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

Accepted Manuscript Personality and meat consumption: The importance of differentiating between type of meat Tamara M. Pfeiler, Boris Egloff PII:

S0195-6663(17)31836-6

DOI:

10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.007

Reference:

APPET 3954

To appear in:

Appetite

Received Date: 11 December 2017 Revised Date:

8 June 2018

Accepted Date: 4 July 2018

Please cite this article as: Pfeiler T.M. & Egloff B., Personality and meat consumption: The importance of differentiating between type of meat, Appetite (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.007. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION Abstract Recent research has shown that sociodemographic factors and the Big Five personality traits are related to people’s overall level of meat consumption. However, there are important differences

RI PT

among various types of meat (e.g., red meat, poultry, and fish) that might lead to differential patterns in how the consumption of specific types of meat is associated with personality and sociodemographic factors. To disentangle these general and specific relationships, we conducted

SC

two studies using two large-scale representative samples from different countries: Germany (N = 13,062) and Australia (N = 15,036). Mostly consistent with our expectations, personality and

M AN U

sociodemographic variables showed specific associations with meat consumption, depending on type of meat. For example, in both studies, openness was negatively associated with red meat consumption but positively related to fish consumption, whereas it was unrelated to poultry consumption and overall meat consumption in hierarchical regression analyses in which we

TE D

controlled for sociodemographic factors. By contrast, extraverted people reported both more consumption of each individual type of meat and more overall meat consumption. In sum, results were largely consistent between the samples, but effect sizes were generally small. Taken

EP

together, these two studies underscore the importance of differentiating between meat types when examining individual differences in meat consumption. Implications and future avenues for

AC C

investigating the link between personality and dietary habits are discussed.

Keywords: personality traits, meat consumption, different types of meat, representative samples; socio-demographic factors.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

RI PT

Running Head: PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

Personality and Meat Consumption:

SC

The Importance of Differentiating Between Type of Meat

Tamara M. Pfeiler and Boris Egloff

TE D

M AN U

Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

EP

Author Note

Correspondence should be addressed to: Tamara M. Pfeiler, Department of Psychology,

AC C

Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Binger Str. 14–16, 55099 Mainz, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

2

Most people all over the world eat meat, and meat is central to Western diets (HeinrichBöll-Stiftung, 2014; FAOSTAT, 2015). There is growing evidence, however, that current meat production and consumption have negative consequences on human health (Bellevia, Larsson,

RI PT

Bottai, Wolk, & Orsini, 2014; Bouvard et al., 2015; Micha, Wallace, & Mozaffarian, 2010), the environment (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; United Nations, 2006), and the animals raised for meat consumption (Joy, 2009; Regan, 1983; Singer, 1977). It is not surprising,

SC

then, that many see reducing overall meat consumption as a way to tackle these negative effects. Previous studies have suggested that in addition to attitudes toward meat consumption and

M AN U

animals (Dhont & Hodson, 2014; Piazza et al., 2015; Monteiro, Pfeiler, Patterson, & Milburn, 2017), personality traits and socio-demographic factors seem to play a role in whether or not, and how often, meat is consumed (e.g., Ashton, Smith, & Powles, 2013; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018a; 2018b).

TE D

Diet in general has been associated with socioeconomic factors such as sex, age, and educational level (e.g., Lea & Worsley, 2001; Gifford & Nilson, 2014). With respect to meat consumption in particular, recent studies have also shown significant relationships to sex, age,

EP

and education (for an overview Stoll-Kleemann & Schmidt, 2017). One of the strongest predictors of meat consumption is sex, with women consuming less meat than men (Pfeiler &

AC C

Egloff, 2018b; Stoll-Kleemann, 2014; Tobler, Visschers, & Siegrist, 2011). Men not only tend to eat more meat than women, but they also are less willing to consider reducing their meat consumption (Cordts, Spieller, Nitzko, Grethe, & Duman, 2013; Dibb & Fitzpatrick, 2014) and are less likely to self-identify as vegetarian or vegan (Allen, Wilson, Ng, & Dunne, 2000; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018a). There is also some evidence that younger people are more open to a vegetarian diet (Dibb & Fitzpatrick, 2014; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018a). At the same time, among meat eaters,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

3

younger individuals tend to eat more meat than older people (Asthon, Smith, & Powles, 2013; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b). Other studies have found that individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to follow a vegetarian diet (Cordts et al., 2013; Pfeiler & Egloff,

RI PT

2018a; Wiig & Smith, 2008) and consume less meat than people with lower levels of education (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b).

With respect to personality, the Big Five personality traits have been connected with

SC

eating choices and habits (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Brummet, Siegler, Day, & Costa, 2008; Mõttus, McNeill, Jia, Craig, Starr, & Deary, 2013; Mõttus, Realo, Allik, Deary, Esko, &

M AN U

Metspalu, 2012; Keller & Siegrist, 2015; Goldberg & Stryker, 2002). Mõttus et al. (2012, 2013) investigated meat consumption as part of a specific diet type, and reported that, diets that included meat were associated with lower scores in openness and higher scores in neuroticism after controlling for socio-demographic factors. To our knowledge, few studies have related the

TE D

Big Five personality traits to a direct assessment of frequency of meat consumption (e.g., Keller & Siegrist, 2015; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b), and in these studies, meat consumption was only analyzed as a single global item. Using a Swiss convenience sample, Keller and Siegrist (2015)

EP

assessed different types of meat consumption (e.g., beef, pork, meat products, and poultry), but reported only results regarding the relationships between an averaged scale of overall meat

AC C

consumption and personality. In their study, overall meat consumption was negatively associated with openness and agreeableness (Keller & Siegrist, 2015). Pfeiler and Egloff (2018b) investigated the personality correlates of a single-item assessment of overall meat consumption in two representative German samples (Study 1: “How often do you consume meat, fish, poultry or sausages?”; Study 2: “On how many days per week have you normally eaten meat, including poultry and various meat products such as sausages or cold cuts?”). The findings highlighted

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

4

that—after controlling for socio-demographic factors—meat consumption was negatively associated with openness and agreeableness in both studies, and negatively related with conscientiousness in Study 2 (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b). Taken together, these studies provided

RI PT

consistent evidence that personality is linked to meat consumption, with less open and less

agreeable individuals, in particular, consuming more meat than more open and more agreeable people (Keller & Siegrist, 2015; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b).

SC

Although previous studies have mainly investigated meat consumption via a single global question assessing overall meat consumption, there is reason to believe that differential

M AN U

correlational patterns with respect to type of meat may exist. This reasoning is based on the fact that there are strong and consistent differences between individuals in what type of meat they eat or do not eat: Strict vegetarians and vegans do not eat any meat, poultry, or fish (Ruby, 2012); others only eat white meat, and no red meat or processed meat (Krizmanic, 1992); while self-

TE D

identified pescatarians report that they eat only fish and seafood, but no other meat type (Piazza et al., 2015). There are marked differences between how red meat (e.g., originated from mammals like beef and pork) and white meat (e.g., originated from birds and fish like poultry

EP

and seafood) are often perceived: Red meat is more likely to trigger feelings of disgust than white meat (Kubberød, Ueland, Tronstad, & Risvik, 2002), especially for women (Kenyon &

AC C

Barker, 1998; Santos & Booth, 1996). Red meat is also often perceived as an archetypical masculine food (Adams, 1991; Rozin, Hormes, Faith, & Wansink, 2012) and is associated with both self-enhancing values (e.g., endorsement of inequality and hierarchy; Allen & Ng, 2003) and with a social dominance orientation (Allen et al., 2000; Rozin et al., 2012). One would therefore expect stronger sex differences in the consumption of red meat versus white meat. Moreover, red and processed meat both have a negative impact on health (Bellevia et al., 2014;

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

5

Bouvard et al., 2015; Micha et al., 2010), while white meat, and, especially, fish, is often perceived as healthy (Cliften & Tapsell, 2013). A study by Carfora and colleagues (2017a) has also reported that healthy eating identity has an impact on both one’s intention to eat red meat

consume more white meat and less red and processed meat. The Present Studies

RI PT

and on its actual consumption. One might therefore also expect health-oriented individuals to

SC

Past research has investigated the relationships between personality traits, sociodemographic factors, and meat consumption via a single overall measurement of meat

M AN U

consumption. In these studies, participants must therefore mentally average across different types of meat (e.g., red or processed meat, poultry, and fish), potentially obscuring the ways in which different types of meat may be related to socio-demographic factors or personality. The present studies therefore aimed at examining individual differences in the consumption of different types

TE D

of meat, while also replicating and extending previous findings regarding individual differences in overall meat consumption.

We anticipated a differential correlational pattern regarding the association between

EP

personality and the consumption of different types of meat. Specifically, we expected conscientiousness to be negatively correlated with red meat consumption, but positively

AC C

correlated with fish consumption, as conscientiousness has been linked to health-related behavior in general (Goldberg & Strycker, 2002; Malouff et al., 2007), while red meat is often seen as having a negative impact on health. We had no specific expectations with respect to the other four personality traits and their association to poultry or fish consumption. However, as a prior study (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b) found a negative association between overall meat consumption and openness, agreeableness (Study 1 and 2), and conscientiousness (Study 2), we anticipated

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

6

finding the same correlations between these personality traits and overall meat consumption in the present studies. With respect to socio-demographic factors, we expected to find sex differences in the

RI PT

consumption of red meat, but not in poultry or fish consumption, because red meat is associated with masculinity and power (e.g., Adams, 2000; Rozin et al., 2012). Regarding age and

educational level, there are—to our knowledge—no previous studies that have reported findings

SC

with respect to different types of meat. Previous studies, however, have reported that younger people and less educated individuals consume more meat overall (e.g., Lea & Worsley, 2001;

M AN U

Tobler et al., 2011). We therefore anticipated finding the same pattern in the present studies. These research questions were investigated in two large-scale and representative samples from Germany and Australia, respectively. This design allowed us to investigate the associations between personality traits, socio-demographic factors, and the consumption of different types of

TE D

meat in two representative samples, and to examine whether there are national differences between these correlational patterns.

Study 1: The German Socio-Economic-Panel (GSOEP)

EP

In Study 1, we examined the associations between personality, socio-demographic factors, and the consumption of different types of meat as in a large-scale representative German

AC C

sample.

Method

The data used in Study 1 were provided by the 2016 German Socio-Economic Panel

(GSOEP) of the German Institute for Economic Research (Wagner, Frick, & Schupp, 2007). The GSOEP-Core panel is a longitudinal representative survey of private households and persons in Germany that has been conducted since 1984.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

7

Participants. Study 1 comprised N = 13,062 individuals (53.61% female, 46.39% male) aged 21–102 years (M = 56.25, SD = 16.70) who answered all relevant questions. Measures. For socio-demographic variables, we analyzed age (in years), sex (0 = male, 1

RI PT

= female), and educational level as reported in 2015. Education was assessed at the individual level using multiple items, with categories based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-2011). These categories are: 0 = in school, 1 = primary education, 2 = lower

SC

secondary education, 3 = upper secondary education, 4 = post-secondary non-tertiary education, 5 = short-cycle tertiary education, 6 = Bachelors or equivalent level, 7 = Masters or equivalent

Operation and Development, 2011).

M AN U

level, and 8 = doctoral or equivalent level (for details, see Organization for Economic Co-

Meat consumption. Consumption of three different types of meat (meat, poultry, and fish) was measured by asking participants to indicate the frequency with which they had

TE D

consumed each of these types of meat during the past month (“How often do you eat meat, fish, or poultry?”). Each rating was given on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 2 = once a month or less frequently, 3 = two to four days a month, 4 = two to three days a week, 5 = four to six

EP

days a week, or 6 = every day) in the 2016 GSOEP. We also computed a variable overall meat consumption by averaging the three different types of meat consumption (α = .52).

AC C

Personality. The Big Five personality traits of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness, and emotional stability were measured using a 15-item German short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-S; Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005; see Hahn, Gottschling, & Spinath, 2012, for its validity) in the 2013 GSOEP. All five personality traits were measured using three items on a 7-point-type Likert scale that ranged from 1 (does not apply at all) to 7 (applies completely).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

8

Cronbach’s alpha for the Big Five personality traits were: Openness (α = .60), conscientiousness (α = .58), extraversion (α = .67), agreeableness (α = .48), and emotional stability (α = .63). Statistical Analyses

RI PT

First, zero-order correlations between socio-demographic variables, personality traits, and different types of meat consumption were calculated. Because sex, age, and education may have a confounding effect on the relationship between personality and meat consumption, we also

SC

computed partial correlations by controlling for these socio-demographic variables. To test

whether the Big Five personality traits explained unique variance in meat consumption, we

M AN U

conducted hierarchical regression analyses, with type of meat as the criterion, socio-demographic variables entered in the first step, and the Big Five traits entered in a second step. All statistical analyses were carried out in Stata version MP 13.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). Because of the high number of participants, multiple testing, and the exploratory nature of

TE D

the main analyses differentiating between various meat types, the significance level was set at p ≤ .001 (see also Benjamin et al., 2017; Lakens et al., 2017). Results and Discussion

EP

Meat consumption showed a mean of Mmeat = 4.13 (SD = 1.01), poultry consumption a mean of Mpoultry = 3.36 (SD = 0.99), and fish consumption a mean of Mfish = 3.05 (SD = 0.91).

AC C

Overall meat consumption showed a mean of Moverall = 3.52 (SD = 0.69). Meat consumption and poultry consumption were moderately correlated (r = .34, p < .001) as were poultry consumption and fish consumption (r = .30, p < .001). By contrast, meat consumption and fish consumption were only weakly associated with each other (r = .14, p < .001). Correlates of different types of meat consumption. As can be seen in Table 1, zeroorder correlations between socio-demographic variables, personality traits, and the three types of

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

9

meat consumption showed different correlational patterns. While sex was negatively correlated with meat consumption, it was unrelated to poultry and fish consumption; this resulted in a negative correlation with overall meat consumption. As expected, women consumed less meat,

RI PT

but not less poultry or fish as compared to men. Age was negatively associated with meat and poultry consumption, but positively associated with fish consumption; this resulted in a nonsignificant association with overall meat consumption. Thus, younger individuals reported eating

SC

more meat and poultry than older people, and older people consumed more fish than younger individuals. Educational level was negatively related to all meat types with the exception of fish,

M AN U

indicating that less educated people consume more meat and poultry than more educated people. With respect to personality traits, different correlational patterns emerged between personality and the consumption of meat, poultry, and fish: Openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were all negatively correlated with meat consumption; not significantly related to

TE D

poultry consumption; and positively associated with fish consumption. Extraversion was not significantly related to meat or fish consumption, but was positively associated with poultry consumption. Emotional stability was positively associated with meat consumption, but not

EP

correlated with either poultry or fish consumption. These correlational patterns for different types of meat resulted in a significant positive association between overall meat consumption

AC C

and extraversion and emotional stability, respectively, while openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were not significantly related to overall meat consumption. To test whether the significant correlations between individual differences and different

types of meat consumption held after controlling for socio-demographic variables, we conducted partial correlations (see Table 1). Partial correlations showed that openness was negatively associated with meat consumption, but positively related to fish consumption. Conscientiousness

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

10

was positively correlated with consuming fish, and higher scores in extraversion were related to higher poultry, fish, and overall meat consumption. We conclude that the relationship between extraversion and overall meat consumption was mainly driven by its relationship to consumption

RI PT

of poultry and fish; in contrast, openness was not related to overall meat consumption, because of its negative relationship with the consumption of meat, and its positive association with fish consumption. In sum, these analyses suggest different patterns of associations between

SC

individual difference variables and the consumption of meat, poultry, and fish, and demonstrate that these relationships could not have been detected by simply assessing overall meat

M AN U

consumption.

Hierarchical regressions. To test whether the Big Five personality traits explained unique variance in the different types of meat consumption, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 2). In the first step, socio-demographic variables accounted for significant

TE D

variance in meat consumption (F(3, 13058) = 233.94, p < .001, R∆² = .051), poultry consumption (F(3, 13058) = 117.10, p < .001; R∆² = .026), fish consumption (F(3, 13058) = 151.26, p < .001;

Footnote 1 (p. 10): As suggested by an anonymous reviewer, we also re-ran all analyses

AC C

1

EP

R∆² = .034), and overall meat consumption (F(3, 13058) = 79.57, p < .001, R∆² = .018). 1

involving the variable “education” without participants scoring 0 (“in school”) on this scale because, as this reviewer argued, the lowest point on the scale is not lower than all the others and breaks the ordinal pattern with increasing numbers referring to increasingly intensive and advanced degrees. However, as only N = 11 of 13,062 participants (= 0.08%) reported being “in school” (0), all results remained the same when excluding these 11 participants. We retained the original scale to be consistent with our previous studies and with other authors utilizing GSOEP data.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

11

Including the Big Five traits in the second step led to a significant increase in the explained variance of all meat types: meat consumption (F∆(5, 13053) = 12.63, p < .001, R∆² = .005), poultry consumption (F∆(5, 13053) = 7.23, p< .001, R∆² = .003), fish consumption (F∆(5,

RI PT

13053) = 14.90, p < .001, R∆² = .005), and overall meat consumption (F∆(5, 13053) = 6.01, p < .001, R∆² = .002). While openness was negatively related to meat consumption and positively related to fish consumption, extraversion had a positive relationship to meat, poultry, and overall

SC

meat consumption. The explained variance of the total model for meat consumption was R² =

consumption was R² = .020.

M AN U

.056, poultry consumption was R² = .029, and fish consumption was R² = .039; overall meat

The results of the hierarchical regression analyses were consistent with the results of the partial regression analyses for poultry and overall meat consumption. However, there were also some inconsistencies between the partial correlation and the hierarchical regression analyses: For

TE D

meat consumption, there was an additional effect of extraversion in the hierarchical regression analyses that was not significant in the partial regression analyses, while for fish consumption significant partial correlations with conscientiousness and extraversion were not significant in

EP

the hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 1 and 2). Taken together, these results highlight how personality and socio-demographic variables

AC C

explain unique variance in all types of meat consumption, with socio-demographic variables and personality explaining more variance in the consumption of different types of meat than if overall meat consumption had simply been measured. After controlling for socio-demographic variables and all personality traits, extraversion and openness seemed to have an especially marked impact on different types of meat consumption.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

12

Study 2: The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey In Study 2, we aimed to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1, and to investigate the correlational patterns between personality, socio-demographic factors, and different types of

RI PT

meat consumption in a large-scale representative sample from Australia. Method

The data used in the present study were provided by the Household, Income and Labour

SC

Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, a large, longitudinal, household-based panel study. The HILDA survey has been conducted since 2001 (Wooden, Freidin, & Watson, 2002), and data are

M AN U

close to nationally representative when compared to population estimates (see Watson & Wooden, 2012). The omnibus survey waves take place annually, and all data sets are matched via a unique identifier for each person. The present study used data collected in 2013 (Wave 13). Participants. The present study contained N = 15,036 individuals (46.72% male, 53.28%

questions.

TE D

female) with a mean age of 44.83 years (SD = 18.65) who provided answers to all relevant

Measures. As socio-demographic variables, we analyzed age (in years), sex (0 = male, 1

EP

= female), and educational level as reported in 2013. Education was assessed at the individual level using multiple categories based on the Australian Standard Classification of Education.

AC C

These categories are: 1 = undetermined, 2 = year 11 and below, 3 = year 12, 4 = Cert III or IV, 5 = Diploma, 6 = Bachelor or honors, 7 = Grad Diploma, grad certificate, 8 = Postgrad – masters or doctorate (for details, see Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001). Meat consumption. Meat consumption was measured by asking the participants to rate

the frequency of consuming with which they had consumed four different types of meat during the past month (“How often do you usually eat each of the following food types?”): “Red meat

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

13

(for example: beef, veal, lamb, pork, and dishes where meat is the major component). Do not include ham.”; “processed meat products, such as cold meats, bacon, sausages, and meat pies”; “poultry, such as chicken, turkey, and duck”, and “fresh/frozen/tinned fish or shellfish”. The

RI PT

ratings were given on an 8-point Likert-type scale from 1 = never, 2 = less than once a month, 3 = one to three times per month, 4 = once per week, 5 = two to four times a week, 6 = five to six times per week, 7 = once per day, and 8 = two or more times per day. Please note that, instead of

SC

offering a single measurement of meat consumption (as was the case in the original data used in Study 1), the consumption of red meat and processed meat products were separately assessed in

M AN U

Study 2. To compare the findings of Study 1 and Study 2, we therefore generated a meat consumption variable for Study 2 by averaging red meat and processed meat consumption (α = .61). As in Study 1, we also generated an overall meat consumption variable by averaging all types of meat consumption: meat, poultry, and fish consumption (α = .49).

TE D

Personality. Participants were asked questions about their personality traits based on a 36-item version of the Big Five Personality Inventory (Saucier, 1994). The survey organizers concluded that factor structure could be improved by focusing on a limited subset of 28 items

EP

(see also Wortmann, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012); we therefore used this subset of items for the analyses reported in the present study: Six items assessed the dimension of openness (assessing

AC C

whether respondents were deep, philosophical, creative, intellectual, complex, and imaginative; α = .74), six items conscientiousness (orderly, systematic, and efficient, or, reverse coded, inefficient, sloppy, and disorganized; α = .78), six items extraversion (talkative, lively, and extroverted, or, reverse-coded, bashful, quiet, and shy; α = .74), four items agreeableness (sympathetic, kind, cooperative, and warm; α = .77), and six items emotional stability (envious, moody, touchy, jealous, temperamental, and fretful, all reverse coded; α = .80). The higher the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

14

score, the better that personality character trait was assumed to describe the participant (1 = does not describe me at all, 7 = describes me very well). Statistical Analyses

RI PT

The statistical analysis followed the same procedure as in Study 1. Results and Discussion

In the HILDA 2013 panel, meat consumption showed a mean of Mmeat = 4.40 (SD =

SC

1.14), red meat consumption a mean of Mrm = 4.91 (SD = 1.29), the consumption of processed meat products showed a mean of Mpm = 3.89 (SD = 1.40), poultry consumption a mean of Mpoultry

M AN U

= 4.64 (SD = 1.18), and fish consumptions showed a mean of Mfish = 3.48 (SD = 1.47). Overall meat consumption showed a mean of Moverall = 4.17 (SD = 0.89). As in Study 1, meat consumption and poultry consumption were moderately correlated (r = .43, p < .001), as were poultry consumption and fish consumption (r = .23, p < .001). In contrast, meat consumption and

TE D

fish consumption were only weakly associated with each other (r = .11, p < .001). Correlates of different types of meat consumption. Zero-order correlations between socio-demographic variables, personality traits, and different types of meat consumption can be

EP

seen in Table 3. Socio-demographic variables and personality traits showed a similar correlational pattern with the different types of meat consumption as in Study 1. Sex was

AC C

negatively correlated with meat consumption (including red meat and processed meat), while it was unrelated to poultry and fish consumption. This resulted in a negative association between overall meat consumption and sex, with men consuming more meat than women. Age was negatively associated with the consumption of meat and poultry, but positively associated with fish consumption; this resulted in a negative relationship to overall meat consumption. Younger people consumed more meat (especially processed meat products) and poultry, but less fish, as

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

15

compared to older people. Educational level was negatively related to meat consumption (including red meat and processed meat), but not to poultry consumption, and positively

processed meat and less fish than more highly educated people.

RI PT

associated with fish consumption, indicating that less educated people consumed more red and

With respect to personality, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were all negatively correlated with meat consumption (including red meat and processed meat products),

SC

positively related to fish consumption, and unrelated to poultry consumption. Extraversion was positively related to poultry and fish consumption. Emotional stability was negatively associated

M AN U

with both meat consumption (especially processed meat products) and poultry consumption, and all five personality traits were positively associated with fish consumption. These different correlational patterns resulted in a significant positive correlation between overall meat consumption and both extraversion and openness, while conscientiousness, agreeableness, and

TE D

emotional stability were not significantly related to overall meat consumption. In the partial correlations, the different types of meat consumption showed differential correlational patterns with personality traits after controlling for socio-demographic variables

EP

(see Table 3). Overall meat consumption and poultry consumption were both positively related to extraversion, with poultry consumption showing an additional positive association with

AC C

agreeableness. Meat consumption (including red meat and processed meat products) was negatively related to openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, while fish consumption showed almost the opposite pattern in the partial correlations, with a positive correlation with openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion. As in Study 1, these correlational patterns highlight the specificity of magnitude and direction of associations among individual difference variables and meat, poultry, and fish

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

16

consumption. The Study 2 patterns in partial correlations were generally similar to those in Study 1. While meat consumption was negatively correlated with openness and agreeableness in both studies, it was, additionally, negatively associated with conscientiousness in Study 2 (including

RI PT

red and processed meat). Poultry consumption was positively associated with extraversion in both studies, but only positively associated with agreeableness in Study 2. Fish consumption and overall meat consumption showed identical correlational patterns in both studies.

SC

Hierarchical regressions. We then again conducted hierarchical regression analyses to test whether the Big Five personality traits explained unique variance in the different types of

M AN U

meat consumption (see Table 4). In the first step, socio-demographic variables accounted for significant variance in meat consumption (F(3, 15032) = 293.57 p < .001, R∆² = .055), red meat consumption (F(3, 15032) = 108.16, p < .001, R∆² = .021), processed meat consumption (F(3, 15032) = 360.83, p < .001, R∆² = .067), poultry consumption (F(3, 15032) = 175.20, p < .001,

TE D

R∆² = .034), fish consumption (F(3, 15,032) = 77.42, p < .001, R∆² = .015), and overall meat

Footnote 2: (p. 16): As suggested by an anonymous reviewer, we also re-ran all analyses

AC C

2

EP

consumption (F(3, 15032) = 60.86, p < .001, R∆² = .012).2

involving the variable “education” without participants scoring 1 (“undetermined”) on this scale because, as this reviewer argued, the lowest point on the scale is not lower than all the others and breaks the ordinal pattern with increasing numbers referring to increasingly intensive and advanced degrees. However, as only N = 9 of 15,036 participants (= 0.06%) reported being “undetermined” (1), all results remained the same when excluding these 9 participants. We retained the original scale to be consistent with our previous studies and with other authors utilizing HILDA data.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

17

Including the Big Five in the second step led to a significant increase in the explained variance of all meat types: overall meat consumption (F∆(5, 15027) = 13.12, p < .001, R∆² = .004), meat consumption (F∆(5, 15027) = 22.35, p < .001, R∆² = .007), red meat consumption

RI PT

(F∆(5, 15027) = 11.95, p < .001, R∆² = .004), processed meat consumption (F∆(5, 15027) =

30.62, p < .001, R∆² = .009), poultry consumption (F∆(5, 15027) = 11.10, p < .001, R∆² = .004), and fish consumption (F∆(5, 15027) = 24.62, p < .001, R∆² = .008). Openness was negatively

SC

related to meat consumption (including red meat and processed meat products), while it showed a positive association with fish consumption. Extraversion showed a positive relationship to all

M AN U

types of meat variables. Conscientiousness and emotional stability were both negatively associated with meat consumption (especially processed meat product consumption), while agreeableness showed only a positive relationship to poultry consumption. The explained variance of the total model of overall meat consumption was R² = .016, meat consumption was

TE D

R² = .062, red meat consumption was R² = .025, processed meat consumption was R² = .077, poultry consumption was R² = .037, and fish consumption was R² = .023. The results of the hierarchical regression analyses were consistent with the results of the

EP

partial regression analyses for red meat, poultry, and overall meat consumption. We also found some inconsistencies between the partial correlation and the hierarchical regression analyses: For

AC C

meat consumption, there was a significant effect of extraversion and no effect for agreeableness in the hierarchical regression analyses, while in the partial regression analyses extraversion was significantly related to meat consumption and agreeableness was not. The same pattern was also found for processed meat consumption. Finally, there was a significant association between conscientiousness and fish consumption in the partial correlations, while there was no effect for this personality trait in the hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 3 and 4).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

18

The findings of Study 2 showed that even after splitting overall meat consumption into meat, poultry, and fish consumption (as was done in Study 1), other meaningful distinctions between types of meat could be made. Red meat and processed meat consumption had different

RI PT

relationships to personality and socio-demographic characteristics. Men and those with lower educational attainment reported more consumption of red and processed meat, although age was also negatively associated with processed meat consumption. While red and processed meat

SC

consumption were both negatively associated with openness and positively associated with extraversion, processed meat consumption was also negatively correlated with both

M AN U

conscientiousness and emotional stability in the hierarchical regression analyses. These different correlational patterns might highlight how these two types of meat are perceived to have different health consequences, as processed meat products are often seen as unhealthy (see Bellevia et al., 2014).

TE D

As in Study 1, the results of the hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that sociodemographic variables and personality traits explain unique variance in all types of meat, with socio-demographic variables and personality traits explaining more variance of the different

EP

types of meat consumption than of overall meat consumption. Extraversion and openness demonstrated the same correlational pattern for the different types of meat consumption in both

AC C

studies, indicating validity despite national differences. In the Australian sample, however, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability all played roles in explaining variance in meat and poultry consumption, which was not the case in the German sample. General Discussion

In the two studies presented here we investigated the associations between personality traits and socio-demographic factors with the consumption of various meat types (e.g., meat,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

19

poultry, and fish), as well as with an overall measurement of meat consumption, thereby also replicating and extending previous findings with regard to an overall assessment of meat consumption. We examined these questions using representative data from two large-scale

RI PT

panels in Germany (GSOEP, Study 1) and Australia (HILDA, Study 2). This study design

allowed us to generalize findings specific to the German and Australian populations, and to compare not only the correlational patterns of different types of meat consumption, but also the

SC

findings of both studies.

The Importance of Differentiating Between Type of Meat Consumption

M AN U

Crucial differences between red meat (e.g., beef and pork) and white meat (e.g., poultry and fish) make compelling arguments as to why different patterns of consumption would be expected. First, red meat comes from mammals, while white meat comes from birds or fish. These different types of animals have vastly different degrees of phylogenetic relatedness to

TE D

humans, with phylogenetic relatedness associated with increased attribution of mind (Herzog & Galvin, 1997) and empathy (Ingham, Neumann & Waters, 2015). Moreover, the negative impact of meat consumption on health is mainly attributed to red meat (Bellevia et al., 2014; Bouvard et

EP

al., 2015; Micha et al., 2010), while white meat and, especially, fish is often perceived as a healthy food product (Cliften & Tapsell, 2013). We anticipated individual differences to be

AC C

particularly marked in the consumption of red meat and fish: Specifically, we expected conscientiousness to be negatively correlated with red meat consumption, but positively with fish consumption. With respect to socio-demographics, we expected sex differences in the consumption of red meat, but not in poultry or fish consumption. In sum, our findings highlighted that it is indeed very important to differentiate between types of meat consumption.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

20

Regarding socio-demographic variables, our findings demonstrated that, as expected, women reported less consumption of meat than men, but not more poultry or fish consumption (Study 1 and 2). In both studies, younger individuals reported consuming more meat and poultry,

RI PT

but less fish. Higher levels of education were negatively related to the consumption of meat (Study 1 and 2) and poultry (Study 1), but positively correlated with fish consumption (Study 2). Our results also demonstrated different correlational patterns for personality traits with

SC

different types of meat consumption. As expected, conscientiousness was negatively correlated with the consumption of red meat and processed meat products in Study 2, replicating previous

M AN U

findings that more conscientious individuals are more health-oriented in their food choices (Goldberg & Strycker, 2002). Furthermore, less open and less agreeable individuals reported consuming more meat compared to people with higher scores in openness and agreeableness, while agreeableness was also positively related to poultry consumption in Study 2. These

TE D

relationships between openness and agreeableness and meat intake were also found in a previous study that examined an overall assessment of meat consumption using two representative samples from Germany (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b). In the present two studies, more extraverted

EP

individuals also reported more consumption of poultry, although prior findings did not report any relationship between extraversion and meat consumption or food choices in general.

AC C

In the regression analyses, openness showed a unique negative association with meat

consumption, while it was positively associated with fish consumption (Study 1 and 2). In both studies, conscientiousness showed a unique negative relationship to meat consumption (especially processed meat products), while extraversion showed a unique positive association with all types of meat consumption in Study 2, and with meat and poultry consumption in Study 1. One possible explanation for this finding might be that more extraverted individuals eat out

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

21

more often, and that vegetarian fare is harder to get in restaurants. Finally, emotional stability showed a negative association with meat consumption in Study 1. Finally, one could argue that different meat types have different environmental impacts,

RI PT

and that red meat, especially, has a negative impact on the climate (Stehfest et al., 2009). Thus, environmental concern might only (or to a greater extent) predict reduced red meat consumption as compared to the consumption of other types of meat. Future studies should investigate how

SC

different motivations to reduce meat consumption are associated with the consumption of different types of meat.

M AN U

Taken together, we found consistent evidence that openness and extraversion explain a small but unique amount of variance in the consumption of different types of meat after controlling for socio-demographic and the other personality traits: More open individuals not only consumed less meat in both studies, a finding that is consistent with prior research (Keller

TE D

& Siegrist, 2015; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b), but also consumed more fish compared to less open individuals. Because meat eating is a traditional norm, people who reduce their meat consumption might be more open to new experiences, which could explain the negative

EP

association of openness with meat consumption. However, future research is needed to investigate the role of one’s motivation to eat or not to eat meat, and how these motivations are

AC C

associated with personality traits. Furthermore, more extraverted people also reported consuming more meat and poultry compared to introverted individuals. This effect might be due to the fact that extraverted individuals are more often part of social events (Eaton & Funder, 2003) and might therefore more often have the opportunity to dine out. Different types of meat might also be related to specific emotions experienced during anticipated or actual meat consumption. Carfora and colleagues (2017b) reported that regret is especially strongly

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

22

associated with reducing one’s processed meat consumption. However, more research is needed to examine the link between personality, emotions, and meat-eating behavior. Regarding the overall measurement of meat consumption, we were able to replicate

RI PT

previous findings of its relationship with both personality traits and socio-demographics. In the two studies presented here, overall meat consumption was negatively related to sex (Study 1 and 2), age (Study 2), and education (Studies 1 and 2) in the zero-order correlations. These findings

SC

replicate recent studies showing that male, younger, and less educated individuals report more meat consumption compared to women, older, and more highly educated people (e.g., Lea &

M AN U

Worsley, 2001; Gifford & Nilson, 2014; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b).

With respect to personality traits, a previous study using representative samples from Germany reported that openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were all negatively related to an overall assessment of meat consumption (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b). By contrast, in

TE D

the two presented studies, extraversion was the only one of the personality traits to be positively related to overall meat consumption after controlling for socio-demographics. Interestingly, our findings regarding meat consumption (including red meat and processed meat products in Study

EP

2) showed a similar correlational pattern to that found in previous studies that used an overall assessment of meat consumption; however, this pattern differed from the statistically averaged

AC C

overall meat consumption in the present study. We believe that the explanation may be related to how difficult it is for participants to accurately retrospectively estimate their consumption of different types of meat, resulting in an inaccurate average estimation of consumption. An overall assessment of meat consumption might be biased by these difficulties. Also, prior studies also have inconsistently assessed fish and seafood as a part of overall meat consumption (Keller & Siegrist, 2015; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018b). As a result of these methodological concerns, we

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

23

emphasize the importance of differentiating between the consumption of different types of meat and of assessing different types of meat consumption separately when researching individual differences in meat consumption.

RI PT

Although the results of the hierarchical regression analyses in both studies demonstrated that personality and socio-demographic variables explain unique variance in the consumption of all types of meat, socio-demographic variables and personality explained more variance in the

SC

consumption of different types of meat than overall meat consumption. These findings

demonstrated overall consistent evidence regarding individual differences in various types of

M AN U

meat consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) in large-scale and representative samples from two different countries, Germany and Australia.

To summarize, focusing on the link between personality and dietary habits, our findings demonstrated that, in the case of meat consumption, a very detailed and specific assessment is

TE D

necessary to detect differential associations of personality traits with different types of meat consumption. The presented results also showed that measuring only overall meat consumption could not have detected these differential relationships. We argue that, considering the crucial

EP

differences between various types of meat (e.g., red meat, poultry, and fish) and how they are perceived, assessing meat consumption via a single global question may be too broad to yield

AC C

meaningful data. These differences are mainly caused by different perceptions regarding the various animal species that are turned into meat, and regarding the perceived healthiness or unhealthiness of the meat product, respectively. The findings presented in these two studies, however, confirm that personality traits are linked not only to dietary behavior, but also to meat consumption, and that there are very specific individual differences with respect to the consumption of various meat types.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

24

Limitations and Future Directions The research presented here is limited by its cross-sectional design, and no conclusions can be made with respect to the causality of the relationships between personality traits and

RI PT

socio-demographic factors and the consumption of different types of meat. Longitudinal studies are needed to provide causal evidence for these associations, and to determine whether

personality traits impact the consumption of different meat types, whether the intake of various

between dietary behavior and personality in general.

SC

types of meat may influence personality and personality change, and if there are any interactions

M AN U

Meat consumption was assessed via self-reported behavior, which is subject to recall bias. Further, as meat consumption is viewed critically by many due to ethical concerns for animals and its potential negative impact on both human health and the environment, social desirability could have further biased self-reported behavior (Klein & Kunda, 1993; Miller,

TE D

Abdel-Maksoud, Crane, Marcus, & Byers, 2008). Using objective, ambulatory assessments of actual intake of different types of meat might therefore produce more accurate data. Both studies were from samples in developed Western countries, and while

EP

generalizations may be cautiously drawn for other Western countries, no conclusions regarding non-Western countries can be made. Cultural differences could easily affect correlational

AC C

patterns between personality, socio-demographic factors, and different types of meat consumption, especially in countries where meat consumption is not the traditional norm (e.g., India). There are also huge cultural and religious differences in both the amounts and types of meat traditionally consumed (e.g., fish consumption in Japan is traditionally high, and pork is usually forbidden in Muslim cultures). Future studies are needed to investigate differences in the consumption of different types of meat at the country level, and the relationship between these

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

25

types of meat consumption and personality traits and socio-demographic factors in these particular national contexts. While the effect sizes reported in the two presented studies are relatively small in terms

RI PT

of the conventions put forward by Cohen (1992), researchers have recently argued that empirical guidelines for interpreting the magnitude of correlation coefficients may at times be too strict, or even artificial, and that smaller correlation coefficients may be more the rule than the exception

SC

(Gignac & Szodorai, 2016; Hemphill, 2003). Regardless of these methodological considerations, Greenwald, Banaji, and Nosek (2015) have argued that small effects may nevertheless be

M AN U

socially important. In addition, we argue that, because meat consumption is certainly determined by multiple factors—of which the present two studies focused on a selective subset—larger associations cannot be expected. Both personality and social psychological theory (Funder, 2016; Lewin, 1951) posit that behavior is not only determined by persons, but also by situations, with

TE D

personal and situational factors interacting in complex ways (Schmitt et al., 2013). In the case of meat consumption, situational factors like knowledge and availability of meat alternatives, or simply the strength of one’s appetite, might also influence the consumption of meat. Future

EP

studies should therefore examine the influence of situations, and of the interaction between the person and his or her situational context on eating behavior.

AC C

Conclusion

In the present study, we investigated relationships between the Big Five personality traits

and a specific and controversial health-related dietary behavior: The consumption of meat. We argue that the consumption of different meat types should be considered and assessed separately when examining individual differences in meat consumption, as prior studies have reported individual differences in the perception and consumption of red meat (e.g., originated from

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

26

mammals like beef and pork) and white meat (e.g., originated from birds and fish like poultry and seafood). In two large-scale representative studies, we found consistent evidence that openness and extraversion explain unique variance in the consumption of these meat types.

RI PT

Focusing on the link between personality and dietary habits, our findings highlight that, in the case of meat consumption, a very detailed and specific assessment is necessary to detect

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

differential associations of personality with different types of meat consumption.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

27

References Adams, C. (2000). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York, NY: Continuum

RI PT

Allen, M. W., Wilson, M., Ng, S. H., & Dunne, M. (2000). Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 405–422.

Ashton, L. M., Smith, J. N., & Powles, J. W. (2013). Meat intake in Britain in relation to other

SC

dietary components and to demographic and risk factor variables. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 26, 96–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2012.01278.x

M AN U

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001). Australian Standard Classification of Education (ASCED). Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Cat. No. 1272.0. Bellevia, A., Larsson, S. C., Bottai, M., Wolk, A., & Orsini, N. (2014). Differences in survival associated with processed and with nonprocessed red meat consumption. American

TE D

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100, 924–929. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.086249 Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., . . . Johnson, V. E. (2017). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 1-5.

EP

doi: 10.1038/s416562-017-0189-z

Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis

AC C

of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887–919.

Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H., & Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncology, 16, 1599–1600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

28

Brummett, B. H., Siegler, I. C., Day, R. S., & Costa, P. T. (2008). Personality as a predictor of dietary quality in spouses during midlife. Behavioral Medicine, 34, 5–10. doi: 10.3200/BMED.34.1.5-10

RI PT

Carfora, V., Caso, D., & Conner, M. (2017a). Randomised controlled trial of a text messaging intervention for reducing processed meat consumption: The mediating roles of

anticipated regret and intention. Appetite, 117, 152-160. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.06.025

SC

Carfora, V., Caso, D., & Conner, M. (2017b). Correlational study and randomised controlled trial for understanding and changing red meat consumption: The role of eating identities.

M AN U

Social Science & Medicine, 175, 244-252. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.005. Clifton, P., & Tapsell, L. (2013). Diet and cardiovascular disease: Dietary patterns, foods and nutrients. Nutrition & Dietetics, 70, 170-171. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12069 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

TE D

Cordts, A., Spiller, A., Nitzko, S., Grethe, H., & Duman, N. (2013). Imageprobleme beeinflussen den Konsum. Von unbekümmerten Fleischessern, Flexitariern und (Lebensabschnitts-) Vegetariern. Fleisch Wirtschaft, 7, 59–63.

EP

Deckers, J. (2010). Should the consumption of farmed animal products be restricted, and if so, by how much? Food Policy, 35, 497–503. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.06.003

AC C

Deemer, D. R., & Lobao, L. M. (2011). Public concern with farm-animal welfare: Religion, politics, and human disadvantage in the food sector. Rural Sociology, 76, 167–196. doi:

10.1111/j.1549-0831.2010.00044.x

Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S., & Courbois, C. (2001). Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Outlook in Agriculture, 30, 27–29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

29

Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption? Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002

century. London, England: Eating Better.

RI PT

Dibb, S., & Fitzpatrick, I. (2014). Let’s talk about meat: Changing dietary behaviour for the 21st

FAOSTAT (2015). Statistics Division. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States,

SC

Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home

Funder, D. C. (2016). The personality puzzle (7th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

M AN U

Gerlitz, J.-Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. DIW Research Notes 4.

Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro‐environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141–157.

TE D

Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069

EP

Goldberg, L. R., & Strycker, L. A. (2002). Personality traits and eating habits: The assessment of food preferences in a large community sample. Personality and Individual Differences,

AC C

32, 49–65. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00005-8

Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). Statistically small effects of the implicit association test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 553–561. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000016

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

30

Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality: Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 355–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008

RI PT

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Bund für Umwelt- und Naturschutz Deutschland, Le Monde

Diplomatique (2014). Fleischatlas. Daten und Fakten über Tiere als Nahrungsmittel (6. Auflage). Retrieved from https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/fleischatlas2014_vi.pdf

SC

Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78–79. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.78

M AN U

Herzog, H. A., & Galvin, S. (1997). Anthropomorphism, common sense, and animal awareness. In R. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 237–253). New York, NY: SUNY Press.

Ingham, H. R. W., Neumann, D. L., & Waters, A. M. (2015). Empathy-related ratings to still

TE D

images of human and nonhuman animal groups in negative contexts graded for phylogenetic similarity. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 113–130. Joy, M. (2009). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. San

EP

Francisco, CA: Conari Press.

Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Does personality influence eating styles and food choices?

AC C

Direct and indirect effects. Appetite, 84, 128–138. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.003

Kenyon, P. M., & Barker, M. E. (1998). Attitudes towards meat-eating in vegetarian and nonvegetarian teenage girls in England—an ethnographic approach. Appetite, 30, 185-198.

Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1993). Maintaining self-serving social comparisons: Biased reconstruction of one’s past behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 732-739.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

31

Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Tronstad, Å., & Risvik, E. (2002). Attitudes towards meat and meateating among adolescents in Norway: A qualitative study. Appetite, 38, 53-62. doi: 10.1006/appe.2002.0458

RI PT

Krizmanic, J. (1992). Here’s who we are. Vegetarian Times, 182, 78–80.

Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J.,., . . . Zwaan, R. A. (2017). Justify your alpha: A response to “redefine statistical significance”. Unpublished Manuscript.

136. doi: 10.1006/appe.2000.0386

SC

Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2001). Influences on meat consumption in Australia. Appetite, 36, 127–

M AN U

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.). Oxford, England: Harpers.

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Rooke, S. E., & Schutte, N. S. (2007). Alcohol involvement and the Five-Factor Model of personality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Drug Education,

TE D

37, 277-294. doi: 10.2190/DE.37.3.d

Micha, R., Wallace, S. K., & Mozaffarian, D. (2010). Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

EP

and meta-analysis. Circulation, 121, 2271–2283. Miller, T. M., Abdel-Maksoud, M. F., Crane, L. A., Marcus, A. C., & Byers, T. E. (2008).

AC C

Effects of social approval bias on self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption: A randomized controlled trial. Nutrition Journal, 7, 18. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-7-18

Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017). The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appetite, 113, 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

32

Mõttus, R., McNeill, G., Jia, X., Craig, L. C. A., Starr, J., & Deary, I. J. (2013). The association between personality, diet and body mass index in older people. Health Psychology, 32, 353–360. doi: 10.1037/a0025537

RI PT

Mõttus, R., Realo, A., Allik, J., Deary, I. J., Esko, T., & Metspalu, A. (2012). Personality traits and eating habits in a large sample of Estonians. Health Psychology, 31, 806–814. doi: 10.1037/a0027041

SC

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1999). Classifying educational

OECD.

M AN U

programmes: Manual for ISCED-97 implementation in OECD countries. Paris, France:

Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M, & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumptions. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011

TE D

Pfeiler, T. M., & Egloff, B. (2018a). Examining the “Veggie” personality: Results of a representative German sample. Appetite, 120, 246-255. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.09.005 Pfeiler, T. M., & Egloff, B. (2018b). Personality and attitudinal correlates of meat consumption:

EP

Results of two representative German samples. Appetite, 121, 294-301. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.098

AC C

Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Rozin, P., Hormes, J. M., Faith, M. S., & Wansink, B. (2012). Is meat male? A quantitative multimethod framework to establish metaphoric relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 629–643. doi: 10.1086/664970

Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism: A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58, 141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

33

Santos, M. L. S., & Booth, D. A. (1996). Influences on meat avoidance among British students. Appetite, 27, 197-205. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A Brief Version of Goldberg’s Unipolar Big-Five Markers.

RI PT

Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Baumert, A., Blum, G. S., Gschwendner, T., Hofmann, W., &

Rothmund, T. (2013). Proposal of a Nonlinear Interaction of Person and Situation (NIPS)

e499. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00499

SC

model. Frontiers in Psychology (Personality Science and Individual Differences), 4,

M AN U

Singer, P. (1977). Animal liberation. New York, NY: Avon Books.

Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., Vuuren, D. P. van, Elzen, M. G. J. den, Eickhout, B., & Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95, 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6

TE D

Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2014). Fleischkonsum im 21. Jahrhundert - ein Thema für die humanökologische Forschung. GAIA, 23, 366–368. doi:10.14512/gaia.23.4.18 Stoll-Kleemann, S. & Schmidt, U. J. (2017). Reducing meat consumption in developed and

EP

transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: A review of influence factors. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 1261–1277. doi: 10.1007/s10113-

AC C

016-1057-5.

Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green: Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behavior. Appetite, 57, 674–682. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010

United Nations (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

34

Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) - Evolution, Scope and Enhancements (July 1, 2007). SOEP Paper No. 1. Berlin, Germany. DIW Berlin. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1028709

RI PT

Watson, N., & Wooden, M. P. (2012). The HILDA Survey: A case study in the design and

development of a successful household panel survey. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3(3), 369–381.

SC

Wiig, K., & Smith, C. (2008). The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp budget: Factors

influencing the food choices of low-income women as they try to make ends meet. Public

M AN U

Health Nutrition, 12, 1726–1734. doi:10.1017/S1368980008004102

Wooden, M., Freidin, S., & Watson, N. (2002). The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey: Wave 1. The Australian Economic Review, 35, 339–348. Wortmann, J., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Stability and change in the Big Five

TE D

personality domains: Evidence from a longitudinal study of Australians. Psychology and

AC C

EP

Aging, 27, 867–874. doi: 10.1037/a0029322

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT CONSUMPTION

33

Table 1 Correlations between socio-demographic variables, personality traits, and different types of meat consumption (GSOEP 2016) Poultry Consumption

Fish Consumption

r

r

r

rp

rp

-.205*

-.018

-.018

Age

-.065*

-.136*

.182*

Education

-.035*

-.078*

.016

Openness

-.077*

-.056*

.009

.022

Conscientiousness

-.041*

-.016

.009

.026

Extraversion

-.008

.013

.055*

.047*

Agreeableness

-.065*

-.026

.006

Emotional Stability

.037*

-.004

.004

rp

r

rp

-.117* -.017

SC

Sex

Overall MC

RI PT

Meat Consumption

-.047*

.070*

-.004

.014

.054*

.033*

.008

.019

.024

.041*

.033*

.046*

.019

.028*

.020

-.017

.005

.006

.019

.017

.028*

.008

M AN U

.066*

Note. N = 13,062, rp = partial correlations (adjusted for socio-demographic variables). Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female.

TE D

Overall MC = Overall meat consumption, computed as the mean of meat consumption, poultry consumption, and fish consumption. GSOEP 2016 = German Socio-Economic Panel in 2016.

AC C

EP

*p ≤ .001.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT PERSONALITY AND MEAT COPNSUMPTION

34

Table 2 Hierarchical regressions analyses predicting different types of meat consumption based on socio-demographic variables and personality traits (GSOEP 2016) Fish Consumption

∆R²

∆R²

∆R²

β

.051*

β

.026*

.034*

Sex

-.21*

-.03

Age

-.07*

-.14*

Education

-.06*

-.09*

.005*

.003*

Openness

-.07*

Conscientiousness

-.01

Extraversion

.04*

Agreeableness

-.02

Emotional Stability

-.00

β

∆R²

β

.018*

-.01

-.13*

.18*

-.02

.02

.005*

M AN U

Step 2

Overall MC

RI PT

Poultry Consumption

SC

Step 1

Meat Consumption

-.06* .002*

.00

.06*

-.00

.02

.02

.01

.04*

.01

.05*

.01

.00

.00

-.01

.01

.00

TE D

Note. N = 13,062. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female.

Overall MC = Overall meat consumption, computed as the mean of meat consumption, poultry consumption, and fish consumption. GSOEP 2016 = German Socio-Economic Panel in 2016.

AC C

EP

*p ≤ .001.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PERSONALITY AND MEAT COPNSUMPTION

35

Table 3

Meat Consumption

Red Meat

r

r

rp

rp

RI PT

Correlations between socio-demographic variables, personality traits, and different types of meat consumption (HILDA 2013) Processed Meat

Poultry

r

r

rp

Fish

rp

rp

r

.002

-.084*

-.184*

.078*

-.071*

-.001

.097*

.004

rp

Sex

-.191*

-.110*

-.210*

Age

-.076*

-.010

-.114*

Education

-.113*

-.093*

-.099*

Openness

-.062*

-.056*

-.059*

-.046*

-.047*

-.049*

.023

.007

.083*

.071*

.029*

.018

Conscientiousness

-.087*

-.046*

-.034*

-.012

-.111*

-.065*

-.013

.021

.055*

.031*

-.013

.007

Extraversion

.008

.023

.025

.037*

-.010

.003

.066*

.051*

.049*

.056*

.059*

.062*

Agreeableness

-.098*

-.038*

-.041*

-.006

-.122*

-.056*

.018

.038*

.040*

.027

-.012

.015

Emotional Stability

-.051*

-.028*

.005

.012

-.058*

-.040*

.007

.028*

.006

-.024

-.005

TE D

M AN U

SC

-.008

r

Overall MC

-.088*

Note. N = 15,036. rp = partial correlations (adjusted for socio-demographic variables). Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female.

EP

Meat Consumption was computed as the mean of red meat consumption and processed meat consumption. Overall MC = Overall Meat Consumption, computed as

2013. *p ≤ .001.

AC C

the mean of meat consumption, poultry consumption, and fish consumption. HILDA 2013 = The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey in

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PERSONALITY AND MEAT COPNSUMPTION

36

Table 4 Hierarchical regressions analyses predicting different types of meat consumption based on socio-demographic variables and personality traits (HILDA 2013) Red Meat

∆R²

∆R²

β

.055*

Processed Meat β

.021*

∆R²

β

∆R²

.067* -.11*

-.21*

Age

-.07*

-.01

-.11*

Education

-.11*

-.09*

-.10*

.009*

-.06*

-.05*

Conscientiousness

-.03*

-.01

Extraversion

.04*

Agreeableness

-.01

Emotional Stability

-.04*

Fish ∆R²

Overall MC β

.015*

∆R²

β

.012*

-.01

.00

-.08*

-.18*

.08*

-.07*

.00

.10*

.00

.004*

.008*

.004*

-.05*

-.01

.07*

.01

-.04*

.01

.02

.00

.04*

.03*

.05*

.05*

.06*

.01

-.03

.03*

-.01

.00

-.00

-.06*

-.01

.01

-.02

EP

TE D

Openness

Note. N = 15,036. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female.

M AN U

.004*

SC

-.19*

.007*

β

.034*

Sex

Step 2

Poultry

RI PT

Step 1

Meat Consumption

AC C

Meat Consumption was computed as the mean of red meat consumption and processed meat consumption. Overall MC = Overall Meat Consumption, computed as the mean of meat consumption, poultry consumption, and fish consumption. HILDA 2013 = The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey in 2013. *p ≤ .001.