Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption?

Dietary behaviour as a form of collective action: A social identity model of vegan activism

Adopting plant-based, or vegan, diets can have a number of benefits, including mitigating climate change, promoting animal welfare, or improving public health. In the current research, we use social psychological theory to better understand what motivates vegans to engage in collective action on behalf of this social group - that is, what motivates individuals to promote, or encourage others to adopt, a vegan lifestyle. We develop and test a Social Identity Model of Vegan Activism, which highlights the roles of individuals' social identities, sense of efficacy, emotions and moral convictions in fostering collective action. In two pre-registered studies, the first with self-identified vegans from Australia and the UK (N = 351), and the second with self-identified vegans from the UK and the US (N = 340), we found that individuals more frequently engaged in vegan activism (i.e., actions to promote vegan lifestyles) when they had stronger moral convictions (i.e., deontological or consequentialist), greater collective efficacy (i.e., beliefs that vegans can make a positive difference), anger (i.e., when thinking about the reasons why they are vegan), and identification (both with vegans, and with animals). Deontological and consequentialist moral convictions had significant indirect effects on vegan activism via different mediators. We conclude by discussing the implications and importance of studying dietary behavior from a social identity perspective, including its ability to help explain how and why individuals become motivated to not only adopt a certain (e.g., vegan) lifestyle themselves, but to also 'act collectively' on behalf of that shared group membership (e.g., promote vegan-friendly behaviors). We also highlight some key insights for policy makers and campaigners aiming to promote plant-based diets.

Morally admirable or moralistically deplorable? A theoretical framework for understanding character judgments of vegan advocates

Over the last decade, vegan advocates have become a growing minority. By arguing against animal-product consumption and imposing the virtue-loaded call to "go vegan," advocates have posed a direct challenge to the mainstream dietary ideology (termed "carnism") in hopes of positive social change. As a consequence, while vegan advocates may be admired for their morality and commitment, they may also be derogated with moralistic traits such as arrogance and overcommitment. We call this mixed-valence perception the "vegan paradox" and propose a theoretical framework for understanding it. Next, we develop a future research agenda to test and apply our framework, and inquire vegan advocacy for ethical, health, and environmental aims. Using the perspective of the idealistic vegan advocate as a reference point, we discuss the roles of the advocate's motives for change (i.e., the effectiveness of moral persuasion), the advocate's call for change (i.e., radical versus incremental change), the target's moral and carnist identification, and source attributes of the advocate. Lastly, we qualify our framework by highlighting further conceptual and methodological considerations.

The cost of attributing moral blame: Defensiveness and resistance to change when raising awareness to animal suffering in factory farming

Social change campaigns often entail raising awareness of harm caused by people's behavior. For example, campaigns to reduce meat eating frequently highlight the suffering endured by animals. Such messages may simultaneously attribute moral blame to individuals for causing the harm described. Given people's motivation to protect their moral self-image, we expected that information about the suffering of animals in the meat industry presented with a blaming (versus absolving) frame would generate greater defensiveness and correspondingly resistance to change in support of veg*nism (veganism/vegetarianism). We ran three studies to test this expectation. In two studies, we found that raising awareness of animal suffering using a blaming frame increased defensiveness, leading to lower veg*n-supporting attitudes and behavioral intentions. In one study, our hypothesis was not supported, however, a mini-meta analysis across the three studies suggests the overall pattern is robust. This work expands our understanding of the role of moral self-image preservation in defensiveness and resistance to change, and has applied relevance for the development of effective communication strategies in social and moral campaigns.

Meat Reduction in 5 to 8 Years Old Children-A Survey to Investigate the Role of Parental Meat Attachment

It is by now well established that a plant-based and meatless or reduced-meat diet is an important contribution to a sustainability and healthy diet. This work discusses important determinants for parents of implementing a meat reduced diet for their children. A questionnaire was conducted with 90 parents of children aged 5-8 years living in Germany, where they had to choose one out of three options of a dish, namely meaty, reduced meat and no meat, for their child. The results show that the parent's attachment to meat and the associated attitudes and habits play a crucial role in their meal choice and therefore eating behaviour, including consumed amounts of meat, of their child. Moreover, perceived tastiness, healthiness and balanced serving style, as well as the child's preferences influences the parent's decision. The findings of this work provide valuable insights to the food industry and food producers, health professionals and public health, as it highlights the background, as well as some drivers and barriers for parents choosing a dish with less meat for their children.

Lifestyle decisions and climate mitigation: current action and behavioural intent of youth

Youth carry the burden of a climate crisis not of their making, yet their accumulative lifestyle decisions will help determine the severity of future climate impacts. We surveyed 17-18 year old's (N = 487) to establish their action stages for nine behaviours that vary in efficacy of greenhouse gas emission (GGE) reduction and the explanatory role of climate change (CC) knowledge, sociodemographic and belief factors. Acceptance of CC and its anthropogenic origins was high. However, the behaviours with the greatest potential for GGE savings (have no children/one less child, no car or first/next car will be electric, eat less meat) have the lowest uptake. Descriptive normative beliefs predicted intent to adopt all high-impact actions, while environmental locus of control, CC scepticism, knowledge of the relative efficacy of actions, religiosity and age were predictive of action stage for several mitigation behaviours (multinomial logistic regression). These findings inform policy and communication interventions that seek to mobilise youth in the global climate crisis response.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11027-021-09963-4.

Ideological bases of attitudes towards meat abstention: Vegetarianism as a threat to the cultural and economic status quo

Those on the political right engage in greater meat consumption and animal exploitation than their left-wing counterparts. Previous research suggests this is because they view vegetarianism as threatening the nation’s dietary customs and economy. Across two studies, I extend this concept of “vegetarianism threat” by showing that it separates into two distinct dimensions of concern: cultural (symbolic) threats and economic (realistic) threats. The resultant multidimensional scale allows a finer grained understanding of the roots of ideology-based threat responses to meat-free movements. Together, results implicate symbolic concerns as the key element of vegetarianism threat contributing to negative attitudes towards meat abstention and its proponents.

Worldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science

Some scientific propositions are so well established that they are no longer debated by the relevant scientific community, such as the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are altering the Earth's climate. In many cases, such scientifically settled issues are nonetheless rejected by segments of the public. U.S. surveys have repeatedly shown that the rejection of scientific evidence across a broad range of domains is preferentially associated with rightwing or libertarian worldviews, with little evidence for rejection of scientific evidence by people on the political left. We report two preregistered representative surveys (each N > 1000) that (1) sought to explain this apparent political asymmetry and (2) continued the search for the rejection of scientific evidence on the political left. To address the first question, we focused on Merton's classic analysis of the norms of science, such as communism and universalism, which continue to be internalized by the scientific community but which are not readily reconciled with conservative values. Both studies show that people's political worldviews are associated with their attitudes towards those scientific norms, and that those attitudes predict people's acceptance of vaccinations and climate science. The norms of science may thus be in latent conflict with the worldviews of a substantial segment of the public. To address the second question, we examined people's views on the role of inheritance in determining people's intelligence, given that the belief in the power of learning and environmental factors to shape human development is a guiding principle of leftwing thought. We find no association between core measures of political worldviews and people's view of heritability of intelligence, although two subordinate constructs, nationalism and social dominance orientation, were associated with belief in heritability.

Social and ecological dominance orientations: Two sides of the same coin? Social and ecological dominance orientations predict decreased support for climate change mitigation policies

In this article, we examine the roles of social dominance orientation (SDO) and ecological dominance orientation (EDO) as predictors of climate change risk and threat perceptions and associated pro-environmental policy support. EDO is a novel measure that we devised based on social dominance theory to assess general preferences for an anthropocentric, hierarchical arrangement between humans, non-human animals, and the natural environment. Across two pre-registered studies ( N = 715; USA and Germany) our results indicate that SDO and EDO are uniquely associated with decreased support for climate change mitigation policies benefitting humans, non-human animals, and the natural environment. These relationships in turn are partially mediated by decreased climate change risk and threat perceptions. We successfully replicate our findings using a more behavioral measure as dependent variable. Notably, using a more behavioral measure (Study 2), EDO was significantly associated with pro-environmental behavior but not SDO, when threats are accounted for as mediators.

To meat, or not to meat: A longitudinal investigation of transitioning to and from plant-based diets

Concerns over potential negative effects of excessive meat consumption on both the environment and personal health, coupled with long-standing debates over animal rights, have motivated research on the prevalence and predictors of plant-based versus meat-based diets. Yet few studies have examined longitudinal trends in dietary behaviours using large national samples. We address this gap by examining the prevalence, predictors, and annual change in the self-reported dietary behaviour of a large national probability sample of New Zealand adults (categorised as omnivore, vegetarian, or vegan; Ns = 12,259-50,964). Consistent with our pre-registered hypotheses, omnivore was the most prevalent dietary category (94.1%). Moreover, higher levels of conservative ideologies (i.e., political conservatism, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Social Dominance Orientation), lower subjective health, lower environmental efficacy, and lower disgust sensitivity predicted having an omnivore (vs. vegetarian or vegan) diet. Longitudinal analyses further revealed that the probability of shifting from an omnivore diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet over a one-year period was low, and that veganism was the least stable dietary category. Both gender (men) and political conservatism predicted lower probabilities of transitioning from meat to no-meat diets over time.

Social dominance orientation predicts lower moral condemnation of causing harm to animals

BACKGROUND

Recent studies and theorizing (SD-HARM model) suggested that social dominance orientation (SDO) constitutes the ideological foundation of negative attitude towards animals and acceptance of their exploitation. At the same time, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is expected to predict speciesist beliefs only when they are perceived as part of societal tradition. The present studies investigated these predictions with moral condemnation of harm done to animals by humans as an indicator of speciesism.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

400 and 324 people, aged 18-87, took part in two cross-sectional studies. They reported their levels of SDO and RWA and made moral judgments of harm done to animals.

RESULTS

In both studies, SDO, but not RWA, negatively predicted moral condemnation of harming animals.

CONCLUSIONS

The results offer additional support for the SD-HARM model. The more people accept SDO beliefs, the less they morally condemn harm done to animals by humans.

The Mediating Role of Family and Cultural Food Beliefs on the Relationship between Family Communication Patterns and Diet and Health Issues across Racial/Ethnic Groups

Consumption of red meat has been linked to a variety of health issues, yet Americans are resistant to reducing their meat consumption. Family communication environments shape beliefs about food and meat consumption, and therefore are locations for potential interventions to change the way people think about food. Families are embedded in cultures, and both family and cultural norms shape beliefs about what people should eat. This study (N = 773) is interested in understanding how family communication is associated with food beliefs, meat consumption, and health issues across three racial/ethnic groups: Black/African American (n = 256), Hispanic (n = 260), non-Hispanic White (n = 257). Structural equation modeling results showed that conversation orientation was consistently associated with stronger endorsement of family cultural food beliefs across race/ethnicity groups. Family food beliefs were associated with either more health issues or more meat consumption depending on race/ethnicity and mediated the association between conversation orientation and health issues/meat consumption. Conversation orientation moderated the association between conformity orientation and food beliefs for Hispanic and non-Hispanic White participants. Implications for family communication patterns theory and health scholars are discussed along with recommendations for culturally tailored family-focused health interventions.

The role of meat appetite in willfully disregarding factory farming as a pandemic catalyst risk

Most infectious diseases are zoonotic, "jumping" from animals to humans, with COVID-19 no exception. Although many zoonotic transmissions occur on industrial-scale factory farms, public discussions mainly blame wild animal ("wet") markets or focus on reactionary solutions, posing a psychological obstacle to preventing future pandemics. In two pre-registered studies early in the 2020 pandemic, we examined whether British adults fail to recognize factory farming in causing epidemics, and whether such dismissal represents motivated cognition. Cross-sectional data (Study 1, N = 302) confirmed that people blame factory farms and global meat consumption less than wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness, especially among meat-committed persons. Experimental exposure (Study 2, N = 194) to information blaming factory farms (vs. wild animal markets) produced lower endorsement of preventive solutions than of reactionary solutions, which was exacerbated among meat-committed persons. These findings suggest that people, especially those highly committed to eating meat, willfully disregard solutions targeting animal agriculture and global meat consumption to prevent future pandemics precisely because such solutions implicate their dietary habits. Better understanding motivated beliefs about the causes of and solutions to pandemics is critical for developing interventions.

Prescribing vegetarian or flexitarian diets leads to sustained reduction in meat intake

Many people agree that reducing the consumption of meat has good ends (e.g., for animal welfare, the environment, and human health). However, the question of which advocacy strategies are most effective in enabling wide-spread meat reduction remains open. We explored this by prescribing four different meat reduction diets to omnivorous participants for a seven-day adherence period, and studied their meat consumption over time. The diets included a Vegetarian diet, and three flexitarian diets (Climatarian - limit beef and lamb consumption; One Step for Animals - eliminate chicken consumption; Reducetarian - reduce all meat consumption). Results showed pronounced differences between groups in meat consumption during the adherence period, where the Vegetarian group ate significantly less meat than the flexitarian groups. All groups decreased their meat intake in the weeks following the adherence period compared to baseline, however, there were no significant group differences in the level of decrease over time. Participants also changed their attitudes toward meat and animals from pre-to post-intervention, and decreases in commitment toward and rationalization of meat-eating partially mediated change in meat intake. These findings reveal that the diet assignments had some impact on participants' meat consumption and attitudes even after the prescribed adherence period had ended. However, the sustained decrease in consumption did not vary depending on what meat reduction strategy was originally used.

Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

More and more consumers, at least in Western developed countries, are attentive to the sustainability aspects of their food, one of which concerns animal welfare. The conflict of harming an animal for the joy of eating meat causes a moral dilemma, affecting consumers’ reactions to, and choices of, animal-friendly products. This systematic review identified 86 studies from Scopus and Web of Science. The review outlines: (1) What are the personal antecedents among consumers regarding moral conflicts?; (2) In what situation do moral conflicts occur in consumer food choice?; (3) How do consumers emotionally experience the moral dilemma?; (4) How do consumers resolve moral conflicts over animal products? Researchers have studied personal factors and situational factors that arouse consumers’ moral dilemma and how the dilemma is solved, during which emotions and dissonance come into play. When synthesizing these findings into a comprehensive model, we notice that the current research is lacking on how personal factors change and interact with situations, which limits the understanding of the real-life context of consumers’ moral dilemma as well as their choices of animal-friendly products. More in-depth studies are needed to find situational factors that contribute to this complex psychological process.

Valuing humans over animals - Gender differences in meat-eating behavior and the role of the Dark Triad

Empirical findings demonstrate gender differences in attitudes toward meat consumption and actual meat-eating behavior. Furthermore, several studies have found that men score higher on all three Dark Triad personality dimensions (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). In this study, we investigated whether these personality differences mediate the association between gender and meat-eating justification, which in turn was expected to predict meat consumption. Two-hundred-fifty-seven participants took part in the study. We replicated the finding that men score higher on direct justification strategies with respect to meat consumption and report less often that they are vegetarians or vegans. Moreover, and most importantly, gender differences in Machiavellianism (but not in the other Dark Triad traits) significantly mediated these gender differences in meat-eating justification strategies, which in turn predicted meat consumption. These findings support the idea that Machiavellianism is partly able to explain gender differences in meat-eating justification, which is associated with higher meat consumption.

Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle

Do clashes between ideologies reflect policy differences or something more fundamental? The present research suggests they reflect core psychological differences such that liberals express compassion toward less structured and more encompassing entities (i.e., universalism), whereas conservatives express compassion toward more well-defined and less encompassing entities (i.e., parochialism). Here we report seven studies illustrating universalist versus parochial differences in compassion. Studies 1a-1c show that liberals, relative to conservatives, express greater moral concern toward friends relative to family, and the world relative to the nation. Studies 2a-2b demonstrate these universalist versus parochial preferences extend toward simple shapes depicted as proxies for loose versus tight social circles. Using stimuli devoid of political relevance demonstrates that the universalist-parochialist distinction does not simply reflect differing policy preferences. Studies 3a-3b indicate these universalist versus parochial tendencies extend to humans versus nonhumans more generally, demonstrating the breadth of these psychological differences.

Stopping wolves in the wild and legitimizing meat consumption: Effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance on animal-related behaviors

In the present research, we applied the dual process model of ideology and prejudice to beliefs and behavioral intentions toward animals. In Study 1 ( N = 126), we demonstrate in a community sample that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predicts support for restricting the distribution of wolves and bears in the wild mediated by perceived threat elicited from the animal outgroups. In contrast, social dominance orientation (SDO) had an indirect effect on the legitimization of meat consumption via endorsement of human supremacy beliefs. In Study 2 ( N = 223), we examined the causal direction of the dual process model using an experimental approach. Results show that RWA predicts support for restricting the free movement of a new animal species in the wild only when it is perceived to be threatening for humans. However, SDO predicted perceived legitimacy of meat consumption, regardless of whether the new animal species was characterized as lower or higher in status compared to other animals. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: An application of system justification theory

Many people in Western societies tolerate the mistreatment of nonhuman animals, despite obvious ethical concerns about the injustice of animal suffering and exploitation. In three studies, we applied system justification theory to examine the ideological basis of human–animal relations. In Studies 1a and 1b, we showed in both a large convenience sample ( N = 2,119) and a nationally representative sample in the US ( N = 1,500) that economic system justification uniquely explained the relationship between political conservatism and animal welfare attitudes even after adjusting for social dominance orientation. In Study 2, we replicated and extended these findings using more elaborate measures of animal welfare attitudes in the context of an MTurk sample of U.S. respondents ( N = 395). Specifically, we found that conservatism was associated with less support for animal welfare and greater endorsement of speciesism (the belief that humans are morally superior to nonhuman animals) and that individual differences in economic system justification mediated these associations. We discuss several ways in which system justification theory may inform interventions designed to promote support for animal welfare in society at large.

A social identity needs perspective to Veg*nism: Associations between perceived discrimination and well-being among Veg*ns in Turkey

We examined the associations between perceived discrimination, social identity need satisfaction, and well-being among a sample of vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns) in Turkey. Drawing on the Rejection Identification Model, Motivated Identity Construction Theory, and the Social Cure approach, we tested whether perceived discrimination was related to the satisfaction of esteem, meaning, belonging, efficacy, distinctiveness, and continuity needs derived from veg*n group membership and whether the satisfaction of these needs, in turn, was associated with psychological well-being and self-esteem. A total of 350 veg*ns living in Turkey participated in an online study and completed measures of perceived discrimination based on veg*n group membership, veg*n identity need satisfaction, psychological well-being, and global level self-esteem. As expected, perceived discrimination was prevalent among Turkish veg*ns (more so among vegans) and was strongly associated with the greater satisfaction of all identity needs. In turn, the satisfaction of efficacy and continuity needs was related to greater well-being, showing an indirect association between perceived discrimination and well-being. Findings also showed that the satisfaction of the esteem need predicted (less strongly) lower levels of psychological well-being and self-esteem, indicating only some aspects of need satisfaction through veg*n identities to have positive implications for well-being. Findings are discussed in terms of the relevant socio-cultural environment, social identity theories, and stigmatization in the context of veg*n group membership.

Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology

People deeply value their social bonds with companion animals, yet routinely devalue other animals, considering them mere commodities to satisfy human interests and desires. Despite the inherently social and intergroup nature of these complexities, social psychology is long overdue in integrating human-animal relations in its theoretical frameworks. The present body of work brings together social psychological research advancing our understanding of: 1) the factors shaping our perceptions and thinking about animals as social groups, 2) the complexities involved in valuing (caring) and devaluing (exploiting) animals, and 3) the implications and importance of human-animal relations for human intergroup relations. In this article, we survey the diversity of research paradigms and theoretical frameworks developed within the intergroup relations literature that are relevant, perchance critical, to the study of human-animal relations. Furthermore, we highlight how understanding and rethinking human-animal relations will eventually lead to a more comprehensive understanding of many human intergroup phenomena.

Immediate and 15-Week Correlates of Individual Commitment to a "Green Monday" National Campaign Fostering Weekly Substitution of Meat and Fish by Other Nutrients

Promoting healthier and more sustainable diets by decreasing meat consumption represents a significant challenge in the Anthropocene epoch. However, data are scarce regarding the effects of nationwide meat reduction campaigns. We described and analyzed the correlates of a national campaign in France (called “Green Monday”, GM) promoting the weekly substitution of meat and fish by other nutrients. Two cross-sectional online surveys were compared: a National Comparison sample (NC) of the French general population and a self-selected sample of participants who registered for the Green Monday campaign. A follow-up study was carried out in the GM sample, in which participants were asked during 15 weeks whether or not they had substituted meat and fish. There were 2005 participants aged 18–95 (47.7% females) in the NC sample and 24,507 participants aged 18–95 (77.5% females) in the GM sample. One month after the beginning of the campaign, 51.2% of the respondents reported they had heard about Green Monday in the NC sample, and 10.5% indicated they had already started to apply Green Monday. Logistic regression analysis showed that compared to the NC sample, participants belonging to the GM sample displayed a higher rate of females, Odds Ratio (OR) = 4.26, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 3.86–4.71, were more educated, OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.28–1.36, had higher self-rated affluence, OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.42–1.58 and the size of their vegetarian network was greater, OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.41–1.58. They reported a slightly higher frequency of meat consumption, OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.10, while their frequency of fish consumption was lower, OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76–0.87. Finally, the personality dimension Openness was more strongly endorsed by participants in the GM sample, OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.65–1.93. A multiple regression analysis indicated that Openness also predicted the number of participation weeks in the GM Sample (beta = 0.03, p < 0.009). In conclusion, specific demographic and personality profiles were more responsive to the national campaign, which could inform and help to shape future actions aiming at changing food habits.

Eating with our eyes (closed): Effects of visually associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness

Negative attitudes toward vegetarians/vegans (i.e., veg*ns) are common, particularly among those who desire/like/consume meat more. In two studies, we replicated and extended past work, showing that visual reminders of meat’s animal origins (vs. images of meat alone) decreased meat consumption willingness via increased empathy for animals, distress about meat consumption, and disgust for meat. We also assessed how animal–meat reminders influence antiveg*n attitudes. In Study 1 ( N = 299) experimental animal–meat reminders (vs. meat-alone images) indirectly reduced negative attitudes toward veg*ns via increased empathy and distress (together, but not independently). The same manipulation in Study 2 ( N = 280) lowered antiveg*n attitudes through greater empathy and lowered veg*n threat through greater distress. Implications for promoting less antiveg*n attitudes are discussed.

Navigating cognition biases in the search of sustainability

We provide a conceptual review of the available knowledge on the role of human cognition biases for sustainability and sustainable behavior. Human cognition biases are defined as any deviation in decision making from the standard framework of rational choice. We distinguish between biases in individual decision making and biases in group decision making, and highlight the relevance of each for sustainable behavior. We find that while both categories may contribute to unsustainable behavior, human cognition biases in group settings might be central to understanding many of the current sustainability issues. Moreover, we argue that the effects of group-related biases may outweigh those on the individual level in driving unsustainable behavior, and that biases that have been discussed under various labels in the literature can be interpreted as manifestations of human cognition biases in group settings.

Selected Psychological Aspects of Meat Consumption-A Short Review

Eating meat is deeply entrenched in Western culture. It is often associated with wealth and a highly nutritional diet; and for many people it is also an established habit that is difficult to change. The second half of the 20th century was a period of rapid growth in meat consumption, which resulted in intensified meat production. At the same time, eating meat has recently become subject to criticism for health-related, environmental or humanitarian reasons. This review aims to signal the potential consequences of a change of diet or switching to diets that are rich/poor in certain ingredients on the functioning of the hormonal and nervous system, which translates into changes in mood and behavior. This paper discusses the psychological phenomena which underlie the difficulty of changing one's food preferences and problems encountered while adding new products to the daily diet. Finally, this study summarizes the limitations of modifying eating habits that have resulted from established attitudes and habits.