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

Methods to assess ambivalence towards food and diet: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Ambivalence towards food and diet, which favours behavioural inertia, might be a barrier to adopting healthier eating behaviours. Measuring it can help researchers to better understand its relationship with behaviour change and design interventions aimed at resolving it. In this scoping review, we map and describe methods and tools employed in studies to assess, measure or classify the ambivalence of participants towards food- and diet-related attitude objects.

METHODS

In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we retrieved peer-reviewed studies from MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, FSTA and Food Science Source and preprints from PsyArXiv and MedRxiv. Two independent reviewers screened the articles. We considered for inclusion peer-reviewed studies and preprints that assessed the ambivalence of participants of any age, sex or sociodemographic group towards food and diet.

RESULTS

We included 45 studies published between 1992 and 2022, which included participants from 17 countries. Eighteen methods were employed across the included studies to assess different types of ambivalence (felt, potential or cognitive-affective), the most frequent of which were the Griffin Index, the Subjective Ambivalence Questionnaire, the MouseTracker Paradigm and the Orientation to Chocolate Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified several methods and tools to assess different types of ambivalence towards food- and diet-related objects, providing an array of options for future studies.

Research on Influencing Factors of Food Choice and Food Consumption

Nowadays, most consumers are well aware of what makes up a healthy and sustainable diet [...].

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.