat, and veg*ans’ ambivalence relates to various positive associations that oppose a predominantly negative attitude. A qualitative study (N = 235 German) revealed that omnivores and veg*ans experience meat-related ambivalence due to associations with animals, sociability, sustainability, health, and sensory experiences. To quantify felt ambivalence in these domains, we developed the Meat Ambivalence Questionnaire (MAQ). We validated the MAQ in four pre-registered studies using self-report and behavioral data (N = 3,485 German, UK, representative US). Both omnivores and veg*ans reported meat-related ambivalence, but with differences across domains and their consequences for meat consumption. Specifically, ambivalence was associated with less meat consumption in omnivores (especially sensory-/animal-based ambivalence) and more meat consumption in veg*ans (especially sensory-/socially-based ambivalence). Network analyses shed further light on the nomological net of the MAQ while controlling for a comprehensive set of determinants of meat consumption. By introducing the MAQ, we hope to provide researchers with a tool to better understand how ambivalence accompanies behavior change and maintenance.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 09-02-2023
No related grants have been discovered for Shiva Pauer.