Hank Rothgerber

A comparison of attitudes toward meat and animals among strict and semi-vegetarians

A number of studies have documented a phenomenon whereby individuals self-identify as vegetarians but then simultaneously acknowledge that they eat red meat, chicken, and/or fish. Despite being a consistent and fairly robust effect, there has been little attempt to explain these semi-vegetarians, why they would define themselves in a category whose membership criteria they violate, and ways they might differ from strict vegetarians. The present research highlights possible reasons for the discrepancy and focuses on several dimensions that may demarcate semi-from strict vegetarians: belief in human-animal similarity and liking of and disgust toward meat. Survey results indicated that semi-vegetarians (n=57) were less likely to dislike meat and to find meat disgusting than were strict vegetarians (n=157), even accounting for diet motives. There were no differences between the groups in their beliefs about human-animal similarity although semi-vegetarians who consumed a wider range of animal products perceived marginally less human-animal similarity than those who consumed only fish. The results suggest that semi-vegetarians are distinct from strict vegetarians primarily in their evaluation of and disgust toward meat, likely as a cause or consequence of their occasional consumption of animal flesh.

Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, vegetarians, and adherence to diet

As criticisms of factory farming continue to mount, an increasing number of individuals have changed their existing dietary practices. Perhaps the two most important food movements reacting against industrial farming are (1) vegetarianism, the avoidance of animal flesh; and (2) conscientious omnivorism (CO), the consumption of meat or fish only when it satisfies certain ethical standards. While the former group has been well-studied in the social science literature, there have been few, if any, studies specifically examining those who identify themselves as ethical meat eaters. The present research sought to determine if one particular diet was more greatly adhered to by its followers. Results revealed that COs were less likely to perceive their diet as something that they absolutely needed to follow, reported violating their diet more, felt less guilty when doing so, believed less in animal rights, were less disgusted by factory-farmed meat, rated its sensory characteristics more favorably, and were lower in ingroup identification than vegetarians. Mediation analysis demonstrated that differences in the amount of violations and guilt associated with these violations could in part be traced to practical and psychological factors, making it more difficult to follow conscientious omnivorism.

Childhood pet ownership, attachment to pets, and subsequent meat avoidance. The mediating role of empathy toward animals

Researchers studying childhood pet ownership outcomes do not typically focus on measures of adult diet, and those studying the psychology of meat consumption do not normally consider early experiences with companion animals. The present research sought to integrate these two areas by examining relationships between childhood pet ownership, pet attachment, empathy toward animals, belief in human-animal similarity, meat avoidance, and justifications for eating meat. Results from 273 individuals responding to a survey on an internet platform revealed that participants with greater childhood attachment to a pet reported greater meat avoidance as adults, an effect that disappeared when controlling for animal empathy. Greater childhood pet attachment was also related to the use of indirect, apologetic justifications for meat consumption, and this effect too, was mediated by empathy toward animals. Child pet ownership itself predicted views toward animals but not dietary behavior or meat-eating justifications. The authors propose a sequence of events by which greater childhood pet attachment leads to increased meat avoidance, focusing on the central role played by empathy toward animals.

A meaty matter. Pet diet and the vegetarian's dilemma.

The present research examined pet ownership, current pet diet, and guilt associated with pet diet among a fairly large sample of non-meat-eaters (n=515). It specifically focused on the conflict that pits feeding ones pet an animal-based diet that may be perceived as best promoting their well-being with concerns over animal welfare and environmental degradation threatened by such diets, here labeled the vegetarians dilemma. Questionnaire responses indicated that ethically motivated meat abstainers were more likely to own pets and owned more of them than those motivated by health concerns or a combination of ethical and health concerns. Vegans and those resisting meat on ethical grounds were more likely to feed their pet a vegetarian diet and expressed the greatest concerns over feeding their pet an animal-based diet. For vegans and ethical meat abstainers, it is suggested that questions concerning what to feed their pet approaches a tragic tradeoff contrasting two sacred values: protecting the well-being of their pets and protecting the well-being of other animals and the environment. For meat abstainers motivated by health concerns, this constitutes a relatively easy moral problem because the primary concern for such individuals is the health of their pet with less or no regard for other ramifications of the decision, i.e., harming other animals or the environment.

Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals

As criticisms of factory farming continue to mount, an increasing number of individuals have changed their existing dietary practices. Perhaps the two most important options for those reacting against industrial farming are (1) vegetarianism/veganism (i.e., veg*nism), the avoidance of animal flesh/all animal products; and (2) conscientious omnivorism (CO), the consumption of meat or fish only when it satisfies certain ethical standards. While the former group has recently received much attention in the social science literature, studies specifically examining those who identify themselves as COs have been virtually nonexistent. The present research sought to investigate possible underlying attitudinal differences between the two groups. Results indicated that relative to veg*ns, COs evaluated animals less favorably, meat more favorably, and were lower in idealism, misanthropy, and ingroup identification. Mediation analysis demonstrated that differences between COs and veg*ns in the perceived acceptability of killing animals for food were mediated by beliefs about animals and meat. The discussion largely speculates on the causal direction of these effects.

Horizontal Hostility among Non-Meat Eaters

The present study examined intergroup judgments made between four groups of non-meat eaters: health vegetarians; ethical vegetarians; health vegans, and ethical vegans. Consistent with hypotheses based on horizontal hostility and the need to maintain ingroup distinctiveness, ethical vegetarians gave unfavorable evaluations to health vegetarians relative to vegans, especially when the mainstream omnivore group was made salient. Contrary to expectations, vegans gave relatively more favorable evaluations to ethical vegetarians than health vegetarians when mainstream salience was low. This was especially true for vegans who were motivated primarily by ethical concerns. When mainstream salience was high, vegans did not distinguish between the vegetarian subgroups. Results suggest that one’s motives for abstaining from meat often play a larger role in this type of intergroup perceptions than one’s dietary practices.

A Naturalistic Study of Stereotype Threat in Young Female Chess Players

The present research sought to determine whether young female chess players would demonstrate stereotype threat susceptibility in a naturalistic environment. Data from 12 scholastic chess tournaments indicated that females performed worse than expected when playing against a male opponent, achieving 83% of the expected success based on their own and their opponent’s prerating. These effects were strongest for the youngest players in lower elementary school but also present for those in upper elementary. Stereotype threat susceptibility was most pronounced in contexts that could be considered challenging: when playing a strong or moderate opponent and when playing someone in a higher or the same grade. As evidence of disengagement, those most vulnerable to stereotype threat were less likely to continue playing in future chess tournaments. These results were not found in a matched comparison male group suggesting the outcomes were unique to stereotype threat and not universal to young chess players.

Carnivorous Cats, Vegetarian Dogs, and the Resolution of the Vegetarian's Dilemma

ABSTRACT The present research sought to further clarify the vegetarians dilemma, the conflict that pits feeding ones pet an animal-based diet that may be perceived as best promoting their well-being with concerns over animal welfare and environmental degradation threatened by such diets. It specifically examined whether non-meat eaters would distinguish between pet dogs and cats in the percentage of their diet derived from animal products, guilt experienced from such diets, and perceived appropriateness of non-vegetarian diets. Survey responses from 290 vegans and vegetarians indicated that participants fed their pet dogs a diet significantly more vegetarian than they fed their pet cats, and reported experiencing less guilt feeding their cats a diet derived highly from animals than in feeding their dogs such a diet. This lack of guilt largely arose from greater endorsement that vegetarian diets were more inappropriate for cats than dogs. For dogs, then, the vegetarians dilemma was resolved primarily through feeding them diets reduced in meat/fish. For cats, the primary attempt at resolving the dilemma was not behavioral but perceptual in that vegetarian diets were deemed inappropriate. As discussed, this latter strategy was met with mixed success. Overall, the reaction of participants reflected prevailing medical wisdom that vegetarian diets are somewhat acceptable for dogs but problematic for cats.

Attitudes Toward Meat and Plants in Vegetarians

One of the most striking differences between vegetarians and meat eaters would seemingly exist in their cognitive, affective, and behavioral tendencies toward meat and plant-based sources of diet. The present chapter reviews the extant research on such attitudinal differences. Much of the relatively older literature focused on explicit attitudes toward meat, relied on small samples from North America and the United Kingdom, was overly liberal in defining what constitutes a vegetarian, and generally failed to analyze differences between vegetarian subgroups. Nonetheless, it seems clear from this work that vegetarians expressed strong antimeat attitudes. Recent studies have been more sensitive in how they have operationalized vegetarianism and have examined attitudinal differences between vegetarian subgroups. The available evidence suggests that differences in attitudes toward meat may help distinguish between semi- and true vegetarians, between vegans and other vegetarians, and between health and ethical vegetarians. The final section of the review speculates on the role that values, attitudes, and beliefs play in both the decision to adopt a vegetarian diet and in diet maintenance. The author suggests that at least for ethical vegetarians, attitudes about animals are more important than attitudes toward meat in choosing to become a vegetarian. Conversely, attitudes toward meat are expected to become more salient and negative following diet conversion, in part because of cognitive dissonance pressures, moralization, and social identity processes.

“But I Don’t Eat that Much Meat”: Situational Underreporting of Meat Consumption by Women

As arguments become more pronounced that meat consumption harms the environment, public health, and nonhuman animals, meat-eaters should experience increased pressure to justify their behavior. The present research further tested the notion that women employ indirect meat-eating justification strategies relative to men, specifically the claim that as a form of self-justification, women would underreport meat consumption when the context called in to question their dietary behavior. Men and women were randomly assigned to a treatment condition in which they were informed that they would watch a PETA documentary about meat production or to a control condition, and then they completed a questionnaire assessing the amount of various meats they consumed. Women reported eating less meat when threatened by watching the documentary, while male estimates were unchanged across conditions. Furthermore, this effect was sensitive to how much participants believed nonhuman animals shared similar emotions to humans.