To stand out or to conform: Stereotypes and meta-stereotypes as barriers in the transition to sustainable diets ☆

What factors hinder the reduction of meat and/or dairy intake? In this study, we explored the perceived barriers that meat and/or dairy reducers experienced when shifting their diets. We particularly focused on how meat and/or dairy reducers were affected by their beliefs about how omnivores stereotype vegans (i.e., meta-stereotypes), as meta-stereotypes have not been previously explored in this context. Through open-ended questions in an online survey, we explored the experiences and perceived barriers among female meat and/or dairy reducers (n = 272), as well as their perceptions of vegans (i.e., stereotypes and meta-stereotypes), and how these perceptions affected their lived experiences. We analysed the data using reflexive thematic analysis and generated six themes. We highlighted perceptions of cost (Theme 1) and perceptions of health concerns (Theme 2) as the most dominant barriers to the reduction of meat and/or dairy intake. Regarding (meta) stereotypes, participants ’ perceptions of vegans were shaped by personal experiences and encounters with vegans (Theme 3), and how participants related to vegans was sometimes reflected in the language they used to describe vegans (Theme 4). Participants felt that they, or reducers more generally, were occasionally judged as vegans (Theme 5), which might influence participants ’ choices and conformity to eating norms (Theme 6). Meta-stereotypes may play a role in polarised dietary group perceptions, and we discuss how they are shaped by social identity processes as well as by aspects of Western food systems.


Introduction
Reducing meat and/or dairy intake is essential for addressing climate change (Willett et al., 2019), but it is not yet widely socially accepted.Numerous barriers hinder individuals' reduction of meat and/or dairy intake.These include limited awareness of the environmental impact of meat production (de Boer, de Witt, & Aiking, 2016) and the lack of cooking skills for plant-based meals (Graça et al., 2015).Other barriers stem from motivations for consuming meat or dairy, such as familiarity and convenience (Hoek et al., 2011), motivation to prepare plant-based dishes, including difficulty, time, and cost (Lea, Crawford, & Worsley, 2006;Pohjolainen, Tapio, Vinnari, Jokinen, & Räsänen, 2016), and the unwillingness of a partner or family members to consume plant-based foods (Drolet-Labelle, Laurin, Bédard, Drapeau, & Desroches, 2023; Wehbe, Banas, & Papies, 2022).Moreover, reports from vegetarians revealed that perceptions of their eating practices hindered socialising due to stereotypes linked to dietary choices (Buurman, Hamshaw, & Prosser, 2022).Here, we present a qualitative analysis exploring perceptions of the strongest barriers when reducing meat and/or dairy consumption, with a particular focus on how meat and/or dairy reducers are affected by their beliefs about how others stereotype vegans (i.e., meta-stereotypes).
In the context of our research, we use the term "reducers" to refer to individuals trying to reduce their meat and/or dairy consumption.The term meat reducers has been used interchangeably with flexitarians (Malek & Umberger, 2021;Rosenfeld et al., 2020).Previous research has highlighted that "flexitarian" is a term primarily used by researchers, and lay people who are reducing their meat and/or dairy consumption may still identify as vegetarians, flexitarians, or omnivores (Wehbe et al., 2022).Vegetarians are defined as individuals who exclude meat and meat-derived foods, yet include other animal products (e.g., eggs and dairy) to different degrees (Hargreaves, Rosenfeld, Moreira, & Zandonadi, 2023), whereas vegans are individuals who exclude all animal products from their diet, and omnivores include all these foods (Hargreaves et al., 2023).
The term meta-stereotypes is typically used to refer to one's beliefs about the stereotypes that out-group members hold about one's ingroup (Vorauer, Main, & O'Connell, 1998), for example vegans' beliefs about omnivores' stereotypes about vegans.Strictly speaking, therefore, reducers' beliefs of the stereotypes omnivores hold of vegans are not "meta-stereotypes" in the sense that the term is usually used (Vorauer et al., 1998) but rather stereotypes attributed to a group, observed by a third "adjacent" group (i.e., reducers).In the current article, however, we use the term meta-stereotypes to refer to reducers' attribution of vegan stereotypes to omnivores.
In domains outside dietary behaviours, meta-stereotypes have been linked to attitudes, biased information processing, or even acting in line with meta-stereotypes as a self-fulfilling prophecy (Johnson, Schaller, & Mullen, 2000;Kamans, Gordijn, Oldenhuis, & Otten, 2009;Matera, Dalla Verde, & Meringolo, 2015;Zhang, Kou, Zhao, & Fu, 2016).However, no previous research has examined whether meta-stereotypes play a role in reducing meat and/or dairy consumption.Stereotyping and meta-stereotyping vegans may be important to examine in the dietary transition towards consuming less meat and/or dairy, as they may prevent reducers from disclosing their diets or may affect their food choices in social situations (Wehbe et al., 2022).
Here, we used the social identity approach (Abrams & Hogg, 1990;Brown, 2000;Hornsey, 2008) to explain how reducers view vegans within their social context and trace the links between meta-stereotypes, dietary behaviours and social identities.The social identity approach suggests that people make sense of their social world based on group-based categories.They differentiate those who belong to their ingroup, seen as "us", from those who do not, seen as "them".A positive sense of self is built by viewing one's ingroup more favourably than the outgroup.Social identity influences feelings within social contexts (e.g., attaining a sense of pride of belonging to a group) and behaviour (e.g., discrimination against out-groups).Stereotypes and meta-stereotypes can emerge as a result of such categorisation.Yet, little is known about how these stereotypes and meta-stereotypes of vegans influence reducers' lived experiences of dietary changes.

Existing evidence of meta-stereotypes of vegans
In a previous study (Wehbe et al., 2023), we examined whether vegans and reducers held stereotypes and meta-stereotypes about vegans.We also assessed whether these were associated with the motivation to maintain dietary changes and how close reducers felt to vegans.We found that vegans and reducers believed that omnivores stereotype vegans, in other words, they held meta-stereotypes.Negative meta-stereotypes were stronger than positive meta-stereotypes.Both vegans and reducers stereotyped vegans themselves, with positive stereotypes being stronger than negative stereotypes.We found that reducers who held stronger positive stereotypes and weaker negative stereotypes felt closer to vegans as a group, and those that held stronger negative stereotypes felt less close to vegans.For both vegans and reducers, we found no evidence of an association between meta-stereotypes and the motivation to maintain a dietary change for vegans and reducers.
We integrated open-ended questions as part of the study among reducers, exploring their lived experiences of barriers when reducing meat and/or dairy intake and potential effects of stereotypes and metastereotypes of vegans.Our findings are reported here, employing qualitative analysis for an in-depth exploration of individual experiences and perceptions to identify patterns for our comparative case study design (Braun, Clarke, Boulton, Davey, & McEvoy, 2020).We then triangulated our findings in the light of previous quantitative findings (Wehbe et al., 2023).Triangulation of methodologies enables us to gather data from different angles and perspectives, we cross-validated our findings, and ensuring a robust and trustworthy interpretation of our research questions.While researchers have focused mostly on convergence of findings to strengthen the overall validity and reliability of research (Creswell, 1999;Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999), there has been little focus on divergent findings.Embracing divergent findings can help generate new insights and drive alternative explanations that challenge theories, existing assumptions on relationships, or methodological development while avoiding confirmation bias (Mcgrath, 1995;Turner, Cardinal, & Burton, 2017).Therefore, we address both convergent and divergent triangulation in our discussion.

The current work
Here, we aimed to explore the major barriers to reducing meat and/ or dairy intake, focusing especially on the role of stereotypes and metastereotypes of vegans.We examined this not among the stereotyped ingroup (i.e., vegans), but among an "adjacent" group (i.e., reducers).While this label may not precisely align with the definition of metastereotypeswhich pertain to perceived stereotypes about one's ingroupwe will use the term "meta-stereotypes' for simplicity and consistency across our studies (see Wehbe et al., 2023).However, we acknowledge that the implications of such "attributed" stereotypes and "conventional" meta-stereotypes for behaviour and identity could differ, given that meta-stereotypes involve targeted stereotypes towards one's own group.We will address this issue in our Discussion.
We focused solely on women, as women hold greater concerns regarding their health and the environment, and are also more willing to change their dietary patterns (Ghvanidze, Velikova, Dodd, & Oldewage-Theron, 2016).In addition, the experience of reducing meat and/or dairy intake might be different for men, who may experience stronger expectations to consume meat because of strong cultural meat-masculinity associations.By focusing only on women, we aim to understand their experience without getting into complexities that considering both genders might introduce.
L.H. Wehbe et al.We began by asking about the perceived barriers to reducing meat and/or dairy consumption, and then asked about social processes and perceptions as potential barriers, allowing us to explore stereotypes and meta-stereotypes without asking about them too explicitly and hence triggering demand effects.Ultimately, this research may suggest pathways to support reducers in their shift to consuming less meat and dairy.In sum, we addressed the following research questions.
1) What do female reducers perceive as the biggest barriers to reducing meat and/or dairy intake?How do they experience these barriers?2) What is the role of stereotypes and the others' perspectives about vegans (i.e., meta-stereotypes) in the process of reducing meat and/ or dairy intake?How does it influence women trying to reduce their meat and/or dairy consumption?

Methods
This study received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Science Research Ethics Committee.We pre-registered the work as part of a previous study (see OSF; link).

Procedure
We asked participants five open-ended questions (see Table 1).We piloted the survey for comprehension (n = 10).
We included the following text to encourage participants to provide detailed responses: "This is not a typical click and point or short answer survey, as we are interested in hearing your story through your responses.There is no right or wrong response to any of the questions being asked.We are truly interested in your thoughts and experiences.For each response write no less than 3 sentences.If you want to write more than this, please feel free to do so.Your experience is of interest to us.The more details you provide, the more we can understand and learn from your personal experience."Each question was displayed separately and accompanied by large textboxes, affording longer responses spanning multiple lines.Responses varied between 3 and 7 sentences, with an average of 67 words per response and no missing data across responses.
Prior to these open-ended questions, participants were asked a series of questions listed in the order shown.First, we asked about participants' demographics (e.g., age, primary motives, and how long they had been reducing their meat and/or dairy consumption).Then, we quantitatively assessed both positive and negative meta-stereotypes (e.g., "I think omnivores view vegans positively/negatively"), including specific traits (e.g., "moral", "self-righteous") and stereotypes (e.g., "I think vegans are moral", or "I think vegans are extremists").We asked about the motivation to maintain dietary changes (e.g., "I plan on maintaining my current diet for the foreseeable future"; "Within the next year, you intend to completely cut out meat/dairy from your diet (e.g., reducing 100% of your meat/dairy intake)"; "how often do you think you will consume meat (and/or dairy) when visiting family's homes?").Finally, we asked about participants' sense of closeness to vegans.They were asked how they related to vegans, and to choose from a list of 9 options adapted from the self-other scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992).Full details can be found on OSF.Analysis of these quantitative data can be found in Wehbe et al. (2023).

Participants
Participants were recruited via Prolific (prolific.co),and provided their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.Participants were female reducers living in the UK, at least 18 years old, fluent in English, and did not identify as vegans.Sample size was based on the number of participants required for the quantitative part of the study.The final sample was N = 272 (Mage = 42 years, SD = 12.59) and survey completion took 19 min on average.For further demographic details of our sample, see Table 2.

Data analysis
We developed thematically organised patterns throughout the dataset, supported by participants' quotes.We adopted a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006;2013, 2014, 2019) and followed the six stages of analysis using NVivo Software (Windows Version 12) as a qualitative analysis management tool (Maher, Hadfield, Hutchings, & de Eyto, 2018).See Table 3 for more details on the analysis process.We found reflexive thematic analysis appropriate for this work as it underlines researchers' reflexivity, and rejects the notion that meaning is fixed within data.Aligning with this approach, we employed critical realism to uncover deeper mechanisms and contextual factors to  understand experiences of reducing meat and/or dairy intake (Fletcher, 2017;Lawani, 2020).We later discuss how the data links to existing theories.

Credibility strategies
We ensured credibility of the analysis through multi-angled and continual observations of the data (Korstjens & Moser, 2018), warranting transferability through comprehensive descriptions of the participants' experiences in context of their demographic setting.Apart from our methodological triangulation described above, we also used investigator triangulation in the analysis process by which both first and second author held periodic discussions after prolonged engagement with and persistent observation of the data, reflecting on the emerging patterns from the data analysis as well as integrating the deviant cases within the analysis process.Through their periodic discussions, firth and second author held a reflexive approach to research (see OSF), where first author kept a reflexive diary (Langdridge, 2007).

Findings
We generated six themes from the data (see Table 4).The full supporting quotes for all themes can be found in the NVivo file uploaded on the OSF.
Participants described many barriers to consuming less meat and/or dairy.The first theme, 'It Breaks the Bank', revealed the cost of convenient vegan foods as the barrier with most mentions (N = 191).The second theme, 'All That Processed Vegan Food', revealed health values and concerns about the dietary transition (N = 134).The third theme, 'Interpreted Observations of Vegans', reflected how personal experiences shape stereotypes and meta-stereotypes about vegans and veganism.The fourth theme, 'Closeness to Vegans and How it Reflects in Language', revealed how participants' sense of closeness to vegans was reflected in the language they used to describe vegans.The fifth theme, 'Reducers Categorised as Vegans' delved into how omnivores categorised reducers as vegans.The sixth theme 'The Web of Influences' captured participants' reactions to social categorisations and the different ways of how social perceptions and social discourse about vegans influenced their experiences.Due to the large number of participants, we decided not to allocate individual pseudonyms.Instead, we refer to each participant as 'P' followed by a unique number ranging between 1 and 272 (e.g., P72).
The open questions were formulated for participants to share their own experiences or perceptions from hypothetical situations, allowing the subtleties of the research topic to emergeoften missed by more quantitative research questions.Participants' extracts mostly reflected real-life examples (e.g., Themes 1 and 2) and occasionally contrasted experiences with perceptions of others (for all other themes).Participants' sharing of the barriers other people face translated a sense of recognition of shared social problems, whereas their experiences around managing opinions of omnivores about vegans reflected their cultural perceptions.This work aimed to explore these social and cultural perceptions, and later highlight some of our interpretations of the different outcomes when differentiating between personal experiences and hypothetical situations.

Table 3
Thematic analysis process.
Thematic analysis process based on the six phases outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2013, 2019 The first and the second authors held discussions periodically to share and combine their reflections, identifying an initial, yet flexible thematic framework. The first author fed back these discussions to the third and the fourth authors, which allowed for in depth descriptions, diverse perspectives through these discussions, and an unbiased immersion analysis of participants' experience.The primary goal of our thematic discussions was to foster the exchange of potentially varied data interpretations, rather than aiming to achieve a consensus or assess coding reliability.Employing this method is considered valid for attaining a comprehensive shared understanding of the data when there are multiple coders involved (Byrne, 2022).Phase 4: Reviewing and refining themes Researchers review and refine themes through a process of validating the accurate representation of the data within the themes.
To review and refine the themes, the first author assessed the themes across the entire dataset.All authors agreed to the generated themes fitting the dataset.
The first author created hierarchical links between the codes, by exploring queries on NVivo and by integrating the discussions held with all authors.Phase 5: Defining and naming themes Researchers define and name themes through a process of formulating the essence of the theme.
The first author defined and named themes by formulating the essence of the themes.

Phase 6: Producing report
Researchers write the report as the final stage of the analysis.The write up of the findings and each theme in turn present an The first, the third, and the fourth authors held discussions to link the findings to previous literature and theories.The first author developed the initial draft of the manuscript.

Table 3 (continued )
Thematic analysis process based on the six phases outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2013, 2019) Phases Process Author involvement opportunity for a final refinement of the themes.
The third and the fourth authors contributed to the reviewing and write-up the report.Themes were further refined in this process.

Theme 1: "It Breaks the Bank": perceived cost barriers
Cost emerged as the most frequent barrier.Most participants sought convenient meat and dairy alternatives, often in the form of ready-made substitutes.However, these options were perceived as unaffordable (e. g., P169), particularly with the increased cost of living.Participants experienced these alternatives as more expensive than meat and dairy (e.g., P19, P106).Participants also mentioned their friends' reluctance to try a meat-free diet, using the cost of vegan foods as a justification for resisting dietary change (e.g., P86).Furthermore, participants perceived cooking for family members who were unwilling to consume plantbased meals as costly, requiring separate meal preparations.Even when family members were open to experimenting with new dishes, the perceived risk of disliking unfamiliar foods was considered costly and wasteful (e.g., P126).Cost barriers led to increased resistance to purchasing unfamiliar plant-based products (e.g., P71).Moreover, participants perceived the cost of vegetable and fresh foods to have increased in recent years (e.g., P84).
While some participants did not perceive cost as a barrier, they recognised that it is perceived as such by others.For example, one participant mentioned the financial and health benefits of cooking from scratch, acknowledging that most people opt for processed ready-made meat and dairy-free meals (e.g., P80).See Table 5 for supporting quotes.
It is essential to contextualise our findings on the barriers to reducing meat and/or dairy intake within the framework of changes that may be affecting people's socio-economic status.The United Kingdom witnessed an increased cost of living in the years 2022 and 2023, when the data were collected.In this regard, it may be relevant to highlight that on average, participants did not feel relatively wealthy compared to others and felt they lacked sufficient money.Yet, on average, they reported living in a relatively wealthy neighbourhood.
Overall, most participants equated vegan foods with processed and ready-made vegan foods, which they perceived as expensive.Yet, a few participants did not see cost as a barrier.These participants held a broader understanding of what constitutes vegan foods (e.g., dried pulses, legumes, vegetables), which they considered to be affordable options.

Theme 2: "All That Processed Vegan Food": perceived health barriers
A large proportion of participants reduced meat and/or dairy intake for health reasons, with nutritional value and health concerns emerging as the second most frequently mentioned barrier.Participants associated vegan foods with highly processed foods, leading to concerns about insufficient protein content and nutritional value in vegan diets (e.g., P2).Participants struggled to view the added nutritional (e.g., P193) and environmental (e.g., P1) benefits that these meat-free and dairy-free products may bring.Many remained attached to traditional perceptions of the health benefits of meat and dairy foods (e.g., P129).Due to the perceived lack of healthy ready-made alternatives (e.g., P158), most acknowledged that cooking from scratch would be a better solution.
However, some participants perceived cooking from scratch as a hindrance due to the required knowledge and experience needed (e.g., P8).Buying convenient foods (P71) and cooking with meat and dairy (P246) had become habitual to most.Shifting these habitual patterns required effortful considerations and time, with time being perceived as a scarce resource in the demands of the modern life (e.g., P144).Notably, some participants highlighted people's reluctance to cook from scratch.One participant perceived that the reason for people's reluctance to cooking was a lack of motivation to do so and that they relied on excuses to avoid cooking from scratch (e.g., P80).In a specific medical context, one nurse shared her encounter with vegans being in a weak state because of nutritional deficiencies (e.g., P96).She highlighted that they "are not doing their homework" possibly referring to a perception of vegans, lacking the knowledge around consuming a well-rounded diet.See Table 6 for all supporting quotes.
Participants generally perceived health barriers to their transition towards reducing meat and/or dairy foods.Many felt that embracing a healthy vegan diet demands time, effort, and the challenge of breaking habitual reliance on convenient meat-based meals.A minority held a different perspective.To them, time management strategies were key in adopting the habit of cooking from scratch.One common barrier to consuming a healthy vegan diet was the lack of knowledge on how to do so.

Theme 3: "when we hear vegans, we hear activists": Interpreted Observations of Vegans
Many participants held stereotypes about vegans, based on personal observations and experiences with vegans.They generalised views about vegans from those experiences to the entire dietary group.For example, one participant subscribed to mainstream stereotypical views about vegans based on an experience with a vegan friend who, according to the participant, imposed their vegan dietary ideologies on others (e.g., P243).Others formed their perceptions of vegans through online portrayals of vegan activists (e.g., P122) or social discourse about vegans (e. g., P90), where vegans are compared to religious extremists (e.g., P169).
A proportion of participants (N = 86) held entirely positive views of vegans.Views of vegans were mostly positive when encounters with vegans were positive, and in most cases, when people had friends and family members who were vegan (e.g., P114).Vegans' dietary choices were sometimes accepted as environmentally friendly, and aligned with advice to reduce meat and dairy foods (e.g., P158).Some participants were also aware that not all vegans ascribe to the stereotypes known about vegans (e.g., P10).A minority moved away from perceiving vegans as a unified entity and were receptive to viewing vegans as individuals with nuanced attitudes (e.g., P164).See Table 7 for supporting quotes.
Overall, many participants held vegan stereotypes and formed generalised views about vegans from their personal observations and experiences.Indeed, stereotypes are a result of social categorisation where people perceive outgroup members as homogenous, as the social identity approach would suggest (Abrams & Hogg, 1990;Brown, 2000).Views of vegans from participants and their surroundings were mixed and stereotypes and meta-stereotypes of vegans were seldomly solely positive.Participants also perceived others evaluating vegans negatively, suggesting meta-prejudice (Gordijn, 2002).Although views of vegans varied according to people's experiences with individual vegans, a few recognised that these perceptions should not be generalised to all vegans.

Theme 4: closeness to Vegans and How it Reflects in Language
Here, we present a few examples to illustrate participants' sense of closeness to vegans (adapted from the self-other scale; Aron et al., 1992), and how it was reflected in their language when expressing opinions of vegans.Participants were shown nine pairs of intersecting circles (Fig. 1) and asked to choose which best represented how close they felt to vegans.The measure ranged from two non-intersecting circles (lack of closeness) to two completely overlapping circles (strong sense of closeness).Interestingly, all participants who chose the circles 8 and 9 labelled themselves as omnivores or reducers, whilst participants who labelled themselves as vegetarians were scattered across circles 1 and 7.
Participants' sense of closeness to vegans was reflected in the language they used to describe them.Those who felt less close to vegans tended to use stereotypical words like 'extremist', 'restrictive', 'preachy', 'strange' (e.g., P223; P93 in circle 1), often echoing the negative views from friends and family.Others, while not entirely ascribe to negative views about vegans, acknowledged that these   Participants with moderate overlapping circles typically described their diet as a personal choice.Those who felt weakly or moderately close to vegans were sometimes tolerant or indifferent toward others' diets, perceiving that these choices had no impact on them.For instance, one participant mentioned the freedom of vegans choose their diet, since diet is a personal choice (e.g., P178 in circle 3).They later shared a hypothetical scenario of how reducers might be influenced by social discourse about vegans, leading to feelings of shame.Another participant shared that social discourse about vegans should not impact people because one's diet is a personal choice (e.g., P18 in circle 5).She later mentioned that her opinion should not matter and used the phrase 'You do you, and I'll do me', interpreted as conditional granting of permission for others to be and act as themselves, as long as they receive the same treatment.See Table 8 for supporting quotes.
In general, how participants relate to vegans may translate into the language they use to describe vegans.Some participants who felt less close to vegans used negative stereotypic words more frequently to describe vegans, whereas others who moderately related to vegans sometimes purveyed that 'diet is a personal choice'.

Theme 5: "you might remind people of vegans": Reducers Categorised as vegans
Participants' responses suggested that other people found reducers more difficult to categorise than vegans.Consequently, participants reported experiences of being compared to and sometimes categorised as vegans.They mentioned that omnivores and vegans judged them for reducing meat and/or dairy intake too much or not reducing enough (e. g., P268).Participants shared concerns about the barriers that arose from being associated with vegans (e.g., P199).Specifically, P199 shared frustration about 'militant vegans', pointing to vegan activists, giving reducers 'a bad name'.P199 perceived that this may have tarnished reducers' reputation and that, reducers, in the public's eye, are now being stereotyped as well.
Some participants shared that engaging in 'preaching' about their dietary choices triggered people into categorising reducers similarly to vegan activists (e.g., P10).Others mentioned that reducers who openly shared their goals of becoming vegans were automatically associated with stereotypical vegan traits (e.g., P73).Perceptions of reducers differed based on their motives.For instance, reducers' motives were sometimes perceived as inconsistent with their behaviours (e.g., P30).When reducers' motives for avoiding meat and/or dairy were healthrelated, people seemed more 'forgiving' (e.g., P19).One participant aligned her views with the negative opinions her family and friends held about vegans.She stated her health and financial motives for reducing meat and dairy as personal reasons, possibly to separate herself from social discourse about ethical vegans (e.g., P62).Indeed, some participants felt that those reducing for the environment or animal welfare were associated with vegan activists in social contexts (e.g., P65).See Table 9 for supporting quotes.
Overall, reducers' behaviours and identity were perceived as unclear showing a lack of closeness to vegans, to "9" showing concentric circles and a strong sense of closeness to vegans.This measure was adapted from the self-other scale (Aron et al., 1992).The x-axis shows the frequency of cases.Participants mostly chose circles with small overlapping areas.
to their social surroundings and were therefore categorised and associated with vegans, a process aligning with social identity approach (Abrams & Hogg, 1990;Brown, 2000).Participants reported that reducers were compared to vegans if specific vegan stereotyped characteristics were triggered (e.g., preachiness) or if the motive for reducing meat and dairy foods aligned with those of vegan activists (e.g., ethics).

Theme 6: "It's uncomfortable being different": The Web of influence
This theme illustrates the various pathways of meta-stereotypes and stereotypes influencing reducers, and it is comprised of three parts: influences related to avoidance of communication, positive and negative influences, and influences relating to conformity and belonging.Participants used strategies to mitigate perceptions or experiences of being stereotyped as vegans, such as avoiding communication and hiding their diets.As Vorauer et al. (1998) highlighted, when an individual feels stereotyped by an outgroup, they may avoid the outgroup and may experience anxiety during contact.This aligns with previous research on the impact of meta-stereotypes on intergroup contact and avoidance in other domains (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012).
Eating in social contexts that promote meat and/or dairy foods (e.g., with family members, friends, or when eating out) hindered participants' efforts to reduce their meat and/or dairy intake (e.g., P7-A, P222).Participants often reported dealing with people's negative opinions about the vegan diet and vegans (e.g., P59).Communication was challenging in these situations, as resisting negative views would require effortful explanations and sometimes triggered the fear of being ridiculed (e.g., P53, P253).Consequently, participants often ate meat and dairy foods in these contexts, to avoid causing inconvenience (e.g., P237), appearing difficult (e.g., P7-B) or being associated with vegans (e.g., P30, P199).However, by concealing their diet (e.g., P111), reducers missed opportunities for finding support (e.g., P125).See Table 10 for the supporting quotes.
Meta-stereotypes and endorsement of other's social discourse of vegans influenced reducers in many ways.When reducers belonged to an environment free from judgement, they reported feeling encouraged and valued.Participants also shared that support from others could have a strong impact on people's motivation to pursue their reduction efforts (e.g., P.23, P73).Importantly, participants highlighted the need for positive vegan role models to temper negative social influences (e.g., P16, P196).
Participants reported frequent instances where the opinions of vegans from their social context negatively influenced their consumption behaviours and choices, or that of others in hypothetical situations.Participants mentioned that negative opinions from others might impact people's consumption levels, impeding them from holding the intention to reduce further (e.g., P66), or the motivation to do so (e.g., P138, P59).Choices in social contexts became effortful to manage, and sometimes, participants questioned the choices they made as they challenged the status quo (e.g., P112).Challenging the status quo required a level of openness to criticism or a strong conviction of the choices one makes.Indeed, participants perceived that these opinions of others could shake their beliefs about reducing their dairy consumption (e.g., P85).
Participants described that reducers who perceive negative opinions of vegans from others worry being judged as vegans and may not want to be identified as vegans (e.g., P65).In turn, this worry triggered the need to carve their own consumption behaviours and identities as separate from vegans (e.g., P12).Some even reported experiences where their friends, in the presence of others who consume meat or dairy, apologised for reducing the intake of these foods, and then disidentified themselves from vegans by stating "we are not one of those radical vegans" (e.g., P9).Others described hypothetical situations of reducers disidentifying themselves from vegans to avoid being labelled as "rabbit vegans" (P107).In these cases, vegans were seen as an outgroup.
Participants also reported experiencing negative affects within various social context.When the norms of consuming meat and/or dairy were salient, participants felt pressurised to consume more meat or dairy (e.g., P17), and felt awkward if chose to consume foods that are counter mainstream norms (e.g., P38).On the other hand, when participants were present with vegans, they felt unwelcomed by vegans as they felt judged by them for not doing enough (e.g., P96 -A).Feeling unwelcomed by vegans or perceiving that vegans think reducers are not doing enough would attract less people to reduce their meat and/or dairy intake (P96 -B).These findings highlight the mechanisms behind anxious intergroup interactions specific to the context of meat and/or dairy reduction that the meta-stereotype literature highlights (Gómez, 2002;Macinnis, 2009;Otten, 2002;Vorauer et al., 1998).See Table 11 for supporting quotes.
Participants reported insights into potential reasons for the variability in the degree to which people are negatively influenced by perceptions about vegans.Self-confidence was one factor (e.g., P80).Participants viewed people swayed by others as weak (e.g., P99) or more mainstream, conforming to social norms rather than choosing to be a 'rebel' (e.g., P89).Being different posed a threat to participants highly conforming to social norms.Some participants chose to conform to group norms out of fear of standing out when the need to fit in was high (e.g., P148), even if it caused them health issues (e.g., P7).In certain social context, the need to belong sometimes overshadowed their reduction goals (P88).Overall, distinctions emerged between those aspiring to change their actions to match their social groups and those embracing their uniqueness and individuality (P151).See Table 12 for supporting quotes.
In general, participants concealed their dietary choices and avoided challenging conversations, as they preferred not to stand out.They "The person may feel that they cannot share an intent to reduce dairy and meat consumption to avoid these views affecting their relationships.
And by not sharing their intent this will reduce peer support for their choice."(P125)

Table 11
Data extracts for the second part of Theme 6.As a result, less people would try to do reduce their intake as they'd feel like they're not doing enough because some vegans may be attacking them and saying that they are not doing enough."(P96 -B) L.H. Wehbe et al. adjusted their behaviours to conform with norms around eating meat and dairy to minimise resistance.By doing so, they decreased opportunities to find support.The availability of positive role models could have facilitated these necessary discussions.The impact of stereotypes and meta-stereotypes about vegans on people's experiences of reducing meat and/or dairy intake manifested in various ways.The degree of influence varied according to people's self-confidence and level of conformity.

Discussion
Our aim was to explore barriers to reducing meat and/or dairy intake among female reducers, with a particular focus on the role of vegan stereotypes and meta-stereotypes in their lived experiences.

Summary of findings
A wide range of barriers to reducing meat and/or dairy intake were mentioned that aligned with previous work (Graça et al., 2019).Participants most frequently mentioned their perceptions of the cost of vegan foods and health concerns around adopting a vegan diet as barriers.Many associated vegan foods with processed, ready-made options, leading to the perceptions that vegan foods were costly and unhealthy.This perception might be influenced by the increased cost of living and the lack of time to cook from scratch.A small proportion of participants did not perceive cost and health concerns as barriers to consuming vegan foods.They had developed a habit of cooking from scratch, and perceived the vegan diet as a cost-efficient and healthy choice.These participants highlighted the importance of time management in behaviour change, and recognised that the lack of will to manage time may hinder others' adoption of vegan diet.
We also found evidence of meta-stereotypes about vegans, and explored how they affected reducers.Meta-stereotypes of vegans were rarely solely positive, and stereotypes about vegans varied based on people's experiences with vegans or media portrayals.In social settings where meat was the norm, participants shared experiences where they, or other reducers, felt categorised as vegans if they displayed ethical motives or traits associated with vegans, such as being preachy.
Engaging in conversations about their diet became challenging in these contexts, leading them to adopt avoidant strategies and hide their diets.They often felt annoyed or uncomfortable when pressured to consume meat and/or dairy foods.As a result, they disidentified themselves from vegans, due to worrying about being judged as vegans.Some participants did not feel close to vegans and used negative stereotypic language to describe them.Other participants felt moderately close to vegans, holding mixed views, and often describing their diet as a personal choice.This perspective may illustrate a conditional granting of permission for others to freely choose their diets if they receive the same freedom in return.
Influences from stereotyping and meta-stereotyping vegans varied across participants.Participants shared that negative views of vegans from omnivores could alter one's choice of not consuming meat and/or dairy foods, and could hinder one's willingness to adopt a reduced meat and/or dairy diet.These negative perceptions sometimes shook their beliefs about their choices.The degree of negative influences varied according to peoples' self-confidence, conformity to social groups, and need for belonging.Generally, participants chose to align their behaviours with the meat-eating norms to avoid standing out.The desire to belong to their social groups, despite holding opposing beliefs, outweighed their goal to reduce meat and/or dairy consumption in those situations.By doing so, participants avoided disclosing their dietary goals and limited their opportunities for support.Participants perceived having a supportive social circle as crucial, however, because it could help promote their motivation, sense of belonging, and maintained dietary efforts.

Methodological triangulation
We compared results from both the quantitative (Wehbe et al., 2023) and the current qualitative work to identify convergences and inconsistencies across findings.Findings from both methods revealed that reducers hold both stereotypes and meta-stereotypes about vegans.In line with the quantitative findings (Wehbe et al., 2023), the open-ended survey responses revealed more frequent mentions of negative stereotypes from omnivores (i.e., negative meta-stereotypes) than positive ones.Some participants agreed with the negative views of vegans, yet most reported their mixed views of vegans.They held generally positive perceptions of vegans, provided that their freedom of choice is respected.Thus, perceived stereotypes about vegans, particularly negative ones, appeared as salient representations in people's minds.Moreover, our qualitative findings complemented previous quantitative results, illustrating that reducers who felt less close to vegans held negative stereotypes about vegans, which may then translate into the language they used to describe vegans.
However, inconsistencies with previous findings also emerged.The quantitative results revealed no significant association between negative meta-stereotypes and maintaining dietary changes, reduction intentions, and consumption expectations of meat and/or dairy.In contrast, open-ended responses revealed concerns about self-image influencing reducers' choices in social contexts promoting meat and/ or dairy consumption, and their willingness to further reduce the intake of these foods, which aligns with previous work (Rosenfeld et al., 2020).These inconsistencies may arise from the mixed format of questionsclosed-ended vs. open-ended.While closed-ended survey options provide standardised answers, open-ended questions that enable respondents to answer in their own words yield more nuanced responses and allow for the reporting of atypical individual experiences that researchers did not account for (Braun et al., 2020).
Inconsistencies could also arise because our quantitative analysis directly assessed the association of meta-stereotypes with participants' dietary change maintenance, while the qualitative analysis explored how meta-stereotypes might influence people (i.e., participants themselves or others) who are reducing their meat and/or dairy intake.People often infer their attitudes and feelings by observing their own behaviour (Bem, 1972).Yet, when people are not fully conscious of the influences affecting them, they may form explanations based on their behaviour rather than acknowledging external factors.Reducers may attribute their dietary choices more to their own autonomy than to external pressures, for example by claiming that their diet is a personal choice, and may perceive others as more prone to such influences, as attribution bias theory would suggest (Heider, 2013).According to the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977), people tend to overestimate the role of personality traits and underestimate the role of situation when interpreting other people's behaviour.For example, our participants may have interpreted how people's opinions influence others by attributing these influences to personal characteristics, such as participants perceiving others being influenced by negative opinions of vegans due to their lack of confidence, rather than considering the contextual factors in which the behaviour occurs.While our study did not specifically focus on the potential differences between "attributed' stereotypes and "conventional' meta-stereotypes, these may be important, particularly concerning their impact on reducing meat and/or dairy intake.The attribution of vegan stereotypes to omnivores may not directly affect reducers as if these stereotypes were directed towards them, such as meta-stereotypes about their own group.This might also explain the inconsistencies in our findings.Potentially, the influence of attributed stereotypes may be indirect, and the tendency to conformity may moderate the relationship between attributed stereotypes and behaviour, which could be addressed in future research.

Social identity approach
Our results can be understood in the context of the social identity approach (Abrams & Hogg, 1990;Brown, 2000).Stereotypes are a consequence of social categorisation, as they stem from the tendency to perceive outgroup members as homogenous, and to see the ingroup in more favourite light than the outgroup.Participants in our study held negative stereotypes and meta-stereotypes of vegans, which in turn influenced their experiences, self-perceptions, and identity.Our findings revealed that reducers believed omnivores stereotyped vegans, and were sometimes labelled as vegans, which led many reducers to disidentify with vegans, perhaps out of fear of being judged by others.Reducers disidentified from vegans by defining themselves in contrast to what they are not (e.g., vegans).This helped them define who they are in the process of shifting towards consuming less meat and/or dairy.In turn, viewing vegans as categorically separate may have decreased reducers' willingness to fully eliminate these foods as a way to reduce the likelihood of being categorised as vegans.This suggests that negative meta-stereotypes may play an important role in shaping pro-environmental behaviour.

Meta-stereotypes within identity context
Previous research has suggested that the activation of metastereotypes is particularly relevant for individuals who strongly identify with their ingroup in contexts where the (stereotyping) outgroup is powerful (Lammers, Gordijn, & Otten, 2008).However, findings from previous research on vegans and from the current study suggest that both individuals who are part of the stereotyped group (i.e., vegans; Wehbe et al., 2023), and individuals who do not have strong social identities around dietary behaviours (i.e., reducers) held similar patterns of vegan meta-stereotypes.Negative vegan meta-stereotypes can lead reducers to feel less close to vegans (Wehbe et al., 2023) and to disidentify with vegans, as evidenced in our current findings.These results align with the social identity approach (Abrams & Hogg, 1990;Brown, 2000;Hornsey, 2008), in that stereotypes and meta-stereotypes contribute to social categorisation, and in turn, can result in dis-identification with the outgroup.
Our findings provide insights into why reducers may adopt flexible dietary goals and are less likely to maintain their dietary changes.Only a small proportion of our participants identified as vegetarians and pescetarian.Most reducers labelled themselves as omnivores, sometimes flexitarians, and mostly as reducers when they did not necessarily identify with existing dietary labels.As research on flexitarians suggests (Rosenfeld et al., 2020), perhaps this is because reducers who labelled themselves as omnivores, flexitarians, or reducers, have a social identity within the dietary context that is less central to their sense of self.Yet, social identification has been shown an important factor for dietary maintenance within people who adopt restrictive diets.Indeed, social identification positively predicted people's adherence to a vegan and vegetarian diet (Cruwys, Norwood, Chachay, Ntontis, & Sheffield, 2020).This might explain reducers being less strict with their efforts to maintain their dietary changes.Such findings have implications for the social identity approach (Abrams & Hogg, 1990;Brown, 2000;Hornsey, 2008) in the context of reducers, in that holding stereotypes and negative meta-stereotypes of vegans may not only influence whether reducers identify with vegans, but whether they are willing to adopt a vegan diet.

Links to the vegan paradox framework
De Groeve and colleagues proposed a theoretical framework whereby vegans trigger a cognitive dissonance in non-vegans, referred to as the vegan paradox (De Groeve & Rosenfeld, 2022).This dissonance activates both moral identities and identities related to meat consumption, giving rise to either supportive (e.g., moral and committed) or defensive (arrogant and overcommitted) views about vegans.Our work offers several theoretical contributions to this framework, and in doing so, extends the literature around the role of meta-stereotypes in intergroup relations from dietary domains.
Reducers holding diverse meta-stereotypes of vegans may experience cognitive dissonance leading to an internal conflict.To resolve their dissonance, reducers may enact personal views that either support or reject vegans.Indeed, in social context where vegan stereotypes were prominent, reducers reported opting to hide their diets, consuming meat or dairy, and feeling conflicted when doing so (Wehbe et al., 2022).Moreover, researchers have found omnivores perceiving flexitarians as indecisive (De Groeve, Hudders, & Bleys, 2021), which may also reflect reducers' internal conflict of consuming meat or dairy, and worry about being judged when navigating situations where consuming meat is the norm.Therefore, meta-stereotypes could contribute to the dissonance created by the vegan paradox.This dissonance is salient in reducers' minds without necessarily encountering vegans.
Reducers perceiving stereotypes about vegans experience these criticisms indirectly, through a mental process that activates concerns about their own evaluation in relation to vegans when meta-stereotypes about vegans are activated.This might impact their confidence in their daily choices around reducing meat and/or dairy intake, and might play an important role in shaping self-image.Our findings leverage insights from theories of intergroup relations to highlight the symbolic threats to social identity (Nelson, 2015;Stephan & Stephan, 2017).Perceived vegan stereotypes could pose a symbolic threat to reducers, because hidden dietsa method of avoidance of conflict from social settingsmay result in a weakened sense of belonging and identity.Future research should assess these claims with empirical testing for validation.

Practical implications
Participants' reports and experiences pointed towards aspects of the food system and the social political context that shapes their food choices.For example, participants mentioned affordability and perceived cost as their primary barrier to shifting diets to consuming less meat and/or dairy.They also mentioned availability and accessibility of plant-based foods in shops and restaurants, health concerns related to the existing meat and/or dairy alternatives, the appeal of meat and dairy-based foods from advertisement of these foods, and the challenges they experienced from resisting their desires to consume these foods.All these aspects of the food system may contribute to the social pressures participants felt to consume meat and/or dairy, and the stereotypes they experienced around plan-based diets and the people that consume plantbased diets.These components shaped their experience of reducing meat and/or dairy consumption and are part of the food system (Lee et al., 2017).Hence, psychological interventions to reduce the demand for meat and dairy will have to focus not only on individuals, but include the wider systemic context that shapes their experiences (see also Papies, Davis, Farrar, Sinclair, & Wehbe, 2023).

Knowledge, education, and public awareness
Knowledge can prompt gradual change overtime, and the lack of knowledge can hinder the motivation to maintain behavioural change.In the current work, participants reported lacking information on how to adopt a well-rounded diet, and struggled with developing skills to cook tasty plant-based foods.Moreover, they reported strong concerns regarding the healthiness of what they perceived as plant-based foods, or lacked the knowledge to follow a diet that is suitable for their health needs (e.g., people suffering from irritable bowel syndrome or celiac disease).Others felt that older generations lacked the same knowledge they have about the health and environmental impact of consuming meat and dairy foods.Experiencing these knowledge barriers led to a decreased motivation to maintain dietary changes.Based on these findings, it may be helpful for healthcare professionals to promote the health benefits of plant-based diets and to provide information on healthy and well-balanced diets, tailoring plant-based diets to individual health needs (Prosen, Lekše, & Ličen, 2023).
However, interventions should not rely solely on knowledge and education, but should integrate strategies to boost motivational processes, ensuring a comprehensive approach to fostering lasting behaviour change.Indeed, knowledge, education, and public awareness are important in reducing meat and dairy consumption.Yet, despite public health and sustainability policies being built on the principle that knowledge is a driver influencing behaviour (Kelly & Barker, 2016), researchers have argued against relying solely on knowledge-based interventions in public sustainability policy research (Suldovsky, 2017), and have criticised knowledge-based interventions for politically polarised topics (e.g., climate change) as inaccurately simplifying the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours.Research illustrates that motivational processes such as desires, habits, and social norms can impede behaviour change, and must be considered, in an approach that acknowledges how these are shaped by the wider food system (Papies et al., 2022).Adding to this, our work suggests that recognising the role of stereotypes and meta-stereotypes as barriers to reducing meat and dairy consumption is essential.Vegan stereotypes and meta-stereotypes arise in response to minoritised behaviours.Hence, when plant-based foods become the norm through wider changes in the food system as discussed above, this will indirectly address the challenges that arise from stereotypes and meta-stereotypes (FitzGerald, Martin, Berner, & Hurst, 2019).

Strengths and limitations
The key strength of our research is the novel finding that metastereotypes could be linked to people's willingness to reduce meat and/or dairy intake.Furthermore, the application of methodological triangulation added valuable insights about the impact of negative metastereotypes in reducers' dietary transitions.We also used investigator triangulation as the data was coded by two researchers, all while holding periodic meetings for reflexivity and bringing in different perspectives, negative case analysis, strengthening the robustness and transparency of our analysis process.Moreover, capturing lived experience is a strength of the manuscript and using qualitative surveys offers diverse perspectives of individuals and experiences in underexplored researched domains (Braun et al., 2020).Finally, our large sample, due to our quantitative power analysis, ensured a broad representation of female reducers.
Our research is not without limitations.Firstly, the use of five openended survey questions may not provide the depth required to fully understand lived experiences.The inclusion of a substantial sample size, comprising 272 participants, however, contributed to a broad spectrum of perspectives and opinions, thereby enhancing the overall breadth of our study.Future research could use interviews rather than surveys to gain a more nuanced and in depth understanding our people's experiences.Additionally, we asked about how people's opinion about vegans influences reducers, rather than asking directly, for example, about meta-stereotypes.This may limit direct validation of findings from both qualitative and quantitative responses.Nonetheless, triangulating these findings provided rich exploration of experiences of reducing meat and/ or dairy, enhanced data quality, and credibility of the research.Moreover, despite the broad representation of experiences, our findings cannot be generalised, specifically across gender or cultures, and future research would benefit from replicating our work and exploring differences in these contexts to advance our representation of the processes at hand.However, the aim of our qualitative research was not to ensure representativeness.Our focus was on exploring diversity within lived experiences of women reducing meat and/or dairy intake, and comparing these findings with previous work.Finally, some responses were delivered in the context of hypothetical situations.These are linked to participants' perceptions, as perceptions are relevant to explore when examining meta-stereotypes.

Conclusions
This research showed that negative vegan meta-stereotypes were prevalent among women reducing meat and/or dairy intake.These perceptions, as well as health concerns and perceived cost of plant-based foods, impacted reducers' experiences of dietary transitions.The tendency to conform to existing social norms, even when these need to change for sustainability of health and the planet, may impede efforts towards promoting sustainable changes.Making plant-based foods the norm through wider changes to the food system may address both the social and practical challenges that reducers experience.
perceptions are generalised, traditional, and an unfair representation of the diversity of vegans (e.g., P164 in circle 3), yet still felt less close to vegans.Perhaps, this is because people's views of vegans were sometimes mixed (e.g., P190 in circle 4).A minority of participants who felt less close to vegans used words related to progressive views when mentioning vegans (e.g., P45 in circle 3; P53 in circle 2), including words related to environmental consciousness, ethics, and openmindedness.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Sense of closeness to vegans.Note.Bar chart showing the number of participants for each of the nine closeness to vegan categories.The y-axis shows reducers' sense of closeness to vegans depicted by nine representations of overlapping circles, from "1" showing a lack of closeness to vegans, to "9" showing concentric circles and a strong sense of closeness to vegans.This measure was adapted from the self-other scale(Aron et al., 1992).The x-axis shows the frequency of cases.Participants mostly chose circles with small overlapping areas.

Table 1 -
Main questions of the survey schedule as shown to participants.Imagine there is a person that is trying to reduce their meat and/or dairy consumption.How do you think other peoples' opinions of vegans may impact this person?Please explain why you think this impact or lack of impact would occur.3)How do you think your friends/family who eat meat perceive vegans?How do you feel about these perceptions?

Table 4
Table of themes.1. "It Breaks the Bank": Perceived Cost Barriers 2. "All That Processed Vegan Food": Perceived Health Barriers 3. "When We Hear Vegans, We Hear Activists": Interpreted Observations of Vegans 4. Closeness to Vegans and How it Reflects in Language 5. "You Might Remind People of Vegans": Reducers Categorised as Vegans 6. "It's Uncomfortable Being Different": The Web of Influence

Table 5
Data extracts for Theme 1.
"it's a big risk to try sometime totally new.I tried a chickpea and cauliflower curry which was risky.One child didn't like Cauliflower the other chickpeas.My husband didn't like it.It was a wasted meal that no one was keen to try again."(P126) Risk of choosing unfamiliar products "A family go to the supermarket to choose vegan food.They are confronted with lots of plant-based products they are not familiar with because they have been cooking with meat for so long.They panic and go back to eating meat or they eat expensive ready-made food and cannot keep it up."A lack of desire is the biggest issue; I hear so often people saying 'it's too expensive to buy vegan foods (or eat healthily) but this is totally wrong.It's only expensive if you buy pre-prepared processed food stuffs, if you buy fresh/frozen/ dried it's cheap but it does mean actually making an effort and doing some cooking."(P80) L.H. Wehbe et al.

Table 6
Data extracts for Theme 2.
"Most people lack the imagination to know how to cook without using meat and dairy.It's a traditional way to cook with meat and dairy and it's not obvious where to go to find out what's possible to create without these foods."(P246) Research requires time "I think time is a problem researching healthy alternatives.Vegan cooking requires more thought, planning and preparation" (P144) Time management as an excuse: perceived barrier "I don't believe time is a factor, people always find time to do what they want e.g., muck about on their phones … Just because people can't be bothered doesn't mean they can't ….So ultimately people are just too idle."(P80) Lack of knowledge on how to consume a nutritious vegan diet "In my experience as a nurse, I saw vegans coming in a very weak state because they are lacking essential vitamins, because they didn't do their homework."(P96)

Table 7
Data extracts for the first part of Theme 3.
"I think my family and friends think vegans are hippies and are preachy about eating meat.I don't think it's fair to generalise." (P164) L.H.Wehbe et al.

Table 8
Data extracts for Theme 4.
"I don't believe there would be an impact[of people's opinion about vegans on reducers].""Surely, it's a personal decision that you've thought about … So, what I think about them [vegans] should not really matter.You do you and I'll do me."(P18)

Table 9
Data extracts for Theme 5.

Table 10
Data extracts for the first part of Theme 6.

Table 12
Data extracts for the fourth part of Theme 6.