Omnivores and Vegetarians Think Alike About Taste, Familiarity, and Price of Meat and Meat Analogs

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The overconsumption of animal-derived proteins represents a threat to both the environment and our health. Although there is widespread agreement that reducing meat consumption represents a more sustainable alternative, few studies have explored the implicit relations guiding these food choices. This empirical study explores meat consumption and vegetarianism through the lens of Relational Frame Theory. It is hypothesized that people who eat meat have different relational responses to images of meat and plant-based alternatives than vegetarians. METHODS: We used the Implicit Attribute Classification Task (IMPACT) to measure relational responses, testing whether omnivores find plant-based proteins (1) less tasty, (2) less familiar, and (3) more expensive than vegetarians do. We registered the response latencies and calculated D-scores from 110 participants who completed an online test. RESULTS: The study failed to find any statistically significant differences in the IMPACT measures between omnivores and vegetarians, given our specific participants and stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: Relational responding measures offer a useful approach to understanding consumer choices. However, they are highly sensitive to the task parameters and could be enhanced by further integration with other consumer behavior models when explaining meat consumption.