The meat industry is a leading cause of climate change in the Western world, and while reducing meat consumption has often been studied as a health behavior, it is equally important to understand its significance as a pro-environmental behavior. In a national sample of the United Kingdom (N = 737, Time 1, N = 468, Time 2) we sought to evaluate to what extent the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is an effective model for understanding people's intentions to reduce their meat consumption. Overall, we find that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control explain 57% of the variation in intentions to reduce meat consumption. In turn, past behavior and intention explain 31% of the variance in self-reported meat consumption behavior four weeks later. Somewhat surprisingly, habit did not have any predictive utility over and above the TPB constructs. The effectiveness of the TPB and implications for devising pro-environmental interventions are discussed.

Perceptions of social norms around eating behavior can influence food choices. Communicating information about how others are changing their eating behavior over time (dynamic descriptive social norms) may motivate individuals to change their own food selection and consumption. Following a four-week baseline period, 22 instore restaurants of a major retail chain across the UK were randomized to display a dynamic descriptive social norm message intended to motivate a shift from meat-to plant-based meals either during the first two, or last two weeks of the four-week study period. A linear regression model showed there was no evidence of an effect of the intervention (β = -0.022, p = .978, 95% CIs: − 1.63, 1.58) on the percentage sales of meat-vs plant-based dishes. Fidelity checks indicated that adherence to the intervention procedure was often low, with inconsistencies in the placement and display of the intervention message. In four stores with high fidelity the estimated impact of the intervention was not materially different. The lack of apparent effectiveness of the intervention may reflect poor efficacy of the intervention or limitations in its implementation in a complex food purchasing environment. The challenges highlighted by this study should be considered in future design and evaluation of field trials in realworld settings.

Referent groups can moderate the perception of social norms and individuals’ likelihood to model these norms in food choice contexts, including vegetable intake and reduced meat consumption. The present study investigated whether having a close vs. a distant social group as the referent changed perceptions of social norms around making healthy and eco-friendly food choices. It also assessed whether these changes were associated with a difference in the health and environmental impacts of food choice in a virtual grocery shopping task. A nationally representative sample of UK adults (N = 2,488) reported their perceptions of making healthy and eco-friendly food choices being the norm among people they share meals with (close referent group) and most people in the UK (distant referent group). The former was more commonly perceived to be making both healthy (Z = −12.0, p < 0.001) and eco-friendly (Z = −13.27, p < 0.001) food choices than the latter. Perceptions of norms referring to the close group were significantly associated with the environmental (β = −0.90, 95% CIs: −1.49, −0.28) and health (β = −0.38 p < 0.05, 95% CIs: −0.68, −0.08) impacts of participants’ food choices in a virtual shopping task. No such relationship was found for norms referring to the distant group for both environmental (β =0.43, p > 0.05, 95% CIs: −1.12, 0.25) and health (β = −0.06, p > 0.05, 95% CIs: −0.37, 0.25) impacts. Framing social norms around making healthy and eco-friendly food choices to refer to a close referent group may change their perceptions and ability to encourage sustainable and healthy food purchasing.