MSc. Marketing Management S.I.C. Olthof By: influences this decision. Why people are consuming meat and what Can people's intention to become a vegetarian be influenced?

Can people's intention to become a vegetarian be influenced?

Why people are consuming meat and what

influences this decision.

By:

S.I.C. Olthof

MSc. Marketing Management

II

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Can people's intention to become a vegetarian be influenced?

Why people are consuming meat and what

influences this decision.

-Master

Thesis-Author: S.I.C. Olthof

Student Number: S2127253

Email: s.i.c.olthof@student.rug.nl

Course of studies: Marketing Management (MSc.)

Year: 2018

Supervisor: Dr. W. Jager

Second supervisor: M.H. van Dijk

III

Abstract

Title of work: Can people's intention to become a vegetarian be influenced? Author: S.I.C. Olthof

Date of publication: 18 – 06 – 2018

Course of studies: Marketing Management (MSc.)

Previous studies showed that a vegetarian diet is more environmentally friendly than a meat-based diet (Scarborough et al., 2014). This study focuses on motivations that consumers might have to change their diets to a vegetarian diet. The aim of this thesis is to investigate and identify the key drivers for consumers to become vegetarian, and ultimately to provide direction for further research of this topic. The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) provides the basis on this research. Consumers’ attitudes towards certain aspects involved in the consumption of meat, as well as the subjective norm and perceived behavioral control, are scrutinized. A questionnaire was distributed among consumers in the Netherlands, which provided the data necessary for this study.

This study identified four main drivers for consumers to become vegetarian. The first is the tastiness of meat. Respondents indicated that when they like the taste of meat and enjoy eating meat, they have low intention to become vegetarian. Furthermore, the intention to become vegetarian is positively influenced by the positive effects that the consumption of meat substitutes involve (meat substitutes are more environmentally friendly, animal friendly and healthier), as well as the tastiness of these substitutes. Additionally, a positive mindset towards conforming to vegetarians also contributes to a higher intention of becoming vegetarian. Lastly, a higher availability of meat substitutes leads to a higher intention to become vegetarian.

Besides the significant influences that were found in this study, it is worth mentioning that the environmental impact of the consumption of meat has a non-significant positive influence on the intention to become vegetarian.

IV

Preface

The subject of global warming and saving the environment is a hot topic. Nowadays, people seem to pay more attention to why global warming is happening and how they can stop it. This inspired me to research the topic of global warming in combination with consumer behavior. Because these topics are very broad, I wanted to focus on something that has a big influence on global warming and that can be reduced easily by a small adjustment in behavior. This is how I came to the subject of why people are becoming vegetarian and what influences this decision. The thesis that lies before you is written in the period between February 2018 and June 2018 as a part of the Master Marketing Management at the University of Groningen.

This thesis focuses on the reasons why people would become vegetarian. A question that is hard to answer, as there are many aspects that influence this decision. This is why I decided to do research on the basis of the Theory of Planned Behavior. This theory states that there are three components that influence people’s decision making, namely attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. The goal of this thesis is to discuss how these components influence the decision whether or not to become vegetarian.

Not eating meat is a small step in a person’s life, but it can have a big impact on the environment. That is why I choose to study this subject. It is important to pay attention to the environment and contribute to a healthy environment where possible. Not consuming meat is a good first step towards a healthy environment.

I would like to thank dr. Wander Jager, my supervisor, during the process of writing this thesis. His guidance and feedback throughout the development of this thesis helped me to arrive at this point where the thesis is finalized. Furthermore, I would like to thank my family and friends who supported me during this process, especially my parents. Lastly, I would like to thank all the participants who took the time to fill in the questionnaire.

Saskia Olthof

V

Table of Contents

Abstract ... III Preface ... IV Table of Contents ... V List of Figures ... VII List of Tables ... VII

1 Introduction ... 1

2 Theoretical Framework ... 4

2.1 Theory of Planned Behavior ... 4

2.2 Attitude (behavioral beliefs) ... 5

Meat and the taste of meat ... 6

2.2.1 Environmental issues ... 6 2.2.2 Health issues ... 8 2.2.3 Animal welfare ... 9 2.2.4 Meat substitutes ... 10 2.2.5 2.3 Subjective norm (normative beliefs) ... 10

Masculinity of meat ... 11

2.3.1 Normative conformity: family and friends ... 12

2.3.2 Normative conformity: groups on social media ... 13

2.3.3 Normative conformity: vegetarianism ... 13

2.3.4 2.4 Perceived behavioral control (control beliefs)... 14

2.5 Conceptual model ... 15

3 Research methodology ... 16

3.1 Research design ... 16

VI

3.3 Collection of data ... 17

3.4 Sample ... 18

Vegetarians, vegans, flexitarians and pescetarians. ... 19

3.4.1 Meat eating habits ... 20

3.4.2 Meat substitutes ... 21

3.4.3 Drivers to become vegetarian ... 21

3.4.4 4 Empirical results ... 23

4.1 Reliability analysis on the variables ... 23

4.2 Multiple Regression analysis of the influences on the intention to become vegetarian. ... 25

5 Discussion ... 29

5.1 Attitudes ... 29

5.2 Subjective norm ... 32

5.3 Perceived behavioral control ... 34

6 Conclusion and recommendations ... 35

6.1 Limitations ... 36

6.2 Implications for further research ... 38

References ... 40

Appendices ... 51

Appendix A. Questionnaire ... 51

Appendix B. Cronbach’s Alpha ... 56

Appendix C. Multiple Regression analysis ... 57

Appendix D. Linear regression analysis gender – perceived masculine image of meat ... 58

VII

List of Figures

Figure 1. Forest & pasture area and cattle population in Central America, 1961 – 2000. 2

Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behavior. ... 5

Figure 3. CO2 emissions, 1850 – 2010. ... 7

Figure 4. Conceptual model... 15

Figure 5. Amount of times respondents eat meat during dinner. ... 20

List of Tables

Table 2. Yearly income sample and CBS. ... 19

Table 3. Age, highest education and yearly income sample. ... 19

Table 4. Hypotheses and questions in the questionnaire. ... 24

Table 5. Cronbach's Alpha variables. ... 25

1

1

Introduction

Global warming is a topic that is widely discussed over the past decades. In 2015, the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed. This agreement aims to reduce the risks and consequences of global warming (United Nations Climate Change, 2015). The agreement has been signed by 195 parties, as they all want to reduce environmental change. The discussion about global warming will continue in the future, as it is not something that can be fixed easily. In 2017, global surface temperature was nearly 0.9°C higher than in 1950 (NASA, 2018). Global warming is strongest in the Arctic regions, where the loss of sea ice is a visible consequence (NASA, 2018).

FAOstat, the statistics department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, stated that:

“Increases in air temperature associated with climate change threaten plant growth and yield, putting millions of farmers and communities at risk throughout the world. Together with changes in precipitation and increases in extreme events such as flooding and droughts, temperature change threatens countries’ food security, and their ability to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development.” (FAOstat, 2018). Global warming is not only the melting of the ice at the arctic regions, but its effects are worldwide, and it is felt by everyone. Floods, droughts, cyclones and wildfires are examples of these effects (IPCC, 2014).

2 (15%) (Barona et al., 2010), the use of transport (14%) and electricity and heat production (24%) (IPCC, 2014).

Consumers can help reduce global warming effects in different ways, ranging from easy-to-adopt changes to radical changes (Denschak, 2017). Using renewable energy to power homes, insulate houses properly and investing in energy-efficient appliances are just a few examples of small changes that can help lessen global warming (Denchak, 2017).

Meat as a contributor to global warming

As stated before, deforestation is a large contributor to global warming. This is because trees, and therefore forests, have a naturally occurring process of carbon sequestration, which decelerates warming trends (Fulkerson et al., 2010). Up to 65% of deforestation can be contributed to cattle ranching, which is done to produce meat (Recanati et al., 2015). In Central America alone, forest area diminished with almost 50% between the 1960s and 1990s (FAO, 2018) (Figure 1).

Another contributor in global warming

is the emission of greenhouse gas. Of all the CO2 emissions worldwide, 14% is due to agriculture (IPCC, 2014). Reducing these emissions would help in conserving the earth. Also, as stated before, heat production (24%) and transport (14%) also contribute to CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2014).

Consuming less meat or no meat at all, which is also a small adjustment in everyday life, will thus reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and energy usage in the farmhouses and packaging factories. Halving personal meat intake will reduce the individual carbon footprint by over 35% (Scarborough et al., 2014).

3

Factors that influence the consumption of meat

In this study, several factors that influence the intention to consume meat are researched. These factors are included in a questionnaire that is distributed under consumers in the Netherlands to get a clear overview of what their drivers to consume meat are.

The components in this research are developed on the basis of the Theory of Planned Behavior that is designed by Azjen (1991). This theory consists of the attitude of people towards certain products and external factors, the subjective norms around consumers and the behavioral control that consumers perceive.

4

2

Theoretical Framework

When making decisions about diets, people are influenced by a lot of different things. Opinions of others have a great influence according to the normative conformity theory of Cialdini and Goldstein (2004). Furthermore, attitudes towards products and external factors, and perceived control over a situation influences people's thoughts and decision making (Ajzen, 1991). A good framework to study these influences is the Theory of Planned Behavior, designed by Ajzen (1991). The consumption of meat is studied using this framework. The attitudes, the subjective norms and the degree of perceived behavioral control are analyzed in order to find an explanation for why people consume meat and how this consumption can be brought down.

First of all, the Theory of Planned Behavior is shortly discussed. The three components (attitude, subjective norm, and degree of perceived behavioral control) will be elaborated upon before the aspects of these factors will be explained.

Several facets of the attitude towards meat will be discussed. These include the attitude towards meat and the taste of meat, the attitude towards the environmental issues that are involved in the production of meat, the attitude towards health issues and animal welfare issues, and lastly the attitude towards meat substitutes.

Next, the items of the subjective norm in this study are discussed. Based on the normative conformity theory of Cialdini and Goldstein (2004), family, friends and social media are discussed in the context of this theory. Furthermore, the influence of vegetarianism and the willingness to conform to vegetarianism is discussed, as well as the masculine image that meat has. The third component of the Theory of Planned Behavior consists of the price and availability of meat and meat substitutes.

2.1

Theory of Planned Behavior

5 Figure 2. Theory of Planned Behavior.

The relative importance of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in the prediction of intention is expected to vary across behaviors and situations (Ajzen, 1991).

Salient beliefs are considered to be the accepted determinants of the intentions and actions of an individual (Ajzen, 1991). Three kinds of salient beliefs are distinguished in the Theory of Planned Behavior: behavioral beliefs, which are assumed to influence attitudes toward the behavior; normative beliefs, which constitute the underlying determinants of subjective norms; and control beliefs, which provide the basis for perceptions of behavioral control.

2.2

Attitude (behavioral beliefs)

6 consumption of meat. These problems might be a motivation for people to consume less meat to preserve the environment. Consuming meat can also involve health risks, such as higher possibilities on strokes and heart diseases (Westhoek, et al., 2014). These issues can contribute to a negative or positive image of consuming meat. The lack of animal welfare is a current issue that arises from producing meat and consuming it (Leroy & Preat, 2017). This aspect can also have an influence on people’s behavior with regards to consuming meat. Lastly, the attitude towards meat substitutes, for example falafel, might also change people’s behavior. The interest in healthy meat-free foods with high protein has grown in the past years (Kim, et al., 2011). The different aspects that influence the attitude towards the consumption of meat are discussed below. The main hypothesis with regard to the attitudes is as follows:

H1: The more negative the attitude towards the different aspects of the consumption of meat,

the more negative the intention to consume meat will become.

Meat and the taste of meat 2.2.1

The first item that will be measured in this study is meat and the taste of meat. According to Joy (2010), people justify their meat eating habits with the use of the three N’s: normal, natural and necessary. Through socialization, people came to belief that eating meat is normal (based on traditions and customs), natural (it is part of human nature and biology), and necessary (people cannot live without meat, and the nutrients in meat are required for a healthy, balanced diet) (Joy, 2010). Later, Piazza et al., added a fourth N: nice. This refers to the taste of meat and its associated satisfaction (Piazza et al., 2015). Meat-eaters defend their right to eat meat and not become vegetarian often with the pleasure and enjoyment they derive from eating meat (Piazza et al., 2015; Lea & Worsley, 2001).

H1a: The more positive the attitude towards meat and the taste of meat, the more positive the

intention to consume meat.

Environmental issues 2.2.2

7 warming has a huge impact on future generations (Nordgren, 2012). Examples of this global warming are the melting ice caps, heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones and wildfires (IPCC, 2014). These extreme events have occurred more over time, which means that it is important to reduce greenhouse gases, which are the main drives of global warming (IPCC, 2014).

About half of the CO2 emissions between 1750 and 2011 have occurred in the last 40 years (see figure 3) (IPCC, 2014). One of the main contributors to these emissions is agriculture (14%), which includes the production of meat for consumption (IPCC, 2014). Other sectors that contribute greatly to global warming are transport (14%), industry (21%), and electricity and heat production (24%) (IPCC, 2014). The production of meat not only includes agriculture, but also the distribution of the product (transport) and the electricity and energy that is used to produce the meat products (Koneswaran & Nierenberg, 2008). In addition, cattle manure produces methane, which also contributes to environmental problems (Bhatta, 2015).

Figure 3. CO2 emissions, 1850 – 2010.

8 The option of reduced meat production and consumption might be a mitigation to climate change (Wirsenius, 2011; Garnett, 2009). According to Scarborough et al. (2014), halving personal meat intake reduces individual carbon footprints by over 35%.

To sum up, producing meat not only contributes to global warming because of the greenhouse gas emissions regarding transport, energy use and agriculture, but also by the deforestation and use of water that is needed to let the cattle graze. Recent studies showed that only few people in those studies were aware that eating meat contributes to global warming (Truelove & Parks, 2012; Bogueva et al., 2017). The study of Truelove & Parks (2012) also showed that people do not relate consuming less meat to reducing global warming.

H1b: Negative perceptions and attitudes towards environmental issues regarding the

production and consumption of meat negatively influences the intention to consume meat.

Health issues 2.2.3

Health problems is another item that will be researched in this study. Personal health can be categorized in physical and mental health, and these two categories are closely related to each other (Naylor, 2017). The consumption of meat influences personal physical health. Different physical health relate issues with regards to the consumption of meat are discussed.

One of the main health issues regarding the consumption of meat is the resistance to antibiotics (Tang et al., 2017). This resistance comes from the high usage of antibiotics in animal husbandry, which contributes to the bacterial resistance to antibiotics commonly used in human medicine (Aidara-Kane, et al., 2018). According to Larson et al. (2012), bacteria in animals are treated with antibiotics, and these bacteria can develop a resistance to these antibiotics. The bacteria can be transmitted from animal to human, and might carry the resistance genes (Larson, et al., 2012). Eating the animals who carry these genes, as well as direct contact between the animal and humans, or shared environmental sources such as water that has been contaminated by these animals can transfer the resistance (Larson et al., 2012).

9 Meat, however, is an important source of protein and essential nutrients including iron, zinc and vitamin B12 (McAfee et al, 2010). Not eating meat implies a shortage of vitamin B12, which eventually leads to anemia or irreversible nerve damage (Sridevy & Baby, 2014).

Recent research shows that people do not associate the consumption of meat with an unhealthy lifestyle and with higher risks of getting sick (Mullee et al., 2017). Furthermore, people also believe that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy (Mullee et al., 2017).

H1c: The stronger the belief that the consumption of meat leads to health problems, the lower

the intention to consume meat.

Animal welfare 2.2.4

10

H1d: The higher the concern for animal welfare issues, the lower the intention to consume

meat.

Meat substitutes 2.2.5

The last attitude component that is researched is the attitude towards meat substitutes. According to Kumar et al. (2017), meat substitutes, or meat analogues, are a food product that approximates the aesthetic qualities and/or chemical characteristics of certain types of meat (Kumar, et al., 2017). Thus, meat substitutes are designed and produced in such a way that it tastes and looks the same as ‘real’ meat. These products are made from non-animal protein, such as soybeans, wheat or vegetables (Kumar, et al., 2017). Meat substitutes can be divided into six groups: dairy-based meat substitutes (e.g. Valess), lab grown meat substitutes, insect-based meat substitutes (e.g. crickets), gluten-insect-based meat substitutes (e.g. tofu), soy meal-based meat substitutes and mycoprotein-meal-based meat substitutes (e.g. Quorn) (Smetana et al., 2015).

Meat alternatives are still in the early stages of development, as it developed in the 1960s (Wild et al, 2014). The interest in healthy foods with high protein that are meat-free has grown in the past years (Kim, et al., 2011). Environmental concerns, as well as animal welfare concerns and personal health concerns might have contributed to this interest. As there is a lot of attention for the environmental issues, health issues and animal welfare issues regarding the production and consumption of meat, more and more meat alternatives are produced every year. A popular concept in the Netherlands is the Vegetarische Slager. This butcher produces meat substitutes and sells them in more than 3000 stores and supermarkets in 16 countries (Vegetarische Slager, 2018; Garfield, 2017). According to the founder, Jaap Korteweg, they try to capture the flavor of real meat in their products (Vegetarische Slager, 2018). Concepts like these might increase the consumption of meat substitutes.

H1e: A positive attitude towards meat substitutes will negatively influence the intention to

consume meat.

2.3

Subjective norm (normative beliefs)

11 want the approval of important individuals or groups, such as family and friends. Furthermore, social media plays an important role in the portrayal of meat. Social media has a big influence on people due to its popularity (We Are Social, 2018).

First, to get a clear picture of the image of meat and how this image affected people via family, friends and social media, the masculinity of meat is discussed. Then, the influence of family and friends is scrutinized and subsequently the impact that social media might have on consumers’ eating habits is examined. To conclude this section on subjective norms, the influence of vegetarianism is discussed. The image that vegetarians have might change a person’s mind about becoming a vegetarian and thus consuming no meat. If the image of vegetarians is positive, this might positively influence the intention to consume less or no meat.

H2: An increase in the consumption of meat is stimulated by a social environment that

consumes a lot of meat.

Masculinity of meat 2.3.1

The first component in the subjective norm is the image of meat. This image will be discussed on the basis of historical facts and previous research. According to Sumpter (2015) the preparation and consumption of meat dates back to the time when women gathered berries and men hunted animals. Hunting and eating meat has been seen as the male task in the household (Sumpter, 2015). Women have been excluded from these tasks. Meat, as the product of the hunt, falls into the male domain since cross-culturally and historically, hunting for animals has been an almost exclusively male territory (Rozin, 2012). Throughout European history, meat was only available for the few in power and was withheld from peasants, women and children, discriminating against both class and gender (Ruby & Heine, 2011). In other words, meat was a luxury good which was only available for the elite men in society.

12 Additionally, meat is related to animal strength, the building of muscles, and the stimulation of lust (Twigg, 1979; Willard, 2002). These are all masculine aspects, as men need muscles and strength to hunt down animals (Windhager et al., 2011). Moreover, food riots are mostly lead by men and are concentrated on the acquirement of food, as this is seen as a symbol of power and status (Orlove, 1997) throughout history.

When looking at the definition of masculinity, several types of masculinity are defined. The universal form of masculinity is known as hegemonic masculinity, and it represents a narrow version of the idealized man, including qualities such as authority, rationality, physical strength, affluence, and/or an enthusiasm for sports (Connell, 2005). These qualities are shown in meat eating habits: cutting the meat at dinner can be seen as authority, having strength and ability to hunt down animals requires physical strength, being able to buy meat requires wealth and the hunting of animals can be seen as being enthusiastic for sports (Connell, 2005).

Not including meat in your meals is considered as a feminine trait (Sobal, 2005). Eating light meals influences the perceived femininity (Chaiken & Pliner, 1987), as these meals typically do not have meat in them. In addition, meat is a mineral and vitamin dense food item, as it provides a big amount of nutrients (Willard, 2002). In the western culture, a prominent aspect of female attractiveness is thinness, and to become thin, women restrict their food intake (Mooney & Lorenz, 1997) and their intake of nutrients. Eating light meals without meat signifies the desire to being thin (Chaiken & Pliner, 1987) and is considered to be feminine.

H2a1: The stronger the masculine image of meat for a man, the higher the intention to

consume meat.

H2a2: The stronger the masculine image of meat for a woman, the lower the intention to

consume meat.

Normative conformity: family and friends 2.3.2

13 informational and normative conformity motivations (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). They stated that informational conformity motivations are based on the desire to form an accurate interpretation of reality and behave correctly, whereas normative conformity motivations are based on the goal of obtaining social approval from others (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

In this research, the influence of family and friends is analyzed. In other words, normative conformity motivations are researched regarding family and friends and the consumption of meat.

H2b: The more family and friends in a person's environment like meat, the more likely it is

that this person likes meat as well.

Normative conformity: groups on social media 2.3.3

The next item is the normative conformity towards certain groups on social media. People are increasingly sharing their experiences online (Berthon et al, 2012). Therefore, it is important to understand the influence that social media have over the consumption of consumers. According to Bathli and Mejri (2015), people use social media, among other things, to formulate their consumption decisions.

Platforms such as Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, and Snapchat might have an influence in the intention to become vegetarian, as these social media platforms have many followers. According to We Are Social, 4.21 billion people worldwide use social media platforms, and this number grows with 13% each year (We Are Social, 2018). One of the key social trends in 2018 that are identified by We Are Social is the peer influence that rises on social media.

As discussed earlier, people tend to conform to others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). This might mean that people want to conform to their peers on social media.

H2c: The need to conform to certain groups on social media has an influence on the

consumption of meat.

Normative conformity: vegetarianism 2.3.4

14 2012). Vegetarians have several reasons not to eat meat. The most common reasons consist of concerns for animals, personal health, and the environment; disgust toward meat; and religious beliefs (Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2017). Personal health reasons include the reduced risk of coronary heart disease and obesity (McEvoy et al, 2010). However, restricted or unbalanced vegetarian diets can result in nutrient deficiencies, particularly iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamins B12 and D (McEvoy et al, 2010). Other motivations to not eat meat are taste preferences, the desire to lose weight, political issues or saving money (Hoffman et al., 2013). Furthermore, several studies showed that a vegetarian diet is more environmentally friendly than a meat-based diet (Green et al., 2017; Reijnders & Soret, 2003; Goodland, 1997).

This research focuses on the environmental issues, personal health concerns and animal welfare concerns of the production of meat. These motivations are discussed previous in paragraph 2.2. Furthermore, normative conformity motivations also play a role in the decision to become vegetarian, as discussed in paragraph 2.3.

H2d: A positive mindset towards conforming to vegetarianism will negatively influence the

intention to consume meat.

2.4

Perceived behavioral control (control beliefs)

The last aspect of the Theory of Planned Behavior are control beliefs. These beliefs may be based in part on past experience with the behavior, but they will usually also be influenced by the experiences of acquaintances and friends, and by other factors, such as price of a product or service, that increase or reduce the perceived difficulty of performing the behavior in question (Ajzen, 1991). The more resources and opportunities individuals believe they possess, and the fewer obstacles or impediments they anticipate, the greater should be their perceived control over the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

15 Other obstacles that may exist while choosing whether or not to consume meat can be the price of meat and meat substitutes or the availability of these products. When it is easy for a consumer to buy meat or meat substitutes (the product is cheap and widely available), it is more likely that the consumer will buy the product.

This research will focus on the availability and price of meat and meat substitutes such as falafel or tofu. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H3: The intention to not consume meat is influenced by a higher price and lower availability

of meat and a lower price and higher availability of meat substitutes.

H3a: The lower the price of meat, the higher the intention to consume meat. H3b: The lower the availability of meat, the lower the intention to consume meat. H3c: The lower the price of meat substitutes, the lower the intention to consume meat.

H3d: The lower the availability of meat substitutes, the higher the intention to consume meat.

2.5

Conceptual model

Using the Theory of Planned behavior as a framework to develop the conceptual model and adding the different aspects of the consumption of meat, the following conceptual model is designed:

16

3

Research methodology

3.1

Research design

In this study, the researcher has collected primary data by means of a questionnaire. This quantitative data has been used to test the hypotheses of this study, by making a statistical analysis of the data that was collected. The analysis has presented insights into the arguments why people would or would not become vegetarian.

To gain this data, an online questionnaire has been distributed, as this is the most effective way to get as much respondents as possible. Because this research is quantitative nature, many respondents are required to make the study reliable. Furthermore, this study was conducted in a limited time frame, which requires efficient data collection. Lastly, respondents can easily fill in the questionnaire, as it is available on smartphone and computer. The questionnaire has been distributed in Dutch and in English.

To test whether the questions in the questionnaire were appropriate for this study, a pre-test has been conducted. After the pre-test was done, some questions could be excluded or added to the questionnaire to finalize survey. The pre-test has been distributed among five individuals with different backgrounds. These different backgrounds include different ages, different genders and different education levels.

In the online questionnaire, every aspect of the conceptual model is touched upon. Firstly, several questions about respondents’ demographics were asked. Demographics are an important aspect of the survey, as this indicates whether the respondents’ pool is diverse and representative for the Dutch population. The independent variables (attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) were also discussed in the questionnaire. Every hypothesis was tested through different questions. The dependent variable, the individuals’ intention to become vegetarian, was also tested through different questions.

3.2

Questionnaire

17 participants got questions about their attitude towards meat and the taste of meat, environmental issues, health issues and animal welfare issues regarding the production and consumption of meat and about their attitude towards meat substitutes. These questions are based on the research of Neff et al., who researched attitudes and behaviors regarding meat consumption (Neff et al., 2017). Furthermore, the awareness of social norms and their judgement about these norms was asked. Lastly, the participants have answered some questions about the perceived behavioral control they have over meat and meat substitutes. These questions are based on the survey used by Kim and Han (2010) in their research on hotel prices (Kim & Han, 2010) and on the research of Hoeksma et al. (2017) about consumers' willingness to buy mobile slaughter unit meat (Hoeksma et al., 2017). The questions were asked by means of a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire can be found in appendix A.

3.3

Collection of data

To collect the data necessary for this study, the online questionnaire has been distributed on social media. By using social media, a broad group of participants was reached. Participants were asked to share the questionnaire in order to create a snowballing effect. According to Hinz et al. (2011), the best seeding strategies are using hubs or bridges. Hubs are opinion leaders and strongly connected members of social network (Hinz et al, 2011). Bridges are people who connect two otherwise unconnected parts of the network (Hinz et al, 2011). So, finding participants who have strong connections to members of social media and finding participants who connect people who are otherwise unconnected is key in getting a diverse sample. The questionnaire was distributed via an online link that refers to the questionnaire. Several people in the personal environment of the researcher were approached and were asked to distribute the questionnaire to family, friends and colleagues. This way, a significant number of people with diverse backgrounds was reached.

18

3.4

Sample

A total of 224 respondents took part in the survey (all in Dutch), of which 198 completed the questionnaire. Out of the 198 respondents, 69,7% were female (138 respondents) and 30,3% were male (60 respondents). The data that is obtained in this study is compared to data of the Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (CBS) to get a good overview of the Dutch population and whether this study is representative. According to CBS-data, the Dutch population consists of 49.6% men and 50,4% women (CBS, 2017). Thus, in this study, women are overrepresented. The youngest respondent was 14 years old and the oldest respondent was 80 years old, the mean was 39 years. As can be seen in table 1, consumers between 21 and 30 years represent the largest group of respondents. Also, table 1 gives an overview of data of the CBS and sample data. CBS data confirms that consumers between the ages of 21 and 30 are overrepresented. This is a factor that must be kept in mind when drawing conclusions. Age % Survey % CBS (2017) 0 – 10 0% 10,5% 11 – 20 5,6% 11,7% 21 – 30 36,4% 12,8% 31 – 40 10,6% 12% 41 – 50 14,6% 13,8% 51 – 60 24,2% 14,5% 61 – 70 7,6% 12,1% 71 – 80 1,0% 8,1% 81 – 90 0% 3,8% > 90 0% 0,7% Total 100% 100%

Table 1. Age sample and CBS.

19 is also overrepresented. Lastly, most respondents (37,4%) lived with their partner. CBS data shows that 38% of the Dutch population lives alone. In this study, 16,6% of the respondents live alone, so this group is underrepresented.

Yearly income % Survey % CBS (2017)

< €10.000 23,7% 16,1% €10.000 - €20.000 15,7% 26,3% €20.000 - €30.000 15,7% 18% €30.000 - €40.000 17,1% 14,3% €40.000 - €50.000 11,6% 9,5% €50.000 - €100.000 10,1% 13,4% > €100.000 6,1% 2,4% Total 100% 100%

Table 2. Yearly income sample and CBS.

This study was comprised to a large extent of students and consumers between the ages of 51 and 60 years. It can be assumed that most students did earn less than €10.000, as this is the largest group. These demographics can largely be explained by the way in which the questionnaire was distributed, namely via the Internet and the researchers’ network.

An overview of some characteristics of the sample in this study is shown below.

Age Highest education Yearly income

11 – 20 years 11 (5,6%) High School 27 (13,4%) < €10.000 47 (23,7%)

21 – 30 years 72 (36,4%) MBO 52 (26,2%) €10.000 - €20.000 31 (15,7%) 31 – 40 years 21 (10,6%) HBO 66 (33,2%) €20.000 - €30.000 31 (15,7) 41 – 50 years 29 (14,6%) University (Bachelor) 19 (10%) €30.000 - €40.000 34 (17,1%) 51 – 60 years 48 (24,2%) University (Master) 34 (17,1%) €40.000 - €50.000 23 (11,6%) 61 – 70 years 15 (7,6%) €50.000 - €100.000 20 (10,1%) 71 – 80 years 2 (1,0%) > €100.000 12 (6,1%) Table 3. Age, highest education and yearly income sample.

Vegetarians, vegans, flexitarians and pescetarians. 3.4.1

20 during this study, vegetarians, vegans, flexitarians and pescetarians are overrepresented when compared to data of the Nederlandse Vegetariërsbond.

Out of the group vegetarians, vegans, flexitarians and pescetarians, only 16,1% of the respondents do not eat meat substitutes. The plurality of this group eats meat substitutes once per week (29%) followed by three times per week (19,4%). One respondent of the vegetarian subcategory (3,2%) eats meat substitutes every day of the week.

Meat eating habits 3.4.2

Out of the 84,3% of the respondents who are not vegetarian, vegan, flexitarian or pescetarian (167 respondents), a combined percentage of 59,3% finds that eating meat during dinner is very important or important. 30,5% of the respondents indicated that meat is not important nor unimportant, so they answered with neutral. Only one respondent (0,6%) finds that eating meat during dinner is not important at all.

To get a clear picture of the meat eating habits of Dutch consumers, the respondents were asked to indicate how many times per week they eat meat. Most respondents (a combined percentage of 67,2%) indicated that they eat meat 5, 6 or 7 times per week, which is respectively 22,2%, 22,8% and 22,2% (figure 5). Most respondents buy meat at the supermarket (59,8%) or at the butcher (30,9%). One respondent produces meat from their own cows and one respondent buys their meat at a wholesale.

Figure 5. Amount of times respondents eat meat during dinner.

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 Lastly, most respondents indicated that the main reason that they eat meat is that it tastes good (62,2%), and the second reason is because it is healthy (20,5%). Only 1,2% of the meat eating respondents consumes meat because it gives them a masculine feeling. Other reasons why people consume meat is because it is ingrained in the diet over time (2%), it contains protein (1%) and because they do not know any vegetarian recipes (0,5%).

Meat substitutes 3.4.3

The plurality of meat eating respondents (79%) does not eat meat substitutes and 13,8% of the meat eating respondents eats meat substitutes once per week. Almost all respondents who eat meat substitutes buy these at the supermarket (95%), only 1,3% buys meat substitutes at a vegetarian butcher and 3,7% buys elsewhere (biological store or own butcher).

Drivers to become vegetarian 3.4.4

To get a clear view of what consumers’ drivers are to make the decision to become vegetarian, some facts of the sample of this study are presented.

Out of all respondents, 84,4% likes meat, and 70,7% enjoys eating meat, even though 52% knows that consuming meat is bad for the environment. However, 61,1% is willing to eat less meat to save the environment as opposed to 18,1% who is not willing to eat less meat. In addition, 48% of the respondents in this study agrees or strongly agrees with the statement that eating meat is part of a healthy diet.

Many respondents think animal welfare is important (84,3%), and they also think that violence against animals is not allowed (88,9%). Almost all respondents (97%) think that animals should have enough space to move and to walk around.

Several reasons were given as to why respondents would eat meat substitutes. These reasons include that it will help save the environment (46,9%), that it will reduce animal abuse (55,6%) and because it is healthy to eat meat substitutes (38,4%). However, only 5% of the respondents think that meat substitutes taste the same as real meat.

22 65% of the male respondents indicated that they think eating meat is very important (18,3%) or important (46,7%) to them, where only a total of 44,2% of the female respondents find it very important (9,4%) or important (34,8%).

Consumers value the opinions of others, as can be seen in this study. 59,1% of the respondents think the opinion of others is important and 13,1% thinks it is very important, yet 48% of the respondents indicates that family does not have a great influence over what they eat and 72,7% state this about friends. Furthermore, respondents pointed out that they are not influenced by people on social media (68,7%) and only 1,5% wants to belong to certain groups on social media.

When it comes to vegetarians and vegetarianism, only 6% of the meat eating respondents admires vegetarians. Additionally, many respondents who eat meat have a neutral opinion about vegetarians. This is shown by the large number of respondents who have answered ‘neutral’ on the questions about the goodness of vegetarians (55,7%) and nobleness of vegetarians (31,7%).

23

4

Empirical results

To analyze the results of the questionnaire, the data program SPSS was used. First, the dataset was cleaned by deleting incomplete surveys (19 respondents) and some variables were recoded to better serve the analysis.

4.1

Reliability analysis on the variables

To test the thirteen hypotheses, different questions were asked in the questionnaire. Each hypothesis had multiple questions that can be merged into one variable with the means of a reliability analysis. The different hypotheses and the corresponding questions are shown in table 4.

Hypothesis Variable Questions Attitudes

H1a Meat and the taste of meat - I like the taste of meat. - I enjoy eating meat.

H1b Environmental issues - I care about the environment.

- I am consciously trying to change my habits into more environmentally friendly habits.

- Eating meat involves environmental issues.

- I am willing to eat less meat to help save the environment. H1c Health issues - I like eating healthy.

- I have a healthy lifestyle.

- Eating meat is part of a healthy diet. H1d Animal welfare issues - I think animal welfare is very important.

- I think violence used in the slaughter of animals is permitted. - I think it is fair that animals are treated with dignity. - I think animals should have room to move and walk around. H1e Meat substitutes - I think meat substitutes, such as falafel and tofu, are tasty.

- I think meat substitutes have the same taste as real meat. - I am willing to eat meat substitutes to help save the environment. - I am willing to eat meat substitutes to minimize animal cruelty. - I am willing to eat meat substitutes because it is healthier. - I think eating meat substitutes is animal friendly. Subjective norm

H2a1 H2a2

Masculine image of meat - I think eating much meat is typically male behavior. - Having barbecues at summer is very masculine.

- I think advertisements for eating meat are addressed to men. - I think that eating meals without meat is very feminine. H2b Family and friends - I value the opinion of others.

- I value the opinion of my family.

- Family has a great influence over what I eat. - I value the opinions of my friends.

- Friends have a great influence over what I eat.

H2c Social media - I use a lot of social media (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Pinterest, etc.).

- I am influenced by people on social media. - I want to belong to groups on social media. H2d Vegetarianism - I envy vegetarians/vegans.

- I think being vegetarians/vegans are good people.

- I think being vegetarian/vegan is good for the environment. - I think being vegetarian/vegan is a noble thing to do. Perceived behavioral control

H3a Price of meat - Meat is expensive.

24

H3b Availability of meat - I think the availability of meat is high.

- I think meat is available in a lot of different places (e.g. supermarket/market/butcher/etc.).

- I think meat is very accessible.

H3c Price of meat substitutes - Meat alternatives (e.g. tofu, vegetarian meat, falafel) are expensive. - Meat alternatives are cheap.

H3d Availability of meat substitutes - I think the availability of meat substitutes is high.

- I think meat substitutes are available in a lot of different places (e.g. supermarket/market/vegetarian butcher/etc.).

- I think meat substitutes are very accessible. Dependent variable

- I would like to become vegetarian/vegan.

- I would consider becoming a vegetarian/vegan because it is better for the environment.

- I would consider becoming a vegetarian/vegan because it is better for the animals.

- I would consider becoming a vegetarian/vegan because it is healthier.

Table 4. Hypotheses and questions in the questionnaire.

These hypotheses, or constructs, are tested on their internal reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha test is performed on each construct. This test measures if the different questions within the construct really relate to each other, and how reliable the construct is. In two constructs, H1c and H1d, the Cronbach’s Alpha was below the point of 0.6 (0.546 and 0.153 respectively). This means that items were removed from the construct to make it more reliable and to sustain the validity of the study. Before the constructs H1d, H3a and H3c could be tested, one question in all three constructs needed to be recoded. This recoding was necessary because otherwise there would be negative average covariance between the questions due to mirrored answer options. In the construct H1d the question “I think violence used in the slaughter of animals is permitted” was recoded so they match the questions “I think animal welfare is very important”, “I think it is fair that animals are treated with dignity” and “I think animals should have room to move and walk around”.

The questions “Meat is cheap” and “Meat substitutes are cheap” were recoded in constructs H3a and H3c, so that they matched the questions “Meat is expensive” and “Meat substitutes are expensive”.

25

Hypothesis Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Mean Std. Deviation Attitudes

H1a Meat and the taste of meat α = 0.847 7.84 1.726

H1b Environmental issues α = 0.808 14.55 2.975

H1c Health issues α = 0.815 7.75 1.412

H1d Animal welfare issues α = 0.756 17.0707 2.13624

H1e Meat substitutes α = 0.861 18.22 4.908

Subjective norm H2a1

H2a2

Masculine image of meat α = 0.781 8.60 3.113

H2b Family and friends α = 0.636 16.47 2.636

H2c Social media α = 0.733 6.89 2.432

H2d Vegetarianism α = 0.799 10.90 3.241

Perceived behavioral control

H3a Price of meat α = 0.898 6.7677 1.82942

H3b Availability of meat α = 0.761 12.19 1.562

H3c Price of meat substitutes α = 0.757 6.7677 1.29292

H3d Availability of meat substitutes α = 0.902 9.00 2.210

Dependent variable

α = 0.890 10.20 3.783

Table 5. Cronbach's Alpha variables.

After the reliability analysis, the constructs are computed into new variables. These new variables consist of the mean scores of all questions in one construct that had a Cronbach’s Alpha score of α > 0.6. An overview of the results can be found in appendix B.

4.2

Multiple Regression analysis of the influences on the intention

to become vegetarian

The relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable has been tested via a multiple regression test. This way, the hypotheses will be tested, and the results will show which variables have a significant impact on the dependent variable. In this study, the dependent variable is the intention to become vegetarian, and the independent variables are the aspects in the Theory of Planned Behavior.

26 The results show that four variables have a significant effect on the dependent variable (table 6).

Variable Significance

H1a The more positive the attitude towards meat and the taste of meat, the more positive the intention to consume meat.

.000 H1b Negative perceptions and attitudes towards environmental issues regarding the

production and consumption of meat negatively influences the intention to consume meat.

.061

H1c The stronger the belief that the consumption of meat leads to health problems, the lower the intention to consume meat.

.689 H1d The higher the concern for animal welfare issues, the lower the intention to consume

meat.

.444 H1e A positive attitude towards meat substitutes will negatively influence the intention to

consume meat.

.000 H2a H2a1: The stronger the masculine image of meat for a man, the higher the intention to

consume meat.

H2a2: The stronger the masculine image of meat for a woman, the lower the intention to consume meat.

.503

H2b The more family and friends in a person's environment like meat, the more likely it is that this person likes meat as well.

.591 H2c The need to conform to certain groups on social media has an influence on the

consumption of meat.

.751 H2d A positive mindset towards conforming to vegetarianism will negatively influence the

intention to consume meat.

.000 H3a The lower the price of meat, the higher the intention to consume meat. .803 H3b The lower the availability of meat, the lower the intention to consume meat. .681 H3c The lower the price of meat substitutes, the lower the intention to consume meat. .901 H3d The lower the availability of meat substitutes, the higher the intention to consume

meat.

.025 Table 6. Hypotheses and significance multiple regression analysis.

Variable H1a, the attitude towards meat and the taste of meat, has a significant negative effect on the dependent variable, B = -0.180, t(197) = -0.290, p = 0.000. The

decision to become a vegetarian is negatively influenced by the fact that people like the taste of meat and enjoy eating meat. So, the tastier the meat and the more a person enjoys eating meat, the lower the intention to become a vegetarian.

27 Furthermore, the results show that variable H2d (a positive mindset towards vegetarianism) has a significant positive effect on the dependent variable with B = 0.531, t(197) = 8.961, p = 0.000. This shows that the more positive someone’s perspective on vegetarians, the higher the intention to become a vegetarian themselves. This positive image is shaped by the perceived nobleness of being a vegetarian, how good people think vegetarians are and how much vegetarians are envied.

Lastly, variable H3d (the availability of meat substitutes) showed a significant positive effect on the dependent variable (B = 0.115, t(197) = 2.254, p = 0.025. The availability of meat substitutes plays a significant part in the consideration to become vegetarian. When meat substitutes are available in a lot of different places and are easily accessible, it will be easier for people to consume meat substitutes, and ultimately become a vegetarian.

Another hypothesis that is noticeable is H1b, the impact of environmental issues. This hypothesis is not significant on a 95% significance scale (0.061 > 0.05), so it can be classified as a non-significant trend (B = 0.139, t(197) = 1.886, p = 0.061). This variable is significant on a 90% significance scale (0.061 < 0.10). So, the care for the environment and the threat of global warming have some effect on the intention to become vegetarian. The more consumers know about the negative impact of the consumption of meat on the environment, the more positive consumers will think about vegetarianism.

An overview of these results can be found in appendix C.

In order to analyze whether the masculine image of meat is different for men and women, an independent samples t-test with gender and masculinity of meat was performed. The independent samples t-test was not significant, t(196) = 0.294, p = 0,769. The masculine image of meat in the eyes of men (M= 2.1750, SD = 0.77610) does not differ from the masculine image of meat in the eyes of women (M = 2.1395, SD = 0.78188).

29

5

Discussion

Eating meat has been a part of people’s diets for a long time, dating back to the time of the hunters and gatherers, and this diet influences the environment negatively. This study is focused on what drives people to consume meat, and whether this influences the intention to become a vegetarian. In previous research, many aspects regarding the consumption of meat have been scrutinized. These aspects are for example environmental issues (Barona et al., 2010; Batchelor et al., 2015), animal welfare issues (Leroy & Preat, 2017; Popescu, et al. 2013) and health issues (Tang et al., 2017; Westhoek et al., 2014). Also, the masculine image of meat (Adams, 1990; Twigg, 1979) and certain facets of normative conformity (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) have been discussed in earlier research. These aspects have been combined in this research to get a complete overview of the motivations of consumers to eat meat or not. The Theory of Planned Behavior is the basis of this research. The goal of this study is to outline the different aspects of the Theory of Planned Behavior, and to see which aspects influence the behavioral intention to become vegetarian. Out of the thirteen hypotheses, only four showed a significant effect. This contradicts findings in literature. All hypotheses will be discussed.

5.1

Attitudes

30 Consumers’ attitudes towards the environment and the issue of global warming do not influence their decision to become vegetarian. Although the test showed a non-significant p-value, it was still close to significant. Looking at how many respondents are aware of the environmental impact of consuming meat and how many respondents are willing to eat less meat, it becomes clear that most consumers know that the consumption of meat is bad for the environment (52% agrees or strongly agrees with this statement). Only 18,1% of the respondents in this study indicate that they would not be willing to eat less meat to help the environment. However, 61,1% is willing to consume less meat. This contradicts the statements of Truelove & Parks (2012) and Bogueva et al. (2017). These articles claim that there is a lack of awareness about the link between consuming meat and the well-being of the environment. According to Truelove & Parks (2012), consumers do not relate consuming less meat to reducing global warming. It might be that due to the questioning in this study that people are nudged towards a certain answer, or that they would answer a question with a certain degree of social desirability. Also, the study of Truelove & Parks (2012) is from 2012, and this study is conducted in 2018. Consumers might gain more knowledge about the environmental impact of meat due to more news items and reporting about the problems, so the learning effect of consumers must be kept in mind. In addition, the research by Bogueva et al. (2017) was set in Sydney, Australia, which might explain the different results. Also, the study of Truelove & Parks (2012) was set in the United States among college students. This study did not focus on only students, but on the whole Dutch population. These factors might explain the different results. It would be wise to conduct a research that is completely focused on the attitude of consumers towards the environmental impact of the consumption of meat, without researching any other aspects. This can indicate how much people know about the environmental problems that arise in the production and consumption of meat. Also, with a research that is set in several countries, it can be easier pinpoint the difference in views of the populations of the countries.

31 cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and stroke (Westhoek et al., 2014). On the other hand, meat is an important source of essential nutrients (iron, zinc and vitamin B12) and protein (McAfee et al, 2010). Thus, it could be argued that eating meat is necessary (another N of the theory of Joy (2010)), so that consumers take in these nutrients and protein, although it is smart to eat meat in moderation.

Additionally, animal welfare issues are no motivation to become vegetarian, as shown in the multiple regression analysis. However, 55,6% of the respondents are willing to become a vegetarian to reduce animal cruelty. Also, 84,3% of the respondents claim that they think animal welfare is important. In addition, 88,9% of the respondents do not think that violence against animals is allowed. Almost all respondents (97%) think that animals should have enough space to move and to walk around. Looking at previous research, it is evident that animals that are bred for consumption do not have this amount of space (Popescu, et al. 2013), are killed in a way that is causes pain and distress (Rossi & Garner, 2014) and that these animals are not being fed and do not have any form of exercise during transport (Duncan, 2004). This is in contrast to what the respondents of this study think is important. This difference might be explained by the fact that people can be uninformed about animal cruelty and what happens to animals when they are bred for consumption. Dutch consumers can, however, contribute to the reduction of this mistreatment by buying meat that has the Beter Leven Keurmerk (Beterleven Dierenbescherming, 2018). This way, the consumer can still enjoy the taste of meat but he or she can also help increase animal welfare.

As stated before, consumers like the taste of meat and enjoy eating meat. Meat substitutes are designed and produced in a way that they should resemble the taste of real meat (Kumar, et al., 2017). Nevertheless, only 5% of the respondents in this study think that meat substitutes taste the same as real meat. The respondents were asked why they would eat meat substitutes and they could indicate multiple reasons. The reasons were because it will help save the environment (46,9%), because it will reduce animal abuse (55,6%) and because it is healthy (38,4%). These reasons positively influence the intention to become vegetarian.

32

5.2

Subjective norm

Looking at the subjective norm in this study, four hypotheses are tested. These hypotheses include the masculine image of meat, normative conformity towards family and friends, the desire to belong to certain groups on social media and normative conformity towards vegetarians.

First, the results of the multiple regression analysis show that there is no significant connection between the masculine image of meat and the intention to become vegetarian. Previous research states that meat has a masculine image, because meat has been a symbol for patriarchal control (Adams, 1990) and because meat it is related to animal strength, building of muscles, and the stimulation of lust (Twigg, 1979; Willard, 2002). Furthermore, it is seen as feminine when people do not include meat in their meals (Sobal, 2005). To see whether men are more affected by this masculine image, the hypothesis is divided into two parts (masculine image as perceived by a man and masculine image as perceived by a woman). Only 1,7% of the male respondents think that eating meat is a typical male behavior, and 8,7% of the female respondents agrees with this statement. This indicates that there is a slight difference in opinion. However, no significant effect is found between the gender and the perceived masculinity of meat. Still, it is important to keep in mind that there are only 60 male respondents as opposed to 138 female respondents. Nevertheless, respondents who think that eating meat is typical male behavior are a big minority in this research, which contradicts previous research. It is important to keep in mind, however, that previous research on the masculinity of meat focused on history, while this research focuses on the present. The results of this study can differ from the results of previous studies because people change their opinion about certain facts and because society changes over time. It might be interesting to see what the influence of feminism is on the masculine image of meat.

33 become vegetarian, a linear regression analysis was conducted to check whether this had a significant effect. No significant effect was found, which means that family members do not have an influence over what someone else in that family eats, simply because they live and eat together.

In addition to the conformity towards family and friends, the conformity towards peers on social media and the desire to belong to certain groups on social media does not influence people’s intention to become vegetarian. As determined by We Are Social (2018), one of the key social trends is the rising of peer influence on social media. In this study, 68,7% of the respondents pointed out that they are not influenced by people on social media and only 1,5% of the respondents wants to belong to certain groups on social media. However, it can be that people are subconsciously influenced by others on social media, but this was not tested in this study. Moreover, it was not specified to which groups people want to belong to on social media. It can be argued that this study rejects the current trend as identified by We Are Social.

The last factor of the subjective norm that is researched in this study is the conformity towards vegetarians and vegetarianism. The link between conformity towards vegetarians and the intention to become vegetarian was tested by means of a multiple regression analysis and the results showed a significant effect (p = 0.000). As such, it can be argued that a positive mindset towards conforming to vegetarians and vegetarianism has a positive effect on the intention to become vegetarian. However, it is relevant to keep in mind that only 6% of the respondents (excluding vegetarians) in this study looks up to vegetarians and that many respondents do not have a clear opinion about vegetarians. This is shown by the large number of respondents who answered ‘neutral’ on several questions. As indication, 55,7% of the respondents has a neutral opinion about the goodness of vegetarians, and 31,7% of the respondents thinks neutral over the nobleness of being vegetarian. It might be interesting to do further research on the image of vegetarians among meat eaters and why vegetarians decided to become vegetarian.

34

5.3

Perceived behavioral control

Lastly, the factors of perceived behavioral control consist of four factors that have been researched. Three out of four did not show a significant effect on the intention to become vegetarian. These factors are the price of meat, the availability of meat and the price of meat substitutes. The intention to become vegetarian is positively influenced by a higher availability of meat substitutes.

This study shows that many respondents (54,1%) agree with the statement that meat is expensive. This, however, does not stop the consumers from buying and eating meat. Many respondents (a combined percentage of 67,2%) eat meat regularly, namely five, six or seven times per week. So, it can be assumed that the price of meat and the fact that consumers find it expensive does not negatively influence their decision to eat meat regularly. The current price of meat does not influence the intention to become vegetarian positively.

Likewise, the availability of meat does not influence the intention to become vegetarian. A clear majority of 90,4% of the respondents indicates that they think that the availability of meat is high. It can be assumed that due to the high availability of meat and the possibility to buy meat almost everywhere it can be harder to become vegetarian, especially when consumers like meat and the taste of meat.

The price of meat substitutes does not have an impact on the intention to become a vegetarian. However, the availability of meat substitutes has a significant positive influence. When more meat substitutes are available, it is easier for consumers to choose this vegetarian option instead of meat.