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

To stand out or to conform: Stereotypes and meta-stereotypes as barriers in the transition to sustainable diets

What factors hinder the reduction of meat and/or dairy intake? In this study, we explored the perceived barriers that meat and/or dairy reducers experienced when shifting their diets. We particularly focused on how meat and/or dairy reducers were affected by their beliefs about how omnivores stereotype vegans (i.e., meta-stereotypes), as meta-stereotypes have not been previously explored in this context. Through open-ended questions in an online survey, we explored the experiences and perceived barriers among female meat and/or dairy reducers (n = 272), as well as their perceptions of vegans (i.e., stereotypes and meta-stereotypes), and how these perceptions affected their lived experiences. We analysed the data using reflexive thematic analysis and generated six themes. We highlighted perceptions of cost (Theme 1) and perceptions of health concerns (Theme 2) as the most dominant barriers to the reduction of meat and/or dairy intake. Regarding (meta) stereotypes, participants' perceptions of vegans were shaped by personal experiences and encounters with vegans (Theme 3), and how participants related to vegans was sometimes reflected in the language they used to describe vegans (Theme 4). Participants felt that they, or reducers more generally, were occasionally judged as vegans (Theme 5), which might influence participants' choices and conformity to eating norms (Theme 6). Meta-stereotypes may play a role in polarised dietary group perceptions, and we discuss how they are shaped by social identity processes as well as by aspects of Western food systems.

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.

When meat-eaters expect vegan food to taste bad: Veganism as a symbolic threat

People who eat meat generally expect vegan food to taste bad. We theorize that this expectation stems in part from the perception that veganism is symbolically threatening; devaluing vegan food may enable meat-eaters to defend in-group values and defuse symbolic threat. We conducted four studies (total N = 1,563) on meat-eaters residing in the US. In Studies 1a and 1b, participants who most strongly endorsed carnism—the ideology that humans have a right to eat animals and their byproducts as food—were most likely to expect vegan food to taste bad. In Study 2, perceptions of veganism as symbolically threatening explained the relationship between carnism and taste expectations. In Study 3, experimentally increasing the salience of symbolic threat worsened taste expectations. Attachment to dominant group values and perceptions of intergroup threat may be barriers to the acceptance of veganism.

Differences among vegans, non-vegan vegetarians, pescatarians, and omnivores in perceived social disapproval and approval as a function of diet and source of treatment

In studies conducted in the US and Poland, vegans, non-vegan vegetarians, pescatarians, and omnivores described how they perceived they were treated by others as a function of their diet. We found that vegans thought that others treated them more negatively because of their diets than vegetarians or pescatarians did, and pescatarians thought that others treated them less negatively than vegans and vegetarians did. In Study 1 (N = 96), we found that vegans, vegetarians, and pescatarians thought that others treated them more negatively because of their diet than omnivores did. Moreover, perceptions of negative treatment were positively related to how much participants' diets differed from an omnivorous diet. We replicated these findings in Study 2 (N = 1744), and we also found that vegans, vegetarians, and pescatarians thought that others treated them more positively in some ways compared to omnivores. In Study 3 (N = 1322), we found that differences in perceptions of negative treatment by strangers among vegans, vegetarians, and pescatarians were larger than differences in perceptions of treatment by friends and family members.

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.

Minority Influence: An Agenda for Study of Social Change

Minority influence research was sparked by Moscovici’s observation about the power of active minorities to instigate social change. This idea invigorated research on social influence, which is evident in a subsequent outburst of studies on minority influence up to the 1990s, followed by a decrease and stabilization in the 2000s and 2010s. In spite of a remarkable scientific output, research on minority influence has not addressed its original question about social change. Rather, it has focused dominantly on the cognitive processes and attitudinal change in response to a minority advocacy or minority mere presence, and, to a lesser degree, to the role of minority influence in decision-making and task groups. To orient research toward social change, a research agenda is presented, along with a few illustrative studies. The proposed agenda focuses on time, interactive (minority ↔ majority), and motivated influence as critical explanatory variables to address in the next phase of research on minority influence in the pursuit of social change.

Meating Conflict: Toward a Model of Ambivalence-Motivated Reduction of Meat Consumption

An increasing number of people are concerned about eating meat, despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking for contents that facilitate meat reduction. Study 1 drew on a cross-sectional 6-day food diary with 7485 observations in a quota sample to investigate why meat-related ambivalence arises and to demonstrate the correlation of ambivalence with meat reduction. Two experiments investigated the causal direction of this association by showing that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their preexisting incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the aforementioned mechanisms involved (Study 3; preregistered). The studies utilized diverse samples from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1192) and support the proposed model by indicating that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.

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.