Current Attitudes and Future Influence on Meat Consumption in the U.K.

Richardson, N. J.; Shepherd, Richard; Elliman, Nicola A.

doi:10.1006/appe.1993.1035

Cited by 103 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meat consumption is negatively correlated with age (cf. Aranceta et al, 1998;Hudy, Caster, & Hames, 1985;Von Post-Skagegard et al, 2002), and women eat meat less frequently than men, (Beardsworth & Bryman, 1999;Fraser et al, 2000;Perl et al, 1998;Richardson et al, 1993), a difference which is primarily due to lower rates of red meat consumption (cf. Baghurst, 1999;Smit, Nieto, Crespo, & Mitchell, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among Western vegetarians, women greatly outnumber men (Beardsworth & Bryman, 1999;Neumark-Sztainer, Story, Resnick, & Blum, 1997;Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1998), and even nonvegetarian Western women eat considerably less meat than men as a proportion of the diet (Beardsworth & Bryman, 1999;Fraser, Welch, Luben, Bingham, & Day, 2000;Perl, Mandic, Primorac, Klapec, & Perl, 1998;Richardson, Shepherd, & Elliman, 1993). Correspondingly, in the US, Japan, Indonesia, and the Netherlands women and girls exhibit lower thresholds for the elicitation of disgust (Druschel & Sherman, 1999;Haidt et al, 1994;Koukounas & McCabe, 1997;Oppliger & Zillmann, 1997;Quigley, Sherman, & Sherman, 1997; first author's field notes; J.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: a test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism

Fessler¹,

Arguello²,

Mekdara³

et al. 2003

Appetite

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emotivist perspectives on moral reasoning hold that emotional reactions precede propositional reasoning. Published findings indicate that, compared with health vegetarians, those who avoid meat on moral grounds are more disgusted by meat [Psychol. Sci. 8 (1997) 67]. If, as per emotivist perspectives, such disgust precedes moral rationales for meat avoidance, then the personality trait of disgust sensitivity should generally be inversely related to meat eating. We surveyed 945 adults regarding meat consumption, reasons for meat avoidance, and disgust sensitivity. Contrary to the emotivist prediction, (a) meat consumption was positively correlated with disgust sensitivity, and (b) individuals who reported avoiding meat for moral reasons were not more sensitive to disgust than those who avoided meat for other reasons. We conclude that moral vegetarianism conforms to traditional explanations of moral reasoning, i.e. moral vegetarians' disgust reactions to meat are caused by, rather than causal of, their moral beliefs. q

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: a test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism

Fessler¹,

Arguello²,

Mekdara³

et al. 2003

Appetite

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Health concerns tend to rate higher than environmental or animal welfare concerns in motivating change in dietary Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change… 1265 behaviour, though there are differences between sociodemographic groups (Cordts et al 2013;Dibb and Fitzpatrick 2014;Richardson et al 1993;Tobler et al 2011;Wezemael et al 2010). It is difficult to dispel the view that ''meat is essential for maintaining health, and that vegetarian diets are nutritionally inadequate''.…”

Section: Knowledge and Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dietary shift towards reduced meat consumption is an efficient strategy for countering biodiversity loss and climate change in regions (developed and transition countries) where consumption is already at a very high level or is rapidly expanding (such as China). Biodiversity is being degraded and lost to a considerable extent, with 70 % of the world's deforestation a result of stripping in order to grow animal feed. Furthermore, about 14.5 % of the world's anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are calculated to be the result of (mainly industrial) livestock farming. The research reviewed here focuses on the feasibility of reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries, as this would-among other positive effects-reduce the global loss of biodiversity, the need for unsustainable agricultural practices and GHG emissions. This article reviews the barriers, opportunities and steps that need to be taken in order to encourage the consumption of less meat, based on an interdisciplinary and multifactor approach. The evidence is gathered from a systematic metaanalysis of factors (including personal, sociocultural and external factors) that influence individual meat-eating behaviour. The most relevant factors that influence behaviour appear to be emotions and cognitive dissonance (between knowledge, conflicting values and actual behaviour) and sociocultural factors (e.g. social norms or social identity). For different factors and groups of people, different strategies are appropriate. For example, for men and older people deploying the health argument or arguing for flexitarianism (reduced meat consumption) may prove the most promising approaches, while providing emotional messages or promoting new social norms is recommended in order to address barriers such as cognitive dissonance.

show abstract

“…The dietary practices of women are considered to be more healthful than those of men because they consume more fruit and vegetables (Baker & Wardle, 2003) and less red meat (e.g., Richardson, Shepherd, & Elliman, 1993). Women are also more often inclined to make dietary changes and to participate in purposeful weight control (Sobal & Maurer, 1999).…”

Section: Dietary Behaviors In Korean Men and Womenmentioning

confidence: 99%