690 German survey recipients were given one of four different fictitious "newspaper articles" describing negative effects of meat consumption - either in terms of adverse effects on human health, on climate change, on animal welfare or on personal image. Findings showed that animal welfare and health arguments had the strongest effects at reducing meat consumption in both men and women.
7 pages., via online journal., The aim of this work is to explore the relation between morality and diet choice by investigating how animal and
human welfare attitudes and donation behaviors can predict a meat eating versus flexitarian versus vegetarian
diet. The results of a survey study (N=299) show that animal health concerns (measured by the Animal
Attitude Scale) can predict diet choice. Vegetarians are most concerned, while full-time meat eaters are least
concerned, and the contrast between flexitarians and vegetarians is greater than the contrast between
flexitarians and full-time meat eaters.
With regards to human welfare (measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire), results show that attitudes
towards human suffering set flexitarians apart from vegetarians and attitudes towards authority and respect
distinguish between flexitarians and meat eaters. To conclude, results show that vegetarians donate more
often to animal oriented charities than flexitarians and meat eaters, while no differences between the three
diet groups occur for donations to human oriented charities.
