How First Impressions Can Make it or Break it in the Shift Toward a More Sustainable Lifestyle

(1)

Master Thesis

How First Impressions Can Make it or Break it in the

Shift Toward a More Sustainable Lifestyle

Meat eaters’ attitudes toward vegans when being exposed to vegans’

justification for their dietary choice

by

Wytske Veldmans

Completion date:

(2)

How First Impressions Can Make it or Break it in the

Shift Toward a More Sustainable Lifestyle

-

Meat eaters’ attitudes toward vegans when being exposed to vegans’

justification for their dietary choice

Author: Wytske Veldmans wytskeveldmans@gmail.com Hoendiepskade 3 9718 BD Groningen +31614972472 Final version: Master Thesis Completion date 15th_{of June 2020} University of Groningen MSc Marketing Management Department of Marketing Faculty of Economics and Business

First supervisor: Second supervisor:

(3)

PREFACE

In order to complete the Master of Science Degree in Marketing Management offered by the University of Groningen, I have written the master thesis laying in front of you. I would like to use this opportunity to express my gratitude to some people whom made my paper as it is today. First of all, I would like to thank my friends and family who participated in my experiment and supported me throughout the entire process. Secondly, the students who were also assigned to the same supervision group have been a tremendous support, source of motivation and inspiration. A special thanks goes out to dr. J.W. Bolderdijk who provided feedback and personal guidance throughout this process, even during the challenging times we are in today. Finally, I would like to thank Claire Brouwer for reviewing my thesis and my second supervisor dr. M.T. van der Heide.

(4)

ABSTRACT

The growing world population has also increased the demand for animal products although global animal agriculture negatively influences the environment, human’s health, and animal welfare. On top of that, those who promote a more sustainable lifestyle, vegans, are resented instead of praised by the majority. Therefore, the transition to a more sustainable lifestyle seems to be far away. However, a growing number of vegans are becoming aware of the pre-existing negative attitude toward their lifestyle. As a result, they strive to positively change their perception by the type of motivation used to justify their diet among meat eaters. This study therefore aims to investigate whether non-moral reasons (personal health benefits) elicit more positive responses among meat eaters than moral reasons (collective environmental benefits) to justify a vegan diet. Thereby, this research also considers the type of context (private vs. public) in which meat eaters are exposed to vegans. In a public context, collective environmental benefits are expected to evoke an even more negative response because meat eaters do not only feel bad but also look bad by comparison to vegans. A between-subjects design could not find support for these propositions.

Keywords: personal health benefits, collective environmental benefits, meat eaters, vegans,

(5)

INTRODUCTION

According to the United Nations, the world population is expected to grow to 9.8 billion people by 2050 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UN DESA], 2017). Simultaneously, so will the demand rise for animal products, particularly meat, dairy products and crops (Scarborough et al., 2014). Modern food systems like global animal agriculture especially negatively influence the environment, human’s health and animal welfare (Chai et al., 2019). On top of that, those who promote a sustainable lifestyle by following a vegan diet, are often resented by meat eaters (Minson & Monin, 2012). All in all, with an expected increase of the worldwide meat consumption and resentment of those who want to promote more sustainable behavior, the transition to a more sustainable future still seems to be rather far away (Scarborough et al., 2014; Minson & Monin, 2012). However, how can we still move to a more sustainable society?

One way of doing so is by asking the promoters of a sustainable society, vegans, for help. Nowadays, a growing number of vegans are becoming aware of the pre-existing negative attitude toward their lifestyle. As such, they strive to provide the most positive representational image when they are among meat eaters (Kendall, 2008). For this purpose, face-saving techniques are used to create false impressions and hide their deficiencies in the eyes of meat eaters. Those techniques are developed by observing meat eaters’ backstage behavior. In backstage behavior, meat eaters are in the absence of internalized norms or expectations, enabling them to behave as their “true” selves. This revealed that meat eaters might feel less threatened when vegans portray their dietary habits as merely a diet and a lifestyle than as a political or ethical decision in the light of animal rights or environmental concerns (Greenebaum, 2012).

Consequently, vegans might want to avoid using moral arguments to justify their diet in the interaction with meat eaters. Rather, they could point at non-moral reasons like personal health benefits as their primary motive to become vegan in order to be perceived more positively by meat eaters. This might help to portray their dietary choice as merely a lifestyle instead of a political decision. Conversely, using moral reasons like environmental benefits to motivate a vegan diet is expected to create rather negative responses from meat eaters (Greenebaum, 2012). Nonetheless, this still raises the question whether using such personal health benefits for justifying a vegan diet would really help to create a more positive image in the eyes of meat eaters?

(7)

getting coronary heart diseases and cancer (Chai et al., 2019; Springmann et al., 2018). As such, veganism might help to reduce the number of patients diagnosed with coronary heart diseases or cancer (Springmann et al., 2018). This could in turn reduce the pressure on the ever-increasing yearly healthcare costs (Central Bureau for Statistics [CBS], 2019b). Therefore, the role of vegans might be key in easing the transition to a more sustainable and healthier planet.

All in all, this paper aims to investigate whether using non-moral motives, like personal health benefits, for justifying a vegan diet could create a positive attitude toward vegans from a meat eater’s point of view, as opposed to collective environmental benefits. As such, this research builds on Greenebaum’s (2012) work on how face-saving techniques are frequently adopted by vegans as a means to portray a positive image of oneself. As indicated earlier, there is increasing relevance to look into ways how a plant-based diet can be presented positively whereas it is the most environmentally friendly diet, and has many health benefits (Chai et al., 2019). Given that the use of personal health benefits for justifying a vegan diet are under investigated while evidence points at their direction for inspiring meat eaters, it seems worth researching. Therefore, this research aims to provide insights in this issue by answering the following research question:

“Does justifying a vegan diet with personal health benefits elicit more positive responses among meat eaters, as opposed to collective environmental benefits?”

(8)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

By now, it must have become clear that certain social barriers have to be overcome to facilitate the shift toward a more sustainable society. On the one hand, there is the ever-growing worldwide meat consumption together with the resentment of those who promote a more sustainable lifestyle, vegans (Scarborough et al., 2014; Minson & Monin, 2012). As such, vegans try to change their representational image through face-saving techniques in order to be evaluated more positively by meat eaters and perhaps, ease the transition toward a more sustainable lifestyle (Greenebaum, 2012).

Therefore, they believe that non-moral reasons like personal health benefits help to create a more positive image than using moral reasons like collective environmental benefits to justify a vegan diet (Greenebaum, 2012). According to personal health benefits, one could have decided to become vegan due to lowered chance of getting coronary heart diseases and cancer (Springmann et al., 2018) while for collective environmental benefits, motives are directed at polluted rivers, lack of freshwater resources and climate change (Gerber et al., 2013). However, does it really help to elicit more positive responses from meat eaters when you use non-moral reasons instead of moral reasons? And is there literature which could support this proposition? More importantly, could it help to mitigate or perhaps even reverse the pattern of derogation and in turn, positively affect omnivores’ attitude toward vegans, accelerating the shift toward a more sustainable world (Leary & Kowalski, 1990)?

PRIVATE CONTEXT AND MORAL DO-GOODER DEROGATION

Generally, one would expect that moral do-gooders like vegans would be cheered on by meat eaters since they behave morally and righteous (Monin, Sawyer & Marquez, 2008). However, Minson and Monin (2012) report that vegans rather elicit annoyance and ridicule due to their moral superiority. Consequently, meat eaters act defensively when they encounter vegans (Monin et al., 2008). Meat eaters’ response to vegans can be explained as follows.

(9)

morally motivated others. This phenomenon can be described as the moral do-gooder derogation, directed at “putting down morally motivated others” in an attempt to look good by comparison (Minson & Monin, 2012, pp. 200).

Research by Cramwinckel et al. (2013) confirms the proposition that moral do-gooder derogation is used by meat eaters in an attempt to restore their threatened self-concept after they encountered a morally superior individual (meat refuser). More specifically, an experiment was performed in which respondents were asked to first taste a sausage and were afterwards confronted with a bogus participant who refused to do so. Dependent on the experimental condition, participants were either exposed to a bogus participant refusing to eat the sausage out of moral reasons (“it is unethical”) or non-moral reasons (“I don’t like the taste”). When participants were asked to evaluate both bogus participants, results indicated that they disliked the moral refuser more than the non-moral refuser. The results of this research imply two things. On the one hand, morally motivated vegans who use collective environmental benefits are expected to be evaluated more negatively while simultaneously, vegans who justify their diet by personal health benefits are expected to be evaluated more positively (Greenebaum, 2012). This proposition is especially likely to become apparent when vegans justify their diet in a private context, in the absence of other observers. Meat eaters’ behavior remains hidden from other observers (Pleasant & Barclay, 2018). Therefore, meat eaters are expected to only feel bad when they are confronted with morally motivated vegans while their standing is expected to remain preserved.

Thus far no research has focused on the role of vegan justification and meat eaters’ tendency to turn to derogation in an attempt to restore their self-concept. Therefore, it seems credible that once vegans use moral motives to justify their diet, meat eaters are more likely to derogate vegans as opposed to using non-moral reasons. More specifically, it is expected that when vegans turn to personal health benefits to motivate their dietary choice, meat eaters are expected to respond more positively as opposed to being confronted with vegans who justify their diet by collective environmental benefits. All in all, based on the theory and reasoning mentioned above the following hypothesis can be formulated:

H1: In a private context, exposure to vegans driven by personal health benefits will reduce the

tendency to derogate vegans, as opposed to exposure to collective environmental benefits.

PUBLIC CONTEXT AND MORAL DO-GOODER DEROGATION

(10)

becomes visible to other observers (Pleasant & Barclay, 2018). Therefore, in a public context meat eaters’ self-concept is threatened as well as their moral reputation, which could in turn increase their tendency to derogate morally superior individuals like vegans.

Unlike for using personal health benefits, once vegans turn to collective environmental benefits to justify their diet meat eaters’ moral reputation might be at stake (Pleasant & Barclay, 2018). Consequently, their moral inferiority can directly be perceived by other observers (Henrich, 2004; Van Dijk, Molenmaker & Kwaadsteniet, 2015). This is expected to be particularly important for vegans driven by collective environmental benefits whereas those motives are universal and therefore, applicable to anyone. Meat eaters signal to others that they remain willfully ignorant of the environmental consequences of their own dietary habits whilst they are being confronted with a vegan who has deliberately chosen to forego eating all animal products out of moral reasons (Cramwinckel et al., 2013). In turn, once meat eaters feel compromised in their moral reputation, they are likely to derogate vegans in an attempt to save face, and restore their image (Pleasant & Barclay, 2018). On the contrary, mentioning personal health benefits to justify a vegan diet does not touch upon moral reasons and in turn, is expected to not affect meat eaters’ self-concept and their moral reputation. As a result, meat eaters confronted with vegans driven by personal health benefits are expected to respond more favorably to vegans (Greenebaum, 2012).

Overall, it is expected that when meat eaters are exposed to vegans driven by personal health benefits, they are even more likely to hold a positive attitude toward vegans, as opposed to collective environmental benefits. This effect is expected to become even stronger in a public context than in a private context whereas meat eaters’ self-concept is not only threatened but their moral reputation is compromised as well. On the basis of this reasoning, the following hypothesis can be communicated: H2: In a public context, exposure to vegans driven by personal health benefits will reduce the

(11)

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Nowadays, vegans still make up a minority of the world population whereas meat eaters tend to respond negatively toward vegans, lowering their social acceptance, and hindering the movement toward a more sustainable future (Zane, Irwin & Reczek, 2016). However, will meat eaters remain to evaluate vegans negatively when they are being exposed to non-morally motivated vegans? Will such nonconfrontational motives of veganism, create more positive associations of vegans, and increase their overall likability? As a result, meat eaters might show a higher level of affiliation toward this minority which could in turn lead to reaching the tipping point toward the overall acceptance of a more sustainable lifestyle.

(12)

(13)

METHODOLOGY

As this study aimed to measure meat eaters’ perceptions of vegans and thereby determining a causal relationship, a social psychological experiment was chosen as method using a 2 (personal health benefits vs. collective environmental benefits) x 2 (private vs. public context) between-subjects design (Aronson, Wilson & Brewer, 1998). Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental groups according to an equal distribution (Table 1). Throughout this experiment participants were either (1) exposed to a vegan using personal health benefits in a private context; (2) to a vegan using collective environmental benefits in a private context; (3) to personal health benefits used by a vegan in a public context; or (4) to collective environmental benefits used by a vegan in a public context.

Experimental group Independent variable level Moderator level Group 1 Personal health benefits Private context

Group 2 Collective environmental benefits Private context

Group 3 Personal health benefits Public context

Group 4 Collective environmental benefits Pubic context

Table 1. Experimental groups

Data was obtained through an online survey by Qualtrics, which can be found in Appendix A. The survey was distributed across social networking sites such as Facebook, as well as email and personally. The reach of recruitment was broadened by offering both an English and a Dutch version of the survey and by applying the snowball procedure. Data was collected between 24 Apriland 2 May 2020. Informed consent was received from all participants. Lastly, the minimum number of respondents was calculated by means of G*Power (f2_{=.25; ∝ err prob=.05, " err prob ≥.80) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner &}

Lang, 2009). Fraley and Vazire (2014) suggested a minimum power level of 80%, which indicates to include at least 48 respondents per experimental group, resulting in a minimum sample size of N=192.

CONTEXT

(14)

In order to accelerate the shift toward a more sustainable lifestyle, vegans can present themselves as positively as possible in the midst of meat eaters. Given that meat eaters make up the target group, vegans and vegetarians were excluded from the survey. As such, vegans use non-moral arguments like personal health benefits to justify their dietary choice in an attempt to evoke more positive responses among meat eaters as opposed to using moral arguments like collective environmental benefits. To create a more natural environment in which sharing one’s eating habits seems more likely, a table setting was chosen for this experiment.

PROCEDURE

The online survey started by exposing every participant to the introduction page in which comforting nudges were used to make respondents feel at ease. Respondents were informed about the topic of the survey while simultaneously ensuring the actual purpose was not revealed, to prevent awareness biases from affecting the results (Malhotra, 2009). To incentivize respondents to finish the entire survey, as well as reaching a higher response rate, they could win a monetary reward of €50. Afterwards, respondents’ informed consent was obtained.

Next, demographics regarding one’s age and gender were asked. In addition, a question specifying one’s dietary preference aimed to filter out respondents who were either vegan or vegetarian because the focus was solely on meat eaters. This question also intended to provide an overview of the distribution between meat eaters and flexitarians among the sample. Subsequently, their knowledge of a vegan diet was tested which could serve as a control variable. Presumably, only if respondents were aware of what a vegan diet entails, they would have sufficient knowledge to objectively evaluate their attitude toward vegans.

(15)

MANIPULATION AND MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES

Manipulation of the independent variable: vegans’ justification

The independent variable was manipulated as such that respondents were either being confronted with a vegan driven by personal health benefits or by collective environmental benefits. This was done by presenting respondents with a dialogue between their new colleague, an alleged vegan, named Karen, and themselves (Tim). Dependent upon the experimental group respondents were assigned to, they were reading a dialogue about Karen’s reasons for adopting a vegan diet, in which they were presumed to be her conversational partner. Those who made their acquaintance with Karen who was driven by personal health benefits, were informed about the health benefits of a vegan diet, such as a lowered risk of obtaining coronary heart diseases and getting overweight. Here, a vegan diet would allow her to live healthier. It was hypothesized that respondents in the personal health benefits condition evaluated Karen most positively due to the lack of self-threat in a private context while their moral reputation was expected to remain untouched in a public context. Figure 2 shows the conversation between Karen and Tim respondents read in the personal health benefits condition.

In the other condition respondents were confronted with Karen who was driven by collective environmental benefits in her decision to become vegan. Karen elaborated on the negative environmental consequences of a meat-based diet, such as deforestation, and polluted rivers. In this case, a vegan diet enabled her to mitigate these effects and thereby, contribute to a more sustainable world. Respondents exposed to Karen driven by collective environmental benefits, were assumed to evaluate her most negatively due to a threatened self-concept in a private context and because their

(16)

moral reputation was expected to be compromised in a public context. Figure 3 illustrates the conversation respondents read assigned to the collective environmental benefits condition.

Manipulation of the moderator: private versus public context

The context in which respondents were asked to express their attitude toward Karen was manipulated by a descriptive text accompanied by a picture. Dependent upon the experimental condition respondents were assigned to, they were either being told to imagine themselves in a private or rather public context. The picture aimed to visualize the imaginary conversation respondents were supposed to have with Karen. As such, respondents were expected to easier imagine themselves being in the situation while experimenter effects were avoided since the manipulation was identical to all respondents (Malhotra, 2009).

In the private context, participants were asked to imagine themselves (Tim) having dinner alone with Karen. As such, respondents were expected to remain unaffected by any external effects due to the absence of their colleagues when Karen would share her motivation to become vegan. Therefore, respondents were expected to feel most threatened to their self-concept when Karen would use collective environmental benefits as Karen questions their moral integrity. As a result, those respondents were also expected to evaluate Karen more negatively. Conversely, those assigned to the public health benefits condition would feel less threatened and hence, reveal a more positive attitude toward Karen. Figure 4 illustrates the descriptive text together with the picture of Karen and themselves in the condition of the private context.

(17)

In the public context, respondents had to imagine that they were sitting at a large dinner table in a restaurant with their colleagues. In order to ensure that the manipulation was effective, an additional sentence made clear that colleagues were overhearing the conversation between Karen and themselves (Tim). This aimed to facilitate the interference of the external environment. As such, respondents exposed to collective environmental benefits for justifying a vegan diet, were expected to not only feel bad but also look bad by comparison whereas Karen would question their morality in the presence of their colleagues. As a result, those respondents were expected to indicate a more negative attitude toward Karen than those in the personal health benefits condition. Hence, participants confronted with Karen driven by personal health benefits would hold the most positive attitude. Figure 5 shows the descriptive text and the picture respondents saw in the condition of the public context.

(18)

Measurement of the dependent variable: moral do-gooder derogation

Do-gooder derogation was measured by asking participants how they would evaluate Karen. In order to do so, a bipolar scale from Monin et al. (2008) was adopted. This scale consisted of fourteen items (reverse-coded) and asked respondents if Karen was: stupid-intelligent, weak-strong, insecure-confident, passive-active, cruel-kind, awful-nice, cold-warm, dishonest-honest, unfair-fair, unpleasant-pleasant, dependent-independent, stingy-generous, immature-mature, and low esteem-high self-esteem. A reliability analysis was conducted in order to assess the internal consistency among the items in order to combine them into one scale (∝ =.941, M=2.7732, SD=0.9776) (Malhotra, 2009).

Measurement of an alternative dependent variable: willingness to reduce one’s meat

consumption

In order to measure meat eaters’ willingness to reduce their meat consumption, a 3-item scale was adopted from Graham and Abrahamse (2017). The statements presented look as follows: (1) I plan to eat less meat; (2) I strive to use more alternative protein sources than that of meat (such as beans, lentils, peas and nuts); and (3) I intend to eat meat most days of the week (reverse-coded). Along with those statements, 9 statements regarding the intention to change one’s lifestyle after the corona crisis were asked to disguise respondents from the actual measurement. Obviously, those statements were

(19)

excluded from further analyses. Meat eaters’ willingness to reduce their meat consumption was measured via 7-point Likert scaled statements ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. A reliability analysis was conducted in order to assess the internal consistency among the items in order to combine them into one scale (∝ =.733, M=3.859, SD=1.399) (Malhotra, 2009).

MANIPULATION CHECKS

(20)

RESULTS

Before the main analyses could be performed, data cleaning was conducted. Firstly, all respondents who indicated to be vegan (N=5) or vegetarian (N=18) were excluded. The first manipulation check, asking respondents about Karen’s main reason to become vegan, showed 25 respondents did not provide the correct answer. The second manipulation check which elaborated on the purpose of the experiment, indicated no respondents were aware of the real purpose. Consequently, only 25 respondents did not survive the first manipulation check and 23 vegans/vegetarians were excluded from further analyses. Generally, the majority of the respondents paid considerable attention to the questions being asked, resulting in a sample of N=308. Thereby, according to the G*Power analysis, the sample size greatly exceeded the minimum required sample size of respectively N=192.

From the total sample, 89 respondents completed the English version and the remaining 219 respondents took part in the Dutch version. Furthermore, the sample overrepresented female participants with 65.6%, followed by males with 33.8%, and 0.6% indicated other. Respondents’ age ranged between 15 and 76 years old with an average age of 32 years old (M=32.20). Finally, the majority of the sample indicated to follow a flexitarian diet (60.1%), whereas 37% indicated to be meat eaters, and 2.9% specified other, referring to a combination of those diets (e.g. pescatarian diets) or avoiding certain types of meat.

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

1

Assumptions of the ANOVA test

To run an ANOVA for the main and exploratory analysis, its four assumptions had to be tested on beforehand. Firstly, the assumption of independence was met by the random assignment of participants to the four experimental conditions, creating a dataset of independent cases. Next, moral do-gooder derogation and the willingness to reduce one’s meat consumption, was measured on a continuous scale. Thus, the second assumption of scale was met. To test for normality, a histogram revealed a relatively normal distribution for moral do-gooder derogation, partly negatively skewed, indicated by (S=1.001, K=2.591). For the willingness to reduce one’s meat consumption, the histogram

1_{The data was checked for outliers by excluding respondents on the basis of a response time of 3 minutes or}

(21)

showed a fairly normal distribution, confirmed by (S=-.131, K=-.512). Lastly, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met for moral do-gooder derogation (p=.738) and for the willingness to reduce one’s meat consumption (p=.756). In conclusion, all assumptions were met to run the ANOVA.

MAIN ANALYSIS

ANOVA test

By means of a one-way ANOVA test, the results showed that the four experimental groups did not significantly differ in their level of moral do-gooder derogation (F(3,304)=0.714 p=.544). The highest derogation was observed among participants exposed to Karen driven by collective environmental benefits in a private context (N=73, M=2.8904, SD=.9505). On the other hand, those who were assigned to the personal health benefits condition in a private context showed to have the lowest tendency to derogate Karen (N=82, M=2.6847, SD=1.0507). Participants who were confronted with Karen motivated by environmental benefits together with a public context showed a relatively low level of derogation (N=70, M=2.7092, SD=.9660). Lastly, those who were exposed to Karen driven by personal health benefits in a public context also had a low tendency to derogate Karen (N=83, M=2.8115, SD=.9405). Figure 6 visualizes participants’ tendency to derogate Karen on average, depending on the experimental condition, at a 95% confidence interval.

Figure 6. Means and 95% confidence intervals of participants' level of moral do-gooder derogation

1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Private context Public context

Mo ra l d o-go od er d er ogat io n

(22)

All in all, the ANOVA test could not find support for the proposed moderation effects. No interaction effect between vegans’ justification and the context was found. As illustrated in Figure 6, the means between the four experimental conditions did not significantly differ in terms of their tendency to derogate Karen. More specifically, the results indicated that exposure to personal health benefits did not evoke more positive responses toward Karen than those exposed to collective environmental benefits in the private context. In the private context, participants assigned to the collective environmental benefits conditions did indicate a somewhat higher tendency to derogate Karen (M=2.8904, SD=.9505) than those confronted with personal health benefits (M=2.6847, SD=1.0507). Nevertheless, this difference was insignificant and hence, hypothesis 1 could not be supported. In the public context, those assigned to the personal health benefits condition also did not evaluate Karen significantly more positively than those exposed to Karen driven by collective environmental benefits. Thereby, this difference between the vegan motives was expected to be larger in this condition while the opposite was found to be true. Surprisingly, in the public context exposure to collective environmental benefits (M=2.7092, SD=.9660) indicated an even lower tendency to derogate Karen as opposed to the respondents exposed to personal health benefits (M=2.8115, SD=.9405). Therefore, hypothesis 2 could not be confirmed either.

EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

(23)

to reduce their meat consumption (N=83, M=3.8635, SD=1.2942). Figure 7 illustrates participants’ willingness to reduce their meat consumption on average, depending on the experimental condition, at a 95% confidence interval.

Figure 7. Means and 95% confidence intervals of participants' level of willingness to reduce one’s meat consumption

In conclusion, the ANOVA test did not identify differences between the type of justification used to follow a vegan diet and meat eaters’ willingness to reduce one’s meat consumption. On average respondents seemed to be somewhat indifferent in terms of the willingness to reduce their meat consumption since all values centered around 4. For the private context, respondents exposed to personal health benefits (M=3.9309, SD=1.4332) seemed to be more willing to reduce their meat consumption than those in the collective environmental benefits condition (M=3.6941, SD=1.4107). However, these differences were not significant and were larger than between the participants assigned to the personal health benefits or collective environmental benefits condition in a public context. More specifically, those assigned to the personal health benefits condition in the public context showed a lower willingness to reduce their meat consumption (M=3.8635, SD=1.2942) than those in exposed to collective environmental benefits in the public context (M=3.9429, SD=1.4809). All in all, the exploratory analysis could not reveal that vegans’ justification together with the context determine meat eaters’ tendency to reduce their meat consumption.

1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5

Private context Public context

Wi lli ng ne ss to re du ce m ea t c on su m pt io n

(24)

DISCUSSION

Meat consumption is a major contributor to climate change, global warming and multiple other environmental- and health-related issues worldwide (Zane et al., 2016). As such, vegans can play an important role in promoting a more sustainable and healthier lifestyle. However, such moral do-gooders have often been the target of derogating behavior of others since they question someone’s morality, especially in a public setting (Cramwinckel et al., 2013; Monin et al., 2008). This paper introduced and discussed a conceptual model which proposes that the type of justification vegans use for their diet to meat eaters and the context in which meat eaters are being exposed to vegans determine their tendency to derogate vegans. In other words, this study aimed to find an approach on under which condition meat eaters like vegans more based on the way they present themselves. Subsequently, how did moral versus non-moral arguments vegans used to justify their diet affect meat eaters’ evaluation of them? A two by two between-subjects experimental design aimed to test meat eaters’ reactions to morally motivated versus non-morally motivated vegans within a private or public context.

FINDINGS

This research did not find support that meat eaters will feel a lower tendency to derogate vegans when they are driven by personal health benefits as opposed to collective environmental benefits. In a private context, this proposition could be explained by the threat to meat eaters’ self-concept meat eaters feel after the confrontation with a vegan who is perceived morally superior (Monin et al., 2008). More specifically, when vegans would justify their diet by using collective environmental benefits, meat eaters’ moral inferiority was expected to become even more apparent as compared to using personal health benefits to motivate their dietary choice.

(25)

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the fact that the experiment has been carefully set up in order to ensure reliable, valid and objective results, some drawbacks must be considered when interpreting the results. Consequently, on the basis of the limitations research opportunities will be discussed. First of all, one limitation could be assigned to the characteristics of this sample. The majority of this sample consisted of relatively young women (65.6%, Mage=32.20). As a result, the sample did not accurately represent the Dutch

population whereas females represent 50.35% of the population with an average age of 42.8 years old (Central Bureau for Statistics [CBS], 2019a). Thereby, females are more concerned about the environment and animal welfare and are also more willing to reduce their meat consumption than men (Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002; Cordts, Spiller, Nitzko, Grethe, & Duman, 2013; Dibb & Fitzpatrick, 2014). Therefore, younger people are generally easier swayed by environmental reasons whereas older people, ranging from 41-60 years old, are more convinced of health benefits to reduce their meat consumption (Pribis, Pencak & Grajales, 2010). These demographics could have prevented to find any effects between the different vegan justifications, especially because respondents might have already felt positive about Karen in the first place. All in all, in future research the sample characteristics must represent the actual population as accurately as possible.

(26)

All in all, in a future research a physical experiment in a laboratory setting could be considered to orchestrate an actual conversation more accurately. To manipulate the type of justification vegans use to defend their diet, a video could be recorded and showed to the participants. Instead of taking the survey from home, respondents could be invited to a research lab on campus. As such, extraneous effects could be minimized because the experimental conditions are made identical to each respondent (Aronson et al., 1998). To make sure the manipulation evokes the proposed effects, pre-tests could be performed. In such pre-pre-tests the effects of different actors in a video on the extent to which they evoke feelings of derogation among participants, could be tested. Subsequently, the video which most effectively creates a certain degree of self-threat, leading to derogate Karen, should be chosen by the researchers for the actual experiment.

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This research aimed to build on earlier work from Greenebaum (2012) by investigating whether the type of justification vegans use would positively affect meat eaters’ evaluation of them. Moreover, this expectation was explained by means of the moral do-gooder derogation (Minson & Monin, 2012). As clarified earlier, the overall positive presentation of Karen might have failed to elicit a certain threat to meat eaters’ self-concept. This suggests that moral do-gooder derogation might only occur under very specific circumstances whereas the imaginary situation together with the attractive picture of Karen might not have been suitable for this purpose. As confirmed by earlier research (e.g. Cramwinckel et al., 2013; Minson & Monin, 2012), laboratory settings did threaten one’s self-concept leading to derogate a moral do-gooder. In future research, it is therefore recommended to explore whether moral do-gooder derogation plays a role in the attitude meat eaters form of vegans in a more real-life setting. Thereby, other theories must be explored as well due to the limited applicability of moral do-gooder derogation.

(27)

CONCLUSION

(28)

REFERENCES

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th_{ed.). Boston,}

MA: McGraw Hill.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Central Bureau for Statistics. (2019a). Bevolking; kerncijfers [Population; key figures]. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/cijfers/detail/37296ned

Central Bureau for Statistics. (2019b). Zorguitgaven stijgen in 2018 met 3,1 procent [Healthcare costs

rise by 3.1 percent in 2018]. Retrieved from

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2019/25/zorguitgaven-stijgen-in-2018-met-3-1-procent

Chai, B. C., Van der Voort, J. R., Grofelnik, K., Eliasdottir, H. G., Klöss, I., & Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2019). Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A systematic review of vegan, vegetarian, and omnivorous diets. Sustainability, 11(4110), 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154110

Cordts, A., Spiller, A., Nitzko, S., Grethe, H., & Duman, N. (2013). Imageprobleme beeinflussen den Konsum. Von unbekümmerten Fleischessern, Flexitariern und (Lebensabschnitts-)Vegetariern [Image problems influence consumption. From carefree meat eaters, flexitarians and (life cycle) vegetarians]. FleischWirtschaft, 7, 59–63.

Cramwinckel, F. M., Van Dijk, E., Scheepers, D., & Van den Bos, K. (2013). The threat of moral refusers for one’s self-concept and the protective function of psychical cleansing. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1049-1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.009

Dibb, S., & Fitzpatrick, I. (2014). Let’s talk about meat: Changing dietary behaviour for the 21st

(29)

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. -G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using g*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Fennis, B. M. & Stroebe, W. (2016). The psychology of advertising (2nd_{ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.}

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Fraley, R.C. & Vazire, S. (2014). The n-pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. Plos One, 9(10), 109019.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109019

Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and

Mitigation Opportunities. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO).

Graham, T. & Abrahamse, W. (2017). Communicating the climate impacts of meat consumption: The effects of values and message framing. Global Environmental Change, 44, 98-108.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.004

Greenebaum, J. B. (2012). Managing impressions: “Face-saving” strategies of vegetarians and vegans.

Humanity & Society, 36(4), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597612458898

Henrich, J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation.

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(1), 3–35.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00094-5

Kendall, D. (2008). Sociology in our times: The essentials (7th_{ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.}

(30)

Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.1.34

Leenaert, T. (2017). How to create a vegan world: A pragmatic approach. New York, NY: Lantern Books.

Lockwood, P. & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91– 103.

https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.1.91

Malhotra, N. K. (2009). Marketing Research – An Applied Orientation (6th_{ed.). London, UK: Pearson.}

Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415695

Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 76-93.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.76

Pleasant, A. & Barclay, P. (2018). Why hate the good guy? Antisocial punishment of high cooperators is greater when people compete to be chosen. Psychological Science, 29(6), 868-876.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752642

Pribis, P., Pencak, R. C., & Grajales, T. (2010). Beliefs and attitudes toward vegetarian lifestyle across generations. Nutrients, 2(5), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu2050523

Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change, 125(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1

(31)

environmental impacts: A global modelling analysis with country-level detail. The Lancet

Planetary Health, 2(10), 451-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30206-7

Tilman, D. & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health.

Nature, 515(7528), 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2017). World population projected to

reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Retrieved from

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html

Van Dijk, E., Molenmaker, W., & Kwaadsteniet, E. (2015). Promoting cooperation in social dilemmas: The use of sanctions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 118–122.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.006

Zane, D. M., Irwin, J. R., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? The effect of willful ignorance on judgments of others. Journal of Consumer

(32)

APPENDIX A – SURVEY

Start of Block: Introduction

Welcome to this survey!

For the completion of my master thesis, I would like to gather information on your dietary habits.

Your participation and responses in this study will remain confidential and you are able to withdraw at any point without indicating a reason.

You can also get to win a cheque of €50! However, note that it is important that you closely pay

attention to all questions, otherwise you will be excluded from the chance at winning this prize!

This survey will take approximately 5 minutes to finish.

Should you have any questions, please email: w.a.veldmans@student.rug.nl.

Please read everything carefully and try to answer as honest as possible. There are no wrong answers.

o

I consent, begin the survey

o

I do not consent, I do not wish to participate

Skip To: End of Survey If Please read everything carefully and try to answer as honest as possible. There are no wrong answ... = I do not consent, I do not wish to participate

How old are you?

________________________________________________________________ What would best describe your dietary habits?

o

Vegan

o

Vegetarian

o

Flexitarian (I am eating meat but not everyday)

o

Meat eater (I am eating meat everyday)

o

Other, please specify: ________________________________________________

(33)

What is your gender?

o

Male

o

Female

o

Other/decline to mention ________________________________________________ Which of the following best describes a vegan diet?

o

Do not eat red/white meat, fish, dairy and eggs

o

Do not eat any meat (including red/white meat, fish), but DO eat other animal products (including dairy and eggs)

o

Eat all animal products

o

Do not eat red/white meat, but DO eat fish

End of Block: Introduction

Page Break

Start of Block: IV_Personal health_Pub (Experimental group 1)

Please read the following description carefully:

(34)

Imagine that you would be Tim:

Tim: Hi, how are you doing?

Karen: Good, thanks! What about you?

Tim: Yeah me too!

Tim: So, what are we actually having? I am absolutely starving!

Karen: Well, I would like to try the vegan Indian curry. What about you?

Tim: I think I would like to order the Chicken curry. That one also sounds delicious. Tim: By the way, are you vegan or did you just want to try this dish?

Karen: Well, I have been vegan for a while and luckily, this curry also sounds yummy!

Tim: Ah okay that is good to hear. May I ask why you decided to become vegan?

Karen: Well, I read a lot about the health benefits of adopting a vegan diet. For instance, it lowers your chance of getting coronary heart diseases and getting overweight. As such, I decided to become vegan.

Please click "Yes, I have read it" if you have read the conversation between Karen and you carefully.

o

Yes, I have read it

Page Break

How would you describe Karen?

(35)

Unfair

o

Fair Unpleasant

o

Pleasant Dependent

o

Independent Stingy

o

Generous Immature

o

Mature Low self-esteem

o

High self-esteem Page Break

Due to the corona crisis, governments have introduced lockdowns on large scales which forces people to stay at home. Although many people are also more easily bored, others also seem to pick up on old hobbies (or create new ones). Thereby, some people seem to reconsider specific habits, like eating, exercising, but also the number of working hours as well as the amount of free time. The following statements refer to such lifestyle changes. Please indicate to what extent you agree to the following statements:

After the corona crisis…

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) disagree (3) Somewhat Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat

agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I plan to eat less

meat.

o

I strive to use more alternative

protein sources than that of meat

(such as beans, lentils, peas and

nuts).

o

I intend to engage in less

(36)

I intend to work fewer hours per

week.

o

I plan to continue exercising hobbies which I reinvented during the corona crisis.

o

I strive to visit my

family less often.

o

I strive to travel

more frequently

abroad.

o

I plan to cycle

more often.

o

I strive to fly less

frequently.

o

I plan to exercise more frequently.

o

I strive to visit concerts more often.

o

I intend to eat meat most days

of the week.

o

If you think back at your conversation with Karen, what was her primary reason for becoming vegan?

o

Environmental concerns

o

Personal health benefits

o

Animal welfare

What do you think the purpose of this study was?

________________________________________________________________

Page Break

(37)

Start of Block: IV_Personal health_Pri (Experimental group 2)

Imagine that you (Tim) would be having the following conversation with your new colleague Karen while having dinner at a restaurant with the two of you.

Imagine you would be Tim:

Tim: Yeah me too!

Karen: Well, I read a lot about the health benefits of adopting a vegan diet. For instance, it lowers your chance of getting coronary heart diseases and getting overweight. As such, I decided to become vegan.

(38)

How would you describe Karen? 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Stupid

o

Intelligent Weak

o

Strong Insecure

o

Confident Passive

o

Active Cruel

o

Kind Awful

o

Nice Cold

o

Warm Dishonest

o

Honest Unfair

o

Fair Unpleasant

o

Pleasant Dependent

o

Independent Stingy

o

Generous Immature

o

Mature Low

self-esteem

o

High self-esteem

(39)

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) disagree (3) Somewhat Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat

agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I plan to eat less

meat.

o

nuts).

o

I intend to engage in less social activities.

o

I intend to work

fewer hours per

week.

o

I plan to continue exercising hobbies which I reinvented during the corona crisis.

o

family less often.

o

I strive to travel

more frequently

abroad.

o

I plan to cycle

more often.

o

frequently.

o

I plan to exercise

(40)

o

Animal welfare

________________________________________________________________

End of Block: IV_Personal health_Pri

Start of Block: IV_Environment_Pub (Experimental group 3)

Imagine that you (Tim) would be having the following conversation with your new colleague Karen while having dinner at a restaurant with all your colleagues from your department. While talking to Karen, you notice that others are overhearing your conversation.

I strive to visit concerts more

often.

o

(41)

You: Hi, how are you doing?

You: Yeah me too!

You: So, what are we actually having? I am absolutely starving!

You: I think I would like to order the Chicken curry. That one also sounds delicious. You: By the way, are you vegan or did you just want to try this dish?

You: Ah okay that is good to hear. May I ask why you decided to become vegan?

Karen: Well, I read a lot about the negative environmental consequences of a meat-based diet. For instance, it causes pollution of rivers and deforestation. As such, I decided to become vegan.

o

Yes, I have read it

Page Break

How would you describe Karen?

(42)

Dishonest

o

Honest Unfair

o

Fair Unpleasant

o

Pleasant Dependent

o

Independent Stingy

o

Generous Immature

o

Mature Low

self-esteem

o

High self-esteem

Page Break

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I plan to eat less

meat.

o

nuts).

(43)

I intend to engage in less social

activities.

o

I intend to work fewer hours per

week.

o

I plan to continue exercising hobbies which I reinvented during

the corona crisis.

o

family less often.

o

I strive to travel

more frequently

abroad.

o

I plan to cycle

more often.

o

frequently.

o

I plan to exercise more frequently.

o

I strive to visit concerts more often.

o

of the week.

o

Page Break

o

Animal welfare

________________________________________________________________

(44)

Start of Block: IV_Environment_Pri (Experimental group 4)

Imagine that you (Tim) would be having the following conversation with your new colleague Karen while having dinner at a restaurant with the two of you.

Tim: Yeah me too!

Karen: Well, I read a lot about the negative environmental consequences of a meat-based diet. For instance, it causes pollution of rivers and deforestation. As such, I decided to become vegan.

o

Yes, I have read it

(45)

How would you describe Karen? 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Stupid

o

Intelligent Weak

o

Strong Insecure

o

Confident Passive

o

Active Cruel

o

Kind Awful

o

Nice Cold

o

Warm Dishonest

o

Honest Unfair

o

Fair Unpleasant

o

Pleasant Dependent

o

Independent Stingy

o

Generous Immature

o

Mature Low

self-esteem

o

High self-esteem

(46)

Due to the corona crisis, governments have introduced lockdowns on large scales which forces people to stay at home. Although many people are also more easily bored, others also seem to pick up on old hobbies (or create new ones). Thereby, some people seem to reconsider specific habits, like eating, exercising, but also the number of working hours as well as the amount of free time. The following statements refer to such lifestyle changes.

Please indicate to what extent you agree to the following statements: After the corona crisis...

Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat

(47)

Page Break

o

Animal welfare

________________________________________________________________

End of Block: IV_Environment_Pri

(48)

Start of Block: End of survey

You have now reached the end of this survey.

Hereby, I would like to thank you for your participation in this research!

Please indicate if you want to get the chance at winning the €50 prize by choosing "yes" and leave your email address below:

o

Yes, my email address is: ________________________________________________

o

No, thank you.

Page Break

If you would like to know more about the purpose of this study and/or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at w.a.veldmans@student.rug.nl.

Please don't forget to click on "next" to complete your response! Have a nice day!

(49)

Master Thesis Defense

How First Impressions can Make it or Break it in the Shift toward a more

Sustainable Lifestyle

MSc Marketing Management, University of Groningen

Wytske Veldmans (S2371596)

Tuesday, 7

th

_{of July 2020}

(50)

- Introduction

- Research Question

- Conceptual Model & Hypotheses

- Methodology

- Results

- Discussion

(51)

(52)

Research Question

“Does justifying a vegan diet with personal health

benefits

elicit more positive responses among meat

eaters, as opposed to collective environmental benefits?”

(53)

Conceptual Model & Hypotheses

5 H

₁

: In a private context, exposure to vegans driven by personal health benefits will reduce the tendency

to derogate vegans, as opposed to exposure to collective environmental benefits.

H

₂

How First Impressions Can Make it or Break it in the Shift Toward a More Sustainable Lifestyle

Master Thesis

How First Impressions Can Make it or Break it in the

Shift Toward a More Sustainable Lifestyle

Meat eaters’ attitudes toward vegans when being exposed to vegans’

justification for their dietary choice

by

Wytske Veldmans

Completion date:

How First Impressions Can Make it or Break it in the

Shift Toward a More Sustainable Lifestyle

-

Meat eaters’ attitudes toward vegans when being exposed to vegans’

justification for their dietary choice

PREFACE

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

PRIVATE CONTEXT AND MORAL DO-GOODER DEROGATION

PUBLIC CONTEXT AND MORAL DO-GOODER DEROGATION

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

METHODOLOGY

CONTEXT

PROCEDURE

MANIPULATION AND MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES

Manipulation of the independent variable: vegans’ justification

Manipulation of the moderator: private versus public context

Measurement of the dependent variable: moral do-gooder derogation

Measurement of an alternative dependent variable: willingness to reduce one’s meat

consumption

MANIPULATION CHECKS

RESULTS

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

Assumptions of the ANOVA test

MAIN ANALYSIS

ANOVA test

EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

DISCUSSION

FINDINGS

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A – SURVEY

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o