Attitudes toward Vegans and Vegetarians: The Role of Anticipated Moral Reproach and Dissonance

This study attempted to determine if anticipated moral reproach and cognitive dissonance explain negative attitudes toward vegans and vegetarians, and if vegans are subject to more negative attitudes than vegetarians. The sample consisted of 65 participants (women =41, men =24) who were randomly assigned into one of four conditions. Each participant read a vignette about a person who consumed either a vegan, vegetarian, plant-based or omnivore diet. They then completed a series of questionnaires that recorded their attitudes towards the person in the vignette, anticipated moral reproach, and cognitive dissonance. The results indicated that for the observed general attitudes for the vegan, vegetarian and plant-based diet conditions were more negative than for the omnivore condition, with plant-based diet being the most negative. For moral reproach the results indicated that higher levels of moral reproach contributed to more negative attitudes, but only in the omnivore condition. Whereas the liner regression indicated that cognitive dissonance was only significant predictor of attitudes in the vegan condition. The findings of this study indicated that diet can have an impact on attitudes, and that the diet its self may have a larger impact than the labels applied. DIET AND ATTITUDES 3 Attitudes Toward Vegans and Vegetarians: The Role of Anticipated Moral Reproach and Dissonance Although the majority of North Americans eat an omnivore diet, veganism and vegetarianism have in recent years experienced an increase in popularity (Duchene & Jackson, 2017). As a result, omnivores are believed to be more likely to discuss their attitudes towards vegans and vegetarians, due to the increased exposure to the groups, both in public dialogue and interpersonally among acquaintances. Cole (2011) examined all British newspapers published in the year 2007 that mentioned the words vegan, vegans or veganism. The results showed that the majority of papers published expressed a negative attitude towards veganism. Additionally, any positive papers published looked at only food suggesting that there is a limited perspective provided by the media on veganism. Cole (2011) provides evidence in support that there are systematic negative associations against vegans. The purpose of this study will be to look at possible explanatory theories that could explain why veganism is observed to be viewed more negatively then vegetarianism. The theories that will be used are moral reproach (Minson & Monin, 2012) and cognitive dissonance (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010). This is an important topic to research as veganism and vegetarianism are theorized to be concepts that are strongly tied to the individual’s identity and are seen to be as important to the individual as their sexual orientation, religion, and/ or ethnicity (Wright, 2015). Furthermore, this study may also help to explain why strategies that attempt to encourage people to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet are often unsuccessful (Duchene & Jackson, 2017). It has been found that personal factors are the major contributor to choosing to become a vegetarian. These personal factors are altered by the perceptions held by the dominant group, omnivores (Hussar & Harris, 2010). By understanding why omnivores have these DIET AND ATTITUDES 4 perceptions about vegans and vegetarians, will lead to insight into why these negative attitudes are occurring. Comparing Veganism and Vegetarianism in Terms of Attitudes and Diet To explore the potential difference in attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans it is important to clarify what the difference is between the two groups. Vegetarianism is defined as a diet that doesn't involve the consumption of meat or by-products of animal slaughter (Wright, 2015). In comparison, veganism consists of a diet without any animal-based products, or any item containing an ingredient derived from an animal (Wright, 2015). Furthermore, vegans place more stress on the ethical tie to animal rights then vegetarians. Animal rights scholar, Carol Adams defines veganism as "an ethical stance based on compassion for all beings" (Adams, 2010, pp.113) and argues that being vegan is about more than adhering to a specific diet. Further evidence to support that veganism is distinctly different from vegetarianism can be found by looking at the groups’ origins. Historically, veganism was founded from a group of vegetarians, who no longer wanted to be seen as part of vegetarianism but rather as their own group (Adams, 2010). This supports the notion that veganism is distinctly different from vegetarianism, as it was created with the purpose to be different then vegetarianism. Evidently there are some clear differences between vegetarians and vegans. It is important to translate how these differences are believed to lead to differing attitudes towards vegans and vegetarians. To understand why vegetarianism may be viewed more positivity then veganism, one commonly offered explanation is that because vegetarians still consume dairy products, the group is viewed as having less polarizing views (Adams, 2010). Elaborating on this statement, Rothgerber found that 38% of people who identified as vegetarian reported consuming meat DIET AND ATTITUDES 5 products to some capacity (2014a). It has been theorised that the emergence of semivegetarianism has lead to vegetarianism being perceived as less negative then veganism. Semivegetarianism is a term that refers to an individual who identifies as being a vegetarian but still consumes meat (Adams, 2010; Rothgerber, 2014a; Ruby, 2012). The amount of meat consumed, and the degree of willingness varies among semi-vegetarians. The presence of semivegetarianism has lead to a blurred conceptualization of vegetarianism resulting in an increase in the perceived homogeneity between vegetarianism and omnivores (Adams, 2010). In support of this, Rothgerber found that semi-vegetarians were closer to omnivores than strict vegetarians regarding the level of disgust shown towards meat (2014a). In summary, this difference could alter the perception that the similarity between omnivores and vegetarians is greater than the similarity between omnivores and vegans. Previous research has been conducted looking at attitude differences between vegetarians and omnivores. The reasoning that a vegetarian gives for maintaining the diet has been found to influence omnivore attitudes towards the group. Generally, the reasons for vegetarianism have been grouped into one of two categories. Health vegetarians tend to cite personal reasons for their membership, such as citing the health benefits or a food allergy. In contrast, ethical vegetarians cite external reasons, such as animal welfare. It has been found that when vegetarians reported being morally motivated, it resulted in a harsher judgement then when the reason reported was personal motivation (Hussar & Harris, 2010). In summary, it is likely that the observed differences between health and ethical vegetarians may translate to comparing vegetarians and vegans, as veganism is tied more to morality then vegetarianism. Another area that is important to look at is difference between vegetarianism veganism, and conscious omnivores. As it is important to address if it is the association to DIET AND ATTITUDES 6 environmentalism or if it is the act of not eating meat that effects attitudes. Rothgerber (2015) states that vegetarianism is a specific form of environmentalism. As well, Bashir et. al (2013) found that individuals were less likely to affiliate with someone if they engaged in a stereotypical environmental activity such as engaging in environmental activism. However, research has shown that the diet that a person eats has a larger impact on attitudes then environmentalism. Rothgerber (2015) compared conscious omnivores to vegans and vegetarians to see how much of an effect the diet had on attitudes towards animals. Conscious omnivores are omnivores who limit their animal consumption and attempt to avoid consuming commercial meat and instead choose animals that are grass feed, or raised more humanely (Rothgerber,2015). The findings of the study were that conscious omnivores scored significantly lower than vegetarianism on both animal favourability and disgust towards meat. The findings also suggest that conscious omnivores conceptually aren’t a group of transitioning vegetarians but rather a separate group. Also, conscious omnivores were found not to put as much emphasis on their eating habits as being a part of their social identity, aligning with the attitudes of normal omnivores (Rothgerber, 2015). In conclusion, it is evident that there are some characteristics of vegetarianism and veganism that are different then omnivore environmentalists. These differences likely contribute to the differences in perceptions that are experienced by omnivores. To summarise it is evident that there is significant evidence to support that there is a difference in the perceptions of vegans and vegetarians that could contribute to a difference in attitudes between the two groups. This paper will now move to discuss some theories that have been applied to these groups in the past to potentially explain this phenomenon. Anticipated Moral Reproach Towards Vegans and Vegetarians DIET AND ATTITUDES 7 Anticipated moral reproach is defined as believing that an individual who holds a different moral stance is judging your own stance as being immoral (Minson & Monin, 2012). This perception of being judged leads to the individual developing a negative attitude towards the other group. In terms of group attitudes, anticipated moral reproach has been used to explain why, when a group stresses overly moral behaviour, it is given the derogatory label of a dogooder or goody-two-shoes. Though not inherently negative, terms such as do-gooder are applied to the individual in a derogatory manner to express their dislike of the group (Minson & Monin, 2012