Anti-Intellectualism and the Rejection of Information in the Context of Eating Meat

This study will test whether anti-intellectualism moderates the acceptance of information indicating that meat is not necessary for health. Participants will be randomly assigned to read a position statement from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, one discussing evidence supporting the claim that meat is unnecessary for health and another discussing evidence indicating the importance of micronutrients. Participants will then complete the “4N” scale, a measure of how much people justify eating meat in four domains, that meat is necessary, natural, normal, and nice. We predict that participants will report that meat is less necessary when they read evidence from an expert source defending this position. We also expect participants to report that eating meat is less natural, normal and nice (i.e., they will be less likely to justify meat consumption overall). However, we also predict that anti-intellectualism will moderate these effects, such that as anti-intellectualism increases, participants will be less likely to endorse the belief that meat is necessary, natural, normal, and nice when they read from an expert source that meat is not necessary compared to the control condition.