Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inclusion of Animal Ethics into the Consumer Value-Attitude System Using the Example of Game Meat Consumption

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Food Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent decades, the demand for ethically acceptable treatment of animals – especially in case of livestock animals – has increased significantly in western societies and can thus have a significant impact on the consumption of animal products. Therefore, it is of great importance to understand the influence and the mode of action of animal-ethical values. In consumer research, the consumer value-attitude system consisting of global values, domain-specific values and attitudes is essential in many studies. However, there have been no attempts so far to operationalise domain-specific values in the context of human-animal relationship empirically. This means that an essential component for the analysis of animal product consumption behaviour is missing. Therefore, the present study includes animal ethics into the consumer value-attitude system as domain-specific values. The aim is, to analyse the influence of animal-ethical values on consumer behaviour concerning animal products. As a concrete example, the consumption of game meat is chosen in this study, because the consumption of game meat is often judged in a contradictory way in terms of animal welfare. This offers the possibility to cover the entire spectrum of societal animal-ethical values. The study is based on a virtually representative online survey with 523 German participants. A structural equation model is used for analysis. It was found, that animal ethics can be perfectly integrated into the value system as domain-specific values. Furthermore, the results show that especially the two extreme positions in animal ethics, original anthropocentrism and abolitionism, have a significant influence on consumer behaviour – in this case on the consumption of game meat. Overall, this first study on domain-specific values in the context of human-animal relationship contributes to a deeper understanding of which animal-ethical values affect the behaviour of consumers. This is of great importance for marketing and consumer theory concerning animal products.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramson, Paul R., and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Elizabeth. 2014. Tierrechte und die verschiedenen Werte nichtmenschlichen Lebens. In Tierethik, ed. Friederike Schmitz, 287–380. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balderjahn, Ingo, Anja Buerke, Manfred Kirchgeorg, Mathias Peyer, Barbara Seegebarth, and Klaus-Peter Wiedmann. 2013. Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers‘ sustainability. Academy of Marketing Science 3: 181–192.

  • Bardi, Anat, and Shalom H. Schwartz. 2003. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (10): 1207–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer, Diana. 2014. SSVS-G. Short Schwartz’s value survey – German. In Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzskalen. Standardisierte Erhebungsinstrumente für Wissenschaft und Praxis, ed. Christoph J. Kemper, Elmar Brähler, and Markus Zenger, 299–302. Berlin: MWV Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, Leonie. 2014. Tierethik. Die verschiedenen Positionen und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Mensch-nichtmenschliches Tier-Beziehung. In Nachhaltige Lebensstile, ed. Lieske Voget-Kleschin, Leonie Bossert and Konrad Ott, 32–57. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.

  • Busch, Gesa, and Achim Spiller. 2018. Pictures in public communications about livestock farming. Animal Frontiers 8 (1): 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, Elizabeth, John G. Lee and Nicole J. Olynk. 2017. Perceptions of hunting and hunters by U.S. respondents. Animals 7 (11).

  • Cembalo, Luigi, Francesco Caracciolo, Alessia Lombardi, Teresa Del Giudice, Klaus G. Grunert, and Giovanni Cicia. 2016. Determinants of individual attitudes toward animal welfare-friendly food products. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2): 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, John, and Deirdre Shaw. 2006. Identifiying fair trade in consumption choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing 14 (4): 353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordts, Anette, Achim Spiller, Sina Nitzko, Harald Grethe, and Nuray Duman. 2013. Imageprobleme beeinflussen den Konsum. Von unbekümmerten Fleischessern, Flexitariern und (Lebensabschnitts-)Vegetariern. FleischWirtschaft 7/2013: 59–63.

  • De Backer, Charlotte J. S., and Liselot Hudders. 2015. Meat morals: Relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Science 99: 68–74.

  • Dembkowski, Sabine, and Stuart Hanmer-Lloyd. 1994. The environmental value-attitude-system model: A framework to guide the understanding of environmentally-conscious consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management 10 (7): 593–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, Thomas, Ann Stirling Frisch, Linda Kalof, Paul C. Stern, and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1995. Values and vegetarianism: An exploratory analysis. Rural Sociology 60 (3): 533–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1998. Attitude structure and function. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, 269–322. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francione, Gary L., and Robert Garner. 2010. The animal rights debate: Abolition or regulation? New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, Ulrich J., and Frauke Pirscher. 2018. Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany. PLoS One 13 (8).

  • Furnham, Adrian F. 1988. Lay theories: Everyday understanding of problems in the social sciences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Golze, Manfred. 2007. Landwirtschaftliche Wildhaltung. Stuttgart: Ulmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, Herwig, and Markus Wild. 2016. Tierethik zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius-Verlag.

  • Hair, Joseph F., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2017. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Second edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

  • Heberlein, Thomas A., and Tomas Willebrand. 1998. Attitudes toward hunting across time and continents: The United States and Sweden. Gibier Faune Sauvage. Game Wildlife 16: 1071–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honkanen, Pirjo, Bas Verplanken, and Svein Ottar Olsen. 2006. Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5: 420–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IfD Allensbach. 2017. Personen in Deutschland, die sich selbst als Veganer einordnen oder als Leute, die weitgehend auf tierische Produkte verzichten, in den Jahren 2015 bis 2017. Statista. Available on: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/445155/umfrage/umfrage-in-deutschland-zu-anzahl-der-veganer/. Accessed 1 October 2018.

  • IfD Allensbach. 2018. Anzahl der Personen in Deutschland, die sich selbst als Vegetarier einordnen oder als Leute, die weitgehend auf Fleisch verzichten*, von 2014–2018 (in Millionen). Statista. Available on: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/173636/umfrage/lebenseinstellung-anzahl-vegetarier/. Accessed 1 October 2018.

  • Janssen, Meike, Claudia Busch, Manika Rödiger, and Ulrich Hamm. 2016. Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite 105: 643–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1870. Immanuel Kants Metaphysik der Sitten, Herausgegeben und erläutert von J.H. von Kirchmann. Berlin: Heimann.

  • Lindeman, Marjaana, and Markku Verkasalo. 2005. Measuring values with the Short Schwartz’s value survey. Journal of Personality Assessment 85 (2): 170–178.

  • Lund, Vonne, Raymond Anthony, and Helena Röcklingsberg. 2004. The ethical contract as a tool in organic animal husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (1): 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, Jared, Matthew B. Ruby, Steve Loughnan, Mischel Luong, Juliana Kulik, Hanne M. Watkins, and Mirra Seigerman. 2015. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite 91: 114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, Tom. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Jan-Michael Becker. 2015. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: Smart PLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com. Accessed 1 October 2019.

  • Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salonen, Arto O., and Tuula T. Helne. 2012. Vegetarian diets: A way towards a sustainable society. Journal of Sustainable Development 5 (6): 10–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Shalom H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50 (4): 19–45.

  • Schwartz, Shalom H., and Anat Bardi. 2001. Value hierarchies across cultures. Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32 (3): 268–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, Richard. 2002. Resistance to change in diet. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 61 (2): 267–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Peter. 2011. Practical ethics. New York: Cambridge university press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spiller, Achim, Matthias Gauly, Alfons Balmann, Jürgen Bauhus, Regina Birner, Wolfgang Bokelmann, Olaf Christen, Steffen Entenmann, Harald Grethe, Ute Knierim, Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, José Matinez, Hiltrud Nieberg, Matin Qaim, Friedhelm Taube, Bernd-Alois Tenhagen, and Peter Weingarten. 2015. Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Nutztierhaltung. Berichte über Landwirtschaft. Sonderheft Nr. 221.

  • Statistisches Bundesamt. 2017. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2017. Deutschland und Internationales.

  • TK. 2017. Anteil der Flexitarier in Deutschland im Jahr 2016 nach Geschlecht. In Iss was, Deutschland?, 11. Statista. Available on https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/657110/umfrage/anteil-der-flexitarier-in-deutschland-nach-geschlecht/. Accessed 1 October 2018.

  • Vermeir, Iris, and Wim Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable food consumption. Exploring the consumer “attitude-behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (2): 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, Iris, and Wim Verbeke. 2008. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics 64 (3): 542–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, Donald E., Jerome E. Scott, and Lawrence M. Lamont. 1977. The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing 41 (2): 44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich, Ramona, Sarah Kühl, Anke Zühlsdorf, and Achim Spiller. 2014. Consumers‘ attitudes toward different dairy housing systems and implications for pasture-raised milk marketing. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 17 (4): 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, Katrin, Hanna Stolz, and Ulrich Hamm. 2013. Promising ethical arguments for product differentiation in the organic food sector. A mixed methods research approach. Appetite 62: 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Prof. Dr. Holmer Steinfath (University of Goettingen, Applied philosophy) for the joint development of the animal-ethical intuitions scale.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing of Food and Agricultural Products, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Sarah Hölker, Marie von Meyer-Höfer & Achim Spiller

Authors
  1. Sarah Hölker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie von Meyer-Höfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Achim Spiller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Hölker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 6 Sample description
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 7 Global values – path coefficients and total effects of the structural equation model
Full size table

Appendix 3

Table 8 Domain-specific values in the context of human-animal relationship (animal ethical intuitions – moral acting) – path coefficients and total effects of the structural equation model
Full size table

Appendix 4

Table 9 Domain-specific values in the context of human-animal relationship (animal ethical intuitions – question of death) – path coefficients and total effects of the structural equation model
Full size table

Appendix 5

Table 10 Attitudes (attitude towards hunting) – path coefficients and total effects of the structural equation model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hölker, S., von Meyer-Höfer, M. & Spiller, A. Inclusion of Animal Ethics into the Consumer Value-Attitude System Using the Example of Game Meat Consumption. Food ethics 3, 53–75 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00036-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00036-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation