Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: Using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare

Abstract

There are many different ways that people can express their support for the animals that exist in factory farms. This study draws on insights from the social identity approach, and adopts novel methods (latent profile analysis [LPA]) to examine the qualitatively different subgroups or profiles that comprise broader community positions on this issue. North American participants ( N = 578) completed measures of the frequency with which they engaged in 18 different animal welfare actions. LPA identified 3 meaningful profiles: ambivalent omnivores ( n = 410; people who occasionally limited their consumption of meat/animal products), a lifestyle activist group ( n = 134; limited their consumption of animal/meat products and engaged in political actions), and a vegetarian radical group ( n = 34; strictly limited their consumption of animal/meat products and engaged in both political and radical actions). Membership of the 3 populations was predicted by different balances of social identities (supporter of animal welfare, vegan/vegetarian, solidarity with animals), and markers of politicization and/or radicalization. Results reveal the utility of adopting person-centred methods to study political engagement and extremism generally, and highlight heterogeneity in the ways that people respond to the harms perpetrated against animals.

Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology

“…Furthermore, an interesting observation is that dietary/lifestyle choices beneficial for animals are entangled with the degree of support for and engagement in animal activism, with no profiles being characterized, for instance, by veganism without animal activism or by animal activism without animal-friendly lifestyle/dietary choices. More generally, Thomas and colleagues (2019) highlight the value of adopting a person-centered approach (using LPA) to study animal activism, revealing that a number of identity-based factors and efficacy beliefs play a central role in people’s dietary and lifestyle choices and their political engagement in support for animals, in line with findings from collective action research (e.g., Simon & Klandermans, 2001; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008).…”

“…Further advancing our understanding of support for animal welfare, vegetarianism, veganism, and the reduction of meat consumption, Thomas and colleagues (2019) draw on Social Identity Theory to identify distinct psychological profiles reflecting the different ways of expressing support for farm animals. Using Latent Profile Analysis on survey data collected in a North American community sample, the authors identified three meaningful profiles of people who vary in the extent to which they consume animal products and how actively they support different types of pro-animal activism.…”

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

“…This aggregation masks the different motives that actors have, for example, to promote the interests of their own groups in society, to affirm their own group's values and express its norms, or to change or affirm the existing power hierarchy (Chapman, Louis, & Masser, 2018;Osborne, Jost, Becker, Badaan, & Sibley, 2019). Some actors will have multiple motives and engage in multiple forms of action (see also Thomas, Bury, et al, 2019;Thomas, Rathmann, & McGarty, 2017).…”

The Dark Side of Morality – Neural Mechanisms Underpinning Moral Convictions and Support for Violence

“…Beyond the level of the self, moral convictions also dictate beliefs about what others ought to do. Ethical vegans, for instance, are rarely satisfied with the status quo, instead wishing to bring societal attitudes towards animal welfare in line with their own (Thomas et al 2019). When the morally convicted are confronted with societal attitudes out of sync with their moral values, some may find this sufficiently intolerable to justify violence against those who challenge their beliefs (Skitka 2010).…”