There seems to be a genetic predisposition to following a vegetarian diet; & a link between vegetarianism and political ideology may exist because of a shared genetic predisposition

Where the Rubber Meats the Road: Relationships between Vegetarianism and Socio-political Attitudes and Voting Behavior. John B. Nezlek & Catherine A. Forestell. Jul 15 2019. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Volume 58, 2019 - Issue 6, pp 548.559. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2019.1641801

ABSTRACT: Previous research has found that omnivores are more hierarchical and more authoritarian than vegetarians. To examine if such differences extend to political behavior a sample of American undergraduates (N = 1211) described their diets, endorsement of social policies, political orientation, and voting behavior. Consistent with previous research, we found that compared to vegetarians and semi-vegetarians, omnivores favored conservative policies more strongly and liberal polices less strongly, identified more closely with the Republican party and less closely with the Democratic party, were less liberal, approved of Donald Trump’s performance more, and were more likely to have voted for Trump.

KEYWORDS: Vegetarianism, voting behavior, conservatism, liberalism, Trump

Discussion As expected, vegetarians and semi-vegetarians were more politically liberal than omnivores, differences that are consistent with previous research. Moreover, our results suggest that consumption of red meat is associated with these differences. Vegetarians and semi-vegetarians did not differ on any of the measures we analyzed. The power of this comparison was .67 for a medium (d = .5) effect size (Faul et al. 2009). Why was the consumption of (red) meat associated with more politically conservative attitudes and behaviors? We believe that the differences between omnivores and vegetarians reflect the operation of the processes described by Dhont and Hodson (2014): “Rightwing adherents do not simply consume more animals because they enjoy the taste of meat, but because doing so supports dominance ideologies and resistance to cultural change” (p. 12). For example, research has shown that relationships between speciesism and conservative attitudes are driven by dominance orientation (e.g., Costello and Hodson 2010; Dhont, Hodson, and Leite 2016). The differences we found between omnivores and vegetarians in the endorsement of various social policies were clearly consistent with omnivores being more resistant to change and more supportive of hierarchies than vegetarians. Such differences are also consistent with the possibility that vegetarians restrict their meat intake not because they dislike the taste of meat but because of there are concerned about animal welfare. Such concerns can go beyond issue of hygiene and methods of slaughter and can include beliefs that as sentient beings, animals should not be killed for food. The present results extend previous research in two ways. They expand the domain of attitudes and behaviors that are associated with the consumption of red meat. Compared to vegetarians and semi-vegetarians, omnivores both endorsed more conservative policies more strongly and endorsed more liberal policies less strongly, indicating that diet is associated with attitudes across the political spectrum. Perhaps more important, because voting is where the “rubber meets the road” in terms of politics, demonstrating that the voting behavior of omnivores is different than the voting behavior of vegetarians and semivegetarians extends existing research into a critical domain. Consistent with our results, Wrenn (2017) found that vegans were much less likely to vote for Trump than the norm (4% vs. 46% overall), but Wrenn did not study semi-vegetarians, a group whose intake has been shown to be motivated more by weight control or health reasons rather than ethical reasons compared to strict vegetarians (Forestell, Spaeth, and Kane 2012). This difference may explain why a lower (though not significantly lower) proportion of semi-vegetarians than vegetarians endorsed liberal attitudes. Whether vegetarians’ political attitudes and behaviors are associated with the degree to which their motivations are health- or ethically-based is a topic for future research. The present results also increase the diversity of the database describing relationships between vegetarianism and political beliefs. Much of the research on this topic has been done in Europe or Australasia. Although culturally the US has much in common with these countries, there are differences among them, and finding that relationships between diet and political orientation in an American sample are similar to the relationships found in other countries supports the validity of these relationships. Nevertheless, the sample examined in the present study may limit the generalizability of the results. As discussed by Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010), the present sample came from a WEIRD culture (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic). Also, similar to previous research on this topic, the study was conducted in a society in which people are “vegetarians of choice” rather than “vegetarians of necessity” (Leahy, Lyons, and Tol 2010). The majority of the world’s vegetarians do not have the resources to buy meat, and so it is possible that the type of relationships we found are limited to individuals who choose to be vegetarian. Finally, a smaller percent of the present sample voted for Trump (17%) than the percent of college-educated voters in the general US population (36%, Pew Research Center 2018), and the sample consisted of young adults. Nevertheless, the present results comport with the results of previous research suggesting that the selective nature of the sample did not skew the results in a specific direction. Such questions can be resolved only by examining the same processes in larger, more representative samples. There is also the issue of the extent to which the results found in our sample of collegians can be generalized to people of other ages. Following Erik Erikson many believe that adolescence (and to some extent early adulthood) is a time when people search for their identities, at least in Western cultures. In terms of political ideology and voting behavior this is often referred to as the “impressionable years hypothesis,” which is accompanied by the “aging-stability hypothesis” (stability increases with age) (e.g., Alwin and Krosnick 1991). Support for these complementary mechanisms is mixed (e.g., Alwin and Krosnick 1991). For example, Markus (1986) found that the political attitudes of a sample of young adults was no more or no less stable over 17 years than the attitudes of their parents were. Perhaps the most intriguing perspective on this issue is the work of Verhulst and colleagues (e.g., Verhulst, Eaves, and Hatemi 2012). They suggest that political ideology reflects genetic predispositions (at least in part), and to the extent this is true, political ideology may be as stable in early adulthood as it is at any other stage of life assuming that genetic predispositions are stable. There is the issue of how well a distinction based upon dietary habit predicts the types of socio-political attitudes we examined. Although the differences in means for some measures were meaningful in terms of scale points (e.g., over a half point difference between omnivores and vegetarians for strength of identification with the Democratic party), for most measures, the ANOVAs that compared the three groups accounted for about 4–5% of the variance, certainly not large effects. This was due to the variance in these outcome measures within the groups. For example, although vegetarians identified more closely with the Democratic party than omnivores, 46% of omnivores identified with the Democratic party either closely or very closely. On the other hand, omnivores were approximately three times more likely than vegetarians to have voted for Trump. Although this ratio needs to be understood within the context of the number of participants who voted for Trump (77 of 468), it is possible that the individual differences that are associated with an omnivorous diet when considered collectively may have had a stronger influence on how people voted. This is perhaps because voting is a decision that is based on the collective influence of a set of individual factors that may vary in strength. The present study was intended primarily as an empirically focused extension of research on the socio-political correlates of following a vegetarian diet. We believe that we accomplished this goal, albeit with the limitations imposed by our sample. As noted previously, the available data suggest that vegetarians have a more pro-social orientation than omnivores (Ruby 2012). Such a pro-social orientation is probably the driving force behind the political ideologies and behaviors of vegetarians. Even so, such an explanation still begs the question of why vegetarians are more prosocial than omnivores.

Recent research suggests that there may be a genetic predisposition to following a vegetarian diet (e.g., Ye et al. 2017). If this is the case, then relationships between vegetarianism and political ideology may exist because of a shared genetic predisposition. This is similar to the argument Verhulst and colleagues have made regarding relationships between personality and political beliefs. Clearly, answering such questions requires research that is designed to address them specifically.



Check also Vegetarianism as a Social Identity. John B Nezlek, Catherine A Forestell. Current Opinion in Food Science, December 20 2019. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/12/vegetarians-are-more-pro-social-than.html

And Gender Differences in Vegetarian Identity: How Men and Women Construe Meatless Dieting. Daniel L.Rosenfeld. Food Quality and Preference, November 28 2019, 103859. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/11/could-they-be-lying-vegetarian-women.html

And Taste and health concerns trump anticipated stigma as barriers to vegetarianism. Daniel L.Rosenfeld, A. JanetTomiyama. Appetite, Volume 144, January 1 2020, 104469. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/09/vegetarian-diets-may-be-perceived-as.html

And Relationships between Vegetarian Dietary Habits and Daily Well-Being. John B. Nezlek, Catherine A. Forestell & David B. Newman. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/10/vegetarians-reported-lower-self-esteem.html

And Psychology of Men & Masculinity: Eating meat makes you sexy / Conformity to dietary gender norms and attractiveness. Timeo, S., & Suitner, C. (2018). Eating meat makes you sexy: Conformity to dietary gender norms and attractiveness. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(3), 418-429. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/06/psychology-of-men-masculinity-eating.html

And Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat. Jared Piazza, Neil McLatchie & Cecilie Olesen. Anthrozoös, Volume 31, 2018 - Issue 3, Pages 319-335. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/05/presenting-images-of-baby-animals.html