Visual cues and food intake: A preregistered replication of Wansink et al. (2005).

Imagine a bowl of soup that never emptied, no matter how many spoonfuls you ate-when and how would you know to stop eating? Satiation can play a role in regulating eating behavior, but research suggests visual cues may be just as important. In a seminal study by Wansink et al. (2005), researchers used self-refilling bowls to assess how visual cues of portion size would influence intake. The study found that participants who unknowingly ate from self-refilling bowls ate more soup than did participants eating from normal (not self-refilling) bowls. Despite consuming 73% more soup, however, participants in the self-refilling condition did not believe they had consumed more soup, nor did they perceive themselves as more satiated than did participants eating from normal bowls. Given recent concerns regarding the validity of research from the Wansink lab, we conducted a preregistered direct replication study of Wansink et al. (2005) with a more highly powered sample (N = 464 vs. 54 in the original study). We found that most results replicated, albeit with half the effect size (d = 0.45 instead of 0.84), with participants in the self-refilling bowl condition eating significantly more soup than those in the control condition. Like the original study, participants in the self-refilling condition did not believe they had consumed any more soup than participants in the control condition. These results suggest that eating can be strongly controlled by visual cues, which can even override satiation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Toward consumer acceptance of cultured meat.

Cultured meat is an alternative protein that offers health and environmental advantages over conventional meat, yet many consumers are resistant to eating cultured meat. In this article, we review reasons for consumer resistance and suggest that proper communication about the production and benefits of cultured meat can improve consumer acceptance.

Plant-based and vegetarian diets: an overview and definition of these dietary patterns.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to present an overview of the definitions of "plant-based and "vegetarian diets" adopted by different organizations worldwide, proposing new standard definitions and discussing the notion of vegetarianism as a restrictive dietary pattern. METHODS: An extensive literature review on the different definitions of vegetarian and plant-based diets was conducted. Definitions of different international vegetarian and vegan organizations were also taken into account. Objective definitions for vegetarian and plant-based diets, as well as for their subcategories, were proposed. Other aspects related to how vegetarian diets are viewed and defined were also discussed. RESULTS: We proposed that a vegetarian diet should be defined as "a dietary pattern that excludes meat, meat-derived foods, and, to different extents, other animal products". This definition would include, among others, ovolactovegetarian and vegan diets. The proposed definition for a plant-based diet was "a dietary pattern in which foods of animal origin are totally or mostly excluded". Other types of diets, such as flexitarian and pescetarian diets, could be considered plant-based. A vegetarian diet should not be considered restrictive. Instead, terms such as alternative or non-conventional could be used to define it and to distinguish it from the conventional diet adopted by most of the Western population. CONCLUSION: This paper was able to elaborate objective definitions of vegetarian and plant-based diets. Standardizing nomenclatures may reduce misinterpretation and confusion in this field of study.

Racialized Perceptions of Vegetarianism: Stereotypical Associations That Undermine Inclusion in Eating Behaviors.

Shifting societal eating patterns toward a vegetarian diet offers promise for improving public health and environmental sustainability. Yet concerns exist about racial disparities in inclusion, as some sentiments suggest that vegetarianism is stereotypically associated with Whiteness. Through four studies (total N = 3,234), we investigated associations U.S. adults hold between race and vegetarianism, along with implications for behavior change and belongingness among Black individuals. Participants, across racial backgrounds, strongly associated vegetarianism with Whiteness, both explicitly and implicitly. A race prime led Black participants to report lower interest in becoming a vegetarian, whereas a prime of race-vegetarianism associations decreased Black participants' feelings of belongingness in the vegetarian community. Exposure to racially inclusive messaging about vegetarianism, meanwhile, increased belongingness among Black participants. These findings provide the first quantitative insights into racial stereotypes about vegetarianism and pose future directions for theory, research, and practice at the intersections of race and eating behavior.

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.

Jab my arm, not my morality: Perceived moral reproach as a barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

BACKGROUND: Vaccinating the public against COVID-19 is critical for pandemic recovery, yet a large proportion of people remain unwilling to get vaccinated. Beyond known factors like perceived vaccine safety or COVID-19 risk, an overlooked sentiment contributing to vaccine hesitancy may rest in moral cognition. Specifically, we theorize that a factor fueling hesitancy is perceived moral reproach: the feeling, among unvaccinated people, that vaccinated people are judging them as immoral. APPROACH: Through a highly powered, preregistered study of unvaccinated U.S. adults (N = 832), we found that greater perceived moral reproach independently predicted stronger refusal to get vaccinated against COVID-19, over and above other relevant variables. Of 18 predictors tested, perceived moral reproach was the fifth strongest-stronger than perceived risk of COVID-19, underlying health conditions status, and trust in scientists. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that considering the intersections of morality and upward social comparison may help to explain vaccine hesitancy.

Morally admirable or moralistically deplorable? A theoretical framework for understanding character judgments of vegan advocates.

Over the last decade, vegan advocates have become a growing minority. By arguing against animal-product consumption and imposing the virtue-loaded call to "go vegan," advocates have posed a direct challenge to the mainstream dietary ideology (termed "carnism") in hopes of positive social change. As a consequence, while vegan advocates may be admired for their morality and commitment, they may also be derogated with moralistic traits such as arrogance and overcommitment. We call this mixed-valence perception the "vegan paradox" and propose a theoretical framework for understanding it. Next, we develop a future research agenda to test and apply our framework, and inquire vegan advocacy for ethical, health, and environmental aims. Using the perspective of the idealistic vegan advocate as a reference point, we discuss the roles of the advocate's motives for change (i.e., the effectiveness of moral persuasion), the advocate's call for change (i.e., radical versus incremental change), the target's moral and carnist identification, and source attributes of the advocate. Lastly, we qualify our framework by highlighting further conceptual and methodological considerations.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

Moral Judgments of COVID-19 Social Distancing Violations: The Roles of Perceived Harm and Impurity.

Can perceptions of impurity uniquely explain moral judgment? Or is moral judgment reducible to perceptions of harm? Whereas some perspectives posit that purity violations may drive moral judgment distinctly from harm violations, other perspectives contend that perceived harm is an essential precursor of moral condemnation. We tested these competing hypotheses through five preregistered experiments (total N = 2,944) investigating U.S. adults' perceptions of social distancing violations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perceived harm was more strongly related to moral judgment than was perceived impurity. Nevertheless, over and above perceived harm, perceived impurity reliably explained unique variance in moral judgment. Effects of perceived harm and impurity were significant among both liberal and conservative participants but were larger among liberals. Results suggest that appraisals of both harm and impurity provide valuable insights into moral cognition. We discuss implications of these findings for dyadic morality, moral foundations, act versus character judgments, and political ideology.

Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism.

Understanding gender differences in meat consumption can help strengthen efforts to improve the sustainability of eating patterns. Compared to women, men eat more meat and are less open to becoming vegetarian. Simply considering between-gender differences, however, may overlook meaningful within-gender heterogeneity in how masculine and feminine identities associate with eating behavior. Distinguishing between specific types of meat is also important, given that some meats (e.g., beef) pose greater challenges to sustainability than do other meats. Through a highly powered, preregistered study (N = 1706), we investigated the predictive value of traditional gender role conformity and gender identity centrality for meat consumption frequency and openness to becoming vegetarian. Greater conformity to traditional gender roles predicted more frequent consumption of beef and chicken and lower openness to vegetarianism among men but offered no predictive value among women. No effects were observed for pork or fish consumption. Among women, greater traditional gender role conformity and gender identity centrality were associated with openness to becoming vegetarian for health reasons. Among men, lower traditional gender role conformity was associated with openness to becoming vegetarian for environmental reasons. These findings suggest that understanding meat consumption calls for greater distinctions between specific types of meat as well as deeper consideration of within-gender heterogeneity.

Can a pandemic make people more socially conservative? Political ideology, gender roles, and the case of COVID-19.

The first months of 2020 rapidly threw people into a period of societal turmoil and pathogen threat with the COVID-19 pandemic. By promoting epistemic and existential motivational processes and activating people's behavioral immune systems, this pandemic may have changed social and political attitudes. The current research specifically asked the following question: As COVID-19 became pronounced in the United States during the pandemic's emergence, did people living there become more socially conservative? We present a repeated-measures study (N = 695) that assessed political ideology, gender role conformity, and gender stereotypes among U.S. adults before (January 25-26, 2020) versus during (March 19-April 2, 2020) the pandemic. During the pandemic, participants reported conforming more strongly to traditional gender roles and believing more strongly in traditional gender stereotypes than they did before the pandemic. Political ideology remained constant over time. These findings suggest that a pandemic may promote the preference for traditional gender roles.

Pro-environmental behavior predicts adherence to plant-based diets.

Plant-based diets are beneficial to human health and environmental sustainability but suffer from low rates of adherence. For example, many people who self-identify as vegetarian sporadically eat meat and eventually give up their vegetarian diet entirely. We theorize that valuing a lifestyle of pro-environmental behaviors can enable people to adhere to a plant-based diet more successfully. In the current survey study, we tested this prediction among plant-based dieters for two outcomes: short-term adherence (for the past three days) and future-intended dietary adherence (intention to continue one's diet for the next 1-2 years). Over and above other dietary, motivational, and demographic factors, pro-environmental behavior positively predicted both short-term and future-intended adherence to plant-based diets. Moreover, pro-environmental behavior mediated links between (a) connectedness to nature and dietary adherence and (b) political ideology and dietary adherence. These findings highlight pro-environmental behavior as a tool for explaining and predicting adherence to plant-based diets.

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.

Taste and health concerns trump anticipated stigma as barriers to vegetarianism.

Meat-eaters report that a number of barriers inhibit them from going vegetarian-for example, perceiving vegetarian diets to be inadequately nutritious, too expensive, unfamiliar, inconvenient, inadequately tasty, and socially stigmatizing. However, research identifying which barriers uniquely predict meat-eaters' openness to going vegetarian is lacking from the current literature. In the present research, accordingly, we conducted a highly powered, preregistered study (N = 579) to identify which barriers uniquely predict openness to going vegetarian. We focused specifically on anticipated vegetarian stigma, given recent qualitative evidence highlighting this attitude as an influential barrier. That is, do meat-eaters resist going vegetarian because they fear that following a vegetarian diet would make them feel stigmatized? Being of younger age, more politically conservative, White, and residing in a rural community predicted greater anticipated vegetarian stigma among meat-eaters. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses converged, however, to suggest that anticipated vegetarian stigma was not a significant predictor of openness to going vegetarian. The strongest predictors of openness were perceived tastiness and perceived healthfulness of vegetarian dieting. These factors-but not anticipated stigma-furthermore explained why men (compared to women) and political conservatives (compared to liberals) were particularly resistant to going vegetarian.

When vegetarians eat meat: Why vegetarians violate their diets and how they feel about doing so.

Many people who self-identify as vegetarian actually eat meat on occasion. Surveys documenting this phenomenon have become abundant over the past two decades, and recent studies have begun to explain why some vegetarians are more likely to violate their diets than others are. However, qualitative research detailing the experiences of vegetarians eating meat is sparse. In the current study, we surveyed 243 vegetarians, 124 (51%) of whom indicated that they have eaten meat since going vegetarian. Of these 124 participants, 108 provided written narratives about their experiences eating meat, which we analyzed. Participants were most likely to eat meat at family gatherings and on special occasions; to eat meat in order to make a social situation flow more smoothly; and to react negatively to having eaten meat. Participants' narratives suggest that vegetarianism may be best conceived as a social identity, beyond just a diet. Some vegetarians reported that they view their diets as flexible guidelines, rather than rigid rules they ought to follow without exception. This study is the first, to our knowledge, to document in detail how vegetarians reflect on their experiences eating meat.

The role of social identity motivation in dietary attitudes and behaviors among vegetarians.

People go vegetarian for a variety of reasons-most commonly motivated by concerns about animals, health, ecology, religion, or some combination of these motivations. Largely missing from existing perspectives on vegetarian motivation, however, is consideration of how construing vegetarianism as a social identity may motivate vegetarian-relevant behavior. We advance that the desire to adopt and affirm a vegetarian identity and to see this identity in a positive light may represent an overlooked, but meaningful, source of motivation for vegetarianism. In the current study (N = 380), we tested the predictive values of animal, health, ecological, religious, and social identity motivations among vegetarians for a variety of attitudes and behaviors. Over and above other motivational factors and the centrality and salience of being a vegetarian, social identity motivation uniquely predicted several relevant outcomes, including the tendency to violate one's vegetarian diet. These findings suggest that the desire to adopt and affirm a vegetarian identity may be a unique and meaningful motivation underlying one's choice to forgo meat.

The psychology of vegetarianism: Recent advances and future directions.

Whereas vegetarianism has long garnered attention from nutritional science and philosophy, psychological research exploring this eating behavior has emerged only in the past few decades. Six years ago, Ruby (2012) reviewed the extant literature on the psychology of vegetarianism, showcasing its promise as "a blossoming field of study." In the time since, this line of research truly has blossomed, as subsequent work has addressed prior knowledge gaps and initiated new lines of inquiry. While evidence on previously studied topics of dietary motivation, moral values, gender, differences between vegetarians and vegans, barriers to dietary change, and disordered eating has continued to expand, new lines of research on identity, social experiences, flexitarianism, culture, and prospective vegetarianism have emerged. Recent psychometric advancements, moreover, have constructed useful measures to assess relevant constructs. The current review synthesizes this amalgam of research, identifying emergent themes and highlighting promising directions for future inquiry.

Development and validation of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire: Assessing self-perceptions of animal-product consumption.

In navigating decisions about what to eat, people both construct and rely on a food-choice identity. Yet food choice is multifaceted, as people apply different dietary schemas to different types of food, engaging various domains of food-choice identity. In this paper, we focus on dietarian identity: one's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with respect to consuming or eschewing animal products (here, pertaining to red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy). First, we draw upon Rosenfeld and Burrow's (2017a) Unified Model of Vegetarian Identity in order to develop a Dietarian Identity Questionnaire (DIQ). Second, we validate the DIQ's factor structure, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and replicability. Lastly, we highlight directions for the use of the DIQ in future research.

Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the motivations of plant-based dieters.

Much recent research has explored vegetarians' dietary motivations, recurrently highlighting the significant influence they exert on how people view themselves and others. For vegetarians and other plant-based dieters, dietary motivations have been theorized to be a central aspect of identity. Yet not all plant-based dieters are motivated to follow their diets; rather, some face aversions and constraints. In this paper, we propose that motivations, aversions, and constraints constitute three distinct reasons for consuming a plant-based diet. After conceptually distinguishing motivations from aversions and constraints, we critically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of two conceptual frameworks that exist for studying these motivations systematically: the ethical-health framework and the Unified Model of Vegetarian Identity (UMVI) motivational orientations framework. Importantly, these frameworks serve different purposes, and their suitability often depends on the research question at hand. Particularly given an increasing prevalence of plant-based dieting, cultivating a more holistic understanding of these two frameworks is necessary for advancing this discipline. Directions for future research are discussed.

The unified model of vegetarian identity: A conceptual framework for understanding plant-based food choices.

By departing from social norms regarding food behaviors, vegetarians acquire membership in a distinct social group and can develop a salient vegetarian identity. However, vegetarian identities are diverse, multidimensional, and unique to each individual. Much research has identified fundamental psychological aspects of vegetarianism, and an identity framework that unifies these findings into common constructs and conceptually defines variables is needed. Integrating psychological theories of identity with research on food choices and vegetarianism, this paper proposes a conceptual model for studying vegetarianism: The Unified Model of Vegetarian Identity (UMVI). The UMVI encompasses ten dimensions-organized into three levels (contextual, internalized, and externalized)-that capture the role of vegetarianism in an individual's self-concept. Contextual dimensions situate vegetarianism within contexts; internalized dimensions outline self-evaluations; and externalized dimensions describe enactments of identity through behavior. Together, these dimensions form a coherent vegetarian identity, characterizing one's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors regarding being vegetarian. By unifying dimensions that capture psychological constructs universally, the UMVI can prevent discrepancies in operationalization, capture the inherent diversity of vegetarian identities, and enable future research to generate greater insight into how people understand themselves and their food choices.