<<

“It’s not just a , it’s a ”: An Exploratory Study into Preferences of Vegan

Definitions

Madelon Northa, Kothea, Anna Klasa, Mathew Linga

a Misinformation Lab, School of Psychology, Faculty of , Deakin University

This paper is currently under review

Corresponding Author: Madelon North Email: [email protected] Postal Address: School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Victoria, 3125,

1 Abstract

Veganism is an increasingly popular lifestyle within Western societies, including Australia.

However, there appears to be a positivist approach to defining in the literature. This has implications for measurement and coherence of the research literature. This exploratory study assessed preference rankings for definitions of veganism used by vegan advocacy groups across an Australian convenience sample of three dietary groups (vegan = 230, = 117, vegetarian = 43). Participants were also asked to explain their ranking order in an open-ended question. Most vegans selected the UK definition as their first preference, underwent five rounds of preference reallocation before the Irish definition was selected, and vegetarians underwent four rounds before the UK definition was selected. A reflexive thematic analysis of participant explanations for their rankings identified four themes: (1) Diet vs. lifestyle, (2) Absolutism, (3) Social justice, and (4) Animal justice. These four themes represent how participants had differing perceptions of veganism according to their personal experience and understanding of the term. It appears participants took less of an absolutist approach to the definition and how individuals conceptualise veganism may be more dynamic than first expected. This will be important when researchers are considering how we are defining veganism in future studies to maintain consistency in the field.

Keywords: vegan, veganism, ranking, qualitative, definition

2 “It’s not just a diet, it’s a lifestyle”: An Exploratory Study into Preferences of Vegan

Definitions

1. Introduction

The number of people attempting to follow a vegan lifestyle has risen substantially within Western cultures (e.g., US, UK, and Australia) over the past several years (Barford,

2018). Reasons for this rise include an increasing consideration of , health, and the natural environment in determining diet and lifestyle choices (Hirschler, 2011; Jabs et al.,

1998; Janssen et al., 2016). Unsurprisingly, there has also been a co-occurring increase in research investigating potential socio-psychological predictors of veganism (see; Cherry,

2006; Graça, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2017).

Implicit to this research, there appears to be a prevailing naïve positivist approach to the definitions of veganism, with studies often leaving veganism undefined despite being a major construct under study. Taking this approach assumes that all individuals, whether they identify as vegan or not, conceptualise and define veganism in the same way. This is likely to have significant impacts on the validity of findings when accounting for the potential variability in how vegans and veganism are defined by themselves and those who are not part of this dietary group.

In practice, there is no single definition of veganism with vegans adopting varied representations of their identity, as reflected in the definitions provided by vegan advocacy groups. The UK Vegan Society (2018), the first Western organisation to coin a definition for veganism, emphasises how veganism is a long-term lifestyle, defining it as “a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for , clothing or any other purpose”. In Australia,

Vegan Australia (2018) leans on the UK definition but instead the focus is on social justice:

“veganism is a social justice movement that is striving to bring about a world where animals

3 are not exploited for food, clothing, entertainment or any other purpose”. Further still, while some vegan advocacy groups define veganism in a way that emphasises diet (e.g. the

American Vegan Society (2018)), other definitions emphasise lifestyle elements such as beauty products tested on animals (e.g. Vegan Ireland (2018)) (see Table 1 for a list of these definitions). Further still, while all these definitions emphasise that vegans do not consume products, a subset of self-identified vegetarians and vegans report consuming meat products (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018; Rothgerber, 2015a, 2015b). This suggests that vegans may not always engage in the behaviours that are suggested by these definitions, and therefore individual conceptualisations of what it means to be vegan may be more nuanced still.

To complicate matters further, it is possible that different dietary groups vary in their conceptualisation of veganism. Vegans, omnivores, and vegetarians may differ in their definitions and views of veganism due to varying personal experiences with veganism. These group differences in defining veganism could then influence the beliefs that these groups hold of either vegans as a social group or veganism as a diet or lifestyle choice. While this has not yet been demonstrated in veganism, it has been shown with other social groups such as queer, feminists, and environmentalists, with the beliefs that individuals hold about these social groups contributing to whether they engage in the group’s normative behaviours (Klas et al.,

2018; Liss et al., 2004; Panfil, 2020). That is, how individuals define these groups impacts whether they take part in behaviours they view as representative of the social group in question.

As such, understanding and being responsive to this variability in definitions is critical to research regarding the psychosocial predictors of veganism. As one example, the use of a consistent definition permits comparison of results across studies (Pfeiler & Egloff,

2018). Yet this is presently challenging within the literature on veganism. In the limited studies that do provide a definition of veganism, there is little agreement, with individual

4 studies in the area using a variety of definitions of veganism and vegans. Hirschler (2011) defines veganism as a “group of individuals who abstain from the dietary consumption or other use of any ” [emphasis added]. Another study by Dyett et al., (2013) defined vegans as “individuals who used no meat, , or , and who used - or egg-containing products less than once per month”. The study conducted by Dyett et al.

(2013) allows for the use of egg and dairy, which may be better seen as an example of a vegetarian diet rather than a vegan one. Whilst these differences in definitions are subtle, they still reduce the ability of researchers to compare relevant studies and their findings. The use of self-identification without some reference definition may also compromise the validity of some studies. For example, research on the impacts of “vegan diets” on health outcomes may be compromised, insofar as self-identifying vegans may consume meat, and individuals who omit all meat from their diet may not identify as vegan because they feel they do not engage in all of the relevant behaviours (e.g. omission of practices that may contribute to animal harm). This phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the case in other relevant social groups, such as environmentalists (Klas et al., 2019). Understanding what people mean by veganism can help clarify this.

1.1 The Current Study

There is substantive variability in the definition of veganism, and this has implications for the validity of research findings and that of their comparisons. Understanding this variability in terms of preferences for definitions and the underlying basis may inform approaches to future measurement and intervention. As such, the aims of this study were to investigate preferences for existing definitions of veganism, and to explore whether these preferences varied according to whether one followed a vegan, omnivore, or vegetarian diet.

5 2. Method

To answer our research question, we adopted a mixed methods approach. We first asked participants who were vegans, omnivores, and vegetarians to rank common vegan definitions from Western vegan advocacy groups in order of preference. We then asked these participants to provide written explanations of their choice of ranking. This second step enabled us to explore the way in which participants understood and conceptualised what being a vegan entailed when compared to current definitions.

2.1 Procedure.

All participants in this study were recruited via social media convenience sampling and were required to be over the age of 18. Recruitment notices were placed on the research teams’ personal social media accounts (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) between

October and December 2018, and people were invited to participate in a study on “dietary opinions”, not veganism, to reduce the likelihood individuals would self-select themselves in or out of the study. Facebook groups related to the specific diet types (vegans, omnivores, vegetarians) were also targeted to ensure a breadth of diet types were recruited. The

Facebook groups that were included in the recruitment were Vegans in Australia, Vegans of

Australia, Keto for Beginners, Vegetarian Victoria, several , , and meat-eating pages. The nature of the recruitment method is such that the study may have been shared within and outside of these groups.

Participants completed an online survey in Qualtrics. The first component of the survey included measures of demographic variables (age, gender, diet followed). Participants were then randomly allocated (by Qualtrics) to one of two studies, this study or a co- occurring qualitative study of perceptions of the vegan diet. Data collection for the two studies was conducted in this way to maximise the use of social media convenience sampling and avoid contamination of the data (i.e. participants could not complete both studies).

6 Although the data from the two studies was not to be analysed together, a priming effect of the definitions on the co-occurring qualitative study could have occurred if both studies were completed by the same participants. This study was approved by Deakin University’s

Research Committee (reference HEAG-H 159_2018). This study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/3tbxu/).

2.2 Participant Diet

Participants' diet was determined in this study in the demographic section by asking the question “Which of these most accurately explains your diet?”. Participants were given the option to choose vegan, omnivore, and vegetarian. Participants were not provided a definition of any of the diets in the demographic collection as doing so had the potential to bias participants towards a particular definition. This would have decreased our ability to determine which definition participants preferred best for veganism.

2.3 Vegan definitions.

Participants were provided with a list of definitions of veganism (see Table 1) and asked to rank them in order of their preference, specifically; “Drag to rank these in order of most to least preferred for how you would broadly define veganism”. These definitions included four established definitions from Western, English speaking countries’ vegan advocacy groups (Australia, Ireland, , ), one of -based diet, and another of a strict vegetarian diet. Western advocacy groups were chosen given the substantial rise of veganism within these countries (Barford, 2018). The United Kingdom definition was chosen as it was the first definition by a vegan advocacy group. This definition differentiates between veganism being a lifestyle, and a plant-based diet. The Australian advocacy group definition is closely linked to the UK definition however there is the added explicit reference to social justice. The US advocacy group definition was modified slightly for the purposes of the study, as it was originally in dot point form. This definition was

7 chosen because it is detailed in most aspects of what we would expect a vegan to believe in, such as the emphasis on the diet aspect, not using animals for entertainment, and avoiding products that were sourced from animals. The Irish advocacy group definition was selected because there is less of an emphasis on the diet aspect, instead it focuses on the lifestyle aspects. The plant-based diet definition used was chosen as plant-based diets and veganism are often used as interchangeable terms and we wanted to see whether people differentiated between the two when asked in the context of veganism. A strict vegetarian definition was chosen because the focus is solely on diet, like plant-based, however the diet is closer to one that would typically be seen in a vegan diet.

Table 1 Vegan definitions used in this study. Advocacy Group Definition UK (The Vegan Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is Society, 2018) possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose Australia (Vegan Veganism is a social justice movement that is striving to bring Australia, 2018) about a world where animals are not exploited for food, clothing, entertainment or any other purpose US* (American Vegans don't consume , fish, birds, cow or goats , Vegan Society, 2018) eggs, , or made with any of these other animal products such as gelatine, or animal broths. Vegans don't wear , , , or fur. Vegans avoid products tested on animals, and avoid sports or entertainment including animals (e.g , horse racing). Ireland (Vegan Vegans do not use anything that comes from an animal. Vegans Ireland, 2018) a 100% plant-based diet, wear shoes, accessories and clothing that are not made of animal skin or hair. Vegans use cosmetics, personal care and household products that are free of and ingredients. Vegans also choose forms of entertainment that do not use animals. Plant-based diet It's a diet based on , , , whole , and (, ; and it excludes or minimizes meat (including chicken 2015) and fish), dairy products, and eggs, as well as highly refined foods like bleached flour, refined , and oil. Strict Vegetarian A person who excludes all animal products from their diet, (MedlinePlus, n.d.) including meat, dairy, eggs, and honey *The US definition is a modified version as it was in a format unsuitable version for the purposes of the study. The dot points that were on their website were condensed into a single paragraph.

8 Once participants completed the ranking activity, they then answered an open-ended question which asked them to explain their ranking choice, specifically: “What factors did you base your ranking from most to least likely preferred definition on?”. The written responses to this open-ended question formed the dataset for the qualitative analysis (more details on this approach is provided below).

2.4 Data Analysis.

Data for this project is publicly available on the Open Science Framework (North et al., 2019). The current study yielded both quantitative (ranking survey) and qualitative (open- ended responses) data, and therefore the data analysis was divided into two parts. We used R

(R Core Team, 2018), and the R packages: apaTables (Stanley, 2018), ggalluvial (Brunson,

2018), STV (Emerson, 2018), tableone (Yoshida & Bohn, 2018), and tidyverse (Wickham,

2017) for all part one analyses.

Part one involved analysing the rankings of definitions provided by participants across the three groups (vegans, omnivores, vegetarians) using the Single Transferable Vote

(STV) package in R (Emerson, 2018). STV is a method of vote counting which attempts to find the most popular outcome, taking into consideration the alternative preferences of people who select minority options. As such, this system prevents the limitations of a first-past-the- post voting method, where the final selection may have a plurality of first preferences, but be opposed by the majority of respondents. If in the first round of counting a definition receives enough first preference votes to meet the pre- quota, it is then selected on that basis.

However, if there is no winner after first preference votes are counted, the definition with the least first preference votes is eliminated, and votes for that definition are redistributed according to the respondents’ second preferences. This process is repeated until a definition meets the quota and is selected. Given there was to only be one definition selected, the quota of votes was 50% + 1 (Doron & Kronick, 1977). This maximises the representativeness of the

9 final result, considering all respondents’ preferences even where they are inconsistent with the modal response.

The second part of data analysis involved using reflexive thematic analysis to examine the written explanations participants provided for their choice of rankings (i.e. their responses to the question “What factors did you base your ranking from most to least likely preferred definition on?”) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Reflexive thematic analysis provides a theoretically flexible yet systematic process to examine recurring patterns of meaning or

‘themes’ within word data (Braun & Clarke, 2013, 2019). As this method is theoretically flexible it can lack a grounding orientation or framework that can lead to ill-answered research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2013). As such, we adopted an inductive approach and employed a contextual epistemology during data analysis to answer the research question:

“How do members of varying dietary groups justify their preferences for vegan definitions?”

Inductive approaches in qualitative research involve analysing the data from the ‘bottom up’, developing broad conclusions from the data itself rather than employing a preestablished theory to help interpret the obtained data. Contextualism argues that there is no single or ‘truth’ to be uncovered by researchers, but it does the knowledge obtained from a study will be valid and ‘true’ for the social context and population it was collected from

(Braun & Clarke, 2013). Taken together, this means we made data-driven conclusions, whilst acknowledging that the ways in which participants made sense of veganism was specific to this context and social groups we examined (that is, it is entirely possible that different cultures or groups may have defined veganism differently). Following the six phases of reflexive thematic analysis, the first (MN) and second (EK) author separately familiarised themselves with the dataset (step 1) and coded the responses for each of the dietary groups

(vegans, omnivores, vegetarians), discarding any data that did not answer the research question (step 2). The first (MN) and second (EK) author then discussed their generated

10 codes for each dietary group, and once it was confirmed these codes were similar, collapsed these codes across the three dietary groups, generating themes that were evident across the entire dataset (step 3). Subsequently, the first author (MN) checked and finalised the candidate themes against the dataset (step 4) and went on to define and name the final themes with the assistance of the second (EK) and third (AK) authors (step 5). Finally, all first three authors (MN, EK, AK) contributed to writing up the themes and contextualising these in relation to prior research literature (step 6).

Frequency counts for the reflexive thematic analysis are not provided as its focus was to obtain a comprehensive overview of the perceptions held by participants, not to determine the numerical frequency of those perspectives which were given (Sandelowski, 2001).

However, to ensure readers have a clear idea of the strength of perceptions discussed, quantifying terms are employed (Klas et al., 2019; Opperman et al., 2013). The terms

‘majority’ or ‘most’ are used when almost all participants provided the same or similar perception (>75%); ‘frequently’ is employed when perceptions were offered by more than half of participants (>50%); and the term ‘some’ is employed when less than half of participants offered that specific interpretation (<50%). Finally, a ‘few’ is employed when less than a quarter of participants offered a specific perspective (<25%).

3. Results

The total sample consisted of 390 participants (vegan = 230, omnivore = 117, vegetarian = 43). The mean age was 30.02 (SD = 10.94) ranging between 18 and 70.

Participant demographics can be found in Table 2.

11 Table 2 Participant Characteristics Stratified by Diet

Omnivore Vegan Vegetarian N 117 230 43 Age (Mean (SD)) 31.04 (9.38) 29.17 (11.36) 31.84 (12.28) Gender (%) Agender 0 (0.0) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0) Could not be 1 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) classified Female 93 (79.5) 197 (85.7) 34 (79.1) Male 23 (19.7) 29 (12.6) 8 (18.6) Non binary 0 (0.0) 3 (1.3) 0 (0.0) Queer 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.3)

3.1 Definition Ranking

3.1.1 Vegan

Sixty percent of participants ranked the UK definition first, followed by the Irish definition being the first preference of 14% of the participants. The UK definition was elected after the first round of preferences as the Droop quota (50% + 1) was met without any reallocation of preferences.

3.1.2 Omnivore

Twenty-seven percent of participants ranked the UK definition as first preference, which was closely followed by 26% ranking the strict vegetarian and Irish definition first.

Among omnivores, the Irish definition was elected after five rounds of preference distribution. The plant-based definition was eliminated after the first round, the Australian definition was eliminated after round two, the US definition was eliminated after the third round, and the UK definition was eliminated after round four.

3.1.3 Vegetarian

Forty-seven percent of the participants preferenced the UK definition first. Among this group, the UK definition was elected after four rounds of preference distribution. The

12 plant-based definition was eliminated after the first round, the US definition was eliminated after round two, and the Australian definition was eliminated after round three.

3.2 Reflexive Thematic Analysis

As noted above, an inductive and contextualist epistemological approach was taken when analysing the dataset to answer the following research question: “How do members of varying dietary groups justify their preferences for vegan definitions?” Four major synthesised themes were identified across the dataset (see Table 6 for a summary). A reflexivity statement, to provide context to the research team’s interpretations and perspectives, is provided in Appendix A.

13 Table 6 Inductively Developed Themes Theme Explanation of theme Exemplar quotations 1. Diet vs. Veganism was seen as a diet Vegetarian: “The statements that cover Lifestyle by a few; however, the main the full spectrum of reasons why people consensus was that veganism follow a Vegan lifestyle, i.e. it is for was a way of life rather than a many people not just a diet option.” simple dietary choice. Omnivore: “In my opinion veganism is a dietary preference.” 2. Absolutism Veganism was viewed as a Vegan: “I believe being vegan is more practice that people can try to about a way of living rather than a diet. implement the best they can. I also believe being vegan is about There was an emphasis that doing so in a practical way. There are individuals need to concessions that need to be made in the implement veganism on their modern world, but it’s about trying your own terms given the specific best- not being perfect.” barriers they may experience (e.g., cost, access).

3. Social justice Veganism as a social justice Omnivore: “I also felt the social justice movement was contentious in movement definition takes away from it this sample. Some people being described as an individual choice disliked the connotations of of how to live.” social justice and rejected the Omnivore: “I believe the social justice idea veganism included this aspect is a key rationale for a vegan component. Others saw social lifestyle. I think it captures how justice as a defining veganism extends beyond dietary characteristic of veganism. choices and how it is an ethical framework.”

4. Veganism was often Vegan: “Veganism is tied to animal perceived as a social rights – the liberation of other animals movement for the rights of from the oppressive practices animals. enforce”

3.2.1 Theme 1: Diet vs. Lifestyle

Most participants across the three dietary groups suggested that veganism was not just a diet choice, but also a lifestyle choice. This was particularly the case for individuals who rated the plant-based diet definition lower and definitions that included other lifestyle elements (e.g. the UK, Irish, and US definitions) more highly. For instance, some omnivores explained that they knew veganism was about more than just food, with one stating that “I am

14 aware it extends beyond food to cosmetics, accessories etc [sic]. Vegans that I know specifically do not chose products specifically due to testing or ingredients, not just avoid”.

Similarly, vegetarians often emphasised the lifestyle component to veganism, with one noting

“what I would personally be like as a vegan”. Even among vegan participants themselves, this emphasis on “veganism as a lifestyle choice - not just a diet” was frequently expressed in their explanations for their ranking choices. These responses indicate that some vegans, omnivores, and vegetarians indicated that veganism is a lifestyle and is separate from just a diet. However, this is in contrast with a lifestyle perspective as the strict vegetarian definition was eliminated in the last round by both omnivore and vegetarian groups.

Nevertheless, whilst vegans, omnivores, and vegetarians frequently chose lifestyle- based definitions as one of their first preferences, there were still some participants across these three dietary groups who viewed veganism to be primarily defined as a diet. For example, one omnivore who preferenced the strict vegetarian definition first wrote “I generally think of veganism in its dietary sense, rather than the extensions to other sorts of consumption”, whilst a vegetarian who preferenced the strict vegetarian diet noted:

“As far as I’m aware the normative definition espouses veganism as primarily a

dietary choice. I’d be surprised if the majority of self-identified vegans would claim

(or would be able to claim) that they’d fully divested themselves of all animal

derivatives in all aspects of their lives... There’s a kind of totalising effect of ‘dietary

choice’ that subsumes ‘veganism’ and sands off the social justice aspects until it’s

just a V on a menu”

Interestingly, whilst most vegans overwhelming preferenced the lifestyle definition, there were still a small number of vegans who emphasised that veganism was primarily a diet. For example, one vegan participant who ranked the strict vegetarian and plant based definitions first and third respectively offered:

15 “Veganism is firstly a diet. There are lots of overlaying similarities, like

animal activist or environmentalist. The view I have is, you can be a vegan

(meaning not eating animal products) and not care about the environment.

And you can be an animal activist and not be vegan”.

This quote demonstrates that there are many components of veganism, including but not limited to dietary factors, and the importance of these factors varies between individuals.

However, the elimination of meat from their diet is still the core feature of the definition. This is reflected in the early elimination of the plant-based diet definitions in the sample as a whole.

3.2.2 Theme 2: Absolutism

For most participants their choice of ranking was often dependent on how much they thought veganism could be practically enacted in their day-to-day life. Some participants within the vegan group mentioned that the wording of “as far as possible and practicable” included in the UK definition was an important factor in their decision making. For instance, a vegan participant wrote:

“I wanted to make sure meat was completely excluded, as well as being

inclusive of non-dietary veganism- cosmetics, entertainment. But also

acknowledge that it’s only as far as possible, that no one is perfect, and

that vegans are making the most ethical choices they can, but that usually

cannot be 100% perfectly vegan” (P243).

Another vegan further demonstrates the emphasis on practicability for their conceptualisation of veganism:

“I believe being vegan is more about a way of living rather than a diet. I

also believe being vegan is about doing so in a practical way. There are

16 concessions that need to be made in the modern world, but it’s about trying

your best- not being perfect” (P315).

Interestingly those vegans that emphasised the importance of practicality to being a vegan often did so because of the apparent difficulty of being a vegan in most social contexts, and how much importance they placed on inclusivity in the community. This is particularly evident in the explanation offered by P249:

“I think the possible and practicable part is of extreme importance. There is so much

health and ability shaming in the vegan community, even encouragement not to

accept life saving treatment because it would "break" their veganism. Other than that,

I prefer more complete definitions which include both diet and lifestyle”.

While the quotes above were provided by vegans, it is important to note this emphasis on absolutism was also seen in the omnivore group. For instance, one omnivore response outlined how they

“believed the definition to be the most accurate without making assumptions about

people’s motivations for following a vegan diet. Some people are vegan for ethical

reasons, some for health reasons, some for misinformed or toxic reasons. The

definition of veganism should not include people’s motives, as this will inherently

lead to inaccuracy or exclusion”.

Therefore, a key consideration of determining how to define veganism was how much the definition should include or exclude those who behave consistently with vegan norms most of the time. This suggests that some acknowledge that many vegans do not engage in vegan practices all the time.

Whilst this emphasis on absolutism and inclusivity was reflected in several responses from vegans and some from vegetarians (and also reflects the overall preference for the UK definition in the ranking data), there were still a few vegans who did take an ‘all or nothing’

17 view of veganism. For instance, one vegan participant noted: “veganism isn't intermittent. It's not just on the weekends. You can eat vegan food without being a vegan” (P305), while another noted “factors that state that veganism “minimises” meat and other animal products were put towards the bottom as being vegan doesn’t mean minimise, it means to specifically cut out and not consume”. While these perspectives offered by this small subset of vegans reflect what is often the more stereotypical view of veganism, it must be noted that this was not a commonly expressed view across all three dietary groups. Instead, vegans held the most absolute views regarding the elimination of animal products and appear to be responsible for that aspect of the vegan stereotype themselves.

3.2.3 Theme 3: Social justice

The third theme evident within the explanations offered by participant’s outlines how many participants discussed social justice in relation to veganism. However, while some of these discussions were focused on the importance of social justice, others focussed on whether social justice was even a key component of veganism. Therefore, although social justice was seen frequently in responses, the content of these discussions did differ.

Nevertheless, several vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores in their justification for the selection of rankings often used this broad emphasis on social justice.

The Australian definition has the element of social justice, which is not explicit in any of the other definitions that were given to participants. For example, one omnivore who ranked the Australian definition first offered: “I believe the social justice aspect is a key rationale for a vegan lifestyle. I think it captures how veganism extends beyond dietary choices and how it is an ethical framework”. This view was also seen in a vegetarian response who mentioned that “every vegan is different. However I believe there is one underlying factor - the social justice and morals standpoint”. The preference for a definition that includes social justice was frequently prevalent in vegan participants too, with one who

18 ranked the Australian definition first mentioning “a united action, socially morally and ethically to hopefully bring an end to animal cruelty or at least give the animals rights. Diet was the least reason”.

Nevertheless, this positive view of the social justice movement can be contrasted with some participants who did not rank the Australian definition highly for the very reason that they did not identify social justice considerations as within the bounds of veganism. For instance, one vegan participant outlined how veganism was something they did for themselves, rather than a social movement one could actively participate in:

“I know I should probably view it as a social justice movement however I

don't see it that way. I'm not trying to actively change the world I'm

focused on myself and what I contribute to the problem, I think that

naturally will have a roll on effect to the people around me but I just don't

feel like social justice movement is the right term for what veganism is at

least for me”.

This was also a sentiment echoed in a few omnivore and vegetarian responses who indicated that they wanted to avoid anything too judgmental or social justice oriented when thinking about how to define veganism. For instance, one omnivore noted how they actively wanted to avoid “the social justice movement as this, for me, makes the term of veganism sound like a fad rather than a choice made by the individual”, whilst another vegetarian noted

"I don’t think you need to be classified as part of a social justice movement to be vegan.”

This may have been why the social justice definition in omnivore and vegetarian groups was eliminated in the early rounds of preference allocation.

A potentially related set of responses were the small subset of responses provided around politics and , suggesting that across all three dietary groups veganism may also be considered a political choice. For example, one omnivore participant noted “veganism

19 I think is more broad an ideology than just what people put in their mouths” . However, in contrast, one vegetarian participant preferenced the UK definition first for the very reason that it reduced or "I also believe it to be a personal choice and not as a political movement”.

A few participants also suggested that people were vegan as the next fad to follow, not due to political intent, with one omnivore writing “I see many people just following this way of living because it is popular” , and another writing “they use it as something to brag about not because they really believe in it”. This suggests that a few participants outside the vegan group did not view those who define veganism as containing political component favourably.

3.2.4 Theme 4: Animal ethics

The final theme evident in the participant responses is the importance of definitions that emphasised veganism being for animals. The UK definition makes reference to veganism as a way to reduce cruelty and exploitation to animals and this was reflected in the majority of vegan participant responses who ranked this definition first. For instance, some vegans outlined the “desire to end the exploitation of animals in all forms”, and others noted how they liked “the way it hit the ethical points by using words such as exploitation and cruelty.

Showing that we should not be using animals in any way”.

The emphasis on animal justice by vegan participants was also reflected in the responses of some vegetarians, with one who ranked the Irish definition first noting “overall principles of reducing animal exploitation from , to using animal products, to reducing activities that may impact animals”. Other vegetarians who ranked the Australian definition higher also noted how the “true definition of vegan is not eating & using and participating in anything involving exploiting or using animal products” , and how “I think intention is and ethics is the more important to reduce animal suffering [sic]”.

As the removal of animal products is central to the vegan lifestyle, there is an animal ethics implication in all definitions irrespective of their containing explicit references to

20 motivations. However one vegan stated the focus on was a reason they preferenced the Irish definition first “the ones at the top were referring to ‘veganism’ as a way to protect and seek rights for animals whereas the ones that were lower were more based on diet”. This is echoed in another vegan participants response “a lot of the definitions stemmed white [sic] similar however I tried to rank definitions based upon minimisation of forms of animal exploitation other than as a food source”.

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine how participants ranked vegan definitions, and to explore the differences in preferences for different vegan definitions between vegan, omnivore, and vegetarian dietary groups. This was done in order to inform how researchers might navigate the varied definitions of veganism in the literature and broader public. As we were interested in obtaining a comprehensive understanding of how vegans, omnivores, and vegetarians defined veganism, we employed a mixed methods approach where we asked participants to rank popular definitions in order of preference, and then analysed their open-ended explanations of their ranking using reflexive thematic analysis.

Broadly speaking, the ranking survey results demonstrated that when using a preferencing system the UK Vegan Society (2019) definition (“veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose”) was the most popular definition across vegan and vegetarian groups, and second most popular among omnivores.

The vegan group selected this definition in the first round. The subsequent preferences (Irish, Australian, US) all have a strong component of lifestyle that is often associated with the vegan label or group. This is supported by the theme that veganism was considered more than just a diet (Theme 1: Diet vs. Lifestyle). In contrast, the plant-based

21 diet definition was preferenced last by an overwhelming majority which is unsurprising given that this definition permits meat and animal products in diet. It appears that regardless of disagreements between individuals in their systems, not eating meat is seen as an integral part of identifying as a vegan (see; Craig, 2009; Suddath, 2008; Zamir, 2004). The

UK definition mentions “as far as is possible and practicable” in the practice of veganism and this was consistent with the qualitative data that many vegans were supportive of minor deviations from vegan norms (as evident in Theme 2: Absolutism). This may be surprising, as vegans are quite often stigmatised as having extreme views (Greenebaum, 2012). However, it does appear that this is consistent with how a minority of vegans do perceive their group.

Given that this view was not espoused by non-vegans, this stereotype of vegans as extreme may be perpetuated by a few vegans themselves rather than outgroup members.

The omnivore group selected the Irish definition as preferable to the other five definitions; however, there was no clear consensus in initial preferences from this group. As with the vegan group, the plant-based diet definition was preferenced last however this group also endorsed the Australian definition at almost the same rates. The social justice aspect of the Australian definition was divisive in the qualitative responses, with many omnivores not thinking that this was a part of the vegan lifestyle while others saying it was integral (see

Theme 3: Social justice). The percentage of strict vegetarian definitions being ranked is also not surprising given the amount of media publicity about veganism being a diet and not always including a lifestyle component (e.g. Elder, 2019) and the strict vegetarian definition does not take into account these aspects. The difference in the first preference may also be that omnivores have a behaviour focussed representation rather than a value representation, as the Irish definition (“vegans eat a 100% plant-based diet, wear shoes, accessories and clothing that are not made of animal skin or hair. Vegans use cosmetics, personal care and household products that are free of animal testing and ingredients. Vegans also choose forms

22 of entertainment that do not use animals”) is more behaviour focussed than the UK definition, this has also been seen in other groups such as environmentalist where the outgroup defines the ingroup by the behaviour they engage in (Klas et al., 2019).

Consistent with the vegan group, group also selected the UK definition first when ranking the definitions provided. However, the vegetarian preferences were more closely aligned with the omnivore group than the vegan group. In the qualitative responses

(Theme 3: Social justice), the vegetarians had mixed views on the role of social justice in the definition, and with it being a lifestyle or a diet. This is seemingly inconsistent with how vegans view themselves and how they would define veganism according to the themes that were common. There is an apparent disconnect between what vegans think they are advocating for in their beliefs and how the outgroup views them.

Whilst there were some differences in the ranking of the definitions the results from the qualitative analysis has allowed for identification of components that gain the most agreement across participants, and which may vary across individuals. The consensus when looking at the themes is that it is mostly about not consuming any animal products in the diet, where we begin to see variance when looking at if veganism is a social justice movement, and the level of absolutism. This may be due to the differing individual opinions of the participants. In many of the key themes there were differences of opinion in the definitions both between and within the same dietary categories. It is important to remember that as veganism is a socially defined ideology it can change across social contexts and time.

Therefore, while one’s experience of veganism should contain some similarities with others, reflecting the social norms surrounding the group, it is still likely to be highly personal to some extent. However, this does not mean that researchers cannot use a common definition going forward that reflects these identified similarities and commonalities. As such, the results of this study still provide an understanding of people’s normative conceptualisation of

23 veganism. Given the nature of belief systems we cannot expect to capture all self-identified vegans, however the UK definition does appear to allow that flexibility which may explain why it is the most popular. It has the least amount of chance of removing the label from someone who is not as strict as other vegans, but still considers themselves as part of the vegan group.

While this study is the first to examine how people view existing definitions of veganism, there are some limitations to note. First is that there were only six definitions provided to participants to rank out of several other existing definitions. This has implications as there may be another definition that was not chosen that may be more favourable. The sample was also majority female and while this is consistent with the gender ratio of followers of the vegan lifestyle (Allès et al., 2017), this may undermine the generalisability of results pertaining to omnivores and vegetarians, for whom women are overrepresented in the sample. The use of vegan advocacy group definitions as a starting point may also be considered a limitation as they potentially bias the definition to being more of an advocate focused one rather than the diet, as in most of these the lifestyle/social justice component is implied.

It is also recognised that the way participants were categorised into their dietary groups may be a limitation of the current study. As no clear definitions of the diet types were provided to help participants decide their personal diet type, it is possible that participants employed varied definitions when self-categorising. However, providing participants’ definitions prior to the ranking task would have compromised the design of the current study as it could have potentially biased participants’ responses. With the results and recommendations provided from this research, this will hopefully be rectified in future studies.

24 This study demonstrates a that there is a broad range of views of veganism, however, with vegans and vegetarians selecting the UK definition (“as far as possible and practicable”) and the qualitative themes aligning with the main unique component of the UK definition , it could be said that this of the available definitions, this is the best representation of normative views. This is the first study to examine definitional issues in such a way more broadly, and begins to fill an important measurement gap in the veganism literature specifically. While the definition used may be research question dependent, with dietary focused definitions and measures being more appropriate for some research designs, it is recommended that researchers could otherwise adopt the UK definition of veganism as representing participants’ naive definition where eliciting a definition is not more appropriate. While consistency in definitions across studies will facilitate integration across the literature, a higher priority is ensuring that participants are providing comparable to one another about their diet within a given study. The variability in respondents’ preferred definitions within this study highlight the importance of proactively managing respondent’s understanding of the questions to reduce error in measurement.

It may be the case that using a uniform question in studies to measure veganism will be helpful in beginning to solve this issue, for example "For the purpose of this study, we are defining Veganism as "[insert definition used]", please keep this in mind when identifying your diet". This may be dependent on the focus of the study; a study surrounding may choose to provide a dietary based definition, whereas as a study looking at values in veganism would mostly likely need to include the lifestyle and ethical components. This is not to suggest that self-identified diet without a reference definition is invalid for all contexts, just that there are implications for validity of studies in fields such as nutrition and if people have eaten meat (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018; Rothgerber, 2015a, 2015b) and are being treated as not having done so by merit of self-identification as vegan. If we were to adopt a

25 transparent approach for measuring and reporting dietary definitions in this field of research, we would be able to be more confident in understanding the implications of veganism in the context of health outcomes, stigma, and social values. Further to this, data within studies may reflect a common understanding from participants, and we will be able to understand how they are similar and different to other studies before evidence synthesis. Given this and the numerous perceptions participants offered surrounding their reasoning for ranking the definitions as they did, it is also recommended that participants are provided the definition of veganism researchers are employing within their study when completing research projects.

5. Conclusion

Identifying how people define veganism has implications for both measurement and understanding vegan identity broadly. In the past literature, this nuance has been neglected and the results of this study demonstrate that the public holds differing views of what veganism is. To reflect the need going forward that we have a consistent definition, researchers should be explicit in their definition for comparability and reduction of measurement error, and where uncertain about which definition is appropriate for self- identification, should consider using the UK vegan society definition. Participants would benefit from being given a definition at the beginning of studies. As veganism is becoming increasingly popular, it is interesting to note that there is less of an absolutist approach to the definition and that the definition may be dynamic. This is important when we as researchers are considering how we are defining veganism in future studies.

26 Declarations of interest: none

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

Authors’ contribution: MN designed the study, collected the data, conducted quantitative and qualitative data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. EK supervised the design and data collection of the study, contributed to the quantitative and qualitative analyses, drafted and edited the manuscript. AK contributed to the design of the qualitative study, contributed to the qualitative analysis and write up of qualitative results, and provided feedback on the manuscript. ML contributed to the quantitative analyses, and provided feedback on the manuscript.

27 References Allès, B., Baudry, J., Méjean, C., Touvier, M., Péneau, S., Hercberg, S., & Kesse-Guyot, E.

(2017). Comparison of Sociodemographic and Nutritional Characteristics between

Self-Reported Vegetarians, Vegans, and Meat-Eaters from the NutriNet-Santé Study.

Nutrients, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9091023

American Vegan Society. (2018). Vegan IS. https://americanvegan.org/vegan-is/

Barford, V. (2018). The rise of the part-time vegans. AMASS, 21(4), 48-. Academic OneFile.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research

in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for

beginners. SAGE.

Brunson, J. C. (2018). ggalluvial: Alluvial Diagrams in ‘ggplot2’ (Version 0.9.1) [Computer

software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggalluvial

Cherry, E. (2006). Veganism as a : A Relational Approach. Social

Movement Studies, 5(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830600807543

Chuck, C., Fernandes, & Hyers, L. L. (2016). Awakening to the politics of food: Politicized

diet as social identity. Appetite, 107, 425–436.

Craig, W. J. (2009). Health effects of vegan diets. The American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition, 89(5), 1627S-1633S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736N

Doron, G., & Kronick, R. (1977). Single Transferrable Vote: An Example of a Perverse

Social Choice Function. American Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 303–311.

JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110496

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for

beginners. SAGE.

28 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative

Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Dyett, P. A., Sabaté, J., Haddad, E., Rajaram, S., & Shavlik, D. (2013). Vegan lifestyle

behaviors. An exploration of congruence with health-related beliefs and assessed

health indices. Appetite, 67, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.03.015

Klas, A., Zinkiewicz, L., Zhou, J., & Clarke, E. J. R. (2018). “Not All Environmentalists Are

Like That … ”: Unpacking the Negative and Positive Beliefs and Perceptions of

Environmentalists. Environmental Communication, 0(0), 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1488755

Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and Correlates of Collective Action.

Sex Roles, 50(11), 771–779. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029096.90835.3f

Panfil, V. R. (2020). “Nobody Don’t Really Know What That Mean”: Understandings of

“Queer” among Urban LGBTQ Young People of Color. Journal of Homosexuality,

67(12), 1713–1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1613855

Pfeiler, T. M., & Egloff, B. (2018). Examining the “Veggie” personality: Results from a

representative German sample. Appetite, 120, 246–255.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.09.005

Rothgerber, H. (2015a). Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores,

vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite, 84, 196–203.

Rothgerber, H. (2015b). Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and

vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals. Appetite, 87, 251–258.

29 Elder, J. (2019, April 27). Sorry vegans: The world would die if we all followed your well-

meaning lead. https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/2019/04/27/vegans-wont-save-the-

world/

Emerson, J. (2018). STV: Single Transferrable Vote Counting. Department of Statistics, Yale

University. https://github.com/jayemerson/STV

Forks Over Knives. (2015). What is a Whole-Food, Plant-Based Diet? [INFOGRAPHIC].

Forks Over Knives. https://www.forksoverknives.com/what-is-a-whole-food-plant-

based-diet/

Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and

intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 95, 113–125.

Greenebaum. (2012). Managing Impressions: “Face-Saving” Strategies of Vegetarians and

Vegans. Humanity & Society, 36(4), 309–325.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Hirschler, C. A. (2011). ‘What pushed me over the edge was a deer hunter’: Being vegan in

North America. Society and Animals, 19(2), 156–174.

https://doi.org/10.1163/156853011X562999

Jabs, J., Devine, C. M., & Sobal, J. (1998). Model of the process of adopting vegetarian diets:

Health vegetarians and ethical vegetarians. Journal of Nutrition Education, 4, 196.

Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M., & Hamm, U. (2016). Motives of consumers following a

vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643–651.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.039

Klas, A., Zinkiewicz, L., Zhou, J., & Clarke, E. J. R. (2019). “Not All Environmentalists Are

Like That … ”: Unpacking the Negative and Positive Beliefs and Perceptions of

30 Environmentalists. Environmental Communication, 13(7), 879-893.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1488755

Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and Correlates of Collective Action.

Sex Roles, 50(11), 771–779. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029096.90835.3f

MedlinePlus. (n.d.). Vegetarian diet: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15

August 2019, from https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002465.htm

North, M., Kothe, E. J., Ling, M., & Klas, A. (2019). Data. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/

ECW56

Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2013). “It Feels It Almost

Hurts”: Young Adults’ Experiences of Orgasm and Sexual Pleasure. Journal of Sex

Research, 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.753982

Pfeiler, T. M., & Egloff, B. (2018). Examining the “Veggie” personality: Results from a

representative German sample. Appetite, 120, 246–255.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.09.005

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R

Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Rothgerber, H. (2015a). Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores,

vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite, 84, 196–203.

Rothgerber, H. (2015b). Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and

vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals. Appetite, 87, 251–258.

Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017). Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the

motivations of plant-based dieters. Appetite, 456.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.039

31 Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in

qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 24(3), 230–240.

https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1025

Stanley, D. (2018). apaTables: Create American Psychological Association (APA) Style

Tables. (Version 2.0.5) [Computer software].

https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=apaTables

Suddath, C. (2008, October 30). A Brief History of Veganism.

http://time.com/3958070/history-of-veganism/

The Vegan Society. (2018). Definition of veganism. https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/

definition-veganism

Vegan Australia. (2018). Why vegan. Vegan Australia.

https://www.veganaustralia.org.au/why_vegan

Vegan Ireland, G. (2018). What Veganism Means. Vegan.Ie. http://www.vegan.ie/why-

vegan/what-veganism-means/

Wickham, H. (2017). tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the ‘Tidyverse’ (Version 1.2.1)

[Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse

Yoshida, K., & Bohn, J. (2018). tableone: Create ‘Table 1’ to Describe Baseline

Characteristics (Version 0.9.3) [Computer software].

https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tableone

Zamir, T. (2004). Veganism. Journal of Social , 35(3), 367–379.

32 Appendix Reflexive statement of research team

At the time of conducting this study, the first author (MN) identifies as a vegan and has been for four years and adopted the lifestyle due to animal welfare reasons. The second author

(EK) is an omnivore who has never attempted to adopt a meat reducing diet. The third author

(AK) is a flexitarian who eats mostly plant-based foods and eats meat and dairy in moderation. The fourth author (ML) is an omnivore who does not eat for environmental reasons.

33