Morality meets menu: investigating the impact of moral appeals on vegetarianism through a conjoint survey experiment

Can moral appeals motivate individuals to choose less carbon-intensive diets? In a survey-embedded forced-choice conjoint experiment involving 1520 US respondents, we asked participants to compare two menus across six dimensions: (1) burger/sandwich patty type and its corresponding carbon footprint value, (2) calories, (3) protein, (4) price, (5) ingre-dient origin, and (6) farming method. Within each menu, the values for these dimensions varied randomly. Further, respondents were randomly assigned to three frames: a reference frame that highlighted the scientific rationale for pro-climate action, and treatment frames with a moral-secular and a moral-religious framing of pro-climate action. We found that moral appeals did not influence individuals to make low-carbon food choices. Across the entire sample, respondents tended to favor non-vegetarian options with higher carbon foot-prints. Those who prioritized taste were less inclined to choose the vegetarian menu. How-ever, some subgroups did show a preference for the vegetarian menu, including women, those with pro-climate attitudes and prior exposure to a vegetarian diet, and those who con-sidered the health impact of their food choices. In conclusion, it appears that moral appeals are unlikely to drive significant changes in individual food choices toward a more climate-friendly food system. Instead, dietary preferences are primarily shaped by individuals’ pre-existing climate attitudes and demographics.