Individual differences in eating motives and environmental attitudes

被引:4
作者
Hopwood, Christopher J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Dept Psychol, Zurich, Switzerland
来源
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT | 2022年 / 8卷 / 01期
关键词
diet; vegetarian; motives; environment; sustainability; climate change; attitudes; CLIMATE-CHANGE; BEHAVIOR; VEGETARIAN; SCALE; DIETS; MEAT; CONSUMPTION; KNOWLEDGE; HEALTH; VALUES;
D O I
10.1080/27658511.2022.2121206
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Research shows that plant-based diets help reduce the impacts of climate change and that people who adopt plant-based diets tend to have more proenvironmental attitudes. However, recent work has highlighted that people can have very different reasons to eat meat or be vegetarian, opening up new opportunities to understand how eating motives intersect with attitudes about the environment. In this study, associations were examined between four motivations to eat meat (natural, necessary, normal, and nice), three motivations to be vegetarian (health, the environment, and animal rights), and seven environmental attitudes (knowledge, connectedness to nature, intrinsic, extrinsic and social motives for sustainable behavior, faith in growth, and biospherism) in a community sample from the US (N = 1,234). Distinct profiles of environmental attitude were found across different motivations to eat meat. Ethical motives to be vegetarian were more strongly related to proenvironmental attitudes than health motives. These results move beyond general associations between meat reduction and proenvironmental attitudes by showing that individual differences in dietary motivations have different implications for how individual think about and interact with the environment. Implications for future research are discussed.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 58 条
  • [1] Bleidorn W., 2021, J ENV PSYCHOL
  • [2] Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
    Chai, Bingli Clark
    van der Voort, Johannes Reidar
    Grofelnik, Kristina
    Eliasdottir, Helga Gudny
    Kloss, Ines
    Perez-Cueto, Federico J. A.
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2019, 11 (15)
  • [3] Davis N., 2013, Ecopsychology, V5, P92, DOI DOI 10.1089/ECO.2013.0016
  • [4] Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions
    de Groot, Judith M.
    Steg, Linda
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 30 (04) : 368 - 378
  • [5] ENCOURAGING ENVIRONMENTALLY APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR - THE ROLE OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
    DEYOUNG, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, 1985, 15 (04): : 281 - 292
  • [6] Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions
    Dietz, Thomas
    Gardner, Gerald T.
    Gilligan, Jonathan
    Stern, Paul C.
    Vandenbergh, Michael P.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2009, 106 (44) : 18452 - 18456
  • [7] Air quality-related health damages of food
    Domingo, Nina G. G.
    Balasubramanian, Srinidhi
    Thakrar, Sumil K.
    Clark, Michael A.
    Adams, Peter J.
    Marshall, Julian D.
    Muller, Nicholas Z.
    Pandis, Spyros N.
    Polasky, Stephen
    Robinson, Allen L.
    Tessum, Christopher W.
    Tilman, David
    Tschofen, Peter
    Hill, Jason D.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2021, 118 (20)
  • [8] What's your beef with vegetarians? Predicting anti-vegetarian prejudice from pro-beef attitudes across cultures
    Earle, Megan
    Hodson, Gordon
    [J]. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2017, 119 : 52 - 55
  • [9] Infectious Diseases and Meat Production
    Espinosa, Romain
    Tago, Damian
    Treich, Nicolas
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2020, 76 (04) : 1019 - 1044
  • [10] The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS)
    Everett, Jim A. C.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (12):