In order to achieve a plant-based food system, we must understand what motivates people to consume fewer animal products. Although dietary choice is usually considered on an individual level, decisions about buying, cooking, and eating food often take place at the level of households. This U.K. study looks at how different family dynamics can affect one member’s ability to pursue a diet with plants at the center (a “plant-forward” diet).

The study followed 84 university students attempting to pursue a plant-forward diet, and tracked their progress whilst living at home with family. At the start, each student filled out a baseline survey, which collected information about their family relationships, their diets, and their dietary goals. All participants wanted to reduce their consumption of animal products.

For the following two weeks, each participant completed a short daily survey. This asked about their daily animal product consumption, the food habits of their household, and whether they felt supported by their family. Participants could also write more in a “diary” section.

After the two-week sampling period, participants retook the initial survey and answered extra questions about their dietary goals and whether they had changed. This survey was sent out again after another two weeks for the final time.

It’s important to note that the study only includes reports from dieters, not other family members, and only takes place over a short time period. More research might be needed to better understand how these findings apply in different contexts, including other cultural settings.

The survey responses were used to answer three research questions:

1. How did a person’s family respond to their plant-forward diet?
2. What were family dynamics like when participants felt most supported in their diet?
3. Does maintaining a plant-forward diet depend upon received support?

Family Responses

More than half of participants (54%) mentioned directly receiving support from their family during the sampling period — for example, buying, cooking, and/or trying the participant’s food. Participants said that these experiences of support boosted their motivation.

Instances of tension (25%) were less common and often arose through practical concerns — for example, the extra time or money spent on catering to the plant-forward diet. Such tensions seemed to encourage participants to comply with their family’s eating habits rather than pursue their dietary goals.

Instances of direct confrontation were also less common. They tended to occur in families who were more inflexible to changing norms.

Family Support

In contrast, participants felt more supported when their families responded more flexibly to change and they felt there was a good balance in the emotional closeness/separateness of their relationships. Felt support was also higher in households where shopping, eating, and cooking habits were more aligned — what the study refers to as “dietary harmony.”

Some family systems were less supportive of plant-forward diets. Where there was a lot of emotional closeness, it’s possible that the change was felt as a kind of withdrawal, which increased tension. In families who were less close, there may simply have been less help from other members in making the plant-forward transition.

There was some evidence that participants would seek to avoid conflict or tension before it arose. Some also expressed concern that the steps they took to avoid tension, such as cooking or eating separately, made them feel isolated. For instance, one participant said, “It’s annoying to have to make a separate meal considering eating together and cooking is meant to be a social event but sometimes feels like it divides us.”

This really shows how eating practices can influence relationships — and vice versa.

The Role Of Family Support In Diet Maintenance

Overall, social support was strongly linked to lower consumption of animal products. This was true during the two-week sampling phase, but participants also expressed greater achievement of and commitment to their plant-forward goals in the follow-up surveys as well.

Families who showed a moderate level of emotional closeness and were flexible to change had the least negative reactions to the plant-forward diets. Dieters within these “balanced” emotional systems also reported getting more support. At the same time, these participants were also less likely to consume animal products.

At least in this study, tension around diet was not overly common, only being reported by a quarter of participants. This may have been because participants took responsibility for their diets and acted to stop any possible tension arising.

Sometimes, these preventative actions involved withdrawing from the family’s shared food practices. Some participants found this isolating and expressed a wish to have their diets be better integrated with their family’s diets. In contrast, participants who were more confident in asserting their dietary preferences reported persuading their family members to engage with more plant-forward diets as well.

Taken together, these findings show how family dynamics and diet can influence one another — with shared food practices (de)motivating plant-forward dieters, but also dieters influencing shared food practices.