Vegetarians And The Meaning Of Happiness
Some evidence suggests that self-identifying as a vegetarian helps people feel happier, which could be a useful message to use in advocacy campaigns. However, people often define happiness in different ways depending on their cultural, economic, and other demographic characteristics.
In this paper, researchers asked whether there is a link between how people define happiness and their dietary preferences. It may be that there’s something different about how vegetarians think about happiness that makes them reduce their animal product consumption. In turn, reducing their consumption of such products may help them fulfill their conception of happiness.
According to “conceptual referent theory,” there are eight different ways people can define happiness:
- Tranquility: Living a peaceful life
- Fulfillment: Exercising your true capabilities
- Stoicism: Accepting things as-is
- Virtue: Treating others, and yourself, properly
- Utopian: Something that can never be reached, only strived for
- Satisfaction: Being satisfied with yourself and what you have
- Carpe Diem: Making the most of every moment
- Enjoyment: Enjoying what you’ve accomplished
The researchers surveyed 966 students in Spain. Respondents indicated how much they agreed with each definition of happiness. They also were asked to identify their diet (e.g., omnivore, vegetarian, flexitarian, vegan), and to complete a vegetarian self-assessment scale, which measures to what extent their diet differs from vegetarianism. They also answered questions relating to why they chose to follow their diet.
Most of the participants were omnivores, while the rest were either flexitarian (13%) or some category of vegetarian (8.5%).
According to the authors, people who identify as vegetarian and eat vegetarian-aligned diets tend to identify with the tranquility definition of happiness, as well as fulfillment and virtue. Meanwhile, they identify least with stoicism, and enjoyment. The authors argue that viewing happiness as virtuousness could explain why vegetarians abstain from animal products.
People who went vegetarian for health reasons most identified with fulfillment, but there were no clear patterns for ethical vegetarians. Furthermore, within different meat-reducing groups, participants prioritized different happiness constructs. For example, those who were vegan identified less with the idea of happiness as utopian — that it is an unreachable ideal that we can only try to reach. Flexitarians, on the other hand, often held this belief. Flexitarians also often defined happiness as tranquility, fulfillment, and satisfaction.
This comparison between vegans and flexitarians might reflect a key difference among meat reducers. Specifically, vegans, who have given up the most in terms of animal products, may be idealistic in their aims. Meanwhile, flexitarians’ idea of happiness being unreachable may relate to their lower degree of commitment to giving up animal products.
Trying to change the ways that people define happiness may not be an effective approach to changing minds. Instead, it may be helpful for advocates to understand how different arguments may be useful depending on how someone thinks about happiness. For example, someone who finds the most value in living a peaceful life may respond differently to messaging than someone who finds the most value in reaching their full potential. Furthermore, advocates may consider identifying consumers who are most likely to switch to veg*nism based on how they define happiness.
Overall, these results support the idea that no two audience members will ever be exactly the same, even within veg*n and animal-friendly subgroups. This might be why it’s difficult to find one approach to animal advocacy that satisfies everyone. However, accounting for psychological differences can help advocates appeal to a wider audience.