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

To Protect or to Kill? Environmental Contingent Self-Worth Moderates Death Prime Effects on Animal-Based Attitudes

Lifshin et al. found that death primes increased support for killing animals, suggesting that the killing of animals serves a terror management function. The present research adds to this by suggesting that protecting animals can also serve a terror management function when people see such behaviors as culturally valuable. In three studies (N = 765), environmental contingent self-worth (ECSW) moderated the effect of death primes on attitudes toward animals. Attitudes toward animals also mediated the effect of a death prime on increased power-based invulnerability for those with low ECSW and decreased power-based invulnerability for those with high ECSW (Study 3). Finally, we found little support that death primes influenced beliefs regarding human-animal superiority (Study 1 and 2) or similarity (Study 2). Our findings therefore provide partial support for past terror management research and further the understanding regarding how to promote more benevolent human-animal relations.

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.

Minding some animals but not others: Strategic attributions of mental capacities and moral worth to animals used for food in pescatarians, vegetarians, and omnivores

While moral concern for animals has become increasingly important for both consumer food choice and food policy makers, previous research demonstrated that meat eaters attribute lower moral status and mental capacities to animals raised for meat compared to non-food animals. The current research investigated whether this strategic flexibility in moral concern and mind perceptions also occurs when considering aquatic food animals and animals used for dairy and egg products, and the degree to which these concerns and perceptions are evident in pescatarians and vegetarians. We compared perceptions (mind attributions and moral concern) of land food animals versus aquatic food animals, and of animals in the meat versus dairy and egg industry between omnivores (n = 122), pescatarians (n = 118), vegetarians (n = 138), vegans (n = 120), and flexitarians (n = 60). Pescatarians scored lower than other dietary groups on moral concern and mind attribution for aquatic animals relative to farmed land animals. Unlike the other dietary groups, pescatarians and vegetarians scored lower on moral concern and mind attribution for dairy than beef cows and for layer chickens than broiler chickens. These findings demonstrate that pescatarians and vegetarians were flexible in their moral thinking about different types of food animals in ways that suited their consumption habits, even when the same animal was evaluated (e.g., dairy vs beef cows). This research highlights the psychological barriers that might prevent people from reducing animal product consumption and may need to be addressed in interventions to encourage transitioning towards more plant-based diets.

Revealed preferences on meat substitute consumption and political attitudes - Testing the left-right and environmental concerns framework

The promotion of meat substitutes to reduce meat intake is a promising way to reduce the environmental and public health externalities of meat consumption while preserving the important role of taste and texture in meat products. However, the market for meat substitutes is developing more slowly than expected. Therefore, we analyze the factors associated with the heterogeneity in meat substitute consumption in Germany, a country where meat traditionally plays an important role. We use revealed preference data on meat substitute sales from 1025 individual retailers, sociodemographic data, and election results from 92 regions in Germany over the period 2017-2021, to analyze whether differences in meat substitute consumption are associated with consumers' political orientation (liberal/left or conservative/right) and socio-demographic variables. We also investigate whether election results for parties with stronger climate protection goals are associated with meat substitute consumption. Our results show that meat substitute consumption varies significantly across Germany and that this is related to differences in socio-demographic characteristics and voting behavior across regions. Voting for the Green Party and parties with strong climate protection ambitions is positively related to the market share of meat substitutes. In contrast, voting for Germany's most conservative party, which has the lowest ambitions in terms of climate protection targets, is associated with lower meat substitute consumption. Therefore, manufacturers could develop tailored marketing strategies that specifically target these voter groups in order to increase the market share of meat substitutes as alternatives to meat products.

Predictors of Meat Reduction: The Case of Slovenia

Health, environmental, and animal advocacy organisations emphasise reducing or eliminating high meat consumption due to its adverse effects on health, sustainability, climate change, and animal welfare. Increasingly, people are deciding to reduce their meat consumption frequency. Our study aimed to examine predictors of meat reduction among Slovenian consumers, focusing on gender, age, partner and children status, size of residential settlement, socioeconomic status, and political orientation. We conducted a survey using non-probability sampling. We examined demographic, socioeconomic, and political predictors of individuals' self-assessed intent to reduce meat consumption in the month following the survey. Additionally, we analysed respondents' meat reduction during the three years prior. A correlation analysis revealed that higher age and education levels were significantly positively correlated with meat reduction patterns. An ordinal logistic regression analysis indicated that age was the only significant predictor of meat reduction intentions and past behaviour. Our findings suggest that middle-aged and elderly individuals are more likely than younger adults to report meat reduction behaviours. Future public health interventions should tailor approaches to different age groups, and, in particular, target younger individuals. Educational campaigns should highlight the health and environmental benefits of reducing meat and animal product consumption, particularly in primary and secondary schools.

Understanding the Meat-Masculinity Link: Traditional and Non-Traditional Masculine Norms Predicting Men's Meat Consumption

Conformity to masculinity ideology predicts men's meat consumption and willingness to reduce their meat intake, but it is unknown which specific masculine norms account for these relationships. This study investigated which traditional and non-traditional masculine norms predict meat consumption, red and processed meat consumption, and willingness to reduce meat consumption in 557 Australian and English males. Men who support the use of physical violence and place high importance on sex ate more meat. Willingness to reduce was highest among men with gender egalitarian views. Targeting these specific masculine norms may be important for mitigating men's overconsumption of meat.

Uncovering associations between interest in One Health and pre-existing conditions and behaviours: Evidence from a UK survey

This paper endeavours to unveil individual characteristics associated with an interest in One Health. Through the distribution of an online survey randomly distributed among the United Kingdom population, we discovered significant correlations between pre-existing attitudes towards and relationships with nature and animals and interest in One Health, which is quantified by the number of additional pages of One Health information participants agreed to view at the survey's conclusion. Additionally, individuals with poorer mental health demonstrated a higher level of interest in One Health. The findings suggest that interest in One Health and people's connections with nature and animals are driven by the same personal preferences. These insights point towards the potential for more targeted communication strategies to specific groups, facilitating more effective promotion of the One Health concept.

Differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals: Exploring the role of traits, beliefs, and motives

OBJECTIVE

This research examines differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals as a fuction of individuals' personalities.

BACKGROUND

Ethical vegetarian appeals are persuasive messages promoting the adoption of a plant-based diet on moral grounds. Individuals may vary in their receptivity to such appeals, depending on their morally relevant traits (e.g., agreeableness), beliefs (e.g., speciesism), and motives (e.g., concerns about animal welfare).

METHODS

We explored (Study 1, N = 907) and then attempted to confirm (Study 2, N = 980) differential responses to three vegetarian appeals-two highlighting moral concerns (animal welfare, the environment) and a third focusing on individual health (control condition).

RESULTS

Both studies revealed several differential effects of our vegetarian appeals on the perceived effectiveness of the appeal and resultant intentions to reduce meat consumption. These mostly consisted of differences in receptivity to appeals focused on animal welfare. However, only one such effect observed in Study 1 was clearly replicated in Study 2: People who more strongly believed that eating meat was "normal" rated the vegetarian appeals focused on animal welfare as less effective.

CONCLUSION

Ethical vegetarian appeals may elicit different responses from different people, particularly those focused on animal welfare, depending on how normative one believes meat-eating to be. Such insights can inform behavior change efforts in this area.

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.

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.

Is being anti-vegan a distinct dietarian identity? An investigation with omnivores, vegans, and self-identified "anti-vegans"

Adding to research on the form and content of anti-vegan sentiment, recent scholarship has identified a group of individuals who self-subscribe as "anti-vegan". Here, we sought to determine whether anti-veganism might reflect a distinct dietarian identity with its own unique ideological profile. Two-hundred and fourteen vegans, 732 omnivores, and 222 self-identified "anti-vegans" were assessed using a survey methodology that included the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire and ideological markers related to dark humour, social dominance orientation (SDO), speciesism, male-role norms, moral relativism, and attitudes toward science. Our analysis revealed a dietarian identity unique to anti-vegans. The dietary patterns of anti-vegans were more central to their identity than for omnivores, though marginally lower than vegans. Like vegans, anti-vegans scored highly on dietarian measures of private regard and personal dietary motivations, and lower than omnivores on public regard. The diets of anti-vegans were more morally motivated than omnivores. However, anti-vegans scored higher than both omnivores and vegans on a number of ideological measures including dark humour, SDO, speciesism, male-role norms, moral relativism, and distrust of science. Somewhat surprising, anti-vegans held greater trust than omnivores in the science of plant-based nutrition. We discuss the unique dietarian identities of anti-vegans, considering both intra-group differences of omnivores and anti-vegans (e.g., in right-wing ideology), and inter-group similarities of vegans and anti-vegans (e.g., in diet centrality).

Are cooks more disgust sensitive? Preliminary examination of the food preparation hypothesis

According to the food preparation hypothesis, sex differences in disgust sensitivity may stem from different sex roles that males and females played in our ancestral times. In current times, these differences may be reflected in varying levels of disgust sensitivity between people who frequently versus rarely engage in meal preparation, or who are versus are not professionally responsible for providing meals for others. To test this reasoning, we conducted a preregistered study with 493 individuals (55% female), with 280 of them working in the restaurant industry. Participants reported their weekly time spent on cooking-related activities and completed the Food Disgust Scale and pathogen subscale of Three Domain Disgust Scale. These measures capture specific, food-related disgust sensitivity, and generalised pathogen disgust sensitivity, respectively. We found that while time spent on cooking was not associated with disgust sensitivity, people professionally engaged in food preparation displayed higher levels of food-related disgust sensitivity. There was no effect of cooking on the generalised pathogen disgust sensitivity. Additionally, we observed sex differences in both types of disgust sensitivity and found that vegetarians exhibited lower disgust sensitivity than meat-eaters. Overall, our findings offer preliminary support for the food preparation hypothesis, and point out that the mechanisms adjusting our disgust sensitivity levels are category-specific, even within the broader pathogen disgust domain.

Spontaneous verbal descriptions of vegans, non-vegan vegetarians, and omnivores and relationships between these descriptions and perceivers' diets

Participants, 672 US collegians, listed four words/terms that first came to mind when thinking of vegans, non-vegan vegetarians, and omnivores. Participants generated 1264 unique descriptors, which two sets of raters, who were blind to the source of the descriptors, rated on 10 dimensions that included the valence of the descriptors (i.e., positive, negative). A series of multilevel models in which descriptors were nested within persons, found that descriptors referring to environmental issues and health were used more frequently when describing both vegans and vegetarians than when describing omnivores. Descriptors referring to deviance, lifestyle, and politics were used more frequently when describing both vegans and vegetarians than when describing omnivores. Overall, vegans were viewed more negatively than vegetarians who were viewed more negatively than omnivores. These differences were moderated by the extent to which participants restricted meat from their diet. Those who restricted meat from their diets to a greater extent had more negative perceptions and fewer positive perceptions of omnivores, whereas they had more positive perceptions of vegans and vegetarians, and fewer positive perceptions of omnivores. The present study is the first to use spontaneous verbal reports to examine attitudes and perceptions of people based on their eating habits. The results suggest that dietary habits can serve as a basis for social identity, which in turn affects perceptions of others.

Listen to Us: Perceptions of Animal Voice and Agency

In many contexts, the interests of nonhuman animals (hereafter "animals") are often overlooked or considered to be a lower priority than those of humans. While strong arguments exist for taking animal moral claims seriously, these largely go unheard due to dominant anthropocentric attitudes and beliefs. This study aimed to explore how animal interests might be best represented in the human world. We conducted interviews to investigate people's perceptions of what it means to speak for other animals and who can reliably represent animal interests. Using Grounded Theory analytical methods, we identified one major theme: "Animal voice", and its subthemes: "Animals do/do not have a voice", "Human language constructs realities and paradigms", and "Let animals speak". Our findings illustrate how human language constructs contribute to shaping the realities of animals by contextually defining them as voiceless. This has serious implications for animals, society, and the environment. Drawing parallels with the relevant literature, our results reflect calls for the social and political recognition of animal voice as fundamental to animal representation. We recommend future research to focus on developing ethical and compassionate approaches to understanding animal subjective experiences to empower and amplify animal voices.

Conservative consumer disinterest in plant-based meat: A problem of message incongruence

The drive to encourage consumers to reduce animal meat protein has resulted in a substantial market for plant-based meat products. Despite willingness and acceptance among certain sectors of the population, there remains a large proportion of consumers unwilling to try plant-based meat. Through the lens of political ideology and applying message congruence theory, we demonstrate that current message framing is incongruent to conservative consumers in the USA. A pre-test (n = 262), using political ideology to predict willingness to try plant-based meat, revealed a significant effect such that conservatives were significantly less likely to want to learn about plant-based meat or to try it. A content analysis (n = 82) of press releases from a major plant-based meat company highlights that plant-based meat is promoted based on three key benefits: taste, health and the environment. Finally, in an experiment, conservative participants (n = 200) were randomly assigned to view an advertisement for a plant-based meat company that either cited environmental benefits or did not. Results demonstrate the presence of incongruence in messaging, where environmental benefits are shown to be less effective for conservative leaning consumers.

Relational climate and openness to plant-forward diets among cohabitating couples

Plant-forward diets offer a potential solution to many of the health and ecological crises that we find ourselves facing today. A key barrier to the adoption and maintenance of plant-forward diets is an anticipated lack of support from family members, friends and romantic partners. The present study examined how relational climate (i.e., the cohesion and flexibility of a partnership) contributes to the tension individuals anticipate in their relationship when a member reduces their animal-product consumption, and their own openness to reducing. Four hundred and ninety-six coupled individuals took part in an online survey. Analyses revealed that couples with more flexible leadership styles anticipated less tension should they or their partner adopt a plant-forward diet. However, dimensions of relational climate were largely unrelated to openness to plant-forward diets. Romantic couples who perceived themselves to be matched in terms of dietary habits were less open to reducing their animal-product consumption than unmatched couples. Politically left-leaning couples and females were more open to plant-forward diets. The meat attachments of male partners were reported as a particular barrier to dietary goals, as were practical concerns about meal coordination, finance, and health. Implications for promoting plant-forward dietary transitions are discussed.

Game changers for meat and masculinity? Male athletes' perspectives on mixed and plant-based diets

The dietary choices of male athletes are increasingly a topic of moral and nutritional debate. Though it has long been a consensus that athletes require animal products to advance their athletic goals, this understanding is now challenged in academic and popular sources based on nutritional evidence and concern about the environmental impacts of animal products. In order to better understand how (semi-)professional male athletes perceive plant-based diets and diets containing animal products, thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with male athletes competing nationally and internationally, including mixed and plant-based eaters. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis, in line with a critical, qualitative research methodology. Justifications for meat, situated knowledge and masculinity were used as theoretical lenses. Our analysis shows how athletes reproduce nutritional claims about the necessity of protein for athletes, but disagree on the suitability of plant-based sources. This nutritional discourse derives from a broad range of sources, including professional nutritionists, friends, online influencers, and media. Second, when explaining their own food practices, food being 'nice' and 'normal' - common justifications for meat as evidenced in the 4N theory - often supersede necessity. Embedding these views in their everyday lives as athletes shows that food environments and shared eating practices fortify a mixed diet as normal, and plant-based diets as anomalous. It further shows how the view of meat being normal is subject to shifting masculinity norms. Interviewees reject meat eating as normal and masculine for men, while male athletes who show dedication, constraint, and knowledge in a plant-based diet are viewed positively. As role models for diet and masculinity, this has implications for a potential role of athletes in a societal transition towards lower consumption of animal products.

Why don't politicians talk about meat? The political psychology of human-animal relations in elections

Building on literature from political science and psychology, I argue that political attention on animals and animal-friendly political candidates cause voter backlash. I test this using two different kinds of experiments with large, representative samples. I ask respondents to consider political candidates running for office in a U.S. presidential primary context. I find that, overall, political attention on the need to reduce meat consumption for environmental reasons caused voter backlash compared to both a control condition and attention on the need to reduce reliance on gasoline-powered vehicles (also for environmental reasons). But, the heterogeneous effects of partisan identification were strong: voter backlash was mainly driven by Republicans and Democrats were neutral. Surprisingly, candidates who put attention on farm animal rights during elections faced no voter backlash from Republicans or Democrats. Animal-friendly candidates, particularly Black women and Latinas, with attributes that demonstrate personal concern for farm animals and strong support for animal rights generally fared very well in elections, receiving large boosts in voter support. This work launches a research agenda in political psychology that "brings the animal in" to politics.

Increasing acceptance of medical AI: The role of medical staff participation in AI development

BACKGROUND

Medical artificial intelligence (AI) in varying degrees has exerted significant influence on many medical fields, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known regarding how to address the reluctance of medical staff to use AI technology. While recent research has highlighted the importance of medical staff participation in the development of AI, the current understanding of influence of medical staff participation on acceptance of AI is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To provide insights into the mechanism that how medical staff participation impacts on the medical staff's acceptance of AI and to examine the moderating effect of speciesism.

METHODS

This study was conducted from 6th August to 3rd September. Data was collected from doctors and nurses and a total of 288 valid questionnaires were obtained. Smart PLS 3.2.8 was used as partial least square (PLS) software to validate the research model.

RESULTS

The study determined that medical staff participation had a significant impact on acceptance of medical AI-IDT (β = 0.35, p ≤ 0.001) and acceptance of medical AI-ADT (β = 0.44, p ≤ 0.001). The results also show that AI self-efficacy and AI anxiety have significant mediating effects and speciesism has significant moderating effects among the theoretical model.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights into ways to explore influence factors of acceptance of AI based on user participation perspective. The results indicate that medical staff participation enhances acceptance of medical AI through the cognitive path (i.e., AI self-efficacy) and the affective path (i.e., AI anxiety). These results have practical implications for how organizations assist the staff to accommodate themselves to AI technology in the future.

Moral emotions and justifying beliefs about meat, fish, dairy and egg consumption: A comparative study of dietary groups

Meat eaters and meat abstainers differ in their beliefs and moral emotions related to meat consumption alongside gender differences. Few studies have investigated beliefs and moral emotions in pescatarians and vegans. Little is known about differences in moral emotions and beliefs regarding dairy, eggs, and fish or about speciesist beliefs within and between specific dietary groups. To address this gap, we investigated moral emotions (consumption-related disgust and guilt), attitudes towards animals (Animal Attitudes Scale) and justifying beliefs related to meat (Carnism Inventory), dairy, egg, and fish consumption in omnivores (n = 167), pescatarians (n = 110), vegetarians (n = 116), and vegans (n = 149). Results showed that people who consumed animal-derived products reported lower disgust and guilt and held stronger justifying beliefs about consumption of these products than those who did not consume animal products. All dietary groups significantly differed from each other in their attitudes about using animals for human benefit, with omnivores showing the least positive attitudes towards animals, followed by pescatarians and vegetarians, and with vegans showing the most positive attitudes towards animals. Women experienced greater moral emotions and held fewer justifying beliefs than men within groups where animal products were consumed and related to the animal-based products they consume (i.e., fish for pescatarians and eggs/dairy for vegetarians). These findings emphasise the importance of considering a wider range of animal products, such as eggs, dairy and fish, and dietary groups in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the psychological underpinnings of animal product consumption. The results highlight differences between dietary groups in attitudes and moral concern towards animals, which may be important to consider when designing interventions to reduce animal product consumption.

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.

Masculinity Matters for Meat Consumption: An Examination of Self-Rated Gender Typicality, Meat Consumption, and Veg*nism in Australian Men and Women

Previous research shows that men eat more meat than women. We explore the extent to which self-rated gender typicality explains differences in meat consumption intentions and behaviour. We recruited a large sample (N = 4897) of Australian men and women to complete an online survey about their attitudes and intentions regarding meat consumption and abstention and measured their self-rated gender typicality (the extent men view themselves as masculine, and women view themselves as feminine). We used moderated regression analyses to investigate self-rated gender typicality as a moderator of the relationship between gender and meat-related variables. We demonstrated that for men, identifying as more masculine was associated with a lower likelihood of reducing meat consumption or considering veg*nism, and a greater belief that eating meat is normal. We also found that men, and those with more gender-typical self-ratings (regardless of gender), viewed meat as more natural, necessary, and nice. These findings suggest that self-rated gender typicality may be relevant for understanding gender differences in meat consumption behaviours. Appeals to adopt low- or no-meat diets may be more effective if they consider the ways Australian diets are interconnected with genders and identities. Increasing acceptance of alternative masculinities, and developing masculinity-friendly advertising of plant-based foods, could be useful in promoting meat reduction.

Personality traits and meat consumption: The mediating role of animal-related ethical concerns

Prior research suggests that personality traits are associated with meat consumption. However, this association is not uniform across all types of meat. For instance, Big Five personality traits such as openness and agreeableness are negatively associated with red meat consumption but positively associated with fish. Using a large sample of Chilean university students (N = 1,149), we examined whether these differential meat consumption patterns can be explained by an intermediary variable of animal-related ethical values. Structural equation modeling was employed to test the hypothesized associations. The results suggest that animal-related ethical values mediate the effect of certain personality traits on the consumption of beef and poultry.

Effects of experimentally induced self-affirmation on the openness to meat reduction and alternative protein sources

Introduction

Consumption of animals entails disregarding the pain of sentient beings, and acknowledging this can threaten an individual's image of oneself as a moral person. Also, abstaining from meat in a meat-eating culture can threaten an individual's valued group identity. Previous research on inter-group relations suggests that self-affirmation, affirmation of personally or collectively important values, can help individuals alleviate self-threats since it enhances one's global self-image and decreases threat perceptions.

Methods

We tested for potential effects of self-affirmation on openness toward reducing meat consumption in an experimental study. Participants (N = 277) were randomized into an individual affirmation, group affirmation, or a control condition. Individual affirmation participants ranked a list of values and then wrote a short paragraph about their first-ranked value. Group affirmation participants did a similar task, focusing on the values of their ethnic group, while participants in the control condition had an unrelated task of ranking their color preferences. Participants then read a persuasive message presenting health risks related to meat consumption and the health benefits of reducing meat. Finally, they indicated their openness toward reducing meat consumption and acceptability of plant-based alternatives and lab-grown meat.

Results and Discussion

Results show that affirmed participants expressed more readiness to reconsider their meat consumption habits, reduced perceptions of vegetarianism as a threat to the local culture, and more positive perceptions of the idea of lab-grown meat. However, self-esteem and frequency of meat consumption pose important limitations to the experimental effects. We discuss the findings from the perspective of self-and collective identity threats and the potential of self-affirmations to create a more open debate about animal product consumption.

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.

The modulation of sustainability knowledge and impulsivity traits on the consumption of foods of animal and plant origin in Italy and Turkey

Given the environmental challenge we face globally, a transition to sustainable diets seems essential. However, the cognitive aspects underlying sustainable food consumption have received little attention to date. The aims of this cross-cultural study were: (1) to explore how impulsivity traits and individuals' knowledge of food environmental impact influence their frequency of consumption of animal- and plant-based foods; (2) to understand the modulation of individual characteristics (i.e. generation, sex, BMI, and sustainability knowledge). An online survey investigating impulsivity traits, sustainability knowledge and ratings of diverse food items was designed and administered to respondents from Italy (N = 992) and Turkey (N = 896). Results showed that Turkish respondents were higher in impulsivity and animal products consumption. Italians, instead, had greater sustainability knowledge and consumed more plant-based foods. Females in both groups reported greater knowledge of sustainability, consistent with previous findings. In terms of generations, the lowest consumption of animal products was reported by Turkish Generation Z and Italian Millennials. In conclusion, this study shed light on the interaction of psychological factors and individual characteristics with the perceived environmental impact of foods. Moreover, the adopted cross-cultural approach allowed to identify several differences in participants' responses ascribable to their different nationalities and gastronomic cultures.

The traditional vegetarians – improving attitudes toward vegetarians through emphasizing similarities between vegetarianism and traditional fasting

The modern choices of diet are often perceived at odds with the traditional worldviews. This study aimed to test the possibility of improving attitudes toward vegetarians by emphasizing the similarity between vegetarianism and religious fasting. We expected the effects of induction to be moderated by endorsement of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation (SDO-D and SDO-E). Participants (N = 246) were randomly divided into three groups that all read a text about a traditional birthday celebration. The control group read a text about the celebration with meat-based meals, one experimental group read about a celebration with meatless dishes. In the second experimental group it was emphasized that the host became a vegetarian after years of religious fasting. Both inductions improved attitudes toward vegetarians. Only SDO-D proved to be a significant moderator, with induction exhibiting a significant effect at higher levels of SDO-D. The findings inform public communications about reducing meat consumption.

The relationship between attitudes to human rights and to animal rights is partially mediated by empathy

Veganism has become increasingly popular in recent years in many countries including the UK and the USA. Studies have found that vegans tend to be female, lower in Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and higher in feminist perspectives (FPS). Study 1 (n = 311) investigated the relationships among meat consumption, ethical veganism (using a custom-written scale), RWA, SDO, and FPS, in a series of questionnaires completed online. RWA, SDO, and meat consumption correlated together in one group of variables; FPS and ethical veganism correlated together in a distinct group. In Study 2 participants also completed the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) as a potential mediator variable. The relationship between RWA, SDO, and FPS as predictors, and ethical veganism as target, was partially mediated by empathy. This pattern of results suggests that individuals who hold egalitarian and inclusive views as regards human-human relationships also tend to have similar views as regards human-animal relationships, with empathy as an underlying common factor.

Meat and interpersonal motives: the case of self-enhancement

Meat eaters have a more hierarchical, less egalitarian view at the world than vegetarians. This can be manifested in social dominance orientation, at the intergroup level, but also at the interspecies level, yielding more empathy with nonhuman animals, and at the interpersonal level. We examined if interpersonal motives in human-human relationships and empathy with people are associated with frequency of meat eating, using a cross-sectional survey (N = 580). For the motives power and affiliation, no significant relationships emerged, but the self-enhancement motive was positively related to the number of days that participants ate meat. This predicted additional variance over and above variables at the intergroup and interspecies level, such as social dominance orientation and human-animal continuity. Empathy with people was negatively related to meat consumption, but this was explained by its correlation with empathy with animals. Discussion focuses on the importance of the self-enhancement motive in attachment to meat, the symbol of human superiority, as well as resistance to meat refusers.

Meat-eating justification and relationship closeness with veg*n family, friends, and romantic partners

A study of 190 omnivores examined their meat-eating justification (MEJ) beliefs and relationship closeness with veg*n friends, family members, and romantic partners; and how relationship closeness changes after veg*n diets are adopted. Denial and dissociation MEJs predicted lower closeness, whereas the hierarchical MEJ predicted higher closeness. Results also showed that relationship closeness significantly decreased for frequency and diversity of activities after adoption of veg*n diets. Closeness in terms of strength significantly increased after adoption of veg*n diets. A significant interaction was found between relationship type and time in which frequency of interactions decreased for friends and family after adoption of veg*n diets but did not change for romantic partners. These results suggest that only MEJs with moral considerations that elicit meat-related cognitive dissonance reduce relationship closeness after the adoption of veg*n diets; and that relationship closeness decreases after the adoption of veg*n diets only with friends or family members.

Intergroup attitudes between meat-eaters and meat-avoiders: The role of dietary ingroup identification

Why might some meat-eaters and meat-avoiders express negative attitudes toward each other? We investigated intergroup attitudes and potential underpinnings of these attitudes across three different dietary groups—veg*ans (vegetarians and vegans), flexitarians (people who restrict their meat intake partially), and meat-eaters—in Turkey ( NStudy 1 = 366; NStudy 2 = 450). In both studies, veg*ans showed the greatest ingroup favouritism and reported the highest ingroup identification and perceived discrimination. Meat enjoyment, moral consideration, and perceived veg*an threat (among meat-eaters) predicted dietary ingroup identification in Study 1, whereas perceived discrimination towards one’s dietary group was the strongest predictor of identification among all dietary groups in Study 2. Among meat-avoiders, but not among meat-eaters, stronger dietary ingroup identification was associated with more negative outgroup attitudes. Findings are discussed in light of social identity theories and intergroup perspectives.

Psychological Processes Underlying an Omnivorous, Vegetarian, or Vegan Diet: Gender Role Self-Concept, Human Supremacy Beliefs, and Moral Disengagement from Meat

Most people consume meat regularly but simultaneously claim to be animal lovers, which should lead to a state of cognitive dissonance and cause distress. Against this backdrop, it is important to understand why some people decide to stop consuming meat or completely eschew animal products, while others do not. Research has shown gender and self-regulatory mechanisms as important factors, but the underlying psychological processes require further examination. In total, 3259 vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores completed an online questionnaire about their diet, gender role self-concept, moral disengagement from meat consumption, and human supremacy beliefs. The results showed that male vegans described themselves as more feminine but no less masculine than male omnivores, while no such differences were found in women. Furthermore, omnivores reported the highest moral disengagement from meat consumption, followed by vegetarians and vegans. The same was true of human supremacy beliefs. Moreover, the results showed that not only is diet itself related to differences in human supremacy beliefs but also the motives for this diet, with health and environmental motives being associated with stronger human supremacy beliefs than animal-related motives. These findings present practical implications for animal rights activists, marketing, and the health and education sectors.

'Against the cult of veganism': Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans

Despite the established health and ecological benefits of a plant-based diet, the decision to eschew meat and other animal-derived food products remains controversial. So polarising is this topic that anti-vegan communities - groups of individuals who stand vehemently against veganism - have sprung up across the internet. Much scholarship on veganism characterizes anti-vegans in passing, painting them as ill-informed, uneducated, or simply obstinate. However, little empirical work has investigated these communities and the individuals within them. Accordingly, we conducted a study using social media data from the popular platform, Reddit. Specifically, we collected all available submissions (∼3523) and comments (∼45,528) from r/AntiVegan subreddit users (N = 3819) over a five-year period. Using a battery of computerized text analytic tools, we examined the psychosocial characteristics of Reddit users who publicly identify as anti-vegan, how r/AntiVegan users discuss their beliefs, and how the individual user changes as a function of community membership. Results from our analyses suggest several individual differences that align r/AntiVegan users with the community, including dark entertainment, ex-veganism and science denial. Several topics were extensively discussed by r/AntiVegan members, including nuanced discourse on the ethicality and health implications of vegan diets, and the naturalness of animal death, which ran counter to our expectations and lay stereotypes of r/AntiVegan users. Finally, several longitudinal changes in language use were observed within the community, reflecting enhanced group commitment over time, including an increase in group-focused language and a decrease in cognitive processing. Implications for vegan-nonvegan relations are discussed.

Beyond the Choice of What You Put in Your Mouth: A Systematic Mapping Review of Veganism and Vegan Identity

In recent years, and in the current climate crisis, the interest in veganism and sustainable diet/lifestyle has increased. This growing interest can also be seen within academia. Therefore, we set out to systematically document and organize the social psychological literature on veganism and vegan identity to identify where the field currently is, and what we need to do next. Following PRISMA guidelines we identified a data set of 26 academic papers published between 2010 and 2021. Through a thematic analysis of the data, we created four categories of study focus and content: (1) vegans as a disadvantaged/stigmatized group, (2) the role of ideology in negative attitudes toward vegans, (3) the role of moral and ethical beliefs in changing or sustaining dietary preferences, and (4) veganism as a social movement and vegan activism. Our analysis emphasizes issues with merging all non-meat eaters, reduction of veganism into dietary or lifestyle choices neglecting the politicized content and movement, lack of processes underlying emergence and endurance of veganism, and decontextualization of vegan identity. What is needed is a more fine-grained exploration that addresses the identified issues to account for the content of vegan identity. This would expand, for example, the motives literature to include and emphasize intersectionality in a vegan identity context. Specifically, to facilitate a more sustainable lifestyle, the content of social dimensions needs to be qualitatively explored.

Animal rights, environment, or health? Effects of argument type and dissonance on the attitudes toward the consumption of animals

The scientific literature and advocacy organisations highlight three harm-related arguments as paramount reasons for the reduction and cessation of the consumption of animal-derived products (ADP) - violence toward animals, damage to the environment, and human health. However, research on their comparative effects is scarce and there is no clear definition of which type of argument is the most effective in restricting ADP consumption. Based on cognitive dissonance theory, this study aimed to investigate the effects of these types of arguments on meat-eaters' attitudes and beliefs toward the propositions of reducing and ceasing ADP consumption. The study sample comprised 545 Brazilian adults. We adopted an experimental between-subjects design based on the presentation of vignettes. Each participant responded to one of the vignettes (animal rights, environmental, or health arguments) or a control condition. Results showed that greater levels of ADP-related dissonance provoked greater positive attitudes toward the reduction and cessation of ADP consumption. Compared to baseline, the animal rights and environmental messages significantly increased dissonance and positive attitudes toward ADP restriction, but not the health argument. Participants most frequently adopted the dissonance-management strategies of denial of responsibility, denial of harm, and the articulation of beliefs favourable to change. The discussion highlights that the different effects of social influence contexts and argument types depend on their capacity to reveal ADP consumption as morally problematic behaviour. To our knowledge, this is the first study to experimentally compare the effects of animal rights, environmental and health-related arguments in generating ADP-related dissonance and attitude change.

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.

Dining with liberals and conservatives: The social underpinnings of food neophobia

Although food and politics seem to be distant domains, socio-political ideology and food neophobia (i.e., reluctance to eat unfamiliar food) may be related. Conservatives’ high threat sensitivity and the inherently threatening nature of novel foods (the existential explanation), along with conservatives’ negative attitudes toward minority outgroups (e.g., foreigners) and the role of the latter in introducing novel foods to a culture (the social explanation), led us to expect that socio-political ideology would predict food neophobia over and above their common roots. Across two correlational and two experimental studies (N = 627), socio-political ideology emerged as a strong predictor of food neophobia. In addition, the findings did not support the existential explanation, while confirming the social explanation of the ideology–food neophobia link: Conservatives seem more neophobic than liberals not because of their higher threat sensitivity but rather because they hold more negative attitudes toward foreigners who are associated with those foods.

Backlash against Meat Curtailment Policies in online discourse: Populism as a missing link

Given overwhelming evidence that current levels of meat consumption jeopardize human and planetary health, there is a need for governmental action to reduce meat consumption (i.e., Meat Curtailment Policies, or MCPs). However, few such policies are actually being implemented, in part due to fear of backlash. Better understanding the ideological underpinning of backlash is thus crucial for designing strategies that can further the much needed transition towards more plant-based diets. To address this issue, this study unravels the diverse ideological notions informing backlash in discourse against MCPs. Data consists of three news articles in right-wing publications and over 2700 corresponding comments, posted on Facebook in response to policy proposals to reduce animal protein consumption in the Netherlands. Analysis of the data is based on a framework for ideological discourse analysis, which enables the identification of ideological notions through recognizing semantic and formal structures in text. The research reveals that next to the well documented notions related to neoliberalism (e.g., freedom of choice) and carnism (e.g., meat is normal), populist notions are a significant ideological basis of backlash. In addition, ideological notions related to populism, such as anti-elitism, are interlocked with carnism and neoliberalism. The analysis contributes to a better understanding of the socio-political nature of backlash against MCPs. It suggests that while notions related to carnism can explain how people justify their meat consumption, such notions are only partly relevant for explaining resistance to MCPs. Such resistance is not just an individual response, but a theme around which groups of people converge, through shared ideologies.

Meet your meat: The effect of imagined intergroup contact on wanting and liking of meat

Increased global meat consumption has negative impacts on animal welfare, the environment, as well as health. The current study is the first to investigate whether imagined intergroup contact with a farmed animal changes wanting and liking of beef and reduces willingness to consume meat. Collegians [N = 100, 67% female] imagined having a positive experience with either a calf (n = 36), kitten (n = 33), or child (n = 31). Following the imagined interaction, they completed the Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire to measure implicit and explicit wanting and explicit liking of beef and other types of meat relative to other food categories. Participants also indicated their willingness to reduce meat consumption. Results revealed that there were no significant differences between groups in explicit wanting or liking of beef or meat, nor in willingness to reduce future meat consumption. Nevertheless, compared to the kitten and child conditions, participants who imagined interacting with a calf experienced lower levels of implicit wanting and relative preference for beef and other meat products. Our findings suggest that imagined intergroup contact may be an effective manipulation to reduce meat consumption as a part of a broader intervention program.

Community Attitudes Reflect Reporting Rates and Prevalence of Animal Mistreatment

Community attitudes toward the treatment of animals are important to understand for the development of intervention programs to prevent mistreatment. We aimed to investigate whether previously identified differences between local government areas (LGAs) in the rates of animal mistreatment reporting and prevalence were reflected by differences in community attitudes. In addition, attitudinal differences based on target species (dogs, cats, horses) and participant gender were considered. A representative telephone survey (N = 1,801) was conducted across six LGAs. Attitudinal themes included affection toward animals, valuing of animals, attitudes toward caring for own animals, and concern for the mistreatment of other animals. Factorial ANOVA was used to identify differences between high and low reporting LGAs, region types (regional, interface, metropolitan), and target species (cat, dog, horse). Respondents from high reporting LGAs demonstrated slightly more affection for animals F _(1,1679) = 19.401, p < 0.001, ω p 2 = 0.011 and stronger subjective norms F _(1,999) = 16.31, p < 0.001, ω p 2 = 0.015 than those from low reporting LGAs, but did not differ on the other variables. Participants in areas of high prevalence (regional areas) did not display lower levels of affection or concern for the mistreatment of animals as a whole, nor did they value animals less. However, regional differences were found for several items regarding caring for one's own animals: two behavioral beliefs and two control beliefs. Additionally various differences were found between the regions regarding the level of concern for mistreatment when broken down into the different species. Gender effects were also common. While the attitudinal results do reflect animal mistreatment prevalence and reporting rates, they also highlight the complexity of community attitudes. As such, interventions to prevent mistreatment must have clear targets including the audience, behavior, and species. Targeting smaller regions and thoroughly investigating their unique perspectives, challenges, and strengths are likely to be more effective than generic campaigns.

Considering how farm animal welfare concerns may contribute to more sustainable diets

This paper investigates how consumers can be guided towards healthy diets from sustainable and more animal-friendly food systems, in times when no single food system can be considered the best. In order to provide an alternative, the paper focuses on how farm animal welfare concerns can be translated into potential consumer goals, inspired by the "Three Rs" principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, originally developed to systematically improve the welfare of laboratory animals. After some adaptations, the three goals established are 1) to eat less meat, and/or 2) "less and better" meat, and/or 3) "less worrisome" animal protein, respectively, which imply choices described in the literature on consumer behavior. This literature shows that the goal of eating less meat is relatively straightforward, but needs to be made more prominent, and that the goals of eating "less and better" meat or eating "less worrisome" animal protein need more nuances regarding the specific trade-offs that should be made in terms of species, production types and geographic locations. This may help to better integrate the repercussions of food choices for human health, animal welfare, climate change and biodiversity, the relative importance of which varies between countries and consumer segments. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that Reduction, Replacement and Refinement are not just different parts of the same process to meet human health and animal welfare challenges, but also powerful options to combat the climate, biodiversity and-last but not least-food security challenges of the next few decades.

Hybrid theories, psychological plausibility, and the human/animal divide

A hybrid theory is any moral theory according to which different classes of individuals ought to be treated according to different principles. We argue that some hybrid theories are able to meet standards of psychological plausibility, by which we mean that it's feasible for ordinary human beings to understand and act in accord with them. Insofar as psychological plausibility is a theoretical virtue, then, such hybrid theories deserve more serious consideration. To make the case for this view, we explain what psychological plausibility is and why we might value it, why the human/animal divide appears to be an entrenched feature of human psychology, and why Robert Nozick's hybrid theory doesn't go far enough. Finally, we make the case that a more promising psychologically plausible hybrid theory, with respect to humans and animals, will be (at least) at tribrid theory-that is, positing three domains rather than two.