Analyzing_Social_Attitudes_and_Predictors_of_Anti_Vegan_Sentiment

1 Analyzing Social Attitudes and Predictors of Anti-Vegan Sentiment Name Institution Course Professor Date

2 Abstract This paper covers the psychological mechanisms of anti-vegan attitudes, social dominance orientation, speciesism, people's sense of humor, and the role of gender, respectively. A survey consisting of 1168 people who were recruited online and asked the participants about their views on veganism, mon for psychological constructs. The data was analyzed through the use of descriptive analysis, correlations, and reliability measures in research. Findings show that those who score higher on the social dominance orientation scale, speciesist attitudes, sexist humor, and gender-role norms tend to have stronger anti-vegan attitudes. This evidence shows that one's psychological propensities and mental orientations positively impact the way a person may feel towards veganism. Being aware of these issues, interventions, and future research can be formed based on this information to help decrease the anti-vegan opinions and enable the positive attitude about veganism to be reinforced.

4 Analyzing Social Attitudes and Predictors of Anti-Vegan Sentiment 1.0 Introduction Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) pertains to individuals' perspectives on hierarchical social structures and carries consequences for intergroup relations, political ideologies, and social fairness. Speciesism, the ideology that asserts human supremacy over other species, impacts animal rights and environmental sustainability perspectives. Aggressive humor, known for its capacity to offend, influences social interactions and societal standards. Male gender norms, which prescribe actions suitable for males, impact gender roles and equality. The presence of anti-vegan sentiment, which encompasses unfavorable opinions towards veganism, holds significance about food preferences and societal perspectives. Gaining comprehension of these notions deepens understanding of society's attitudes and behaviors. The study investigated psychological categories associated with social dominance orientation, speciesism, aggressive humor, male role standards, and anti-vegan emotions. 1.1 Participants The study recruited 1168 participants using a diverse strategy that included online advertisements, active involvement on social media platforms, and distribution of information through university email lists. This recruitment method aimed to secure a varied and inclusive sample that could encompass a wide range of opinions. The participants, spanning from 18 to 84 years old, encompassed a diverse range of age groups, therefore providing a complete representation of the population's demographics. Likewise, the sample consisted of individuals from different genders and nations, creating an abundant and diverse dataset for study. Before commencing the study activities, all participants were provided with thorough information regarding the research goals, methodologies, and their entitlements as study participants. The

5 participants granted informed consent, signifying their voluntary agreement to participate in the study. 1.2 Materials The study's questionnaire was very well developed to avoid the exclusion or missing critical constructs concerning the social dominance orientation, speciesism, aggressive humor, male role norms, and anti-vegan sentiment. Subtle components of the construct that concern caring for the children's mental health and well-being were also covered, contributing to unveiling each construct's comprehensive nature. All due attention was given to the presentation of the questionnaire, being extremely professional with transparent and concisely formulated language, format compliance, and consecutive arrangement of the items. This method has been devised to find the participants touching the issues more effectively and minimize the likelihood of any reflection biases and subsequent effects. The whole questionnaire aimed to cover the specific subscales. Each subscale has its purpose; theories and other scientifically proven facts form the basis. Items were prearranged by bearing in mind to specify questions that vividly discriminate the attitudes and perceptions in the participants' minds concerning the selected concepts. In addition, the organization of the task considered the logical sequence of items. It was intended to minimize the indirect effect of items on test-takers' responses. Adhering to these methodological issues would make the questionnaire a potent tool and render the data derived from that place more robust and reliable, facilitating the attainment of the study objectives. 1.3 Procedure Participants were then presented with the process of receiving informed consent about the research details and participants' rights. After that, there was a direction given to the people to fill

7 Gender 1 1 1 1.459 2 4 Age 18 25 30 33.78 38 84 Nationality 1 1 1 1.092 1 2 SDO_1 1 1 4 3.543 5 7 SDO_2 1 1 3 3.296 5 7 SDO_3 1 4 6 5.284 7 7 SDO_4 1 5 6 5.551 7 7 Speciesism_1 1 3 4 3.952 5 7 Speciesism_2 1 1 3 2.996 4 7 Speciesism_3 1 1 3 3.109 5 7 Speciesism_4 1 4 5 5.096 6 7 AggHumour_1 1 2 3 3.463 5 7 AggHumour_2 1 3 5 4.479 6 7 AggHumour_3 1 4 5 4.95 6 7 AggHumour_4 1 3 5 4.48 6 7 MaleRoleNorms_1 1 4 5 4.609 6 7 MaleRoleNorms_2 1 1 3 3.386 5 7 MaleRoleNorms_3 1 1 4 3.513 5 7 MaleRoleNorms_4 1 1 2 2.931 5 7 AntiVegan_1 1 2 4 3.628 5 7 AntiVegan_2 1 1 3 3.139 5 7 AntiVegan_3 1 4 5 4.76 6 7 The study started with the data sample on gender; the female is in a minority position, revealing a median of 1 and an average of 1.459. The male cases seem to outnumber the female (Blau & Kahn, 2017). However, the outliers or errors possibly occurred while doing the coding, and you can hint them by the minimum value of 1 and maximum value of 4. These data outliers/anomalies or errors should be eliminated/detected, after which the analysis should still take place, considering that they do not affect the results (Osborne & Overbay, 2019). Concerning the age of the data set., the sample is represented by a relatively young age group with a median age of 30 and a mean age of 33.78. The age of respondents from 18 to 84 years contains different groups from different age groups, which shows a wide range of attitudes on some issues. There is a specification for the minimum and maximum ages of the population under examination. This specification is essential for determining the actual age distribution in the community (Sundell & Saylor, 2017).

8 About nationality, 1.092 can roughly be interpreted as the majority of the respondents from one nation with a minimal number from another. This range of values lying in the interval between 1 and 2 gives us an idea of the number of nationalities used in the sample. In this respect, the study results could question the generalizability to a broader community. The following variable to address is social dominance orientation, with four SDO categories: low, moderate, moderate-high, and high followers of social dominance (SDO_1 to SDO_4). Thus, the medium values ranging from 3.543 to 5.551 imply that the participants show a moderate to high social dominance orientation or social status. This attests to the diversity of the social hierarchy opinions among the respondents, which could be another research stage worthy of the analysis. Also, the items measuring speciesism ( Speciesism1 to Speciesism4) and aggressive humor ( AggHumour_1 to AggHumour_4) demonstrate higher levels of endorsement within the sample. The mean values varying from 2.996 to 5.096 imply medium to high levels of prejudice against the other species and the tolerance of aggressive humor, and the mean values between 3.463 and 4.95 reveal moderate to high levels of being racist and a joker. This suggests what to look into to establish more relevant findings regarding this study. The factors of Male role Norm (MaleRoleNorms_1 to MaleRoleNorms_4) are also changing differently, with the mean rates from 2.931 to 4.609). From the above, two-thirds of the participants preferred spending their daytime with their family and taking care of their home, while the rest favored spending more outdoors. Thus, their preferred activities contradict traditional male roles (Herrero et al., 2017). In addition, the anti-vegan sentiment variables (AntiVegan_1 to AntiVegan_3) produce moderate scores, with mean values varying from 3.139 to 4.76. The observed phenomenon demonstrates that attitudes toward veganism among the respondents are very different. They can be affected by many factors, e.g., social redistribution, speciesism, aggressive humor, and gender

10 consumers. This attenuated comprehension gives a massive clue to the high diversity of intergroup biases and needs meticulous engagement to understand the cause. Animal speciesism relations would also be linked to the already mentioned subjects concerning human feelings towards the fauna and veganism. Between speciesism2 and speciesism3, there is a moderate positive correlation, which shows that those who see the human species as being above other species and are inclined to use other species for their good are most likely to have more negative evaluations of vegans. On the other hand, one of the three scales, entitled Speciesism_4, according to which sentient beings, that is, animals, may involve legal rights, shows a weak positive correlation, namely that the attitudes towards legal protections of the animals may not show a strong connection with attitudes toward veganism. 3.3 Cronbach's alpha for Male Role Norms The Cronbach's alpha output for the Cognitive Impairment Scale shows a high-reliability level of internal consistency. A pure alpha coefficient of 0.817 indicates that the items used for the scale correctly build a reliable construct that decisively measures the specifically targeted construct (adherence to traditional male role norms). The higher the alpha coefficient, the less correlating among the items, which indicates that they are all components of the same construct without significant redundancy (Taber, 2018). Hence, the integrity of the Male Role Norms scale is shown because it can be utilized in research to examine attitudes related to traditional male roles. This is also affirmed by the Coefficient of Alpha Stability (std. alpha), which is 0.810. The ratio of this coefficient is nearly the raw alpha, and it shows that when an item goes away

11 from the scale, the overall reliability of the scale is not significantly improved either. According to the amount of average inter-item correlation (average_r) of 0.516, items on the scale show a moderate level of correlation, which, in turn, indicates that items tap into the same construct. The scale's alpha coefficient is pretty high (above the threshold often considered acceptable – 0.70) for internal consistency reliability, suggesting the scale is acceptable for men's role norms. 3.4 Modifications to the Questionnaire The reliability and the validity of the questionnaire are sighted on the analytical evaluation of the questionnaire modifications, which are as follows: Firstly, examining the SDO scale that exposes some elements in the domain with a moderate to high level of endorsement means that the elements will be in line with the definition sampled and therefore Pratto et al. (1994). Items such as "Some entities are superior to others," just like "To climb to the higher stage of living, it is sometimes inevitable to defeat other groups," are vivid enough to depict the higher-lower nature of SDO. Notwithstanding, items like "No less advantaged groups should rule over other groups" and "Social equity should be increased," though meant to be scored opposingly, might be more precise if rephrased to be more relevant to the construct. Next, items in the speciesism scale are challenged to consider their full text for adequacy to measure the constructs that Caviola et al. defined (2019). There are phrases such as (1) "Animals are always assigned a lesser moral score than humans," and (2) " it is the right of humans to use animals for whatever selfish reason they have" - they seem to define creatures as speciesists. Nevertheless, the statement, "It is morally permissible to capture elephants in a circus, and dolphins in a zoo for human enjoyment," deserves a second look because it could be taken differently by the participants in the research and will depend on their attitude towards

13 References Mertler, C. A., Vannatta, R. A., & LaVenia, K. N. (2021).  Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation . Routledge. Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis.  American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics ,  9 (1), 4-11. Hajjar, S. T. (2018). Statistical analysis: Internal-consistency reliability and construct validity.  International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods ,  6 (1), 27-38. Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?.  Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning ,  10 (6), 807-815. Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations.  Journal of economic literature ,  55 (3), 789-865. Osborne, J. W., & Overbay, A. (2019). The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them).  Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation ,  9 (1), 6. Sundell, K. E., & Saylor, J. E. (2017). Unmixing detrital geochronology age distributions.  Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems ,  18 (8), 2872-2886. Herrero, J., Torres, A., Rodríguez, F. J., & Juarros-Basterretxea, J. (2017). Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners’ traditional gender roles and general violence.  Psychology of violence ,  7 (3), 385. MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2017). It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target.  Group Processes & Intergroup Relations ,  20 (6), 721-744.

14 Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education.  Research in science education ,  48 , 1273-1296. Caviola, L., Everett, J. A., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism.  Journal of personality and social psychology ,  116 (6), 1011. Nurse, A., & Wyatt, T. (2020).  Wildlife criminology . Bristol University Press.