1 | 1/24/2019
The good and bad of meat
The relationship between flexitarian’s food motives and ambivalence towards meat
Nick Dokter S2552515
January 24, 2019 Master thesis defense
Context
› The amount of meat per capita increases and the projection is that the amount of meat per capita will only continue to increase (Ritchie & Roser, 2017)
Negative- and positive
characteristics of meat consumption
Negative characteristics Positive characteristics
Animal welfare (Singer, 2015)
Sensory appeal (Kenyon & Barker, 1998)
The environment (Austgulen, Skuland, Schjøll, & Alfnes, 2018)
Familiarity (Mullee et al., 2017)
Ambivalence towards meat
› Ambivalence towards meat › Flexitarians
Ambivalence towards meat
Positive attitude
Not at all Slightly Quite Extremely
Negative attitude Not at all Low Low Low Lowest
Slightly Low Medium Medium Low
Quite Low Medium High High
Research questions
› How do flexitarians’ different motives (health,
environmental, animal welfare, sensory appeal, &
Method
› Procedure
Survey via Qualtrics
Participants were reached through my network
› Sample
Individuals who (1) do not eat meat for at least one day a week, and
(2) are not vegan or vegetarian
149 flexitarians
› Measures
Indirect ambivalence
- Positive- and negative attitude towards meat measured separately
- (PA + NA) /2 – [PA– NA]
Direct ambivalence
- Do you have conflicting feelings/thoughts towards meat?
Results hypotheses
Hypothesis Result Influence on
ambivalence score H1: An ethical motive is positively related
to a negative attitude towards meat
Accepted None
H3: A health motive is positively related to a negative attitude towards meat
Rejected None
H4: A familiarity motive is positively related to a positive attitude towards meat
Accepted at a marginal level of significance
None
H5: A sensory appeal motive is positively related to a positive attitude towards meat
Results additional analysis
› Dependent variable: less future meat consumption
› Of the different motives, the ethical motive positively influences less future meat consumption
Discussion
› Academic implication
Less future meat consumption is sustainable for the earth (Godfray et al., 2010),
therefore this thesis adds understanding to the sustainable consumption literature
The role of the ethical motive and direct ambivalence towards meat
› Implication for practice
For non-profit organizations such as ProVeg Nederland who have the mission to
guide individuals towards a more vegetable diet
Ambivalence towards meat, vlogs, and social media
› Future research
How flexitarians deal with ambivalence towards meat and how this influences
behaviour
References
› Austgulen, M., Skuland, S., Schjøll, A., & Alfnes, F. (2018). Consumer Readiness to Reduce Meat Consumption for the Purpose of Environmental Sustainability: Insights from Norway. Sustainability, 10(9), 3058. doi: 10.3390/su10093058
› Godfray, H., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., & Muir, J. et al. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science, 327(5967), 812-818. doi: 10.1126/science.1185383 › International Agency for Research on Cancer (2015). IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat
and processed meat. Retrieved from http://www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
› Kenyon, P., & Barker, M. (1998). Attitudes Towards Meat-eating in Vegetarian and Non-vegetarian Teenage Girls in England—an Ethnographic Approach. Appetite, 30(2), 185-198. doi:
10.1006/appe.1997.0129
› Mullee, A., Vermeire, L., Vanaelst, B., Mullie, P., Deriemaeker, P., & Leenaert, T. et al. (2017).
Vegetarianism and meat consumption: A comparison of attitudes and beliefs between vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, and omnivorous subjects in Belgium. Appetite, 114, 299-305. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.052 › Piazza, J., Ruby, M., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H., & Seigerman, M. (2015).
Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114-128. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011 › Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2017). Meat and Seafood Production & Consumption. Retrieved from
