Draft:Veganism as a social identity

• Comment: The subject of this article is already discussed in the main page for Veganism -Samoht27 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Veganism as a social identity

Veganism as a social identity refers to how vegans use dietary choices to shape their identity, align with a wider group, and inform social behaviour (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Defined as the voluntary exclusion of animal products (North et al., 2021), veganism extends beyond diet to encompass shared attitudes about animal welfare, health, and the environment. These foster shared norms and practices, distinguishing vegans from other groups, such as omnivores.

Vegan identity influences personal lifestyle choices and sociocultural behaviours, such as animal welfare advocacy and climate activism (Ghaffari et al., 2021) and is reinforced through interaction with other vegans (Salmivaara et al., 2022). However, social and cultural factors shape vegan identity, which can lead to inter-group conflict, prejudice, or discrimination (Sirieix et al., 2023). Media portrayals of veganism both affirm identity and provoke negative attitudes among non-vegans (Judge et al., 2021).  

Veganism Motivations and Social Identity

The symbol used to to identify vegan-friendly products

Interest in the motivations for adopting a vegan diet has grown substantially in recent years, with research highlighting three primary drivers: ethical concerns about animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and health benefits (North et al., 2021). Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) has been increasingly used to understand veganism, framing it as a lifestyle that reflects shared values and in-group norms rather than just dietary preferences. For example, North et al. (2021) argue for redefining veganism as a lifestyle rooted in collective identity shaped by moral and social preferences.

Ghaffari et al. (2021) provide key insights by combining qualitative and quantitative methods, addressing prior research gaps. Their findings suggest that ethical motivations involve self-transcendence values, as vegans reject the meat industry harming animals. This aligns with SIT, where shared in-group norms, such as prioritising animal welfare, define vegan identity. Environmental motivations also shape identity, with Ghaffari et al. reporting a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.72 for consistent pro-sustainability attitudes. One participant highlighted improved self-image by avoiding meat, linking these shared norms to positive social comparisons and in-group esteem. Health motivations, validated by reliability scores (0.73–0.88), further reinforce norms within vegan identity, as many participants reported nutritional benefits.

Thus, ethical, environmental, and health motivations collectively form the foundation of vegan social identity. This aligns with SIT principles, highlighting shared goals like justice and sustainability.  

Factors Effecting Vegan Identity Formation

Gender and Social Identity

SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) explains that individuals form their self-concept through group membership, guided by the values and norms of those groups. Vegans often align with social norms centred around health, environmentalism, and animal welfare. Gender roles play a significant role in explaining why veganism is more commonly associated with women than men. For example, veganism aligns with femininity norms such as being compassionate and nurturing, while meat consumption is often tied to masculinity (Chard et al., 2024). Men may be unwilling to adopt a vegan diet due to the social stigma that links meat-eating with strength.

Recent research, however, suggests that men can use veganism to challenge restrictive gender norms and redefine masculinity. In this context, gender diversity within vegan groups could reduce perceived barriers to participation, possibly leading to a broader uptake of veganism (Chard et al., 2024). These evolving gender dynamics reflect a potential shift toward more progressive attitudes about gender roles and veganism.

Cultural Influences on Vegan Identity

Cultural context also influences vegan identity. In individualistic cultures like the UK and Sweden, where personal responsibility is salient, there is a stronger association between veganism and environmental concerns. Veganism tends to be more accepted in these settings, as it aligns with broader societal values, and individuals face less stigma (Chard et al., 2024). Conversely, in collectivist cultures, such as those in parts of Asia and South America, veganism can be viewed as a rejection of traditional community values, particularly in relation to food customs and shared meals.

Economic factors further shape vegan identity. In rapidly developing nations like China and Brazil, where meat is often seen as a symbol of wealth, the association between affluence and meat consumption can hinder vegan adoption. However, as these countries grow economically, there is potential for a shift in attitudes toward food, where environmental consciousness may eventually replace meat as a symbol of status (Chard et al., 2024). Furthermore, global campaigns, such as 'Veganuary,' could foster a cross-cultural social identity where the adoption of veganism focuses on shared values like climate action.

Gaps in Research and Future Directions

While Chard et al. (2024) provide valuable insights into the cultural and gender-related aspects of vegan identity, several gaps remain. Notably, there is limited research on how religious beliefs influence veganism. In religious contexts such as Buddhism, where dietary restrictions are embedded in cultural practice, it is unclear whether vegan behaviours are better explained by SIT or by different social cognition models. Another gap is the evolutionary perspective on vegan identity. Current studies primarily treat veganism as a static phenomenon localised to an individual’s decision making, but longitudinal research could explore whether motivations evolve across life stages and generations. For instance, younger generations, who tend to be more environmentally conscious, may adopt veganism for reasons different those of older generations, suggesting that cultural norms around veganism could shift over time (Ghaffari et al., 2021).

In conclusion, these findings suggest that veganism is not merely a dietary choice but a multi-faceted social identity. This identity reflects an individual's values, beliefs, and social perceptions, as evidenced by the alignment of veganism with specific group norms and cultural values (Chard et al., 2024). Addressing the gaps in research, such as the role of religion and generational differences, will enhance our understanding of the factors that shape vegan identity formation.

Negotiating Social Interactions with Vegan Identities

Social Categorisation

The way in which vegans categorise themselves and are categorised by others significantly affects their interactions with non-vegans (Salmivaara et al., 2022). Intergroup conflict often arises due to the contrasting values and practices of vegan and omnivorous groups. SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) explains this conflict through perceived threat: when vegans, as out-group members, challenge the values of a non-vegan's in-group identity, non-vegans may feel their social identity is threatened, resulting in hostility, prejudice, and discrimination. Similarly, vegans may perceive non-vegans as outsiders, creating a cycle of mutual antagonism based on in-group favouritism and out-group bias (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Tajfel's minimal group paradigm (1971) indicates the profound impact of categorisation, demonstrating that even arbitrary group divisions can lead to in-group bias. In the context of veganism, these dynamics highlight how identity preservation motivates intergroup conflict. Everyday observations of vegan and non-vegan interactions confirm the psychological drive to maintain a positive self-concept within one's social group (Salmivaara et al., 2022).

Strategies to address conflict

Vegans must often negotiate their identity to navigate social interactions (Salmivaara et al., 2022). Strategies to manage conflict include distancing from omnivorous out-group members or deflecting criticism with humour. Some respondents in the study reported temporarily downplaying their vegan values, such as consuming dairy in social settings, to ease tensions. While such adaptations reduce external conflict, they can undermine vegan identity, leading to psychological consequences like identity conflict and emotional discomfort. These adjustments may dilute the esteem derived from strong in-group identification, as suggested by SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

To preserve identity, Salmivaara et al. (2022) emphasise the importance of seeking support within like-minded groups. Organisations like The Vegan Society (n.d.) provide spaces for vegans to connect, share values, and bolster self-esteem through collective identity without out-group hostility. By fostering shared attitudes and offering advocacy, these communities mitigate the strain of intergroup conflict and reinforce the psychological benefits of vegan identity. This aligns with SIT, which posits that group membership and shared norms enhance self-esteem, reducing the need for behaviour that compromises identity.

Therefore, while negotiating social interactions can reduce immediate tensions, the long-term validation of vegan identity can be achieved by fostering supportive in-groups and mutual respect between dietary communities.

Prejudice and discrimination  

Out-group hostility often leads to prejudice and discrimination against vegans, even from childhood. Salmaavara et al. (2022) evidence an instance where a teacher punished a child for not eating meat, isolating them in detention and denying them an alternative meal. This highlights the differential treatment of vegans, rooted in social identity. Sirieix et al. (2023) describe veganism as a “vindictive” social identity, provoking intergroup conflict. Vegans’ values challenge the norms of a meat-eating majority, threatening the devaluation of their group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In cultures where meat consumption is deeply ingrained, this tension exacerbates discriminatory practices, as seen in Salmaavara et al.’s (2022) research.

Sirieix et al. (2023) suggest that vegans’ efforts to affirm their social identity often result in hostility, creating a feedback loop where discrimination and defensiveness perpetuate one another. Vegans sometimes respond to questions about their diet from a position of moral superiority, further straining intergroup relations.

SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) predicts discriminatory practices across various settings, including workplaces, family dynamics, and online spaces. Sirieix et al. (2023) found that vegans in the workplace often have their motivations mocked by omnivorous colleagues. SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) provides practical solutions for reducing such prejudice, emphasising the importance of shared identities. For instance, workplaces can implement group activities, such as environmental initiatives, to foster intergroup understanding (Sherif et al., 1961). Future longitudinal research could examine the impact these interventions have on social cohesion.

Whilst discrimination against vegans remains prevalent, advocacy through media representation holds potential to challenge negative stereotypes. Effective media narratives could reshape public perceptions of veganism, encouraging broader acceptance and fostering greater harmony between vegans and non-vegans (Judge et al., 2021.)

Vegan advocacy

Vegan advocates like Greta Thunberg might emphasise shared values like environmentalism that resonate across dietary groups.

Judge et al. (2021) use the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA) to explore the mechanisms behind vegan advocacy, framing it as a form of collective action. By aligning with veganism as a social identity, individuals reinforce their values concerning animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and health consciousness. Here, social identification with veganism can be seen as an ethical call to action rather than simply a dietary choice.

The study outlines the dual impact of vegan advocacy on meat-eating social groups. On the positive side, advocacy can challenge stereotypes and encourage outgroup members to reconsider their views, particularly through intergroup contact. Judge et al. (2021) found that both face-to-face discussions and online advocacy—such as sharing educational content on social media—helped communicate the benefits of plant-based diets and fostered greater empathy toward the vegan cause.

However, negative media portrayals of veganism can undermine these efforts, perpetuating harmful stereotypes. For example, depictions of vegan activists as ‘extreme’ can alienate potential allies, perpetuating ingroup favouritism and outgroup bias (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Such portrayals risk marginalising veganism further by presenting it as a radical identity rather than an inclusive ethical stance.  

It is important to note that these findings are culturally specific, as Judge et al. (2021) relied on British and Australian samples. Further research is needed in regions where cultural norms present greater resistance to veganism, such as countries where meat consumption is deeply ingrained, including Brazil (Chard et al., 2024). Understanding these regional specifics is critical for tailoring advocacy strategies that resonate across many cultural contexts.

The future of veganism as a social identity  

Ultimately, veganism as a social identity conceptualises it to be both a platform for advocacy and a risk of intergroup tension, as differences in norms and values between vegans and omnivores reflect the dynamics outlined by Tajfel and Turner’s (1979). However, inconsistencies in cultural attitudes toward veganism and the stereotyping of vegan advocates highlight the need for further research, particularly on how advocacy effectiveness varies across cultural contexts (Sirieix et al., 2023; Chard et al., 2024). Furthermore, as media usage evolves, exploring the role of online advocacy in fostering shared goals could provide valuable insights for reducing discrimination and promoting intergroup harmony (Judge et al., 2021).

References

Chard, E., Cecilia Jakobsson Bergstad, Steentjes, K., Poortinga, W., & Demski, C. (2024). Gender and cross-country differences in the determinants of sustainable diet intentions: a multigroup analysis of the UK, China, Sweden, and Brazil. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1355969

Ghaffari, M., Rodrigo, P. G. K., Ekinci, Y., & Pino, G. (2021). Consumers’ motivations for adopting a vegan diet: A mixed‐methods approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12752

Judge, M., Fernando, J. W., & Begeny, C. T. (2021). Dietary behaviour as a form of collective action: A social identity model of vegan activism. Appetite, 168, 105730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105730

North, M., Kothe, E., Klas, A., & Ling, M. (2021). How to define “Vegan”: An exploratory study of definition preferences among omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. Food Quality and Preference, 93, 104246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104246

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.09.008

Salmivaara, L., Niva, M., Silfver, M., & Vainio, A. (2022). How vegans and vegetarians negotiate eating-related social norm conflicts in their social networks. Appetite, 106081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106081

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Sirieix, L., Gilles, Dyen, M., Balbo, L., & Suárez, E. (2023). The role of communities in vegetarian and vegan identity construction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103470–103470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103470

Tajfel, H. (1971). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1171-96

Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-37). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

The Vegan Society. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from https://www.vegansociety.com