Influences on Meat Avoidance Among British Students

Santos, Milene; Booth, D.A.

doi:10.1006/appe.1996.0046

Cited by 115 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Personal health and animal cruelty figure high on this list (Hoek et al 2004, 266, Lea andWorsley 2001, 127), while disgust or repugnance with eating flesh (Kenyon and Barker 1998, Rozin et al 1997, Santos and Booth 1996, association with patriarchy (Adams 1990), food beliefs and peer or family influences (Lea and Worsley 2001, 128) are also noted. Health vegetarians choose to avoid meat in order to derive certain health benefits or lose weight (Key et al 2006, Kim and Houser 1999, Wilson et al 2004, while ethical vegetarians consider meat avoidance as a moral imperative not to harm animals for food or other reasons (Fessler et al 2003, 31, Whorton 1994.…”

Section: Studies Of Vegetarians Have Identified a Variety Of Non-relimentioning

confidence: 99%

Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative study explored the motivations of vegetarians by means of online ethnographic research with participants in an international message board. The researcher participated in discussions on the board, gathered responses to questions from 33 participants, and conducted follow-up e-mail interviews with eighteen of these participants. Respondents were predominantly from the US, Canada and the UK. Seventy per cent were female, and ages ranged from 14 to 53, with a median of 26 years. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. While this research found that health and the ethical treatment of animals were the main motivators for participants' vegetarianism, participants reported a range of commitments to environmental concerns, although in only one case was environmentalism a primary motivator for becoming a vegetarian. The data indicates that vegetarians may follow a trajectory, in which initial motivations are augmented over time by other reasons for sustaining or further restricting their diet.

show abstract

Section: Studies Of Vegetarians Have Identified a Variety Of Non-relimentioning

confidence: 99%

Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moral vegetarians frequently report a history of highly charged encounters with such normally muted meat-related cues prior to 'turning vegetarian', and there are hints that the road to moral vegetarianism may often begin with a disgust response to specific features of meat (cf. Beardsworth & Keil, 1992;Jabs et al, 1998;Janda & Trocchia, 2001;Kubberod, Ueland, Tronstad, & Risvik, 2002;Santos & Booth, 1996;Ritson, cited in Simoons, 1994, 11). For example, despite the fact that the logic of moral vegetarianism applies equally to the consumption of any sort of flesh, in Western populations meat avoidance often begins with red meat (typically beef), then progresses to other meats (Kenyon & Barker, 1998;Santos & Booth, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Blood is a powerful stimulus, and the avoidance of red meat frequently stems from revulsion at the presence of blood (Kenyon & Barker, 1998;Santos & Booth, 1996)indeed, even those who eat red meat may be disgusted by bloody meat (Beardsworth & Keil, 1992;Chagnon, 1997, 101, 102;Fiddes 1991, 89, 90;Kenyon & Barker, 1998;Kubberod et al, 2002;Twigg, 1979;Santos & Booth, 1996). Pork, poultry, and fish only appear white once the blood has been drained from the tissue, a transformation that artificially alters the meat's evocative power.…”

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

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

“…During the 1990s the reason for being vegetarian appears to have shifted towards ethical concerns 5,6,8,16,20 . In the present study vegetarianism among adolescents was seen to be more than three times as common in Umea Ê than in Stockholm and Bergen.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food habits of young Swedish and Norwegian vegetarians and omnivores

Larsson

Klock

Åstrøm

et al. 2001

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the prevalence of vegetarianism and compare food habits among vegetarian and omnivorous adolescents in Sweden and Norway. Design: Cross-sectional study by questionnaire in Sweden and Norway to gather information about food habits. Setting: The municipalities of Umea Ê and Stockholm in Sweden, and Bergen in Norway. Subjects: In total 2041 ninth-grade students (578 from Umea Ê, 504 from Stockholm and 959 from Bergen), mean age 15.5 years, were included. The response rate was 95% in Umea Ê, 91% in Stockholm and 83% in Bergen.Results: There was a significantly higher prevalence of vegetarianism in Umea Ê (15.6%) than in Stockholm (4.8%) and Bergen (3.8%). Vegetarians generally wanted more information about a healthy diet and vegetarian females ate dietary supplements to prevent deficiencies more often than omnivorous females P , 0X01 X The young male vegetarians more or less excluded animal products from their diet without changing their food frequency intake or modifying their dietary habits in other respects, while the young female vegetarians more often consumed vegetables and dietary supplements P , 0X05 X However, there was no difference between the intake of fruits/berries, alcoholic beverages, ice cream, sweets/chocolates and fast foods by vegetarians compared with omnivores. Conclusions: There were three to four times more vegetarians in Umea Ê than in Stockholm and Bergen. The food habits of the young vegetarians differed from those of omnivorous adolescents and also in some respects from previously published comparative studies of vegetarians' and omnivores' food habits. It is uncertain whether the health benefits shown in previous studies on vegetarianism will be experienced by this young generation of vegetarians.

show abstract

Influences on Meat Avoidance Among British Students

Cited by 115 publications

References 9 publications

Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations

Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations

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

Food habits of young Swedish and Norwegian vegetarians and omnivores

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About