肉食悖論與敵意媒體效應：探討法國與臺灣閱聽人 對植物肉報導的感知差異之比較研究

Abstract

Cognitive dissonance happens when beliefs about animal ethics do not match eating behaviours, eliciting conflicting emotions. This is what we call the "Meat Paradox" (Loughnan et al., 2014), an attitudinal ambivalence reinforced by anti-vegan societal and media biases. From this dilemma were invented plant-based substitutes: food products made of vegetarian ingredients, eaten as more ethical replacements for meat. Commonly used for a long time in Taiwan, they have only recently entered European markets. Although beneficial from a health and ecological perspective, they encounter reluctance from many. Previous studies have focused on the roles of moral disengagement to understand the origins of the Meat Paradox (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017) and its cross-cultural disparities (Khara et al., 2021), but the relationship between media portrayals of plant-based substitutes and its audience`s consequential attitudes remain under-investigated. The Hostile Media Effect (HME) is a theory explaining how pre-existing beliefs can influence perception of news content, suggesting that people with strong opinions on a specific issue may perceive its media coverage as biassed against their side, particularly if it is a controversial topic (Gunther & Liebhart, 2006). It may help to explain why some individuals in certain countries might be more resistant to switch to plant-based diets, as their cultural bias shapes their preconceptions about veganism, which in turn affect their interpretation of related media messages. The current research employed a two-condition online experiment (balanced vs. slanted articles) to investigate the HME on French and Taiwanese audiences’ perceptions of plant-based substitutes news stories. Results show Taiwanese to perceive more negativity and paradoxical social norms compared with French participants. With a small sample size and low reliability, this study offers only partial evidence but important insights into the interaction between demographic, sociocultural factors influencing the Meat Paradox and HME.

當有關動物倫理的信念與飲食行為不一致時，就會產生認知失調，從而引發矛盾的情緒。這就是我們所說的 "肉食悖論"（Loughnan 等人，2014），一種因反素食的社會和媒體偏見而加劇的態度矛盾。在這種兩難境地下，人們發明了植物替代品：由素食成分製成的食品，作為肉類更道德的替代品食用。植物替代品在台灣使用已久，最近才進入歐洲市場。儘管從健康和生態角度來看，植物替代品是有益的，但許多人並不願意食用。以往的研究側重於道德脫離的作用，以了解肉類悖論的起源（Bastian & Loughnan，2017）及其跨文化差異（Khara et al.，2021），但媒體對植物基礎替代品的描繪及其受眾所產生的態度之間的關係仍然未受到足夠的研究。敵意媒體效應是一種解釋先前存在的信念如何影響對新聞內容看法的理論，它認為對某一特定問題有強烈意見的人可能會認為媒體的報導對其一方有偏見，尤其是當該問題是一個有爭議的話題時（Gunther & Liebhart，2006）。這可能有助於解釋為什麼某些國家的某些人可能會更抵制轉用植物性飲食，因為他們的文化偏見會影響他們對素食主義的先入之見，進而影響他們對相關媒體信息的解讀。本研究採用了兩種條件的線上實驗（立場平衡文章 vs立場偏斜文章）來研究敵意媒體效應對法國和台灣受眾對植物基替代品新聞報導看法的影響。結果顯示，與法國受試者相比，台灣受試者感知到更多的負面情緒和自相矛盾的社會規範。由於樣本量小、可靠性低，本研究只提供了部分證據，但對影響肉類悖論和敵意媒體效應的人口、社會文化因素之間的相互作用提供了重要見解。