Skip to content
Communications ppt
Studies review
Other good topics but for the future
Theoretical Framework Integration: Draw upon communication theories such as the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) to address perceived risks and benefits associated with
theories of environmental psychology
Create a cohesive narrative
Additional Questions:
What are the most effective messaging techniques for overcoming resistance to animal welfare messages, and how can these be integrated into existing campaigns?
Case Studies: Analyze successful advocacy campaigns from other social movements, such as environmentalism or public health, to extract insights on engaging with resistant audiences. These case studies could provide valuable lessons that can be adapted and applied to animal advocacy, helping to refine strategies for reaching and influencing resistant segments of the population.
Health Communication Strategies: Identify the most effective ways to communicate health benefits, examining how different health motivators and barriers influence consumer perceptions of both plant-based meat and seafood.
Combining Health and Sensory Appeal: Investigate the best methods to combine health benefit messaging with sensory appeal (taste and texture) to maximize purchase intent and ensure that health messages do not negatively impact taste expectations.
Moderating Effects of Sensory Appeal: Study whether the sensory appeal (taste) of a product moderates the effectiveness of health messages, assessing if presenting a product as tasty can enhance the impact of health benefit messaging.
Additional Questions:
What is the most effective way to communicate the health benefits of plant-based meat, and how do health motivators and barriers differ between plant-based meat and seafood?
How can health benefit messaging be combined with sensory appeal to optimize purchase intent without negatively impacting taste expectations?
Does the sensory appeal of plant-based meat moderate the effectiveness of health messages, and how can this be leveraged in marketing strategies?
Cross-Cultural Research: Perform cross-cultural research to understand how different populations respond to messaging about plant-based meat. Compare results across diverse geographic regions to identify universal and region-specific strategies.
Additional Questions:
What is the best approach for messaging about the convenience of plant-based meat, and how does this impact consumer purchasing decisions?
How can messaging about the familiarity of plant-based meat be optimized to make it more appealing to consumers, particularly in the context of traditional recipes and dishes?
How are consumer decisions impacted by negative messaging about conventional meat (e.g., consuming animal meat increases cholesterol) versus positive messaging about the benefits of plant-based protein (e.g., consuming plant-based meat helps lower cholesterol)?
Cringe but acceptable
—
What plant-centric diets are nutritionally, culturally, and regionally appropriate for different low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)?
NutritionSociologyAnthropology
Context and Relevance:
Transitioning towards more plant-centric diets in LMICs can contribute to improved animal welfare, public health outcomes, environmental sustainability, and food security. Understanding the nutritional, cultural, and regional appropriateness of such diets is essential for designing effective promotion strategies that respect local contexts and ensure wide acceptance and adoption.
Potential Research Approach:
Nutritional Analysis: Conducting a nutritional analysis to identify plant-centric diets that meet the dietary needs of populations in different LMICs, taking into account regional food availability and nutritional requirements.
Cultural and Social Assessment: Performing a cultural and social assessment to understand the acceptability of plant-centric diets, considering traditional eating habits and preferences.
Stakeholder Identification: Identifying key stakeholders in food systems within LMICs, including farmers, consumers, policymakers, and educators, to understand their roles and interests in dietary shifts.
Intervention Strategies: Developing and testing intervention strategies for promoting plant-centric diets, such as educational programs, policy incentives, and community-based initiatives.
Additional Questions:
1.What are the most effective ways to promote those diets to different stakeholders?
2.What are the key regional plant-based foods that can be promoted to ensure both nutritional adequacy and local acceptance in different LMICs?
—
How might cultural variations (e.g., differences in cultural norms and values related to animals) shape the impact of animal advocacy messaging on young audiences?
AnthropologyCommunication & Media StudiesSociology
Context and Relevance:
Understanding the influence of cultural contexts on how young people perceive and respond to animal welfare advocacy is vital for designing effective campaigns that resonate with diverse audiences. This research aims to provide nuanced insights into the effectiveness of animal welfare messages among youth from different cultural backgrounds. By exploring these dynamics, the study can inform advocacy practices, educational strategies, and cultural sensitivity, ultimately enhancing the impact of animal welfare initiatives on a global and local scale.
Potential Research Approach:
Mixed-Methods Approach: Employ a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative surveys with qualitative focus group discussions to capture both the breadth and depth of youth responses to animal welfare advocacy messages. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of how cultural contexts shape attitudes and behaviors.
Diverse Sampling: Ensure diverse sampling across various cultural, social, and geographic contexts to explore differences in the reception of animal welfare messages. This will enable the identification of culturally specific factors that influence the effectiveness of advocacy campaigns.
Impact Assessment: Assess the impact of animal welfare campaigns on youth by evaluating changes in attitudes, awareness, and behavior across different cultural groups. This will provide actionable insights for tailoring advocacy efforts to be more culturally relevant and effective.
Additional Questions:
How do cultural values and norms shape youth perceptions of animal welfare, and how can campaigns be adapted to align with these values?
What role does media and social influence play in the reception of animal welfare messages among youth in different cultural settings?
How can animal welfare organizations incorporate cultural sensitivity into their advocacy strategies to improve outreach and engagement with diverse youth populations?
3. How can traditional eating habits and cultural preferences be integrated into the promotion strategies for plant-centric diets to ensure higher acceptance and adherence?
Slides outline
Presentation Title:
Are Animal-Derived Terms on Plant-Based Labels Misleading? A Communication-Theoretical Analysis of Consumer Confusion and Policy Justification
Slide 1: Title Slide
Title
Your name
Course: MAC 220 – Consumer Oriented Communication
University of Bonn
Date
Slide 2: Introduction & Relevance
Why this topic? Growing debates over use of terms like "cheese" and "milk" on plant-based labels.
Ongoing legal restrictions in countries like Turkey and France.
The claim: such terms confuse consumers.
Aim: Use communication theory to evaluate if that claim holds up.
Slide 3: Research Questions
Do animal-derived words like "cheese" increase consumer confusion?
How does communication theory (especially S-O-R) explain labeling effects?
Are current bans on these terms justified?
Slide 4: Theoretical Framework – S-O-R Model
Stimulus: Packaging, labels, terms like "cheese"
Organism: Consumer cognition, perception, prior knowledge
Response: Confusion, correct understanding, trust, purchase behavior
Link to consumer behavior and food labeling
Slide 5: Key Concepts from Communication Studies
Framing theory: How message presentation alters perception
Semiotics: Role of symbols/terms like “cheese” in recognition
Source credibility and familiarity: Trust in V-Labels, expert-lay divide
Slide 6: Case Study – Animetrics 2024 (Türkiye)
Large sample (N=2700+)
5 label types tested: with/without term “cheese,” with/without V-Label
Measured confusion: content, origin, functionality
Slide 7: Key Findings from the Study
Removing “cheese” did not reduce confusion
V-Label significantly reduced confusion
Familiarity, cooking/shopping habits lowered confusion
Greater confusion = low exposure, high food neophobia
Slide 8: Discussion – Interpretation via S-O-R Model
Stimulus (label) matters—but term "cheese" is not the key confusion source
Organism (consumer's prior exposure, literacy, values) drives response
Response: More confusion = low familiarity, not the label word
Slide 9: Policy and Communication Implications
Label bans may be misguided if they target wrong "stimulus"
Better strategy: Certification (V-Label), education, label literacy
Avoid legal actions unsupported by evidence
Slide 10: Critique & Theoretical Integration
The study is strong in methods (randomization, control)
Grounded in experimental communication design
Limited generalizability beyond Türkiye—but theory provides framework
Calls for interdisciplinary approach: law, marketing, psych, comms
Slide 11: Conclusion
Communication theory suggests confusion is context-driven, not term-driven
Evidence challenges current bans
Policy must align with real confusion causes, not assumptions
Slide 12: Q&A / References
Invite questions
Key sources:
Animetrics (2024)
Feltz & Feltz (2019), Gleckel (2020)
Bryant (2022), Hallman (2021)
S-O-R model literature
Would you like a .pptx or LaTeX beamer version next?
Second feedback transcript
Summary of Discussion (Student & Lecturer)
Student:
Lecturer:
Conclusion:
Who wants to be next?
She was the first to get up, but you cannot use your.
Yeah, I know, but I don't have any PPT, so I will just...
So we cannot see any slides.
Unfortunately, yeah.
So.
I, based on your feedback last time, I made more general topic.
So my topic is investigating sources of confusion about food products attributes, like ingredients, nutrients, taste, and other aspects through various communication theories.
and also investigate what is confusion specifically.
For example, semantic confusion, what do terms mean or functional, how do I use it, or expectational, it is what I thought that I bought or something else, and trust-related.
Do I trust, is it safe, is it okay for me, and et cetera.
So this based on the case study for alternative proteins and plant-based projects in general.
I want to understand and look for the papers, not only like last time they used survey, right?
But I want to maybe studies that, and I found some of them that actually measure the behavior of people, like a real decision making or maybe mock the
purchasing behavior, not maybe the actual one, but the mocking one, but using maybe like, yeah, like experiments that are more real, not like online, they choose between the pictures.
And also maybe they understand how the eye movement
whether they look at it and they actually, like how many time they spend on understanding the package and et cetera, et cetera.
So more, something more real, not only like artificial experiments.
Yeah, so that is relevant to the topic of communication in our class because that I think specifically focus on the perception of the products.
and how we can explain that using the communication theories, why the confusion arise, because of what.
And then I don't have all the papers that I want to find, but I want to try to find more.
But I will focus on alternative proteins and maybe only on dairy products like alternative dairy.
Because we can have more data on that.
Because plant-based meat, for example, I think it's not very, we don't have enough data of it, of the real life, but there we can find more about that.
Yeah.
Okay.
So your focus is now on appropriate understanding.
So if we take that simple model of that one-way communication,
that simple model, you suppose we have the sender with some, let's say, nutritional information or what it is, and you have the receiver who does the decoding, and you want to see whether the encoding and the decoding overlap or not.
Yeah, and what are specific confusion?
Why in what?
kind of claims they are confused about, or maybe non-verbal things like color also.
So I want to understand like what are the various aspects of confusions on functionality, on taste, on like other stuff, and like have like a literature review in terms of like methods, like all the papers that I can find on a limited time.
Don't make it too comprehensive because the workload is restricted.
So don't make a comprehensive review if you just have, let's say, two or three papers that deal with the topic, this is really enough.
Don't focus so much on purchase behavior, purchase behavior intention because what I understood is that you want to see to which extent they really overlap.
So the
the messages that are sent and to which extent consumers can organize them with the knowledge that they have.
For example, if they have a red dairy product, there should be some.
But I don't want to base my understanding on
like their perception, but actual behavior, which is source of confusion.
For example, I want to try to find ideally, maybe that is not related actually, but I was searching that like a feedback.
for all the comments on after purchasing the product, like a real situation, for example, some study that will collect the comments on the plant-based milk, and then they understand whether they perceive it correctly.
You're more in the field of communication.
If you just look at the purchase, purchase intention or whatever that is, you do not know exactly what causes the confusion.
If there is, and if there is confusion,
Yeah, so I need studies that also link it to the.
If you have, for example, the feedback, and with the feedback, you can see to which extent, at least how they understand that information, or whether they understand that uniformly, or whether one group understands that in that way, another in the other way, and so on.
So this confusion is a good topic, but confusion cannot be seen in purchase attention.
But actual purchasing data?
No, not only because you do not know if you just take the purchase, but then qualitative interviews or service, but if you just take the purchase, then you cannot assess whether they were confused or not.
What about what?
Yeah, specifically.
And you kind of whether or and if they were confused about what they were confused.
So what you said, for example, the feedback thing is a good thing that you can see we're having that study and we see that these claim or whatever it is, or this package is understood by that group and that group and that group.
And if you really
Could be, if you can go a step further, and if you can say, Hey, we have to look what is the, let's say, the real nutritional value, but this book is a little bit more difficult because then you have to define what is the adequate understanding of the claim.
This is often very difficult because we are not experts in nutritional sciences, but you can say you can say they they
had that very differently, and perhaps if they say, Hey, I didn't understand that it fits together, then of course you can...
Yeah, some studies do that, actually.
They also measure it actually in nutritional content, whether they understood it correctly or like over-exaggerated the content of protein, for example.
Yeah, so this is these are the studies that are appropriate for the topic.
Okay.
Okay, and then you have the understanding of communication, communication via packaging, and then you can move.
Okay.
Thank you.
E-mail request to help find papers needed
Hi Zach,
Thank you for insightful call yesterday and thank you agreeing to try to help needed literature and lobbying cases 🙏
So my project's topic is «Investigating sources of consumer confusion between food labeling/packaging information and then actual food products attributes (ingredients, nutrients, taste, functionility, trust and safety, and other aspects) and base it on the case study of alternative plant-based protein products labeling».
My goal is that part of my work at least would be helpful for plant-based/vegan advocates to succesfully challenge bans of animal-related terms (like milk, cheese, kefir etc.) in plant-based products with policymakers.
For this I plan to conduct a desk research/literature review of peer reviewed papers (preferrably, but not necessarily) with ideally qualitative and empirical research methods used to measure both perceived confusion/understanding and actual purchasing behavior.
1. It would be interesting to find papers that used field experiments (realistic or very close to reality shopping setting) and/or eye-tracking that measured time spent deciding, tracked which parts of the package participants looked at, post-choice satisfaction or regret, recall and interpretation. So we can have more robust proof for determination if animal-related terms draw attention, cause hesitation, or improve orientation.
Also, It would be great to find any papers that analyse real feedback/review comments on purchasing actual plant-based products (dairy products might have more data maybe), and what people said and their sentiment on confusion like “I bought this by accident…”, “Misleading packaging…”. Especially, if this coupled with companies or retailer reports on market purchasing data — high return rates, high one-time purchases/low repeat purchases.
2. And by any chance, if you know or can look out for any cases where companies or vegan/plant-based advocates/NGOs were able to succesfully challenge or prevent animal-related terms ban for plant-based products, escpecially in dairy sector, that would be great. I think it would be interesting to see what kind of arguments persuaded policymakers/politicians.
Please let me know if something is not clear from above or if you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer.
Deadline for submitting project is 1.07, if you do not have time to try to find anything before that, that's totally fine. I intend to continue to work with this or adjacent topics throughout my Masters and I will be happy to get any insights on this even after the deadline for my current project would pass.
Thank you so much again for talking and discussing this topic!
Best regards,
Anna
Help finding research on confusion with animal terms in plant-based products
Hi Zach,
Thank you for the insightful call yesterday—and for offering to forward my request to someone who might help check your library for relevant literature and case research 🙏
As discussed, I’m currently working on a study project for Communications in food sector module titled:
Investigating consumer confusion between food labeling/packaging and actual product attributes (e.g., ingredients, nutrients, taste, functionality, trust, safety, etc.) using plant-based alternative proteins as a case study.
My end goal is to conduct desk research that can assist vegan/plant-based advocates in challenging bans on using animal-related terms (like “milk,” “cheese,” “kefir”) for plant-based products.
To support this, I’m looking for:
If the Faunalytics library has any research, case summaries, or even leads that align with the above, I would be incredibly grateful. Even partial or tangential findings would be helpful.
My project deadline is July 1st, but I plan to continue exploring this topic during my Master’s, so I’d still welcome any info even after deadline would pass.
Thank you again for your time and support!
Warm regards,
Anna
Outline strcuture the effective thesis one
Excellent — here’s both:
✅ SECTION-BY-SECTION OUTLINE
for your desk research report on plant-based product labeling and nomenclature bans:
1. Introduction
2. Consumer Understanding and Labeling: What the Evidence Shows
3. Communication Theory and Labeling Language
4. Policy and Ethical Perspectives
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
📚 KEY SOURCES FOR LITERATURE REVIEW
🧠 Academic Sources
On Consumer Confusion and Labeling:
On Communication/Naming:
📄 Policy and Grey Literature
Would you like a reference manager–ready bibliography (Zotero, BibTeX, etc.) or help drafting a first paragraph for section 2 or 3?
Pitch for 2nd feedback
real-nutritional value
Investigating sources of confusion about food products attributes — it’s ingredients, nutrients, taste, and other aspects though various communication theories (i.e. Semantic Barriers Theory)
Use a multi-dimensional definition of confusion:
Based on case study for alternative plant-based products
Measure both perceived understanding and actual behavior
2. Eye-Tracking or Clickstream Analysis
3. Post-Purchase Regret/Intent
Confusion = emotional or cognitive dissonance post-choice.
4. Market Data Indicators of Confusion
Market data can show confusion if interpreted with care:
A. High Return Rates
B. Negative Reviews (Text Mining)
C. One-Time Purchases
But: low repeat purchase ≠ confusion unless backed by consumer feedback.
D. Customer Service Logs
Study design from gemini/chat gpt
How do food labeling and naming conventions (e.g. “plant-based” vs “meat-free” vs “clean meat”) affect consumer perception and uptake?
Which labeling schemes for plant-based meat alternatives are most credible, appealing, and understandable to general consumers?
Can counter-messaging (e.g., rebuttals to "fake meat" tropes) be optimized through strategic message framing?
Professor’s Key Feedback and Requirements
Your Presentation Goal (based on the PDF + feedback)
Refined Topic Ideas (Theory-Based + Flexible Examples)
Here are 3 revised desk research questions grounded in theory and broad enough:
Final Research Title Suggestion
“Are Animal-Derived Terms on Plant-Based Labels Misleading? A Communication-Theoretical Analysis of Consumer Confusion and Policy Justification”
Refined Research Question
To what extent do animal-derived terms (e.g., “cheese,” “milk”) on plant-based products contribute to consumer confusion, and can communication theory help assess the justification of labeling bans in food policy?
Core Approach
1. Designing Your Desk Research for Action and Policy Impact
a. Refine the Core Research Question:
To what extent do animal-derived terms (e.g., “cheese,” “milk”) on plant-based products contribute to consumer confusion, and how can communication theory help evaluate the fairness of banning such terms?
Break this down into:
b. Methods & Sources (desk research = secondary data):
c. Stakeholder mapping:
2. Potential Real-World Applications of Your Findings
3. How to Translate Your Research into Practice
a. Develop Practical Outputs:
b. Engage Stakeholders:
c. Submit to relevant calls:
Project Brief: Desk Research on Plant-Based Labeling Policy
Title
"Do Consumers Really Get Confused? A Communications Perspective on Labeling Bans for Plant-Based Products"
Research Question
To what extent do animal-derived terms (e.g., “milk,” “cheese”) on plant-based food labels actually cause consumer confusion, and how can communication theory inform fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory labeling policies?
Objectives
Methodology
Outputs
Real-World Applications
Project Brief (Desk Research / Literature Review)
Title
Naming to Nurture: Evaluating Plant-Based Product Nomenclature and Policy Through a Communication and Justice Lens
Core Research Question
To what extent do animal-derived terms (e.g. "milk," "cheese") on plant-based product labels cause consumer confusion, and how can communication theory help assess the fairness and impact of policies restricting such terminology?
Research Objectives
Methodology
Real-World Applications
Expected Outputs
Theory of Change
If clear, empirically grounded evidence shows that bans on common terms are unjustified and counterproductive, then advocacy groups can use these insights to:
🧭 Is the Study Design Biased?
Yes — in its current form, it leans toward a critical stance on the bans of animal-derived terms for plant-based products. This is evident in:
This can undermine perceived credibility in policy or academic circles and may limit uptake by decision-makers who prefer neutral or multi-perspective analysis.
✅ How to Reframe for Balanced, Impactful Research
You don’t need to pretend neutrality on your values (especially if aligned with animal welfare), but your research framing should strive for:
1. Clear research scope and open hypotheses
Reframe the question to genuinely investigate:
Do bans on using animal-derived terms on plant-based labels protect consumers from confusion or hinder fair competition and innovation?
2. Explicit value transparency
Acknowledge in your methodology that:
This aligns with EA and communication ethics by demonstrating moral clarity without dogmatism.
3. Include multiple stakeholder frames
You could contrast:
🛠 Revised Study Title Example
“Naming Plant-Based Foods: An Evidence-Based Review of Labeling Policy, Consumer Understanding, and Communication Ethics”
This is:
Revised Report Structure: Desk Research on Plant-Based Product Labeling
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review: Plant-Based Labeling and Consumer Confusion
3. Communication Theory Analysis
4. Policy and Stakeholder Analysis
5. Ethical and Strategic Considerations
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
🔍 Research Context
• Study conducted by NGO in Turkey
• Focus on consumer confusion between plant-based and animal-based cheese products, assessing packaging, including labeling
• Sample size: 2000 general respondents + 200 vegan-related respondents
📊 Study Design
• Created multiple packaging variations:
- Plant-based block without "cheese" word
- Plant-based cheese
- Plant-based cheese with vegan label
- Traditional animal-based cheese
- Fifth option (not specified in text)
• Collected demographic data:
- Eating habits
- Dietary preferences
- Economic class
- Background information
🎯 Research Objectives
• Evaluate consumer confusion regarding:
- Product ingredients understanding
- Taste expectations
- Product functionality
- Effectiveness of banning animal-derived terms
🔑 Key Discussion Points
• Efficiency of banning animal product terms
• Communication clarity between experts and consumers
• Label effectiveness in conveying information
• Consumer understanding of:
- Product origin
- Production methods
- Ingredient composition
📝 Academic Recommendations
• Need for peer-reviewed scientific papers
• Importance of theoretical background
• Expansion beyond single study
• Broader focus than just plant-based products
• Multiple examples needed for comprehensive analysis
⚠️ Methodological Concerns
• Study not published in scientific journal
• Limited geographical scope (Turkey only)
• Focus on single product category (cheese)
• Need for more theoretical framework
Goal of study?
- Product ingredients understanding
- Taste expectations
- Product functionality
- Effectiveness of banning animal-derived terms
Dear Vegan Thesis Team,
I am [ Please insert your name ] and a student at [ Please insert your level of studies and University].
I am interested in [ Please insert the question(s) you are interested in working on] for my thesis.
[ Please specify any additional requirements for the thesis eg. dates, research project details if relevant or any questions that you might have]
Please provide additional information on this research question.
Many thanks!
What are the most effective communication strategies for accelerating consumer adoption of plant-based meat?
Context and Relevance:
Effective communication strategies are crucial for accelerating consumer adoption of plant-based meat. As plant-based products continue to innovate and gain market presence, it is essential to convey their benefits clearly and compellingly to a broad audience. This research focuses on developing and testing communication strategies that resonate with non-technical audiences, aiming to enhance understanding, acceptance, and adoption of plant-based meat.
Potential Research Approach:
Additional Questions:
Studies
0/ Confusion between two is not assessed actually in any paper?
what specifically is banned by regulators
neither agree or disagee can give congruent results
i like when in one paper i think they talked how they trasncribed and how they summarized according to what papers theories, i tjink it was adolescents qualitative study
refering to theory to explain the results of the papers
confusion vs. misunderstanding/non-comprehension and vs. mislead
1/ kids didn’t like fruits and vegetables on a packaging?
A qualitative study of children’s snack food packaging -- Letona, Paola; Chacon, Violeta; Roberto, Christina; Barnoya, -- BMC Public Health, #1, 14, -- 10_1186_1471-2458-14-1274 -- 30c15c9eedb27934e8e6e495d06303c1 --.pdf
266.3 kB
2/ intercultural communication - exclusion of religious labels?
rauschnabel2015.pdf
358.2 kB
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.