The Veg∗n Eating Motives Inventory Plus (VEMI+): A measure of health, environment, animal rights, disgust, social, pandemic and zoonotic diseases, and farm workers' rights motives

Health, environmental concern, and animal rights are established motives for reduced meat consumption that can be measured by the Vegetarian Eating Motives Inventory (VEMI). This preregistered study aimed to expand the VEMI to include four less-studied motives: disgust, social, concern about zoonotic diseases and pandemics, and concern for workers' rights. We had three objectives: to combine the seven motives into a comprehensive model, to test if the VEMI+ scales function equivalently across omnivore and vegan groups, and to validate and differentiate these motives against external measures and meat reduction appeals. In samples of 731 omnivores and 731 vegans (total N = 1,462), we found support for the measurement invariance of a seven-factor structure across groups and created a scale with reliable measures for each dimension (ω total between 0.82 and 0.97). Vegans scored higher overall, with substantially higher scores on environmental concern, animal rights, disgust, and zoonotic disease concerns, while omnivores had slightly higher scores on health, social, and workers' rights scales. Scale scores had expected correlations with criterion measures and differentially predicted support for motive-tailored appeals. This study enhances our understanding of dietary motivations and provides a valuable tool for future research.

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.

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.

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.

United we stand? Perceived loyalty of dual nationals, multiracial people, and dual state residents

As multiracial children of foreign-born parents, Kamala Harris and Barack Obama embody diversity in politics for many perceivers. Yet some have also questioned their loyalty to their respective groups. We explored perceptions of dual group members’ (DGM; dual nationals, multiracial people, and dual state residents) loyalty among first-party (those who share a group membership with a DGM target) and third-party perceivers (those who do not). Studies 1a–2b showed that first- and third-party perceivers rated DGMs as less loyal than their single group member (SGM) counterparts. However, only first- (Studies 2a–2b) but not third-party (Studies 1a–1b) perceivers preferred SGMs to DGMs for loyalty-dependent roles. Study 3 revealed that perceivers who were higher in patriotism supported DGMs for loyalty-dependent roles less when they were first- (vs. third) party observers. These studies suggest that perceivers readily intuit that DGMs are less loyal than SGMs and, under some conditions, this may lead to discrimination.

Inclusive and exclusive beneficiary attributions: The role of social identity complexity in interpretations of and punishment for dissent

We suggest that intentionality attributed to dissenting behavior in intergroup contexts (e.g., exposing one’s country’s secrets) may be conceptualized as benefitting one of four social circles. Two social circles exclude the perceiver: (a) the actor him/herself and (b) the outgroup affected by the behavior; and two circles include the perceiver: (c) the ingroup of both the perceiver and the actor and (d) humanity as the ultimate collective including both ingroup and outgroup. We further suggest that adopting different beneficiary attributions depends on the perceivers’ social identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), which refers to an individual’s representation of their multiple social identities on a continuum from highly overlapping to highly differentiated (i.e., simple vs. complex social identity). Perceivers are more likely to attribute dissent behavior to social circles that exclude (rather than include) themselves the simpler their social identity; such exclusive attributions lead to harsher moral judgements, expressed as punitiveness.

Underlying Differences Between Chinese Omnivores and Vegetarians in the Evaluations of Different Dietary Groups

Drawing upon self-categorization theory, the present research investigated the attitudes of omnivores and vegetarians toward five dietary groups, including omnivores, conscientious omnivores, semi-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans. When they had high (vs. low) meat rationalization, omnivore participants had fewer negative attitudes toward and more positive evaluations of the omnivore groups but more negative attitudes toward and fewer positive evaluations of the vegetarian groups. Vegetarian participants had the most negative attitudes toward the omnivore group, followed by the conscientious omnivore group, the semi-vegetarian group, the vegetarian group, and the vegan group; the vegetarian participants with high meat rationalization (vs. those with low meat rationalization) had more positive evaluations of the omnivore groups. Such findings suggested that high levels of meat-eating rationalization predicted more favorable attitudes toward omnivores among both omnivore and vegetarian participants.

Mostly Vegetarian, But Flexible About It: Investigating How Meat-Reducers Express Social Identity Around Their Diets

Beyond indicating that one does not eat meat, the decision to identify as vegetarian signals social identity. Yet many people limit their meat intake without giving up meat entirely: These people are called flexitarians (a term combining the words, “flexible” and “vegetarian”). Some flexitarians, despite eating meat, consider themselves to be vegetarian. Through a preregistered study ( N = 837), we investigated how flexitarians express social identity around their diets—namely, how they self-identify on a continuous scale ranging from meat-eater (i.e., omnivorous) to vegetarian. Over and above actual eating behavior, two psychosocial variables emerged as significant predictors of flexitarians’ levels of vegetarian identification: the centrality of meat-reduced dieting to their identity and their beliefs about carnism (the ideology of eating animals). These results suggest that greater consideration of meat-reduced eating behaviors offers promise for elucidating the intersections of social identity and moral judgment.

How proximal are pescatarians to vegetarians? An investigation of dietary identity, motivation, and attitudes toward animals

Research on the psychology of eating behavior often treats vegetarians as a monolithic group. Yet, a considerable proportion of people (17% in Study 1) who self-identify as vegetarian are actually pescatarians—those who forgo all meats except fish. Research on the psychology of pescatarianism is profoundly lacking, which may hinder future interventionists’ efforts to improve diet. Through two preregistered studies of adults from the United States recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (total N = 490), we investigated pescatarianism with respect to dietary identity, motivation, and attitudes toward animals. Results suggest that future research may benefit from studying pescatarians as a distinct dietary group and paying greater attention to whether or not pescatarians self-identify as vegetarian.