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).

Why children moralise harm to animals but not meat.

Many children care about animals yet are accepting of meat consumption. This may reflect a disconnect between children's meat eating, food-systems knowledge, and their moral evaluations. A theoretical framework is proposed for understanding the developmental trajectory of this disconnection. We discuss its components and the implications for dietary interventions.

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.

Minimal criteria for an impurity domain of morality.

There is much disagreement about the claim that impurity constitutes a moral domain. We propose a set of minimal criteria that could help re-orient the field to a direction of consensus in the assessment of this claim. We illustrate how the criteria apply to aspects of the current literature.

'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.

Unpalatable truths: Commitment to eating meat is associated with strategic ignorance of food-animal minds.

Animal minds are of central importance to debates about their rights and welfare. Remaining ignorant of evidence that animals have minds is therefore likely to facilitate their mistreatment. Studying samples of adults and students from the UK and US we found that, consistent with motivational perspectives on meat consumption, those who were more (vs. less) committed to eating meat were more motivated to avoid exposure to information about food-animals' sentience (Studies 1), showed less interest in exposure to articles about intelligent food animals (Studies 2a and 2b), and were quicker to terminate exposure to internet pop-ups containing information about food-animals' minds (Studies 3a and 3b). At the same time, those who were more (vs. less) committed to eating meat approached information about companion-animals' minds (Studies 2a-3b) and unintelligent food animals (Studies 2a and 2b) in largely the same ways. The findings demonstrate that, within the UK and US, the desire to eat meat is associated with strategies to avoid information that is likely to challenge meat consumption.

Monitoring a meat-free pledge with smartphones: An experimental study.

Pledges are a popular strategy to encourage meat reduction, though experimental studies of their efficacy are lacking. Three-hundred and twenty-five participants from three different countries (UK, Germany, Australia) were randomly assigned to pledge 28 days meat-free or not, and their behavior was tracked via smartphones. Participants answered daily surveys regarding their eating behavior, meat cravings, and shared photos of their meals. Baseline data was collected prior to the pledge, after the 28 days, and one-month post-intervention. Participants assigned to the pledge condition ate less meat across the 28 days, compared to control participants. Meat reductions, observed at outtake, did not endure one-month post-intervention. Overall, German participants ate the least amount of meat, and showed the sharpest decrease in consumption when pledging. Meat cravings tended to increase among pledgers, relative to control participants. Pledgers who reported high starting intentions and conflict about meat tended to eat less meat and reported fewer cravings. All participants reported reduced meat-eating justifications one-month post-intervention. These findings provide experimental evidence that pledges can encourage meat consumers to reduce their intake, though additional mechanisms are needed to sustain commitments.

An appetite for meat? Disentangling the influence of animal resemblance and familiarity.

Consumers in modern society are often less exposed to meat that resembles the animal, and thus are less familiar with it, making it difficult to disentangle the influence of these two inputs (familiarity vs. animal resemblance) on meat appetite. Across three studies, we sought to systematically disentangle the impact of familiarity and animal resemblance on meat appetite using inductive (Study 1) and experimental (Studies 2a-2b) approaches. In Study 1 (N = 229) we separated familiarity and animal resemblance into orthogonal dimensions using 28 meat products. Participants provided free associations and rated the products on familiarity, animal resemblance, and appetitive appeal. In Studies 2a and 2b (N = 514) we experimentally examined the independent contributions of familiarity and animal resemblance, using stimuli normed in Study 1. We hypothesized that animal resemblance has its most pronounced influence on appetite when meat products are unfamiliar. Participants' free associations and ratings of the products were in line with this conditional hypothesis (Study1), as were the experimental manipulations of familiarity and animal resemblance (Studies 2a-2b), confirmed by a mini meta-analysis. In all three studies, familiarity had a pervasive influence on appetite. These findings suggest that product familiarity can attenuate the psychological impact that animal reminders have on appetite. Thus, interventions aimed at eliciting animal associations with meat should consider the familiarity of the products employed.

Folk Moral Objectivism: The Case of Harmful Actions.

It is controversial whether ordinary people regard beliefs about the wrongness of harmful actions as objectively correct. Our deflationary hypothesis, consistent with much of the evidence, is that people are objectivists about harmful actions that are perceived to involve injustice: when two parties disagree about whether such an action is wrong, people think that only one party is correct (the party believing that the action is wrong). However, Sarkissian and colleagues claimed that this evidence is misleading, showing that when the two disagreeing parties are from radically different cultures or species, people tend to think that both parties are correct (a non-objectivist position). We argue that Sarkissian et al.'s studies have some methodological limitations. In particular, participants may have assumed that the exotic or alien party misunderstood the harmful action, and this assumption, rather than a genuinely non-objectivist stance, may have contributed to the increase in non-objectivist responses. Study 1 replicated Sarkissian et al.'s results with additional follow-up measures probing participants' assumptions about how the exotic or alien party understood the harmful action, which supported our suspicion that their results are inconclusive and therefore do not constitute reliable evidence against the deflationary hypothesis. Studies 2 and 3 modified Sarkissian et al.'s design to provide a clear-cut and reliable test of the deflationary hypothesis. In Study 2, we addressed potential issues with their design, including those concerning participants' assumptions about how the exotic or alien party understood the harmful action. In Study 3, we manipulated the alien party's capacity to understand the harmful action. With these changes to the design, high rates of objectivism emerged, consistent with the deflationary hypothesis. Studies 4a and 4b targeted the deflationary hypothesis more precisely by manipulating perceptions of injustice to see the effect on objectivist responding and by probing the more specific notion of objectivism entailed by our hypothesis. The results fully supported the deflationary hypothesis.

How children and adults value different animal lives.

The current study modeled the attributions underlying moral concern for animals during childhood and adulthood with the aim of better understanding how concern for animals develops. In total, 241 children aged 6-10 years and 152 adults appraised a range of animals on seven appraisal dimensions and, subsequently rank-ordered which animals they would save in a medicine allocation task. Structural equation modeling revealed several developmental continuities and discontinuities in the dimensions children and adults used to evaluate animal lives. Whereas participants of all ages valued animals based on their aesthetic qualities, intelligence, and perceived similarity to humans, younger children valued animal aesthetics most of all. They also valued benevolence in animals more than older children and adults. Only older children and adults comprehended and valued animals on the basis of their utility as food for humans. Furthermore, neither younger nor older children grasped the role of sentience in the valuation of animals. Only adults factored sentience into their view of what makes animals similar to humans and worthy of moral concern. The results highlight the ways in which moral concern for animals changes across development in several important respects, reflecting an increasingly human-centric orientation.

The role of meat appetite in willfully disregarding factory farming as a pandemic catalyst risk.

Most infectious diseases are zoonotic, "jumping" from animals to humans, with COVID-19 no exception. Although many zoonotic transmissions occur on industrial-scale factory farms, public discussions mainly blame wild animal ("wet") markets or focus on reactionary solutions, posing a psychological obstacle to preventing future pandemics. In two pre-registered studies early in the 2020 pandemic, we examined whether British adults fail to recognize factory farming in causing epidemics, and whether such dismissal represents motivated cognition. Cross-sectional data (Study 1, N = 302) confirmed that people blame factory farms and global meat consumption less than wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness, especially among meat-committed persons. Experimental exposure (Study 2, N = 194) to information blaming factory farms (vs. wild animal markets) produced lower endorsement of preventive solutions than of reactionary solutions, which was exacerbated among meat-committed persons. These findings suggest that people, especially those highly committed to eating meat, willfully disregard solutions targeting animal agriculture and global meat consumption to prevent future pandemics precisely because such solutions implicate their dietary habits. Better understanding motivated beliefs about the causes of and solutions to pandemics is critical for developing interventions.

Development and validation of the motivations to Eat Meat Inventory.

Previous research suggests that there are four primary motives to eat meat: that it is natural, normal, necessary, or nice. However, these motives have not yet been distinguished empirically; the lack of a measurement tool that can distinguish these motives has contributed to a literature that focuses primarily on meat-eating motivation or justification in general, as opposed to differences between these motives. We developed a 19-item measure, the Motivations to Eat Meat Inventory (MEMI), that fit a four-factor model in three samples (total N = 2175), including one with a large number of vegetarians. Using this instrument, we generated psychological profiles associated with each motive, and showed that the structure and correlates of meat-eating motives is highly similar for omnivores and vegetarians. This research provides a valuable tool for studying variation in psychological motives for eating meat among both meat-eaters and vegetarians and provides an initial framework for understanding the underpinnings of these different motivations.

Butchers' and deli workers' psychological adaptation to meat.

In many societies today, the average consumer is largely removed from the earlier stages of meat production wherein meat, in many ways, resembles an animal. The present study examined the emotional and psychological consequences of recurrent meat handling. Fifty-six individuals with commercial experience handling meat (butchers and deli workers) were contrasted with 103 individuals without such experience. Participants were presented images of meat from 3 animals-cows, sheep, and fish-that were experimentally manipulated in their degree of animal resemblance. Participants rated the images on measures of disgust, empathy for the animal, and meat-animal association. Broader beliefs and attitudes about meat and animals were also assessed. We used mixed-effect linear modeling to examine the role of time spent handling meat in participants' psychological adaptation to it. We observed significant reductions in disgust, empathy, and meat-animal association within the first year or 2 of meat handling for all types of meat. Time spent handling meat also predicted the degree to which a person defended and rationalized meat consumption and production, independent of a participant's gender and age. The findings have implications for understanding how people adapt to potentially aversive contexts such as handling animal parts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing.

Understanding consumer perceptions of meat alternatives is key to facilitating a shift toward more sustainable food consumption. Importantly, these perceptions may vary according to the characteristics of the consumer (e.g., preferences, motivations), the product (e.g., sensory attributes) and the encounter (e.g., how the meat alternative is presented/framed). Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to examine consumer perceptions of five proposed alternatives to meat: legumes, tofu, seitan, lab-grown meat, and insects. In Study 1, 138 participants provided free associations with regards to conventional animal proteins (e.g., red/white meat, fish) and the five alternatives. Three profiles of consumers were identified: (1) hedonically motivated meat eaters uninterested in meat substitutes; (2) health-oriented meat eaters open to some meat substitutes; and (3) ethically conscious meat avoiders positively oriented to most meat alternatives. In Study 2, the presentation of the product was experimentally manipulated: 285 participants evaluated the same five meat alternatives along several dimensions (e.g., edibility, healthiness), either when framed as an individual product or as part of a larger meal. Overall, most meat alternatives benefited from a meal framing, with the notable exception of legumes, which benefited from an individual framing, and insects which were evaluated quite negatively regardless of framing. The present findings suggest that there is not a single way to frame all meat alternatives that will improve their appeal to all consumers.

Folk beliefs about the relationships anger and disgust have with moral disapproval.

Theories that view emotions as being related in some way to moral judgments suggest that condemning moral emotions should, at a minimum, be understood by laypeople to coincide with judgments of moral disapproval. Seven studies (total N = 826) tested the extent to which anger and disgust align with this criterion. We observed that while anger is understood to be strongly related to moral disapproval of people's actions and character, disgust is not (Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 3), and that, in contexts where disgust expressions are thought to coincide somewhat with moral disapproval, part of the reason is that the expression is perceived as anger (Study 4). Expressions of sadness are also construed as communicating anger in such contexts (Study 5). We discuss our findings in terms of rethinking how we should consider disgust as a moral emotion.

Animal Images Database: Validation of 120 Images for Human-Animal Studies.

There has been increasing interest in the study of human-animal relations. This contrasts with the lack of normative resources and materials for research purposes. We present subjective norms for a set of 120 open-source colour images of animals spanning a total of 12 biological categories (e.g., mammals, insects, reptiles, arachnids). Participants (N = 509, 55.2% female, MAge = 28.05, SD = 9.84) were asked to evaluate a randomly selected sub-set of 12 animals on valence, arousal, familiarity, cuteness, dangerousness, edibility, similarity to humans, capacity to think, capacity to feel, acceptability to kill for human consumption and feelings of care and protection. Animal evaluations were affected by individual characteristics of the perceiver, particularly gender, diet and companion animal ownership. Moral attitudes towards animals were predominantly predicted by ratings of cuteness, edibility, capacity to feel and familiarity. The Animal Images Database (Animal.ID) is the largest open-source database of rated images of animals; the stimuli set and item-level data are freely available online.

When It's Bad to Be Friendly and Smart: The Desirability of Sociability and Competence Depends on Morality.

Morality, sociability, and competence are distinct dimensions in person perception. We argue that a person's morality informs us about their likely intentions, whereas their competence and sociability inform us about the likelihood that they will fulfill those intentions. Accordingly, we hypothesized that whereas morality would be considered unconditionally positive, sociability and competence would be highly positive only in moral others, and would be less positive in immoral others. Using exploratory factor analyses, Studies 1a and 1b distinguished evaluations of morality and sociability. Studies 2 to 5 then showed that sociability and competence are evaluated positively contingent on morality-Study 2 demonstrated this phenomenon, while the remaining studies explained it (Study 3), generalized it (Studies 3-5), and ruled out an alternative explanation for it (Study 5). Study 6 showed that the positivity of morality traits is independent of other morality traits. These results support a functionalist account of these dimensions of person perception.