Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why some choose the vegetarian option: Are all ethical motivations the same?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many studies have demonstrated psychological differences between ethically motivated and health-motivated vegetarians. Adopting an ethical-health dichotomy in studying dietary motivation, however, may overlook meaningful variance between vegetarians motivated by different types of ethical concerns—namely, those related to animals and the environment. Through two preregistered studies, I compared dietary goal orientations, disgust toward meat, and dietary adherence between vegetarians motivated by animals, health, and the environment. In Study 1 (N = 361), I found that environmentally motivated vegetarians resembled animal-motivated vegetarians in construing their diets as a means of achieving more prosocial and moral, but less personal, goals than did health-motivated vegetarians. In Study 2 (N = 562), however, I found that environmentally motivated vegetarians resembled health-motivated vegetarians in reporting less disgust toward meat and lower dietary adherence than did animal-motivated vegetarians. Stronger feelings of disgust toward meat explained why animal-motivated vegetarians exhibited the most stringent dietary adherence. Distinguishing between various types of ethical motivation may reveal more nuanced insights into eating behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is a crowd-sourced labor pool that is often used for research data collection. Investigators can upload a survey onto MTurk’s website, along with a description of the survey (e.g., how long it will take to complete, what tasks participants will be asked to do, and how much money participants will be compensated) for prospective participants to view. Participants can complete surveys of their choosing and receive payments through MTurk’s platform after submitting a completed survey.

References

  • Arora, A. S., Bradford, S., Arora, A., & Gavino, R. (2017). Promoting vegetarianism through moralization and knowledge calibration. Journal of Promotion Management, 23, 889–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, G., & Pfister, H. R. (2005). Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 461–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caviola, L., Everett, J. A., & Faber, N. S. (2018). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Frisch, A. S., Kalof, L., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values and vegetarianism: An exploratory analysis. Rural Sociology, 60, 533–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyett, P. A., Sabaté, J., Haddad, E., Rajaram, S., & Shavlik, D. (2013). Vegan lifestyle behaviors. An exploration of congruence with health-related beliefs and assessed health indices. Appetite, 67, 119–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egolf, A., Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2018). How people’s food disgust sensitivity shapes their eating and food behaviour. Appetite, 127, 28–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fessler, D. M., Arguello, A. P., Mekdara, J. M., & Macias, R. (2003). Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: A test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism. Appetite, 41, 31–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, N., & Ward, K. J. (2008). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations. Appetite, 50, 422–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Francione, G. L. (1995). Animal rights and animal welfare. Rutgers L. Rev., 48, 397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenebaum, J. (2012). Veganism, identity and the quest for authenticity. Food, Culture & Society, 15, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention and Treatment, 3, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M. (2006). Eating death: Vegetarians, meat and violence. Food, Culture & Society, 9, 155–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverstock, K., & Forgays, D. K. (2012). To eat or not to eat. A comparison of current and former animal product limiters. Appetite, 58, 1030–1036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, H. (2014). 84% of vegetarians and vegans return to meat. Why? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-meat-why.

  • Hoffman, S. R., Stallings, S. F., Bessinger, R. C., & Brooks, G. T. (2013). Differences between health and ethical vegetarians. Strength of conviction, nutrition knowledge, dietary restriction, and duration of adherence. Appetite, 65, 139–144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9, 435–439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Izmirli, S., & Phillips, C. J. (2011). The relationship between student consumption of animal products and attitudes to animals in Europe and Asia. British Food Journal, 113, 436–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabs, J., Devine, C. M., & Sobal, J. (1998). Model of the process of adopting vegetarian diets: Health vegetarians and ethical vegetarians. Journal of Nutrition Education, 30, 196–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabs, J., Sobal, J., & Devine, C. M. (2000). Managing vegetarianism: Identities, norms and interactions. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 39, 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M., & Hamm, U. (2016). Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643–651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunst, J. R., & Haugestad, C. A. P. (2018). The effects of dissociation on willingness to eat meat are moderated by exposure to unprocessed meat: A cross-cultural demonstration. Appetite, 120, 356–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunst, J. R., & Hohle, S. M. (2016). Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite, 105, 758–774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, M., & Väänänen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite, 34, 55–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet, 370, 1253–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, J., Karim, L., Choudry, A., & Brown, K. (2006). Understanding successful behaviour change: The role of intentions, attitudes to the target and motivations and the example of diet. Health Education Research, 22, 397–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radnitz, C., Beezhold, B., & DiMatteo, J. (2015). Investigation of lifestyle choices of individuals following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons. Appetite, 90, 31–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, D. L. (2018). The psychology of vegetarianism: Recent advances and future directions. Appetite, 131, 125–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, D. L. (2019). A comparison of dietarian identity profiles between vegetarians and vegans. Food Quality and Preference, 72, 40–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017a). The unified model of vegetarian identity: A conceptual framework for understanding plant-based food choices. Appetite, 112, 78–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017b). Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the motivations of plant-based dieters. Appetite, 116, 456–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2018). Development and validation of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire: Assessing self-perceptions of animal-product consumption. Appetite, 127, 182–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, H. (2013). A meaty matter. Pet diet and the vegetarian’s dilemma. Appetite, 68, 76–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, H. (2014a). A comparison of attitudes toward meat and animals among strict and semi-vegetarians. Appetite, 72, 98–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, H. (2014b). Evaluation of ingroup disloyalty within a multigroup context. Social Psychology, 45, 382–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, H. (2015). Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite, 84, 196–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, H. (2017). Attitudes toward meat and plants in vegetarians. In F. Mariotti (Ed.), Vegetarian and plant-based diets in health and disease prevention (pp. 11–35). London: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94, 23–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58, 141–150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2012). Too close to home. Factors predicting meat avoidance. Appetite, 59, 47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stiles, B. (1998). Vegetarianism: Identity and experiences as factors in food selection. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 26, 213–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timko, C. A., Hormes, J. M., & Chubski, J. (2012). Will the real vegetarian please stand up? An investigation of dietary restraint and eating disorder symptoms in vegetarians versus non-vegetarians. Appetite, 58, 982–990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • White, R. F., Seymour, J., & Frank, E. (1999). Vegetarianism among US women physicians. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99, 595–598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willetts, A. (1997). Bacon sandwiches got the better of me: Meat eating and vegetarianism in South East London. In P. Caplan (Ed.), Food, health and identity (pp. 111–130). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. S., Weatherall, A., & Butler, C. (2004). A rhetorical approach to discussions about health and vegetarianism. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 567–581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Daniel L. Rosenfeld

Authors
  1. Daniel L. Rosenfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel L. Rosenfeld.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this research.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenfeld, D.L. Why some choose the vegetarian option: Are all ethical motivations the same?. Motiv Emot 43, 400–411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9747-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9747-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation