Table 1.
List of reviewed studies and their features.
| References | Method(s) | Focus | Data | Country | Theme(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bagci and Olgun (2019) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional survey | Vegan stigmatization, perceived discrimination, social identity needs, well-being | N = 350; community sample | Turkey | 1 |
| Bresnahan et al. (2016) | Quantitative: Experiments | Predictors of vegan stigma, impact of pro- and anti-vegan messages, anger, discomfort | N1 = 261, N2 = 225; student samples | no information | 1 |
| Butterfield et al. (2012) | Quantitative: Experiments | Anthropomorphism, support for animal welfare and rights | N1 = 42, N2 = 57; student samples | no information | 3 |
| Buttny and Kinefuchi (2020) | Qualitative: Critical discursive analysis to discussions | How vegans deal with their identity and problematic interaction with omnivores | 7 vegan students | The US | 1 |
| Cole and Morgan (2011) | Qualitative: Discursive analysis to news | Vegan stigmatization in media | 397 newspaper articles | The UK | 1 |
| Cruwys et al. (2020) | Mixed method: Qualitative and quantitative survey | Big Five, moral foundations, self-efficacy, social identification with dietary group, diet adherence | N = 292; community sample | no information | 3 |
| Davis et al. (2019) | Qualitative: Sentiment analysis and mean word counts through big data | Social identity, social movement, identity feedbacks, identity verification | 9,994 YouTube comments | multinational | 4 |
| Dhont and Hodson (2014) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional surveys | RWA, SDO, perceived threat from non-exploitative ideologies, human supremacy belief | N1 = 260, N2 = 489; community samples | Belgium | 2, 3 |
| Dhont et al. (2014) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional surveys | SDO, ethnic prejudice and speciesist attitudes | N = 191; student sample | Canada | 2 |
| Dhont et al. (2016) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional surveys | Role of SDO, RWA and conservatism in speciesism and ethnic prejudice | N1 = 118, N2 = 198; student samples & N3 = 573; community sample | Belgium (Study 1) & the UK (Study 2) & the US (Study 3) | 2 |
| Earle et al. (2019) | Quantitative: Experiments | Negative attitudes toward vegans, visual reminders of meat's animal origins, empathy for animals, disgust for meat, vegan threat | N1 = 299, N2 = 280; community samples | The US | 2, 3 |
| Graça et al. (2016) | Mixed method: In-depth interviews and cross-sectional surveys | Moral disengagement of meat consumption, SDO, speciesism, human supremacy beliefs | N1 = 1013, N2 = 318; community samples | Portugal (Study 1) & the US (Study 2) | 2, 3 |
| Greenebaum (2012) | Qualitative: In-depth interviews | Contradictions of ethical vegans, impression management, vegans' presentation of self, identity performance | 16 vegans | the US | 1 |
| Hodson and Earle (2018) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional survey | Reasons for adopting vegan diet, social support, conservatism | N = 1313; community sample | the US | 2, 3 |
| Hoffarth et al. (2019) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional surveys | SDO, conservatism, economic system justification, speciesism, attitudes toward animal welfare | N1a = 2219, N1b = 1500, N2 = 395; community samples | the US | 2 |
| Janssen et al. (2016) | Qualitative: In-depth interviews | Vegan motives for adherence and attitudes toward animal agriculture | 329 vegans | Germany | 3 |
| Judge and Wilson (2019) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional survey | Attitudes toward vegans, RWA, SDO, dangerous worldview, competitive-jungle worldview | N = 1326 | New Zealand | 1, 2 |
| Kalte (2021) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional survey | Vegans' political behaviors, different motives of vegans | N = 628 vegans; community sample | Switzerland | 3, 4 |
| Leach et al. (2020) | Quantitative: Experiments | How information about animals shifted moral beliefs about omnivores' diet and harming animals | N1a = 241, N1b = 213, N2 = 318, N3 = 210; student samples | The UK | 3 |
| MacInnis and Hodson (2017) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional surveys | Negative attitudes toward vegans, threat perception against vegans, bias | N1 = 278, N2 = 280, N3 = 371; community samples | the US (Studies 1 and 2) & mostly the US and Canada (Study 3) | 2 |
| Markowski and Roxburgh (2019) | Qualitative: Focus groups | Vegan stigma, behavioral distancing | Focus group discussion with 34 university students | the US | 1 |
| Potts and Parry (2010) | Qualitative: Textual examination and thematic analysis of web sources | Aggressive response of omnivore heterosexual cis-men against a particular vegan group (vegansexuals) | Comments in 12 cyberspace sources | New Zealand | 1 |
| Rosenfeld (2019) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional surveys | Different motives of vegans, disgust toward meat, dietary adherence | N1 = 361, N2 = 562; community samples | the US | 3 |
| Rothgerber (2014) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional surveys | Group vulnerability, disloyal ingroup behaviors, intergroup distinctiveness | N1 = 404, N2= 400, community samples | no information (Study 1) & the US (Study 2) | 1 |
| Stuart et al. (2013) | Qualitative: web sources and in-depth interviews | Multiple identity conflict, activist identity, social movement | 21 editorial and commentary articles & 6 interviews | the US | 1, 4 |
| Thomas et al. (2019) | Quantitative: Cross-sectional survey | Social identification, animal right activism, politicization, radicalization | N = 578; community sample | the US | 4 |
Theme 1: vegan stigmatization, Theme 2: ideology and attitudes, Theme 3: moral and ethical beliefs in sustained and changed diet, Theme 4: social movement and activism.