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

Social impediments to meat-eaters' adherence to critical calls for a meat-free diet: An experimental test of social norm and message source effects

Reducing meat consumption is highly effective for reducing personal carbon emissions, yet most people in Western nations still eat meat. We build on recent research highlighting that group boundaries may impede dietary change by (a) promoting pro-meat norms and (b) prohibiting critical calls for a veg* diet (vegetarian and vegan, i.e., meat-free). Past research relied on self-reports and behavioural measures of engagement, leaving open whether these effects extend to food consumption settings and ad-hoc meal choice. We conducted two pre-registered experiments in which meat-eaters read critical calls to adopt a veg* diet, either by a vegan (outgroup) or a meat-eater (ingroup). In Experiment 2, participants moreover read an article either highlighting a veg* or a meat-eating norm. We then assessed actual (Experiment 1) or hypothetical (Experiment 2) meal choice as dependent variables. As predicted, intergroup criticism (i.e., voiced by veg*s) consistently led to message rejection in comparison to the same criticism voiced by meat eaters, but we did not observe effects on meal choice. Norms neither had a main nor interaction effect on self-reports and behaviour. We discuss potential intermediary processes between engagement with and adoption of a vegan diet and derive evidence-based recommendations for constructive communication across group boundaries.

Eating vegan due to cancer: A different social experience than other vegan dieters?

Many diagnosed with cancer change their diet in response to the diagnosis, with a vegan diet being a common choice. There may be health benefits to this, but research has demonstrated that following a vegan diet can have negative social ramifications. These social ramifications seem to be experienced to a lesser extent by those who following a vegan diet for health versus moral reasons, but this is a heterogeneous group; people may choose the diet for a myriad of different health reasons. In two pre-reregistered studies, we examined the social experience of those who adopt a vegan diet following a cancer diagnosis. Study 1, an experimental study, demonstrated that omnivores responded more positively to a friend who was vegan for cancer reasons than animal or general health reasons, which was explained by increased empathy. In Study 2, a cross-sectional survey study, those who adopted a vegan diet due to cancer reported (overall) less negative social experiences than those following a vegan diet more generally. These participants reported that cancer represented a greater social challenge than their diet. Taken together, these findings suggest that "vegan due to cancer" is a unique social identity and a unique social experience, relative to that of those motivated by other reasons, including general health reasons.

Masculinity, Meat, and Veg*nism: A Scoping Review

Men historically consume more meat than women, show fewer intentions to reduce meat consumption, and are underrepresented among vegans and vegetarians. Eating meat strongly aligns with normative masculinities, decisively affirming that "real men" eat meat and subordinating men who choose to be veg*n (vegan or vegetarian). The emergence of meat alternatives and increasing environmental concerns may contest these long-standing masculine norms and hierarchies. The current scoping review addresses the research question what are the connections between masculinities and men's attitudes and behaviors toward meat consumption and veg*nism? Using keywords derived from two key concepts, "men" and "meat," 39 articles were selected and analyzed to inductively derive three thematic findings; (a) Meat as Masculine, (b) Veg*n Men as Othered, and (c) Veg*nism as Contemporary Masculinity. Meat as Masculine included how men's gendered identities, defenses, and physicalities were entwined with meat consumption. Veg*n Men as Othered explored the social and cultural challenges faced by men who adopt meatless diets, including perceptions of emasculation. Veg*nism as Contemporary Masculinity was claimed by men who eschewed meat in their diets and advocated for veg*nism as legitimate masculine capital through linkages to physical strength, rationality, self-determination, courage, and discipline. In light of the growing concern about the ecological impact of meat production and the adverse health outcomes associated with its excessive consumption, this review summarizes empirical connections between masculinities and the consumption of meat to consider directions for future men's health promotion research, policy, and practice.

How (not) to talk about plant-based foods: using language to support the transition to sustainable diets

Reducing meat consumption is essential to curb further climate change and limit the catastrophic environmental degradation resulting from the current global food system. However, consumers in industrialised countries are hesitant to reduce their meat intake, often because they find plant-based foods less appealing. Despite the climate emergency, eating meat is still perceived as the norm, and recommended in most national dietary guidelines. To support the transition to more sustainable diets by providing insights for increasing the appeal of plant-based foods to mainstream consumers, this review presents recent research findings on how people think and communicate about meat-based and plant-based foods. The key findings we review include: (1) while vegans think about plant-based foods in terms of enjoyable eating experiences, omnivores think about plant-based foods in terms of health, vegan identity and other abstract information that does not motivate consumption in the moment. (2) Packages of ready-meals and social media posts on Instagram present plant-based foods with fewer references to enjoyable eating experiences than meat-based foods. (3) Presenting plant-based foods with language that references enjoyable eating experiences increases their appeal, especially for habitual meat eaters. This language includes words about sensory features of the food (e.g., crunchy, creamy), eating context (e.g. pub; with family) and immediate positive consequences of eating (e.g. comforting, delicious). In contrast, the term 'vegan' is strongly associated with negative stereotypes. Hence, rather than referring to being vegan, meat-free or healthy, the language used for plant-based foods should refer to sensory appeal, attractive eating situations and enjoyment.

Polarizing Plates: Both Omnivores and Vegans Represent In-Group Foods With Eating Simulations

In two pre-registered experiments, we assessed how people cognitively represent meat and plant-based foods, to examine processes underlying dietary polarization in society. Food descriptions from U.K.-based omnivores (NExp. 1 = 109; NExp. 2 = 436) and vegans (NExp. 1 = 111; NExp. 2 = 407) were coded for features about consumption and reward (e.g., "rich," "indulgent," and "treat") or features independent of the consumption situation (e.g., "healthy," "protein," and "eco-friendly"). Participants used more consumption and reward features for diet-congruent dishes (meat dishes for omnivores and plant-based dishes for vegans) than for diet-incongruent dishes (vice versa). Omnivores focused on abstract, long-term consequences of plant-based foods, whereas vegans focused on the socio-political associations with meat foods. Consumption and reward features also positively predicted attractiveness ratings, the likelihood of ordering a dish, and eating intentions. These findings indicate the cognitive processes of polarized dietary groups that may hinder the mainstream transition to more sustainable food choices.

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.