Underlying Differences Between Chinese Omnivores and Vegetarians in the Evaluations of Different Dietary Groups.

Qirui Tian,Shouxin Li,Qingyang Zheng

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02644

Abstract

Drawing upon self-categorization theory, the present research investigated the attitudes of omnivores and vegetarians toward five dietary groups, including omnivores, conscientious omnivores, semi-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans. When they had high (vs. low) meat rationalization, omnivore participants had fewer negative attitudes toward and more positive evaluations of the omnivore groups but more negative attitudes toward and fewer positive evaluations of the vegetarian groups. Vegetarian participants had the most negative attitudes toward the omnivore group, followed by the conscientious omnivore group, the semi-vegetarian group, the vegetarian group, and the vegan group; the vegetarian participants with high meat rationalization (vs. those with low meat rationalization) had more positive evaluations of the omnivore groups. Such findings suggested that high levels of meat-eating rationalization predicted more favorable attitudes toward omnivores among both omnivore and vegetarian participants.

Highlights

Humans have sought meat for millennia (Rozin, 2004) because most people consider meat to be the chief source of protein and calories. Fiddes (1991) even suggested the existence of “the Protein Myth,” which directly equates meat to protein
Based on different categorical standards, both have different subtypes. According to their meat-eating frequency and type, people can be generally divided into five dietary groups: omnivores, who have no restriction on food consumption and consume animal flesh; conscientious omnivores, who only consume animal flesh that has met certain ethical standards (Singer and Mason, 2006); semi-vegetarians, whose diet is plant-based with the occasional inclusion of animal flesh; vegetarians, who refuse to eat all animal flesh; and vegans, who do not consume any animal flesh or animal byproducts, such as milk, eggs, and items refined or manufactured from animals, including animal-tested baking soda or fur clothing
Correlation Analyses Given the differences among the five dietary groups, correlations between negative attitudes toward and evaluations of the different dietary groups, meat rationalization, and indicators of daily meat-eating frequency were calculated separately for each of the five dietary groups

Summary

Introduction

Humans have sought meat for millennia (Rozin, 2004) because most people consider meat to be the chief source of protein and calories. Fiddes (1991) even suggested the existence of “the Protein Myth,” which directly equates meat to protein. In an Australian sample, the strongest barriers preventing people from becoming vegetarians were the enjoyment of eating meat and an unwillingness to change this dietary habit (Lea and Worsley, 2003). Based on different categorical standards, both have different subtypes According to their meat-eating frequency and type, people can be generally divided into five dietary groups: omnivores, who have no restriction on food consumption and consume animal flesh (meat); conscientious omnivores, who only consume animal flesh that has met certain ethical standards (Singer and Mason, 2006); semi-vegetarians (flexitarians), whose diet is plant-based with the occasional inclusion of animal flesh; vegetarians, who refuse to eat all animal flesh; and vegans, who do not consume any animal flesh or animal byproducts, such as milk, eggs, and items refined or manufactured from animals, including animal-tested baking soda or fur clothing.

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion