With the growth of plant-based diets and plant-based meat alternatives (and news coverage and advertising), do you think there’s the potential of social desirability bias in that meat eaters would report positive measures regarding a vegetarian diet? As I understand it, the participants are to respond true/false to the statements? We are primarily Paleo, but we also have 1-2 dinners a week that are vegetarian (for a variety of reasons). So couldn’t 100% say true/false that eating meat is unhealthy for me. How do you account that other motives besides health may be influencing which diet they pursue (e.g. religious or animal rights motives)?
(I’m fascinated by any research involving how consumers make food choices. I cook nearly all of our meals, read labels, love to try new recipes and try to keep up with nutrition from a layman’s perspective.)
Thank you for your question.
Regarding “other motives” influencing diet:
– The sentence in the poster is one of several so it isn’t always about health but also taste. Furthermore, each dimension had several sentences (e.g., for health – “I feel stronger after eating meat than after eating a plant-based meal” or for taste – “For me, eating vegetables is more enjoyable than eating meat”) which indeed this leads us to the second point
– The RRT currently only has these two dimensions of meat consumption (health and taste) which have been shown in the literature to be one of the key barriers to meat reduction and adoption of a greener diet. So as it stands other elements/motives influencing diet cannot be accounted for in our current setup
Regarding social desirability:
We implemented personalized sentences inspired by the work of Olson &Fazio* (2004) where with a personalized task (rendered by the usage of “I” and “For me”) the influence of social desirability was reduced.
Hope this helps.
* Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2004). Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: personalizing the IAT. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(5), 653.