The healthy, yet unhealthy choice: stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans in a meat- eating culture

Marija Brankovića* and Anastasija Budžaka

aFaculty of Media and Communications, Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia

* [email protected]

Stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans influence behavior toward these groups, as well as decisions about consumption of animal products in general, affecting the health and wellbeing of humans and other animals, as well as the environment. We extend the existing research with a study of stereotypes in a non- WEIRD meat-eating culture based on content analysis of open-ended responses (Study 1) and ratings on the competence and warmth dimensions (Study 2). We also sought to predict the positivity of stereotypes by the general attitude to animals, perception of vegetarianism as a threat to local traditions, and the anticipated moral reproach of vegetarians toward meat-eaters. We found that stereotypes about vegetarians are ambivalent, while stereotypes about vegans are more clearly negative, both to a greater extent among meat-eaters compared with vegetarians/vegans and among men compared with women. The open-ended responses were most frequently related to health, both good and poor health, and secondly to moral values, empathy, and commitment as well as unfavorable social traits. References to masculinity/femininity were not prominent in the spontaneous responses and neither was the general domain of competence, although both groups are ascribed relatively high competence when explicitly asked. While meat-eaters mostly relate vegetarianism and veganism to health, those who themselves are vegetarian or vegan most readily relate these choices to empathy and moral values, as well as free- mindedness. Perceptions of vegetarianism as a threat, as well as one’s general level of speciesism predicted stereotype positivity. We discuss how future cross-cultural research can benefit from the categories of traits we derived from the open-ended analysis and the implications of the findings for shaping public communications.

Keywords: vegetarians, vegans, stereotypes, vegetarianism threat, speciesism, moral reproach

Meat consumption habits are notoriously resistant to change (McDiarmid, Douglas, & Campbell, 2016), especially when people think that plenty of meat is necessary and normal (Piazza et al. 2015). Critical insights have been made into the issue of animal production and meat consumption in contemporary society, both ethically and for its negative environmental (Hedenus, Wirsenius, Daniel, & Johansson, 2014) and health-related impacts (Tilman & Clark, 2014). Researchers suggest that the protection of the environment is dependent upon not only

1 technological innovation but also on changes in human beliefs and patterns of behavior related to support for animal production and meat consumption (Hedenus et al., 2014). To promote more sustainable and healthier consumption habits it is essential to better understand their psychosocial correlates. One of the important psychological determinants of readiness to reduce one’s meat intake could be the social image and beliefs about people who do not consume meat. Previous research suggests that negative views of activists can be related to reduced willingness to adopt the behaviors promoted by activists (Bashir, Lockwood, Chasteen, Nadolny, & Noyes, 2013) and this was unrelated to the domain of activism. Specifically, in the domain of prospective vegetarianism and the willingness to reduce one’s meat intake, one of the perceived barriers could be a negative social image of vegetarians and vegans (Lea and Worsley, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2018). For instance, Lea and Worsley (2003) established that 10% of the participants associated a negative social image with the vegetarian diet which they recognized as a barrier to choosing this diet, and this percentage was higher (25%) among men.

Furthermore, as a specific minority group in most contexts, vegetarians and vegans are possible targets of prejudice and discrimination. Indeed, research suggests that both vegetarians and vegans can be evaluated more negatively than several common prejudice target groups and several other nutritional outgroups (McInnis & Hodson, 2015). Content analyses of media portrayals of these groups suggest that they are mostly cast in an unfavorable light (Cole & Morgan, 2011). Expectedly, vegetarians and vegans report having experienced discrimination (Torti, 2017; Twine, 2014). There is little research on the wellbeing of these groups, but a few studies do suggest a relation between vegetarianism and lowered well-being, including more negative social experiences (Forstell & Nezlek, 2018; Nezlek, Forestell, & Newman, 2018).

We aimed to investigate the stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans, as the two most relevant nutritive groups defined by abstaining from meat (vegetarians) and other animal-based food products (vegan). Our studies contribute by a diverse methodological approach in studying stereotypes, as we combine the classical content analyses of open responses with self-rating measures of warmth and competence dimensions of stereotypes. This approach allowed a comprehensive study of various traits and characteristics since it is an open-ended and exploratory rather than the based on a priori determined attributes. We also explored how stereotype contents vary between male and female participants, as well as between meat-eaters and non-meat eaters. We further investigated whether stereotype positivity is predicted by

2 gender, one’s general attitude to animals, perception of vegetarianism as a threat to local traditions and worldviews, and the anticipated moral reproach of vegetarians toward meat-eaters. With the present studies, we contribute to the growing literature on vegetarianism (Amiot & Bastian, 2015; Rosenfeld, 2018; Ruby, 2012; Serpell, 2009) introducing a cross-cultural perspective, since the studies were conducted in a less well-studied context, that is, Serbia and the Western Balkans. Serbia is a region typically described as in-between the individualist West and the collectivist East, thus a context culturally different from both typically Western and Eastern countries (Hofstede, 2001; Muthukrishna et al., 2020).

1.1. Contents of stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans

Previous studies revealed that several characteristics are stereotypically related to one being vegetarian or vegan, some of which are more closely related to one’s moral values and sensitivity to the suffering of animals, while others reflect more general personality and social traits. For instance, Ruby and Heine (2011) revealed that profiles including information about an individual’s vegetarian diet are rated as more virtuous and less masculine compared to those with omnivore diets. The latter effect was more pronounced in male than female participants. The lowered perception of masculinity related to vegetarian-vegan diets is a typical finding, and it could be explained by the association between meat and healthiness and strength (Lowe & Sulikowski, 2018; Rothgerber, 2013).

A recent study conducted in Switzerland found that hosts offering vegetarian rather than meat- based meals were rated as more health-conscious, caring about animal welfare, but also trend- conscious (as opposed to old-fashioned) and alternative (vs. bourgeois) (Funk, Sütterlin, & Siegrist, 2020). Another study applied a more differentiated list of characteristics that participants attributed to either a vegetarian, insect, or meat burger consumer (Hartmann, Ruby, Schmidt, & Siegrist, 2018). They found that vegetarians were rated as more conscious of their health, animal welfare, and the environment, but also as more disciplined, more moral, more introverted, more educated, skinnier, and more athletic, compared to omnivores, also as less tolerant. Judge and Wilson (2015) asked their participants to envision a future in which the whole society will be plant-based, vegetarian, or vegan. Participants expected that people would be more conscious of the environment and animal welfare, but also more communal, that is, more caring and empathetic, socially connected, and socially conscious. A smaller number of

3 participants also expected a shift toward more morality, self-control, and less aggressiveness. Some participants also perceived a higher level of moral judgment in such future societies, which a few also interpreted as an absence of the possibility of choice. However, this was not recorded as one of the dominant expectations.

Most previous studies thus investigated the contents of stereotypes by including a more or less elaborate list of specific traits whereas there are even fewer studies that studied the contents of stereotypes in an open-ended manner. Burgess and associates (Burgess, Carpenter, & Henshaw, 2014) asked their participants to state the characteristics they associated with vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores. They report a range of associations, for instance, that vegetarians are perceived as healthy, lacking protein, hipsters, animal lovers, while vegans are also perceived as animal rights activists, thin, weak, and strict. However, the authors did not report the specific frequencies of these responses, so they mostly illustrate the width of the associations rather than allow a more precise understanding of the contents of stereotypes.

Minson and Monin (2012) elicited and recorded three spontaneous word associations to vegetarians, which they analyzed in terms of positivity as well as contents, i.e. whether the words were food-related, descriptions of physical characteristics or psychosocial characteristics. They found that 47% or all respondents named at least one negative characteristic, predominantly related to psychosocial characteristics, e.g. self-righteous, annoying, and crazy. Centrally to their research, they found that the negativity of associations was predicted by anticipated moral reproach attributed to vegetarians, that is, the extent to which participants thought that vegetarians perceived themselves as morally superior compared to omnivores or the individual participant.

In this study we wished to extend these findings by applying a more differentiated set of categories to the contents of spontaneous answers, in specific the physical, or rather, health- related and psychosocial characteristics and also establishing the proportion of these categories, to establish which characteristics are more dominantly associated with being vegetarian or vegan.

1.2. Are vegetarians perceived as different from vegans?

Although similar in terms of their abstaining from at least some types of animal products, vegetarians and vegans are different groups with specific views and identities (Lund, McKeegan,

4 Cribbin, & Sandøe, 2016; Rosenfeld, 2019). The existent research that studied stereotypes about both groups suggests that vegans are perceived more negatively, as a more extreme group, in terms of their health and social characteristics, in particular being judgmental (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017). Vegan diets were also perceived more negatively than vegetarian diets, on several aspects: vegan diet was perceived as less healthy and nutritious, less easy and convenient, less affordable, less tasty and enjoyable, less aspirational, and less acceptable (Bryant, 2019). In contrast, participants did not perceive additional benefits of a vegan diet compared with a vegetarian diet in terms of ethics or preservation of the environment. Similarly, Judge and Wilson (2019) found that attitudes toward vegans were more negative than towards vegetarians.

These findings are perhaps unsurprising given that vegan positions are perceived as less similar to one’s own, or more distant and extreme than vegetarian positions, vegetarianism being a sort of common ground between meat-eaters and vegans (Bryant, 2019). The negative perceptions of vegans are sometimes interpreted as defensive since they are a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance arising from meat consumption (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017), as well as the anticipated moral reproach of vegetarians/vegans (Minson & Monin, 2012). This has also been supported by qualitative research. Namely, in a study using in-depth interviews with omnivores and vegans (Guerin, 2014), omnivores anticipated that they would be engaged in conflict by vegans, even before these adversarial interactions even happened. Most of the omnivore participants readily cited cases of extremist vegans, perceived them as instigators of conflict and expressed negative feelings toward any conversation about veganism. The same interaction would be interpreted in different ways by vegans and omnivores, in that what vegans would describe as a non-conflicting expression of attitudes, omnivores would interpret as conflict and judgmental treatment. The author concludes that omnivores expect vegans to be confrontational a priori, suggesting a clear stereotype about extreme veganism.

1.3. The cross-cultural perspective

Thus far there have been few cross-cultural studies of stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans, so the current knowledge about stereotypes is limited to the Western countries, like the UK, Switzerland, the USA, and Australia. One study (Ruby et al., 2016) compared attitudes toward vegetarians in four countries: Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA. Three aspects of attitudes

5 were studies: admiration toward vegetarians, being bothered by vegetarians, and aversion to vegetarians as partners. Across the countries, participants expressed neutral attitudes to vegetarians, that is, the observed means were close to the theoretical mean for all of the measures. In general, women expressed more positive attitudes than men. There were also differences between countries, for instance, admiration of vegetarians was highest in the USA and Brazil followed by France and Argentina. On the other hand, Argentinians were least bothered by vegetarians, followed by Brazilians, the French, and Americans.

Another study conducted in Slovenia (Črnič, 2003) included a general measure of the perception of the personal choice to abstain from meat and other animal products. Attitudes toward vegetarians were mostly positive: 47.7% of participants expressed positive, 31.4% negative attitude, while 20% were undecided. Similarly, 42.5% of the participants expressed a positive, 35.7% a negative attitude toward vegans, while 20% were undecided. In contrast to the attitude toward the personal choice to abstain from meat or animal product for adults, choosing vegetarianism and veganism for one’s children was perceived in very negative terms.

The two studies described were limited to exploring the general perception of vegetarians/vegans in contrast to the actual contents of stereotypes. However, neutral attitudes could be related to ambivalent rather than neutral stereotypes. Also, some elements of the stereotypes can be hypothesized to be similar independent of the cultural context, for instance, the perception that vegetarians and vegans care more about animals and the environment. However, some of the negative perceptions could be even more emphasized in the local context due to the meat-based cuisine, as well as the low prevalence of vegetarianism and veganism and a general traditional outlook in terms of social attitudes and identities (Branković, in press). This could be the case for the perceptions related to health, that is, the impoverished health of people who abstain from meat. Also, the social awkwardness perceptions could be more pronounced in the local context, since these practices are much less present in everyday consumption compared to some Western countries.

1.4. The present studies

Through a combination of open-ended content analysis (Study 1) and measures of stereotype positivity and its predictors (Study 2), we aimed to capture the contents of stereotypes comprehensively, to be able to see: a. whether perceptions are limited to perceptions of attitudes

6 (e.g. toward animals and the environment) or extend to other, more distant characteristics, as an individual’s values, character and social characteristics, b. whether stereotypes contain positive, negative, or ambivalent traits, c. whether the contents of stereotypes differ depending on whether the individual herself is vegetarian or vegan and depending on their gender, d. whether positivity of stereotypes is predicted by meat consumption, general attitudes toward animals, perceptions of vegetarianism as a threat to local traditions, and anticipated moral reproach toward meat-eaters.

1.5. Participants

In the following, we will present the methods and the results of the studies thematically and by analytical techniques, rather than data collection points, as advised by some previous research (Monteiro, Pfeiler, Patterson, & Milburn, 2017). Both study sections report data from multiple samples. We recruited a total of 739 participants from Serbia. Three waves of data collection were organized from April 2019 through December 2019, and their characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Sample characteristics

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 N 288 181 270 Age range 17 – 60 18-51 17-52 Age M (SD) 30.84 (9.95) 22.41(5.59) 21.42 (5.26) % female 73.60 87.30 85.20

Students from one faculty in Belgrade we recruited in waves 1 and 3 participated for extra course credit, while in the second wave participants were recruited by applying the passive snowballing method, that is, by distributing the link through social media. We polled the data into an aggregated base to conduct the analyses. The survey was available online. Participation was voluntary and participants clicked on informed consent before entering the survey. In the informed consent, participants could read that they would be participating in a survey about current social topics. They were told that it was not possible to give wrong answers, so they should answer honestly. Participants also were told that the findings would be used for scientific purposes only, that their answers were anonymous, and that they could discontinue their participation at any time.

7 2. Study 1: Content analysis of stereotypes 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Sample of contents

Participants were asked to state three traits or characteristics that first came to mind when they thought about vegetarians. The following question was identical except that vegans were named as the target group. In total, we recorded 1476 and 1431 responses, for vegetarians and vegans respectively, which we used in the content analysis.

2.1.2. Procedure

We applied a data-driven procedure in developing the coding scheme (Mason, 1996). We defined an initial scheme based on the most common categories of traits and characteristics (e.g. health, social traits, and competence) and then revised and refined the scheme based on the possibility to code the responses without overlap. We aimed to maximize the information obtained while at the same time having in mind the frequency of the responses so that we could keep an optimal number of categories. We opted to differentiate between positively and negatively evaluated traits, to be able to get a more informative categorization, e.g. we differentiated between good health and poor health, rather than coding all the answers as health- related.

The final scheme is presented in Table 2, illustrated with several examples of responses, that is traits and characteristics coded within the category. The traits that had very low frequency (e.g., lower than 5 in the overall sample) were coded as Other. This category is quite broad, reflecting mostly idiosyncratic views of the participants, including traits as religious, intuitive, reflexive, spiritual, sophisticated, naïve, stable, rational, or saint. We also included the following categories: Don’t know, Refusal to answer and Irrelevant, which was assigned in cases when participants repeated the characteristics of the category (doesn’t eat meat) or named persons they associated with vegetarianism/veganism (e.g. Novak Đoković, a friend of mine, etc.).

Table 2

8 The coding scheme used in content analysis

Category Examples of traits and characteristics

Good health Healthy, energetic, slim (physical health); optimistic, relaxed, positive (mental health)

Poor health Skinny, pale, anemic, weak (physical health); tense, frustrated, unfulfilled (mental health)

Empathy Caring, sensitive, gentle, empathetic

Moral values Conscious, responsible, good, unselfish, humane

Care about animals Love animals, care for animals

Commitment Tenacious, consistent, dedicated, committed

Free-mindedness Progressive, liberal, open to ideas, alternative

High competence Intelligent, educated, wealthy, intellectual

Favorable social Sociable, amicable, darling characteristics Unfavorable social Judgmental, pushy, pretentious, intolerant, irritant, egoistic, characteristics boring

Extreme views Extremist, fanatical, narrow-minded

Trend following Trend followers, hipsters, trendy

Hypocrisy Hypocrites, false moralists, frauds

Ordinariness Normal, just as anybody else, just a normal person

2.1.3. Inter-rater reliability

Two independent raters coded the answers. The inter-rater reliability was high, 89.70% of individual responses were given the same code in the case of vegetarians and 88.96% in the case of vegans (we note that this is the percentage of responses, which entails that some traits were repeated more than once). The remaining responses were discussed and final codes were agreed upon. In a small number of cases, the raters agreed that the responses were ambiguous, and in

9 these cases, they were coded as Other. Since participants wrote the answers themselves, without any constraint, these were the cases where the same word had ambiguous meaning, for instance, flexible or dependent. Some words could have more than one meaning, which was impossible to discern without more context, e.g. strict, which could mean disciplined but also intolerant toward others, or tough, which could mean both muscular (physically) or resilient (as a psychological quality). However, as evidenced by the inter-rater agreement, most responses were possible to code reliably.

2.1.4. Additional measures

In addition to the content analyses, we coded two individual-level indices, one index of negativity and an index of ambivalence.

The index of negativity was coded by counting the number of negative characteristics mentioned by an individual participant and ranged from 0 to 3. Here we coded the clearly negatively valenced characteristics recognized by the previous coding system, namely, poor health, unfavorable social characteristics, extremeness and hypocrisy, as well as trend following (we will discuss this shortly).

The index of ambivalence was also coded at the individual level. As ambivalent, we coded participants who stated both a. characteristics related to good and poor health, b. favorable and unfavorable social characteristics, or c. stated that vegetarians/vegans are both free-minded and extreme.

2.2. Results 2.2.1. Contents of stereotypes

The percentages of responses per category of contents are presented in Figure 1a for vegetarians and Figure 1b for vegans.

10 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

good health 17.2 poor health 12.0 moral values 9.8 empathy 8.5 commitment 8.1 unfavorable social traits 6.6 free-mindedness 4.3 ordinariness 4.3 high competence 3.5 trend followers 2.7 favorable social traits 2.5 care about animals 2.2 hypocrisy 1.2 extremeness 0.8

Figure 1a. Contents of stereotypes about vegetarians

As can be seen from the graph, stereotypes about vegetarians are loaded primarily with health- relevant characteristics. Interestingly, vegetarians are perceived both as characterized by good health and, to a somewhat smaller extent, poor health. These two categories reflect primarily physical health (12.7 % good and 9.8% poor health, respectively), but also to some extent mental health (4.5% positive, 2.2% negative mental health). Second, vegetarians are characterized by emphasized moral values, empathy, and commitment, that is they are seen as conscious and good, empathetic, and sensitive, as well as committed, persistent, and dedicated. To a smaller degree, vegetarians are also perceived as free-minded, progressive, highly educated, and intellectual. On the other hand, they are sometimes perceived as exerting unfavorable social traits, as being pretentious, pushy, even preachy, and intolerant of those who do not share their beliefs (6.6% of responses reflected this perception). Also, a small number of responses reflected the perception of vegetarians as trend followers and hipsters, or hypocrites and extremists (below 5% altogether). It should also be noted that some participants emphasized that they view vegetarians as normal, like any other person, or refused to state any characteristic solely based on the label „vegetarian“. In addition to these categories, we also recorded .9% of Don’t know

11 responses, 3.5% of irrelevant responses, 3.9% refusals, and 8.1% of responses were coded as other.

As can be seen from Figure 1b, the perception of poor health is somewhat more pronounced in perceptions of vegans, while good health is ascribed to them less frequently. Unfavorable social traits emerge more frequently in association with vegans (10.3%), as well as the perceptions of being extreme (6.4%). Also, 3.4% of responses similarly refused to connect any specific trait with the label „vegan“, and another 3.1% stated that vegans are normal or ordinary people (also, 2.8% of responses were irrelevant, 1.6% coded as don’t know and 8% as other).

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

poor health 15.1 commitment 12.6 unfavorable social traits 10.3 good health 8.5 moral values 7.8 empathy 6.5 extremeness 6.4 free-mindedness 3.3 ordinariness 3.1 high competence 2.8 care about animals 2.7 trend following 2.5 favorable social traits 1.9 hypocrisy 0.7

Figure1b. Contents of stereotypes about vegans

2.2.2. Additional measures: negativity and ambivalence of stereotypes

The previous description leads to the conclusion that stereotypes include both positive and negative characteristics, sometimes with almost identical prevalence, as is the case with ascribing both good and poor health to vegetarians. We were interested to see whether this also entails that the same person can hold ambivalent perceptions of vegetarians and vegans. Analyses of the index of ambivalence showed that 8.5% of participants stated ambivalent traits when asked about

12 vegetarians, whereas 2.4% of participants were ambivalent as regards vegans. For instance, some participants stated that vegetarians or vegans are „ educated but narrow“, or mentioned two quite opposite traits in their two responses about the same target group, e.g. „judgemental“ and „nice“, „extremist“ and „normal“, or „hypocrite“ and „moral“.

The index of negativity measure showed that overall 38.60% of participants mentioned at least one negative trait when describing vegetarians, whereas 55.90% of participants mentioned at least one negative trait for vegans.

To summarize, our anlysis suggests that vegetarians mostly attract ambivalent, while vegans attract more clearly negative stereotypes. In both cases, spontaneously mentioned traits are related mostly to health, moral values, empathy and comittment (in a positive sense), as well as unfavorable social traits.

2.2.3. Stereotypes among meat-eaters and vegetarians and vegans

Perceptions of vegetarians/vegans presumably depend on whether the observer is an ingrouper or an outgrouper (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). We, therefore, contrasted stereotype contents between meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters (since we only managed to recruit a small number of vegans in our sample, given their low prevalence, we presented the aggregated responses of vegetarians and vegans under the same label). The significance of differences in the ratings was tested using a permutation test with 10 000 permutations, programmed in R (R Core Team, 2019). The test was devised since observations were not independent, that is, since participants could mention trait from several of the categories. The permutation test randomly assigned group membership to participants while keeping the groups sizes identical to the empirical groups. In this way we generated a distribution of differences which corresponded to the null assumption of no differences between the groups (since membership is randomized). Empirical differences were then tested against this distribution and we determined critical values that corresponded to significant differences at the p level of .05.

As can be seen from Figure 2a, perceptions of vegetarians do differ between these groups in some respects. First, while both meat-eaters and vegetarians/vegans ascribe good health to vegetarians, meat-eaters also have a more prominent association of poor health with this group (diff = -.094, 95%CI [-.061, .068]). Vegetarians and vegans ascribe empathy to vegetarians to a larger extent than meat-eaters (diff = .111, 95%CI [-.042, .045]). On the other hand, meat-eaters

13 more frequently relate free-mindedness to vegetarians (diff = -.051, 95%CI [-.030, .032]). Also, meat-eaters expressed more negative associations, in that they more frequently ascribed unfavorable social traits to vegetarians (diff = -.0433, 95%CI [-.0430, .051]).

Figure 2a. Stereotypes about vegetarians among meat-eaters and vegetarians/vegans

Perception of vegans can be said to be even more polarized between meat-eaters and vegetarians and vegans. There is discrepancy both in perceptions of good and poor health, the more unfavorable perceptions being consistently expressed by meat-eaters, that is, fewer associations about good health (diff = .062, 95%CI [-.049, .055]) and more with poor health (diff = -.128, 95%CI [-.066, .075]). On the other hand, the predominant characteristic that vegetarians/vegans ascribed to vegans was empathy, more so than meat-eaters (diff = .092, 95%CI [-.037, .041]). Moral values were also more frequently mentioned by vegetarians and vegans (diff = .054, 95%CI [-.040, .042]). In contrast, meat-eaters more frequently mentioned free-mindedness as characteristic of vegans (diff = .034, 95%CI [-.028, .031]). Interestingly, vegetarians/vegans also ascribed some negative characteristics to vegans – frequency of extremeness did not differ in comparison with meat-eaters. This is obviously because this group mostly consisted of vegetarians and not vegans. It appears that even if vegans are perceived predominantly as

14 empathetic, and in this respect similar to vegetarians, in some respects, vegans can be seen as an outgroup and evaluated negatively.

Figure 2b. Stereotypes about vegans among meat-eaters and vegetarians/vegans

2.2.4. Stereotype contents among men and women

As previous studies suggest that men and women differ in their perceptions of vegetarians and vegans (e.g. Ruby & Heine, 2011), we compared their associations about these two groups (they are presented in Figure 3a and 3b).

15 Figure 3a. Stereotypes about vegetarians among women and men

Women ascribed good health to vegetarians to a larger extent than males (diff = .077, 95%CI [-.055, .053]); also, women associated commitment more with vegetarians (diff = .037, 95%CI [-.034, .033]). On the other hand, men ascribed free-mindedness to vegetarians to a larger extent (diff = -.054, 95%CI [-.024, .023]). Other categories were quite similarly distributed, without statistically significant differences. Notably, negative perceptions of social characteristics did not differ among men and women and neither did the perceptions of vegetarians as hypocritical or extreme, although these were quite rare in both groups.

16 Figure 3b. Stereotypes about vegans among women and men

Perceptions of vegans were less concordant among men and women. Women ascribed good health to vegans, to a larger extent than men (diff = .066, 95%CI [-.041, .039]). Besides health, women perceived vegans mostly as committed, more frequently compared to men (diff = .083, 95%CI [-.046, .044]), while men perceived them more free-minded to a larger extent than women (diff = -.035, 95%CI [-.023, .021]). On the other hand, men ascribed more negative social characteristics to vegans (diff = -.048, 95%CI [-.043, .040]). Men also related vegans more with trend following (diff = -.026, 95%CI [-.020, .017]) and hypocrisy (diff = -.010, 95%CI [-.009, .009]) compared to women. In terms of similarities, men and women perceived vegans as equally moral, empathetic but also as equally extreme.

2.3. Discussion

In Study 1 we investigated the contents of stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans through content analysis of open-ended responses. Our analysis revealed that both being vegetarian and being vegan is associated with a wide range of characteristics, well beyond one’s caring about animals or being health-conscious (Hartmann et al., 2018). The contents were quite heavily loaded with health-related characteristics, thereafter, associated with the domain of morality,

17 values, and ideology, also partly leaning towards personality characteristics, and thirdly, related to social characteristics. When asked about the typical characteristics of both vegetarians and vegans, participants most readily answered about what they thought were their health-related characteristics, mostly physical but to an extent also mental health. Interestingly, these associations were quite ambivalent; in the case of vegetarians, roughly equally positive and negative, whereas in the case of vegans they were slightly leaning towards perceptions of poor health, in particular among those who themselves are meat-eaters.

What concerns the domain of morality, values, and ideology, most participants did not mention caring about animals in specific but rather mentioned more generalized traits of being caring, empathetic, conscious, humane, good and committed. This latter category could also be interpreted as the one most related to personality traits, most closely conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 2008). In terms of valence, this broad domain includes predominantly positive or favorable traits. These traits are also consistent with a communal orientation, as suggested in the Judge & Wilson (2015) study on vegetarian future societies. Vegetarians and vegans were also ascribed high competence, however, these characteristics made a much smaller percentage of the responses.

Thirdly, the stereotypes included the domain of social characteristics. Even though both negative and positive characteristics were mentioned, the negative ones were clearly predominant, in particular in the perception of vegans (10.3% of all the traits mentioned). Vegans and vegetarians were thus described as overly moralistic, judgmental, and preachy, in short, overly concerned with their own nutritive choices and forcing other people to care about the issues they care about. This perception also entailed that they were viewed as “difficult people”, “complicated”, or “irritant”, as well as vain and entitled, viewed as ascribing oneself the higher moral ground. This perception was more present among meat-eaters and men.

Vegetarians and vegans were also perceived as free-minded, open, curious, and liberal in terms of political orientation. These characteristics are somewhat difficult to interpret in terms of positivity – apparently, their interpretation would depend on the orientation of the observer. However, a smaller category that we termed “trend following” has a more unfavorable air, as evidenced by more elaborate responses, for instance, “filthy hipster”, or “blind trend followers”. Therefore, this category could connote that this is not an overly reflexive decision, but rather

18 striving for a superficial social image or uncritically accepting beliefs to achieve a social image deemed favorably.

The one notable domain that did not emerge from our analysis was the perception of masculinity or femininity: only a handful of all the responses cited these characteristics explicitly. Since previous research reveals that being vegetarian or vegan is related to a lack of masculinity (Rothgerber, 2013; Ruby & Heine, 2011) we can speculate that this is an indirect perception, based on the fact that other traits typically ascribed to vegetarians and vegans are more closely relatable to a feminine stereotype (for instance, in being empathetic and communal rather than competence oriented).

In line with previous studies (e.g. Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017) the present study also found more negative stereotypes about vegans. It has been suggested that negative stereotypes may be one of the responses to the cognitive dissonance arising from meat consumption, in addition to other mechanisms as denying animals the capacity for pain and suffering (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017; Loughnan, Bastian, & Haslam, 2014). To the extent that vegetarianism and veganism are perceived as undesirable and vegetarians/vegans cast in negative terms, the views and choices of meat-eaters can be reinforced and cognitive dissonance reduced.

For now, we can summarize that perceptions of vegetarians are more ambivalent, and perceptions of vegans more negative, both to a greater extent among meat-eaters as compared with vegetarians/vegans and among men as compared with women. In Study 2 we focused on the positivity of stereotypes along the crucial dimensions of interpersonal perception: warmth and competence.

3. Study 2: Stereotype positivity and its predictors 3.1. Overview

In Study 2 we focused on stereotype positivity which was measured directly, via self-rating scales along the two general dimensions of stereotypes: warmth and competence (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). We expected that the positivity of stereotypes relates to gender so that women would view vegetarians and vegans more positively, based on previous studies suggesting that this is true for at least some characteristics (e.g. social awkwardness, Lea &

19 Worsley, 2003). Also, we thought that stereotype positivity would be predicted by the anticipated moral reproach by vegetarians and vegans (negatively, Monin & Minson, 2007). Also, we expected stereotype positivity would depend on the extent to which vegetarianism is perceived as a threat to local customs and culture (Branković, in press). We also expected that it would be predicted by the individual’s general attitude to animals. This prediction is consistent with the idea that attitudes towards vegetarians and vegans are in fact attitudes toward people who protest the exploitation of animals (Horta, 2018), although this has not yet been empirically tested.

3.2. Methods 3.2.1. Instruments

To assess stereotype positivity participants rated the probability that vegetarians or vegans possess a list of positive and negative traits (on a scale from 0 to 100%). The warmth dimension was measured by the following traits: hostile, civilized, good, violent, hypocritical, and moral (α = .78 for vegetarians, .83 for vegans). The competence dimension was represented by capable, self-confident, intelligent, uneducated, and abnormal (α = .75 for vegetarians, .77 for vegans). We will present ratings of individual traits, mean ratings for the two dimensions, as well as a general index of positivity computed from all the traits recoded into the positive direction (α = .87 for vegetarians, .89 for vegans).

A translated and adapted version of Dhont et al.’s (2016) Speciesism Scale was used. The adapted version comprised 12 items, such as “I consider it is perfectly acceptable for cattle, chicken, and pigs to be raised for human consumption” and “It is morally wrong to hunt wild animals just for sport” (α = 0.81). The scale translation was previously validated for use in the local context (Branković, in press).

The Vegetarianism Threat Scale developed by Dhont and Hodson (2014) was translated into Serbian and previously used in research in the local context (Branković, in press). The eight items included statements about vegetarianism, such as “Vegetarianism poses a threat to our country’s customs and traditions” and “The vegetarian movement is becoming too present in the media” (α = 0.86).

Perceived moral reproach against non-vegetarians was measured by 2 items rated on 7-point scales (α =.77), specifically: “Vegetarians mostly consider non-vegetarians immoral“ and „If they would see me eat meat, most vegetarians would consider me immoral“.

20 To assess meat consumption, participants chose what best described their eating habits from the following options: a. “I consume meat regularly”, b. “I consume meat, but try to decrease the intake”, c. “I consume meat only occasionally”, d. “I consume fish, but not other types of meat”, e. “I do not consume meat, but consume other animal products (dairy, eggs)”, and f. “I never consume meat or any products of animal origin.” The item was reverse-coded so that a higher score indicates more frequent meat consumption. We based this measure on the one used in Dhont and Hodson (2014), except that we omitted the labels (e.g., omnivore, vegetarian, vegan), as they can be understood in different ways by respondents (e.g., some people who claim to be vegetarian eat meat, and some people who do not eat meat prefer not to be called vegetarians). Most of our participants were meat-eaters (54.4%, 17.8% consume meat, but try to decrease the intake, 18.1% consume meat occasionally, 2.6% consume fish, but not other types of meat, 5% do not consume meat, but consume other animal products, and 2% never consume meat or any other products of animal origin).

3.3. Results 3.3.1. Stereotype positivity

Overall, the characteristics of vegetarians and vegans were rated as predominantly positive. The traits that obtained the highest ratings in both groups were civilized, good, and self-confident. In contrast, the traits that were rated as least likely in both groups were uneducated, violent, and abnormal. Table 3 presents the means ratings of the specific traits for vegetarians and vegans.

Vegetarians were rated as somewhat higher on warmth than competence dimension (Mw = 66.86,

SD = 17.12, Mc = 65.52, SD = 17.39, t (611) = 2.75, p < .01), while this was not the case for vegans Mw = 63.97, SD = 19.81, Mc = 64.33, SD = 19.05, t (601) = -.68, p = .49). This reflects the findings from Study 1, although the differences are quite small.

Similar to Study 1, meat-eaters expressed more positive views of vegetarians (M = 65.67, SD = 16.18) as compared with vegans (M = 63.56, SD = 18.29, t (543) = 4.85, p < .01). This difference was not observed among non meat-eaters, Mvegetarian = 70.71, SD = 15.40, Mvegan = 69.54, SD = 18.39, t (57) = .83, p = .41. Although the ratings from both dimensions are predominantly positive it should be noted that the negative characteristics are also ascribed to vegetarians and vegans to some extent. Specifically, our participants thought that there is a chance of more than

21 30% that typical vegetarians and vegans are hypocritical (36.08% and 35.62% respectively) and participants similarly rated the chances of them being hostile (32.16% and 36.96% respectively).

Table 3

Mean ratings and standard deviations of warmth and competence trait ratings for vegetarians and vegans

Trait Vegetarian Vegan M SD M SD Civilized 69.85 24.12 63.27 26.63 Good 64.95 23.08 62.02 23.84 Self-confident 61.66 24.77 62.49 26.28 Moral 60.76 23.95 61.23 25.04 Capable 59.31 23.70 58.69 26.05 Intelligent 59.57 22.99 58.89 24.35 Hypocritical 36.08 27.81 35.62 29.36 Hostile 32.16 25.65 36.96 29.49 Uneducated 27.31 25.35 29.11 26.15 Violent 26.21 23.61 30.28 26.74 Abnormal 25.58 26.29 29.34 29.33

3.3.2. Predictors of stereotype positivity

Table 4 presents descriptive statistics and interrelations of the predictor which we investigated in the study.

Table 4

Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables in Study 2

Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6

Stereotype positivity 66.25 16.17 .83** -.10* -.26** -.29** -.09* (vegetarians) Stereotype positivity 64.14 18.37 -.11** -.32** -.34** -.08*

22 (vegans) Frequency of meat 5.08 1.27 .39** .24** .09* consumption Speciesism 2.65 1.04 .37** .04

Vegetarianism threat 2.07 1.17 .29**

Perceived moral 4.81 1.16 reproach * p < .05, ** p < .01

Hierarchical regression revealed that controlling for meat consumption, perception of vegetarianism as a threat and general attitudes toward animals predicted positivity of stereotypes about vegetarians (R =.33, p<.01). Adding perceived moral reproach, vegetarianism threat and speciesism significantly improved predictive power of the model over and above the one solely based on the frequency of meat consumption (R =.10, p = .01, R2chng = .10, F (3, 603) = 22.67, p <.01). Table 5 presents the beta coefficients of the predictors in both steps of the hierarchical regression. As can be observed, it was only perceptions of vegetarianism as a threat and speciesism that emerged as significant predictors in the full model.

These predictors explained an even larger proportion of the variance of stereotypes about vegans (R =.40, p < .01). Similarly, adding perceived moral reproach, vegetarianism threat and speciesism significantly improved the predictive power of the model over and above the one solely based on the frequency of meat consumption (R =.11, p = .01, R2chng = .15, F (3, 593) = 35.98, p <.01). Table 5 presents the beta coefficients of the predictors in both steps of the hierarchical regression. As with stereotypes about vegetarians, it was only perceptions of vegetarianism as a threat and speciesism that emerged as significant predictors in the full model.

Table 5

Hierarchical regression predicting positivity of stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans (lower panel)

B SE β coefficient P coefficient 1. Stereotypes about vegetarians

23 Constant 73.04 2.71

Step 1

Frequency of meat consumption -1.34 0.52 -.10 .010 Step 2

Constant 79.71 3.55 .000

Frequency of meat consumption .32 0.54 .03 .548

Perceived moral reproach -.29 0.55 -.02 .598

Vegetarianism threat -3.04 0.59 -.22 .000

Speciesism -2.81 0.68 -.18 .000

2. Stereotypes about vegans

Constant 72.06 3.12

Step 1

Frequency of meat consumption -1.57 0.59 -.10 .008 Step 2

Constant 80.09 3.99 .000

Frequency of meat consumption .80 0.60 .05 .186

Perceived moral reproach -.05 0.62 -.00 .938

Vegetarianism threat -4.06 0.65 -.26 .000

Speciesism -4.29 0.75 -.25 .000

3.4. Discussion

In Study 2, we assessed the positivity of stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans on the two most basic dimensions of person perception (Fiske et al., 2002): warmth and competence. We also predicted the ratings of positivity by perceived moral reproach, perceived threat from vegetarianism to local traditions and cultures as well as an individual’s general attitude toward animals (speciesism).

24 Our findings suggest that both vegetarians and vegans were perceived mostly positively along the two investigated dimensions, that is participants rated the probability of them being both warm and competent above the chance level (50%). However, the chances of them exhibiting negative traits, as being hostile, hypocritical, or abnormal were typically rated between 25 and 35%. This pattern of ratings is quite consistent with the perception that the majority of vegetarians and vegans are ok, but that there is a violent minority that attracts (and legitimizes) negative attitudes (Guerin, 2014).

Regression analysis showed that controlling for one’s frequency of meat consumption, perceptions of vegetarianism as a threat, as well as one’s general level of speciesism accounted for significant proportions of variance in stereotype positivity, although more of vegans than of vegetarians. Interestingly, the anticipation of the moral reproach of vegetarians toward meat- eaters did not emerge as a significant predictor, contrary to some previous studies (Monin & Minson, 2007). Perhaps in the local context, perceptions of vegetarianism as a threat toward traditional worldviews and lifestyles are a more unsettling aspect of vegetarianism. This is consistent with previous research in this context, in which vegetarianism threat emerged as the mediator in the relations between traditional worldviews and prejudice against animals (Branković, in press). This idea merits further study, preferably cross-cultural, to establish more definitely whether the anticipated threat or anticipated reproach are culturally dependent aspects of concern related to vegetarianism. In line with the theoretical reasoning stated above, we did reveal that individual’s level of speciesism, that is, the general attitude toward animal rights is also predictive of how one perceives people abstaining from meat and products of animal origin. This is consistent with the idea that perceptions of vegetarians and vegans are related with the attitudes toward animals (Horta, 2018), as they are seen as proponents of animal rights.

4. General discussion

In the present studies, we explored the contents of stereotypes about vegetarians and vegans in a meat-eating culture. We add to the existing literature by exploring the contents based not only on predetermined dimensions, but also based on spontaneous open-ended responses, by comparing the contents among men and women, as well as among meat-eaters and vegetarians/vegans, and by relating stereotype positivity to the perceived moral reproach of vegetarians toward meat- eaters, perceived threat of vegetarian worldviews, and attitudes toward animals. Since

25 stereotypes are self-perpetuating cognitive schemes (Snyder, 1981), they are an important element of social perception and consequently, can impact how these minority groups are treated. Also, shared perceptions of the characteristics of vegetarians and vegans can impact an individual’s willingness to reduce meat consumption, which has been shown to entail both health- and environment-related benefits (Hedenus et al., 2014; Tilman & Clark, 2014).

The content analysis of open-ended responses revealed that spontaneous characteristics attributed to both vegetarians and vegans are predominantly related to health, and thereafter to morality, values, and commitment, as well as their social characteristics. It is worth noting that references to masculinity vs. femininity were virtually absent, suggesting that this domain is only indirectly related to these groups (Lowe & Sulikowski, 2018; Ruby & Heine, 2011). Also, the domain of competence is not prominent in the perception of vegetarians and vegans, although, when asked explicitly, participants ascribe relatively high competence to these groups which could also reflect the general tone of the ratings.

While vegans attract more negative perceptions, as the more extreme group (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017; Guerin, 2014; Judge & Wilson, 2019), stereotypes about both groups are to some extent ambivalent, including inconsistent or even opposite characteristics (e.g. both good and poor health, being free-minded and being extreme, etc.). Interestingly, the domain of health, which is most frequently mentioned, is also the one showing most ambivalence, in that both good and poor health is attributed to vegetarians and vegans. Our analysis showed that these inconsistencies can partly be explained by the differences stemming from different observer groups. Importantly, this is more the case for vegans than vegetarians, since our analysis showed that individuals can hold quite opposite views of vegetarians. Meat-eaters hold more unfavorable perceptions of vegetarians and vegans, compared with participants who themselves are vegetarian or vegan. Also, men hold more negative perceptions compared to women. Combined insights from the two studies suggest that these differences between observers are not prominently reflected in ratings of stereotype positivity (which is also relatively high among men and meat-eaters) but they are reflected in the contents of stereotypes. While outgroupers mostly relate vegetarianism and veganism to health, those who themselves are vegetarian or vegan most readily relate these choices to empathy and moral values, as well as free-mindedness.

26 Now, turning to the methodological issue of the preferable method of studying stereotypes, we shall first summarize the similarities and differences in assessing stereotypes by open-ended spontaneous responses vs. predetermined rating scales. Perhaps the most important insight is that the domain of health emerges as the predominant content, which should be included in rating dimensions. On the other hand, competence is not a predominant content of the stereotypes, and one of the two key dimensions in the self-rating measures. Another important domain that emerges spontaneously is the domain of social characteristics, which is not adequately represented in the rating scales. We did include the traits of hypocritical, hostile, and violent but it should be noted that these could be overly harsh, since participants spontaneously mostly use somewhat leaner terms, as pushy or boring. To conclude, future research could be informed by the categories of perception that emerged from the free-response analysis, and, for instance, include the following dimensions when assessing the positivity of stereotypes: good health, poor health, moral values, commitment, empathy, and unfavorable social traits. Using a more standard list of traits would enhance the comparability of research findings since previous studies varied in how they determined the list of traits they used in the measurement.

This approach would also allow a higher level of cross-cultural comparability. Based on available data, it is quite difficult to give any conclusion regarding how stereotypes are similar in different in the context of Western Balkans, compared to the more frequently studied Western contexts. It appears that the overall representations are similar, possibly more loaded with health- related characteristics in the local context than in the West (Burgess et al., 2012; Hartmann et al., 2018; Minson & Monin, 2012). Minson and Monin (2012). However, since the previous studies did not include specific data on the prevalence of traits or categories, in the same way as we did in this study, it is not possible to compare the contents directly.

Our findings have implications for public communications advocating for reduced meat consumption. First, since health-related concerns appear to hold a prominent place in considering reducing or excluding meat from one’s diet, public communications would benefit from both strengthening the argument about their health benefits and relieving concerns about the perceived risks. If people are generally concerned about becoming pale, weak, and non-energetic if they do not consume meat, it is not sufficient to emphasize why reducing meat consumption is good, it should also be addressed that this would not have negative impacts on one’s health. Second, the pro-communal qualities of vegetarians and vegans should be emphasized, to counter the possible

27 negative social image, especially among men (Lea & Worsley, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2018). Their commitment to moral values they share with others, as their commitment to the wellbeing of the larger community, should be emphasized instead of more narrow concerns that the majority does not necessarily recognize. This is perhaps the common ground that could be sought by the attempts from the part of the vegetarianism/veganism proponents themselves since there appears to be some potential for a positive evaluation of the pro-communal characteristics attributed to these groups. Third, it appears that the general perception of vegetarians and vegans is quite close to one’s general attitude to animals and animal rights. It is a matter of future research to establish which issue could serve as a “gateway” to more positive attitudes and perceptions (Levy et al., 2019) but some level of generalization could be expected in this domain, and beyond, toward the more general environmental issues (Carfora, Conner, Caso, & Catellani, 2020).

The present research has important limitations. First, our participants were predominantly recruited from the more educated and more liberal segments of the society, which is frequently the case in similar studies. Despite this fact, we show how variations in attitudes can be accounted for and how they partly depend on the techniques used in data collection. We also included only some of the possible predictors of stereotype positivity, which, however important, do not explain all of the variations and differences. Future research could also look at how perceived social norms in attitudes toward vegetarianism and veganism, and the respective groups, could shape individual attitudes (Tropp et al., 2016). Social norms developed around these issues provide particularly potent psychological defenses, so therefore a wide endorsement of vegetarianism/veganism could be undesirable in most meat-eating cultures (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017). An interesting avenue of future research is also where the common ground in terms of values, interests, or identities could be found between the meat-eating majority and vegetarians and vegans. With the present studies, we hope to have contributed toward the understanding of how vegetarians and vegans are perceived as well as of some of the important determinants of these perceptions.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jin X. Goh for his comments on a previous version of this manuscript. We also thank Marko Porčić for his help with the programming of the permutation test in Study

28 1. We extend special gratitude to Danica Igrutinović, Duško Kljajić, and Katarina Stojanović for their help with data collection.

Author contributions

M.B. designed the study and collected data, M.B. and A.B. analyzed the data. M.B. wrote and A.B. helped revise the first version of the manuscript. Both authors have approved the final article.

Declarations of interest: none

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data statement:

The database from the study is available at: https://osf.io/a84zq/? view_only=ace1a3fc184a4d0692f8723654eb4831.

References

Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6. doi: 10.1037/a0038147 Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Nadolny, D., & Noyes, I. (2013). The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 614-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1983 Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 278-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562 Branković, M. (in press). What we eat is who we are: The role of ethnic attachment as an ideological base of animal exploitation. Anthrozoös. Bryant, C. J. (2019). We can’t keep meating like this: Attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 11(23), 6844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236844

29 Burgess, S., Carpenter, P., & Henshaw, T. (2014). Eating on Campus: Vegan, Vegetarian, and Omnivore Stereotyping. Carfora, V., Conner, M., Caso, D., & Catellani, P. (2020). Rational and moral motives to reduce red and processed meat consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 00: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12710 Cole, M., & Morgan, K. (2011). Vegaphobia: Derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers. The British Journal of Sociology, 62(1), 134-153. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01348.x Corrin, T., & Papadopoulos, A. (2017). Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of vegetarian and plant-based diets to shape future health promotion programs. Appetite, 109, 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.018 Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI- R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (p. 179– 198). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9 Črnič, A. (2013). Studying social aspects of vegetarianism: a research proposal on the basis of a survey among adult population of two Slovenian biggest cities. Collegium antropologicum, 37(4), 1111-1120. https://hrcak.srce.hr/118348 Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD‐ HARM). European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 507-522. doi: 10.1002/per.2069 Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 Forestell, C. A., & Nezlek, J. B. (2018). Vegetarianism, depression, and the five factor model of personality. Ecology of food and nutrition, 57(3), 246-259. doi:.1080/03670244.2018.1455675 Funk, A., Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2020). The stereotypes attributed to hosts when they offer an environmentally-friendly vegetarian versus a meat menu. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119508. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119508

30 Guerin, K. (2014). Where's the Beef? (With Vegans): A Qualitative Study of Vegan-Omnivore Conflict. Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 109. Hartmann, C., Ruby, M. B., Schmidt, P., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Brave, health-conscious, and environmentally friendly: Positive impressions of insect food product consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 68, 64-71. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.02.001 Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., Daniel, J., & Johansson, A. (2014). The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic Change, 124, 79-91. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5 Hoekstra, A. (2013). The water footprint of animal products. In Webster, J. & D’Silva, J. (Eds.) The meat crisis: Developing more sustainable and ethical production and consumption (pp. 41 – 52). London: Routledge. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. London: Sage. Horta, O. (2018). Discrimination Against Vegans. Res Publica, 24(3), 359-373. doi:10.1007/s11158-017-9356-3 Huang, T., Yang, B., Zheng, J., Li, G., Wahlqvist, M. L., & Li, D. (2012). Cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer incidence in vegetarians: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 60, 233-240. doi:10.1159/000337301. Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2015). Vegetarian Utopias: Visions of dietary patterns in future societies and support for social change. Futures, 71, 57-69. https://doi.org/(...).futures.2015.07.005 Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2019). A dual‐ process motivational model of attitudes towards vegetarians and vegans. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 169-178. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2386 Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2003). Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Public health nutrition, 6(5), 505-511. doi:10.1079/PHN2002452 Levy, A., Zezelj, I., Branković, M., Dusanic, S., van Zomeren, M., Saguy, T., & Halperin, E. (2019). Complex Social Identities and Intergroup Relations. Social Psychology, 50(3), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000379 Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 104-108. doi: 10.1177/0963721414525781

31 Love, H. J., & Sulikowski, D. (2018). Of meat and men: Sex differences in implicit and explicit attitudes toward meat. Frontiers in psychology, 9: 559. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00559 Lund, T. B., McKeegan, D. E., Cribbin, C., & Sandøe, P. (2016). Animal ethics profiling of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eaters. Anthrozoös, 29(1), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1083192 Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage. Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2016). Eating like there's no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite, 96, 487-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011 MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2017). It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(6), 721-744. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1368430215618253 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%2F1948550611415695 Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017). The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appetite, 113, 51-62. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011 Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological science, 31(6), 678-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782 Nezlek, J. B., Forestell, C. A., & Newman, D. B. (2018). Relationships between vegetarian dietary habits and daily well-being. Ecology of food and nutrition, 57(5), 425-438. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2018.1536657 Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114-128. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011 R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

32 Rosenfeld, D. L. (2019). A comparison of dietarian identity profiles between vegetarians and vegans. Food Quality and Preference, 72, 40-44. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.09.008 Rosenfeld, D., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2019). Taste and health concerns trump anticipated stigma as barriers to vegetarianism. Appetite, 44. 104469. 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104469 Rosenfeld, D. L. (2018). The psychology of vegetarianism: Recent advances and future directions. Appetite, 131, 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.011 Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363. doi: 10.1037/a0030379 Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58(1), 141-150. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019 Ruby, M. B., Alvarenga, M. S., Rozin, P., Kirby, T. A., Richer, E., & Rutsztein, G. (2016). Attitudes toward beef and vegetarians in Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA. Appetite, 96, 546-554. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.018 Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56(2), 447-450. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018 Serpell, J. A. (2009). Having our dogs and eating them too: Why animals are a social issue. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 633-644. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01617.x. Snyder, M. (1981). On the self-perpetuating nature of social stereotypes. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 183-212). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of social conflict. Reprinted in W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (2nd edition). Chicago: Nelson Hall. Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518-522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959 Torti, J. M. (2017). The social and psychological well-being of vegetarians: A focused ethnography. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta. Retrieved from https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/b2a600a6-c3d1-40b8-9cc6-3e699f9a157a). Tropp, L. R., O'Brien, T. C., González Gutierrez, R., Valdenegro, D., Migacheva, K., de Tezanos‐ Pinto, P., ... & Cayul, O. (2016). How school norms, peer norms, and

33 discrimination predict interethnic experiences among ethnic minority and majority youth. Child Development, 87(5), 1436-1451. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12608 Twine, R. (2014). Vegan killjoys at the table — Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices. Societies, 4(4), 623-639. doi: 10.3390/soc4040623

34