Values and cognitive mechanisms: Comparing the predictive factors of Australian meat intake

Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets

Plant-based diets are quickly gaining popularity for their benefits to animal welfare, the environment, and public health. Compared to meat-eaters, meat-abstainers such as vegetarians and vegans are especially motivated by animal rights and the environment. However, little is known about the motivational and psychological factors that distinguish vegetarians from vegans, and what prevents vegetarians to shift towards a fully plant-based diet. In a sample of vegans (n = 335) and vegetarians (n = 182), we investigated a) motives for reducing or quitting meat consumption and b) motives for reducing or quitting animal product (dairy and egg products) consumption, as well as moral psychological and social-contextual factors that may explain potential differences. Results demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans tend to be similar in their motives to abstain from meat consumption and are most strongly motivated by animal rights. However, vegetarians are less motivated by health, environmental, and especially animal rights for dairy/egg reduction compared to meat reduction and compared to vegans. Lower moral concern for animals, stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals, and heightened veganism threat among vegetarians (vs. vegans) partly explained why vegetarians were less strongly motivated by animal rights for dairy/egg reduction. Human supremacy beliefs also explained differences between vegetarians and vegans in health and environmental motives for dairy/egg reduction. Furthermore, vegetarians reported significantly less social support for plant-based diets and perceived more practical barriers to plant-based diets than vegans. These findings reveal meaningful differences in the motivational and psychological profiles of vegetarians and vegans and highlight the value of distinguishing between motives for meat-free diets and motives for plant-based diets.

The Link between the Perception of Animal Welfare and the Emotional Response to Pictures of Farm Animals Kept in Intensive and Extensive Husbandry Systems: An Italian Survey

As livestock production grows to satisfy the global demand for animal products, understanding public attitudes towards different husbandry systems becomes essential for both animal welfare and socio-economic reasons. This study aimed to investigate people's emotional responses toward pictures of farm animals kept in intensive and extensive husbandry systems, their perception of animal welfare, and their choices as animal product consumers. A questionnaire that included demographic questions and photos of cows, pigs, chickens, and rabbits in both intensive and extensive systems was distributed electronically and physically and completed by 835 respondents. Photos of animals in intensive systems elicited more negative emotions, especially for pigs and rabbits (p < 0.05), as opposed to extensive systems, which elicited more positive emotions, especially for chickens (p < 0.001). Higher welfare levels were perceived for extensively farmed animals (p < 0.001) and for cattle compared to all other species, regardless of the husbandry system (p < 0.001). The quality of the emotional response was positively associated with welfare perception (p < 0.001) and negatively associated with the importance given to welfare when purchasing animal products (p < 0.001). Finally, the emotional response was found to be affected by gender, education, household composition, living area, pet ownership, and eating habits. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

Veganism and body weight: An N of 1 self-experiment

The causal effect that veganism has on body weight has not been scientifically examined. An N of 1 self-experiment was conducted in which blinded body weight and additional behavioural and psychological measures were assessed during two phases of vegan vs. non-vegan lifestyle adherence. In study phase 1, body weight change was -0.8 kg over 1 month of veganism (vs. +0.5 kg non-vegan month). In study phase 2, weight change was -1.2 kg over two veganism months (vs. +1.6 kg non-vegan months). Behavioural and psychological measures were similar during vegan vs. non-vegan periods. Veganism appeared to reduce body weight in this N of 1 self-experiment.

Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism: A systematic and comprehensive literature review of quantitative studies

Meat production and consumption are sources of animal cruelty, responsible for several environmental problems and human health diseases, and contribute to social inequality. Vegetarianism and veganism (VEG) are two alternatives that align with calls for a transition to more ethical, sustainable, and healthier lifestyles. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature review of 307 quantitative studies on VEG (from 1978 to 2023), collected from the Web of Science in the categories of psychology, behavioral science, social science, and consumer behavior. For a holistic view of the literature and to capture its multiple angles, we articulated our objectives by responding to the variables of "WHEN," "WHERE," "WHO," "WHAT," "WHY," "WHICH," and "HOW" (6W1H) regarding the VEG research. Our review highlighted that quantitative research on VEG has experienced exponential growth with an unbalanced geographical focus, accompanied by an increasing richness but also great complexity in the understating of the VEG phenomenon. The systematic literature review found different approaches from which the authors studied VEG while identifying methodological limitations. Additionally, our research provided a systematic view of factors studied on VEG and the variables associated with VEG-related behavior change. Accordingly, this study contributes to the literature in the field of VEG by mapping the most recent trends and gaps in research, clarifying existing findings, and suggesting directions for future research.

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

Animal-based diets in Western countries are increasingly regarded as unsustainable because of their impact on human health, environmental and animal welfare. Promoting shifts toward more plant-based diets seems an effective way to avoid these harms in practice. Nevertheless, claims against the consumption of animal products contradict the ideology of the omnivorous majority known as carnism. Carnism supports animal-product consumption as a cherished social habit that is harmless and unavoidable and invalidates minorities with plant-based diets: vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns). In this theoretical review, we integrate socio-psychological and empirical literature to provide an identity-based motivational account of ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy. Advocates who argue against the consumption of animal products often make claims that it is harmful, and avoidable by making dietary changes toward veg*n diets. In response, omnivores are likely to experience a simultaneous threat to their moral identity and their identity as consumer of animal products, which may arouse motivations to rationalize animal-product consumption and to obscure harms. If omnivores engage in such motivated reasoning and motivated ignorance, this may also inform negative stereotyping and stigmatization of veg*n advocates. These "pro-carnist" and "counter-veg*n" defenses can be linked with various personal and social motivations to eat animal products (e.g., meat attachment, gender, speciesism) and reinforce commitment to and ambivalence about eating animal products. This does not mean, however, that veg*n advocates cannot exert any influence. An apparent resistance may mask indirect and private acceptance of advocates' claims, priming commitment to change behavior toward veg*n diets often at a later point in time. Based on our theoretical account, we provide directions for future research.

Moralistic stereotyping of Vegans:The role of dietary motivation and advocacy status

Ambivalent attitudes exist toward vegans: While people may admire vegans' moral aims and commitment, they may also derogate vegans for seeming arrogant and overcommitted. These latter negative perceptions may undermine the effectiveness of efforts to reduce meat consumption for health, animal-welfare, and sustainability benefits. In the present research, we investigated the role of a vegan's motivation (animal ethics vs. health) in moralized attitudes toward vegans among omnivorous participants through two preregistered studies. In Study 1 (N = 390), we found that a vegan advocate motivated by animal ethics (vs. health) was seen as more moral but not as more arrogantly overcommitted. In Study 2 (N = 1177), we found that animal ethics (vs. health) vegans were seen as both more arrogantly committed and more morally committed, but that relative moral commitment perceptions were attenuated when vegans were described as actively advocating. Both advocating (vs. non-advocating) vegans and animal ethics (vs. health) vegans were generally seen as less socially attractive by omnivores due to stronger attributions of arrogant overcommitment, and a lower social attractiveness was associated with a lower willingness to eat less animal products. Our findings inform ongoing debates within the vegan movement about the effectiveness of signaling moral commitment in promoting plant-based diets.

Why They Eat What They Eat: Comparing 18 Eating Motives Among Omnivores and Veg*ns

While the diets of most people include meat, millions of individuals follow a meat-free diet. But why do people eat what they eat? Here we explored differences and commonalities in the eating motives of omnivores and veg^*ns (i.e., both vegetarians and vegans). Specifically, we compared mean levels and rank order of 18 eating motives in two samples (Study 1: 294 omnivores, 321 veg^*ns; Study 2: 112 omnivores, 622 veg^*ns). We found that omnivores were more motivated than veg^*ns by the eating motives of Traditional Eating and Habits, while veg^*ns were more motivated by Animal Protection and Environmental Protection. Differences among groups in Health were inconsistent across studies. Despite these differences in mean levels, the rank order of the eating motives was very similar: Two of the top four eating motives of both diet groups in both studies were Liking and Health, while Social Norms, Social Image, and Religion were among the four least important motives of both groups. Overall, while we did find differences in the absolute importance of certain motives, we also found striking similarities in the relative importance of eating motives, suggesting that including a wide range of eating motives could be beneficial when examining dietary behaviors.

Food choice in transition: adolescent autonomy, agency, and the food environment

Dietary intake during adolescence sets the foundation for a healthy life, but adolescents are diverse in their dietary patterns and in factors that influence food choice. More evidence to understand the key diet-related issues and the meaning and context of food choices for adolescents is needed to increase the potential for impactful actions. The aim of this second Series paper is to elevate the importance given to adolescent dietary intake and food choice, bringing a developmental perspective to inform policy and programmatic actions to improve diets. We describe patterns of dietary intake, then draw on existing literature to map how food choice can be influenced by unique features of adolescent development. Pooled qualitative data is then combined with evidence from the literature to explore ways in which adolescent development can interact with sociocultural context and the food environment to influence food choice. Irrespective of context, adolescents have a lot to say about why they eat what they eat, and insights into factors that might motivate them to change. Adolescents must be active partners in shaping local and global actions that support healthy eating patterns. Efforts to improve food environments and ultimately adolescent food choice should harness widely shared adolescent values beyond nutrition or health.

Differences Between Omnivores and Vegetarians in Personality Profiles, Values, and Empathy: A Systematic Review

Numerous medical studies have documented vegetarian diets as having various health benefits. Studies have also compared vegetarians with other dietary groups from a socio-psychological perspective. The objective of this review is to investigate the differences between vegetarians and omnivores in terms of their personality profiles, values, and empathy skills. A search was conducted across three electronic databases. Non-randomized, observational, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were eligible. Outcomes provided information about the differences between the above-mentioned dietary groups regarding their personality profiles, values, and empathy skills. A shortened version of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias for the included studies. Of the 2,513 different studies found, 25 (total number of participants n = 23,589) were ultimately included. These studies indicate that vegetarians significantly differ from omnivores in their personalities, values, and ability to be empathetic. Omnivorism is associated with an increased orientation toward social dominance, greater right-wing authoritarianism, and, in line with this, a stronger tendency to be prejudiced. Vegetarianism is associated with greater openness and empathy. The values of vegetarians are based more on universalism, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction, whereas the values of omnivores are based more on the idea of power. To answer a narrowly defined and clear question, issues such as animal ethics, animal rights, and environmental protection are not considered in this review. The findings of this review, showing marked differences in personality correlating to the choice of diet and the increasing influence of plant-based diets on a global level, indicate that further studies about vegetarianism are warranted.

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.

Moral rebels and dietary deviants: How moral minority stereotypes predict the social attractiveness of veg*ns

In this preregistered study we examined why people with an omnivorous diet (i.e., omnivores) would view vegetarians and vegans (i.e., veg*ns) as less socially attractive based on their status as stigmatized moral minorities. Drawing on a recently demonstrated distinction between perceived morality and sociability in research on universal dimensions of stereotype content, we expected that veg*ns would be perceived as more moral but less sociable compared to omnivores. A lower perceived sociability would predict a lower social attractiveness of veg*ns, supported by two additional stereotypes theorized to be specifically associated with moral minorities: moralistic and eccentric impressions. In addition, we explored impressions toward people who consciously reduce their meat intake (i.e., flexitarians) and we complemented our quantitative analysis with an analysis of stereotype content omnivores freely associated with the dietary groups. Accordingly, using a single factor between-subjects experimental design, we randomly allocated a diverse sample of omnivores from the UK to answer questions about either omnivores (n = 100), flexitarians (n = 101), vegetarians (n = 105) or vegans (n = 106). Results largely confirmed our hypotheses: Although veg*ns were perceived as more moral, they were also stereotyped more negatively (especially vegans). More specifically, they were seen as more eccentric and, in particular, more moralistic, predicting a lower social attractiveness, though indirect effects via sociability were relatively small. Notably, flexitarians shared positive attributes of both non-flexitarian groups. Free association data were largely consistent with our results and provide additional direction for further inquiry. Novel theoretical contributions are highlighted and limitations, future research directions, and implications of our study for theory and practice are discussed.