Personality and meat consumption: The importance of differentiating between type of meat

Pfeiler, Tamara M.; Egloff, Boris

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.007

Cited by 34 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature on the relationship between personality and preference and choice of meat is quite limited: high levels of openness to experience (which characterizes curious, imaginative and openminded people who like new ideas) were associated with lower meat consumption in a large study in Germany [41]. In addition, studies supported that this relationship depends on meat types: openness was negatively associated with red meat consumption, whereas it was unrelated to poultry consumption and overall meat consumption; by contrast, extraversion was associated with higher consumption of each individual type of meat and more overall meat consumption [42].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Gender Differences in Fat-Rich Meat Choice: Influence of Personality and Attitudes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The innate liking of fats may be due to one or more orosensory, post-ingestive, and metabolic signals; however, individuals differ in their preference for fat in meat. One of the variables that mainly impacts eating behaviors and thus should be carefully analyzed is sex/gender, and while sex (female/male, in a binary approximation) refers only to biological characteristics, gender (woman/man, in a binary approximation) refers to cultural attitudes and behavior. This study aimed at exploring the role of gender, age, taste responsiveness (measured as sensitivity to the bitterness of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP)), personality traits, attitudes, and liking of and familiarity with meat on the choice of fat-rich meat products in 1208 women and men aged 18–66. Both a between- and a within-gender approach were adopted. Results showed that gender had a major impact on liking of and familiarity with meat and choice for fat-rich meat compared to age. A lower liking meat in general was found in women, independently of fat content. Women also reported a lower familiarity than men with fatty meat and cold meat and a lower choice of fat-rich meat. Genders differed in the influence of personality and attitudes about fat-rich meat choice. In both genders, the choice of meat higher in fat was associated with liking cold and fatty meat and with age and negatively with liking low-fat meat. Women were in general more interested in health than men, and this may explain the main difference in the choice of fat-rich meat between genders. However, when we look at each gender separately, general health interest was significantly correlated with a lower choice of fat-rich meat only in men. In addition, in men food neophobia was negatively correlated with choice of fat-rich meat. In women, the emotional dimension was found to play an important role, with sensitivity to disgust that was negatively associated with fat-rich meat choice and emotional eating that was positively associated with it. Thanks to the large sample and the gender-sensitive approach adopted, this study showed that different factors affect choice of fat-rich meat by gender, in addition to liking of and familiarity with fat-rich and cold meat and age. This suggests that strategies personalized by gender to reinforce or activate barriers to this type of consumption may be more effective at reducing fat intake, promoting the consumption of meat lower in fat.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Gender Differences in Fat-Rich Meat Choice: Influence of Personality and Attitudes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, a predisposition to avoid unusual foods is based on instinctual neophobia [ 19 ], which has been socially constructed and filtered through the consumers’ system of values [ 20 ]. This could play a major role with regards to protein consumption, where an aversion to alternative proteins could constitute a major impediment for replacing meat for another substitute because of the consumer’s values, dietary habits, and preferences [ 21 ]. This is not unlike when plant-based proteins were first introduced into people’s diets more widely [ 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine hypotheses were tested ( Figure 1 ). The consumers’ attitudes towards the importance of meat taste, texture, smell, and the nutritional importance of meat were expected to be negatively influenced by their perception of meat-alternative suitability and benefits [ 19 , 21 ]. Suitability and benefits were defined as a combination of sensory benefits, nutritional importance, environmental impact, and health influence that was unique to the meat substitute in question.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins

Koning

Dean

Vriesekoop

et al. 2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insects as an alternative protein source has gained traction for its advantageous environmental impact. Despite being part of many traditional food cultures, insects remain a novelty in Western cultures and a challenging concept for many. Even though plant-based protein alternatives are not facing the same barriers, product unfamiliarity and limited exposure hinder adoption, which could be detrimental to growth within the food sector. This study is aimed at evaluating plant- and insect-based proteins as alternative dietary proteins. A model indicating the drivers of consumer attitudes towards meat-alternative proteins and consumer willingness to try, buy, and pay a premium was tested. Further, 3091 responses were collected using surveys in nine countries: China, USA, France, UK, New Zealand, Netherlands, Brazil, Spain, and the Dominican Republic. Structural Equation Modelling was used to analyze the data. We found that consumer’s behavioral intentions towards both plant-based and insect-based alternatives are inhibited by food neophobia but to an extent, are amplified by the perceived suitability and benefits of the protein, which in turn are driven by nutritional importance, environmental impact, healthiness, and sensory attributes for both alternatives. The expectation of the nutritional value of meat is the strongest (negative) influence on perceived suitability/benefits of plant-based protein and willingness to try, buy, and pay more for plant-based proteins, but it only has a relatively small impact on the suitability/benefits of insect-based protein and no impact on willingness to try, buy, and pay more for insect-based proteins. Overall, we conclude that consumer adoption towards meat alternatives is complex and is strengthened by the perceived suitability/benefits of the protein and general importance of perceived food healthiness and sustainability. Conversely, adoption is hindered by dietary factors and the experiential importance of meat and food neophobia.

show abstract

“…A large literature exists documenting the course, correlates, etiology, and implications of the big five personality traits neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (John & Srivastava, 1999;Widiger & Trull, 2007). This research includes some mixed findings suggesting that the traits agreeableness and openness to experience may be associated with a vegetarian diet (Furnham, McManus, & Scott, 2003;Mathews & Herzog, 1997;Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018a, 2018b. However, no research has identified big five correlates of different rationalizations for eating meat.…”

Section: Personality Traits and Rationalizations For Eating Meatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological profiles of people who justify eating meat as natural, necessary, normal, or nice

Hopwood

Bleidorn

2019

Food Quality and Preference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research suggests that people tend to use one of four rationalizations to justify eating meat despite its empirically established negative consequences for both personal and societal wellbeing: the beliefs that meat is natural, necessary, normal, or nice. The goal of this study was to better understand what kind of people would tend to use these different rationalizations in terms of their personality traits, values, and motivations for plant-based eating. Results suggest specific psychological profiles for each of the four meat-eating rationalizations. These profiles may be useful for behavior change advocacy and for furthering the basic science of individual differences underlying food preferences and choices. Suggestions for future research that builds upon these initial findings are highlighted.

show abstract

Personality and meat consumption: The importance of differentiating between type of meat

Cited by 34 publications

References 44 publications

Gender Differences in Fat-Rich Meat Choice: Influence of Personality and Attitudes

Gender Differences in Fat-Rich Meat Choice: Influence of Personality and Attitudes

Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins

Psychological profiles of people who justify eating meat as natural, necessary, normal, or nice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About