ABSTRACT
Introduction: Although vegan and vegetarian diets and lifestyles differ significantly from each other, among other things, notably in their respective consequences regarding animal welfare and their ecological impact, vegans and vegetarians are often grouped together and usually compared to omnivores in psychological research. Considering that vegans and vegetarians often share similar motives for their lifestyle choices, namely animal and environmental issues, the question arises why similar motives lead to different conclusions and correspondingly different behaviors, most notably, of course, that vegetarians consume animal-derived foods such as cheese or milk while vegans do not consume animal-derived products (e.g., food, cosmetic products). This is why this study explored the psychological differences between vegans, vegetarians, and prospective vegans - the latter group being located in an intermediate, transitionary position. Focusing on the motivational, affective and cognitive components of dietary transition and participants' adherence to eating patterns, reasons for said patterns, possible hinderances to becoming vegan, the role of participants' social environments, and the impact of various misconceptions regarding the feasibility of a vegan diet in everyday life were all explored. Methods: An observational study was conducted via online questionnaire (1420 participants). Results: Significant differences were found between vegans, prospective vegans, and vegetarians, especially concerning their knowledge of issues pertaining to their respective lifestyles. Discussion: The critical role of knowledge is invoked as an explanation as to why vegans and vegetarians display different behaviors although they share a similar motivation. Thus, in this study the concept of vegan literacy is introduced. Additionally, the distinctive role of cheese is explored, discussing possible indications of its potentially addictive nature and, consequently, the importance of cheese as a hindering factor for pursuing a vegan diet.
ABSTRACT
Several previous studies appear to have demonstrated that studying with retrieval practice produces more learning than studying with concept mapping, a finding based on which an extended use of retrieval practice in educational practice was recommended. However, a closer examination of the methods used in these previous studies reveals a crucial confounding variable: Whereas participants in the concept mapping conditions performed a concept mapping task without any subsequent memorizing of the learning material, participants in the retrieval practice conditions performed not only retrieval practice but also an additional memorization task, which doubled the total memorization time. The present preregistered study examined whether the advantage observed in the retrieval practice condition over the concept mapping condition in previous studies was actually driven by additional memorization rather than by retrieval practice. While we replicated the previous finding that retrieval practice in combination with additional memorizing produces more learning than concept mapping without additional memorizing, this advantage of retrieval practice over concept mapping vanished when participants in the concept mapping condition, too, memorized the learning material after having created a concept map. These findings demonstrate that the assumed advantage of retrieval practice over concept mapping in fact represents a methodological artifact. Besides serving as a reminder of the importance of a solid methodology, the present study also illustrates the importance of using of an adequate terminology. Depicting a learning strategy condition as "retrieval practice" when the condition actually encompasses not only retrieval practice but also additional memorizing obfuscates the possibility that observed memory advantages may not be fueled by retrieval practice, i.e., the learning strategy as such. We conclude by giving an outlook on the ramifications of our findings for cognitive and educational psychology.
