What Makes Diets Political? Moral Foundations and the Left-Wing-Vegan Connection

Abstract

Though meat-consumption is known to be a key factor in environmental damage, veganism and vegetarianism are still perceived to be left-wing-phenomena, ironically not penetrating to those who hold ideologies of conservation. Logical contradictions and historical counter-examples cast doubt on a substantive connection between political orientation and meat-eating. Instead, common psychological factors may predispose people toward both: left vs. right-wing political orientation and self-restrictive vs. omnivore eating preferences. Moral foundations have been shown to explain why even seemingly contradictory issue stances are brought forward in the context of the same ideological or political orientation. Here, we expand on these findings by showing the moral foundations to connect political orientation and vegan and vegetarian eating preferences as well as specific strategies of meat-eating justification in a large German sample. Specifically, the binding foundations authority and purity as well as avoidance tendencies are shown to differentially interact with meat-eating across the political spectrum with stronger effects for left-wing adherents and centrists than for the right-wing. Mediation analyses reveal that substantive parts of the association between political orientation and self-restriction in eating are attributable to differences in the moral makeup of left- and right-wing adherents. Connecting our results to prior work on the explanatory power of moral foundations for the political polarization of environmentalism, we discuss how our results may inform inter-ideologically appealing communications of reducing meat consumption, which is a worthwhile and necessary goal for mitigating climate change.

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

“…Concerning moral identity, we acknowledge that people’s conceptions of what is “moral” may vary considerably, depending on various cooperative relationships ( Curry et al, 2019 ), the endorsement of conventional values (i.e., authority, loyalty, purity) ( Graham et al, 2013 ) and divine authority ( Simpson et al, 2016 ). Although some research suggests that moral identity ( Dawson et al, 2021 ) and moral judgment processes can be largely attributed to concerns about (intentional, unjustified) harms ( Schein and Gray, 2015 , 2018 ; Sousa et al, 2021 ), different moral paradigms may affect how people respond to veg*n advocacy (e.g., Grünhage and Reuter, 2021 ). Similarly, omnivores may vary considerably in how they construe their carnist identity, depending on the individual, culture, and the particular context in which it is cued ( Turner and Reynolds, 2010 ; Oyserman, 2015 ).…”

“…Other reviews discussed meat reduction or plant-based diets/ alternatives within the context of health promotion (Corrin and Papadopoulos, 2017;Bryant, 2022), pro-environmentalism (Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017;Bryant, 2022) and animal protection (Mathur et al, 2021). In addition, various theories have been applied to examine meat-eating (Povey et al, 2001;Graça et al, 2016;Grünhage and Reuter, 2021), including cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962) to gain insight in the meat paradox ("how can people care about animals, but also eat them?") (Loughnan et al, 2014;Lin-Schilstra and Fischer, 2020) and the psychology of meat-eating as a morally questionable and dissonance-arousing activity (Bastian and Loughnan, 2017;Rothgerber, 2020).…”

“…The most common reasons for eating meat include taste, habit, upbringing, convenience (e.g., socially, practically, financially), and perceived health of eating meat (Povey et al, 2001;Mullee et al, 2017;Lacroix and Gifford, 2019). Compared to veg*ns, omnivores are moderately more likely to endorse conventional values that bind groups together, including power/authority, loyalty and purity (Graham et al, 2013;Grünhage and Reuter, 2021;Holler et al, 2021).…”

“…SDO) environments ( Jost et al, 2003 ; Sibley and Duckitt, 2013 ) and that animal-product consumption remains widespread, liberals may resemble conservatives in their resistance to advocacy and dietary change. Nevertheless, liberals generally feel less threatened by veg*ns ( MacInnis and Hodson, 2017 ) and liberals and centrists who eat more meat may be more likely to exhibit motivated ignorance (avoidance, dissociation and dichotomization; Grünhage & Reuter, 2021 ). A lower meat consumption and veg*nism has been associated with a higher endorsement of universal values, empathy and openness ( Keller and Siegrist, 2015 ; Holler et al, 2021 ), which oppose SDO and RWA ( Sibley and Duckitt, 2013 ).…”

“…Other reviews discussed meat reduction or plant-based diets/alternatives within the context of health promotion ( Corrin and Papadopoulos, 2017 ; Bryant, 2022 ), pro-environmentalism ( Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017 ; Bryant, 2022 ) and animal protection ( Mathur et al, 2021 ). In addition, various theories have been applied to examine meat-eating ( Povey et al, 2001 ; Graça et al, 2016 ; Grünhage and Reuter, 2021 ), including cognitive dissonance theory ( Festinger, 1962 ) to gain insight in the meat paradox (“how can people care about animals, but also eat them?”) ( Loughnan et al, 2014 ; Lin-Schilstra and Fischer, 2020 ) and the psychology of meat-eating as a morally questionable and dissonance-arousing activity ( Bastian and Loughnan, 2017 ; Rothgerber, 2020 ). This vast literature indicates that the promotion of meat reduction and veg*n dietary changes is held back by a complex and diverse set of barriers, involving both macro-level historical, economic, political, technological and societal barriers and micro-level psychological barriers concerning awareness and habitual behavior, conflicting goals and values, ambivalent feelings and moral disengagement ( Graça, 2016 ; Graça et al, 2019 ; Harguess et al, 2020 ).…”