Exploring when reducers and non-reducers eat red meat – a qualitative analysis of goals and situations

Abstract

Understanding people's experiences of red meat consumption can help inform efforts to encourage sustainable dietary shifts. In this paper, we analyse narratives from 228 people about a recent occasion when they ate red meat, using thematic analysis. The sample – recruited based on their responses to a prescreener survey from a representative group of 1492 UK respondents – included both reducers (n = 110) and non-reducers (n = 118), i.e., people with and without intentions to reduce their red meat consumption, respectively. Through the lens of goal framing theory, we explore the goals and situations cited by both groups in relation to the red meat consumption episode they described. This analysis highlights the strength of hedonic goals (aimed at feeling good in the moment) when it comes to meat consumption: meat is typically seen as a treat that tastes good and brings comfort to individuals in both groups. Additionally, the analysis indicates that hedonic motives to eat red meat often come into conflict with reducers' normative goals (to do the right thing), particularly those related to environmental and animal welfare concerns. These goal conflicts give rise to negative emotions such as guilt and disappointment among reducers, and also elicit justifications related to balance and social influence. Finally, reduced red meat consumption is also associated with some gain goals (e.g., promoting health and saving money) among non-reducers, but not all: the convenience and routine nature of red meat-based meals are highlighted by both groups. Taken together, these findings provide rich insights into the goals and situations associated with red meat consumption among individuals who intend to reduce their intake, compared to those who do not. These insights can help inform strategies aimed at curbing the overconsumption of red meat in both groups.