JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 8 19–30 (2002)

Crisis in the meat industry: a values-based approach to communications strategy

SUSAN BAKER, KEITH E. THOMPSON AND DAVID PALMER-BARNES School of Management, CranŽ eld University, CranŽ eld, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK

Meat consumption in the UK has been falling for almost 20 years and the long-standing link between af uence and meat eating has been broken. In 10 years the proportion of the population claiming to be vegan or vegetarian doubled, while those identiŽ ed as meat avoiders almost quadrupled with a further 40% now being classiŽ ed as ‘meat reducers’ by Gallup. Means–End analysis was used for studying the underlying motivations of three groups: meat eaters, meat reducers and vegetarians. Health was found to be the central issue in food choice, but each group sought different terminal values. The view that meat reducers (and possibly even meat avoiders) are demi- vegetarians is challenged by the Ž nding that their underlying motivations are similar to meat consumers and quite unlike those of vegetarians. Persuading meat reducers to adopt a vegetarian diet would require the difŽ cult task of changing the enduring terminal values that they seek to attain through food choice behaviour. In contrast, persuading them to eat more meat would ‘only’ be a question of changing their beliefs about the healthiness of meat consumption. This paper reports on a study conducted in the UK and considers the implications of the Ž ndings for communications strategy. KEYWORDS: Values; means–end analysis; vegetarians; meat consumption; communications

INTRODUCTION In general, post-war demand for meat in the UK rose in tandem with living standards and dis- posable income levels. Although consumption fell at the time of the 1970s ‘oil crises’ it quickly recovered to a peak of 1142 g per person per annum in 1979. However, despite rising living standards, by 2000 demand had fallen back to the levels of 1954–1955 and the long-standing correlation of af uence and meat consumption was broken (Fig. 1). A variety of reasons for this change have been put forward, including concern about health, the rejection of animals for food, environmental issues, changes in family structure and food scares (Woodward, 1988; Mennell et al., 1992; Beardsworth and Keil, 1997). The connection between meat consumption and health has been the subject of many reports, books, popular articles and government advice, notably the reports by the National Advisory Committee on Nutritional Education (1983) and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (1984), which highlighted the link between diet and health. These and the more recent Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (1991) report on which the government based its White Paper The Health of the Nation raised public awareness of the links between fat, protein and various cancers (Fiddes, 1991) and between meat consumption and increasing antibiotic immunity,

Journal of Marketing Communications ISSN 1352–7266 print/ISSN 1466–4445 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/13527260110108319 20 BAKER ET AL. allergic reactions, diabetes, hypertension, gallstones and reduced Ž tness throughout the population (Cox, 1986; Fiddes, 1991; Mennell et al., 1992). More recently efforts have been made to encourage the consumption of fruit and vegetables as providers of the nutrients and antioxidant vitamins associated with protection against chronic and degenerative diseases (Leather, 1995; Rimm et al., 1993; World Health Organization, 1996). Other health-related concerns include the use of anti- biotics and growth promoters, excessive processing and the unnecessary inclusion of additives that are not nutritionally viable (Cooper et al., 1985). It has been shown that such concerns really do affect food choice behaviour (Richardson et al., 1993). Historically, families have been a powerful in uence on food choice, as patterns of diet mostly take root in childhood. Patterns of food choice have been strongly affected by recent changes in family life, which have led to a reduction in the number of formal meal occasions and a rise in snacking (Ralph et al., 1996). Fiddes (1991) identiŽ ed deeper, more symbolic and cultural explanations for reduced meat consumption, arguing that meat has a symbolic value derived primarily from its representation of human power over nature, particularly after the rise of scientiŽ c rationalism in the seventeenth century. He suggested that there is wide acceptance of the view that human domination has now gone too far and that the practice of celebrating the dominance of humans over nature is in decline. Consequently, the consumption of red meat is no longer a reassuring and assertive expression of human dominance, but has become a disturbing reminder of a more barbarous and insensitive past. Elias (1978) suggested that increasingly lower thresholds of disgust are a function of the civilization process, leading to a lowering of what Mennell (1985) called the ‘threshold of repugnance’ as people become increasingly less willing to contemplate the origins of their food. This view was supported by Rozin (1991) who found that the adoption of health and whole foods was related to disgust with the animal origins of some food and by Woodward (1988) who drew attention to an increasingly negative view of cruelty to animals being raised for food. There are also environmental and humanitarian issues. To many people meat production repre- sents an unjustiŽ ably extravagant use of natural resources. For example, the production of 1 kg of beef protein takes up 22 kg of grain protein. It is argued that eating less meat would free crucial resources for producing food for alleviating hunger and malnutrition (Fiddes, 1991; Beardsworth and Keil, 1997).

FIGURE 1. UK per capita meat consumption 1950–2000 (source: DEFRA). CRISIS IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY 21

If all of that were not enough for the meat industry, most of the food scares during the past 10 years have concerned meat. Those that affected national eating habits most in recent times were the salmonella scare of 1988 which dramatically reduced egg consumption, the BSE crisis, which actually began in 1985–1986 but did not come to major prominence until 1989 and to full blown crisis in 1996 when BSE was linked to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Institute of Food Science and Technology, 1996), the possibly even deadlier Escherichia coli 0157 outbreaks which arose between 1988 and 1998 and, Ž nally, the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001. Public perception is crucial. Ehrlichman’s (1990) report that only 10% of UK slaughterhouses were hygienic enough to export within Europe was not so widely reported and caused relatively little public concern. According to the Realeat Surveys (1984–1990) undertaken by Gallup, the proportion of the UK adult population claiming to be vegetarian or vegan increased from 2.1% in 1984 to 4.5% in 1995 and the proportion avoiding red meat consumption rose from 1.9% to some 7.5%. Those reporting reduced overall meat consumption rose from 30 to 40%. It should be noted that the Meat and Livestock Commission disputes these Ž gures, claiming (based on the Taylor Nelson and NHS surveys) that 3% are vegetarian and 9% ‘meat reducers’ (Beardsworth and Keil, 1997). Despite all of the practical, aesthetic, moral and physiological reasons for cutting out or reducing meat consumption, Beardsworth and Keil (1992) reported that vegetarians repeatedly stressed that their dietary choice was an attempt to regain what they explicitly referred to as ‘peace of mind’. Other reasons with empirical support are health (Realeat Surveys, 1980–1990; Murcott, 1983; Vegetarian Society, 2001a) and the treatment of animals (Vegetarian Society, 2001b).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The implication of Beardsworth and Keil’s (1992) Ž nding regarding vegetarianism and peace of mind is that some of the factors underpinning the decision whether or how much meat should be eaten are psychologically driven and concern the achievement of desired end states of being. The purpose of this study was to investigate such psychological factors and to assess the role of personal values and desired end states in the domain of food choice behaviour in the UK, in particular that of meat consumption. The study wanted to explore the attributes that consumers perceived to be of importance in deciding how much meat to include in their diet, what consequences (or beneŽ ts) these attributes deliver and whether chains of meaning linking the attribute, consequence and value levels could be determined in order to understand better how these are used for achieving desired end states. The research sought to differentiate between three groups, namely vegetarians, meat reducers and meat eaters, in order to determine whether and in what way the personal values of each group and/or their means of achieving them differed. Vegetarians were deŽ ned as those who reported that they did not eat red or white meat; meat reducers as those who said that they consciously endeavoured to reduce the amount of meat they eat and meat eaters as those who regarded meat as a normal part of their diet. The theoretical basis for this study was means–end theory, which links the concrete attributes of a product (the means) through the perceived consequences of these attributes to subjects’ abstract personal values (the ends) (Gutman, 1982).

MEANS–END THEORY Means–End theory was developed by Gutman (1982) for explaining how product attributes facilitate consumers’ achievement of desired end states of being (or values) such as happiness, security or enjoyment. There are three levels of abstraction associated with a concept such as food 22 BAKER ET AL. choice: (1) attributes, (2) the consequences of consumption and (3) important psychological and social consequences and values. Attributes represent the observable or perceived characteristics of a product. Concrete attributes re ect the physical features of the product, several of which may be combined in the more sub- jective attributes, such as quality. Consequences are more abstract, re ecting the perceived costs or beneŽ ts associated with speciŽ c attributes. These are subdivided into two types: functional con- sequences, which include direct, tangible outcomes derived from consumption and psychosocial consequences involving intangible, personal and less direct outcomes. The latter can be either psychological in nature (e.g. how do I feel about consuming meat?) or social (e.g. how do others feel about me consuming meat?) (Peter and Olson, 1990). Finally, according to the seminal work of Rokeach (1973), personal values are highly abstract, centrally held, enduring beliefs or end states of existence that people seek to achieve through their behaviour. In summary, products have attributes, the consequences of which are sought by consumers in order to satisfy the core values by which they are driven.

PROCEDURES One issue when using this technique is whether the researcher imposes the elements (in this case types of food) or the subject chooses them. Adams-Webber (1979) suggested that constructs that are elicited from individual subjects are more personally meaningful. However, imposing the elements enables the focus of the study to be more precisely matched to the aims of the research. In practice, the food categories were predeŽ ned and subjects suggested products that matched each category.

Eliciting constructs The food categories selected were based on Twigg (1979) and included red meats, white meats, vegetable communities and vegetable analogues (packaged vegetarian recipe items and ingredient items, respectively), vegetables and pulses. The subjects identiŽ ed speciŽ c products from each category, which were then printed onto cards and presented to them in randomized sets of three (Kelly, 1955). They were then asked to think of any way in which two of the three foods from each category were similar to each other but different from the third. This process was repeated until the subject failed to elicit any new constructs. Thirty subjects, ten meat eaters, ten meat reducers and ten vegetarians (deŽ ned as non-red or white meat eaters), were interviewed individually for approximately 40 minutes. A range of 15–36 constructs was elicited per subject and these were used for compiling a comprehensive list of attributes for use in the laddering interviews.

Laddering procedures Laddering is a one-to-one interviewing technique that employs a series of directed probes for revealing how subjects link product attributes to their own underlying values. Central to the method is the premise that lower levels imply the presence of higher levels, so that product attributes have consequences that lead to value satisfaction. The purpose is to determine the ‘ladder’ of linkages between the attributes, consequences and values in relation to choices made (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). As an essentially qualitative research method means–end analysis does not involve statistical analysis and a statistically valid sample is not a requirement. On the other hand, it is important to preserve the elicited views and language of the interviewees and to that end the laddering process CRISIS IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY 23 was conŽ ned to the same 30 subjects from the elicitation stage (Winch, 1958). During the inter- views care was taken to create an environment in which the respondents were relaxed enough to be introspective. Before commencing the interview each subject was assured that there were no right or wrong answers and that the purpose of the exercise was to understand their personal view of the world. After collecting basic demographic information, the subject was presented with the list of food attributes (numbers 1–12 in Table 1) and asked to rank the ten that re ected their most important choice criteria. Next they were asked to identify which pole of the distinctions they most preferred, which served as the basis for the question ‘Why is that important to you?’ Variations of this question were then repeated, leading to still higher levels of distinction until the interviewer was satisŽ ed that the personal value linkage had been made. When the respondents struggled to articulate an answer, one of the range of techniques proposed by Reynolds and Gutman (1988) was employed in order to move the interview forward without in uencing the subject. The interviews were tape-recorded and lasted for up to 50 minutes each.

CONTENT ANALYSIS AND DATA REDUCTION Each ladder was entered onto a separate coding form and content analysed in order to develop a set of summary codes that re ected everything mentioned in the interviews. Six coders were enrolled and tested for intercoder reliability by giving each the same instruction pack, brieŽ ng and interview transcript to code. The output from all six coders was then compared on a pairwise basis by calculating the numbers and percentages of attribute, consequence or value codes assigned to the same categories. This procedure yielded an intercoder agreement of 85.5%, with the weakest coder attaining 81.9% agreement with the others. The differences between the coders were noted and further guidelines were issued for the actual coding stage. Working independently, the coders Ž rst classiŽ ed the responses into attributes, consequences or values. These were then grouped under

TABLE 1. Summary content codes

Attributes Consequences Personal values

1. Occasion 13. Diet 28. Goal achievement 2. Cooking style 14. Budgetary concerns 29. Equality 3. Availability 15. Enjoy/Pleasant 30. FulŽ lment 4. Healthy 16. Filling 31. Happiness 5. Price related 17. Health related 32. A healthy life 6. Fat content 18. Time 33. Inner harmony 7. Preparation 19. Eases/Hardens situation 34. Pleasure 8. Taste/Flavour 20. Taste/Flavour 35. Satisfaction 9. Texture 21. Interests 36. A sense of achievement 10. Meal component 22. Fat/Aesthetic 37. Social recognition 11. Quality 23. Energy/Active 38. True friendship 12. Filling 24. Activities 39. Variety 25. Relax and less thought 40. Well being 26. Texture 41. Complete life’s tasks 27. Functionality 42. Control of life 43. Freedom 44. Caring for others 45. Return to nature 24 BAKER ET AL. summary codes in order to provide categories that were numerically strong enough to be repre- sented in the hierarchical value maps (Figs 3, 5 and 7). For example, the category preparation included ease of preparation, long preparation, quick preparation, marinating and can be  avoured in one summary code. Forty-Ž ve master codes summarizing all the attributes, consequences and values mentioned in the laddering responses were identiŽ ed (see Table 1). Disagreements were resolved by agreement between coders.

THE IMPLICATION MATRIX The next task was to prepare an implication matrix, which summarized the number of connections or relations between each attribute, consequence and value. Two types of relations may be repre- sented in this matrix, direct and indirect. For example, in Figure 2 the sequence 6-17-32 is direct, whereas the sequence 6-17-23-32 is indirect. Klenosky et al. (1993) recommended that elements with a high incidence of indirect relations should be included in order to avoid bias through under-weighting the associations recorded for the more verbose subjects. Therefore, both types of relations were considered when determining which paths were dominant.

THE HIERARCHICAL VALUE MAPS Hierarchical value maps were built up for each group of subjects by connecting the chains extracted from the implication matrix (see Figs 2–7). A cut-off level of three (direct and indirect) relations was found to yield the most informative and stable set of relations by trial and error. All connections below this level were ignored. For clarity, shading the connecting lines according to the numerical strength of the links indicated the relative strengths of the links between the attributes, con- sequences and values. Those exceeding Ž ve relations are indicated by thicker lines and were used for identifying the dominant perceptual orientations for each group.

DOMINANT PERCEPTUAL ORIENTATIONS Meat eaters There were considerable differences between the value chains of this group and the vegetarians and, to a lesser extent, the meat reducers. For meat eaters the attribute health related was central, leading to no less than Ž ve different values: a healthy life (32), happiness (31), a sense of achievement (36), pleasure (via enjoy/pleasant (15)) and satisfaction (35) (Fig. 2). The value well being (40), which was so important to the vegetarian group (below), was hardly present at all. Furthermore, the price related–budgetary concerns (5–14) chain petered out at the consequences level and did not lead to a value, unlike the meat reducer and vegetarian groups. The dominant perceptual orientations for meat eaters are shown more clearly in Fig. 3, in which all but the dominant perceptual orientations (thick lines) and links that reinforced these (thin lines) have been eliminated. For this group the dominant perceptual orientations culminated in the values a healthy life and pleasure (Fig. 3). There was a strong link among meat eaters between meat consumption and the hedonic outcomes of pleasure and happiness. They liked eating meat, but their pleasure was not derived from its taste and  avour (which were weakly linked to the outcomes satisfaction (35) and well being (40) rather than to pleasure (34)). One leg of this chain starts with the attribute occasion, suggesting that their pleasure in meat is partly linked to the place that it enjoys at the top of the food status hierarchy, which Twigg (1979) related to its central role in celebrations. CRISIS IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY 25

FIGURE 2. Hierarchical value map – meat eaters.

FIGURE 3. Dominant perceptual orientation – meat eaters.

Vegetarians The vegetarians’ hierarchical value map was considerably simpler than those of the other two groups (Fig. 4). As with the other groups the consequence health related (17) was an important component of the dominant perceptual orientation, but a healthy life (32) was not found to be a desired end state for this group. This is contrary to Murcott’s (1983) claim that health con- siderations constitute a powerful motivator that drives vegetarians to step outside the culturally prescribed diet. 26 BAKER ET AL.

FIGURE 4. Hierarchical value map – vegetarians.

FIGURE 5. Dominant perceptual orientation – vegetarians.

The vegetarians’ dominant perceptual orientation differed markedly from the other groups in having a philosophical orientation towards the values well being and inner harmony, which was underpinned by an unexpected mixture of health and budgetary concerns (Fig. 5). Unlike both other groups, taste and  avour were present, perhaps because these cannot be taken for granted in a restricted diet. However, they did not form part of the dominant perceptual orientation. The issue of animal welfare never surfaced.

Meat reducers The hierarchical value map for meat reducers was more complex than those of the other groups (Fig. 6). The dominant perceptual orientation centred on health was similar to that of meat eaters, CRISIS IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY 27 but the consequence time plays an even more important role. As with vegetarians price (5) and budgetary concerns (14) were present, but were linked to a sense of achievement (36) rather than to well being (40) and then not strongly enough to form part of the dominant orientation. The attributes cooking style (2), preparation (7) and healthy (4) were strongly linked to time (18), which was only weakly linked to four different values: pleasure (34), a sense of achievement (36), variety (39) and freedom (43). Although none of these time value links were sufŽ ciently strong to be included in the dominant perceptual orientation, the number of links involved is an indication of the importance of time in achieving meat reducers’ desired end states. The dominant perceptual orientation of meat reducers was strongly centred on health. It was quite different to that of vegetarians and very similar to that of meat eaters, but substituted the values happiness and freedom for meat eaters’ pleasure (Fig. 7). There was only one attribute of importance, i.e. healthy and one consequence, i.e. health related. Although, the consequence time (18) did not meet the dominant perceptual orientation criteria of Ž ve relations with any of the terminal values, it was linked to four different values. For that reason it is included in Fig. 7.

FIGURE 6. Hierarchical value map – meat reducers.

FIGURE 7. Dominant perceptual orientation – meat reducers. 28 BAKER ET AL.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to explore the means–ends knowledge structures associated with food choice, in particular meat consumption. It was found that, for all three groups studied, the main considerations were the consequences for their health of a given food item. The end states sought by meat reducers (a healthy life, happiness and freedom) were much closer to those of meat eaters (a healthy life and pleasure) than to those of vegetarians. Both meat reducers and meat eaters attained these outcomes via health-related consequences. In comparison, vegetarians sought inner harmony and well being via a combination of health-related and budgetary consequences. This challenges Murcott (1983) in that health, as such, was not found to be a powerful motivator of vegetarianism, but a partial means of achieving the less tangible end states of well being and inner harmony, which are closer to Beardsworth and Keil’s (1992) peace of mind. The claims made by the Vegetarian Society (2001c) about the spread of vegetarianism are dis- puted (Beardsworth and Keil, 1997). The disagreements seem to arise from differing assumptions about, for instance, whether or not meat avoiders and meat reducers are really on the way to becoming vegetarians. The results of this study led the authors to believe that this is not the case for meat reducers (up to 40% of the UK population), who selected their food on a very similar basis to meat eaters and on a very different philosophical basis to vegetarians. Their growing numbers would appear to be due to reduced meat consumption on health grounds rather than to vegetarianism. It was surprising to Ž nd that animal welfare did not form part of the vegetarians’ value chain and that it was not even identiŽ ed as a consequence. While this may be a true re ection of vegetarian food choice processes, it seems unlikely given the evidence (e.g. Elias, 1978; Mennell, 1985; Woodward, 1988; Rozin, 1991). The problem could lie in the deŽ nition of vegetarianism, which is complex and fraught with shades of meaning. In retrospect, this study’s deŽ nition of vegetarians as ‘those who do not eat red or white meat’ was too broad and it may have been better to regard vegetarians and meat avoiders as separate groups with different underlying motivations. A values-based communications strategy gives businesses the opportunity for developing a sustainable competitive position by associating consumption decisions with the enduring personal values that consumers seek to satisfy. As Shimp (1997) pointed out means–end analysis provides a valuable framework for making the consumer the foremost determinant of the advertising message, as they should be. Therefore, it is no surprise that one of the major antecedents of means– end analysis was the Grey beneŽ t chain (Young and Feigin, 1975), which was developed by Grey Advertising Inc. for advertising strategy formulation. Subsequent means–end research has frequently been used for developing communications strategies that lead consumers along a chain of stepping stones from product attributes to their desired terminal values (e.g. Vinson et al., 1977; Reynolds and Gutman, 1988; Reynolds and Rochon, 1990; Mulvey et al., 1994; Reynolds et al., 1995; Shimp, 1997; Becker, 1998). The Ž ndings reported here could be used in designing communication strategies for either promoting the consumption of a range of meat-based products or persuading people not to eat meat. For example, if the Vegetarian Society wishes to convert signiŽ cant numbers of non- vegetarians it should note that vegetarianism does not offer meat eaters, meat reducers or possibly even meat avoiders a means of achieving their desired end states. In order to succeed in promoting a meat-free diet the society would either have to concentrate on health issues, attempt the more difŽ cult task of modifying the means by which non-vegetarian consumers satisfy their enduring terminal values or attempt the immeasurably more difŽ cult task of changing those enduring values. The task of promoting the consumption of meat and meat-based products to meat eaters and meat reducers appears to be more straightforward. As the majority of the population primarily seek CRISIS IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY 29 a healthy life through their choice of diet, a key objective might be to change or reinforce attitudes towards the healthiness of eating meat, with the added luxury of being able to link the product with the desired end states of pleasure, happiness and freedom. Nevertheless, several points need to be considered. First, the healthiness of meat consumption is currently a delicate issue and drawing attention to it may backŽ re by sensitizing consumers to it. Second, do consumers mean the same thing when they use similar terms? For example, what do meat eaters and meat reducers mean by the attribute ‘healthy’? Are they referring to the need for protein, bacterial infection, BSE, fat content or what? Further research would help to clarify this. Finally, despite the apparent com- patibility of the two groups a ‘one size Ž ts all’ approach such as healthy meat, health and a healthy life is likely to fail. In addition to the question of the exact meaning of similar terms, both groups referred to additional important attributes and, critically, both sought additional different end states. In any case, such a blanket approach wastes the key beneŽ t of values-based research, which is to tap into the speciŽ c life goals that motivate different segments of consumers and develop precisely targeted communication strategies that link product attributes and the consequences of purchase to the attainment of those goals.

REFERENCES

Adams-Webber, J.R. (1979) Personal Construct Theory. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Beardsworth, A.D. and Keil, E.T. (1992) The vegetarian option: varieties, conversions, motives and careers. The Sociological Review 40(2), 253–9. Beardsworth, A.D. and Keil, E.T. (1997) Sociology on the Menu. London: Routledge. Becker, B.W. (1998) Values in advertising research: a methodological caveat. Journal of Advertising Research 38(4), 57–60. Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (1984) Diet and Cardiovascular Disease. Food Policy Research. Bradford: University of Bradford. Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (1991) Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom. London: HMSO. Cooper, C., Wise, T.N. and Mann, L.S. (1985) Psychological and cognitive characteristics of vegetarians. Psychomatics 26, 521–7. Cox, P. (1986) Why You Don’t Need Meat. Wellingborough: Thorsons. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (2001) www.defra.gov.uk/esg/excel/allfoods.xls Ehrlichman, J. (1990) Meat eaters swallow food poison risk. The Guardian 29 January, 3. Elias, N. (1978) The Civilising Process, Volume 1: The History of Manners. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Fiddes, N. (1991) Meat/A Natural Symbol. London: Routledge. Gutman, J. (1982) A means–end chain model based on consumer categorisation processes. Journal of Marketing 46, 60–72. Institute of Food Science & Technology (1996) Public Affairs and Technical Legislative Committees. Information Statement, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob (vCJD) in Humans, June. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Klenosky, D.B., Gengler, C.E. and Mulvey, M.S. (1993) Understanding the factors in uencing ski destination choice: a means–end analytical approach. Journal of Leisure Research 25(4), 362–79. Leather, S. (1995) Fruit and vegetables: consumption patterns and health consequences. British Food Journal 97(7), 10–17. Mennell, S. (1985) All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell. Mennell, S., Murcott, A. and Van Otterloo, A.H. (1992) The Sociology of Food and Eating, Diet and Culture. London: Sage. 30 BAKER ET AL.

Mulvey, M.S., Olson, J.C., Celsi, R.L. and Walker, B.A. (1994) Exploring the relationships between means– end knowledge and involvement. Advances in Consumer Research 21, 51–7. Murcott, A. (1983) The Sociology of Food and Eating. London: Gower Publications. National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education (1983) A Discussion Paper on Proposals for Nutritional Guidelines for Health Education in Britain. London: The Health Education Council. Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1990) Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Strategy. Homewood: Irwin. Ralph, L.R., Seaman, E.A. and Woods, M. (1996) Male attitudes toward healthy eating. British Food Journal 96(1), 4–6. Realeat Surveys (1984–1990) Gallup Surveys into Meat Eating and Vegetarianism, Conducted for the Realeat Company Ltd. London: Gallup. Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988) Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research 28(1), 11–31. Reynolds, T.J. and Rochon, J.P. (1990) Means–End based advertising strategy: copy testing is not strategy assessment. Journal of Business Research 22(2), 131–42. Reynolds, T.J., Gengler, C.E. and Howard, D.J. (1995) A means–end analysis of brand persuasion through advertising. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12, 217–66. Richardson, N.J., Shepard, R. and Elliman, N.A. (1993) Current attitudes and future in uences on meat consumption in the UK. Appetite 20, 223–8. Rimm, E.B., Stampfer, M.J., Aschero, A., Giovannucci, E., Colditz, G.A. and Willet, W.C. (1993) Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease in men. New England Journal of Medicine 15(20), 1450–56. Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Rozin, P. (1991) Family resemblance in food and other domains: the family paradox and the role of parental congruence. Appetite 16, 93–102. Shimp, T.A. (1997) Advertising, Promotion and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications. New York: The Dryden Press. Twigg, J. (1979) Food for thought: purity and vegetarianism. In N. Fiddes (ed.), Meat/A Natural Symbol. London: Routledge. Vinson, D.E., Scott, J.E. and Lamont, L.M. (1977) The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing April 41(2), 44–55. Winch, P. (1958) The Idea of Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Woodward, J. (1988) Consumer attitudes towards meat and meat products. British Food Journal 90(3), 101–4. World Health Organization (1996) Diet Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization. www.vegsoc.org/health (2001a). www.vegsoc.org/animals (2001b). Young, S. and Feigin, B. (1975) Using the beneŽ t chain for improved strategy formulation. Journal of Marketing 39, 72–4.

BIOGRAPHIES Susan Baker is a Lecturer in Marketing at CranŽ eld School of Management where she specialises in understanding consumer markets. Previously she held senior marketing roles in leisure retailing in Germany and the UK. Keith Thompson is a Senior Lecturer in Management and Marketing at CranŽ eld University European Marketing & I.T. Centre where he specialises in buyer behaviour. He previously worked in marketing management for IBM and Spillers. David Palmer-Barnes is a research student at CranŽ eld University European Marketing & I.T. Centre where he is working on food consumption choices.