An Investigation of Dietary Identity, Motivation, and Attitudes Toward
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HPQ0010.1177/1359105319842933Journal of Health PsychologyRosenfeld and Tomiyama 842933research-article2019 Article Journal of Health Psychology 1 –15 How proximal are pescatarians © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: to vegetarians? An investigation sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319842933 10.1177/1359105319842933 of dietary identity, motivation, journals.sagepub.com/home/hpq and attitudes toward animals Daniel L Rosenfeld and A Janet Tomiyama Abstract Research on the psychology of eating behavior often treats vegetarians as a monolithic group. Yet, a considerable proportion of people (17% in Study 1) who self-identify as vegetarian are actually pescatarians— those who forgo all meats except fish. Research on the psychology of pescatarianism is profoundly lacking, which may hinder future interventionists’ efforts to improve diet. Through two preregistered studies of adults from the United States recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (total N = 490), we investigated pescatarianism with respect to dietary identity, motivation, and attitudes toward animals. Results suggest that future research may benefit from studying pescatarians as a distinct dietary group and paying greater attention to whether or not pescatarians self-identify as vegetarian. Keywords food choice, identity, morality, pescatarianism, vegetarianism A rapidly expanding line of research has inves- these dietary variations obscure research on tigated the motivations that vegetarians (people meat avoidance? who refrain from eating meat) and vegans (peo- Typically, participants in research on meat ple who refrain from eating any animal prod- avoidance are individuals who self-identify as uct)—collectively referred to as veg*ns—have veg*n—that is, they label themselves as vege- for following their diets and the impacts their tarian or vegan. Yet, significant proportions of food choices have on phenomena related to people who self-identify as vegetarian do not identity, morality, and health attitudes (Piazza et follow a strictly vegetarian diet (Barr and al., 2015; Rosenfeld, 2018; Rothgerber, 2017; Chapman, 2002; Dietz et al., 1995; Rothgerber, Ruby, 2012). As eating less meat offers an 2017; Stiles, 1998). In fact, several surveys effective strategy for improving human health (McMichael et al., 2007), understanding the psychology of meat avoidance is critical. Some University of California, Los Angeles, USA people who self-identify as veg*n, however, actually include some types of meat in their Corresponding author: Daniel L Rosenfeld, Department of Psychology, University diets, which may introduce easily avoidable— of California, Los Angeles, 1285 Franz Hall, Los Angeles, and theoretically explainable—error in the CA 90095, USA. study of veg*n eating behavior. How might Email: [email protected] 2 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0) (e.g. Barr and Chapman, 2002; Dietz et al., political dietary motivations. Having only 22 1995; National Institute of Nutrition, 1997) pescatarian participants, however, this study may suggest that many self-identified vegetarians have missed effects due to low statistical power. may truly be pescatarians—people who eschew Not only does research on other forms of meat red meat and poultry but eat fish (sometimes avoidance suggest that differences between veg- referred to as pesco-vegetarians). For example, etarian and pescatarian dieters’ dietary motiva- one survey by the National Institute of Nutrition tions may indeed exist, but theoretical (1997) found that 78 percent of self-identified perspectives from cognitive dissonance and vegetarians sometimes consume fish or sea- motivated reasoning also suggest that these diet- food, and another survey by Barr and Chapman ers may vary in their attitudes toward animals. (2002) found that 41 percent of self-identified Grouping vegetarians and pescatarians together vegetarians (in a sample of women) follow pes- into a singular category, thus, may overlook catarian diets. meaningful variance and reduce the power of Some of the current literature on vegetarian- empirical tests. With considerations of the poten- ism, thus, might be based on samples comprised tial health benefits yet environmental unsustain- predominantly of people who self-identify as ability of fish consumption prevailing (Béné et vegetarian but follow pescatarian diets. At the al., 2015; Buttriss, 2016; US Department of same time, this body of literature includes stud- Health Human Services, 2015), it may become ies that consider pescatarians to be a type of increasingly critical to understand the underlying omnivore, separating them categorically from psychological elements that separate pescatari- vegetarians (e.g. Ang et al., 2019). This incon- ans from vegetarians. sistency highlights the need to investigate how In the current research, we set two main proximal pescatarians are psychologically to aims: (1) to distinguish pescatarians psycho- vegetarians—that is, is there value in distin- logically from vegetarians who eschew all guishing whether participants, specifically, fol- forms of meat and (2) to highlight the role of low a vegetarian or pescatarian diet? Given that identity in pescatarian dieting. In the following pescatarians eat fish (a type of meat), we rea- sections, we review the theoretical and empiri- soned that they construe their eating behaviors cal basis for our investigation. and relations with animals divergently from vegetarians who eschew all forms of meat. Might the different types of meat one avoids Pescatarians versus consuming shape, and be shaped by, one’s vegetarians moral and health attitudes? Dietary motivation Despite there being a number of studies reporting within-group heterogeneity among People can have a variety of motivations for meat-avoiders—for example, those comparing eating less meat, and different motivations may vegetarians with vegans (e.g. Filippi et al., 2010; influence social perception in distinct ways. Kessler et al., 2016; Rosenfeld, 2019a; People’s dietary motivations—namely, whether Rothgerber, 2014a, 2015b) or vegetarians with they avoid meat for ethics or health—shape flexitarians who eat a meat-reduced diet (e.g. De their perceptions of dietary in-groups and out- Backer and Hudders, 2014)—psychological groups, their feelings of disgust toward meat, research distinguishing pescatarians from other and the meaning they ascribe to their dietary types of meat-avoiders is lacking. Moreover, the identity (Rosenfeld, 2019b; Rothgerber, 2014b; limited research existing in this domain has pro- Rozin et al., 1997; Stiles, 1998). What motiva- vided evidence that warrants follow-up testing. tions a vegetarian proclaims can even shape For example, Haverstock and Forgays (2012) how other people view him or her. Omnivores found that pescatarians did not differ from vege- have more negative attitudes toward ethically tarians in terms of their health, environmental, or motivated than health-motivated vegetarians Rosenfeld and Tomiyama 3 (MacInnis and Hodson, 2017), which makes it different moral worth based on species mem- unsurprising that many vegetarians choose to bership” (Caviola et al., 2018: 1)—than vege- emphasize the health, rather than ethical, tarians do. aspects of their diets publicly (Wilson et al., The decision to eat seafood may in turn 2004). As such, understanding differences in shape pescatarians’ perceptions of fish mind: motivation between vegetarians and pescatari- the extent to which they believe that fish experi- ans may explain differences in not only these ence mental states. Debate exists as to whether two groups’ attitudes and behaviors but also or not fish are able to feel pain (Braithwaite, other people’s perceptions of them. 2010; Key, 2016; Rose et al., 2014), highlight- Health-motivated eaters may be particularly ing that perceived pain capacity of fish exhibits likely to follow a pescatarian diet, as national significant variance. People are motivated to dietary guidelines recommend regular fish con- withdraw moral concern for animals they con- sumption for optimal health (Buttriss, 2016; US sume, and one way of withdrawing moral con- Department of Health, 2015). Research on other cern may be to deny the animal mind, namely, meat-avoiders’ motivations suggests a trend the capacity to suffer (Loughnan et al., 2010). that likewise predicts pescatarians as largely Thus, we hypothesized that pescatarians per- motivated by health: The less restrictive a form ceive fish as possessing less capacity to experi- of animal-product avoidance is, the more likely ence pain than vegetarians do. it is to be spurred by health, rather than ethical, Similar motivated reasoning may manifest motivations (Rosenfeld, 2018). For example, itself in pescatarians’ perceptions of fish health- vegans express stronger dietary ethical motiva- fulness. On the one hand, dietary attitudes may tions concerning animals and the environment precede dietary behavior: Some pescatarians, than vegetarians do (Fiestas-Flores and Pyhälä, for example, likely follow their diets because 2017; Rosenfeld, 2019a; Ruby, 2008). Given they view fish as a healthful food. Yet, other that pescatarians follow a less restrictive diet pescatarians—perhaps ones who are morally than vegetarians do, we hypothesized that a motivated, in particular—may come to believe greater proportion of pescatarians than vegetar- that fish is healthful as a result of following this ians would be health-motivated. diet. That is, based on self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) and