Minor and inconsistent differences in Big Five personality traits between vegetarians and vegans.

Most research examining individuals who follow different diets has combined vegetarians and vegans into a single group. To investigate whether this consolidation is justified, we analyzed possible differences between vegetarians and vegans for the Big Five personality traits in two studies. In our pre-study, we used data from a German convenience sample of 400 vegetarians and 749 vegans and found that vegans reported slightly higher scores in Openness compared to vegetarians (d = 0.22). In the preregistered main study, we used data provided by 1203 vegetarians and 128 vegans from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study; we found that vegetarians reported slightly higher scores in Neuroticism compared to vegans (d = 0.18) but did not differ in Openness. We found no differences in Conscientiousness, Extraversion, or Agreeableness in either study. Controlling for the socio-demographic variables of age, gender, and socio-economic status did not alter the pattern of results. Overall, these results suggest that there are no or only small differences in Openness or Neuroticism between vegetarians and vegans. Further studies utilizing very large, representative samples are needed to better understand the relationship between personality and diet groups.

Why They Eat What They Eat: Comparing 18 Eating Motives Among Omnivores and Veg*ns.

While the diets of most people include meat, millions of individuals follow a meat-free diet. But why do people eat what they eat? Here we explored differences and commonalities in the eating motives of omnivores and veg*ns (i.e., both vegetarians and vegans). Specifically, we compared mean levels and rank order of 18 eating motives in two samples (Study 1: 294 omnivores, 321 veg*ns; Study 2: 112 omnivores, 622 veg*ns). We found that omnivores were more motivated than veg*ns by the eating motives of Traditional Eating and Habits, while veg*ns were more motivated by Animal Protection and Environmental Protection. Differences among groups in Health were inconsistent across studies. Despite these differences in mean levels, the rank order of the eating motives was very similar: Two of the top four eating motives of both diet groups in both studies were Liking and Health, while Social Norms, Social Image, and Religion were among the four least important motives of both groups. Overall, while we did find differences in the absolute importance of certain motives, we also found striking similarities in the relative importance of eating motives, suggesting that including a wide range of eating motives could be beneficial when examining dietary behaviors.

Monitoring a meat-free pledge with smartphones: An experimental study.

Pledges are a popular strategy to encourage meat reduction, though experimental studies of their efficacy are lacking. Three-hundred and twenty-five participants from three different countries (UK, Germany, Australia) were randomly assigned to pledge 28 days meat-free or not, and their behavior was tracked via smartphones. Participants answered daily surveys regarding their eating behavior, meat cravings, and shared photos of their meals. Baseline data was collected prior to the pledge, after the 28 days, and one-month post-intervention. Participants assigned to the pledge condition ate less meat across the 28 days, compared to control participants. Meat reductions, observed at outtake, did not endure one-month post-intervention. Overall, German participants ate the least amount of meat, and showed the sharpest decrease in consumption when pledging. Meat cravings tended to increase among pledgers, relative to control participants. Pledgers who reported high starting intentions and conflict about meat tended to eat less meat and reported fewer cravings. All participants reported reduced meat-eating justifications one-month post-intervention. These findings provide experimental evidence that pledges can encourage meat consumers to reduce their intake, though additional mechanisms are needed to sustain commitments.

Personality and eating habits revisited: Associations between the big five, food choices, and Body Mass Index in a representative Australian sample.

OBJECTIVE: Personality traits are related to health and health-related behavior such as eating habits. However, results are inconsistent regarding exactly which traits are related to eating habits. The eating habits assessed across studies are also not easily comparable, as they are based on different food items and on different computational methods. This study investigated eating habits and their relationship to both the Big Five personality traits and Body Mass Index (BMI; an objective criterion of health status) in a representative Australian sample. METHOD: Participants were 13,892 adults from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey. An analysis of 14 food items yielded three salient eating habits: consuming carbohydrate-based food (e.g., bread, pasta, snacks), meat (e.g., red meat, poultry), and plant-based food and fish (e.g., vegetables, fruits, legumes, fish). RESULTS: These three eating habits showed differential associations with personality and BMI. Eating plant-based food and fish was positively associated with openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability in hierarchical regression analyses (controlling for sociodemographic factors and other personality traits). By contrast, consuming meat was negatively associated with openness and emotional stability, and positively associated with extraversion. Consuming carbohydrate-based food was negatively associated with conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability. BMI was negatively related to conscientiousness and emotional stability and positively associated with agreeableness; BMI was related to all three eating habits. CONCLUSION: The present findings highlight the links between personality and individual health-related behavior. Implications and recommendations for the further study of individual differences in eating habits are discussed.

Personality and meat consumption: The importance of differentiating between type of meat.

Recent research has shown that sociodemographic factors and the Big Five personality traits are related to people's overall level of meat consumption. However, there are important differences among various types of meat (e.g., red meat, poultry, and fish) that might lead to differential patterns in how the consumption of specific types of meat is associated with personality and sociodemographic factors. To disentangle these general and specific relationships, we conducted two studies using two large-scale representative samples from different countries: Germany (N = 13,062) and Australia (N = 15,036). Mostly consistent with our expectations, personality and sociodemographic variables showed specific associations with meat consumption, depending on type of meat. For example, in both studies, openness was negatively associated with red meat consumption but positively related to fish consumption, whereas it was unrelated to poultry consumption and overall meat consumption in hierarchical regression analyses in which we controlled for sociodemographic factors. By contrast, extraverted people reported both more consumption of each individual type of meat and more overall meat consumption. In sum, results were largely consistent between the samples, but effect sizes were generally small. Taken together, these two studies underscore the importance of differentiating between meat types when examining individual differences in meat consumption. Implications and future avenues for investigating the link between personality and dietary habits are discussed.

Examining the "Veggie" personality: Results from a representative German sample.

An increasing proportion of people choose to follow a vegetarian diet. To date, however, little is known about if and how individual differences in personality relate to following a vegetarian diet. In the two studies presented here, we aimed to (1) estimate the prevalence of self-defined vegetarians in two waves of a German representative sample (N = 4496 and 5125, respectively), (2) analyze the effect of socio-demographic variables on dietary behavior, and (3) examine individual differences between vegetarians and meat eaters in personality traits, political attitudes, and health-related variables. In Study 1, a strict definition of vegetarians was used, while in Study 2 the definition was laxer, to include also individuals who only predominantly followed a vegetarian diet. The prevalence of self-defined vegetarians was 2.74% in Study 1, and 5.97% in Study 2. Participants who were female, younger, and more educated were more likely to report following a vegetarian diet in both studies, and vegetarians had higher income as compared to meat eaters in Study 2. We also found differences between vegetarians and meat eaters with regard to personality traits, political attitudes, and health-related variables. Stepwise logistic regression analyses showed a unique effect beyond socio-demographic variables for openness (Studies 1 and 2), conscientiousness (Study 1), trust (Study 2), conservatism (Studies 1 and 2), and level of interest in politics (Study 1) on diet: Individuals with higher scores in openness and political interest had a higher probability of being vegetarian, whereas people with higher scores in conscientiousness and conservatism had a smaller likelihood of being vegetarian. We conclude that there are individual differences between vegetarians and meat eaters in socio-demographics, personality traits, and political attitudes.

Personality and attitudinal correlates of meat consumption: Results of two representative German samples.

The vast amount of meat consumed in the Western world is critically discussed with regard to negative health consequences, environmental impact, and ethical concerns for animals, emphasizing the need to extend knowledge regarding the correlates of meat consumption in the general population. In the present article, we conducted two studies examining the associations between meat consumption and personality traits, political attitudes, and environmental attitudes in two large German representative samples (Ntotal = 8,879, aged 18-96 years). Cross-sectional data on frequency of meat consumption, socio-demographics, personality traits, and political and environmental attitudes were collected via self-reports. In both studies, male sex, younger age, and lower educational attainment were significantly positively related to meat consumption. In Study 1, results of the partial correlations and the hierarchical regression analysis controlling for socio-demographics showed that the personality traits of openness and agreeableness, as well as conservative political and social views, explained unique variance in meat consumption. In Study 2, partial correlations and hierarchical regression analyses showed that openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were all uniquely negatively related to meat consumption. Moreover, these analyses documented that people scoring high in right-wing attitudes and low in pro-environmental attitudes reported more overall meat consumption. Taken together, these two studies provided evidence that socio-demographics, personality traits, and attitudes are indeed related to how much meat is consumed. Implications and future prospects for the study of individual differences in meat consumption are discussed.

The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals.

Beliefs surrounding the practice of eating animals are widely held, and have been argued to constitute an ideology named carnism (Joy, 2009). We developed and validated the novel Carnism Inventory to measure two positively related components of carnistic beliefs: carnistic defense and carnistic domination. We anticipated that carnistic defense would legitimate the practice of eating animals, while carnistic domination would support the killing of animals for their meat. The Carnism Inventory showed the hypothesized two-dimensional structure as well as good internal consistencies and stability (N = 302, Study 1). We also demonstrated the convergent and discriminant validity of the Carnism Inventory (N = 781, Study 2a). As expected, carnistic defense predicted meat consumption, while carnistic domination was a significant predictor of having slaughtered an animal (N = 478, Study 2b). Both scales were significantly related to sociopolitical beliefs, including right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, but only carnistic domination was related to symbolic racism and sexism (N = 373, Study 3). Taken together, our findings highlight the utility of the two-dimensional conceptualization and measurement of carnistic beliefs and offer new insights into one of the most common human behaviors: Eating animals is not only a gustatory behavior, as widely believed, but also an ideological one.

Adaptive modes of rumination: the role of subjective anger.

Rumination has been demonstrated to have negative consequences on affect, behaviour, and physiological markers. Recent studies, however, suggest that distinct "modes" of anger-associated rumination may lead to several positive consequences. Previous research primarily used recall procedures of anger episodes to elicit anger. By contrast, the present study focused on the effect of subjective anger on the process of rumination and tested its effects in a "staged" social interaction where a confederate provoked participants. Subsequently, participants engaged in rumination about the anger-eliciting event either in an abstract-distanced or a concrete-immersed rumination mode. Results showed an adaptive effect of abstract-distanced rumination on subjective anger primarily if anger is high prior to rumination. The findings also suggest different self-reported anger-related coping strategies in response to subjective anger intensity. These findings highlight that an abstract-distanced rumination may have differential effects on affective outcomes and anger-related coping strategies.