The Social and Psychological Well-Being of Vegetarians: A Focused Ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A vegetarian is a person who refrains from eating any type of animal flesh. Research has been established on the physical health implications of adopting a vegetarian diet. However, to date, there has been no qualitative study exploring social and psychological well-being of vegetarians. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis was a) to provide a systematic review of the existing studies on the psychological well-being of vegetarians and b) to conduct original research that further explored the following: i) vegetarians’ rationales for adopting their diet, ii) their self-perceived social well-being, and, iii) their self-perceived psychological well-being. Methods: a) The systematic review involved searching several databases for primary research studies that examined the psychological well-being of vegetarians. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance to the review and then full texts of those articles considered potentially relevant were screened. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using Health Evidence Bulletins (Wales) questions to assist with the critical appraisal of an observational study. b) After a pilot study was conducted, a focused ethnographic approach was utilized to conduct this research. Data were collected through 19 individual interviews, three focus groups, as well as a series of participant observations at several vegan- and vegetarian-association events in Alberta. Interviews and focus groups were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim, fieldnotes were taken during participant observations and materials were collected. Data were then analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: a) After reviewing our search for relevant articles, seven studies were identified for inclusion in this study- all of which were cross-sectional. One study had low risk and one study had moderate risk of bias (both reported poorer health in vegetarians). Five studies (with inconsistent findings) had high risk of bias. Most differences in mental health measures were small and of doubtful clinical significance. b) Individuals decided to become vegetarian for a variety of reasons including improved personal health, improved animal welfare, and reduced environmental impact through diet. Vegetarians experienced many social challenges, including being teased and dealing with unsupportive friends and family, which could pose a threat to their social well-being. However, vegetarians also experienced many psychological rewards including a sense of pride and peace of mind knowing their values aligned with their actions. Conclusion: There is little available evidence on the psychological well-being of vegetarians. Most studies have high risk of bias, and the evidence that does exist is inconsistent, although the higher quality studies suggest poorer psychological well-being among vegetarians. Further research is needed to investigate whether a causal relationship exists between vegetarianism and mental health. Individuals become vegetarian for a variety of reasons. Others may not agree with their diet choice and this can affect their self-perceived social well-being. However, the self-perceived benefits to psychological well-being associated with adopting a vegetarian diet seem to outweigh any of the perceived threats to their social well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".