Meat Consumption Scale

📜
Abstract

The meat consumption Scale (MCS) represents a critical advancement in the psychometric assessment of dietary habits, specifically targeting the intake of animal-based proteins. Developed in response to the urgent global need to transition toward plant-based diets for environmental and health reasons, this instrument offers a standardized method for quantifying both current meat consumption and future dietary intentions. By capturing data across six distinct categories of meat—ranging from beef and poultry to processed meats and seafood—the scale provides a nuanced picture of an individual's dietary profile.

Beyond merely tracking food intake, the MCS serves as a vital tool for environmental and health psychologists seeking to understand the behavioral mechanisms behind dietary choices. The instrument addresses a significant methodological flaw in previous research, where scholars often relied on unvalidated, ad hoc questions to gauge meat-eating habits. By providing a psychometrically sound, easily administered questionnaire, the MCS allows for more rigorous investigations into the psychological barriers to meat reduction and the effectiveness of sustainability interventions.

🏷
Keywords
meat consumption
dietary intentions
psychometrics
environmental psychology
plant-based diet
scale development
behavioral change

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
12
Structure
Multidimensional
Validation Country
📍 Australia

Authors

👤 Lauren Camilleri
✉ [email protected]
🏛 Victoria University

👤 Andrew Jago

👤 Abdul Rehman

👤 Peter Richard Gill

Purpose

Historically, researchers investigating dietary transitions have been forced to choose between exhaustive Food Frequency Questionnaires, which are time-consuming and prone to long-term recall bias, or unvalidated single-item measures that suffer from high measurement error. The MCS bridges this methodological gap by offering a brief, highly focused tool that can be completed in under five minutes.

This efficiency makes it exceptionally valuable for psychologists and public health researchers conducting cross-sectional surveys or evaluating the efficacy of behavioral interventions aimed at reducing meat intake. By standardizing the measurement of both recent consumption and future intentions, the scale enhances the reproducibility and trustworthiness of empirical findings in the rapidly growing field of sustainable consumer psychology.

Construct

The instrument operationalizes two distinct but related psychological constructs: actual consumption behavior and behavioral intention. Consumption is conceptualized not merely as a binary choice, but as a continuous variable derived from the interaction between the frequency of eating specific meats over a two-week retrospective period and the typical portion size consumed. This approach acknowledges that dietary impact is a function of both how often and how much one eats.

The intention component is deeply grounded in established behavioral frameworks, most notably the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change. Rather than conflating intention with mere 'willingness' to change, the scale specifically captures an individual's motivational readiness and concrete decision to either increase or decrease their meat intake in the near future, providing a precise metric for behavioral forecasting.

Validity

To establish the scale's construct and convergent validity, the developers mapped it against a comprehensive nomological network of psychosocial variables known to influence dietary choices. They examined how the scale relates to core components of the Theory of Planned Behavior, including attitudes toward meat (which demonstrated an internal consistency of .82 in their sample) and subjective norms (alpha of .86).

Furthermore, the validation process incorporated broader ideological and affective measures to ensure the tool accurately reflects the complex psychological underpinnings of meat consumption. This included correlating the scale with measures of social dominance orientation (alpha of .80), traditional masculinity (alpha of .83), and animal empathy (alpha of .93). By anchoring the MCS to these established constructs, researchers can be confident that the scale is capturing true variance in meat-eating psychology rather than artifactual noise.

Convergent & Discriminant Validation Correlations

Reference Instrument Correlation Coefficient (r)
Attitude to eating meat
Subjective norm scale
Perceived behavioural control scale
Willingness to reduce meat consumption scale
Meat-Eating Justifications scale
Self-Report Habit Index (adapted for meat)
Food Disgust Scale (Animal Flesh Disgust subscale)
Animal empathy scale
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory Short Form
Short Social Dominance Orientation Scale

Reliability

While single-item measures often struggle with unacceptable levels of random error and poor predictive power, the multi-item structure of the MCS was specifically designed to enhance internal consistency and measurement precision. By systematically evaluating different meat categories rather than asking a single broad question, the instrument minimizes cognitive load and recall errors.

Focusing on a two-week retrospective window strikes an optimal balance between capturing typical, trait-like consumption patterns and avoiding the memory decay associated with longer assessment periods. This structured approach ensures that the resulting scores provide a stable, reliable estimate of a person's true dietary habits, suitable for robust statistical modeling.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the scale was rigorously tested using an Exploratory Factor Analysis on an initial pool of 24 items. During this analytical phase, researchers identified empirical justifications for merging certain categories—such as combining pork with bacon and ham—which optimized the model's fit and aligned with theoretical categorizations of animal products.

This data-driven refinement process ultimately yielded a streamlined 12-item structure that accurately captures the multidimensional nature of meat consumption without unnecessary redundancy. By summing the frequency-by-quantity scores across the six finalized categories, the resulting factor structure provides a clean, parsimonious index of overall meat intake.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
meat consumption Measures the actual intake of meat over the past two weeks by calculating the product of consumption frequency and portion size across six meat categories.
Intention to Eat Meat Measures the individual's motivational readiness and decision to either increase or decrease their meat consumption over the upcoming two weeks.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 12 items; utilizes whole number inputs for frequency, a 5-point scale for portion size, and a 9-point scale (-4 to +4) for intention
Scoring Total consumption score is calculated by multiplying frequency by portion size for each of the 6 meat categories and summing the results. Intention score is calculated by summing the intention items.
Language English
Population General population, Adults
Age Group Adults
Administration Self-administered online or via paper
Completion Time < 5 minutes

Scoring & Interpretation Guidelines

Scoring Instructions Multiply frequency by portion size for each meat category (beef, lamb, poultry, pork/bacon/ham, other processed meat, fish/seafood), then sum these products for the total consumption score.

Meat Consumption Scale Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

The initial exploratory factor analysis utilized a sample of 183 Australian Adults (84 male, 92 female, 7 other/unspecified) recruited via social media and snowballing techniques between August and September 2021. Participants who had not consumed any meat in the previous two weeks were excluded to ensure the sample reflected active meat consumers.

📄
Cite This Paper

Lauren Camilleri, Andrew Jago, Abdul Rehman, Peter Richard Gill (2025). meat consumption Scale. BMC psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03270-2

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
163 references
  1. Whitton C, Bogueva D, Marinova D, Phillips CJC. Are we approaching peak meat consumption? Analysis of meat consumption from 2000 to 2019 in 35 countries and its relationship to gross domestic product. Animals. 2021;11(12):3466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123466. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123466
  2. Aleksandrowicz L, Green R, Joy EJM, Smith P, Haines A. The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0165797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165797. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165797
  3. Chai BC, van der Voort JR, Grofelnik K, Eliasdottir HG, Klöss I, Perez-Cueto FJA. Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A systematic review of vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets. Sustainability. 2019;11(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154110. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154110
  4. Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Johansson DJA. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim Change. 2014;124(1):79–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5
  5. Scarborough P, Clark M, Cobiac L, Papier K, Knuppel A, Lynch J, et al. Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts. Nat Food. 2023;4(7):565–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w
  6. Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S, Lin T, Ciais P, Tubiello FN, et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat Food. 2021;2:724–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
  7. Raihan A. An econometric assessment of the relationship between meat consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the united States. Environ Processes. 2023;10(2):32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-023-00650-x. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-023-00650-x
  8. Scarborough P, Clark M, Cobiac L, Papier K, Knuppel A, Lynch J, Springmann M, Vegans. vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts. Nat Food. 2023;4(7):565–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w
  9. Daskalov GM, Boicenco L, Grishin AN, Lazar L, Mihneva V, Shlyakhov VA, Zengin M. Architecture of collapse: regime shift and recovery in an hierarchically structured marine ecosystem. Glob Change Biol. 2023;23(4):1486–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13508. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13508
  10. Sumaila UR, Tai TC. End overfishing and increase the resilience of the ocean to climate change. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00523. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00523
  11. Mariani G, Cheung WWL, Lyet A, Sala E, Mayorga J, Velez L, Mouillot D. Let more big fish sink: fisheries prevent blue carbon sequestration—half in unprofitable areas. Sci Adv. 2020;6(44):eabb4848. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb4848. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb4848
  12. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
  13. De Smet S, Vossen E, Meat. The balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat Sci. 2016;120:145–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008
  14. Grosso G, La Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Godos J, Marventano S, Tieri M, et al. Total, red and processed meat consumption and human health: an umbrella review of observational studies. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2022;73(6):726–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2022.2050996. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2022.2050996
  15. Libera J, Iłowiecka K, Stasiak D. Consumption of processed red meat and its impact on human health: A review. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2021;56(12):6115–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.15270. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.15270
  16. American Institute of Cancer Research. Recommendation: Limit Consumption of Red and Processed Meat. Virginia, USA: American Institute of Cancer Research; 2024 [updated 2024, cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.aicr.org/cancer-prevention/recommendations/limit-consumption-of-red-and-processed-meat/#overview-top-tips
  17. World Health Organization. Cancer: Carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. [place unknown], International Agency for Research on Cancer., 2015 [updated 2025, cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat
  18. World Cancer Research Fund International. Limit consumption of red and processed meat. London, UK: World Cancer Research Fund International; 2025 [cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-and-processed-meat/
  19. Bogueva D, Marinova D, Gordon R. Who needs to solve the vegetarian men dilemma? J Hum Behav Social Environ. 2020;30(1):28–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2019.1664966. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2019.1664966
  20. Stanley SK. Ideological bases of attitudes towards meat abstention: vegetarianism as a threat to the cultural and economic status quo. Group Processes Intergroup Relations. 2021;25(6):1534–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211020356. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211020356
  21. Nath J. Gendered fare? A qualitative investigation of alternative food and masculinities. J Sociol. 2011;47(3):261–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783310386828. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783310386828
  22. Salmen A, Dhont K. Animalizing women and feminizing (vegan) men: the psychological intersections of sexism, speciesism, meat, and masculinity. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2023;17(2):e12717. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12717. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12717
  23. Nguyen A, Platow MJ. I’ll eat meat because that’s what we do: the role of National norms and National social identification on meat eating. Appetite. 2021;164:105287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105287. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105287
  24. Randers L, Grønhøj A, Thøgersen J. Coping with multiple identities related to meat consumption. Psychol Mark. 2021;38(1):159–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21432. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21432
  25. Graça J, Calheiros MM, Oliveira A. Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite. 2015;95:113–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024
  26. Rothgerber H, Rosenfeld DL. Meat-related cognitive dissonance: the social psychology of eating animals. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2021;15(5):e12592. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12592. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12592
  27. Carfora V, Conner M, Caso D, Catellani P. Rational and moral motives to reduce red and processed meat consumption. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2020;50:744–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12710. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12710
  28. Castellini G, Savarese M, Graffigna G. The role of psychological food involvement in explaining the intention to reduce meat consumption. J Environ Psychol. 2023;92:102176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102176. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102176
  29. Çoker EN, van der Linden S. Fleshing out the theory of planned of behavior: meat consumption as an environmentally significant behavior. Curr Psychol. 2022;41(2):681–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00593-3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00593-3
  30. Rees JH, Bamberg S, Jäger A, Victor L, Bergmeyer M, Friese M. Breaking the habit: on the highly habitualized nature of meat consumption and implementation intentions as one effective way of reducing it. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2018;40(3):136–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2018.1449111. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2018.1449111
  31. Camilleri L, Richard Gill P, Scarfo J, Jago A. Resolving the masculinity dilemma: identifying subtypes of male meat consumers with latent profile analysis. Food Qual Prefer. 2023;108:104890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104890. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104890
  32. Hopwood CJ, Bleidorn W. Psychological profiles of people who justify eating meat as natural, necessary, normal, or nice. Food Qual Prefer. 2019;75:10–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.004. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.004
  33. Lacroix K, Gifford R. Reducing meat consumption: identifying group-specific inhibitors using latent profile analysis. Appetite. 2019;138:233–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.002. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.002
  34. Haefner G, Schobin J, Risius A. Personality traits and meat consumption: the mediating role of animal-related ethical concerns. Froniters Psychol. 2023;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.995482. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.995482
  35. Hopwood CJ, Stahlmann AG, Bleidorn W, Thielmann I. Personality, self-knowledge, and meat reduction intentions. J Pers. 2024;92(4):1006–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12864. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12864
  36. Mertens A, von Krause M, Denk A, Heitz T. Gender differences in eating behavior and environmental attitudes – The mediating role of the dark triad. Pers Indiv Differ. 2021;168:110359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110359. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110359
  37. Catellani P, Carfora V, Piastra M. Framing and tailoring prefactual messages to reduce red meat consumption: predicting effects through a psychology-based graphical causal model. Froniters Psychol. 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825602. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825602
  38. Herchenroeder L, Forestell CA, Bravo AJ. The effectiveness of animal welfare-, environmental-, and health-focused video appeals on implicit and explicit wanting of meat and intentions to reduce meat consumption. J Soc Psychol. 2023;163(3):394–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2081529. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2081529
  39. Kwasny T, Dobernig K, Riefler P. Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite. 2022;168:105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739
  40. Naska A, Lagiou A, Lagiou P. Dietary assessment methods in epidemiological research: current state of the Art and future prospects. F1000Research. 2017;6:926. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10703.1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10703.1
  41. Keating GA, Bogen KT, Chan JM. Development of a meat frequency questionnaire for use in diet and cancer studies. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107(8):1356–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2007.05.011. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2007.05.011
  42. Stewart C, Frie K, Piernas C, Jebb SA. Development and reliability of the Oxford meat frequency questionnaire. Nutrients. 2021;13(3):922. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030922. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030922
  43. Horgan GW, Scalco A, Craig T, Whybrow S, Macdiarmid JI. Social, Temporal and situational influences on meat consumption in the UK population. Appetite. 2019;138:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.007. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.007
  44. Lentz G, Connelly S, Mirosa M, Jowett T. Gauging attitudes and behaviours: meat consumption and potential reduction. Appetite. 2018;127:230–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.015. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.015
  45. Schösler H, de Boer J, Boersema JJ, Aiking H. Meat and masculinity among young chinese, Turkish and Dutch Adults in the Netherlands. Appetite. 2015;89:152–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.013. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.013
  46. Zur I, Klöckner CA. Individual motivations for limiting meat consumption. Br Food J. 2014;116(4):629–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-08-2012-0193. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-08-2012-0193
  47. Allen MS, Iliescu D, Greiff S. Single item measures in psychological science. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2022;38(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699
  48. Diamantopoulos A, Sarstedt M, Fuchs C, Wilczynski P, Kaiser S. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci. 2012;40(3):434–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
  49. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22
  50. Fishman J, Lushin V, Mandell DS. Predicting implementation: comparing validated measures of intention and assessing the role of motivation when designing behavioral interventions. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00050-4. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00050-4
  51. Sheeran P, Webb TL. The intention–behavior gap. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2016;10(9):503–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
  52. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  53. Bakr Y, Al-Bloushi H, Mostafa M. Consumer intention to buy plant-based meat alternatives: A cross-cultural analysis. J Int Consumer Mark. 2023;35(4):420–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2022.2122103. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2022.2122103
  54. Borusiak B, Szymkowiak A, Kucharska B, Gálová J, Mravcová A. Predictors of intention to reduce meat consumption due to environmental reasons – Results from Poland and Slovakia. Meat Sci. 2022;184:108674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108674. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108674
  55. Chen M-F. To combine or not to combine? Applying protection motivation theory and the theory of reasoned action to explain and predict intention to reduce meat consumption. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2022;52(2):115–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12842. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12842
  56. de Gavelle E, Davidenko O, Fouillet H, Delarue J, Darcel N, Huneau J-F, et al. Self-declared attitudes and beliefs regarding protein sources are a good prediction of the degree of transition to a low-meat diet in France. Appetite. 2019;142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104345. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104345
  57. Krispenz A, Bertrams A. Correlates of the intention to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability. 2020;12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114774. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114774
  58. Marcus N, Klink-Lehmann J, Hartmann M. Exploring factors determining German consumers’ intention to eat meat alternatives. Food Qual Prefer. 2022;100:104610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104610. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104610
  59. Seffen AE, Dohle S. What motivates German consumers to reduce their meat consumption? Identifying relevant beliefs. Appetite. 2023;187:106593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106593. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106593
  60. Wolstenholme E, Carfora V, Catellani P, Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L. Explaining intention to reduce red and processed meat in the UK and Italy using the theory of planned behaviour, meat-eater identity, and the transtheoretical model. Appetite. 2021;166:105467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105467. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105467
  61. Hielkema MH, Lund TB. Reducing meat consumption in meat-loving denmark: exploring willingness, behavior, barriers and drivers. Food Qual Prefer. 2021;93:104257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257
  62. Weibel C, Ohnmacht T, Schaffner D, Kossmann K. Reducing individual meat consumption: an integrated phase model approach. Food Qual Prefer. 2019;73:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.011. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.011
  63. Bertolotti M, Chirchiglia G, Catellani P. Promoting change in meat consumption among the elderly: factual and prefactual framing of health and well-being. Appetite. 2016;106:37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.150. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.150
  64. Cordts A, Nitzko S, Spiller A. Consumer response to negative information on meat consumption in Germany. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev. 2014;17(A):83–106. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.164599. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.164599
  65. Povey R, Wellens B, Conner M. Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: an examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite. 2001;37(1):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2001.0406. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2001.0406
  66. Sparkman G, Walton GM. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol Sci. 2017;28(11):1663–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617719950. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617719950
  67. Sparkman G, Macdonald BNJ, Caldwell KD, Kateman B, Boese GD. Cut back or give it up? The effectiveness of reduce and eliminate appeals and dynamic norm messaging to curb meat consumption. J Environ Psychol. 2021:101592. doi. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101592
  68. Tian Q, Hilton D, Becker M. Confronting the meat paradox in different cultural contexts: reactions among Chinese and French participants. Appetite. 2016;96:187–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.009. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.009
  69. Pabian S, Hudders L, Poels K, Stoffelen F, De Backer CJS. Ninety minutes to reduce one’s intention to eat meat: A preliminary experimental investigation on the effect of watching the Cowspiracy documentary on intention to reduce meat consumption. 2020;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00069 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00069
  70. Herrewijn L, De Groeve B, Cauberghe V, Hudders L. VR outreach and meat reduction advocacy: the role of presence, empathic concern and speciesism in predicting meat reduction intentions. Appetite. 2021;166:105455. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105455
  71. Lee CJ, Geiger-Brown J, Beck KH. Intentions and willingness to drive while drowsy among university students: an application of an extended theory of planned behavior model. Accid Anal Prev. 2016;93:113–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.002. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.002
  72. van Lettow B, de Vries H, Burdorf A, van Empelen P. Quantifying the strength of the associations of prototype perceptions with behaviour, behavioural willingness and intentions: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(1):25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941997. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941997
  73. Hunter E, Röös E. Fear of climate change consequences and predictors of intentions to alter meat consumption. Food Policy. 2016;62:151–60. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.004
  74. Brown JD. Classical test theory. In: Fulcher G, Davidson F, editors. The Routledge handbook or Language testing. London: Routledge; 2012. pp. 323–35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181287. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181287
  75. DeVellis RF. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ, editors. scale development: theory and applications. 4 ed. California: SAGE; 2017.
  76. Ashcroft J, Semmler C, Carnell S, van Jaarsveld CHM, Wardle J. Continuity and stability of eating behaviour traits in children. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008;62(8):985–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602855. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602855
  77. Batis C, Sotres-Alvarez D, Gordon-Larsen P, Mendez MA, Adair L, Popkin B. Longitudinal analysis of dietary patterns in Chinese Adults from 1991 to 2009. British Journal of Nutrition. 2014;111(8):1441–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114513003917. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114513003917
  78. Meiselman HL, Mastroianni G, Buller M, Edwards J. Longitudinal measurement of three eating behavior scales during a period of change. Food Quality and Preference. 1998;10(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00013-5 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00013-5
  79. Hansen J, Sparleanu C, Liang Y, Büchi J, Bansal S, Caro MÁ, et al. Exploring cultural concepts of meat and future predictions on the timeline of cultured meat. Future Foods. 2021;4:100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100041. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100041
  80. Dilger AC. What is meat? Perspectives of the American meat science association. Anim Front. 2017;7(4):4. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2017.0433. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2017.0433
  81. Li PJ, Sun J, Yu D. Dog meat consumption in china: A survey of the controversial eating habit in two cities. Soc Anim. 2017;25(6):513–32. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341471. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341471
  82. Podberscek AL. An appetite for dogs: consuming and loving them in Vietnam. In: Pręgowski MP, editor. Companion animals in everyday life: situating Human-Animal engagement within cultures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US; 2016. pp. 111–27. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59572-0_8
  83. Gagaoua M, Boudechicha H-R. Ethnic meat products of the North African and mediterranean countries: an overview. J Ethnic Foods. 2018;5(2):83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef.2018.02.004. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef.2018.02.004
  84. Lautenschlaeger R, Upmann M. How meat is defined in the European union and in Germany. Anim Front. 2017;7(4):57–9. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2017.0446. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2017.0446
  85. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Health Survey. Nutrition First Results – Foods and Nutrients. Australia, n.d. [cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/australian-health-survey-nutrition-first-results-foods-and-nutrients/latest-release
  86. Shafiee M, Islam N, Ramdath DD, Vatanparast H. Most frequently consumed red/processed meat dishes and plant-based foods and their contribution to the intake of energy, protein, and nutrients-to-limit among Canadians. Nutrients [Internet]. 2022; 14(6). 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14061257
  87. Zeng LuXian ZL, Ruan MengYuan RM, Liu JunXiu LJ, Wilde P, Naumova EN, Mozaffarian D, et al. Trends in processed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, and fish consumption in the united states, 1999–2016. J Acad Nutr Dietetics. 2019;119(7):1085–e9812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2019.04.004. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2019.04.004
  88. Hobbs-Grimmer DA, Givens DI, Lovegrove JA. Associations between red meat, processed red meat and total red and processed red meat consumption, nutritional adequacy and markers of health and cardio-metabolic diseases in British Adults: a cross-sectional analysis using data from UK National diet and nutrition survey. Eur J Nutr. 2021;60(6):2979–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02486-3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02486-3
  89. World Cancer Research Fund. Almost six in 10 Brits are unaware that processed meat could increase the risk of bowel cancer. London, UK: World Cancer Research Fund; 2023 [updated 2025, cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/about-us/news-and-blogs/almost-six-in-10-brits-are-unaware-that-processed-meat-could-increase-the-risk-of-bowel-cancer/
  90. McKibben WB, Silvia PJ. Evaluating the distorting effects of inattentive responding and social desirability on self-report scales in creativity and the arts. J Creative Behav. 2017;51(1):57–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.86. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.86
  91. Stull DE, Leidy NK, Parasuraman B, Chassany O. Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(4):929–42. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990902774765. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990902774765
  92. An R. Weekend-weekday differences in diet among U.S. Adults, 2003–2012. Ann Epidemiol. 2016;26(1):57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.10.010. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.10.010
  93. Graça J, Oliveira A, Calheiros MM. Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypotheses for Understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite. 2015a;90:80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.037. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.037
  94. Cheah I, Sadat Shimul A, Liang J, Phau I. Drivers and barriers toward reducing meat consumption. Appetite. 2020;149:104636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104636. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104636
  95. Rothgerber H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2013;14(4):363–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030379. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030379
  96. Verplanken B, Orbell S. Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003;33(6):1313–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01951.x. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01951.x
  97. Hartmann C, Siegrist M. Development and validation of the food disgust scale. Food Qual Prefer. 2018;63:38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.013. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.013
  98. Anderson EC, Wormwood J, Barrett LF, Quigley KS. Vegetarians’ and omnivores’ affective and physiological responses to images of food. Food Qual Prefer. 2019;71:96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.008. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.008
  99. Levant RF, McDermott R, Parent MC, Alshabani N, Mahalik JR, Hammer JH. Development and evaluation of a new short form of the conformity to masculine norms inventory (CMNI-30). J Couns Psychol. 2020;67(5):622–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414
  100. Pratto F, Çidam A, Stewart AL, Zeineddine FB, Foels R, Aranda M, et al. Social dominance in context and in individuals: contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychol Personality Sci. 2013;4(5):587–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663
  101. Memon MA, Ting H, Cheah J-H, Thurasamy R, Chuah F, Cham TH. Sample size for survey research: review and recommendations. J Appl Struct Equation Model. 2020;4(2):1–20. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.4(2)02
  102. Allen P, Bennett K, Heritage B. SPSS statistics version 22: A practical guide. 3rd ed. Cengage Learning; 2014.
  103. Camilleri L, Kirkovski M, Scarfo J, Jago A, Gill PR. Understanding the meat-Masculinity link: traditional and Non-Traditional masculine norms predicting men’s meat consumption. Ecol Food Nutr. 2024;63(4):1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2024.2361818. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2024.2361818
  104. Soper D. A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models. 2024.
  105. Flora DB, Flake JK. The purpose and practice of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in psychological research: decisions for scale development and validation. Can J Behav Sci. 2017;49(2):78–88. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000069
  106. Howard MC. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we improve? Int J Human–Computer Interact. 2016;32(1):51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664
  107. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT. New York: Oxford University Press. 2012.
  108. Velicer WF, Eaton CA, Fava JL. Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In: Goffin RD, Helmes E, editors. Problems and solutions in human assessment. New York, NY, US: Springer, Boston, MA;; 2000. pp. 41–71. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3
  109. Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian J Paramedicine. 2010;8(3). https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93
  110. Johnson RL, Morgan GB. Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. Guilford; 2016.
  111. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. On Establishing the empirical dimensionality of theoretical terms: an analytical example. Political Methodol. 1974;1(4):75–96.
  112. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234–43. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x
  113. Gallagher MW, Brown TA. Introduction to confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. In: Teo T, editor. Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research. Rotterdam: Sense; 2013. pp. 289–314. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-404-8_14
  114. Bollen KA, Stine RA. Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):205–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002004. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002004
  115. Kim H, Millsap R. Using the Bollen-Stine bootstrapping method for evaluating approximate fit indices. Multivar Behav Res. 2014;49(6):581–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.947352. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.947352
  116. Agbo AA. Cronbach’s alpha: review of limitations and associated recommendations. J Psychol Afr. 2010;20(2):233–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2010.10820371. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2010.10820371
  117. McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23(3):412–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
  118. Sijtsma K, Pfadt JM, Part II. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha: discussing lower bounds and correlated errors. Psychometrika. 2021;86(4):843–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09789-8. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09789-8
  119. Taber KS. The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
  120. Kalkbrenner MT. Choosing between cronbach’s coefficient alpha, mcdonald’s coefficient omega, and coefficient H: confidence intervals and the advantages and drawbacks of interpretive guidelines. Meas Evaluation Couns Dev. 2024;57(2):93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2023.2283637. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2023.2283637
  121. Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC. Rethinking internal consistency in cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sci. 2017;39(2):163–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189
  122. Cho E. The accuracy of reliability coefficients: A reanalysis of existing simulations. Psychol Methods. 2024;29(2):331–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000475. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000475
  123. Rubio DM. Alpha reliability. In: Kempf-Leonard K, editor. Encyclopedia of social measurement. New York: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00395-9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00395-9
  124. Briggs SR, Cheek JM. The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. J Pers. 1986;54(1):106–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
  125. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Allen & Unwin; 2004.
  126. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:309–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
  127. Howard KI, Forehand GA. A method for correcting item-total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion. Educ Psychol Meas. 1962;22(4):731–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446202200407. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446202200407
  128. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory. 1994;3:248–92.
  129. Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195339888.001.0001
  130. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with amos: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 3rd ed. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2016. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421
  131. Graça J, Godinho CA, Truninger M. Reducing meat consumption and following plant-based diets: current evidence and future directions to inform integrated transitions. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2019;91:380–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.046. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.046
  132. Ruby MB. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite. 2012;58(1):141–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019
  133. Becker E, Lawrence NS. Meat disgust is negatively associated with meat intake – Evidence from a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Appetite. 2021;164:105299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105299. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105299
  134. Pfeiler TM, Egloff B. Personality and eating habits revisited: associations between the big five, food choices, and body mass index in a representative Australian sample. Appetite. 2020;149:104607. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104607
  135. De Houwer J, De Bruycker E. Implicit attitudes towards meat and vegetables in vegetarians and nonvegetarians. Int J Psychol. 2007;42(3):158–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590601067060. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590601067060
  136. Hayley A, Zinkiewicz L, Hardiman K. Values, attitudes, and frequency of meat consumption. Predicting meat-reduced diet in Australians. Appetite. 2015;84:98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.002. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.002
  137. Bilewicz M, Imhoff R, Drogosz M. The humanity of what we eat: conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. Eur J Social Psychol. 2011;41(2):201–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.766. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.766
  138. Dhont K, Hodson G. Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption? Pers Indiv Differ. 2014;64:12–7. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002
  139. Hartmann C, Siegrist M. Our daily meat: justification, moral evaluation and willingness to substitute. Food Qual Prefer. 2020;80:103799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103799. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103799
  140. Rosenfeld DL, Tomiyama AJ. Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Appetite. 2021;166:105475. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105475
  141. Becker E, Kozmér S, Aulbach MB, Lawrence NS. The relationship between meat disgust and meat avoidance—A chicken-and-egg problem. Front Nutr. 2022;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.958248. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.958248
  142. Camilleri L, Gill PR, Jago A. The role of moral disengagement and animal empathy in the meat paradox. Pers Indiv Differ. 2020;164:110103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110103. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110103
  143. Niemyjska A, Cantarero K, Byrka K, Bilewicz M. Too humanlike to increase my appetite: disposition to anthropomorphize animals relates to decreased meat consumption through empathic concern. Appetite. 2018;127:21–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.012. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.012
  144. Malek L, Umberger WJ. Distinguishing meat reducers from unrestricted omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: A comprehensive comparison of Australian consumers. Food Qual Prefer. 2021;88:104081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104081. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104081
  145. Malek L, Umberger WJ, Goddard E. Committed vs. uncommitted meat eaters: Understanding willingness to change protein consumption. Appetite. 2019;138:115–26. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.024
  146. Pfeiler TM, Egloff B. Personality and meat consumption: the importance of differentiating between type of meat. Appetite. 2018;130:11–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.007. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.07.007
  147. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of Market Research: Springer; 2021. pp. 587–632. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_15
  148. Thompson FE, Subar AF. Dietary Assessment Methodology. In: Coulston AM, Boushey CJ, Ferruzzi MG, Delahanty LM, editors. Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease (Fourth Edition): Academic Press; 2017. pp. 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802928-2.00001-1 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802928-2.00001-1
  149. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population: Census. Australia, 2021. [cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-census/latest-release
  150. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Education and Work, Australia. Australia. 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/education-and-work-australia/may-2024#data-downloads
  151. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Profile of Australia’s population. Australia, 2024. [cited 2025 Apr 14]. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/profile-of-australias-population
  152. Ankeny RA. The moral economy of red meat in Australia. In: Friedland SR, editor. Food and Morality: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2007. Great Britain: Prospect Books; 2008.
  153. Talbot L. ‘Nothing compares’: This year’s lamb ad brings us closer together… and more divided 2024 [Available from: https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/entertainment/2024/01/14/lamb-commercial-2024.
  154. Ritchie H, Rosado P, Roser M. Meat and dairy production 2023 [Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
  155. Thompson JM, Pleasants AB, Pethick DW. The effect of design and demographic factors on consumer sensory scores Australian. J Experimental Agric. 2005;45(5):477–82. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA04048. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA04048
  156. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
  157. Triandis HC. Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole Pub; 1977.
  158. Alavi M, Visentin DC, Thapa DK, Hunt GE, Watson R, Cleary M. Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76(9):2209–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399
  159. Dash G, Paul J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2021;173:121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092
  160. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  161. Lin L-C, Huang P-H, Weng L-J. Selecting path models in SEM: A comparison of model selection criteria. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 2017;24(6):855–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1363652. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1363652
  162. van Laar S, Braeken J. Caught off base: A note on the interpretation of incremental fit indices. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 2022;29(6):935–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2050730. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2050730
  163. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants World Medical Association [Internet]. [Place unknown]: World Medical Association. 2025. [cited 2025 Aug 5]. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Meat Consumption Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/meat-consumption-scale/

Mohammed looti. "Meat Consumption Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 12 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/meat-consumption-scale/.

Mohammed looti. "Meat Consumption Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/meat-consumption-scale/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Meat Consumption Scale', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/meat-consumption-scale/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Meat Consumption Scale," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Meat Consumption Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction
  2. Succession‚ Identity‚ and Consumption Scale of Prescriptive Ageism (SIC)
  3. Compensatory Eating Behaviors Related to Alcohol Consumption (CEBRACS)
  4. Antecedents of Collaborative Consumption Tendency–Model
  5. Status Consumption and Moral Identity–Measurement Model
  6. Motivation in stroke patients for rehabilitation scale
  7. Ethnic Trust Scale
  8. Adolescent Sleep Health Belief Scale
  9. Basic Psychological Needs Scale for Korean Adolescents
  10. Social Trust Scale for Chinese Adolescents
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top