Psychological barriers for sustainable diets: Unpacking intention-behavior gaps in meat consumption

IF 4.9 1区 农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Noah Linder , Therse Lindahl , Nanda Wijermans
{"title":"Psychological barriers for sustainable diets: Unpacking intention-behavior gaps in meat consumption","authors":"Noah Linder ,&nbsp;Therse Lindahl ,&nbsp;Nanda Wijermans","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Promoting a shift away from meat consumption towards an increased share of plant-based alternatives is a promising strategy for addressing environmental challenges while also improving population health. Many consumers already express a strong interest in adopting more sustainable and healthy diets, however, empirical evidence suggests that there is only a weak link between these intentions and actual dietary changes. To unpack this intention-behavior gap this study explores three research questions 1) What factors explain intentions to reduce meat consumption among meat eaters? 2) How much meat do individuals with reduction intentions consume, compared to those without such intentions? and 3) Among participants with reduction intentions — what factors drive their continued meat consumption? To answer these questions, we developed a survey and recruited a nationally representative sample of Swedish consumers (<em>n</em> = 998). A backwards stepwise regression, including 14 theoretically informed variables, revealed that attitudes— towards meat (β = −0.32) and plant-based proteins (β = 0.35) both — were the strongest predictors of intentions to reduce meat consumption. Individual factors like environmental self-identity (β = 0.13) and gender (β = 0.08) played smaller but meaningful roles as did practical considerations such as the perceived convenience of cooking meat compared to plant-based foods (β = 0.09). Furthermore, although the result showed a significant difference in self-reported meat consumption between individuals with high stated intentions to reduce meat intake and those with low or no intention, the size of the difference was small only (d = 0.15), bordering negligible, reaffirming the suspected intention-behavior gap. Among those with intentions to lower their meat consumption, only two key variables emerged as driving continued meat eating — <em>meat purchasing habits (β = 0.33)</em> and a <em>positive attitude towards mea t(β = 0.17).</em> These results underscore the challenges of translating intentions into action and highlight how different variables are important for a) shaping intentions and b) driving these into actions. While intentions are a needed prerequisite for voluntary behavior change, they sometimes prove insufficient on their own, especially when the aim is to change behaviors heavily governed by habits. Practical implications suggest that focusing on breaking habits and fostering positive attitudes towards plant-based alternatives are key in bridging the gap between intentions and actual diet changes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"135 ","pages":"Article 105721"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329325002964","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Promoting a shift away from meat consumption towards an increased share of plant-based alternatives is a promising strategy for addressing environmental challenges while also improving population health. Many consumers already express a strong interest in adopting more sustainable and healthy diets, however, empirical evidence suggests that there is only a weak link between these intentions and actual dietary changes. To unpack this intention-behavior gap this study explores three research questions 1) What factors explain intentions to reduce meat consumption among meat eaters? 2) How much meat do individuals with reduction intentions consume, compared to those without such intentions? and 3) Among participants with reduction intentions — what factors drive their continued meat consumption? To answer these questions, we developed a survey and recruited a nationally representative sample of Swedish consumers (n = 998). A backwards stepwise regression, including 14 theoretically informed variables, revealed that attitudes— towards meat (β = −0.32) and plant-based proteins (β = 0.35) both — were the strongest predictors of intentions to reduce meat consumption. Individual factors like environmental self-identity (β = 0.13) and gender (β = 0.08) played smaller but meaningful roles as did practical considerations such as the perceived convenience of cooking meat compared to plant-based foods (β = 0.09). Furthermore, although the result showed a significant difference in self-reported meat consumption between individuals with high stated intentions to reduce meat intake and those with low or no intention, the size of the difference was small only (d = 0.15), bordering negligible, reaffirming the suspected intention-behavior gap. Among those with intentions to lower their meat consumption, only two key variables emerged as driving continued meat eating — meat purchasing habits (β = 0.33) and a positive attitude towards mea t(β = 0.17). These results underscore the challenges of translating intentions into action and highlight how different variables are important for a) shaping intentions and b) driving these into actions. While intentions are a needed prerequisite for voluntary behavior change, they sometimes prove insufficient on their own, especially when the aim is to change behaviors heavily governed by habits. Practical implications suggest that focusing on breaking habits and fostering positive attitudes towards plant-based alternatives are key in bridging the gap between intentions and actual diet changes.
可持续饮食的心理障碍:揭示肉类消费的意图-行为差距
促进从肉类消费转向增加植物性替代品的份额,是解决环境挑战同时改善人口健康的一项有希望的战略。许多消费者已经表达了对采用更可持续和健康饮食的强烈兴趣,然而,经验证据表明,这些意图与实际的饮食变化之间只有微弱的联系。为了解开这个意图-行为的差距,本研究探讨了三个研究问题:1)什么因素解释了肉食者减少肉类消费的意图?2)有减量意向的个体与没有减量意向的个体相比,会消耗多少肉?3)有减量意向的参与者,是什么因素促使他们持续吃肉?为了回答这些问题,我们开展了一项调查,并招募了具有全国代表性的瑞典消费者样本(n = 998)。包括14个理论上知情变量的反向逐步回归显示,对肉类(β = - 0.32)和植物性蛋白质(β = 0.35)的态度是减少肉类消费意图的最强预测因子。个人因素,如环境自我认同(β = 0.13)和性别(β = 0.08)发挥了较小但有意义的作用,实际考虑因素,如与植物性食品相比,烹饪肉类的方便性(β = 0.09)。此外,尽管结果显示,在自我报告的肉类消费中,有高表达减少肉类摄入意图的个体与低表达减少肉类摄入意图的个体或没有表达减少肉类摄入意图的个体之间存在显著差异,但差异的大小仅很小(d = 0.15),接近可忽略不计,重申了怀疑的意图-行为差距。在有意减少肉类消费的人群中,只有两个关键变量是推动持续吃肉的因素——肉类购买习惯(β = 0.33)和对肉类的积极态度(β = 0.17)。这些结果强调了将意图转化为行动的挑战,并强调了不同的变量对于a)形成意图和b)将其转化为行动的重要性。虽然意图是自愿行为改变的必要先决条件,但它们本身有时被证明是不够的,特别是当目标是改变严重受习惯支配的行为时。实际意义表明,专注于打破习惯,培养对植物性替代品的积极态度,是弥合意图和实际饮食变化之间差距的关键。
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
Food Quality and Preference
Food Quality and Preference 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
15.10%
发文量
263
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.
×
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