Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

The psychology of vegetarianism: Recent advances and future directions T

Daniel L. Rosenfeld
Cornell University, Department of Human Development, Cornell University Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Whereas vegetarianism has long garnered attention from nutritional science and philosophy, psychological re-
Vegetarian search exploring this eating behavior has emerged only in the past few decades. Six years ago, Ruby (2012)
Vegan reviewed the extant literature on the psychology of vegetarianism, showcasing its promise as “a blossoming field
Plant-based of study.” In the time since, this line of research truly has blossomed, as subsequent work has addressed prior
Food choice
knowledge gaps and initiated new lines of inquiry. While evidence on previously studied topics of dietary
Meat
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 re-
search, identifying emergent themes and highlighting promising directions for future inquiry.

1. Introduction avoiding meat because it disgusts them. Much research classifying ve-
getarians as motivated by either ethics or health has revealed sig-
Whereas vegetarianism has long garnered attention from nutritional nificant differences between the two groups, such that ethically moti-
science and philosophy, psychological research exploring this eating vated vegetarians are more likely to have adopted their diets abruptly,
behavior has emerged only in the past few decades. This line of work to be disgusted by meat, and to avoid a wider range of animal products,
has centered on addressing the following question: How do people's to name a few.
attitudes, behaviors, and self-perceptions inform—and become in- Whereas omnivores exhibit more positive attitudes toward meat
formed by—the decision to follow a vegetarian diet? In the current than do vegetarians, an increasing number of omnivores across a range
review, I synthesize recent advances and highlight future directions that of nations are reducing their meat intakes for reasons similar to those
can illuminate this intricate matter. cited by vegetarians (Ruby, 2012). Still, differences exist between ve-
Six years ago, Ruby (2012) reviewed the extant literature on the getarians' and omnivores’ values and worldviews, with vegetarians
psychology of vegetarianism, showcasing its promise as “a blossoming being more politically liberal, empathic, and opposed to capital pun-
field of study” (p. 141). Ruby's review centered on seven main topics: ishment (Ruby, 2012). Further differences exist between vegetarians
dietary variations of vegetarianism; vegetarians' motivations; attitudes and vegans, as vegans exhibit stronger beliefs about meat consumption,
toward meat; vegetarians' and omnivores' values and worldviews; dif- animal welfare, and the environment.
ferences between vegetarians' and omnivores' well-beings; perceptions Lastly, Ruby (2012) reviewed an extensive body of literature on
of vegetarians and omnivores; and links between gender, vegetar- vegetarianism and gender—namely, studies highlighting an association
ianism, and meat consumption. This review highlighted that vegetar- between meat and masculinity. Compared to women, men view meat as
ianism is often construed subjectively, as no universal definition exists a more essential part of a proper diet, eat more meat, and express fewer
for vegetarian. Adding to this, research has recurrently found, para- concerns about the effects of meat consumption on animals and the
doxically, that many people who label themselves vegetarian actually environment. These findings make it unsurprising that women are more
eat meat on occasion and that vegetarians vary substantially in terms of likely to be vegetarian than are men.
which animal products they will or will not eat. In the time since Ruby (2012), a rapidly expanding body of litera-
Just as definitions of vegetarianism vary, so too do the motivations ture has drawn upon this review and related works in order to address
people have for following a vegetarian diet. Most common among ve- prior knowledge gaps, to reconceptualize phenomena, and to construct
getarians’ motivations include concerns about animals, health, the en- useful measures for assessing relevant constructs. At the same time,
vironment, and religion (Ruby, 2012). Many vegetarians also report recent research has headed down unforeseen paths, as scholars have

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.011
Received 25 June 2018; Received in revised form 11 September 2018; Accepted 11 September 2018
Available online 15 September 2018
0195-6663/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

initiated new lines of inquiry that conceive vegetarianism with greater warrant further testing. Likewise, further research is needed to identify
nuance and pay greater attention to its psychosocial implications. On the extents to which greater emphases on harm/care, animal welfare,
what topics has the preponderance of this research focused? What no- and liberal values are causal of and/or caused by the decision to eschew
table findings have surfaced? In which areas is research still lacking? In meat.
this paper, I review the social scientific literature on vegetarianism in
developed Western nations since Ruby (2012) in order to identify 3.1. Future directions
emergent themes and to highlight promising directions for future re-
search. Vegetarianism exhibits evident links to moral values, which may
directly play into the motivations people have for eschewing animal
2. Methodological overview of the current review products. While much is known about how these moral values may
shape people's eating behaviors, less is known about how people might
Included in the current review is the literature on vegetarianism revise their moral values after altering their dietary habits, as self-
published since July 2011 when the initial draft of Ruby (2012) was perception theory would suggest can occur (Bem, 1972). It could be
submitted for publication. As evidence on previously studied topics particularly interesting to examine bidirectional influences between
related to vegetarianism has continued to expand, new lines of research moral values and food choice among prospective, current, and former
on have also emerged. After reviewing recent advancements in research vegetarians through both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. Ad-
on moral values, dietary motivation, prospective vegetarianism, social ditional research is also needed to test the extents to which veganism
implications, variants of vegetarianism, and mental health, I call at- may associate with certain values to greater extents than do other forms
tention to understudied topics that warrant further consideration. I note of vegetarianism. Moreover, as Ruby (2012) suggests, future research
that, unless otherwise specified, the use of vegetarianism refers to both should consider how different political-ideology norms across various
vegetarianism and veganism, inclusively. geographical and cultural regions may inform people's perceptions of
vegetarians and attitudes toward meat reduction.
3. Moral values
4. Motivations
Adding to a large body of prior work (see Ruby, 2012), a con-
siderable amount of recent research has examined relationships be- A great amount of recent literature has focused on what motivates
tween moral values and vegetarianism. One topic within this domain people to follow a vegetarian diet. Paralleling Ruby's (2012) review of
includes political orientation. Compared to conservatives, liberals tend earlier work, ethical and health motivations emerged as the two most
to view vegetarianism more positively (Črnič, 2013). Moreover, greater common types of motivations among vegetarians. Specifically, the two
endorsement of universalism predicts more positive attitude toward most common types of ethical motivation, in order of prevalence, in-
reducing, and less frequent consumption of, meat, whereas ascribing clude concern for animals (i.e., animal rights or welfare) and concern
greater value to power predicts less positive attitude toward reducing, for the environment (Dyett, Sabaté, Haddad, Rajaram, & Shavlik, 2013;
and more frequent consumption of, meat (Hayley, Zinkiewicz, & Hoffman, Stallings, Bessinger, & Brooks, 2013; Janssen, Busch, Rödiger,
Hardiman, 2015). Links between diet and political orientation may be & Hamm, 2016; Radnitz, Beezhold, & DiMatteo, 2015; Timko, Hormes,
particularly strong for veganism, compared to other forms of vegetar- & Chubski, 2012; Torti, 2017; Wrenn, 2017). The two most common
ianism, as Wrenn (2017) found that vegans were approximately 15 health motivations are general wellness promotion and weight main-
times more likely to be politically liberal than conservative. Collec- tenance (Cramer et al., 2017; Hoffman et al., 2013; Radnitz et al., 2015;
tively, these studies support prior findings (e.g., White, Seymour, & Timko et al., 2012; Torti, 2017). Whereas some studies have found
Frank, 1999) documenting links between liberal values and vegetar- health motivation to be the most common motivation among vegetar-
ianism. ians (e.g., Dyett et al., 2013; Izmirli & Phillips, 2011; Rosenfeld, 2018c),
Right-wing ideology (including right-wing authoritarianism [RWA], the majority of studies suggest that a greater proportion of vegetarians
social dominance orientation [SDO], and conservatism) may in part report ethical, rather than health, motivations (e.g., Hoffman et al.,
explain beliefs about meat consumption. For one, omnivores exhibit not 2013; Janssen et al., 2016; Kerschke-Risch, 2015; Radnitz et al., 2015;
only greater RWA and SDO (Veser, Taylor, & Singer, 2015) but also Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012; Rothgerber, 2014a; Timko et al.,
greater conservatism (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018) than do vegetarians. 2012). Overall, recent research converges to suggest that the three most
Moreover, greater conservatism predicts a greater likelihood of re- common motivations among vegetarians in developed Western nations
turning to eating meat after having been vegetarian, an effect largely are concerns about animals, health, and the environment.
explained by lower feelings of social support and weaker social justice The motivations people have for following a vegetarian diet are
motivations (i.e., concerns about animals, the environment, and world powerful predictors of their attitudes and behaviors. Compared to
hunger) for initially eschewing meat among more conservative in- health-motivated vegetarians, ethically motivated vegetarians exhibit
dividuals (Hodson & Earle, 2018). In addition to exemplifying more stronger convictions about the role of vegetarianism in their lives and
omnivorous eating behavior, people who endorse right-wing ideology exclude a greater number of animal products from their diets (Hoffman
also tend to exhibit more negative attitudes toward vegetarians (Judge et al., 2013). Some evidence also suggests that, relative to health mo-
& Wilson, 2018; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). tivation, ethical motivation may predict more successful maintenance
Moral attitudes and behaviors beyond political orientation differ of vegetarianism over time (Hoffman et al., 2013; Radnitz et al., 2015).
between vegetarians and omnivores as well. Compared to omnivores, Yet people's reasons for following a vegetarian diet often change over
vegetarians are more concerned about animal welfare, donate more to time (Beardsworth & Keil, 1992; Fox & Ward, 2008a; Stiles, 1998). As
animal-oriented charities, and emphasize concerns about the moral such, future research is needed to clarify ways in which initial and
foundation harm/care more strongly (De Backer & Hudders, 2015). current motivations may predict dietary duration of adherence diver-
Additionally, some research suggests that interacting with a pet during gently.
childhood may shape one's moral values and eating behaviors later in Whether or not one chooses vegetarianism for ethical reasons may
life. Namely, children who own a variety of pets or become emotionally shape how one attributes mind to animals, evaluates meat, and adheres
attached to a pet tend to eat less meat in adulthood, an effect that may to one's diet. Compared to health-motivated vegetarians, ethically
be attributed to their greater feelings of empathy toward animals and motivated vegetarians believe less strongly in the human uniqueness of
greater moral opposition to animal exploitation (Heiss & Hormes, 2018; primary emotions, ascribe greater primary and secondary emotions to
Rothgerber & Mican, 2014). These causal mechanisms, however, pigs, and ascribe greater primary emotions to dogs (Rothgerber,

126
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

2014a). Ethically motivated vegetarians also are more likely to own threat to the dominant omnivorous group (MacInnis & Hodson, 2017).
pets, own a greater number of pets, and feed their pets less meat than do Evidence also exist to suggest that upward moral comparison, whereby
health-motivated vegetarians (Rothgerber, 2013). Of those vegetarians considering morally motivated others can threaten one's own self-
who do feed their pets a predominantly meat-based diet, ethically image, may play a role on these evaluations as well (Minson & Monin,
motivated vegetarians report feeling guiltier about their pet's diet than 2012; Monin, 2007). Nevertheless, although omnivores tend to view
do health-motivated vegetarians, an effect partially explained by ethi- vegetarians more negatively than they view their dietary in-group, re-
cally motivated vegetarians' lower belief in the human uniqueness of cent evidence supports prior findings (Ruby, 2012) suggesting that
emotions (Rothgerber, 2013). omnivores' absolute impressions of vegetarians are generally positive
Perceptions of animals may relate to vegetarians' likelihood of (Hartmann, Ruby, Schmidt, & Siegrist, 2018; Judge & Wilson, 2018).
violating their diets, as, compared to health-motivated vegetarians,
ethically motivated vegetarians dislike the taste and texture of meat to a 4.1. Future directions
greater extent, report greater disgust toward meat, and are more likely
to eschew meat strictly (Arora, Bradford, Arora, & Gavino, 2017; In sum, dietary motivation shapes vegetarians' attitudes and beha-
Rothgerber, 2014a). Irrespective of their motivations, vegetarians’ viors across a range of outcomes. Vegetarians motivated by ethical
elevated feelings of disgust toward meat (e.g., Anderson, Wormwood, concerns about animals appear to have the strongest attitudes toward
Barrett, & Quigley, 2018) likely originate from associating meat with its animals, meat, and their own food choices, attributing greater mental
animal origins (Kunst & Haugestad, 2018; Kunst & Hohle, 2016; Ruby & capacities to animals, avoiding a wider range of animal products, ex-
Heine, 2012; Testoni, Ghellar, Rodelli, De Cataldo, & Zamperini, 2017). pressing greater disgust toward meat, adhering to their diets more
Animal-meat association and its disgust response may explain why strictly, and viewing their diets as closely linked to their identity and
vegetarians primarily motivated by concerns about animals adhere to moral self-concept. Vegetarians’ motivations may also shape how other
their diets more strictly than do vegetarians motivated by either health people view them, with animal-motivated vegetarians being the target
or environmental reasons (Rosenfeld, 2018c). of particularly negative attitudes.
Whereas consuming meat, dairy, or egg can pose evident dietary Recent research on vegetarian motivation has highlighted a number
violations for many vegetarians, gray areas do exist (Greenebaum, of promising directions for future work. For one, it could be informative
2012b). The productions of honey and sugar, for example, require the to examine why the prevalence of common motivations for eschewing
use of animal products but might not be seen as equivalent to meat, meat varies across cultures, or even by geographical region within the
dairy, and egg. Greenebaum (2012b) suggests that these gray areas can same country (e.g., Radnitz et al., 2015). The link between motivation
shape feelings of authenticity among ethically motivated vegans, who and dietary duration is also of interest, as research is needed to un-
tend to construe veganism as a lifestyle, beyond just a diet. Whereas derstand whether specific types of motivations for vegetarianism are
some ethical vegans eschew these foods and judge ethical vegans who associated with giving up the practice entirely. Moreover, additional
consume them, other ethical vegans are indifferent or set a flexible aim research should distinguish between initial and current motivations, as
to minimize their intakes of them. Additional research is needed to these may offer unique predictive value and can more insightfully
clarify how vegetarians negotiate gray areas of vegetarianism, as well contextualize vegetarianism within the course of one's lifespan. Vege-
as the means by which varying social contexts (e.g., whether other tarian motivation is dynamic, with people often acquiring new moti-
vegetarians are nearby) shape these processes. vations and sometimes even dropping old motivations over time
Recently, as an alternative to thinking about vegetarians' motiva- (Beardsworth & Keil, 1992; Fox & Ward, 2008a; Stiles, 1998). This
tions in terms of ethics or health, Rosenfeld and Burrow (2017a, 2017b, phenomenon may explain why many vegetarians are mixed-motive, as
2018a) have considered motivations as oriented toward prosocial, Rothgerber (2014a) found that 31% of vegetarians reported that ethical
personal, and moral goals. Whereas prosocial aims are those that have and health motivations were equally important to them. Still, only a
implications beyond one's self, personal aims center on benefitting one's few studies (e.g., Rothgerber, 2013, 2014a) have examined mixed-
own well-being. Moral aims, meanwhile, involve adhering to one's motive vegetarianism. A lingering question for future research is to
principles of right and wrong. Rosenfeld and Burrow (2017b) also identify domains in which mixed-motive vegetarians more closely re-
sought to distinguish between the uses of the terms reason and moti- semble ethically motivated vegetarians and in which they more closely
vation in describing why people follow their diets. Rosenfeld and resemble health-motivated vegetarians.
Burrow (2017b) argue that not all reasons people report for eschewing Finer distinctions between types of ethical and health vegetarianism
meat are truly types of motivations; rather, some reasons can be more can be informative. For one, distinguishing between animal and en-
accurately deemed as aversions or constraints. Whereas aversions are vironmental motivations appears to be promising and sensible, given
sensory-affective processes driving food choice (e.g., taste preference, findings that many vegetarians report environmental concerns as a
disgust toward foods), constraints are environmental barriers that re- motivation for eschewing meat, albeit a motivation less important to
strict one's ability to make food choices freely (e.g., financial limita- them than are concerns about animals or health (Fox & Ward, 2008a).
tions, living in a food desert). Motivations, on the other hand, can be Similarly, in contrast to considering all ethical concerns about animals
defined as “goal-oriented ambitions that not only shape one's food together in one construct, distinguishing between animal rights and
choices, when given the control to make food choices freely, but also animal welfare may become increasingly valuable.
influence one's self-concept irrespective of food salience” (Rosenfeld & Health-motivated vegetarianism also has much to gain from in-
Burrow, 2017b, p. 457). Concerns about animals, health, the environ- corporating largely unapplied perspectives. To my knowledge, research
ment, or religious beliefs underlying vegetarianism, thus, are types of has yet to examine how vegetarians with varying types of health mo-
motivations. tivations—e.g., general wellness promotion, weight maintenance, re-
The motivations people have for following a vegetarian diet shape cently having had a life-threatening health event or diagnosis, or fol-
not only their own thoughts and feelings but also how omnivores feel lowing a straight edge lifestyle—may differ from one another.
about them. Omnivores exhibit the most negative attitudes toward Moreover, rather than focusing on their vegetarian identity, many
vegetarians who are motivated by animal rights and the most positive people consider themselves to be whole-food, plant-based dieters: those
attitudes toward health-motivated vegetarians, with attitudes toward who avoid not only animal products but also processed plant foods,
environmentally motivated vegetarians falling in between those two such as refined flours, oils, and sugars (Campbell & Campbell, 2006).
groups (MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Attitudes toward animal-motivated This mindset might differ from conventional vegetarianism, as some
and environmentally motivated vegetarians may be particularly low whole-food, plant-based communities intentionally distance themselves
because these individuals challenge moral standards, making them a from vegan communities, seeking to emphasize the health, rather than

127
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

ethical, aspects of their lifestyle (Chuter, 2018). Future research on low educational attainment, lack any vegetarian family members or
vegetarianism may benefit from focusing on whole-food, plant-based friends, eat meat frequently, and exhibit emotional attachments to meat
dieters by considering whether people exclude not only animal pro- (Graç;a, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Kildal & Syse, 2017; Pohjolainen
ducts, but also processed plant foods, from their diets. et al., 2015).
In progressing research on dietary motivation, investigators may Focusing on prospective vegetarianism beyond the individual level,
benefit from drawing upon Arbit, Ruby, and Rozin's (2017) Meaning of Judge and Wilson (2015) examined how people living in New Zealand
Food in Life Questionnaire (MFLQ). The MFLQ assesses five domains would feel about their country becoming a plant-based society in the
through which people assign meaning to their eating behaviors, in- future. Many participants imagined that a future society in which ev-
cluding moral, sacred, health, social, and aesthetic meanings. As people eryone consumes some type of plant-based diet would experience
draw upon repertoires in making food choices—enacting and con- worsened public health, environmental conditions, and economic
structing identity in executing these repertoires (Arbit, Ruby, & Rozin, functioning. Predictions about individuals living in a future plant-based
2017)—understanding ways in which food and eating provide meaning society were mixed in valence: Whereas participants commonly re-
to individuals' lives can be useful in conceptualizing phenomena sur- ported that individuals would be more caring, peaceful, communal, and
rounding shifts toward vegetarian dieting. In assessing dietary moti- moral, they also imagined individuals being more judgmental and
vation with respect to vegetarianism in particular, investigators may miserable. Generally, those who saw a shift toward plant-based dieting
find value in implementing the prosocial, personal, and moral moti- as a voluntary choice related to changes in values and norms ascribed
vations subscales of Rosenfeld and Burrow's (2018a) Dietarian Identity positive characteristics to such a society, whereas those who saw this
Questionnaire (DIQ). change as stemming from necessity or force ascribed negative char-
Lastly, in addition to research on how motivations shape vegetar- acteristics.
ians’ own thoughts and behaviors, further research is needed to ex- Conceptions of prospective vegetarianism can benefit from better
amine how omnivores think about vegetarians with different motiva- understanding former vegetarianism. Often, former vegetarians return
tions. Namely, recent findings highlight value in considering the roles to eating meat because vegetarianism seemed burdensome, incon-
of cognitive dissonance, social comparison, social norms, and power venient, and too expensive (Menzies & Sheeshka, 2012). Moreover,
dynamics in attitude formation. former vegetarians may be particularly likely to give up their vegetar-
ianism during a major life change, such as moving, starting a new job,
5. Prospective vegetarianism or getting married (Menzies & Sheeshka, 2012). Factors that may pro-
mote successful maintenance of vegetarianism over time include
Understanding vegetarian identity, or how people reflect on the idea changing one's diet gradually, rather than abruptly, as well as joining a
of being a vegetarian, has relevance not only to people who currently social group centered on vegetarianism (Haverstock & Forgays, 2012;
eschew meat but also to those who may be considering changing their Jabs, Devine, & Sobal, 1998).
diets in the future. Some omnivores, for example, can be thought of as
prospective vegetarians, or people who are considering becoming ve- 5.1. Future directions
getarian down the road. These prospective vegetarians appear to think
about food differently from omnivores who lack this prospective Given that the vast majority of people around the world are omni-
aim—namely, in terms of their dietary concerns and motivations. A vores, it would behoove investigators to conduct additional research on
consistent finding across studies is that people who feel more morally prospective and former vegetarianism. Food choice is embedded within
concerned for animals are more open to becoming vegetarian the course of one's lifespan (Devine, Connors, Bisogni, & Sobal, 1998),
(Gallimore, 2015; Díaz, 2016; Rosenfeld, 2018b). Relative to omnivores such that people's current engagements with vegetarianism may shape,
who are set on continuing to eat meat, prospective vegetarians also and be shaped by, their prior and future attitudes and experiences.
appear to be more concerned about the health and environmental Further research should continue to investigate the extents to which
consequences of consuming meat (Gallimore, 2015; Rosenfeld, 2018b). dispositional traits (e.g., Forestell & Nezlek, 2018; Keller & Siegrist,
Interestingly, although vegetarians are more open to new experiences 2015; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018), general moral and health attitudes (e.g.,
than are omnivores (Forestell & Nezlek, 2018; Forestell, Spaeth, & Hayley et al., 2015; Díaz, 2016), and specific dietary attitudes (e.g.,
Kane, 2012; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018), openness to new experiences does Gallimore, 2015; Rosenfeld, 2018b) may make some people particularly
not differ between omnivores who are and are not open to becoming likely to reduce their meat intakes. A related avenue of interest may be
vegetarian (Rosenfeld, 2018b). Thus, the prospective aim of becoming to examine current vegetarians' prospective thoughts about returning to
vegetarian may be predominantly domain-specific to beliefs about food eating meat.
choice rather than a reflection of personality more generally. Further research is needed on the extent to which intersectionality
To many people, perceived barriers to adopting a plant-based diet may inhibit shifts toward a more plant-based diet, as recent findings
outweigh the perceived benefits, making them resistant to eating less suggest that dietary barriers are intimately embedded within the in-
meat (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017). Supporting earlier findings (e.g., tersectionality of identities, social relationships, and social contexts.
Lea, Crawford, & Worsley, 2006; Lea & Worsley, 2003), recent work has Given that people hold varying attitudes toward vegetarians with dif-
found that common barriers to adopting a more plant-based diet in- ferent motivations, it could also be interesting to investigate whether
clude habit, enjoyment of eating meat, health concerns about es- omnivores think differently about adopting a plant-based diet de-
chewing meat, the belief that preparing vegetarian meals would be pending on what motivation they would adopt it for. An additional
difficult, lack of knowledge about plant-based dieting, and the belief avenue for future work could be to examine the extents to which re-
that plant-based dieting is incongruent with central facets of one's ported barriers to plant-based dieting reflect genuine obstacles among
identity (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017; de Boer, Schö;sler, & Aiking, people seeking to change their diets or simply justifications (e.g., Piazza
2017; Ensaff et al., 2015; Mullee et al., 2017; Pohjolainen, Vinnari, & et al., 2015; Rothgerber, 2012) endorsed by people wanting to continue
Jokinen, 2015). Other barriers include concern that a vegetarian diet to eat meat.
would lack variety, concern that a vegetarian diet would not be sa-
tiating, living with people who eat meat, and concern about incon- 6. Social implications
veniences when eating at restaurants or as a guest at someone else's
home (de Boer, Schösler, & Aiking, 2017; Gallimore, 2015; Kildal & 6.1. Identity
Syse, 2017). Perceived barriers to adopting a plant-based diet may be
particularly strong among people who are male, live in rural areas, have Much research has highlighted that following a vegetarian diet

128
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

shapes one's identity—how one sees oneself (Cherry, 2015; Fox & Ward, avoiders. While more nuanced dietary patterns can warrant additional
2008b; LeRette, 2014; Mycek, 2018; Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012; labels, three general categories of dieters with respect to animal-pro-
Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2017a, 2018a; Rothgerber, 2014c, 2014d; Sneijder duct consumption include omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans.
& Te Molder, 2009; Stiles, 1998; Yeh, 2014). Conceptualizing vege- Vegetarians can be thought of as an intermediate group, resembling
tarianism as a social identity, Rosenfeld and Burrow (2017a) propose a vegans in that they eschew meat but resembling omnivores in that they
framework called the Unified Model of Vegetarian Identity (UMVI). The consume egg and/or dairy. Notably, what vegetarians do not eat ap-
UMVI outlines ten dimensions theorized to comprise a vegetarian pears to have a greater impact on how they self-categorize than does
identity, or how an individual thinks, feels, and behaves with respect to what they do eat, as vegetarians generally view vegans, but not omni-
being a vegetarian. Rosenfeld and Burrow (2017a) organize these di- vores, as in-group members (Yeh, 2014). Categorical divides between
mensions into contextual, internalized, and externalized levels. Con- various types of vegetarians may also emerge as a function of dietary
textual dimensions situate vegetarianism within sociocultural and life- motivation. Some ethically motivated vegans express disdain toward
span contexts, emphasizing that the significance of vegetarian dieting is health-motivated vegans, questioning their authenticity and viewing
both socially constructed and embedded within the course of each in- them as selfish (Greenebaum, 2012b). Moreover, when primed to think
dividual's life. Internalized dimensions characterize how people reflect of themselves as a minority social group, ethically motivated vegetar-
on their vegetarian identity, in its relation to their overall sense of self ians view health-motivated vegetarians more negatively than they view
and their dietary motivations. Externalized dimensions characterize vegans, despite health-motivated vegetarians constituting more of an
how people behave in ways that express their vegetarian identity—- in-group to them with regards to dietary pattern (Rothgerber, 2014d).
which foods they exclude from their diets, how strictly they adhere to
that exclusion, and how they communicate their dietary preferences to 6.1.1. Future directions
other people. Conceiving vegetarianism as an identity may explain why many
Expanding upon the UMVI, Rosenfeld and Burrow (2018a) propose people eat meat on occasion and still consider themselves vegetarian
the concept of dietarian identity to capture an individual's thoughts, (Rothgerber, 2017), how biases toward vegetarians form (MacInnis &
feelings, and behaviors with respect to consuming or eschewing animal Hodson, 2017), how vegetarians with different dietary patterns and
products (i.e., red meat, poultry, fish, egg, and dairy). Noting the motivations evaluate one another (Rothgerber, 2014c, 2014d), and how
conceptual and practical limitations of studying vegetarianism empiri- people construe prospects of changing their food choices. Recent re-
cally as a function of whether people self-identify as vegetarian or not, search on vegetarianism and identity complements earlier perspectives
Rosenfeld and Burrow (2018a) argue that whereas the concept of ve- (e.g., Fox & Ward, 2008b; Hornsey & Jetten, 2003; Jabs, Sobal, &
getarian identity has direct relevance only to those who consider them- Devine, 2000; Sneijder & Te Molder, 2009; Stiles, 1998), yet much re-
selves to be vegetarian, dietarian identity constitutes an identity domain mains unknown. For example, how might the expression of vegetarian
with which any individual—regardless of what food choices they make identity fluctuate across varying social contexts or intersect with other
or how they label their diets—engages. Each individual faces a decision identity domains, such as race or gender? What does vegetarian identity
of which animal products to include in or exclude from his or her diet. mean for people who exhibit discrepancies between how they eat and
How an individual reconciles that decision forms the basis for his or her how they label themselves, perhaps by calling themselves vegetarian
dietarian identity. As Rosenfeld and Burrow (2018a) write, “dietarian yet eating some meat or by eschewing all meat yet refraining from
identity serves as an umbrella construct that encompasses all self-per- calling themselves vegetarian? In progressing research on vegetar-
ceptions in this domain, capturing people's engagements with a realm ianism as identity, investigators can continue to benefit from drawing
of food choice (i.e., animal-product consumption) rather than their upon rich bodies of literature from both psychology and sociology.
social identifications with various categories (e.g., vegetarian, vegan)”
(p. 183). Vegetarian identity thus can be thought of as a type of die- 6.2. Social experiences
tarian identity.
As a means of assessing constructs within their dietarian identity Food choice is intertwined with social relationships, as personal
framework, Rosenfeld and Burrow (2018a) put forth the Dietarian dietary decisions interact reciprocally with one's social networks and
Identity Questionnaire (DIQ). The DIQ measures eight constructs, sociocultural environments (Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran, 2014). As such,
which include centrality; private, public, and out-group regards; pro- it unsurprising that vegetarians report having a variety of new social
social, personal, and moral motivations; and strictness. This ques- experiences—mostly unfavorable—upon changing their eating beha-
tionnaire begins with a prompt asking participants which animal pro- viors (Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2017a).
ducts they eat and do not eat, the response to which characterizes their Some vegetarians report that their diets and beliefs strain their
“dietary pattern.” Centrality and regards assess social identity aspects of personal and professional relationships (Hirschler, 2011), which may
dietarian identity, related to in-group and out-group perceptions of even lead them to reconfigure their social networks (Chuter, 2018). One
dietary pattern, whereas motivations and strictness assess what goals source of the adverse social consequences vegetarians face may be bias
people have in following their dietary pattern and how closely they (i.e., vegaphobia; Cole & Morgan, 2011). Biases toward vegetarians
adhere to their dietary pattern, respectively. manifest themselves throughout several domains of vegetarians’ lives,
For a large proportion of vegetarians, being a vegetarian is a central as vegetarians report backlash from family and friends after revealing
part of their identity (Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012). Becoming ve- their dietary change, anxiety about sharing their dietary preferences
getarian symbolizes a change in both one's personal identity and one's with others, constant questioning about their lifestyle, teasing and
social identity, as one gives up one's omnivorous social group mem- mocking, stereotyping, everyday acts of discrimination, and even dis-
bership and acquires new membership in a group of meat-avoiders crimination in applying for jobs (Chuter, 2018; LeRette, 2014; MacInnis
(Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2018a). Yet self-identifying as vegetarian and & Hodson, 2017; Torti, 2017; Twine, 2014). In one study (Hirschler,
actually following a vegetarian diet constitute two distinct phenomena 2011), all participants reported that an early challenge of going vegan
(Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2017a). Failing to adhere to one's vegetarian diet, was defending their newfound dietary decision. They realized that their
moreover, may open oneself up to identity threats from other dietary in- diet was a source of conflict, particularly with family members. In an-
group members, which makes it unsurprising that vegetarians exhibit other study (Twine, 2014), similarly, more than 80% of participants
more negative affect toward vegetarians who eat meat occasionally reported facing negative reactions from family and friends after de-
than toward strictly adhering vegetarians (Hornsey & Jetten, 2003). ciding to become vegan.
Identity aspects of vegetarianism thus can impart forces on both The use of visibility management strategies appears to be common
how one sees oneself and how one views other animal-product among vegetarians. Even beyond interactions with family and friends,

129
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

vegetarians often receive microaggressive remarks about their eating 6.2.1. Future directions
behaviors, as omnivores belittle their character, health, and personal The social experiences vegetarians face due to their food choices not
judgment (LeRette, 2014). Several studies have found that, in order to only influence the expression of their vegetarian identities but also pose
avoid conflict, some vegetarians refrain from mentioning their dietary impactful threats to their psychological well-being (Torti, 2017). Recent
preferences and motivations when possible (Edwards, 2013; research in this domain has built greatly upon earlier work (e.g.,
Greenebaum, 2012a; LeRette, 2014; Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012; Beardsworth & Keil, 1992; Jabs et al., 2000; Larsson, Rönnlund,
Torti, 2017). This line of research suggests that vegetarians often ex- Johansson, & Dahlgren, 2003). Future research should examine the
press concerns about discussing their vegetarianism with omnivores, in extents to which omnivores' uses of dissonance-reducing strategies
part due to fears about being stereotyped or being perceived as judg- (e.g., Rothgerber 2014b) and engagements in upward moral compar-
mental (Edwards, 2013; Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012). Ultimately, ison (e.g., Minson & Monin, 2012) contribute toward strained social
vegetarians must balance their dietarian identity with societal norms, interactions with vegetarians. It may also be informative to test the
realizing discords between expressing their true selves, fitting in, and extent to which anticipated changes to one's social life from eating less
refraining from seeming as if they are disparaging omnivores’ choices meat may inhibit omnivores' intentions to make dietary changes.
(Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012). The roles of vegetarianism in romantic relationships and child-
Many vegetarians believe that omnivores are hostile toward vege- rearing pose additional avenues of future inquiry. Little is known about
tarians in order to alleviate the guilt they feel from eating meat how vegetarians navigate romantic relationships, although some recent
(Greenebaum, 2012a). Indeed, merely proclaiming one's vegetarian work (e.g., DeLessio-Parson, 2017; Potts & Parry, 2010; Twine, 2014)
status may induce in omnivores a feeling of cognitive dissonance about has begun to enter this domain. Do most vegetarians prefer a vegetarian
the morality of their own meat consumption (Rothgerber, 2014b). romantic partner? Does this tend to be a flexible preference or a strict
However, hiding the fact that one is vegetarian may not always be a requirement? Why might some vegetarians prefer a vegetarian partner
feasible conflict management tactic. In such cases, two communicative whereas others might be indifferent? Of particular interest could be to
strategies vegetarians may employ to ease social interactions include investigate how couples in which one partner is vegetarian and the
having a plan about how to describe their eating habits and seeking to other is not reconcile conflicting food preferences, moral attitudes, and
minimize others' discomfort with this topic (Romo & Donovan-Kicken, plans to raise their children as vegetarian or omnivorous. Additional
2012). Other strategies for mitigating conflicts with omnivores include research is also needed on parent-child dietary inconsistencies, such as
avoiding confrontational approaches to animal activism, choosing circumstances in which vegetarian parents have children who decide to
specific times and places to discuss vegetarianism, emphasizing the eat meat or, conversely, in which omnivorous parents have children
health benefits of vegetarianism, and leading a healthy and joyful ve- who decide to be vegetarian.
getarian life by example (Greenebaum, 2012a).
Vegetarians receive unfavorable treatment not only due to biases 6.3. Gender
against them but also due to structural reasons (Horta, 2017). For ex-
ample, vegans may lack sufficient dietary options at their workplace or Much recent research on gender and vegetarianism supports prior
be penalized for refusing to partake in tasks that require the exploita- findings highlighting associations between meat and masculinity
tion of animals in work or educational settings (e.g., dissecting an an- (Adams, 1990; Rogers, 2008; Rozin, Hormes, Faith, & Wansink, 2012;
imal in a science class). Amicable social gatherings may so much as Ruby & Heine, 2011; Sobal, 2005). For one, stark gender differences
become stressful events due to sociocultural norms. Eating at restau- exist when it comes to meat consumption: Compared to women, men
rants or as a guest at someone else's home pose challenges not only for eat larger portion sizes of meat and eat meat more frequently (de Boer
vegetarians (Torti, 2017) but also for omnivores who are considering et al., 2017; Keller & Siegrist, 2015; Love & Sulikowski, 2018; Schö;sler,
becoming vegetarian (Gallimore, 2015). Horta (2017) argues that much de Boer, Boersema, & Aiking, 2015), are less likely to be vegetarian
unfavorable treatment of vegans manifests itself through forms of (Forestell & Nezlek, 2018; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018; Ruby, 2012), and are
second-order discrimination, as the adverse consequences vegans face less willing to reduce their meat intakes (Cramer et al., 2017; Hayley
often result from first-order speciesist discrimination against animals et al., 2015; Pohjolainen et al., 2015). Men and women also differ in
(see Caviola, Everett, & Faber, 2018 for a review of speciesism). That is, how they think about meat consumption. Compared to women, men
when using animals for human benefit is a ubiquitous cultural norm, have stronger implicit associations of meat and healthfulness (Love &
social institutions and environments largely necessitate the use of an- Sulikowski, 2018) and are less likely to explicitly report that meat
imal products. Refraining from using animal products, in turn, restricts consumption is unhealthful or that meat production harms the en-
one's access to social resources. vironment (Mullee et al., 2017). Gendered perceptions of meat may
Upon becoming vegetarian, some people seek to connect with like- further vary by type of meat, as women exhibit more positive attitudes
minded dieters. One reason may be for social support, which has been toward reduced consumptions of red meat and white meat, but not fish/
found to predict successful maintenance of vegetarianism over time seafood, than do men (Hayley et al., 2015). This may reflect the fact
(Jabs et al., 1998). Indeed, many vegans report having joined online that men and women do not differ in the extent to which they believe
support groups centered on plant-based dieting, which may enable that fish consumption is healthful (Mullee et al., 2017).
them to feel a sense of belonging (Chuter, 2018). Diet-related social The act of eating meat—particularly red meat, or beef—may serve
preferences may even permeate one's romantic interests. Com- to affirm a masculine gender identity (Sobal, 2005). Compared to
plementing Potts and Parry’s (2010) work on vegansexuality, Twine women, men not only view meat as more delicious (Love & Sulikowski,
(2014) found that many vegans strongly prefer to have a vegan ro- 2018) but also express greater emotional attachments to meat (Graça
mantic partner. Vegans who had not met this preference often em- et al., 2015). Likewise, men have more positive attitudes toward beef
ployed strategies for living successfully with non-vegans, such as using and eat beef more frequently than do women (Ruby et al., 2016). Meat-
different sets of cooking implements or assigning different shelves in masculinity associations may be particularly likely to shape men's
the refrigerator. Concerns about living with non-vegans and preferences eating behaviors in social contexts in which gender is salient. In re-
to have a vegan partner typically relate to vegans' perceptions of an- sponse to certain contexts, men use impression management strategies
imal-product consumption as immoral and disgusting (Twine, 2014). when eating in order to enhance their feelings of masculinity
Similarly, other research (e.g., DeLessio-Parson, 2017) has also noted (Vartanian, 2015). One such context may be the armed forces. Namely,
preferences among vegetarians to have romantic relationships with meat-masculinity associations can pose a barrier to solders' reducing
fellow vegetarians. their meat intakes, as eating meat can provide soldiers with masculine
values of power and virility that are prized in the armed forces (Kildal &

130
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

Syse, 2017). choices on animals and the environment, expressed more concern about
Gender also plays a role in the justification of meat consumption animal welfare overall, endorsed universalistic values more strongly,
(Rothgerber, 2012). For one, men justify eating meat more strongly and endorsed right-wing authoritarianism less strongly than did Euro-
than do women. Yet, more concretely, men and women justify eating American omnivores, Indian vegetarians did not differ from Indian
meat in different ways: Whereas men tend to justify eating meat di- omnivores on any of these outcomes. Cultural differences also exist
rectly, such as by endorsing pro-meat attitudes and denying animal with respect to people's willingness to eat animals as meat. Among
suffering, women are more inclined to justify eating meat indirectly, Euro-American, Euro-Canadian, Hong Kong Chinese, and Indian om-
dissociating meat from its animal origins and refraining from thinking nivores, greater social influence (how often one's friends and family eat
about farm animals’ experiences. The use of such direct justification animals) and disgust toward eating animals predicted lower willingness
strategies among men may serve to maintain feelings of masculinity to eat animals (Ruby & Heine, 2012). Yet these variables' predictive
(Rothgerber, 2012). Other research (e.g., Kildal & Syse, 2017) suggests values varied by culture: Whereas disgust was a stronger predictor
that people may even emphasize masculine values as a direct means of among omnivores in individualistic cultures (the United States and
justifying meat consumption and opposing vegetarianism. Canada) than among omnivores in collectivistic cultures (China and
Gender predicts both how one evaluates others' food choices and India), social influence was a stronger predictor among omnivores in
how one is evaluated for one's own food choices. In general, omnivores collectivistic cultures than among omnivores in individualistic cultures.
exhibit greater biases against vegetarian men than against vegetarian Some research has investigated vegetarianism in Argentina, Brazil,
women (MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). As such, it is unsurprising that men France, and the United States, focusing on attitudes toward beef and
report facing greater hostility from their families, and greater teasing in vegetarians. For example, Ruby et al., (2016) found that from highest to
general, about becoming vegetarian than do women (Sedupane, 2017; lowest beef consumption frequency were Brazil, Argentina, the United
Torti, 2017). Evidence also exists to suggest that men have more ne- States, and France. Attitudes toward beef were most positive in Ar-
gative attitudes toward vegetarian men than do women (Judge & gentina and Brazil, less positive in France, and least positive in the
Wilson, 2018; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Likewise, compared to United States. Brazilian and American women admired vegetarians the
women, men reported being more bothered by vegetarians and more most, whereas French men and women admired vegetarians the least.
averse to dating a vegetarian (Ruby et al., 2016). American and French men were the most bothered by vegetarians and
Whereas the aforementioned studies highlight an evident meat- the most averse to dating vegetarians. Extending this line of research,
masculinity connection—namely, such that men value meat consump- Earle and Hodson (2017) found that pro-beef attitudes—defined as
tion more strongly than do women—recent research has raised ques- associating positive valence words with beef, liking beef, desiring beef
tions as to whether forgoing meat makes one appear less masculine than strongly, and consuming beef frequently—predicted anti-vegetarian
does consuming meat. Contradicting prior findings (e.g., Ruby & Heine, prejudice across all four countries. The strongest link between pro-beef
2011), Thomas (2016) found neither a significant difference in the attitudes and anti-vegetarian prejudice emerged in the United States,
extents to which omnivores viewed vegetarian and omnivorous targets whereas the weakest link emerged in Argentina.
as masculine nor a significant interaction between target gender and
target diet. However, Thomas (2016) did find that vegans were seen as 6.4.1. Future directions
less masculine than were omnivores. Recent research on culture and vegetarianism suggests that whereas
Adding a more optimistic twist to the implications of meat-mascu- some relationships may be cross-culturally stable (e.g., perceptions of
linity associations, some scholars have suggested that popularizing animals and willingness to eat meat, pro-beef attitudes predicting anti-
vegetarianism can be an effective means of reducing hegemonic mas- vegetarian prejudice), other links may depend on cultural context (e.g.,
culinity. For example, DeLessio-Parson (2017) proposes that vegetar- associations between moral attitude and food choice). Given that cul-
ianism can serve to challenge gender norms and ultimately destabilize tural differences exist in the extent to which associating meat with its
the meat-masculinity nexus in patriarchal cultures. Likewise, animal origins shapes beliefs about animals’ minds and food pre-
Greenebaum and Dexter (2017) and Mycek (2018) argue that vege- ferences (e.g., Tian, Hilton, & Becker, 2016), additional research ex-
tarian men expand and challenge traditional conceptions of masculi- ploring relationships between animal agriculture practices and eating
nity, embodying hybrid masculinity and combating perceptions of ve- behavior across cultures can be informative. Future research should
getarianism as a feminine behavior. also consider examining cultural differences in media portrayals of
meat consumption and vegetarianism. Another area ripe for future in-
6.3.1. Future directions vestigation is religious vegetarianism. It remains unclear how re-
In sum, meat is widely seen as masculine food. This perception may ligiously motivated vegetarians construe their diets and how these
lead men to value meat more strongly, to consume more meat, to be less construals may differ between individuals across cultural contexts. For
willing to reduce their meat intakes, to deny the negative effects of example, the dietary motivations and social experiences of religiously
meat production and consumption, and to view vegetarians in more motivated vegetarians living in an area in which their religion is pre-
negative light. Although people might not be perceived as less mascu- valent may differ from those of religiously motivated vegetarians who
line for following a vegetarian diet, they may be seen as less masculine are a religious minority in their area.
for eating a vegan diet. Additional research differentiating perceptions
of masculinity between vegetarians and vegans can be informative. 7. Variants of vegetarianism
Future research should also continue to examine ways in which vege-
tarian, or even flexitarian, men and women may have different social 7.1. Vegetarians versus vegans
experiences related to following their diets.
Whereas veganism (forgoing all animal products) is typically con-
6.4. Culture ceived as a type of vegetarianism (forgoing meat), many studies have
been interested in distinguishing the two—that is, comparing vegans to
Norms guiding food choice and eating behavior vary tremendously non-vegan vegetarians. Adding to prior work (e.g., Filippi et al., 2010;
across cultures (Sobal et al., 2014). A few recent studies have applied Ruby, 2008; Ruby, Cheng, & Heine, 2011), an increasingly large body
this tenet to examine cultural differences in vegetarianism, particularly of recent literature has found that vegetarians and vegans differ from
as related to moral and dietary attitudes. For example, Ruby, Heine, one another in terms of their attitudes, behaviors, and self-perceptions.
Kamble, Cheng, and Waddar (2013) found that whereas Euro-American In reviewing this literature in the current section, the term veg*n is used
vegetarians expressed greater concerns about the impacts of their food to refer to both vegetarian and vegan, inclusively, as to distinguish

131
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

between vegetarians and vegans more clearly. additional research is needed to clarify links between educational at-
Supporting earlier findings (e.g., Povey, Wellens, & Conner, 2001), tainment and veg*nism, giving particular consideration to dietary
recent studies suggest that omnivores have more negative beliefs about motivation and restrictiveness (e.g., pescatarian v. vegetarian v. vegan,
veganism than about vegetarianism. For one, omnivores express more etc.).
negative attitudes toward vegans than toward vegetarians (Judge &
Wilson, 2018; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Omnivores are also more 7.1.1. Future directions
open to becoming vegetarian than to becoming vegan (Duchene & Comparisons between vegetarians and vegans offer a rich territory
Jackson, 2017), viewing veganism as a more extreme behavior (Judge for elucidating phenomena related to dietary motivation, morality, and
& Wilson, 2015). identity. Compared to vegetarians, vegans appear to have stronger
Not only do omnivores think about vegetarianism and veganism concerns about animals, to have stronger dietary motivations, and to
differently, but vegetarians and vegans themselves also exhibit different internalize their veg*nism as a more pervasive element of their lives. An
traits and attitudes from one another. Compared to vegetarians, vegans interesting avenue for future research may be to examine how vege-
have a higher quality of life, draw less upon utilitarian reasoning, and tarians feel about consuming egg and dairy, as their consumption of
are more universalistic, more empathic, less neurotic, and more open to these foods may lead vegans to view them as morally inconsistent
experience (Kessler et al., 2016; Lund, McKeegan, Cribbin, & Sandøe, (Ruby, 2012). Many vegans report a feeling of ease in knowing that
2016). Vegans are also more strongly motivated to follow their diets they align their values and behaviors through food, eating in a way that
than are vegetarians, particularly when it comes to ethical concerns minimizes animal suffering (Hirschler, 2011). Deeper understandings of
(Fiestas-Flores & Pyhälä, 2017; Haverstock & Forgays, 2012; Izmirli & vegetarians’ attitudes toward moral and health aspects of egg and dairy
Phillips, 2011; Lund et al., 2016; Rosenfeld, 2018a). Compared to ve- consumption and the extent to which they view veganism as ideal—and
getarians, vegans express greater concerns about animal rights, animal an ultimate goal they seek to achieve—can be informative.
welfare, and animal experimentation, in general (Izmirli & Phillips, Temporal aspects of veg*n identity also relate to vegetarian versus
2011; Kessler et al., 2016; Lund et al., 2016). Moreover, with respect to vegan status, as vegans report having followed their diets for a shorter
their diets, vegans tend to be more strongly motivated by concerns duration than do vegetarians (Kessler, Michalsen, Holler, Murthy, &
about animal rights, the environment, and the political implications of Cramer, 2018). Still unknown, however, is why vegan duration may be
food choice (Fiestas-Flores & Pyhälä, 2017; Haverstock & Forgays, shorter than vegetarian duration. Is this difference a function of ve-
2012). ganism being a more recently mainstream movement or of veganism
These findings make it unsurprising that vegetarians and vegans being more difficult to adhere to over time? Conversely, might this
perceive animals in different ways. Such perceptions manifest them- simply reflect the fact that the majority of vegans report having been
selves on a neurological level, as vegetarians and vegans exhibit dif- vegetarian for some time prior to becoming vegan (e.g., Kerschke-Risch,
ferent neural responses to observing mouth actions performed by both 2015), in which case vegans' overall veg*n duration may actually be
human and non-human animals (Filippi et al., 2013). These perceptions equal to or greater than vegetarians’ veg*n duration? In addition to
also shape how veg*ns interact with animals—namely, their pets. The disentangling this matter, future research should examine differences
prospect of feeding one's pet a meat-based diet poses a greater moral between vegans who had an intermediate vegetarian stage and those
dilemma for vegans than for vegetarians, as vegans report feeling who went straight from omnivore to vegan as well as differences be-
guiltier about feeding their pets a predominantly meat-based diet and tween vegetarians who intend on becoming vegan in the future and
tend to feed their pet dogs less meat than do vegetarians (Rothgerber, those who plan on remaining vegetarian.
2013, 2014e).
Vegetarians and vegans differ not only in their attitudes toward 7.2. Flexitarianism
their pets' eating meat but also in their attitudes toward dietary in-
group members' eating meat. Overall, vegans rate in-group viola- Just as veganism constitutes a more restrictive form of vegetar-
tions—the act of another veg*n eating meat—as worse than do vege- ianism, so too exists a less restrictive form of vegetarianism, called
tarians, an effect explained by vegans' perceiving greater threats to in- flexitarianism, which has increasingly become the focus of psychological
group distinctiveness, group existence, group message, and individual research. A flexitarian is an individual who limits his or her meat intake
temptation from such violations (Rothgerber, 2014c). Thus, vegans may yet still includes meat in his or her diet (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017;
place greater emphasis on their in-group members’ maintaining a Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013; De Backer & Hudders, 2014, 2015;
higher level of dietary adherence than do vegetarians, as doing so may Forestell, 2018; Meister, 1997). A combination of the words flexible and
buffer their smaller, more distinct social group against threats from out- vegetarian, a flexitarian is essentially one who eats a mostly vegetarian,
groups. or a vegetarian-inclined, diet.
As reviewed earlier, following a veg*n diet can lead one to face People tend to adopt a flexitarian diet for different reasons than they
adverse social consequences—such consequences may be stronger for would a vegetarian diet. Namely, vegetarians are more strongly moti-
vegans than they are for vegetarians. Compared to vegetarians, vegans vated by ethical concerns about animals than are flexitarians, who in-
view their diets as a more defining feature of their identity and en- stead tend to be motivated by health or environmental concerns,
counter greater difficulties in navigating their social environments, fa- (Apostolidis & McLeay, 2016; De Backer & Hudders, 2014, 2015;
cing more criticism and hostility from others (Fiestas-Flores & Pyhälä, Forestell, 2018). Coupled with findings from studies comparing vege-
2017; Rosenfeld, 2018a). As such, it is unsurprising that vegans feel tarians and vegans, this point suggests a clear trend: Stronger ethical
more stigmatized about following their diets than do vegetarians concerns about animal rights/welfare associate positively with more
(Rosenfeld, 2018a). restrictive forms of animal-product avoidance, such that flexitarians are
Demographic differences may also exist between vegetarians and the least ethically motivated, vegans the most, and vegetarians in be-
vegans. Overall, veg*ns tend to be more educated than are omnivores tween.
(Gilsing et al., 2013; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018). Moreover, people with Several studies suggest that flexitarians' attitudes toward meat and
higher educational attainment are more likely to try a veg*n diet for animals fall in between those of vegetarians and omnivores. For one,
health reasons than are people with lower educational attainment flexitarians associate positive emotions with meatless dishes to a
(Cramer et al., 2017). These effects, however, may be driven by vege- greater extent than do omnivores but to a lesser extent than do vege-
tarianism, rather than veganism: Compared to omnivores, vegetarians tarians (Cliceria, Spinellia, Dinnellaa, Prescotta, & Monteleone, 2018).
tend to have a higher educational attainment, whereas vegans tend to Flexitarians also endorse meat-eating rationalizations and justifications
have a lower educational attainment (Allè;s et al., 2017). Still, to lesser extents than do omnivores but to greater extents than do

132
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

vegetarians (Cliceria et al., 2018; Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2018b). These individual who limits his or her meat intake but has not eschewed meat
attitudes may shape dieters' processes of motivated reasoning, as in one altogether (e.g., Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017; Dagnelie & Mariotti,
study, flexitarians denied the credibility of an argument claiming that 2017; De Backer & Hudders, 2014; Derbyshire, 2017; Meister, 1997;
meat is healthful to a greater extent than did omnivores but to a lesser Mullee et al., 2017), discrepancies in defining semi-vegetarian are
extent than did vegetarians (Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2018b). Flexitarians common (Forestell, 2018). Some discrepancies have arisen to due
also exhibit unique perceptions of animals. Cliceria et al. (2018) re- matters of dietary pattern restrictiveness, as semi-vegetarian has de-
plicate the prior finding that vegetarians attribute greater mind to an- scribed diets that exclude some types of meat but not others—most
imals than do omnivores (e.g., Bilewicz, Imhoff, & Drogosz, 2011) and commonly, those that exclude red meat but include poultry and/or fish
extend this work to show that flexitarians' attributions of animal mind (i.e., pesco-pollo, pesco, or pollo vegetarian diets) (e.g., Forestell &
fall in between those of these other two groups. Moreover, flexitarians' Nezlek, 2018; Heiss & Hormes, 2018; Jabs et al., 2000; Meister, 1997;
attitudes toward animal welfare are stronger than those reported by Mullee et al., 2017; Timko et al., 2012). Semi-vegetarian has also char-
omnivores but weaker than those of vegetarians (De Backer & Hudders, acterized self-identified vegetarians with a low dietary strictness, or
2015). Interesting to note is that the difference in animal welfare people who consider themselves vegetarian yet still eat, or are willing
concern between vegetarians and flexitarians is greater than that be- to eat, meat on occasion (e.g., Rothgerber, 2014a, 2017). For future
tween flexitarians and omnivores (De Backer & Hudders, 2015), sug- work, I recommend that authors define flexitarian as an individual who
gesting that strong animal welfare concerns are associated with es- limits his or her meat intake yet still includes meat in his or her diet;
chewing meat entirely, rather than curtailing one's meat intake semi-vegetarian as an individual who excludes certain, but not all, types
partially. of meat from his or her diet; and low-strictness vegetarian as an in-
Just as vegetarian dietary patterns can take on several variants, dividual who self-identifies as vegetarian yet allows him or herself to
investigators may likewise benefit from distinguishing between variants eat meat occasionally.
of flexitarianism. For example, De Backer and Hudders (2014) distin- Already, investigators have begun studying semi-vegetarians and
guish between people who substantially reduce their meat consumption low-strictness vegetarians as distinct dietary groups. For example,
to forgo meat at least three days per week (semi-vegetarians) and those several studies have documented differences in dietary motivation be-
who forgo meat only one or two days per week (light semi-vegetarians). tween vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. Izmirli and Phillips (2011)
Semi-vegetarians and light semi-vegetarians had different reasons for found that whereas environmental motivation was most common
avoiding meat, such that increases in both taste preferences and animal among semi-vegetarians, concern about personal health was the most
rights concerns corresponded to increased odds of being in the more common motivation among vegetarians. Meanwhile, other research has
restrictive semi-vegetarian category. found that semi-vegetarians to be more strongly motivated by health
Nuanced variants aside, flexitarianism may offer an intriguing reasons and weight control and vegetarians to be more strongly moti-
identity, as its flexible nature can make social situations easier than vated by ethical concerns (Forestell et al., 2012; Timko et al., 2012).
would vegetarianism (Stoll-Kleemann & Schmidt, 2017). Following a Moral concerns about animals, thus, appear to be more strongly asso-
flexitarian diet, moreover, tends to become less intertwined with one's ciated with full vegetarianism than partial forms of meat avoidance.
overall identity than does following a vegetarian diet (Rosenfeld & Still, however, future research is needed to clarify what typically mo-
Burrow, 2018b), which makes it unsurprising that people are more tivates people to follow semi-vegetarian diets. Investigators should give
receptive to adopting a flexitarian, over a vegetarian, diet (Corrin & particular attention to the nature of semi-vegetarian diets, as people
Papadopoulos, 2017; Duchene & Jackson, 2017). Essentially, flexitar- may have different reasons for forgoing some types of meat than they
ianism may offer the advantages of vegetarianism without such a for forgoing other types of meat. One diet that excludes only red meat
drastic change in one's identity, as flexitarians can maintain their om- and another that excludes only poultry, for example, may both be
nivorous social identity. Thus, emphasizing flexitarianism may be a considered semi-vegetarian diets.
promising strategy for encouraging reduced meat consumption among Moreover, Rothgerber (2014a) has demonstrated differences be-
people for whom eating meat strongly intersects with other social tween high-strictness and low-strictness vegetarians, such that high-
identity domains, as it does with gender identity among men, for ex- strictness vegetarians are more likely to be motivated by ethics, rather
ample. than health; dislike the taste, smell, texture, and appearance of meat
more; and are more disgusted by meat. Still, additional research is
7.2.1. Future directions needed to understand low-strictness vegetarianism more concretely—of
Given their position in between vegetarians and omnivores, flex- particular interest may be how people's self-perceptions, attitudes, and
itarians offer an exciting group of dieters ripe for psychological re- behaviors related to this trend differ from those surrounding flexitar-
search. Much is known about psychological correlates of meat con- ianism.
sumption and exclusion, and these findings can readily inform
investigations of flexitarian dieting. At the same time, research is 8. Mental health
needed to identify what might make flexitarianism not only a unique
dietary pattern but also a unique dietary identity. Research on the 8.1. Disordered eating
continuous nature of identity in other domains (e.g., Morgan Thompson
& Morgan, 2008) suggests that flexitarianism may not be just blend of Contrary to prior findings (e.g., Klopp, Heiss, & Smith, 2003; Perry,
vegetarian and omnivorous tendencies but a distinct perception of one's Mcguire, Neumark-Sztainer, & Story, 2001; Trautmann, Rau, Wilson, &
self and one's food choices. Given the potential for flexitarian dieting to Walters, 2008), recent studies suggest that vegetarians do not exhibit
improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions sub- greater levels of disordered eating than do omnivores (Forestell et al.,
stantially (Derbyshire, 2017; Ritchie, Reay, & Higgins, 2018), addi- 2012; Heiss, Coffino, & Hormes, 2017). Level of restrained eating, for
tional research on the psychology of this eating behavior can provide example, does not differ between vegetarians and omnivores (Barthels,
meaningful insights relevant across a range of disciplines, from broader Meyer, & Pietrowsky, 2018). Vegetarianism may even be associated
scales of public policy to individual cases of nutritional counseling. with healthier attitudes toward food in certain domains. Compared to
omnivores, vegetarians are less food neophobic (i.e., more open to
7.2.2. Clarifying terminology trying new foods) (Forestell et al., 2012) and vegans exhibit lower le-
In progressing research on flexitarianism, the use of this term vels of disordered eating (Heiss et al., 2017). Yet disordered eating is
warrants careful consideration. Although scholars often use the terms multifaceted, and some recent evidence does suggest elevated rates
flexitarian and semi-vegetarian interchangeably to characterize an among vegetarians in certain regards. Namely, vegetarians exhibit more

133
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

orthorexic eating behavior—the fixation on health-conscious eat- psychological aspects of carnism—the ideology of eating
ing—than do omnivores (Barthels et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the mean animals—(Joy, 2009; Monteiro, Pfeiler, Patterson, & Milburn, 2017)
score of orthorexia among vegetarians does not exceed the pathological and speciesism—“the assignment of different moral worth based on
diagnosis cutoff (Barthels et al., 2018). species membership”—(Caviola et al., 2018, p. 1). Moreover, a sub-
The semi-vegetarian decision to eschew red meat, yet consume stantial amount of research within the past decade has investigated the
other forms of meat, meanwhile, may be associated with a higher level meat paradox: the feeling of cognitive dissonance grounding in caring
of disordered eating than are decisions to follow either a fully vege- about animals yet concurrently consuming them as meat (Loughnan,
tarian or fully omnivorous diet. For example, Timko et al. (2012) found Haslam, & Bastian, 2010). For a review of research on the meat
that semi-vegetarians were more likely to exhibit disordered eating paradox, see Loughnan, Bastian, and Haslam (2014). Drawing upon this
than were vegetarians. Likewise, Forestell et al. (2012) found that both body of literature on meat consumption can be particularly informative
semi-vegetarians and flexitarians exhibited more dietary restraint than in exploring morality, culture, and social norms with respect to vege-
did omnivores. These findings, however, may reflect inflated levels of tarianism.
disordered eating among semi-vegetarians, as the normative act of es- In the past few years, several measures have been introduced into
chewing red meat may translate into higher scores on disordered eating this meat consumption literature and may offer useful tools for asses-
items assessing the avoidance of specific foods (Timko et al., 2012). sing constructs within research on vegetarianism. Rothgerber's (2012)
Meat-Eating Justification (MEJ) Scale assesses nine strategies used to
8.1.1. Future directions justify meat consumption, including pro-meat attitude, denial, hier-
Further research is needed to clarify mechanisms through which archical justification, dichotomization, dissociation, religious justifica-
flexitarianism and semi-vegetarianism, but perhaps not vegetarianism, tion, avoidance, health justification, and human destiny/fate justifica-
may associate with greater disordered eating. Issues of directionality tion. Whereas some of these constitute direct justification strategies that
are of principal interest—namely, whether eschewing meat may lead focus on meat consumption unapologetically (i.e., believing that hu-
people to exhibit disordered eating symptoms or whether people who mans are hierarchically superior to animals), others are indirect stra-
exhibit disordered eating may be more likely to eschew meat. tegies through which people avoid thinking about the animal origins of
Examining the roles of dietary motivation, gender, and age (e.g., meat production. Investigators can either quantify each of the nine
Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1997) in the relationship between vegetarianism subscales discretely or compute an overall composite MEJ score. Si-
and disordered eating may also be informative. Drawing upon milar to the MEJ Scale is Piazza and colleagues' (2015) 4N scale. The 4N
Forestell’s (2018) recent review can guide future investigations in this scale assess four strategies used to rationalize meat consumption, which
domain. include defending meat consumption as normal, natural, necessary, and
nice (with nice referring to the enjoyment people derive from eating
8.2. Depression meat). Like with the MEJ, investigators can either quantify each sub-
scale discretely or compute a composite 4N score. The 4N scale corre-
Recent studies have provided mixed evidence as to whether vege- lates strongly with the MEJ direct justifications but does not correlate
tarianism is associated with increased levels of depression. Whereas with the MEJ indirect justifications (Piazza et al., 2015). Piazza et al.
many studies (e.g., Asanova, 2017; Forestell & Nezlek, 2018; Hibbeln, (2015) recommend that the 4N scale, as a more parsimonious measure,
Northstone, Evans, & Golding, 2018; Michalak, Zhang, & Jacobi, 2012) be used when investigators seek to capture common real-world justifi-
have found higher risk for depression among vegetarians than omni- cations through which people defend eating meat and that the MEJ be
vores, other studies (e.g., Beezhold, Radnitz, Rinne, & DiMatteo, 2015; used when investigators are interested in capturing a broader range of
Timko et al., 2012) have found no difference between the two groups. both direct and indirect cognitive strategies.
Some research suggests that following a vegetarian diet may even im- Graça et al's (2015) Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ) assesses
prove psychological well-being (Agarwal et al., 2015). the positive bond people have with meat consumption. The MAQ
measures four constructs, including hedonic attitude toward, affinity
8.2.1. Future directions for, entitlement toward, and dependence on meat. Investigators can
Additional research is needed to explain why studies have reported either quantify each of the four subscales discretely or compute a
inconsistent findings concerning the link between vegetarianism and composite MAQ score to capture a general feeling of meat attachment.
depression. As the majority of existing work in this domain has been Another measure by Graça, Calheiros, Oliveira (2016), the Moral Dis-
correlational, experimental manipulations of dietary pattern can pro- engagement in Meat Questionnaire (MDMQ), assesses ways in which
vide valuable insights. Moreover, two questions regarding studies people selectively deactivate moral self-regulatory processes when
finding higher rates of depression among vegetarians call for further considering the effects of meat production. The MDMQ measures five
investigation. First, does this effect reflect more depressed individuals' strategies people employ to disengage moral concern for the effects of
selecting to follow a vegetarian diet, or does following a vegetarian diet meat production, including justifying meat consumption as a means to
actually lead people to report more depressive symptoms? Second, if higher ends, desensitizing oneself to animal suffering and death, de-
following a vegetarian diet does indeed one's risk for depression, then nying the negative consequences of meat production and consumption,
by what means does it do so? Mechanisms may be not only physiolo- diffusing one's sense of personal responsibility for those consequences,
gical, but also psychosocial, in nature. For example, becoming a vege- and believing that one has little free choice to refrain from eating meat.
tarian may lead one to adopt a minority identity, which may itself cause Like with the MAQ, investigators can either quantify each subscale
one to face psychological adversities (Forestell & Nezlek, 2018). discretely or compute a composite MDMQ score.
Based on Joy’s (2009) conceptualization of carnism, Monteiro et al.
9. Neighboring literature on the psychology of meat consumption (2017)put forth the Carnism Inventory. The Carnism Inventory en-
compasses two subscales: a carnistic defense subscale reflecting the
Closely linked to the array of studies covered in this review is a extent to which people legitimize the practice of eating animals and a
neighboring body literature on the psychology of meat consumption. carnistic domination subscale reflecting the extent to which people
Whereas the current review is focused on phenomena surrounding meat support the killing of animals for food. Investigators can quantify these
avoidance, and thus refrains from delving into this neighboring litera- subscales discretely or compute a composite carnism score. Caviola
ture in detail, understanding those phenomena related to meat con- et al. (2018) reason that carnism falls within the parameters of the
sumption can enable investigators to contextualize vegetarianism with overarching ideology of speciesism. Merging philosophical and psy-
greater insights. For one, an emerging line of research is examining chological perspectives, Caviola et al. (2018) propose a

134
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

conceptualization of speciesism and provide a single-factor scale to 2012). Thus, many former vegetarians may continue some degree of
assess the extent to which people endorse speciesist attitudes. animal-product avoidance by becoming either flexitarians (eating a diet
low in meat) or conscientious omnivores (seeking to eat meat only from
10. Concluding remarks humanely raised animals) (Singer & Mason, 2006). It could be inter-
esting to explore ways in which moral and health attitudes toward meat
Recent research has made great progress in advancing the psy- inform, and are informed by, decisions to return to eating meat as well
chology of vegetarianism, extending prior lines of inquiry and gen- as stages through which former vegetarians welcome meat back into
erating insights into previously unexplored topics. Still, within and their diets.
beyond the domains covered in the sections above, knowledge gaps Focusing on the prospective onset component of lifespan timing,
linger and await future investigation. some studies (e.g., Díaz, 2016; Gallimore, 2015; Rosenfeld, 2018b)
For one, relative to the large body of literature on vegetarianism in have examined people who are open to becoming vegetarian in the
Western cultures, much less—albeit a growing line of—social scientific future. Still, additional research is needed to understand more con-
research (e.g., Liu, Cai, & Zhu, 2015; Ruby & Heine, 2012; Ruby et al., cretely which types of people are most likely to become vegetarian and
2013; Schö;sler et al., 2015; Tung, Tsay, & Lin, 2015) has focused on how people actually plan for this transition. Factors including whether
vegetarianism in Eastern cultures. As food choice is often embedded prospective vegetarians envision their dietary change as temporary or
within historical and religious factors that shape moral norms pertinent permanent as well as which type of diet (e.g., pescatarian, lacto-ovo
to eating, more research on Eastern vegetarianism can both identify the vegetarian, vegan) they plan to adopt may be of particular interest.
boundaries of existing research from Western samples and highlight As much prior work has done, future research should continue to
unifying aspects that transcend cultural contexts. Relatedly, additional examine how people construct and maintain various types of meat-re-
research is needed to appreciate the intersectionality of vegetarianism duced diets. In one sense, this may pertain to dietary adherence. A
with other identity domains of race, gender, religion, socioeconomic recurrent finding is that many people who self-identify as vegetarian
status, sexual orientation, and so forth, as the limited evidence on this follow their diets flexibly, eating meat from time to time (Rothgerber,
topic is promising (e.g., Mycek, 2018). 2017). Whereas some research has identified what types of vegetarians
Whereas much research has elucidated the role of dietary motiva- are more or less likely to violate their diets (e.g., Rosenfeld, 2018c;
tion in vegetarian dieting, more research on personality factors in- Rothgerber, 2014a, 2015a), little is known about the circumstances
volved in food choice is needed. A recurrent finding across recent stu- under which dietary violations are most likely to occur. The con-
dies is that vegetarians are more open to new experiences than are sumption of alcohol may play a role, as one survey found that 37% of
omnivores (Forestell et al., 2012; Forestell & Nezlek, 2018; Pfeiler & British vegetarians have eaten meat while intoxicated (Esquire, 2017).
Egloff, 2018). Greater agreeableness and neuroticism may also predict Other factors related to self-control and social influence likely shape
meat avoidance (Forestell & Nezlek, 2018; Keller & Siegrist, 2015). dietary adherence as well but have yet to have been documented.
What remains unclear, however, is the directionality of the link be- In another sense, understanding the construction and maintenance
tween personality and vegetarianism—that is, whether certain person- of meat-reduced diets may extend beyond conventional patterns of
ality traits may shape one's eating behaviors and/or whether one's vegetarianism. Less commonly studied variants, including flexitar-
eating behaviors may alter the expression of one's personality. Future ianism and conscientious omnivorism, welcome further consideration.
research should also pay attention to the restrictiveness of animal- As reviewed earlier, paying greater attention to flexitarians offers
product avoidance, as personality may associate differently with less promising potential not only to elucidate phenomena related to identity
restrictive diets such as flexitarianism than with more restrictive ones and morality but also to support efforts aimed at improving public
such as veganism. health and environmental sustainability. Rather than curtailing their
A largely unexplored area with the potential to bridge gaps between overall meat intake, moreover, some people decide to forgo meat they
vegetarianism and developmental psychology includes the role of life- consider to have been produced unethically. Some studies (e.g.,
span timing in vegetarianism. As Ruby (2012) has noted previously, Rothgerber, 2015a, 2015b) have begun to understand these con-
little research has either focused on vegetarian children (e.g., Hussar & scientious omnivores more concretely, yet much remains unknown
Harris, 2010) or compared people who have been raised on a vegetarian about how they fare on a host of outcomes that have been studied more
diet with those who decided to become vegetarian later in life. Several thoroughly among vegetarians.
studies (e.g., Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Hirschler, 2011) have found As research progresses, investigators can benefit from considering
that the overwhelming majority of vegetarians in Western cultures have the advantages and limitations of various methodological practices. A
not been vegetarian since birth but instead transitioned to vegetar- major factor limiting causal inferences from current research on vege-
ianism at a later point in life. Not only might vegetarian children and tarianism is reliance on correlational designs. Studies comparing psy-
adults reason differently about health, morality, and their own food chological outcomes between people who follow different dietary pat-
choices, but onlookers might even evaluate vegetarians differently de- terns or studies predicting dietary behavior from attitudinal,
pending on their age. For example, people generally view vegetarianism behavioral, or demographic variables involve an inherent self-selection
in a positive light when practiced by adults but in a negative light when bias, such that individuals have chosen to follow their dietary patterns
practiced by children (Črnič, 2013). In considering vegetarian lifespan prior to a study's commencement. As such, directionality regarding
timing, moreover, investigators might benefit from studying adoles- links between dietary patterns and outcomes can remain ambiguous, or
cents as distinct from either children or adults (e.g., Worsley & such links may be due to confounding variables. Correlational studies
Skrzypiec, 1997). have provided critical insights that have transformed the literature re-
In addition to its relevance to prior onset (the times at which current viewed in this paper and should continue to serve a vital role in pro-
vegetarians adopted their diets), lifespan timing can also apply to prior gressing this line of work. At the same time, designs that manipulate
termination (returning to eating meat after having been vegetarian) and dietary pattern—through priming, thought experiments, having parti-
prospective onset (planning to become vegetarian in the future) cipants consume a particular meal within a study, or assigning parti-
(Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2017a). Indeed, a few recent studies (e.g., cipants to follow particular diets for extended periods of time—can
Haverstock & Forgays, 2012; Hodson & Earle, 2018; Menzies & provide valuable accounts of eating behavior and complement corre-
Sheeshka, 2012) have examined former vegetarians. Interestingly, after lational findings. An increased output of experimental research on ve-
returning to an omnivorous diet, many former vegetarians still seek to getarianism can also overcome causal-inference limitations posed by
eat in accordance with their ethical values by moderating their meat qualitative studies, which have comprised much of the existing litera-
intakes or eating only organic or free-range meat (Menzies & Sheeshka, ture.

135
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

Two additional methodological considerations include study pre- psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.
registration and statistical power. First, with efforts afoot to improve org/10.1037/pspp0000182.
Cherry, E. (2015). I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle
the reproducibility of psychological science, it would behoove in- movements. Sociological Inquiry, 85, 55–74.
vestigators to preregister their studies—including their hypotheses, Chuter, R. (2018). Finding companionship on the road less travelled: A netnography of the
planned sample size, materials, planned analyses, any data exclusion whole food plant-based aussies Facebook groupBachelor’s thesis. Edith Cowan
University.
criteria, and so forth—in order to minimize the chance of reporting a Cliceri, D., Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2018). The influence
false positive result. Second, ensuring that studies are sufficiently of psychological traits, beliefs and taste responsiveness on implicit attitudes toward
powered (80% power is a commonly desired minimum) to detect main plant-and animal-based dishes among vegetarians, flexitarians and omnivores. Food
Quality and Preference, 68, 276–291.
hypothesized effects can maximize the chance of detecting a significant Cole, M., & Morgan, K. (2011). Vegaphobia: Derogatory discourses of veganism and the
effect when such an effect does indeed exist (i.e., avoiding a false ne- reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers. British Journal of Sociology, 62,
gative result). One strategy for recruiting large samples to obtain highly 134–153.
Corrin, T., & Papadopoulos, A. (2017). Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of
powered studies is to utilize crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon
vegetarian and plant-based diets to shape future health promotion programs. Appetite,
Mechanical Turk (MTurk). In addition to these considerations, in- 109, 40–47.
vestigators can also enhance the transparency and efficiency of research Cramer, H., Kessler, C. S., Sundberg, T., Leach, M. J., Schumann, D., Adams, J., et al.
on vegetarianism by making their data publicly available. (2017). Characteristics of Americans choosing vegetarian and vegan diets for health
reasons. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 49, 561–567.
More than a position rooted in philosophical perspectives or nutri- Črnič, A. (2013). Studying social aspects of vegetarianism: A research proposal on the
tional science, the decision to avoid meat is ultimately one intertwined basis of a survey among adult population of two slovenian biggest cities. Collegium
with psychology. Vegetarianism and its variants constitute a continuum Antropologicum, 37, 1111–1120.
Dagevos, H., & Voordouw, J. (2013). Sustainability and meat consumption: Is reduction
of eating behaviors characterized by myriad attitudes, self-perceptions, realistic? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 9, 60–69.
cultural roots, gendered perceptions, and social implications. As in- Dagnelie, P. C., & Mariotti, F. (2017). Vegetarian diets: Definitions and pitfalls in inter-
vestigators approach novel questions with an eye toward a more hol- preting literature on health effects of vegetarianism. In F. Mariotti (Ed.). Vegetarian
and plant-based diets in health and disease prevention (pp. 2–10). London, UK: Academic
istic understanding of these phenomena and more, the psychology of Press.
vegetarianism is well-poised to remain a blossoming field of study. De Backer, C. J., & Hudders, L. (2014). From meatless Mondays to meatless Sundays:
Motivations for meat reduction among vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who mildly
or significantly reduce their meat intake. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53, 639–657.
Acknowledgements De Backer, C. J., & Hudders, L. (2015). Meat morals: Relationship between meat con-
sumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral beha-
The author thanks Kaylin Ratner and Anthony Burrow for their vior. Meat Science, 99, 68–74.
DeLessio-Parson, A. (2017). Doing vegetarianism to destabilize the meat-masculinity
constructive feedback on a previous version of this manuscript.
nexus in La Plata, Argentina. Gender, Place & Culture, 24, 1729–1748.
Derbyshire, E. J. (2017). Flexitarian diets and health: A review of the evidence-based
References literature. Frontiers in Nutrition, 3, 55.
Devine, C. M., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., & Sobal, J. (1998). Life-course influences on
fruit and vegetable trajectories: Qualitative analysis of food choices. Journal of
Adams, C. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist vegetarian critical theory. New York, Nutrition Education, 30, 361–370.
NY: Continuum. Díaz, E. M. (2016). Animal humanness, animal use, and intention to become ethical ve-
Agarwal, U., Mishra, S., Xu, J., Levin, S., Gonzales, J., & Barnard, N. D. (2015). A mul- getarian or ethical vegan. Anthrozoös, 29, 263–282.
ticenter randomized controlled trial of a nutrition intervention program in a multi- Duchene, T. N., & Jackson, L. M. (2017). Effects of motivation framing and content domain
ethnic adult population in the corporate setting reduces depression and anxiety and on intentions to eat plant-and animal-based foods. Society & Animals 0.63/5685306-
improves quality of life: The GEICO study. American Journal of Health Promotion, 29, 34466.
245–254. Dyett, P. A., Sabaté, J., Haddad, E., Rajaram, S., & Shavlik, D. (2013). Vegan lifestyle
Allès, B., Baudry, J., Méjean, C., Touvier, M., Péneau, S., Hercberg, S., et al. (2017). behaviors. An exploration of congruence with health-related beliefs and assessed
Comparison of sociodemographic and nutritional characteristics between self-re- health indices. Appetite, 67, 119–124.
ported vegetarians, vegans, and meat-eaters from the Nutrinet-Sante study. Nutrients, Earle, M., & Hodson, G. (2017). What's your beef with vegetarians? Predicting anti-ve-
9, 1023. getarian prejudice from pro-beef attitudes across cultures. Personality and Individual
Anderson, E. C., Wormwood, J. B., Barrett, L., & Quigley, K. (2018). Vegetarians' and Differences, 119, 52–55.
omnivores' affective and physiological responses to food. Food Quality and Preference, Edwards, S. (2013). Living in a minority food culture: A phenomenological investigation
71, 96–105. of being vegetarian/vegan. Phenomenology & Practice, 7, 111–125.
Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2016). It's not vegetarian, it's meat-free! Meat eaters, meat Ensaff, H., Coan, S., Sahota, P., Braybrook, D., Akter, H., & McLeod, H. (2015).
reducers and vegetarians and the case of Quorn in the UK. Social Business, 6, 267–290. Adolescents' food choice and the place of plant-based foods. Nutrients, 7, 4619–4637.
Arbit, N., Ruby, M., & Rozin, P. (2017). Development and validation of the meaning of Esquire (2017, August 21). A huge number of vegetarians eat meat when they’re drunk.
food in life questionnaire (MFLQ): Evidence for a new construct to explain eating Esquire. Retrieved from https://www.esquire.com/uk/food-drink/news/a16780/
behavior. Food Quality and Preference, 59, 35–45. vegetarians-drunk-eating-meat/.
Arora, A. S., Bradford, S., Arora, A., & Gavino, R. (2017). Promoting vegetarianism Fiestas-Flores, J., & Pyhälä, A. (2017). Dietary motivations and challenges among animal
through moralization and knowledge calibration. Journal of Promotion Management, rights advocates in Spain. Society & Animals 0.63/5685306-34484.
23, 889–912. Filippi, M., Riccitelli, G., Falini, A., Di Salle, F., Vuilleumier, P., Comi, G., et al. (2010).
Asanova, A. (2017). Vegetarian diet as a risk factor for depression. Psychosomatic Medicine The brain functional networks associated to human and animal suffering differ
and General Practice, 2 e020490-e020490. among omnivores, vegetarians and vegans. PLoS One, 5, e10847.
Barthels, F., Meyer, F., & Pietrowsky, R. (2018). Orthorexic and restrained eating beha- Filippi, M., Riccitelli, G., Meani, A., Falini, A., Comi, G., & Rocca, M. A. (2013). The
viour in vegans, vegetarians, and individuals on a diet. Eating and Weight Disorders - “vegetarian brain”: Chatting with monkeys and pigs? Brain Structure and Function,
Studies on Anorexia. Bulimia and Obesity, 23, 159–166. 218, 1211–1227.
Beardsworth, A. D., & Keil, E. T. (1991). Vegetarianism, veganism, and meat avoidance: Forestell, C. A. (2018). Flexitarian diet and weight control: Healthy or risky eating
Recent trends and findings. British Food Journal, 93, 19–24. Behavior? Frontiers in Nutrition, 5, 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2018.00059.
Beardsworth, A. D., & Keil, E. T. (1992). The vegetarian option: Varieties, conversions, Forestell, C. A., & Nezlek, J. B. (2018). Vegetarianism, depression, and the five factor
motives and careers. The Sociological Review, 40, 253–293. model of personality. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 57, 246–259.
Beezhold, B., Radnitz, C., Rinne, A., & DiMatteo, J. (2015). Vegans report less stress and Forestell, C. A., Spaeth, A. M., & Kane, S. A. (2012). To eat or not to eat red meat. A closer
anxiety than omnivores. Nutritional Neuroscience, 18, 289–296. look at the relationship between restrained eating and vegetarianism in college fe-
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, males. Appetite, 58, 319–325.
1–62. Fox, N., & Ward, K. J. (2008a). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of
Bilewicz, M., Imhoff, R., & Drogosz, M. (2011). The humanity of what we eat: vegetarian motivations. Appetite, 50, 422–429.
Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. European Fox, N., & Ward, K. J. (2008b). You are what you eat? Vegetarianism, health and identity.
Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 201–209. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 2585–2595.
de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2017). Towards a reduced meat diet: Mindset and Gallimore, T. E. (2015). Understanding the reasons for and barriers to becoming vegetarian in
motivation of young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters. Appetite, 113, prospective vegetarians and vegansDoctoral dissertation. McGill University.
387–397. Gilsing, A. M., Weijenberg, M. P., Goldbohm, R. A., Dagnelie, P. C., van den Brandt, P. A.,
Campbell, T. C., & Campbell, T. M. (2006). The China Study: The most comprehensive study & Schouten, L. J. (2013). The Netherlands cohort study–meat investigation cohort: A
of nutrition ever conducted and the startling implications for diet, weight loss and long-term population-based cohort over-represented with vegetarians, pescetarians and low
health. Dallas, TX: Benbella Books. meat consumers. Nutrition Nournal, 12, 156.
Caviola, L., Everett, J. A., & Faber, N. S. (2018). The moral standing of animals: Towards a Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and

136
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 95, 113–125. ethical food consumption in a vegetarian restaurant in Guangzhou, China.
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2016). Situating moral disengagement: Geographical Review, 105, 551–565.
Motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Personality and Individual Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals. Current
Differences, 90, 353–364. Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 104–108.
Greenebaum, J. B. (2012a). Managing impressions: “Face-saving” strategies of vegetar- Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the
ians and vegans. Humanity and Society, 36, 309–325. denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159.
Greenebaum, J. (2012b). Veganism, identity and the quest for authenticity. Food, Culture Love, H. J., & Sulikowski, D. (2018). Of meat and men: Sex differences in implicit and
and Society, 15, 129–144. explicit attitudes towards meat. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 559. https://doi.org/10.
Greenebaum, J., & Dexter, B. (2017). Vegan men and hybrid masculinity. Journal of 3389/fpsyg.2018.00559.
Gender Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1287064. Lund, T. B., McKeegan, D. E., Cribbin, C., & Sandøe, P. (2016). Animal ethics profiling of
Hartmann, C., Ruby, M. B., Schmidt, P., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Brave, health-conscious, vegetarians, vegans and meat-eaters. Anthrozoös, 29, 89–106.
and environmentally friendly: Positive impressions of insect food product consumers. MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2017). It ain't easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward
Food Quality and Preference, 68, 64–71. vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Processes & Intergroup
Haverstock, K., & Forgays, D. K. (2012). To eat or not to eat. A comparison of current and Relations, 20, 721–744.
former animal product limiters. Appetite, 58, 1030–1036. Meister, K. (1997). Vegetarianism. New York: American Council on Science and Health.
Hayley, A., Zinkiewicz, L., & Hardiman, K. (2015). Values, attitudes, and frequency of Menzies, K., & Sheeshka, J. (2012). The process of exiting vegetarianism: An exploratory
meat consumption. Predicting meat-reduced diet in Australians. Appetite, 84, 98–106. study. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 73, 163–168.
Heiss, S., Coffino, J. A., & Hormes, J. M. (2017). Eating and health behaviors in vegans Michalak, J., Zhang, X. C., & Jacobi, F. (2012). Vegetarian diet and mental disorders:
compared to omnivores: Dispelling common myths. Appetite, 118, 129–135. Results from a representative community survey. International Journal of Behavioral
Heiss, S., & Hormes, J. M. (2018). Ethical concerns regarding animal use mediate the Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 67.
relationship between variety of pets owned in childhood and vegetarianism in Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated
adulthood. Appetite, 123, 43–48. minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
Hibbeln, J. R., Northstone, K., Evans, J., & Golding, J. (2018). Vegetarian diets and de- 3, 200–207.
pressive symptoms among men. Journal of Affective Disorders, 225, 13–17. Monin, B. (2007). Holier than me? Threatening social comparison in the moral domain.
Hirschler, C. A. (2011). “What pushed me over the edge was a deer hunter”: Being vegan Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 20, 53–68.
in North America. Society and Animals, 19, 156–174. Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017). The Carnism
Hodson, G., & Earle, M. (2018). Conservatism predicts lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appetite, 113, 51–62.
to meat consumption (through lower social justice concerns and social support). Morgan Thompson, E. M., & Morgan, E. M. (2008). Mostly straight" young women:
Appetite, 120, 75–81. Variations in sexual behavior and identity development. Developmental Psychology,
Hoffman, S. R., Stallings, S. F., Bessinger, R. C., & Brooks, G. T. (2013). Differences be- 44, 15–21.
tween health and ethical vegetarians. Strength of conviction, nutrition knowledge, Mullee, A., Vermeire, L., Vanaelst, B., Mullie, P., Deriemaeker, P., Leenaert, T., ...
dietary restriction, and duration of adherence. Appetite, 65, 139–144. Huybrechts, I. (2017). Vegetarianism and meat consumption: A comparison of atti-
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2003). Not being what you claim to be: Impostors as sources tudes and beliefs between vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, and omnivorous subjects in
of group threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 639–657. Belgium. Appetite, 114, 299–305.
Horta, O. (2017). Discrimination against vegans. Res Publica. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Mycek, M. K. (2018). Meatless meals and masculinity: How veg* men explain their plant-
s11158-017-9356-3. based diets. Food and Foodways, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2017.
Hussar, K. M., & Harris, P. L. (2010). Children who choose not to eat meat: A study of 1420355.
early moral decision‐making. Social Development, 19, 627–641. Perry, C. L., Mcguire, M. T., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Story, M. (2001). Characteristics of
Izmirli, S., & Phillips, C. J. (2011). The relationship between student consumption of vegetarian adolescents in a multiethnic urban population. Journal of Adolescent
animal products and attitudes to animals in Europe and Asia. British Food Journal, Health, 29, 406–416.
113, 436–450. Pfeiler, T. M., & Egloff, B. (2018). Examining the “Veggie” personality: Results from a
Jabs, J., Devine, C. M., & Sobal, J. (1998). Maintaining vegetarian diets: Personal factors, representative German sample. Appetite, 120, 246–255.
social networks and environmental resources. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., et al. (2015).
Research, 59, 183–189. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128.
Jabs, J., Sobal, J., & Devine, C. M. (2000). Managing vegetarianism: Identities, norms and Pohjolainen, P., Vinnari, M., & Jokinen, P. (2015). Consumers' perceived barriers to
interactions. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 39, 375–394. following a plant-based diet. British Food Journal, 117, 1150–1167.
Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M., & Hamm, U. (2016). Motives of consumers following Potts, A., & Parry, J. (2010). Vegan sexuality: Challenging heteronormative masculinity
a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643–651. through meat-free sex. Feminism & Psychology, 20, 53–72.
Joy, M. (2009). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. San Povey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian
Francisco, CA: Conari Press. and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37, 15–26.
Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2015). Vegetarian utopias: Visions of dietary patterns in Radnitz, C., Beezhold, B., & DiMatteo, J. (2015). Investigation of lifestyle choices of in-
future societies and support for social change. Futures, 71, 57–69. dividuals following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons. Appetite, 90, 31–36.
Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2018). A dual-process motivational model of attitudes toward Ritchie, H., Reay, D. S., & Higgins, P. (2018). Potential of meat substitutes for climate
vegetarians and vegans. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10. change mitigation and improved human health in high-income markets. Frontiers in
1002/ejsp.2386. Sustainable Food Systems, 2, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00016.
Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Does personality influence eating styles and food Rogers, R. A. (2008). Beasts, burgers, and hummers: Meat and the crisis of masculinity in
choices? Direct and indirect effects. Appetite, 84, 128–138. contemporary television advertisements. Environmental Communication, 2, 281–301.
Kerschke-Risch, P. (2015). Vegan diet: Motives, approach and duration. Initial results of a Romo, L. K., & Donovan-Kicken, E. (2012). “Actually, I don't eat meat”: A multiple-goals
quantitative sociological study. Ernahrungs Umschau, 62, 98–103. perspective of communication about vegetarianism. Communication Studies, 63,
Kessler, C. S., Holler, S., Joy, S., Dhruva, A., Michalsen, A., Dobos, G., et al. (2016). 405–420.
Personality profiles, values and empathy: Differences between lacto-ovo-vegetarians Rosenfeld, D. L. (2018a). A comparison of dietarian identity profiles between vegetarians and
and vegans. Complementary Medicine Research, 23, 95–102. vegans. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kessler, C. S., Michalsen, A., Holler, S., Murthy, V. S., & Cramer, H. (2018). How empathic Rosenfeld, D. L. (2018b). A comparison of omnivores who are open to becoming vegetarian
are vegan medical professionals compared to others? Leads from a paper–pencil- with those who are not. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
survey. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72, 780–784. Rosenfeld, D. L. (2018c). Why some choose the vegetarian option: Are all ethical motivations
Kildal, C. L., & Syse, K. L. (2017). Meat and masculinity in the Norwegian armed forces. the same? (Manuscript submitted for publication).
Appetite, 112, 69–77. Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017a). The unified model of vegetarian identity: A
Klopp, S. A., Heiss, C. J., & Smith, H. S. (2003). Self-reported vegetarianism may be a conceptual framework for understanding plant-based food choices. Appetite, 112,
marker for college women at risk for disordered eating. Journal of the American 78–95.
Dietetic Association, 103, 745–747. Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017b). Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the
Kunst, J. R., & Haugestad, C. A. P. (2018). The effects of dissociation on willingness to eat motivations of plant-based dieters. Appetite, 116, 456–463.
meat are moderated by exposure to unprocessed meat: A cross-cultural demonstra- Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2018a). Development and validation of the dietarian
tion. Appetite, 120, 356–366. identity questionnaire: Assessing self-perceptions of animal-product consumption.
Kunst, J. R., & Hohle, S. M. (2016). Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare Appetite, 127, 182–194.
and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2018b). Vegetarianism and beyond: Investigating how
disgust. Appetite, 105, 758–774. people construe meat avoidance. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
Larsson, C. L., Rönnlund, U., Johansson, G., & Dahlgren, L. (2003). Veganism as status Rothgerber, H. (2012). Real men don't eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the jus-
passage: The process of becoming a vegan among youths in Sweden. Appetite, 41, tification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14, 363–375.
61–67. Rothgerber, H. (2013). A meaty matter. Pet diet and the vegetarian's dilemma. Appetite,
Lea, E. J., Crawford, D., & Worsley, A. (2006). Consumers' readiness to eat a plant-based 68, 76–82.
diet. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 342–351. Rothgerber, H. (2014a). A comparison of attitudes toward meat and animals among strict
Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2003). Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian and semi-vegetarians. Appetite, 72, 98–105.
diet in Australia. Public Health Nutrition, 6, 505–511. Rothgerber, H. (2014b). Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat
LeRette, D. E. (2014). Stories of microaggressions directed toward vegans and vegetarians in eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41.
social settingsDoctoral dissertation. Fielding Graduate University. Rothgerber, H. (2014c). Evaluation of ingroup disloyalty within a multigroup context.
Liu, C., Cai, X., & Zhu, H. (2015). Eating out ethically: An analysis of the influence of Social Psychology, 45, 382–390.

137
D.L. Rosenfeld Appetite 131 (2018) 125–138

Rothgerber, H. (2014d). Horizontal hostility among non-meat eaters. PLoS One, 9, 135–158.
e96457. Sobal, J., Bisogni, C. A., & Jastran, M. (2014). Food choice is multifaceted, contextual,
Rothgerber, H. (2014e). Carnivorous cats, vegetarian dogs, and the resolution of the dynamic, multilevel, integrated, and diverse. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8, 6–12.
vegetarian's dilemma. Anthrozoös, 27, 485–498. Stiles, B. (1998). Vegetarianism: Identity and experiences as factors in food selection. Free
Rothgerber, H. (2015a). Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 26, 213–226.
vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite, 84, 196–203. Stoll-Kleemann, S., & Schmidt, U. J. (2017). Reducing meat consumption in developed
Rothgerber, H. (2015b). Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: A review of
vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals. Appetite, 87, 251–258. influence factors. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 1261–1277.
Rothgerber, H. (2017). Attitudes toward meat and plants in vegetarians. In F. Mariotti Testoni, I., Ghellar, T., Rodelli, M., De Cataldo, L., & Zamperini, A. (2017).
(Ed.). Vegetarian and plant-based diets in health and disease prevention (pp. 11–35). Representations of death among Italian vegetarians: An ethnographic research on
London, UK: Academic Press. environment, disgust and transcendence. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 13, 378–395.
Rothgerber, H., & Mican, F. (2014). Childhood pet ownership, attachment to pets, and Thomas, M. A. (2016). Are vegans the same as vegetarians? The effect of diet on per-
subsequent meat avoidance. The mediating role of empathy toward animals. Appetite, ceptions of masculinity. Appetite, 97, 79–86.
79, 11–17. Tian, Q., Hilton, D., & Becker, M. (2016). Confronting the meat paradox in different
Rozin, P., Hormes, J. M., Faith, M. S., & Wansink, B. (2012). Is meat male? A quantitative cultural contexts: Reactions among Chinese and French participants. Appetite, 96,
multimethod framework to establish metaphoric relationships. Journal of Consumer 187–194.
Research, 39, 629–643. Timko, C. A., Hormes, J. M., & Chubski, J. (2012). Will the real vegetarian please stand
Ruby, M. B. (2008). Of meat, morals, and masculinity: Factors underlying the consumption of up? An investigation of dietary restraint and eating disorder symptoms in vegetarians
non-human animals, and inferences about another's charactermaster's thesis. Vancouver, versus non-vegetarians. Appetite, 58, 982–990.
British Columbia: The University of British Columbia. Torti, J. M. (2017). The social and psychological well-being of vegetarians: A focused ethno-
Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58, 141–150. graphy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.
Ruby, M. B., Alvarenga, M. S., Rozin, P., Kirby, T. A., Richer, E., & Rutsztein, G. (2016). Trautmann, J., Rau, S. I., Wilson, M. A., & Walters, C. (2008). Vegetarian students in their
Attitudes toward beef and vegetarians in Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA. first year of college: Are they at risk for restrictive or disordered eating behaviors?
Appetite, 96, 546–554. College Student Journal, 42, 340–347.
Ruby, M. B., Cheng, T. K., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Cultural differences in food choices and Tung, S. J., Tsay, J. C., & Lin, M. C. (2015). Life course, diet-related identity and consumer
attitudes towards animals. (Unpublished raw data). choice of organic food in Taiwan. British Food Journal, 117, 688–704.
Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56, 447–450. Twine, R. (2014). Vegan killjoys at the table—contesting happiness and negotiating re-
Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2012). Too close to home. Factors predicting meat avoidance. lationships with food practices. Societies, 4, 623–639.
Appetite, 59, 47–52. Vartanian, L. R. (2015). Impression management and food intake. Current directions in
Ruby, M. B., Heine, S. J., Kamble, S., Cheng, T. K., & Waddar, M. (2013). Compassion and research. Appetite, 86, 74–80.
contamination. Cultural differences in vegetarianism. Appetite, 71, 340–348. Veser, P., Taylor, K., & Singer, S. (2015). Diet, authoritarianism, social dominance or-
Schösler, H., de Boer, J., Boersema, J. J., & Aiking, H. (2015). Meat and masculinity ientation, and predisposition to prejudice: Results of a German survey. British Food
among young Chinese, Turkish and Dutch adults in The Netherlands. Appetite, 89, Journal, 117, 1949–1960.
152–159. White, R. F., Seymour, J., & Frank, E. (1999). Vegetarianism among US women physi-
Sedupane, G. (2017). A qualitative study exploring the experiences of Black South African cians. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99, 595–598.
vegetarians residing in the urban settings of Cape TownMaster’s thesis. University of Worsley, A., & Skrzypiec, G. (1997). Teenage vegetarianism: Beauty or the beast?
Western Cape. Nutrition Research, 17, 391–404.
Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The ethics of what we eat: Why our food choices matter. Wrenn, C. L. (2017). Trump veganism: A political survey of american vegans in the era of
Melbourne: Text Publishing. identity politics. Societies, 7, 32.
Sneijder, P., & Te Molder, H. (2009). Normalizing ideological food choice and eating Yeh, H. Y. (2014). Voice with every bite: Dietary identity and vegetarians' “the-second-
practices. Identity work in online discussions on veganism. Appetite, 52, 621–630. best” boundary work. Food, Culture and Society, 17, 591–613.
Sobal, J. (2005). Men, meat, and marriage: Models of masculinity. Food and Foodways, 13,

138