The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target
Abstract
Vegetarianism and veganism are increasingly prevalent in Western countries, yet anecdotal expressions of negativity toward vegetarians and vegans are common. We empirically tested whether bias exists toward vegetarians and vegans. In Study 1 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans equivalently or more negatively than several common prejudice target groups (e.g., Blacks). Bias was heightened among those higher in right-wing ideologies, explained by heightened perceptions of vegetarian/vegan threat. Vegans (vs. vegetarians) and male (vs. female) vegetarians/vegans were evaluated more negatively overall. In Study 2 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans more negatively than several nutritional outgroups (e.g., gluten intolerants) and evaluated vegan/vegetarians motivated by animal rights or environmental concerns (vs. health) especially negatively. In Study 3, vegetarians and especially vegans reported experiencing negativity stemming from their diets. Empirically documenting antivegetarian/vegan bias adds to a growing literature finding bias toward benign yet social norm-challenging others.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904
Racial Differences in Physical and Mental Health: Socio-economic Status, Stress and Discrimination
Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/135910539700200305 · Cited by 4,786
Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 · Cited by 1,588
Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M. C., Thornton, P. K., Blümmel, M., Weiss, F., Grace, D., & Obersteiner, M. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1308149110 · Cited by 1,254
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HEALTH: How Much Does Stress Really Matter?
Sternthal, M. J., Slopen, N., & Williams, D. R. (2011) · Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race · doi:10.1017/s1742058x11000087 · Cited by 755
In Godlessness We Distrust: Using Social Psychology to Solve the Puzzle of Anti‐atheist Prejudice
Gervais, W. M. (2013) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12035 · Cited by 106
Cited by
Vegetarianism as a social identity
Nezlek, J. B., & Forestell, C. A. (2020) · Current Opinion in Food Science · doi:10.1016/j.cofs.2019.12.005 · Cited by 187
Michel, F., Knaapila, A., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104195 · Cited by 127
Minority influence in climate change mitigation
Bolderdijk, J. W., & Jans, L. (2021) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.02.005 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G.
- Venue
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-12-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 721-744
- ISSN
- 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7188
- OpenAlex
- W2339061992
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 27.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.