National Norms, Identity, And Meat Consumption
Social norms are behaviors that are viewed as acceptable by a social group. There are two categories of social norms: descriptive and injunctive. Descriptive norms refer to how common a particular attitude or behavior is within a group (e.g., people frequently eat meat in the West). Injunctive norms refer to what ought to be done (e.g., the ideal diet). National social norms often dictate food choices, especially meat consumption — think about the U.S. and hotdogs, or the traditional U.K. Sunday roast.
When the two norms are misaligned, research suggests that people are more likely to follow the norm that sits best with their view of themselves. In this way, one’s social identity — how people define themselves in relation to different social groups — can also play a role in dietary choices.
This study investigated how national norms and identity interact to influence meat consumption. The authors surveyed 327 non-veg*ns from the U.S., U.K., and Australia (three countries with higher-than-average meat consumption, in other words where eating meat is a descriptive norm). The survey measured how strongly participants identified with their home country, how much meat they felt people in their country eat, and whether their fellow compatriots generally approve/disapprove of meat eating. Finally, participants weighed in on their own attitudes and intentions to eat meat.
Overall, while people viewed meat consumption as a descriptive norm in all three countries, they did not view it as an injunctive norm. However, descriptive norms had a stronger influence on meat-eating behaviors. This means that participants were more likely to eat meat if they felt meat consumption was common in their country, even if it wasn’t what people “ought” to do. Meanwhile, injunctive norms were found to strongly influence meat-eating attitudes among participants — in other words, people who said their compatriots would approve of eating meat tended to show more positive attitudes toward meat.
When participants felt that eating meat was the national descriptive and injunctive norm, they tended to have stronger intentions to eat meat. When the two norms were misaligned, social identification played a significant role in meat-eating intentions. In other words, if someone identified more strongly with their country, they tended to eat more meat. Finally, people who identified strongly with their country and felt meat consumption was the descriptive norm showed lower intentions to eat a vegetarian meal.
It’s important to remember that this study focused on high-meat-consuming countries. In other words, it’s possible that the results could be different in culturally diverse nations, where norms around meat consumption aren’t the same. Other limitations were that the authors relied on a convenience sample, their data was correlational instead of causational, and that they measured meat-eating intentions (instead of actual meat consumption). Because of this, their results can’t be extended to the larger U.S., U.K., and Australian populations, and it’s possible that people’s actual meat-eating habits are different from what they reported in the survey.
The results of this study suggest that where a person lives can have a strong influence on their food choices. As such, campaigns encouraging people to reduce their meat consumption in countries where meat eating is common need to consider national norms. Advocates can consider downplaying meat as a norm or highlighting national values that people can identify with instead of meat consumption (e.g., animal welfare and care for the environment).