Measuring the rejection of meat alternatives: Development and validation of a new scale

Abstract

Despite the potential benefits of meat alternatives for the environment and animal welfare, public skepticism remains. This study presents the development and validation of the Meat Alternatives Rejection (MAR) scale. After a pilot study (N = 510) refined the scale from fourteen to ten items, it was validated in a Swiss online survey (N = 1951) through four steps. First, exploratory factor analysis confirmed a one-factor structure with high factor loadings (0.63 to 0.80) and strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). Second, convergent validity was supported by Pearson correlations with related variables, along with Average Variance Extracted (AVE = 0.525) and Composite Reliability (CR = 0.917). Third, discriminant validity was explored using a Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of 0.634, indicating that the MAR scale measures a distinct construct. Lastly, MAR’s predictive validity was tested using two regression models: Model 1 (logistic regression) predicted the likelihood of being a meat alternative consumer versus nonconsumer, and Model 2 (two-step linear regression) predicted support for meat alternative marketing restrictions. In both models, the inclusion of MAR significantly improved the explained variance (Model 1: W=83.82, p < 0.001; Model 2: F(1, 1945) = 598.1, p < 0.001), with MAR outperforming other predictors (age, gender, education, meat attachment, and eco-knowledge). Overall, MAR is a robust and reliable tool for measuring consumers’ rejection of meat alternatives, demonstrating factorial, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. This new scale can help advance our understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying the shift toward a more plant-based diet.