Appetite (2002) 38, 118±130
doi:10.1006/appe.2001.0474, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
1
Research Report
Manipulating the symbolic meaning of
meat to encourage greater acceptance of
fruits and vegetables and less proclivity for
red and white meat
Michael W. Allen and Surinder Baines
University of Newcastle, Australia
(Received13 August 2001, finalrevision10 October 2001, accepted in revised form14 November 2001)
The present study tested the extent to which dietary preferences are altered by making aspects of the symbolic
meaning of meat salient to participants. Individuals in the treatment group were informed of a previous scientific
study which found that people who endorse social hierarchy and human dominance over nature consume more red
and white meat, and that people who reject hierarchy and dominance eat more fruits and vegetables. The results
showed that, compared to a control group, individuals in the treatment group who reject hierarchy and dominance
(most participants) perceived red and white meat less favourably, decreased their liking of red and white meat,
decreased their object identification with red and white meat, anticipated that they would eat more fruits and
vegetables in the subsequent three days, and indeed consumed more fruits and vegetables in a follow-up study three
weeks later. Moreover, the salience manipulation's ability to induce a negative response toward red and white meat
and greater acceptance of fruits and vegetables was strongest for individuals in the treatment group for whom the
salience manipulation made sense, individuals with less confidence in their diet choices, those who had previously
considered reducing their meat consumption, and low/normal weight persons. These findings have implications for
health promotion and for theories of food choice.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables is
associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease
and some cancers (Block et al., 1992; Gerster, 1991).
Likewise, low meat diets are coupled with positive
health outcomes, though it is unclear if the harmful
effects of meat are due to an invariant aspect of meat
or to a factor that can be minimized such as fat content
(Beilin et al., 1988; Bergan & Brown, 1980; Burr &
An RMC Grant to the first author supported the research.
Address correspondence to: Dr Michael W. Allen,
Department of Psychology, University of Newcastle,
Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
E-mail: [email protected]
0195±6663/02/$ - see front matter
Butland, 1988; Fraser, 1988). In either case, many
individuals consume more than the recommended
servings of meat and fewer than the suggested servings
of fruits and vegetables (National Diet and Nutrition
Survey 1995, 1998; National Dietary Survey of Adults
1983, 1986). In this context, it is vital to understand
better the social psychological processes underpinning
food choice and the resulting barriers to modification
of the diet.
A conceptual framework that we believe can lend
insight into one of the processes involved in choices of
meat and fruit or vegetables is a decision-making model
developed in previous research into consumers' product
selection strategies (Allen, 2000, 2001; Allen & Ng,
1999). This model suggests that consumers form attitudes to products by evaluating the human values
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Meat symbolism 119
symbolised by a product against the values that they
endorse. An endorsed value evokes a more favourable
attitude and greater intention to purchase, whereas a
value that the individual rejects results in a less favourable attitude and weaker intention to purchase. We
propose that this decision-making process forms attitudes toward foods that result in purchase and consumption of a food and imbue the evaluation of its
sensory characteristics (i.e. taste, smell and texture).
This is an example of food choice models based on the
self-concept and related constructs, as reviewed by
Furst et al., 1996.
The present study investigates the extent to which
salience of the symbolic meaning of meat affects dietary
preferences. Recent changes in Western culture have
meant that the values symbolised by meat are increasingly rejected (Bell, 1973; Capra, 1995; Dunlap & Van
Liere, 1978). Moreover, they are the antithesis of the
values symbolised by fruits and vegetables (Adams,
1990; Fiddes, 1989; Twigg, 1983). The consequence of
both of these trends is that making salient the values
symbolised by meat should encourage greater acceptance of fruits and vegetables, and less proclivity for red
and white meat in many individuals.
The antithetic values attributed to meat and to fruit
and vegetables have been related to broader social
structures and forces by sociologists and anthropologists pursuing the Structuralist approach (Cuff &
Payne, 1979; Lupton, 1996). This work has focused on
an ordering of basic foods, with red and white meat at
one end, fruits and vegetables at the other end, and dairy
products and fish/seafood in the middle (Adams, 1990;
Caplan, 1997; Fiddes, 1989; Fieldhouse, 1995; Heisley,
1990; Lupton, 1996; Twigg, 1983). These researchers
suggest that, in Western culture, this ordering conceptualises foods as most vs. least life taking, blood vs.
not blood, masculine vs. feminine, strong vs. weak, high
vs. low socio-economic status, and involving human
command of animals and nature vs. less domination by
humanity.
Some social researchers have suggested that the origin
of these meanings of meat can be traced to the nontechnological phase of cultural development in which
the hunt confirmed the superiority of humans over the
animal world (Fiddes, 1989). However, hunting was not
(and is not) so much a human activity as it was a male
activity, and the product of the hunt (i.e. meat) reinforced that gender inequality. For instance, Leaky and
Lewin (1978) found that for hunter±gatherer societies in
which meat was a valued commodity, meat enabled the
higher status group (i.e. males) to solidify their social
control, because meat from the hunt was distributed
outside the family unit, unlike women's/gatherers' food
(see also Kahn, 1980; Kensinger, 1983; Reeves-Sanday,
1981). Moreover, there is evidence from present times
that meat is more frequently consumed by males (Kerr &
Charles, 1986; Leghorn & Roodkowsky, 1977) and by
upper socio-economic groups (Perisse et al., 1969).
Through these and other cultural practices, red and
white meat have come to symbolise masculinity, high
SES, strength, and human domination over nature,
whereas fruits and vegetables are associated with femininity, low SES, weakness, and less dominant relations
to animals.
If consumers do make food choices by evaluating the
symbolic meanings of foods in this way, then an
approach to changing the diet to promote health may
present itself. With recent changes in Western culture,
the belief that humanity's relationship with animals and
nature should be hierarchical and dominant is being
replaced by a more inter-dependent view (Bell, 1973;
Capra, 1995; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). Bell (1973)
implies one reason for this change is that a society's
workforce has shifted from agriculture (which underscores the whims of nature) to industry (which emphasises the control of nature via machines) and most
recently to services (which are removed from both
nature and machines). As human society increasingly
shifts from dominating other species, materials that are
procured through such means as killing and slaughtering, make people uneasy and defensive (Adams, 1990;
Plous, 1993). To cope with this unease, many individuals
attempt to dissociate meat from the living animal
(Sahlins, 1976; Serpell, 1986; Wood, 1971), a dissociation that results in meat being ``anonymous'' (Barthes,
1957) or having an ``absent referent'' (Adams, 1990).
This is facilitated by advertisers rarely showing where
meat originates or the slaughtering process, abattoirs
moving out of public view, consumers favouring animal parts that least resemble the living animal, and
changes in linguistic customs and other socialisation
practices.
Thus, here is a possible locus for a health promotion
strategy. Making salient meat's symbolic meaning of
hierarchy and dominance might cause those consumers
who reject dominance over nature (the majority) to
perceive that their current level of meat preference and
consumption is inconsistent with their self-concept and
personal values. Two strategies by which these individuals might regain consistency between their values and
dietary choices are to decrease their preferences for and
consumption of meat and/or to increase their support
and consumption of foods that symbolise the rejection
of dominance over animals (i.e. fruits and vegetables). A
conceivable third strategy is not to change food attitudes
and choices but to change values, that is increase the
support for dominance and hierarchy, but this is unlikely to work given that values are closely integrated
120
M. W. Allen and S. Baines
into the self-concept and are more enduring than attitudes and behaviour (Rokeach, 1973).
Allen et al. (2000) found that individuals who identified themselves as heavy eaters of meat were stronger in
authoritarianism and preferred hierarchically organised
social structures more than those who ate little meat.
The present study aimed to see if making this symbolism
salient alters preferences for red and white meat, fruit
and vegetables and the subsequent consumption of
such foods. A subsidiary aim was to explore ways in
which making the symbolic meaning of meat salient to
participants could influence food choice by changes to
the particular phenomena of identification with food,
confidence in dietary choices, openness to meat avoidance, attitudes toward animals, and being of normal
weight or overweight.
Food object identification. Individuals may incorporate an object into their self-concept so that they not
only see themselves as users of the object, but also feel
that the object reflects something about the kind of
person they are (Ball & Tasaki, 1992; Greenwald, 1988;
Nemeroff & Rozin, 2000; Wallendorf & Arnould, 1988).
In Nemeroff and Rozin's (2000) conceptual framework,
the law of contagion leads individuals to perceive that
people have character traits comparable to the properties of foods that they prefer: that is, that you are what
you eat. We suggest that such self-identification with an
object occurs through symbolic meanings because these
are culturally shared, abstract, and refer to entities
beyond the tangible object. Hence, if making salient the
values symbolised by meat makes individuals who reject
such values feel that their current level of meat preference and consumption is inconsistent with their
values, then they should also perceive that red and white
meat no longer represent the kind of person they are.
Diet choice confidence (or dietary self-efficacy).
This is the extent to which individuals believe that they
control their dietary choices (Heatey & Thombs, 1997;
Lawrance & McLeroy, 1986). Components of diet
choice confidence include the perception of support
from friends and relatives in one's diet choice, the belief
that one could change the dietary choices of others, and
the ability to resist pressure from others to alter one's
dietary choices. The lattermost component, in particular, implies that individuals who have more diet choice
confidence would be more resistant to the salience
manipulation than individuals with less of this
confidence.
Openness to meat avoidance. For the present study,
individuals who formerly made a conscious choice to
consume less meat and/or can perceive that they may
make such a choice in the future are defined as ``open to
meat avoidance''. Individuals who are not open to avoid
meat are likely to have incorporated meat consumption
into their self-concept to a greater extent than individuals who are open, that is, have greater identification
with meat. Hence, we expect that individuals with
greater openness to meat avoidance should be more
strongly influenced by the salience manipulation than
individuals with less openness.
Attitudes toward animals. The symbolic meaning of
meat refers not only to dominance and hierarchy in
human-to-human relationships (i.e. males over females,
higher status vs. lower status, etc.) but also to human
dominance over animals, that is, slaughtering, hunting,
etc. (Adams, 1990; Fiddes, 1989). Hence, given that
hierarchy and dominance are increasingly rejected,
making salient this meaning of meat should result not
only in greater acceptance of fruits and vegetables, and
less appetite for red and white meat, but also in more
favourable attitudes toward animals in general and food
animals in particular (i.e. cows, pigs, chickens).
Low/normal weight versus Overweight. Given
awareness of claims about the roles of meat and of fruits
and vegetables in good health, we also assessed if the
salience manipulation's effect on food choice is similar or not in low or normal weight and overweight
individuals.
Method
Design
The first independent variable was whether or not
individuals were exposed to the Experimental Condition of salience manipulation (treatment vs. control).
The second putative independent variable was each
individual's level of support for hierarchy and dominance (high vs. low). Other, though less central,
variables were individuals' confidence in dietary
choices, openness to meat avoidance, and body weight.
The main dependent variables, each measured after the
salience manipulation, were individuals' preferences
for red meat, white meat, fruit and vegetables. In the
interests of reliability, these food preferences were
measured in four distinct ways: perception of each
food as good or bad; liking for each food; identification with each food; and anticipated consumption of
each food. Other dependent variables were individuals'
food consumption in a follow-up survey after 3 weeks,
and individuals' attitudes toward animals in both the
main survey (after the salience manipulation) and the
3-week follow-up. The baseline variables were individuals' level and type of basic food consumption before
completing the main survey and undergoing the
salience manipulation.
Meat symbolism 121
To make meat's meaning salient, participants could
be shown images of animals at various stages of the
meat-production process. This may, however, be perceived by meat eaters as manipulative and heavyhanded, and hence induce defensiveness. A subtler
technique would be to create product symbolism by a
common technique for measuring a product's image,
which is to ask respondents to describe the traits and
characteristics of the typical user of the product (e.g.
Belk et al., 1982; Birdwell, 1968; Grubb & Hupp, 1968;
Munson & Spivey, 1981). The present study used the still
less overt technique of informing individuals that previous research (i.e. Allen et al., 2000) had found that
people who consume more meat endorse hierarchy and
dominance values, whereas people who consume more
fruits and vegetables reject hierarchy and dominance
values. Allen (in press) recently showed with other
consumer goods (cars and sunglasses) that this technique does create the perception among research participants that the product symbolises the stated human
values. A manipulation check is available in the present
study because individuals in the treatment group
who understood the summary of previous research
should undergo greater food preference change than
individuals who felt that the statement did not
make sense.
Participants
A questionnaire was distributed through the post to a
random sample of 800 residents (drawn from the
telephone directory) in a city of moderate size in
Australia. Two hundred twenty (28%) were returned
and these participants were sent a follow-up survey
after three weeks (110 participants returned the followup survey). The demographic characteristics of the
sample are reported in Table 1.
Questionnaire materials
Current food consumption. Participants indicated the
total number of servings of red meat, white meat, fruit,
and vegetables that they had eaten in seven days before
responding to the questionnaire. The size of a serving
was not defined. The seven-day period was chosen as
long enough to reduce floor effects but short enough
for respondents to make accurate counts.
Openness to meat avoidance. Participants answered
two yes±no questions: ``Have you ever made a conscious
effort to reduce the amount of meat in your diet?'' and
``Do you think that at some point in the future you may
choose to reduce the amount of meat in your diet?''
Individuals who made a conscious choice to reduce the
amount of meat in their diet and/or could perceive that
they may some day reduce their meat consumption were
classified as open to meat avoidance.
Diet choice confidence. Individuals rated five items
measuring diet choice confidence on seven points from
``Strongly Disagree'' to ``Strongly Agree''. The five items
were based on Heatey and Thombs (1997) fruits and
vegetables self-confidence scale, but were rephrased to
include all foods. The five items were: ``I feel that if I
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of sample (%)
Sex
Male
Female
Age Group
Under 30
30 to 45
45 to 65
Over 65
Occupation
Managers, administrators and professionals
Clerical, service and sales workers
Labourers, tradespersons and related workers
Student
Homemakers and Unemployed
Retired
Education
Higher degree or postgraduate diploma
Bachelor degree
Associate diploma or vocational
Completed highest level of school
Did not complete highest level of school
Control
Treatment
Total
45
55
37
63
41
59
19
28
34
20
20
27
32
21
19
27
33
21
36
15
6
5
16
23
28
12
5
14
14
25
32
13
6
10
15
24
8
29
15
17
30
5
26
21
17
30
6
28
18
17
30
122
M. W. Allen and S. Baines
decided to change my diet/eating habits that I would get
a lot of support from my friends'', ``I feel that if I decided
to change my diet/eating habits that I would get a lot of
support from my family'', ``I feel confident that if I
decided to change my diet/eating habits that I would be
able to stick to it'', ``I feel confident that if I decided to
change my diet/eating habits that I would be able to
successfully persuade friends or family to also change
their diet/eating habits'', ``I feel confident that if I decided to change my diet/eating habits that I would be able
to resist pressure from other people trying to pursued me
not to change my diet''. Cronbach's alpha for the present
study was 071.
Endorsement of dominance. Participants completed
Sidanius' Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale
(Pratto et al., 1994). To facilitate the implementation of
the study, the 16-item Social Dominance Orientation
scale was reduced to eight items that were rated on
seven categories from ``Strongly disagree'' to ``Strongly
agree'' (Cronbach's alpha for the present study was
085). The items were: ``Some groups of people are
simply inferior to other groups''; ``In getting what you
want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other
groups''; ``It is okay if some groups have more of a
chance in life than others''; ``To get ahead in life, it is
sometimes necessary to step on other groups''; ``If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer
problems''; ``It's probably a good thing that certain
groups are at the top and other groups are at the
bottom'', ``Sometimes other groups must be kept in their
place''; ``We would have more problems if we treated
people more equally''.
Salience manipulation comprehension. Participants
in the treatment group reported whether or not the
statements and table summarising the results of previous
research into the association between social dominance
and food choice made sense to them.
Salience manipulation interpretation. Participants in
the treatment group answered the open-ended question,
``What do you think is the main reason or cause of
the relationship between Social Dominance and food
choices?''
Food perception. Participants rated each basic food
(red meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables) on seven
points from ``Bad'' to ``Good''.
Food liking. Participants indicated their liking of red
meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables, respectively on
seven points from ``Not at all'' to ``Very much''.
Identification with food. Participants indicated the
extent to which decreasing their consumption of each
food (red meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables) would
change an important part of who they are (e.g. ``If I were
forced to decrease the amount of red meat that I currently eat per week, I would feel like an important part of
who I am had been changed''), on seven categories from
``Strongly disagree'' to ``Strongly agree''.
Anticipated food consumption. Participants indicated the total number of servings of red meat, white
meat, fruit, and vegetables that they expected to eat in
the next three days. The three-day period was chosen to
ensure that participants do not simply duplicate their
responses to the questions regarding basic food consumption in the previous seven days.
Attitudes toward animals. Using seven points from
``Not At All'' to ``Very Much'', participants reported
how much they like birds, reptiles, primates, nonprimate mammals, cows, chickens, and pigs, respectively. Two scores were calculated for each individual:
(1) his or her liking of general animal categories (i.e.
birds, reptiles, primates, non-primate mammals), and
(2) his or her liking of food animals (i.e. cow, chickens,
pigs). In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha for the
former score was 085 and for the latter was 076.
Current food consumption. At 3-week follow-up,
participants indicated the total number of servings of red
meat, white meat, fruit, and vegetables that they had
eaten in seven days before responding.
Diet change. Also at follow-up, participants indicated whether or not they had changed their eating
habits in any way since completing the main survey and
what that change comprised (open-ended format).
Individuals' open-ended responses were coded as ``No
change'', ``Ate more healthily'', and ``Ate less healthily''.
In three yes±no questions, participants also reported
whether or not they had increased their consumption of
fruits and vegetables, decreased red meat, or decreased
white meat.
Attitudes toward meat production and food animal.
Again at 3-week follow-up, participants indicated
how much they were in favour of animal slaughtering
on four items: ``I don't see the meat I eat as once having
been an animal''; ``I think meat production is done
humanely''; ``I think animal slaughtering is awful''; ``I
think meat production harms the environment''. Items
were selected from Worsley and Skrzypiec (1998) and
were rated using seven responses from ``Strongly disagree'' to ``Strongly agree''. Cronbach's alpha for present study was 075.
Procedure
For the main survey, all respondents first completed
the items regarding current food consumption, openness to meat avoidance, diet choice confidence, and the
SDO scale. Next, each individual in the treatment
group scored him or herself on the SDO scale (by
taking the sum of the eight items). To ensure that
individuals in the treatment group were cognisant of
Meat symbolism 123
their level of SDO and to make the subsequent
reported association between SDO and food choices
relevant (i.e. the salience manipulation), the survey
informed participants in the treatment group that a
high score on the SDO scale was 10 or more.
Next, individuals in the treatment group were shown
the following statement, which is a simplification of the
results of Allen et al. (2000).
Now that you have scored yourself on the Social
Dominance items above and determined whether
you are HIGH or LOW, you may be interested in the
findings of recent research that has investigated the
relationship between Social Dominance and dietary
choices. The results of the study are depicted in the
table below:
Total amount of
Total amount of
red and white fruits and vegetables
meat eaten in
eaten in
one week
one week
People with HIGH
Social Dominance
People with LOW
Social Dominance
8
3
2
9
As you can see from the above table, people higher in
Social Dominance consume greater amounts of meats,
and less fruits and vegetables. In contrast, people lower
in Social Dominance consume less meats and more fruits
and vegetables.
Participants in the treatment group indicated whether
or not the table made sense and their interpretation of
the cause of the relationship between SDO and food
choice. Participants in both conditions then rated their
perceptions of basic foods (good or bad), likings for
these foods, identification with each food, anticipated
consumption of each food over subsequent 3 days, and
attitudes toward animals.
Finally, 3 weeks after completing the main survey, all
participants were sent a follow-up survey of their consumption of basic foods, dietary changes and attitudes
toward slaughter of animals.
Analysis of data
To examine whether or not the salience manipulation
induced changes in food preferences as a function of
individual's endorsement of dominance, two Experimental Condition (treatment vs. control group) Food Type (red and white meat vs. fruits and
vegetables) repeated measures (good vs. bad perceptions, liking of the foods, identification with each food,
and anticipated consumption) MANOVAs were
carried out; the first on low SDO participants' food
preferences and the second for high SDO participants.
For a manipulation check, a Sense (Did not make
sense vs. Did make sense) Food Type repeated
measures MANOVA was carried out on the food
preferences of the treatment group. In addition, six
Experimental Condition Food Type repeated measures MANOVAs were carried out on the food
preferences of participants: (1) below the median in
diet choice confidence, (2) above the median in diet
choice confidence, (3) not open to meat avoidance,
(4) open to meat avoidance, (5) with low to normal
weight (BMI below 30), and (6) who were overweight.
All MANOVAs included as covariates the participants' pre-test consumption of red meat, white meat,
fruits and vegetables.
To assess if the salience manipulation affected subsequent food consumption, an Experimental Condition
(treatment vs. control group) Food Type (red and
white meat vs. fruits and vegetables) Pre-Post (pre-test
vs. three-week follow-up) mixed ANOVA was calculated. Given that the majority of participants in the main
survey were expected to reject SDO, food consumption
change from pre to post test as a function of Experimental Condition and high vs. low SDO endorsement
was not analysed due to the small cell size for high SDO
participants in the follow-up study.
Finally, the effect of the salience manipulation
on attitudes towards animals was analysed in an
Experimental Condition (treatment vs. control
group) Animal Type (liking of general animals
vs. food animals) mixed ANOVA, and a t-test comparing the treatment and control groups' attitudes toward
slaughtering.
Results
There were 73 participants who scored above the midpoint of the Social Dominance Orientation scale (High
Dominance), while 130 scored below the mid-point
(Low Dominance respondents).
As predicted, Low Dominance participants who were
exposed to the meat dominance symbolism favoured
meat less and fruits and vegetables slightly more than
those who were not exposed, (top half of Table 2),
Experimental Condition Food Type interaction
F(4,119) ˆ 37, p < 001. Effects within each group had
to be tested by interaction with Food Type because fruits
and vegetables were preferred over meat (56 vs. 39),
F(4,119) ˆ 287, p < 0001. Post-hoc tests revealed that
the treatment group had significantly (p < 001) lower
means than the control group for red and white meat
good±bad perceptions, red and white meat liking, and
red and white meat identification, and that the treatment
124
M. W. Allen and S. Baines
group had significantly higher means than the control
group for fruit and vegetables anticipated consumption.
In addition, exposure to meat dominance symbolism did
not significantly affect the food preferences of High
Dominance individuals (lower section of Table 2).
At 3-week follow-up, individuals in the treatment
group had increased their consumption of fruits and
vegetables, the control group decreased consumption
of fruits and vegetables, and the red and white meat
consumption for both treatment and control groups
remained constant (Table 3), Experimental Condition Food Type Pre±Post interaction F(1,93) ˆ
86, p < 001. In response to the open-ended (coded) and
closed questions regarding dietary change (Table 4),
Table 2. Food perceptions, liking, object identification and anticipated consumption by Experimental
Condition, Food Type, and SDO groups
Red and white meat
Fruit and vegetables
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
526
540
429
137
408
458
488
367
145
364
685
629
446
465
556
678
614
449
527
567
570
557
455
156
435
534
543
427
145
412
676
611
458
433
544
659
602
422
418
525
Low SDO participants (n ˆ 130)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated consumption (#servings)
Averages
High SDO participants (n ˆ 73)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticapted consumption (# servings)
Averages
Basic food perceptions, liking, object identification on a 1±7 scale, with higher numbers being more favourable. All means adjusted for
individuals' consumption of red meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables in the seven days prior to completing the main questionnaire.
Table 3. Results of 3-week follow-up study. Self-reported food consumption (servings)
Red and white meat
Fruit and vegetables
Control
Treatment
Control
Treatment
266
261
288
287
1181
1020
716
827
Pre-test/main survey
Post-test/3 week follow-up survey
Table 4. Results of 3-week follow-up study. Self-reported Diet Change
Control
Increase fruits and vegetables in last few weeks?
No
Yes
Decrease red meat in last few weeks?
No
Yes
Decrease white meat in last few weeks?
No
Yes
Change in diet in last few weeks? Open-ended
No change
Ate more
Healthily
Ate less
Healthily
*p < 005; **p < 001; ***p < 0001. Dfs ranged from 1 to 2.
Treatment
2-way Chi-square
N
Col %
N
Col %
39
0
100
0
41
17
71
29
138***
39
0
100
0
51
7
88
12
50*
38
1
97
3
55
3
95
5
04
31
3
84
8
37
16
69
30
75*
3
8
1
2
Meat symbolism 125
significantly more individuals in the treatment group
than in the control group reported that they increased
their consumption of fruits and vegetables, decreased
red meat, and ate more healthily. A higher percentage of
individuals in the control group reported that they did
not change their diet since the main survey.
In the main survey, individuals in the treatment
group for whom the salience manipulation made sense
decreased their preferences for red and white meat and
slightly increased their support for fruits and vegetables
(Table 5), Sense Food Type interaction F(4,91) ˆ 46,
p < 0001. Also noteworthy was that individuals' perceptions of whether or not the salience manipulation
made sense was not appreciably correlated with their
level of SDO endorsement, r(100) ˆ ÿ007, p > 04. The
participants' open-ended statements of what they felt
was the main cause of the relationship between Social
Dominance and food choices provided several categories of explanations and interpretations (summarised
in the Appendix). The most common interpretations
were that people who endorse dominance support the
killing and eating of animals, and that people who
endorse dominance favour meat because it is expensive
and high status. Other interpretations were that men and
those who endorse the masculine role favour dominance
and meat and that consuming meat makes one aggressive and strong.
As expected, the food preferences of individuals with
low diet choice confidence were significantly affected
by the salience manipulation. Experimental Condition Food Type interaction F(4,69) ˆ 23, p < 005,
whereas the food preferences of those with high diet
choice confidence were not (Table 6). Also, individuals
who were open to meat avoidance decreased meat and
increased fruits and vegetables preferences as a result
of the meat salience manipulation, Experimental Condition Food Type interaction F(4,103) ˆ 28, p < 005,
but individuals not open to meat avoidance did not
Table 5. Food perceptions, liking, object identification and anticipated consumption by Sense and Food Type.
Treatment Group Only
Red and white meat
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated consumption (# servings)
Averages
Fruit and vegetables
Made sense
N ˆ 44
Did not make sense
N ˆ 56
Made sense
N ˆ 44
Did not make sense
N ˆ 56
457
504
381
169
378
550
556
426
156
422
674
609
413
499
549
671
622
418
430
535
Basic food perceptions, liking, object identification on a 1±7 scale, with higher numbers being more favourable. All means adjusted for
individuals' consumption of red meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables in the seven days prior to completing the main questionnaire.
Table 6. Food perceptions, liking, object identification and anticipated consumption by Experimental
Condition, Food Type, and diet choice confidence groups
Red and white meat
Low diet choice confidence (n ˆ 75)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated comsumption (# servings)
Averages
High diet choice confidence (n ˆ 124)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated consumption (# servings)
Averages
Fruit and vegetables
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
558
572
475
161
441
465
522
398
150
384
682
599
456
430
542
663
587
407
462
530
511
507
389
161
385
476
492
372
150
373
688
651
444
430
564
677
627
435
462
565
Basic food perceptions, liking, object identification on a 1±7 scale, with higher numbers being more favourable. All means adjusted for
individuals' consumption of red meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables in the seven days prior to completing the main questionnaire.
126
M. W. Allen and S. Baines
alter their food preferences (Table 7). Notable too was
the fact that individuals not open to meat avoidance
had stronger meat object identification than individuals open to meat avoidance (mean of 47 vs. 38),
t(213) ˆ 55, p < 0001. Low/normal weight individuals
decreased meat and maintained fruit and vegetable
preferences (Table 8), Experiment Condition Food
Type interaction F(4,113) ˆ 23, p < 005. The food
Table 7. Food perceptions, liking, object identification and anticipated consumption by Experimental Condition,
Food Type, and openness to meat avoidance groups
Red and white meat
Not open to meat avoidance (n ˆ 93)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated consumption (# servings)
Averages
Open to meat avoidance (n ˆ 109)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated consumption (# servings)
Averages
Fruit and vegetables
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
584
599
492
182
464
604
593
457
174
457
672
619
413
407
528
664
611
395
414
521
507
511
394
124
384
443
480
357
128
352
685
622
442
403
538
681
615
448
435
545
Basic food perceptions, liking, object identification on a 1±7 scale, with higher numbers being more favourable. All means adjusted for
individuals' consumption of red meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables in the seven days prior to completing the main questionnaire.
Table 8. Food perceptions, liking, object identification and anticipated consumption by Experimental
Condition, Food Type, and BMI groups
Red and white meat
Low/Normal BMI (n ˆ 125)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated consumption (# servings)
Averages
High BMI (n ˆ 70)
Perception of good bad
Food liking
Object identification
Anticipated consumption (# servings)
Averages
Fruits and vegetables
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
Control
N ˆ 103
Treatment
N ˆ 113
520
529
417
151
404
460
488
380
135
366
678
615
434
407
533
666
610
433
420
532
568
586
462
144
440
573
579
423
178
438
692
652
436
484
566
680
627
428
471
552
Basic food perceptions, liking, object identification on a 1±7 scale, with higher numbers being more favourable. All means adjusted for
individuals' consumption of red meat, white meat, fruits and vegetables in the seven days prior to completing the main questionnaire.
Table 9. Attitudes toward animals by Experimental Condition
Main survey
Attitudes toward animals
Food animals (cows, pigs, chickens)
General animal categories (birds, reptiles, insects, primates, non-primate mammals)
Averages
3 week follow-up survey
Pro-slaughtering attitude
Attitudes on a 1±7 scale; higher numbers are more favourable.
Control
Treatment
N ˆ 68
N ˆ 73
410
413
411
N ˆ 46
453
472
432
451
N ˆ 52
414
Averages
441
422
Meat symbolism 127
preferences of overweight individuals were not significantly affected.
Finally, the treatment group rated all animals
more favourably than control group (Table 9),
F(1,139) ˆ 56, p < 001, and individuals in the treatment
group rated food animals most favourably, Animal
Type Experimental Condition interaction F(1,139) ˆ
47, p < 005. Moreover, in the 3-week follow-up survey,
individuals in the treatment group were significantly
more opposed to animals being used as food than the
control group (lower portion of Table 9), t(89) ˆ 17,
p < 005.
Discussion
The results indicate that the salience manipulation
caused individuals in the treatment group who rejected
social dominance to perceive red and white meat less
favourably, to like red and white meat less, to decrease
their identification with red and white meat, to anticipate that they would eat more fruits and vegetables in
the subsequent 3 days, and indeed to report consuming
more fruits and vegetables in a follow-up study 3 weeks
later. It appears that participants in the present study
dealt with the inconsistency of their prior food choices
with their rejection of dominance by decreasing their
preferences for red and white meat and increasing their
anticipated and reported consumption of fruits and
vegetables.
However, individuals in the treatment group who
rejected social dominance did not decrease their consumption of red and white meat, nor did their preferences for fruits and vegetables increase. A possible
explanation for these exceptions from the predicted
effects is that it is less demanding to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables than to decrease consumption of red and white meat, or perhaps some level
of ``idealism''. Regarding the latter, individuals in the
treatment group were significantly more likely to report
in the 3-week follow-up study that they recently
decreased their red meat consumption (in the closed
question). However, a comparison of their red and white
meat consumption from pre- to post-test showed no
significant change. Although several interpretations for
this discrepancy are possible (including that only a small
number of individuals in the follow-up study reported
decreasing red meat), one account is that they genuinely
believe that they decreased their meat consumption.
This idealism or optimism would enable them to perceive that their food choices are consistent with their
human values (i.e. that they reject dominance and so eat
less meat). Consequently, idealism may be a fourth
strategy to respond to the feelings of inconsistency
brought about by making the symbolic meaning of meat
salient (the first being to decrease meat attitudes and
behaviour, the second to increase fruits and vegetables
attitudes and behaviour, and the third not to change
dietary preferences and instead alter human values).
Changes in food attitudes and behaviour were greater
when participants reported that the salience manipulation made sense. This indicates that it was the salience
manipulation that induced the attitude and behaviour
change. Furthermore, the individuals who changed
most were those who rejected dominance, suggesting
that it was this meaning of meat they were reacting
against. These are different pieces of evidence because
endorsement of dominance was only weakly correlated
to perception of sense with the salience manipulation.
Thus, the results of the present study provide tentative
support for the proposition that one means by which
consumers make dietary choices is by comparing the
human values symbolised by a food against the values
that they endorse. Based on Allen's (2000, 2001; Allen &
Ng, 1999) consumer decision-making model, it was
suggested that the comparison between one's values and
a food's symbolism affects one's attitude toward the
food, makes food purchase and consumption more
likely, and potentially imbues the evaluation of the
food's taste, smell and texture. Though the present study
indicated that the comparison between human values
and food symbolism results in more favourable attitudes
and greater consumption, the study did not address if the
comparison influences the evaluation of a food's sensory
characteristics. The issue is an important one for future
research because current theories of food choice suggest
that taste evaluation is mainly a biological process
(Sherwood, 1989) or that food attitudes result from
previous positive or negative experiences of a food
(Garcia et al., 1972). Less well understood is how the
evaluation of a food's taste is influenced by the interaction between the socially constructed, cultural meanings of the food and important aspects of individuals'
self-concepts (such as the values they hold).
Regarding attitudes toward animals, it was suggested
that making salient the dominance meaning of meat
should not only result in meat rejection and greater
acceptance of fruits and vegetables, but also in more
favourable attitudes toward animals in general and
food animals in particular (i.e. cows, pigs, chickens).
Following the salience manipulation, individuals in
the treatment group liked food animals more than the
control group and this sympathy with food animals
persisted 3 weeks later (as evidenced by their greater
opposition to slaughtering in the follow-up study).
This implies that some participants did make a cognitive
link between the hierarchy and dominance symbolic
meaning of meat and food animals. In support this
128
M. W. Allen and S. Baines
supposition, a common response in the open-ended
question of why social dominance is associated with diet
choice was that people who endorse dominance support
the killing and eating of animals (see the Appendix).
Thus, for these individuals, meat's ``anonymity''
(Barthes, 1957) and ``absent reference'' (Adams, 1990)
seems to have ameliorated by the salience manipulation.
Moreover, other interpretations that individuals in the
treatment group gave for the association between social
dominance and food choice were: meat is high status and
expensive, meat is masculine and for males, and meateating causes aggressiveness. Thus, even participants
who did not state explicitly that meat represents the
domination of humans over animals did recognise that
meat is implicated in gender and social class divisions.
Taken together, these findings are consistent with the
claims by some sociologists and anthropologists that
meat symbolises hierarchy and dominance in both
human-to-animal and human-to-human relations
(Adams, 1990; Fiddes, 1991).
Finally, the results of the present study could have
implications for health promotion. As mentioned, epidemiological studies reveal that low meat diets and
sufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables are
associated with positive health outcomes (Beilin et al.,
1988; Bergan & Brown, 1980; Block et al., 1992; Burr &
Butland, 1988; Fraser, 1988; Gerster, 1991). Nevertheless, many individuals consume more than the suggested servings of red and white meat and fewer than
the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables
(National Diet and Nutrition Survey, 1995, 1998;
National Dietary Survey of Adults, 1983, 1986). As
such, health campaigns have been launched endeavouring to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables
and/or decrease consumption of meat (Dixon et al.,
1998; Foerster et al., 1995; Havas et al., 1994; Kristal
et al., 2000). Many of these campaigns rely on nutritional arguments to persuade individuals to alter their
diet choices. However, Axelson et al. (1985) and
Shepherd and Towler (1992) found that nutritional
knowledge was weakly correlated with food selection,
suggesting that food choice is not driven by nutritional
considerations (but see Wardle et al., 2000). Thus, health
campaigns that rely exclusively on nutritional and other
health-related arguments might have limited success.
On the basis of the present study, we can suggest
that future health campaigns might persuade individuals
to alter their diets by enabling them to express their
values via the foods' symbolic meanings. For instance,
health campaigns might persuade individuals to increase
their consumption of fruits and vegetables if the promotional materials: (1) make salient the values that are
currently symbolised by fruits and vegetables because
these values (non-hierarchy and non-dominance) are
increasingly supported in Western culture; (2) change
the symbolic meaning of fruits and vegetables to
encapsulate other values that are already supported by
the public; and/or (3) make salient the values symbolised
by red and white meat, which, as shown in the present
study, can subsequently increase consumption of fruits
and vegetables. Indeed, in focus group studies, participants have suggested that greater consumption of
fruits and vegetables may be achieved with better marketing and positioning campaigns (Uetrecht et al.,
1999).
Notwithstanding this optimism, such campaigns
may have a modest impact on diet choice, given that
the effects in the present study were significant
but relatively small. In addition, such promotional
strategies may have less success among individuals
not open to meat avoidance, who have more confidence
in their dietary choices, or who are overweight.
References
Adams, C. J. (1990). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A FeministVegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum.
Allen, M. W. (2000). The attribute-mediation and product
meaning approaches to the influences of human values
on consumer choices. In F. Columbus (ed.), Advances in
Psychology Research, vol. 1, pp. 31±76. Huntington,
NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Allen, M. W. (2001). A practical method for uncovering the
direct and indirect relationships between human values
and consumer purchases. Journal of Consumer Marketing
18(2), 102±120.
Allen, M. W. (in press). Human values and product symbolism: do consumers form product preference by comparing the human values symbolized by a product to the
human values that they endorse? Journal of Applied
Social Psychology.
Allen, M. W. & Ng, S. H. (1999). The direct and indirect
influences of human values on product ownership.
Journal of Economic Psychology 20(1), 5±39.
Allen, M. W., Wilson, M., Ng, S. H. & Dunne, M. (2000).
Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal
of Social Psychology 140(4), 405±422.
Axelson, M. L., Federline, T. L. & Birnberg, D. (1985). A
meta-analysis of food and nutrition related research.
Journal of Nutrition Education 17, 51±54.
Ball, A. D. & Tasaki, L. H. (1992). The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behaviour. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 1, 155±172.
Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Le Seuil.
Beilin, L. J., Rouse, I. L., Armstrong, B. K., Margetts, B. M.
& Vandongen, R. (1988). Vegetarian diet and blood
pressure levels: Incidental or causal association? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 806±810.
Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D. & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism. Journal
of Consumer Research 9, 4±17.
Bell, D. (1973). The Coming Post Industrial Society. New
York: Basic Books.
Meat symbolism 129
Bergan, J. C. & Brown, P. T. (1980). Nutritional status of
``new'' vegetarians. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association 76, 151±155.
Birdwell, A. E. (1968). A study of the influence of image
congruence of consumer choice. Journal of Business 41,
76±88.
Block, G., Patterson, B. & Subar, A. (1992). Fruit, vegetables
and the prevention of cancer: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Nutrition and Cancer 18, 1±29.
Burr, M. L. & Butland, B. K. (1988). Heart disease in British
vegetarians. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 48,
830±832.
Burr, M. L. & Butland, B. K. (1988). Heart disease in British
vegetarians. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 48,
830±832.
Caplan, P. (1997). Approaches to the study of food, health
and identity. In P. Caplan (ed.), Food, Health and
Identity, pp. 1±31. New York: Routledge.
Capra, F. (1995). Deep ecology: a new paradigm. In
G. Sessions (ed.), Deep Ecology for the 21st Century:
Readings on the Philosophy of the New Environmentalism,
pp. 18±25. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.
Cuff, E. & Payne, C. (1979). Perspectives in Sociology.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Dixon, H., Borland, R., Segan, C., Stafford, H. & Sindall, C.
(1998). Public reaction to Victoria's 2 fruit and vegetables
everyday campaign and reported consumption of fruit
and vegetables. Preventative Medicine: An Internal
Devoted to Practice and Theory, 27, 572±582.
Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument. The
Journal of Environmental Education 9, 10±19.
Fiddes, N. (1991). Meat: A Natural Symbol. New York:
Routledge.
Fieldhouse, P. (1995). Food and Nutrition: Customs and
Culture. London: Chapman & Hall.
Foerster, S. B., Zizer, K. W., DiSogra, L. K. & Bal, D. G.
(1995). California's 5 a day for better health: an innovative population-based effort to effect large-scale dietary
change. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 11,
124±131.
Fraser, G. E. (1988). Determinants of ischemic heart disease
in Seventh-Day Adventists: a review. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 48, 832±836.
Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C., Sobal J. & Falk, L.
(1996). Food choice: a conceptual model of the process.
Appetite 26, 247±266.
Garcia, J., McGowan, B. K. & Green, K. F. (1972). Biological constraints on condition. In Black and Prokasy (eds),
Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory.
New York: Appleton.
Gerster, H. (1991). Potential role of beta-carotene in the
prevention of cardiovascular disease. International
Journal of Vitamin and Nutrition Research 61, 277±291.
Greenwald, A. G. (1988). A social-cognitive account of the
self's development. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power
(eds), Self, Ego, and Identity: Integrative Approaches,
pp. 30±42. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Grubb, E. L. & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, generalized stereotypes and brand selection. Journal of Marketing Research 5, 58±63.
Havas, S., Meimendinger, J. & Reynolds, K. (1994). 5 a day
for better health: a new research initiative. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association 94, 32±36.
Heatey, K. R. & Thombs, D. L. (1997). Fruit-vegetable
consumption self-efficacy in youth. American Journal of
Health Behaviour 21, 172±177.
Heisley, D. D. (1990). Gender symbolism in food. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Northwestern University.
Kahn, M. (1980). Always in hunger: food as metaphor for
social identity in Wamira, Papua New Guinea. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Brwn Mawr College.
Kensinger, K. M. (1983). On meat and hunting. Current
Anthropology 24(1), 128±129.
Kerr, M. & Charles, N. (1986). Servers and providers: the
distribution of food within the family. Sociological
Review 34, 115±157.
Kristal, A. R., Curry, S. J., Shattuck, A. I., Feng, Z. & Li, S.
(2000). A randomized trial of a tailored, self-help dietary
intervention: the Puget Sound eating patterns study.
Preventative Medicine: An Internal Devoted to Practice
and Theory 31, 380±389.
Lawrance, L. & McLeroy, K. R. (1986). Self-efficacy and health
promotion. Journal of School Health 56, 317±321.
Leaky, R. E. & Lewin, R. (1978). People of the Lake:
Mankind and its Beginnings. New York: Doubleday.
Leghorn, L. & Roodkowsky, M. (1977). Who Really Starves:
Women and World Hunger. New York: Friendship Press.
Lupton, D. (1996). Food, the Body and the Self. London: Sage.
Munson, J. M. & Spivey, W. A. (1981). Product and
brand user stereotypes among social classes. Advances
in Consumer Research 8, 696±701.
National Diet and Nutrition Survey (1995, 1998). London:
Stationery Office.
National Dietary Survey of Adults (1983, 1986). Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Nemeroff, C. & Rozin, P. (2000). The makings of the magical
mind: the nature and function of sympathetic magical
thinking. In Rosengren Johnson & Carl (eds), Imagining
the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking
in Children, pp. 1±34. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Perisse, J., Sizaret, F. & Francois, P. (1969). The effects of
income on the structure of diet. Nutrition Newsletter
7(3), 1±9.
Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use
of animals. Journal of Social Issues 49(1), 11±52.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M. & Malle, B. F.
(1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality
variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 67, 741±763.
Reeves-Sanday, P. (1981). Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New
York: The Free Press.
Sahlins, M. (1976). Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Serpell, J. (1986). In the Company of Animals: A Study of
Human±Animal Relationships. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Shepherd, R. & Towler, G. (1992). Nutrition knowledge,
attitudes and fat intake: application of the theory of
reasoned action. Journal of Human Nutrition and
Dietetics 5, 387±397.
Sherwood, L. (1989). Human Physiology: From Cells to Systems. New York: West.
Twigg, J. (1983). Vegetarianism and the meanings in
meat. In A. Murcott (ed.) The Sociology of Food and
130
M. W. Allen and S. Baines
Eating: Essays on the Sociological Significance of Food.
Hants, England: Grower.
Uetrecht, C. L., Greenberg, M., Dwyer, J. M., Sutherland, S.
& Tobin, S. (1999). Factors influencing vegetable and
fruit use: implications for promotion. American Journal
of Health Behaviour 23, 172±181.
Wallendorf, M. & Arnould, E. J. (1988). ``My favorite
things'': a cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment,
possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer
Research 14, 531±547.
Wardle, J., Parmenter, K. & Waller, J. (2000). Nutritional
knowledge and food intake. Appetite 34, 269±275.
Wood, D. (1971). Strategies. In S. Godlovitch, R. Godlovitch
& J. Harris (eds), Animals, Men and Morals: An Enquiry
into the Maltreatment of Non-Humans, pp. 193±212.
New York: Taplinger Publishing Company.
Worsley, A. & Skrzypiec, G. (1998). Teenage vegetarianism:
prevalence, social and cognitive contexts. Appetite 30(2),
151±170.
Appendix: Treatment group's comments regarding the possible cause
or explanation of the association between social dominance and food choices
People who endorse hierarchy and dominance favour foods that are expensive and high status 29%
Typical comments were:
``It might be a matter of money ± higher social standing ± more finances available ± reverse this for social standing''
``It makes upper social feel and look better than lower social they feel superior''
``Meat symbolic of wealth''
``Only people with money can afford to be snobs (have high social dominance), they're the ones that can eat good food''
People who endorse hierarchy and dominance support the killing and eating of animals 22%
Typical comments were:
``Red meat brings out the animal in us. Mankind has survived by killing and eating red meat''
``High dominance people are able to overlook the unsavoury side of using animals for food!''
``Goes back to the days of hunting (the hunter is dominant in the society)''
``Perhaps the reason may be that people who consciously make a choice to reduce red/white meat and
therefore increase fruit and vegetable in their diet are the type of people who believe that animals are
not on this earth for the sole purpose of feeding humans''
``Those who don't agree with social dominance would believe in equal opportunities for all including animals''
Males tend to favour dominance and meat 5%
Typical comments were:
``Culturally, Australian males are taught to be dominant and consume lots of meat''
``The `hunter and gatherer' culture of our forbearers, was one where the dominant male hunted
the red meat while the subservient female gathered the cereals and vegetables and fruit. Although the
social dominance is not as apparent today as yester-year''
Consuming meat makes one aggressive and strong 4%
Typical comments were:
``Red meat makes people aggressive''
``Red meat changes a type of chemical balance and results in a high social dominance''
``People with high social dominance may believe that eating meat will make them stronger and more control''
``Meat gives strength: strength ˆ dominance''
Miscellaneous comments 40%
Typical comments were:
``For myself there is no correlation to these findings. For the general population these results indicate
that people of low social dominance are vegetarian''
``Social dominance has nothing to do with it. Freedom of choice and nutrition education does''
``I think it says more about intellectual capacity, tolerance, indoctrination, bigotry and education! I would need further
information before I could accept completely the findings''
``Too busy enjoying the social side of life which may involve eating out and eating these food groups''
Participants in the treatment group answered the open-ended question ``What do you think is the main reason or cause of the relationship
between Social Dominance and food choices ?''.