If you have seen and are convinced by the impressive body of evidence showing that consuming animals and animal products is unhealthy for our bodies, our society, and the environment, and if you want to make the world a better place, you might quickly run up against the question of how best to share this information.

One common concern is the backfire effect. This is when efforts to improve someone else’s behavior not only fail but actually worsen their behavior. One meta-analysis found that concerns about the backfire effect are often overblown, at least when it comes to larger and more controlled meat-reduction interventions.^[1]

However, that doesn’t mean the concern isn’t sometimes valid on an individual level. Who wants to come across as aggressive or evangelical, undermining their message in the process? Neither is it helpful to harp on messages with less limited appeal. There are countless reasons to adopt a healthy plant-based lifestyle; being able to anticipate the factors most important to your audience can make a big difference. A discussion about athletic performance, for example, might appeal to a younger person more than one about osteoarthritis.

A 2024 study published in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services outlined some of the barriers to wider adoption of plant-based diets.^[2] Through a series of experiments, the Italian researchers found that omnivores may be more open to choosing and buying plant-based options provided they are primed correctly. They write, “Food choices are influenced by the alignment between one’s identity and the cultural and social meaning associated with those choices, and consumers usually engage in behaviours that support their identities.” This means it’s important that plant-based options are not presented in a manner that counterproductively threatens meat eaters’ identities. In fact, the best way to present a plant-based lifestyle may be to completely avoid activating any reminder of the meat-eating identity.

Likewise, it might be helpful for individuals making plant-based appeals to not emphasize their own plant-based identity as much. However, some research suggests that this is what many of us already do. In fact, when it comes to social identity and veganism, vegans seem to get an unjustifiably bad rap. Consider the stereotypical vegan, often perpetuated in popular media, who is brash and eager to take any opportunity possible to announce their dietary preferences. How closely does this align with reality?

One study found the opposite to be true about vegans: many of them are frequently motivated to cover up, not advertise, their dietary preferences in the presence of meat eaters.^[3] In this study, plant-based individuals were placed in a group with omnivores, who were actually confederates in the study and given scripted lines. The discussion organizer asked the individuals in the group to sign a petition to endorse increasing the availability of meat alternatives. Although a large proportion of vegans and vegetarians endorsed the same petitions when asked privately in a pilot study, far fewer were willing to sign in the group setting.

This type of conformity study has some obvious limitations. One might argue that it says far more about our susceptibility to groupthink in general than it does about veganism specifically; however, other data confirm the “self-silencing” of vegans trying to avoid social stigma. More than 40 percent of vegetarians and vegans have reported disliking that their diet made them stick out.^[4] This could be partly countered by strong feelings of group identity—an “in-group” status—but it’s unclear whether vegans actually feel any strong sense of group identity. More than 70 percent report not being involved in vegetarian or vegan social groups.^[4] This and other research contradict or at least complicate what many omnivores might assume—namely, that vegans are preoccupied with maintaining a presumably virtuous in-group to the detriment of their message.

So, the often-imagined in-group versus out-group dynamic of vegans versus nonvegans is not especially useful, real, or—in many cases—perpetuated by vegans. Still, that doesn’t mean vegans, like everyone else, cannot sometimes do a better job of putting across their message in a more effective way. Doing so is especially important when working against such stereotypes. Which brings us back to the earlier point: perhaps the best way to convey the message is to bypass all of this identity baggage and appeal instead to commonalities. This was the basis of the study conducted by Italian researchers, which I mentioned before.^[2] Through four experimental studies, they confirmed that priming common identity decreased meat eaters’ identity threat, thus increasing willingness to buy plant-based options.

An example of common identity priming would be to present a ten-spice lentil burger as appealing to foodies, without emphasizing that it’s a plant-based option. Individuals who identify as foodies will seek out such options because it confirms their self-identification patterns without threatening their usually omnivorous lifestyle. Likewise, common identity appeals might focus on individuals whose identities align with eating adventurously, exploring ethnic cuisines, or keeping up with the latest culinary trends.

How has this article aligned with your experience? Do any of the research findings described above surprise you? Do you have any tips for effectively sparking change in others? Join the conversation in Whole Communities, our free online community for plant-based change makers, or share this article with your thoughts on social media. We look forward to hearing from you!

References

1. Mathur MB, Peacock J, Reichling DB, et al. Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite. 2021;164:105277. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105277
2. Donato C, Monsurro L, Di Cioccio M. A matter of identity: promoting plant-based food among meat-eaters through a common identity priming. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2024;79:103863. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103863
3. Bolderdijk JW, Cornelissen G. “How do you know someone’s vegan?” They won’t always tell you. An empirical test of the do-gooder’s dilemma. Appetite. 2022;168:105719. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105277
4. Humane Research Council. Study of current and former vegetarians and vegans. December 2014. Online access.