Measuring the rejection of meat alternatives: Development and validation of a new scale

• We developed a ten-item, one-factor Meat Alternatives Rejection (MAR) scale. • MAR identifies those generally opposed to meat alternatives as a product concept. • MAR demonstrates factorial, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. • MAR shows high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). • MAR is higher in those who rarely eat meat alternatives and support restrictions. Despite the potential benefits of meat alternatives for the environment and animal welfare, public skepticism remains. This study presents the development and validation of the Meat Alternatives Rejection (MAR) scale. After a pilot study ( N = 510) refined the scale from fourteen to ten items, it was validated in a Swiss online survey ( N = 1951) through four steps. First, exploratory factor analysis confirmed a one-factor structure with high factor loadings (0.63 to 0.80) and strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). Second, convergent validity was supported by Pearson correlations with related variables, along with Average Variance Extracted (AVE = 0.525) and Composite Reliability (CR = 0.917). Third, discriminant validity was explored using a Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of 0.634, indicating that the MAR scale measures a distinct construct. Lastly, MAR’s predictive validity was tested using two regression models: Model 1 (logistic regression) predicted the likelihood of being a meat alternative consumer versus nonconsumer, and Model 2 (two-step linear regression) predicted support for meat alternative marketing restrictions. In both models, the inclusion of MAR significantly improved the explained variance (Model 1: W =83.82, p < 0.001; Model 2: F (1, 1945) = 598.1, p < 0.001), with MAR outperforming other predictors (age, gender, education, meat attachment, and eco-knowledge). Overall, MAR is a robust and reliable tool for measuring consumers’ rejection of meat alternatives, demonstrating factorial, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. This new scale can help advance our understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying the shift toward a more plant-based diet.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Food Quality and Preference
Published
2024-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105352
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.67

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measuring the rejection of meat alternatives: Development and validation of a new scale

Bianca Wassmann, Michael Siegrist, Christina Hartmann
8 citations
Food Quality and Preference
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
3.67
article

Measuring the rejection of meat alternatives: Development and validation of a new scale

Bianca Wassmann, Michael Siegrist, Christina Hartmann
article en
8 citations

Abstract

• We developed a ten-item, one-factor Meat Alternatives Rejection (MAR) scale. • MAR identifies those generally opposed to meat alternatives as a product concept. • MAR demonstrates factorial, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. • MAR shows high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). • MAR is higher in those who rarely eat meat alternatives and support restrictions. Despite the potential benefits of meat alternatives for the environment and animal welfare, public skepticism remains. This study presents the development and validation of the Meat Alternatives Rejection (MAR) scale. After a pilot study ( N = 510) refined the scale from fourteen to ten items, it was validated in a Swiss online survey ( N = 1951) through four steps. First, exploratory factor analysis confirmed a one-factor structure with high factor loadings (0.63 to 0.80) and strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). Second, convergent validity was supported by Pearson correlations with related variables, along with Average Variance Extracted (AVE = 0.525) and Composite Reliability (CR = 0.917). Third, discriminant validity was explored using a Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of 0.634, indicating that the MAR scale measures a distinct construct. Lastly, MAR’s predictive validity was tested using two regression models: Model 1 (logistic regression) predicted the likelihood of being a meat alternative consumer versus nonconsumer, and Model 2 (two-step linear regression) predicted support for meat alternative marketing restrictions. In both models, the inclusion of MAR significantly improved the explained variance (Model 1: W =83.82, p < 0.001; Model 2: F (1, 1945) = 598.1, p < 0.001), with MAR outperforming other predictors (age, gender, education, meat attachment, and eco-knowledge). Overall, MAR is a robust and reliable tool for measuring consumers’ rejection of meat alternatives, demonstrating factorial, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. This new scale can help advance our understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying the shift toward a more plant-based diet.

Food Quality and PreferenceVol. 125
ETH Zurich (CH), The Cambridge Centre for Advanced Research and Education in Singapore (SG)
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
3.67
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.