1020356

research-article2021
GPI0010.1177/13684302211020356Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsStanley

G
Group Processes & P
Intergroup Relations I
Article R

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Ideological bases of attitudes towards 1­–21

© The Author(s) 2021

meat abstention: Vegetarianism as

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13684302211020356
a threat to the cultural and
https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211020356
journals.sagepub.com/home/gpi

economic status quo

Samantha K. Stanley

Abstract
Those on the political right engage in greater meat consumption and animal exploitation than their left-
wing counterparts. Previous research suggests this is because they view vegetarianism as threatening
the nation’s dietary customs and economy. Across two studies, I extend this concept of “vegetarianism
threat” by showing that it separates into two distinct dimensions of concern: cultural (symbolic)
threats and economic (realistic) threats. The resultant multidimensional scale allows a finer grained
understanding of the roots of ideology-based threat responses to meat-free movements. Together,
results implicate symbolic concerns as the key element of vegetarianism threat contributing to negative
attitudes towards meat abstention and its proponents.

Keywords
intergroup threat theory, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, speciesism,
veg*nism, vegetarianism threat

Paper received 24 February 2021; revised version accepted 5 May 2021.

As climate change continues to worsen, many are
turning their attention to the individual behav-
iours contributing to the climate crisis. This is
especially the case in high-emitting nations such
as Australia and the United States, where emis-
sions per capita are more than 3 times the world
average (Ritchie, 2019), and where attitudes
towards climate change are contingent on indi-
viduals’ political allegiance (Hornsey et al., 2018).
Intervention studies that aim to encourage
proenvironmental behaviours often focus on
actions associated with relatively small environ-
mental impacts, such as recycling (Geiger et al.,
2019; Varotto & Spagnolli, 2017). Meanwhile,
some personal behaviours with larger footprints,
such as meat consumption (Rabès et al., 2020;
Scarborough et al., 2014), are rarely measured or
the target of behaviour change campaigns (but
see Graça et al., 2019). This has led some to
Australian National University, Australia
Corresponding author:
Samantha K. Stanley, Research School of Psychology,
Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital
Territory 2601, Australia.
Email: Samantha.stanley@anu.edu.au
2 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
question whether we are counting what counts
(Huddart Kennedy et al., 2015).
Despite its considerable environmental bur-
den, few people abstain from eating meat, making
vegetarianism and veganism unpopular choices.
For example, in the United States, just 5% of the
population is vegetarian (Hrynowski, 2019), and
in Australia, 11% say they eat vegetarian always or
almost always (Roy Morgan, 2016). Despite low
numbers abstaining from meat consumption,
many Americans (42%; Jones, 2016) and most
Australians (63%; World Wide Fund for Nature
[WWF], 2018) identify as environmentalists.
These figures highlight a disconnect between
apparent concern and awareness of environmen-
tal problems and individuals’ contributions to cli-
mate change through diet. Given that many of us
are “environmentalists at heart” (WWF, 2018),
why is the veg*n1 revolution slow to take hold?
Both financial and cultural factors are at work
in maintaining the normative status of meat con-
sumption. In Australia, meat is one of the coun-
try’s top-earning exports (Meat & Livestock
Australia, 2019), with over 100,000 farmers work-
ing in the animal agriculture sector (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2012). In the United States,
just under 30% of workers in the food and bever-
age industries are employees of the meat and
poultry industries (United States Department of
Agriculture, 2020). Meat consumption also takes
center stage in each country’s cultural and agricul-
tural histories. As well as being normative in both
countries, traditional events are accompanied with
animal products such as the “democracy sausage”
on Australian election days (Brett, 2019) and a tur-
key as the “central symbol” of the American
Thanksgiving Day (Siskind, 1992, p. 168).
MacInnis and Hodson (2017) found that
veg*ns face prejudice on par with other minority
groups in society, and that those holding politically
conservative attitudes deal particularly harsh judg-
ments. This may arise from the threat veg*ns pose
to their country’s economy and cultural traditions.
Dhont and Hodson (2014) were the first to find
evidence for this phenomenon, which they called
vegetarianism threat. They created a measure of
vegetarianism threat to index concerns about the
economic and cultural consequences of vegetari-
anism. While Dhont and Hodson did not disag-
gregate their measure to explore the relative effects
of each type of concern (as is the focus of this
study), they did show that vegetarianism threat was
more pronounced among the politically conserva-
tive. Specifically, those oriented towards social
dominance (SDO; tolerant of group-based ine-
quality and hierarchy) or preferring right-wing
authoritarianism (RWA; preference for strict, puni-
tive social control) scored higher on the combined
vegetarianism threat measure. Indeed, Dhont and
Hodson found that perceived vegetarianism threat
explains why right-wing adherents hold more neg-
ative views towards animals and consume greater
quantities of meat than their left-wing counter-
parts. In this way, viewing vegetarianism as a chal-
lenge to the norms and economy of a country may
work to legitimize eating and exploiting animals.
This research is consistent with a broader pro-
gram of research implicating conservative politi-
cal ideology in the exploitation of animals (Graça
et al., 2018) and the natural world (Milfont et al.,
2013). Individuals who align with a conservative
political ideology, and in particular those endors-
ing SDO and RWA, are more likely to deny cli-
mate change and hold less proenvironmental
attitudes (Hornsey et al., 2016; Stanley & Wilson,
2019). Hoffarth and Hodson (2016) have demon-
strated that a construct related to vegetarianism
threat—environmentalist threat—accounts for
this association between political conservatism
and the rejection of climate science and
proclimate policy. Understanding the driver of
conservatism-based climate denial led the authors
to back calls for climate change communications
that avoid threatening conservative values, for
instance, pitching proclimate action as “growing
the economy by creating green jobs” (p. 47). This
observation suggests that the content of the
threat is to the economy. However, neither the
vegetarianism nor the environmentalism threat
measure disentangle economic and cultural
threats to identify which domain of concern is
driving the lower support for these causes.
Stanley 3
This is an important distinction, as intergroup
threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000; Stephan
et al., 2009) conceptualizes these threats as related
but distinct: clashes over values versus resources.
Symbolic threats are those concerns about an
outgroup not sharing the same values, culture,
traditions, norms, or way of life as the ingroup.
Realistic threats are threats to economic well-
being, and include concerns about sharing limited
resources such as public spending or political
power. Items on the Vegetarianism Threat Scale,
such as “The rise of vegetarianism poses a threat
to our country’s cultural customs,” clearly align
with symbolic threats. Others more clearly meas-
ure a realistic threat dimension, such as
“Vegetarianism has a negative influence on the
[Belgian] economy.” While most research on
intergroup prejudice treats these threats as dis-
tinct, measuring each with a dedicated subscale
(e.g., Landmann et al., 2019; Stephan et al., 1999),
the vegetarianism and environmentalist threat
scales have not been delineated into these two
dimensions.
Examining the original eight-item Vegetarianism
Threat Scale reveals a greater proportion of items
measuring symbolic than realistic threats.
Specifically, five items appear to distinctly measure
symbolic threat (Items 1–5), while two more clearly
measure realistic (economic and political) threats
(Items 6–7). It is unclear what type of threat the
remaining item measures (“Nowadays, when it
comes to nutrition and meals, people listen too
much to what a minority of vegetarians wants”).
While MacInnis and Hodson (2017) used this scale
to show that perceived vegetarianism threat exac-
erbates inter(dietary)group tensions, they found
that this was especially the case for individuals
already poised to protect the social norms and
hierarchy within a society, that is, those endorsing
SDO or RWA (see also Dhont & Hodson, 2014).
Importantly, while both ideological attitudes pre-
dict prejudice (Altemeyer, 1988), they may do so in
response to different kinds of threats.
Cantal et al. (2015) show that the prejudice of
social dominants and that of authoritarians are
directed towards different targets consistent with
their motivations. Social dominants, who concern
themselves with power distributions and hierar-
chy, show heightened disdain for groups at the
bottom of the hierarchy (i.e., “derogated,” low-
status groups). Authoritarians are instead moved
to secure a safe society, and dislike those who
threaten this goal, with more prejudiced views
towards dangerous groups. Both SDO and RWA
are associated with lower liking of dissident indi-
viduals, which is consistent with dissidents’ threat
to both social order and social control. This
research suggests the type of group (and type of
threat associated with the group) is important in
determining social dominants’ and authoritarians’
responses. While Cantal et al. (2015) treated envi-
ronmentalists as a derogated group, they did not
include veg*ns, who may be expected to instead
align with the dissident groups (e.g., feminists,
protestors) and therefore be disliked by high-
SDO and high-RWA individuals alike.
Determining how SDO and RWA contribute to
prejudice against veg*ns can inform us of the
type of threat these groups pose.
Rios et al. (2018) reviewed research demon-
strating that endorsement of SDO and RWA
shifts in response to threat manipulations, while
also shaping responses to these manipulations.
While realistic threat manipulations typically
increased endorsement of SDO, symbolic threats
instead acted on RWA levels. Similarly, SDO
more strongly moderated the effects of realistic
threat manipulations on prejudice, and RWA
moderated the effects of symbolic threat manip-
ulations on prejudice. While this general pattern
is reasonably clear from the literature they
reviewed, the research is only limited, and some
found mixed results. For example, Rios et al. sug-
gested that endorsement of SDO may still be
sensitive to symbolic threat manipulations when
these put values central to intergroup hierarchy at
risk, such as meritocracy. Furthermore, although
RWA should theoretically respond more strongly
to symbolic threats, this has not been tested, and
the one study that included RWA examined real-
istic threats tied to group safety (Duckitt &
Fisher, 2003). Safety threats are not typically asso-
ciated with threat from veg*ns, and were not
included in the original Vegetarianism Threat
4 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
Scale. Taken together, the literature suggests both
the content of the threat and individual differ-
ences in ideology are important.
The rise of veg*nism signifies a rejection of
the normative promeat ideology and economy,
and may therefore provoke concerns for the cul-
tural traditions and economy in nations reliant on
agriculture. Therefore, veg*nism threat may
equally arise from both realistic and symbolic
concerns, which each may have different ideo-
logical antecedents. My program of research
aimed to test these possibilities by developing a
measure that distinctly captures cultural (sym-
bolic) and economic (realistic) concerns about
veg*nism. Study 1 explores whether the threats
that vegetarianism poses to the dominant culture
and economy are indeed distinct. In Study 2, the
two-dimensional structure of the Veg*nism
Threat Scale is confirmed and the scale further
refined, and I test the extent to which symbolic
and realistic vegetarianism threats mediate the
associations between ideological attitudes (SDO/
RWA) and a wider range of attitudes and actions
regarding meat consumption and abstention.
Study 1
In Study 1, I began developing a multidimen-
sional version of the Vegetarianism Threat Scale.
This involved creating a larger set of items, more
balanced in their reference to symbolic and realis-
tic threats than the original scale, and subjecting
the data to exploratory factor analysis. Owing to
Australia’s agricultural history and economic
emphasis on agriculture, an Australian sample
provides a good context for this preliminary
examination of vegetarianism threat. Consistent
with their higher than average per capita emis-
sions (Ritchie, 2019), Australians are big consum-
ers of animal products, eating an average of 2.5
times more meat than the world average
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development [OECD], 2017). In other words, it
is not only normal to eat meat in Australia, but
also to consume a lot of it. Anecdotal evidence
reported in news stories suggests prejudice
against veg*ns is rife in Australia, and that “most
people hate vegetarians and they loathe vegans”
(Wood, 2016).
Although the aims of Study 1 are largely
exploratory, the literature reviewed in the intro-
duction does point to some predictions. First,
consistent with intergroup threat theory (Stephan
et al., 2009), I expect symbolic and realistic threats
to form related but distinct factors. While early
research on the link between threat and prejudice
treated symbolic and realistic threat explanations
as competing theories, recent research using the
integrated approach typically finds that both
dimensions uniquely contribute to prejudice
(Riek et al., 2006). If found, I will examine how
the two factors predict prejudiced attitudes
towards veg*ns as indexed by feeling thermome-
ter ratings, which ask participants to rate how
warm versus cold they feel towards various
groups. This type of rating scale has been used to
study prejudice towards a range of social out-
groups, including dietary groups (MacInnis &
Hodson, 2017), and shows comparable validity as
multi-item measures (Jaccard et al., 1975).
To gain insight into the ideological founda-
tions of attitudes towards vegetarians, I will
examine the extent to which these attitudes are
rooted in endorsement of SDO and RWA.
Finally, I will contribute to the small but growing
evidence on the differential effects of ideology
on threat by examining the extent that ideological
attitudes differentially relate to symbolic and real-
istic vegetarianism threat.
Method
Participants and procedure. I advertised my first
study to the undergraduate cohort of students on
a research participation platform at the Australian
National University. I analyzed data from 197 par-
ticipants (31.0% male, 68.5% female, 0.5% other),
who completed the vegetarianism threat measures
as part of a larger online survey. On average,
respondents were 20.5 years old (SD = 3.1 years).
The majority (64.5%) identified as omnivore (con-
sumes meat, poultry, or fish), 20.3% were flexitar-
ian (flexible vegetarian, mostly vegetarian but will
occasionally eat meat), 10.7% were vegetarian
Stanley 5
(consumes no meat, only eggs or dairy), and 4.6%
were vegan (consumes no animal food). Partici-
pants completed the survey voluntarily and
received credit towards their research participa-
tion hours. The Australian National University
human research ethics committee approved the
ethics protocol for both Studies 1 and 2 (Protocol
2020/467).
Materials
Multidimensional vegetarianism threat. As Dhont
and Hodson’s (2014) original Vegetarianism
Threat Scale mostly measured symbolic threats, I
created 10 new items (for a total of 18) by modi-
fying other threat scales, including Hoffarth and
Hodson’s (2016) Environmentalist Threat Scale
and Landmann et al.’s (2019) intergroup threat
measures. Items were modified to refer to possi-
ble threat posed by the vegetarianism movement
(rather than from environmentalists or refugees, as
in the original scales). Participants rated each item
on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree). See Table 1 for sample items.
Liking of dietary groups. Using the definitions
described before, participants rated their feel-
ings towards vegans, vegetarians, and flexitarians
on sliding scales from 0 (extremely cold) to 100
(extremely warm), with a midpoint of neutral.
Ideological attitudes. I measured SDO using
Ho et al.’s (2015) shortened eight-item measure.
Participants responded to items such as “Some
groups of people are simply inferior to other
groups” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree, 7 = strongly agree). Using the same response
scale, participants completed Duckitt et al.’s
(2010) 18-item Authoritarianism-Conservatism-
Traditionalism Scale (e.g., “What our country
needs most is discipline, with everyone following
our leaders in unity”). Both scales were accept-
ably reliable (SDO: α = .79; RWA: α = .89).
Results and Discussion
Data and syntax for both Study 1 and 2 are avail-
able on the Open Science Framework: https://
osf.io/7p9dw/
Dimensionality of vegetarianism threat. I subjected
the data to principal components analysis with
oblimin rotation. Although my sample was rela-
tively small, it met minimum requirements (197
cases to 18 variables, above the minimum five
cases per variable). Data were approximately nor-
mally distributed (all skewness and kurtosis val-
ues ±1.5), and met assumptions for factor
analysis: KMO = .95; Bartlett’s test: χ(153) =
2,726.24, p < .001.
My initial analysis suggested a two-factor solu-
tion explaining 64.36% of the variance, with a
drop in the amount of variance explained from the
third factor. On examination of the pattern matrix,
Factor 1 was clearly interpretable as measuring
symbolic threat, with nine items loading strongly
(above .60), and two complex items about nutri-
tion and involvement in politics. The second factor
clearly captured realistic threat, with seven items
with strong loadings, and just one with a weak
cross-loading onto the first factor.
I began refining the factor solution by remov-
ing one complex item at a time. First, I removed
the item “The vegetarian movement is too
involved in local and national politics,” as this had
the lowest primary loading (.44 on the symbolic
threat factor), and a cross-loading of .33 on the
realistic threat factor. The refined solution still
had one complex item (“Nowadays, when it
comes to nutrition and meals, people listen too
much to what a minority of vegetarians want”),
loading at .50 and .33 on symbolic and realistic
dimensions, respectively. As this item also did not
fit based on theory, it too was removed.
The final two-factor solution explained
65.98% of the variance in the 16 remaining items.
All items loaded strongly on one dimension each,
and the factors were interpretable and consistent
with theory (see factor loading matrix in Table 1).
One complex item remained (“The Australian
economy cannot remain stable if we listen to veg-
etarians”); however, the item had a strong pri-
mary loading (.64) and a large gap between this
and the cross-loading, which was at the cutoff for
considering removing items (.30). Given that the
item fit with theory, it was retained.
Results from the factor analysis clearly indi-
cated which items belonged to each factor. The
6 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)

Table 1.  Factor loadings from principal components analysis with oblimin rotation: Study 1.

Item Symbolic Realistic

threat threat
Eating meat is part of our cultural habits and identity and some people should .87  
be more respectful of that.
Important family traditions and celebrations are increasingly being ruined and .86  
disappearing because of the presence of vegetarians in certain families.
Vegetarians should have more respect for our traditional eating customs, which .84  
meat consumption is simply part of.
Important culinary traditions which are typical to our country are starting to die .81  
out due to the rise of vegetarianism.
The rise of vegetarianism poses a threat to our country’s cultural customs. .78  
Vegetarians need to conform to the rules and norms of Australian society. .78  
If more people become vegetarians, Australian culture will be seriously harmed. .75  
The increase in vegetarianism is threatening our way of life and our values in .71  
Australia.
Vegetarian’s values and beliefs are not compatible with most Australians. .62  
The Australian economy will be negatively affected by an increase in .86
vegetarianism.
The rise of vegetarianism is going to take away jobs from Australians. .78
If the Australian government makes changes to reduce animal agriculture, other .71
countries will fill the gap in the market and get an economic advantage.
Hard-working Australians are negatively impacted by vegetarians. .70
Australia’s economic situation is at risk due to vegetarianism. .70
If we want Australia to be economically competitive, we shouldn’t pay too .69
much attention to vegetarians.
The Australian economy cannot remain stable if we listen to vegetarians. .30 .64

Note. N = 197. Factor loadings below .30 are not shown.

nine symbolic threat items formed a reliable scale
(α = .94, corrected item-total correlations
between .68 and .82), and the seven realistic threat
items were similarly reliable (α = .90, corrected
item-total correlations between .53 to .81).
Descriptive statistics based on mean scores for
each factor (see Table 2) suggest that, on average,
participants do not perceive vegetarians as posing
a symbolic or realistic threat.
Correlational analyses. Table 2 reports zero-order
correlations between each threat dimension and
other variables of interest. Symbolic and realistic
threats were strongly associated with ideological
attitudes (SDO and RWA): the more individuals
preferred strict societal hierarchy and control, the
more they viewed the vegetarian movement as
threatening. Interestingly, feelings towards vege-
tarians and vegans were highly correlated, sug-
gesting that people rate these groups similarly.
Unique associations with prejudice.  To test how the
dimensions of threat are uniquely associated with
prejudice against vegetarians and vegans, I
entered symbolic and realistic threats as predic-
tors of the feeling thermometer items in a multi-
ple linear regression.2 As shown in Table 3, both
symbolic and realistic threats uniquely contrib-
uted to prejudice against vegans, while dislike of
vegetarians was uniquely explained only by per-
ceived symbolic threat. This suggests that liking
of vegetarians may not depend on the extent they
disrupt the economy. Instead, what matters is
their perceived effect on Australian culture. How-
ever, both threats contribute to prejudice against
the more extreme proponents of this movement
Stanley 7

Table 2.  Associations between symbolic and realistic vegetarianism threat, ideology, and liking of dietary
groups: Study 1.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Symbolic threat –  
2. Realistic threat .75*** –  
3. Social dominance orientation .51*** .46*** –  
4. Right-wing authoritarianism .66*** .56*** .68*** –  
5. Liking of vegans −.53*** −.53*** −.38*** −.40*** –  
6. Liking of vegetarians −.63*** −.52*** −.44*** −.44*** .84*** –  
7. Liking of flexitarians −.34*** −.34*** −.37*** −.35*** .45*** .62*** –
M 2.39 2.70 2.56 2.94 65.92 73.50 76.06
SD 1.20 1.20 0.97 0.88 25.31 23.22 21.17

Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Table 3.  Results of models regressing feeling
thermometer ratings on threat perceptions: Study 1.
R2 β Symbolic β Realistic
threat
Vegans .32 −.31***
Vegetarians .40 −.55***
Flexitarians .13 −.19
Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01.
(i.e., vegans). Opinions of flexitarians, who iden-
tify as occasional meat eaters (or “flexible vege-
tarians”), were not dependent on vegetarianism
threat, suggesting this group is immune from
threat-based dislike. Results were similar when
veg*n participants were removed from the analy-
ses (see Table S2 in the supplemental material).
Ideological bases of prejudice.  SDO and RWA were
also correlated in my sample. To disentangle their
contributions to dietary group liking and per-
ceived vegetarian threat, both were entered as
predictors in regression analyses. SDO and RWA
explained 18% of the variance in feelings towards
vegans, and both were unique predictors of prej-
udice (SDO: β = −.20, p = .027; RWA: β =
−.26, p = .004). Slightly more variance was
explained in ratings of vegetarians (23%), and
SDO and RWA were equivalent unique predic-
tors (SDO: β = −.26, p = .003; RWA: β = −.26,
p = .003). This suggests that both ideological
attitudes contribute to the disliking of vegetarians
and vegans. Based on Cantal et al.’s (2015) analy-
sis, this suggests that those who abstain from eat-
threat ing meat are a type of dissident group in Australia.
Dissident groups threaten both social order and
−.29** social control, thus attracting the prejudice of
−.11 those oriented towards social dominance and
−.20 authoritarianism at similar rates.
Ideological bases of vegetarianism threat. SDO and
RWA explained 44% of the variance in symbolic
threat perceptions, and 33% of the variance in
realistic threat perceptions. Consistent with the
prediction based on Rios et al.’s (2018) interpreta-
tion of the main patterns in the literature,
endorsement of RWA was more strongly posi-
tively associated with symbolic threat (β = .58, p
< .001) than SDO (β = .11, p = .121). However,
and diverging from the weight of evidence, RWA
was also a stronger predictor of realistic threat (β
= .46, p < .001) than SDO (β = .15, p = .068).
While previous work speculates that SDO (and
not RWA) would predict intergroup hostility to
the extent that a group threatens economic inter-
ests (aligned with realistic threats), this is not sup-
ported with my data on vegetarianism.
Importantly, it is not simply that vegetarians
themselves attract greater RWA-based prejudice,
given the similar unique association that SDO has
with ratings of veg*ns. Instead, it is that the rea-
son for SDO’s disdain for veg*ns is not captured
by these threats, while the threats appear key to
8 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
understanding high-RWA individuals’ position on
vegetarianism. As this finding is novel, it warrants
further investigation, and thus I continue explor-
ing the ideology-based antecedents of symbolic
and realistic vegetarianism threat in Study 2.
Conclusions
Taken together, my findings provide preliminary
support for the utility of the multidimensional
measure. While the results of the factor analysis
provide good support for the dimensionality of
the scale, a separate sample is needed to confirm
the factor structure. Although the initial
Australian sample was justified, I relied on a con-
venience sample of students, thus I aimed to
recruit a larger, general population sample from
the United States for Study 2, as this is where sev-
eral of the existing vegetarianism threat studies
have been conducted (e.g., Dhont et al., 2016,
Study 3; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017, Study 1).
While research on the unidimensional construct
indicates that SDO and RWA relate to meat con-
sumption and speciesism through increased veg-
etarianism threat (Dhont & Hodson, 2014), I did
not include these outcome measures in my first
study, precluding a thorough investigation of the
extent that each domain of concern contributes
to attitudes. I address this by including a greater
variety of correlates of meat abstention attitudes
and behaviour in Study 2.
Study 2
In Study 2, I aimed to collect further evidence on
the multidimensionality of vegetarianism threat. I
recruited participants from the United States,
which has a similar culture of high meat con-
sumption, to see if the two-dimensional factor
structure and associations with veg*nism preju-
dice found in Study 1 replicate in a new context.
Dhont et al. (2016) demonstrated that SDO and
RWA consistently relate to (unidimensional) veg-
etarianism threat and speciesism across cultures,
including in the United States.
I use confirmatory factor analysis to verify
whether the two-dimensional scale fits the data
better than a one-dimensional alternative in this
context. I further refine the scale to validate a
shorter multidimensional scale equal in length to
the original scale (eight items), though balanced
with respect to the two threat dimensions. As
Study 1 correlations indicated vegetarians and
vegans are rated very similarly (correlation >
.80), I broaden the focus of the scale to refer to
both veg*n groups in Study 2 (as in MacInnis &
Hodson, 2017).
I also include a wider range of potential cor-
relates of vegetarianism threat to further under-
stand the extent to which symbolic and realistic
concerns contribute to individual differences in
attitudes and behaviour. Previous research indi-
cates that those with more conservative ideolo-
gies eat more meat, and even when they do
adopt a veg*n diet, they are more likely to give
it up (Hodson & Earle, 2018). Dhont and
Hodson (2014) showed that the association
between political orientation and meat con-
sumption is explained by vegetarianism threat. I
will examine the extent to which this greater
consumption is explained (mediated) by con-
cerns about the cultural and economic conse-
quences of veg*nism (i.e., symbolic and realistic
threat dimensions).
Dhont et al. (2016) suggested that the intensity
of reactions to the increasing status of animals
may depend on the consequences for human inter-
group relations. While the authors did not test this
theory, it is consistent with research in the environ-
mental sphere. Specifically, Milfont and Sibley
(2014) showed that those relatively higher in SDO
support an environmentally harmful industry only
when profits go to those higher in status. In other
words, environmental degradation is an acceptable
means to maintain or enhance intergroup inequal-
ity. To test whether SDO-based opposition to
veg*nism depends on the way animal welfare and
related policies affect dominant groups, I assess
support for a range of policies that differ on their
potential to enhance (e.g., increasing penalties for
animal rights activists trespassing private property)
versus attenuate social hierarchy (e.g., redirecting
agricultural subsidies to plant-based food
production).
Stanley 9
Finally, I provide an empirical test of a phe-
nomenon recently observed in the news: is the
recent backlash against naming plant-based foods
after traditionally animal-based foods (e.g., soy
milk, vegan sausages; Berger, 2020) more to do
with cultural ownership of a term (i.e., rooted in
symbolic concerns) or about diverting profit away
from animal agriculture (i.e., rooted in realistic
concerns)? To explore these possibilities, I test
the extent that the dimensions of veg*nism threat
contribute to opposition to labeling plant-based
products with “meat” names.
Method
Participants and procedure.  I used Schoemann et al.’s
(2017) Monte Carlo power analysis (https://sch-
oemanna.shinyapps.io/mc_power_med/) to esti-
mate the required sample size for Study 2. This took
into account two parallel mediators, target power
of .80, minimum sample size (arbitrarily set at 200),
10,000 power analysis replications with 20,000
Monte Carlo draws per replication, and a random
seed of 1,234. Effect sizes were based on correla-
tions between RWA (as the key ideological driver
from Study 1), both mediators (symbolic and real-
istic threat), and my key dependent variable from
Study 1: ratings of vegetarians. Because Study 2
uses shortened versions of the scales, I recalculated
these correlations based on the six top-loading
items to measure each dimension of vegetarianism
threat (see Table S1 in the supplemental material).
The simulation indicated that a sample of 200
would achieve power of 1 to detect the indirect
path through symbolic threat, and a minimum
sample of 440 to achieve power of .80 at the lower
limit of the confidence interval (estimated power
= .81, 95% CI [0.80, 0.82]) to detect the path
through realistic threat.
Participants were recruited via Prolific, and were
eligible to take part in the study if they were living
in the United States and aged 18 or older. In total,
453 participants completed the survey, with 13
removed for failing an attention check. As Prolific
samples tend to skew liberal, I restricted 150 places
to political conservatives, which achieved a median
of 50 on a 0–100 liberal to conservative Political
Orientation Scale. Participants had a mean age of
33.70 years (SD = 13.15); 46.4% were male, 51.4%
female, 2.3% other. The majority (78.9%) identified
as omnivore, followed by flexitarian (13.6%), vege-
tarian (5.7%), and vegan (1.8%). Completion of the
8-minute online survey was compensated with
US$0.97.
Materials
Veg*nism threat.  I included six items per dimen-
sion from Study 1 that most strongly aligned with
symbolic and realistic threat, replacing references
to Australia/Australian to the United States/
American, and references to “vegetarians” to
“vegans and vegetarians” (as in MacInnis & Hod-
son, 2017) to refer to both groups marginalized
for their meat abstention.
Liking of dietary groups.  Participants completed
the same feeling thermometer rating task as in
Study 1.
Ideological attitudes.  I again used Ho et al.’s
(2015) eight-item SDO scale and Duckitt et al.’s
(2010) 18-item authoritarianian-conservatism-
traditionalism model to measure RWA. Both
were reliable (SDO: α = .87; RWA: α = .93).
Meat consumption.  I used Dhont and Hodson’s
(2014) measure of meat consumption, which
consisted of two items asking the frequency of
eating (a) meat and (b) meat substitutes/vegetar-
ian products (1 = never, 7 = every meal), with the
second item reverse-scored (items correlate at r
= .43, p < .001). I also asked participants to indi-
cate their willingness to reduce meat consump-
tion on a 7-point scale (1 = not willing at all, 7 =
very willing) from Graça et al. (2016).
Speciesism. I included the eight-item specie-
sism measure compiled by Dhont et al. (2014),
with items such as “The production of inexpen-
sive meat, eggs, and dairy products justifies main-
taining animals under crowded conditions” and
“Animal research cannot be justified and should
be stopped” (reverse-scored), to reliably (α =
.83) measure endorsement of speciesist attitudes.
10 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
Naming of veg*n foods.  Participants read the fol-
lowing:
Sometimes, plant-based foods are referred to
by names that were originally used to describe
animal products. For example, “milk” is
commonly understood to mean milk from a
cow, however it may also be used to refer to
plant-based milks, such as those made from
soy, oats, or almonds. To what extent do you
support the use of these terms for plant-based
alternatives?
They rated (1 = strongly oppose, 7 = strongly support):
milk (e.g., soy milk, almond milk, coconut milk),
cheese (e.g., made from soy), burgers (e.g., mush-
room burger, beyond burger, tofu), yogurt (e.g.,
soy, coconut-based), steak (e.g., made from tofu,
seitan). Responses to each of the five items
formed a reliable scale (α = .92).
Policy support.  Participants used the same scale
to rate their support for eight policies that may
affect human intergroup hierarchy, with the
instructions: “Please read the following ideas put
forward by advocates on either side of the animal
welfare debate. To what extent do you support
or oppose each idea?” Two policies would theo-
retically enhance intergroup hierarchy: “Increase
penalties for animal rights activists caught tres-
passing on farms or slaughterhouses” and “Relax
animal welfare laws where doing so will increase
agricultural industry profits” (r = .37, p < .001),
and two would attenuate hierarchy: “Direct gov-
ernment subsidies away from animal agriculture
to plant-based food production” and “Apply a tax
on meat products relative to their environmen-
tal impact to be distributed to the people most
affected by climate change” (r = .57, p < .001).
Results and Discussion
Dimensionality of veg*nism threat.  Confirmatory fac-
tor analyses in R using lavaan (Rosseel, 2012)
compared one- and two-dimensional models of
veg*nism threat. The one-dimensional model fit
was poor, χ2(54) = 610.85, p < .001, CFI = 0.84,
TLI = 0.81, RMSEA = .15 (90% CI [0.14, 0.16]),
SRMR = 0.08. In the two-dimensional model,
where symbolic and realistic threat items formed
separate, correlated, latent factors, model fit
improved, χ2(53) = 380.28, CFI = 0.91, TLI =
0.88, RMSEA = .12 (90% CI [0.11, 0.13]), SRMR
= 0.07. A chi-square difference test confirmed
that the two-dimensional model provided a better
fit to the data than the one-dimensional model,
Δχ2(1) = 230.57, p < .001.
I had hoped to create a shorter multidimen-
sional scale, I recomputed the CFA with only the
four top-loading items per factor. This removed
two items per dimension with low factor loadings
(below .6), and further improved model fit to an
acceptable level, χ2(19) = 110.45, p < .001, CFI
= 0.97, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = .11 (90% CI
[0.09, 0.12]), SRMR = 0.03. Both four-item sub-
scales exhibited excellent reliability (symbolic
threat: α = .87; realistic threat: = .93). The final
Veg*nism Threat Scale and factor loadings are
provided in Table 4.
Prevalence of veg*nism threat types and associations. 
Examination of the mean veg*nism threat scores
in Table 5 suggests that, on average, participants
endorse few fears about the cultural and economic
repercussions of the veg*nism movement. Correla-
tions indicate that these concerns are more likely to
be experienced among those with greater SDO and
RWA scores, and they relate in predictable ways to
lower liking of those abstaining from meat con-
sumption, to increased meat consumption (and
being less willing to change this), to more support
for policies that run against animal activists and ani-
mal welfare, and to the preference to reserve terms
for animal-based products.
The zero-order correlations cannot disentan-
gle differential effects of the threat measures,
which are correlated.3 This issue is resolved by
examining the results of regression analyses in
Table 6. Interestingly, these findings demonstrate
that symbolic threat has stronger unique associa-
tions with the range of correlates than realistic
threat, which is a weak and inconsistent unique
predictor. Again, I repeated these analyses with
veg*n participants removed; however, the pattern
Stanley 11

Table 4.  Final multidimensional Veg*nism Threat Scale with factor loadings from a confirmatory factor
analysis: Study 2.

Item Symbolic Realistic

threat threat
The rise of veganism and vegetarianism poses a threat to our country’s cultural customs. .88  
Important family traditions and celebrations are increasingly being ruined and .81  
disappearing because of the presence of vegans and vegetarians in certain families.
Important culinary traditions which are typical to our country are starting to die out due .80  
to the rise of veganism and vegetarianism.
Vegans and vegetarians need to conform to the rules and norms of American society. .69  
Hard-working Americans are negatively impacted by vegans and vegetarians. .90
The United States’ economic situation is at risk due to veganism and vegetarianism. .88
The rise of veganism and vegetarianism is going to take away jobs from Americans. .86
The American economy will be negatively affected by an increase in veganism and .85
vegetarianism.

of results did not substantially change (see Table
S3 in the supplemental material).
Table 7 presents results of regression analy-
ses pitting SDO and RWA against each other in
predicting the same list of correlates included
before, in addition to symbolic and realistic
threat. In contrast to Study 1, though again
inconsistent with predictions, both SDO and
RWA uniquely related to symbolic and realistic
threats at similar rates. Dietary group ratings
were more strongly associated with SDO than
RWA, while RWA was more strongly associated
with meat consumption (and a lower willingness
to reduce consumption) and speciesism. The
pattern of results suggests that in the United
States context, vegans are a derogated (i.e., low
status) group, while vegetarians are viewed as
dissidents (i.e., threatening to both social order
and control; Cantal et al., 2015).
Veg*nism threat as a mediator.  I next conducted a
series of multiple mediation path models in JASP
(version 0.14.1, 2020) to examine whether the
associations between SDO, RWA, and the nine
outcome variables (included in separate models)
were mediated by symbolic and realistic veg*nism
threat. As shown in Table 8, the mediating effects
were weak, providing support for partial media-
tion through threat perceptions on some of the
dependent variables.
A pattern emerges where the effect of right-
wing ideology more consistently and more
strongly went through symbolic threat percep-
tions than realistic threat perceptions, suggest-
ing that the reason those endorsing SDO and
RWA hold more negative attitudes towards
veg*ns and animal welfare is because of their
greater perception of veg*nism as symbolically
threatening. In other words, ideology-based
prejudice against meat abstention and those
who practice this behaviour is partially explained
by concerns about the cultural consequences of
the veg*nism movement. Realistic threat par-
tially mediated the associations SDO and RWA
have with (dis)liking vegetarians and support for
hierarchy-enhancing policy; however, in both
cases symbolic threat also more strongly medi-
ated these pathways.
Interestingly, while Dhont and Hodson (2014)
found that vegetarianism threat mediated the
association between right-wing ideology and
meat consumption, I did not replicate this finding
with either dimension of veg*nism threat.
However, I did replicate Dhont and Hodson’s
(2014) and Dhont et al.’s (2016, Studies 2–3) find-
ing that veg*nism threat mediates the effect of
SDO and RWA on speciesism, and I further dem-
onstrate that symbolic threats partially account
for right-wing endorsement of speciesism (while
realistic threats do not).
 12

Table 5.  Descriptive statistics and correlations with veg*nism threat: Study 2.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

1. Symbolic threat  
2. Realistic threat .75***  
3. Liking vegans −.34*** −.30***  
4. Liking vegetarians −.39*** −.37*** .83***  
5. Liking flexitarians −.22*** −.19*** .59*** .75***  
6. SDO .51*** .44*** −.26*** −.26*** −.16***  
7. RWA .51*** .44*** −.16*** −.25*** −.14** .56***  
8. Meat consumption .24*** .19*** −.40*** −.45*** −.25*** .21*** .30***  
9. W
 illingness to reduce meat −.34*** −.31*** .45*** .51*** .40*** −.24*** −.36*** −.61***  
consumption
10. Speciesism .38*** .29*** −.44*** −.44*** −.25*** .36*** .39*** .49*** −.55***  
11. Naming of vegan foods −.37*** −.29*** .47*** .46*** .34*** .38*** −.38*** −.49*** .53*** −.48***  
12. S upport for hierarchy- .53*** .47*** −.30*** −.32*** −.20*** .42*** .54*** .28*** −.39*** .550*** −.34***  
enhancing policy
13. S upport for hierarchy- −.26*** −.25*** .39*** .43*** .33*** −.36*** −.42*** −.51*** .63*** −.53*** .52*** −.36***  
attenuating policy
M (SD) 2.44 (1.35) 2.41 (1.34) 60.67 (26.51) 66.66 (24.21) 69.80 (23.08) 2.76 (1.24) 3.47 (1.23) 4.96 (1.39) 4.38 (2.05) 3.70 (1.22) 4.82 (1.54) 3.48 (1.39) 3.92 (1.65)
Scale range 1–7 1–7 0–100 0–100 0–100 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7

Note. SDO = social dominance orientation; RWA = right-wing authoritarianism.

***p < .001. **p < .01.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
Stanley 13

Table 6.  Standardized regression weights where outcome variables are regressed on symbolic and realistic
veg*nism threat: Study 2.

R2 Symbolic threat Realistic threat

Liking vegans .12 −.27*** −.10
Liking vegetarians .17 −.27*** −.16*
Liking flexitarians .05 −.17* −.06
Meat consumption .06 .22** .03
Willingness to reduce meat consumption .12 −.24*** −.13
Speciesism .15 .37*** .01
Naming of vegan foods .14 −.35*** −.03
Support for hierarchy-enhancing policy .30 .42*** .16*
Support for hierarchy-attenuating policy .07 −.17* −.12

Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Table 7.  Standardized regression weights where outcomes are regressed onto SDO and RWA: Study 2.

R2 SDO RWA
Symbolic threat .33 .33*** .33***
Realistic threat .25 .29*** .28***
Liking vegans .07 −.25*** −.02
Liking vegetarians .09 −.18** −.15**
Liking flexitarians .03 −.12* −.07
Meat consumption .09 .05 .27***
Willingness to reduce meat consumption .13 −.05 −.33***
Speciesism .18 .19*** .29***
Naming of vegan foods .18 −.24*** −.24***
Support for hierarchy-enhancing policy .31 .17*** .44***
Support for hierarchy-attenuating policy .20 −.17** −.32***

Note. SDO = social dominance orientation; RWA = right-wing authoritarianism.

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

General Discussion inter(dietary)group tensions. This tells us that a key

Across two studies, I showed that concerns about
veg*nism are distinctly captured by realistic and
symbolic dimensions, representing fears of eco-
nomic repercussions and cultural affront caused by
the growing veg*nism movement, respectively.
The development of short and reliable measures
to assess each dimension of veg*nism threat facili-
tated a test of the extent that each contributes to
attitudes and actions related to meat consumption
and abstention. Together, this work more strongly
implicates concerns about veg*nism threatening
to displace the symbolic status of meat in society
as a barrier to meat abstention and a driver of
obstacle to acceptance of meat abstention (and its
proponents) is a fear of disrupting the societal sta-
tus quo. Based on the top-loading symbolic threat
items, it appears that concern about differences in
values and norms, and how these will affect cul-
tural traditions, are the most concerning elements
of veg*nism’s symbolic threat. My findings present
empirical evidence for Dhont and Hodson’s (2014)
original description of vegetarianism threat as an
ideological threat, and Joy’s (2020) notion that
preferences for animal-based foods are symbolic.
Those who give up meat contribute less to
animal suffering and climate change (Rabès et al.,
2020), yet they are burdened with discrimination
 14

Table 8.  Standardized results of mediated path models: Study 2.

R2 Effects of social dominance orientation Effects of right-wing authoritarianism

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Symbolic Realistic Symbolic Realistic

Liking vegans .13 −.11* −.06** −.02 −.20*** .06 .06** −.02 −.02
Liking vegetarians .17 −.05 −.06** −.03* −.15** −.03 .06** −.03* −.12**
Liking flexitarians .05 −.05 −.04 −.01 −.10* −.01 −.04 −.01 −.06
Meat consumption .10 .01 .03 .00 .04 .19*** .03 .00 .22***
Willingness to reduce meat consumption .17 .02 −.04 −.03 −.04 −.21*** −.04 −.03 −.27***
Speciesism .21 .10* .06** −.01 .16*** .18*** .06** −.00 .23***
Naming of vegan foods .21 −.15*** −.05* .00 −.19*** −.15*** −.05* .00 −.20***
Support for hierarchy-enhancing policy .39 .04 .07*** .03* .14*** .26*** .07*** .03* .36***
Support for hierarchy-attenuating policy .20 −.13** .01 −.02 −.14*** −.26*** .01 −.02 −.26***

Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
Stanley 15
(MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). The knowledge that
this is more strongly rooted in concerns for cul-
ture paves the way for communicating about
meat-free lifestyles. For instance, clarifying how
people can adopt a behaviour without joining a
movement (Kurz et al., 2020) may reduce sym-
bolic opposition. Researchers have previously
suggested that we should frame meat reduction
as a behaviour everyone can do, rather than hav-
ing fewer people (i.e., only those who are willing
to commit to a lifestyle and identity free from ani-
mal products) become veg*ns. Specifically, Kurz
et al. (2020) suggest promoting “meat free
Mondays” as a form of meat reduction that is
distinct from those social groups defined by their
meat abstention. My data support this idea, as
those taking a flexible approach to meat reduc-
tion, flexitarians, were shielded from the same
level of opposition afforded to veg*ns, and atti-
tudes towards flexitarians were less strongly tied
to symbolic concerns.
Fears of displaced cultural traditions may work
as legitimizing myths maintaining the normative
position of meat. Meat features in some traditions
and celebrations in each nation studied; however,
plant-based alternatives that approximate their
animal-based counterparts are available (e.g.,
“tofurky” rather than turkey). These products
may help to alleviate concerns about traditions
lost, as they allow those abstaining from eating
meat to participate. Ironically, I also found that
these foods attract greater symbolic opposition
when named after animal-based foods. Resolving
this conflict may involve normalizing plant-based
alternatives, and therefore their position in our
cultural customs. For example, market research
indicates that sales of plant-based meats increase
when they are sold alongside their animal-based
counterparts (Plant Based Foods Association,
2020), making them more accessible to nonveg*ns.
Some plant-based alternatives are also now mar-
keted to everyone (not just veg*ns), such as the
“Impossible Burger.” More research is needed to
determine if these changes that promote the nor-
mality and ubiquity of plant-based foods are
effective at alleviating the stigma and symbolic
concern about veg*nism, or if they backfire to
further drive symbolic threat-based opposition.
In the climate change sphere, right-wing denial
of climate change is driven partly by concerns
that proclimate policy disrupts economic and cul-
tural norms (Clarke et al., 2019), and environ-
mentalist threat explains conservative opposition
to environmental protection (Hoffarth &
Hodson, 2016). Future research aimed to disen-
tangle symbolic and realistic concerns about envi-
ronmentalists and environmental action will
further our understanding of the specific domain
of concern driving these effects. At the same
time, given the overlap in symbolic concerns, this
work can inform proveg*n communication strat-
egies. For example, Feygina et al. (2010) found
that framing environmental action as preserving
the status quo increases right-wing environmen-
talism. These insights could be used to inform
communication campaigns about returning to
previous norms, where meat consumption was
much lower (Daniel et al., 2011), which may be
more palatable to right-wing adherents than pro-
moting a new future with less meat. Stressing the
environmental case for veganism may also be a
good avenue for future research and advocacy, as
this poses fewer symbolic challenges to the norm
of meat consumption, and is met with less defen-
sive opposition than when concerns about animal
welfare are raised (MacInnis & Hodson, 2017).
I found evidence that concerns about the eco-
nomic implications of veg*nism are relevant to
some extent, though less consistently across con-
texts and types of attitudes than symbolic threats
are. While participants experienced similar levels
of concerns arising from symbolic and realistic
consequences of veg*nism, realistic threats do not
appear to undermine inter(dietary)group harmony
to the same extent. That said, I did find that those
viewing the veg*nism movement as harmful to the
economic well-being of the nation rated vegans
(Australia) and vegetarians (US) less favourably,
and were more willing to punish animal activists
and their cause through greater support for poli-
cies that enhance social hierarchy.
While the European Union banned the use of
dairy-based terms for dairy-free counterparts
(e.g., soy milk or cheese), a more recent proposed
ban on alternative meats donning animal-based
names failed (Associated Press, 2020). Similar
16 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
bans have been debated in other nations, includ-
ing the United States, at times citing economic
concerns about protecting industry and “cattle
farmers from having to compete with products
not harvested from an animal” (Lowery, 2019).
However, my results suggest the debate might
not be about profits, as realistic threat concerns
did not uniquely relate to participants’ stance on
this issue. Instead, the backlash against the nam-
ing of plant-based foods may be primarily due to
symbolic concerns. This is in line with agricul-
tural lobby group Copa-Cogeca’s (2020) labeling
of the issue as “an obvious case of cultural
hijacking.”
Together, these results position symbolic
veg*nism threat as a justification for continued
consumption of meat in Australia and the United
States: it has an integral role in cultural well-being.
Several limitations of my study, including the
focus on attitudes in just two Western nations,
mean that my findings do not rule out the poten-
tial importance of realistic veg*nism threat.
Realistic threats may be more predictive of atti-
tudes in nations where animal agriculture is more
central to the nation’s economy, or at times where
the industry is in a more fragile state. The
Australian and United States animal agriculture
industries are powerful, though a growing
veg*nism movement may pose more of a realistic
threat to a failing industry, in turn generating
greater hostility. These predictions could be
tested in future research in societies where the
meat industry is struggling and, if found, they
will entail the development of different strategies
to alleviate concerns and achieve interdietary
group harmony. For example, where there is little
ideological opposition to veg*nism, and opposi-
tion instead stems from concerns about financial
well-being, the solution could involve supporting
a transition to plant-based food production.
Another limitation of the present research is
the narrow focus on two dimensions of group-
based threat. Future research may usefully disen-
tangle threats to one’s group versus oneself, such
as exploring whether people are concerned about
the veg*nism movement affecting their personal
financial well-being or the economy of their nation
(as in intergroup threat theory; Stephan et al.,
2009). Researchers may also examine additional
perceived threats, such as those to safety or social
cohesion (e.g., Landmann et al., 2019). For exam-
ple, Sea Shepherd’s direct action against illegal fish-
ing has been labelled eco-terrorism (Nagtzaam &
Lentini, 2007), suggesting that animal rights activ-
ists may be perceived as posing a threat to safety. It
is possible that a mix of safety and economic con-
cerns motivates opposition to such activism, which
disrupts the profitability from animal exploitation.
Although the item measuring nutrition concerns
did not align with either symbolic or realistic
threats in Study 1, Judge and Wilson’s (2015)
research notes that people express concerns for
public health when asked to think about a majority
plant-based future. Further research may consider
whether safety threats are an additional dimension
of veg*nism threat, and whether these are multidi-
mensional, encompassing concerns about harm
from activists and alleged health dangers of
veg*nism.
Elaborating on the ideological bases of atti-
tudes, the associations between SDO and atti-
tudes towards eating and exploiting animals
support the interspecies model of prejudice
(Costello & Hodson, 2010, 2014) and the social
dominance human–animal relations (SD-HARM)
model (Dhont et al., 2016). The SD-HARM
model acknowledges the central role of SDO in
defining support for unequal statuses between
social groups and between humans and other
species. In Dhont et al.’s (2016) work, RWA was
not a significant predictor of speciesism when
controlling for the effects of SDO (Studies 1–3).
However, I found that both SDO and RWA play
unique roles in predicting speciesism, with RWA
a stronger predictor than SDO, suggesting that
resistance to change more strongly underpins the
preference for human exploitation of animals (as
expressed in speciesism). These findings support
broadening the SD-HARM (Dhont et al., 2016)
to include RWA as a second ideological attitude
relevant to human–animal relations, and are also
consistent with the conceptualization of SDO
and RWA as distinct pieces of the puzzle explain-
ing intergroup prejudice (Altemeyer, 1988).
Stanley 17
Another inconsistency with the extant litera-
ture, and between my own studies, was in the
associations between ideological attitudes and
threat dimensions. In Study 1, RWA exclusively
predicted both symbolic and realistic veg*nism
concerns, while in Study 2, SDO and RWA had
associations with each threat dimension that were
similar in strength. Given that endorsement of
SDO is thought to be an expression of competi-
tive motivations (Duckitt, 2001), it is reasonable
to expect that SDO more strongly relates to real-
istic threat than RWA. Conversely, as an expres-
sion of the motivation for strong norm adherence,
RWA ought to relate more strongly to symbolic
threats than SDO. Previous research on unique
associations between ideological attitudes and
threat perceptions is sparse (Rios et al., 2018) and
warrants further investigation. Given conflicting
and limited results, future directions could use-
fully clarify when SDO and RWA more strongly
underlie each type of threat, whether this depends
on context (e.g., nation studied, type of sample)
or target (e.g., veg*nism, climate change, incom-
ing social groups), and whether threat is meas-
ured or manipulated.
Experimental tests of intergroup threat the-
ory help to establish threat as a cause of preju-
dice (for a review, see Rios et al., 2018), which is
not possible from my correlational research. To
my knowledge, no research to date has examined
the potentially causal nature of veg*nism threat
in promoting prejudice. This is an important
next step, and may be achieved by presenting
participants with similar content as media arti-
cles that target veg*ns as committing “economic
treason” (i.e., posing realistic threat; Bridge,
2019) or as “un-Australian” (i.e., posing symbolic
threat; BBC News, 2019), and comparing atti-
tudes towards veg*nism to a no-threat control
group. Alternatively, increasing the salience of
stereotypes associated with veg*ns may also
increase perceived threat (Rios et al., 2018). As
people tend to hold more negative evaluations
of “ethical” veg*ns (i.e., those who adopt
veg*nism in response to animal rights or envi-
ronmental, rather than health, concerns;
MacInnis & Hodson, 2017), cultural stereotypes
aligned with these motivations (such as “animal
activist” or “tree hugger,” respectively) may
show effects of heighten perceived threat and
help to show which veg*n trope most strongly
drives symbolic concerns.
Without these stereotypes emphasized or threat
induced, people generally do not perceive veg*nism
as threatening. I found low means for both sym-
bolic and realistic veg*nism threat, and although I
did not measure or control for social desirability
bias in my studies, participants were reassured their
responses were anonymous, to encourage honest
responding. Instead, low levels of veg*nism threat
may be the norm: Dhont and Hodson’s (2014)
original research similarly presented means below
the midpoint of their scale in two studies. It is pos-
sible that people largely do not view veg*nism as a
threat because veg*ns make up a small minority of
the population in each nation studied (Hrynowski,
2019; Roy Morgan, 2016), and therefore people
largely do not perceive veg*nism as threatening the
dominant carnist ideology. However, as minority
groups grow in size, and are perceived to overtake
the size of the dominant group, prejudice increases
(Craig & Richeson, 2014). Analyses indicate that
interest in veg*nism (Sareen, 2013), and the market
share enjoyed by plant-based products (Changing
Markets Foundation, 2018), are increasing.
Growing numbers of veg*n products lining super-
market shelves present a visible marker of their
increased popularity, and hence a shift in the status
quo. As this continues, I recommend careful moni-
toring of perceived threat and threat associations
with antiveg*n prejudice.
Conclusion
This research advances a dimensional account of
intergroup threat in the dietary sphere. The first
main contribution is the validation of a two-dimen-
sional measure of veg*nism threat. The second is in
identifying symbolic concerns as the key correlate
of animal-related attitudes and actions: meat absten-
tion attracts opposition because it poses a challenge
to the dominant carnist ideology. These findings
highlight the potential for communicating about
veg*nism in ways that protect a nation’s customs,
18 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
and suggest that efforts to alleviate concerns about
the economic impact of meat abstention may be in
vein, given that attitudes appear less strongly
grounded in these concerns. I recommend future
research to test tradition-preserving communication
techniques to promote veg*nism and alleviate veg*n
prejudice.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: There were no research costs associ-
ated with Study 1, and the Research School of
Psychology at the Australian National University
funded participant recruitment in Study 2.
ORCID iD
Samantha K. Stanley https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-1272-5768
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
1. The term veg*n is used to refer to both vegetarian
and vegan (Hodson & Earle, 2018).
2. Although symbolic and realistic vegetarianism
threats were strongly correlated, there were no
issues of multicollinearity in the regression mod-
els (VIFs = 2.34–2.35).
3. Consistent with Study 1, although the threat
dimensions were correlated, this did not pose a
problem in the multiple linear regression analyses
(VIF = 2.32).
References
Altemeyer, B. (1988). The other “authoritarian personal-
ity.” In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Academic Press.
Associated Press. (2020, October 23). European farm-
ers lose attempt to ban terms such as veggie burger.
The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/
world/2020/oct/23/european-farmers-lose-
attempt-to-ban-terms-such-veggie-burger
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Australian farm-
ing and farmers. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
abs@.nsf/lookup/4102.0main+features10dec+2
012#FARMERS%20IN
BBC News. (2019, April 8). Vegan protests: “Un-Aus-
tralian” activists arrested, PM Morrison says. https://
www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-47848674
Berger, M. (2020, October 23). E.U. rejects pro-
posal to ban labeling plant-based foods as veg-
gie “burgers.” The Washington Post. https://www.
washingtonpost.com/world/2020/10/23/eu-
rejects-proposal-ban-labeling-plant-based-foods-
veggie-burgers/
Brett, J. (2019). From secret ballot to democracy sausage:
How Australia got compulsory voting. Text Publishing
Melbourne Australia.
Bridge, R. (2019, October 29). Ryan Bridge: Kiwi vegan
loonies are treasonous. Newshub. https://www.
newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2019/10/
ryan-bridge-kiwi-vegan-loonies-are-treasonous.
html?fbclid=IwAR3rXZiM1bF-f-Uoz11jjX-
8QAFZMqDghsYtS1HNZmUZ24fuDCCZ-
jE1JFMo
Cantal, C., Milfont, T. L., Wilson, M. S., & Gouveia,
V. V. (2015). Differential effects of right-wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orienta-
tion on dimensions of generalized prejudice in
Brazil. European Journal of Personality, 29, 17–27.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1978
Changing Markets Foundation. (2018). Growing the
good: The case for low-carbon transition in the food sec-
tor. https://www.mightyearth.org/wp-content/
uploads/Growing-the-Good-final-report-for-
website.pdf
Clarke, E. J., Ling, M., Kothe, E. J., Klas, A., & Rich-
ardson, B. (2019). Mitigation system threat par-
tially mediates the effects of right-wing ideologies
on climate change beliefs. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 49, 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jasp.12585
Copa-Cogeca. (2020, October 6). Enough with surreal-
istic meat and dairy denominations! European livestock
organisations are launching a campaign against the mis-
use of meat denominations [Press release]. https://
www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/PRESS-
RELEASE-Enough-with-surrealistic-meat-and-
dairy-denominations–31491267/
Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2010). Exploring the roots
of dehumanization: The role of animal–human
similarity in promoting immigrant humanization.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 3–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347725
Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Explaining dehu-
manization among children: The interspecies
model of prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology,
53, 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12016
Stanley 19
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). More diverse yet
less tolerant? How the increasingly diverse racial
landscape affects white Americans’ racial attitudes.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 750–761.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214524993
Daniel, C., Cross, A., Koebnick, C., & Sinha, R. (2011).
Trends in meat consumption in the United States.
Public Health Nutrition, 14, 575–583. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1368980010002077
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2014.02.002
Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Costello, K., & MacIn-
nis, C. C. (2014). Social dominance orienta-
tion connects prejudicial human–human and
human–animal relations. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 61, 105–108. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.020
Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Com-
mon ideological roots of speciesism and gener-
alized ethnic prejudice: The social dominance
human–animal relations model (SD-HARM).
European Journal of Personality, 30, 507–522.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2069
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motiva-
tional theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Academic Press. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6
Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E.
(2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing
authoritarianism: The authoritarianian-conserv-
atism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology,
31, 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9221.2010.00781.x
Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social
threat on worldview and ideological attitudes.
Political Psychology, 24, 199–222. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0162-895X.00322
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). Sys-
tem justification, the denial of global warming, and
the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435
Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., van der Werff, E., & Ünal, A.
B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to
recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64,
78–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019
.05.004
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2016). Situ-
ating moral disengagement: Motivated reasoning
in meat consumption and substitution. Personality
and Individual Differences, 90, 353–364. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.042
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., Oliveira, A., & Mil-
font, T. L. (2018). Why are women less likely
to support animal exploitation than men? The
mediating roles of social dominance orienta-
tion and empathy. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 129, 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2018.03.007
Graça, J., Godinho, C. A., & Truninger, M. (2019).
Reducing meat consumption and following plant-
based diets: Current evidence and future direc-
tions to inform integrated transitions. Trends in
Food Science & Technology, 91, 380–390. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.046
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington,
J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A.
L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orien-
tation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for
intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–
1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
Hodson, G., & Earle, M. (2018). Conservatism predicts
lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets to meat con-
sumption (through lower social justice concerns
and social support). Appetite, 120, 75–81. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.027
Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the
outside, red on the inside: Perceived environmen-
talist threat as a factor explaining political polari-
zation of climate change. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 45, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2015.11.002
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Field-
ing, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determi-
nants and outcomes of belief in climate change.
Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–626. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate2943
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018).
Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, con-
servatism and climate scepticism across nations.
Nature Climate Change, 8, 614–620. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2
Hrynowski, Z. (2019). What percentage of Americans are
vegetarian? Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll
/267074/percentage-americans-vegetarian.aspx
Huddart Kennedy, E., Krahn, H., & Krogman, N. T.
(2015). Are we counting what counts? A closer
20 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
look at environmental concern, pro-environmen-
tal behaviour, and carbon footprint. Local Environ-
ment, 20, 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354
9839.2013.837039
Jaccard, J., Weber, J., & Lundmark, J. (1975). A multi-
trait-multimethod analysis of four attitude assess-
ment procedures. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 11, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-1031(75)80017-5
JASP Team (2020). JASP (Version 0.14.1) [Computer
software].
Jones, J. M. (2016). Americans’ identification as “environ-
mentalists” down to 42%. Gallup. https://news.
gallup.com/poll/190916/americans-identifica-
tion-environmentalists-down.aspx
Joy, M. (2020). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An
introduction to carnism. Red Wheel.
Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2015). Vegetarian utopias:
Visions of dietary patterns in future societies and
support for social change. Futures, 71, 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.005
Kurz, T., Prosser, A. M., Rabinovich, A., & O’Neill,
S. (2020). Could vegans and lycra cyclists be bad
for the planet? Theorizing the role of moral-
ized minority practice identities in processes of
societal-level change. Journal of Social Issues, 76,
86–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12366
Landmann, H., Gaschler, R., & Rohmann, A. (2019).
What is threatening about refugees? Identifying
different types of threat and their association with
emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee
migration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49,
1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2593
Lowery, A. (2019). Fake meat bill passes house, heads to sen-
ate. Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation. https://
msfb.org/2019/01/25/fake-meat-bill-passes-
house-heads-to-senate/
MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2017). It ain’t easy
eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetar-
ians and vegans from both source and target.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 721–744.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215618253
Meat & Livestock Australia. (2019). About MLA.
https://www.mla.com.au/about-mla/#
Milfont, T. L., Richter, I., Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., &
Fischer, R. (2013). Environmental consequences
of the desire to dominate and be superior. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1127–1138.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490805
Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). The hierar-
chy enforcement hypothesis of environmental
exploitation: A social dominance perspective.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 188–
193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.006
Nagtzaam, G., & Lentini, P. (2007). Vigilantes on the
high seas?: The Sea Shepherds and political vio-
lence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20, 110–133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550701723658
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (OECD). (2017). Meat consumption.
https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-con-
sumption.htm
Plant Based Foods Association. (2020, July 9). Plant-
based meat sales increase an average of 23% when sold
in the meat department [Press release]. https://
plantbasedfoods.org/plant-based-meat-sales-
increase-an-average-of-23-when-sold-in-the-
meat-department/
Rabès, A., Seconda, L., Langevin, B., Allès, B., Touvier,
M., Hercberg, S., Lairon, D., Baudry, J., Pointereau,
P., & Kesse-Guyot, E. (2020). Greenhouse gas
emissions, energy demand and land use associated
with omnivorous, pesco-vegetarian, vegetarian,
and vegan diets accounting for farming practices.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 22, 138–146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.02.010
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006).
Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A
meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review, 10, 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr1004_4
Rios, K., Sosa, N., & Osborn, H. (2018). An experi-
mental approach to intergroup threat theory:
Manipulations, moderators, and consequences
of realistic vs. symbolic threat. European Review of
Social Psychology, 29, 212–255. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10463283.2018.1537049
Ritchie, H. (2019). Where in the world do people emit the
most CO2? Our World Data. https://ourworldin-
data.org/per-capita-co2#:~:text=Australia%20
has%20an%20average%20per,was%204.8%20
tonnes%20per%20person
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for struc-
tural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–
12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Roy Morgan. (2016). The slow but steady rise of vegetari-
anism in Australia. http://www.roymorgan.com/
findings/vegetarianisms-slow-but-steady-rise-in-
australia-201608151105
Sareen, A. (2013, April 3). Interest in vegan diets on the rise:
Google Trends notes public’s increased curiosity in veganism.
Stanley 21
HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/inter-
est-in-vegan-diets-on-the-rise_n_3003221
Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs,
A. D., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T.
J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of
meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans
in the UK. Climatic Change, 125, 179–192. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1
Schoemann, A. M., Boulton, A. J., & Short, S. D.
(2017). Determining power and sample size for
simple and complex mediation models. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 379–386.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068
Siskind, J. (1992). The invention of Thanksgiving: A
ritual of American nationality. Critique of Anthro-
pology, 12, 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/030
8275X9201200205
Stanley, S. K., & Wilson, M. S. (2019). Meta-analys-
ing the association between social dominance
orientation, authoritarianism, and attitudes on
the environment and climate change. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 61, 46–56. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.002
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An inte-
grated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp
(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–
46). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999).
Prejudice towards immigrants. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios Morrison, K.
(2009). Intergroup threat theory. In A. Pelinka, K.
Bischof, & K. Stögner (Eds), Handbook of prejudice
(pp. 43–59). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2020). Ag
and food sectors and the economy. https://www.ers.
usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-
charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-
the-economy/#:~:text=Agriculture%2C%20
food%2C%20and%20related%20industries,
about%200.6%20percent%20of%20GDP
Varotto, A., & Spagnolli, A. (2017). Psychological
strategies to promote household recycling. A
systematic review with meta-analysis of validated
field interventions. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 51, 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2017.03.011
Wood, P. (2016, August 1). Vegetarians, vegans “hated
and bullied in Australia,” author says. ABC News.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-02/veg-
etarians-vegans-hated-bullied-australia-richard-
cornish/7680900
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). (2018). Aus-
tralian attitudes to nature 2017. https://www.
wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/pub-back-
yard-barometer-australian-attitudes-to-nature-
05jun18.pdf.aspx