2004
DOI: 10.1016/s0195-6663(03)00119-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ambivalence towards meat

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
125
0
6

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(163 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
14
125
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…More recently, Graça et al, (2015) found that positive attitude towards meat decreased intentions to reduce meat consumption, while a perception of behavioural control concerning changing meat consumption increased intentions to reduce meat consumption. The finding that affective attitude was more predictive than instrumental attitude was consistent with various studies, which found that the first was more effective in predicting various health behaviours (e.g., Conner, Godin, Sheeran, & Germain, 2013;Conner et al, 2015), and with evidence that meat consumption is related more strongly with affective attitude than a cognitive attitude (Aikman, Crites, & Fabrigar, 2006;Berndsen & Van der Pligt, 2004). The finding that subjective norm was not a significant predictor of intention is in accordance with previous studies, which found that subjective norm has a low or nonsignificant relationship to healthy eating (Blanchard et al, 2009;Louis, Chan, & Greenbaum, 2009) and particularly to a vegetarian diet (Povey et al, 2001), to the intention of substituting meat with a more plant-based diet (Graça, et al, 2015) or of reducing meat consumption (Zur & Klöckner, 2014;Zur, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…More recently, Graça et al, (2015) found that positive attitude towards meat decreased intentions to reduce meat consumption, while a perception of behavioural control concerning changing meat consumption increased intentions to reduce meat consumption. The finding that affective attitude was more predictive than instrumental attitude was consistent with various studies, which found that the first was more effective in predicting various health behaviours (e.g., Conner, Godin, Sheeran, & Germain, 2013;Conner et al, 2015), and with evidence that meat consumption is related more strongly with affective attitude than a cognitive attitude (Aikman, Crites, & Fabrigar, 2006;Berndsen & Van der Pligt, 2004). The finding that subjective norm was not a significant predictor of intention is in accordance with previous studies, which found that subjective norm has a low or nonsignificant relationship to healthy eating (Blanchard et al, 2009;Louis, Chan, & Greenbaum, 2009) and particularly to a vegetarian diet (Povey et al, 2001), to the intention of substituting meat with a more plant-based diet (Graça, et al, 2015) or of reducing meat consumption (Zur & Klöckner, 2014;Zur, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Allen and Baines (2002) reported a manipulation of the symbolic meaning of meat to increase intention to eat more fruit and vegetables and their consumption 3 weeks later. Berndsen and van der Pligt (2004) manipulated the relative impact of a cognitive versus affective focus when judging risks concerning the consumption of meat. They found that after 3 weeks, only participants in the affective condition compared with the control condition reported higher intentions to reduce meat intake and less consumption of meat over the past 3 weeks.…”
Section: Intervention For Reducing Meat Intakementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other factors especially the cultural aspects among some of the urban and rural households were observed to contribute to the acceptance of these products and in particular the consumption of pork. This supports other findings where variations in the culture and beliefs including health factors were identified to be some of the reasons contributing to consumption or avoidance of meat products [44,45]. Pork in particular is hardly consumed in the households as part of their daily diet in Kenya [29], except by a small group of high-income households [27].…”
Section: Implications Of Price and Expenditure Elasticities On Meat Csupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The expenditure allocation and participation rate for the IC meat is the highest among the meat products [44,45], whereas the expense on the Exotic chicken (EC) meat was the least. Beef (BF) and goat (GM) meat had a fair share within the remaining meat types.…”
Section: Descriptive Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, many Swiss consumers have concerns about the ethical justification of eating meat, although they are not able or willing to switch to a vegetarian or even vegan diet (Berndsen and van der Pligt 2004).…”
Section: More On Non-consumptionmentioning
confidence: 99%