Associations between motivations for and against eating meat with four types of meat engagement

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Maxim Trenkenschuh , João Graça , Christopher J. Hopwood
{"title":"Associations between motivations for and against eating meat with four types of meat engagement","authors":"Maxim Trenkenschuh ,&nbsp;João Graça ,&nbsp;Christopher J. Hopwood","doi":"10.1016/j.appet.2025.108237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Because of its negative consequences for animal welfare, human health, and the environment, many individuals and institutions are interested in reducing meat consumption. To achieve this goal, it is important to understand the reasons people have both to eat meat (e.g., liking the taste) and to avoid it (e.g., environmental concerns), and how these reasons relate to meat engagement. However, existing research often examines motivations and outcomes in relative isolation, rather than linking different types of motivations to multiple forms of engagement. Here, we examined how general motivations (i.e., overarching tendencies to endorse multiple reasons for and against eating meat) and specific motivations (e.g., taste, environmental concern) relate to various forms of meat engagement – including meat consumption measured through a survey and daily food tracking over 21 days, dietary identity, preferences, and reduction goals – in a sample of <em>N</em> = 4447 Swiss residents. General motivations to avoid meat were associated with lower meat engagement, whereas general motivations to eat meat were associated with higher meat engagement, with the latter effect being stronger. Furthermore, specific motivations were related to specific kinds of engagement. For example, taste was closely related to meat preference, disgust predicted lower identity and consumption, and environmental concern was more strongly linked to reduction goals. These findings suggest that general and specific motivations contribute in distinct ways to how people eat, relate to, and set goals around meat. This highlights the importance of understanding meat-related motivations across target groups to influence dietary attitudes and behavior.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":242,"journal":{"name":"Appetite","volume":"215 ","pages":"Article 108237"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appetite","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666325003903","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Because of its negative consequences for animal welfare, human health, and the environment, many individuals and institutions are interested in reducing meat consumption. To achieve this goal, it is important to understand the reasons people have both to eat meat (e.g., liking the taste) and to avoid it (e.g., environmental concerns), and how these reasons relate to meat engagement. However, existing research often examines motivations and outcomes in relative isolation, rather than linking different types of motivations to multiple forms of engagement. Here, we examined how general motivations (i.e., overarching tendencies to endorse multiple reasons for and against eating meat) and specific motivations (e.g., taste, environmental concern) relate to various forms of meat engagement – including meat consumption measured through a survey and daily food tracking over 21 days, dietary identity, preferences, and reduction goals – in a sample of N = 4447 Swiss residents. General motivations to avoid meat were associated with lower meat engagement, whereas general motivations to eat meat were associated with higher meat engagement, with the latter effect being stronger. Furthermore, specific motivations were related to specific kinds of engagement. For example, taste was closely related to meat preference, disgust predicted lower identity and consumption, and environmental concern was more strongly linked to reduction goals. These findings suggest that general and specific motivations contribute in distinct ways to how people eat, relate to, and set goals around meat. This highlights the importance of understanding meat-related motivations across target groups to influence dietary attitudes and behavior.
吃肉的动机与反对吃肉的动机之间的联系与四种类型的肉类接触。
由于它对动物福利、人类健康和环境的负面影响,许多个人和机构都对减少肉类消费感兴趣。为了实现这一目标,重要的是要了解人们吃肉的原因(例如,喜欢它的味道)和不吃肉的原因(例如,环境问题),以及这些原因如何与肉类的参与联系起来。然而,现有的研究往往是相对孤立地考察动机和结果,而不是将不同类型的动机与多种形式的参与联系起来。在这里,我们以4447名瑞士居民为样本,研究了一般动机(即,支持多种吃肉和不吃肉的原因的总体倾向)和具体动机(例如,味道,环境问题)与各种形式的肉类参与(包括通过调查和超过21天的日常食物跟踪测量的肉类消费,饮食认同,偏好和减少目标)之间的关系。不吃肉的一般动机与较低的肉类参与度相关,而吃肉的一般动机与较高的肉类参与度相关,后者的影响更强。此外,特定动机与特定类型的粘性有关。例如,味道与肉类偏好密切相关,厌恶预示着较低的身份和消费,环境问题与减少目标更紧密相关。这些发现表明,一般动机和特定动机以不同的方式影响人们如何食用肉类、与肉类相关以及如何设定肉类目标。这突出了了解目标群体中与肉类相关的动机对影响饮食态度和行为的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Appetite
Appetite 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
566
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Appetite is an international research journal specializing in cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks. It covers normal and disordered eating and drinking and welcomes studies of both human and non-human animal behaviour toward food. Appetite publishes research reports, reviews and commentaries. Thematic special issues appear regularly. From time to time the journal carries abstracts from professional meetings. Submissions to Appetite are expected to be based primarily on observations directly related to the selection and intake of foods and drinks; papers that are primarily focused on topics such as nutrition or obesity will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution to the understanding of appetite in line with the journal's aims and scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信