Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction

Abstract

The Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction (Strässner & Hartmann, 2023), also known as the DB scale, is a newly developed instrument designed to assess consumers’ perceived importance of beliefs regarding meat reduction at various stages of behavioral change. The scale’s development began with 42 initial items, derived from a comprehensive literature review, which were subsequently refined by an expert panel. This refined measure was then administered to a sample of meat-eaters in Germany, ranging in age from 18 to 74 years. Factor analysis confirmed a final set of 20 items distributed across 5 distinct dimensions. The study reported satisfactory results regarding the scale’s reliability and validity. It is important to note that a corrigendum (Appetite, Volume 200, 1 September 2024, Pages 107545) was later published, addressing issues related to data presented in Figure 4 and Table 6 of the original article.

Keywords

Perceived Benefits of a Plant-Based Diet; Downsides of Factory Farming; Health Barriers; Legitimation Barriers; Feasibility Barriers; Decisional Balance; Meat Reduction Beliefs and Attitudes; Behavior Change

Authors

Strässner, Anna-Maria; Hartmann, Christina

---

Purpose

The Decisional Balance (DB) scale aims to assess consumers’ varying beliefs concerning a behavioral shift towards reducing meat consumption.

Validity

Test Validity: The “pros” dimension of the DB scale for meat reduction showed a significant negative correlation with constructs such as negative attitude towards vegetarian/vegan lifestyle (r = -0.54, p < .001) and meat attachment (r = -0.66, p < .001). Conversely, it exhibited a significant positive correlation with perceived behavioral control (r = 0.42, p < .001) and ecological welfare concern (r = 0.50, p < .001).

Global Indicators: The overall DB index demonstrated a significant negative correlation with global attitude towards meat consumption (r = -0.64, p < .001) and current meat consumption (r = -0.40, p < .001).

Concurrent Validity: The “pros” and “cons” dimensions of the scale were found to explain additional variance in meat consumption frequency, beyond what could be accounted for by global attitudes towards meat consumption, gender, and age.

Discriminant Validity: Results from the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) analysis indicated that the square root of the AVE for the “pros” dimension (AVE = 0.84) was greater than its correlation with the “cons” dimension (r = -0.64), providing evidence for discriminant validity.

Reliability

Internal Consistency: The internal consistency for all first-order factors was strong, with Cronbach’s alpha values meeting or exceeding 0.70. Specifically, these values were: perceived benefits of a plant-based diet (α = 0.83), downsides of factory farming (α = 0.79), health barriers (α = 0.85), legitimation barrier (α = 0.75), and feasibility barriers (α = 0.70).

Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): The assumptions for principal axis factoring were met (χ²(190) = 3056.863, p < .001; KMO = 0.897). During the EFA, 22 items were removed: 14 due to communalities below 0.40 and 8 due to cross-loadings. The remaining 20 items yielded five first-order factors that could be summarized into two second-order factors, collectively explaining 68.7% of the total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): The assumptions for running a CFA were checked and fulfilled. The five-factor model with two higher-order factors demonstrated a close model fit (χ²(142) = 345.942, p < .001). The fit indices met the recommended cutoff values: GFI = 0.948, CFI = 0.956, TLI = 0.947, NFI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.048, and SRMR = 0.047. Furthermore, the RMSEA was not statistically significant (p = .178), which, according to Kenny (2020), further confirms a close fit of the model to the data. During the CFA, item DB14 was excluded from the model due to a very high modification index (MI = 61.82).

Instrument

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: Participants first responded to a filter question: ‘Have you reduced your meat consumption in the past?’ with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ options. Those who selected ‘yes’ were then asked to rate the importance of each statement regarding their decision to gradually reduce meat consumption: ‘How important is each of the following statements to you, regarding your decision to reduce your meat consumption?’ Participants who selected ‘no’ were asked: ‘How important is each of the following statements to you, regarding your decision to potentially reduce your meat consumption?’ All items are rated using a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 years & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 years); Thirties (30-39 years); Middle Age (40-64 years); Aged (65 years & older)

Population Details:

• Location: Germany

• Respondents: Consumers; Meat Eaters

Test Methodology: Test Validity; Concurrent Validity; Discriminant Validity; Test Reliability; Internal Consistency; Factor Analysis; Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Exploratory Factor Analysis

Keywords

Decisional Balance; Meat Reduction Beliefs

Authors

Strässner, Anna-Maria

• Author ORCID Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4557-3817

• Affiliation: Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Management and Law, Institute of Marketing Management

• Email Address: [email protected]

• Correspondence Address: Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Management and Law, Institute of Marketing Management, Theaterstr., 17, Winterthur, Switzerland, 8400

Hartmann, Christina

• Affiliation: ETH Zurich, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Consumer Behaviour

• Email Address: [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

• Commercial Use: No

• Fee: No

• Test Year: 2023

References

Strässner, A.-M., & Hartmann, C. (2023). Gradual behaviour change towards meat reduction: Development and validation of a novel decisional balance scale. Appetite, 186, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106537

Items of the Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction

Number of Items: This measure includes 20 items.

Factors and Subscales:

• Perceived benefits of a plant-based diet

• Downsides of factory farming

• Health barriers

• Legitimation barriers

• Feasibility barriers

Test Items Availability: Yes, items are available.

Test Location: 2023-76244-001, Table 3, Page 7

Administration Method: Electronic

---

Pros: Motivators for meat reduction

Factor 1: Perceived benefits of a plant-based diet
DB1. A plant-based diet offers me a great variety of foods.
DB2. I often find vegetarian dishes simple and easy to cook.
DB3. I discover new flavours when I cut down on meat.
DB4. The availability of meatless dishes and foods is growing and getting more diverse.
DB5. A plant-based diet helps me to stay physically fit.
DB6. The production of plant-based foods is less resource intensive than the production of animal-based foods.

Factor 2: Downsides of factory farming
DB7. Industrial livestock production has significant negative impacts on the environment.
DB8. Meat from factory farming contains antibiotics that are harmful to people’s health.
DB9. All farm animals raised for meat production experience fear and suffering.
DB10. Reducing meat consumption means avoiding animal suffering.

Cons: Barriers to meat reduction

Factor 3: Health barriers
DB11. Eating meat is necessary to be healthy.
DB12. Eating meat is essential for building strong muscles.
DB13. Without meat, the body lacks vital proteins, vitamins, and minerals.
DB14. Meat dishes are more filling than vegetarian or vegan dishes.

Factor 4: Legitimation barriers
DB15. Everyone has the right to eat meat.
DB16. Eating meat is part of my culture.
DB17. Meat is delicious.

Factor 5: Feasibility barriers
DB18. I don’t know how to replace meat in my diet.
DB19. I lack the skills to prepare meatless meals.
DB20. A diet with very little meat would be inconvenient for me because I would have to change my diet a lot.

Note. Participants indicate their response to each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important).