How Moral Minority Stereotypes Predict the Social Attractiveness of Veg*ns

In this preregistered study we examined why people with an omnivorous diet (i.e., omnivores) would view vegetarians and vegans (i.e., veg*ns) as less socially attractive based on their status as stigmatized moral minorities. Drawing on a recently demonstrated distinction between perceived morality and sociability in research on universal dimensions of stereotype content, we expected that veg*ns would be perceived as more moral but less sociable compared to omnivores. A lower perceived sociability would predict a lower social attractiveness of veg*ns, supported by two additional stereotypes theorized to be specifically associated with moral minorities: moralistic and eccentric impressions. In addition, we explored impressions towards people who consciously reduce their meat intake (i.e., flexitarians) and we complemented our quantitative analysis with an analysis of stereotype content omnivore participants freely associated with the dietary groups. Accordingly, using a single factor between-subjects experimental design, we randomly allocated a diverse sample of omnivores from the UK to answer questions about either omnivores (n = 100), flexitarians (n = 101), vegetarians (n = 105) or vegans (n = 106). Results largely confirmed our hypotheses: Although veg*ns were perceived as more moral than omnivores, they were also stereotyped more negatively. More specifically, they were seen as more eccentric and, in particular, more moralistic, predicting a lower social attractiveness, although mediations via sociability were weak. Notably, vegetarians had a less negative image compared to vegans, and flexitarians shared positive attributes of both non-flexitarian groups (i.e., more moral than omnivores, but also more sociable and socially attractive than vegans and less moralistic than veg*ns). Free association data were largely consistent with our results and provide directions for further inquiry, for example concerning veg*ns’ (often) morally-motivated dietary commitment, in particular as “animal lovers”, and the lack of commitment attributed to flexitarians. Limitations and implications for theory and practice are discussed.