• Shifting toward plant-based eating offers significant health and environmental benefits, but psychological and social barriers create a glaring gap between consumer intentions and actions.
• Making plant-based options the default can encourage consumers to adopt a new status quo, sidelining meat-based meals to positions of exception rather than expectation.
• Framing meat-free choices with familiar, appetizing, and inclusive language can align plant-based options with diverse dietary identities while changing the perception that meat-free means sacrifice.
• Social proof nudges can help normalize plant-based eating as a common and socially desirable dietary choice, even in food environments and cultures where meat is still the majority preference.

In a world where we’re collectively consuming more meat than is considered healthy or sustainable, the advantages of swapping meat-heavy diets for more plant-focused plates can have a significant impact on a global scale. Even a modest reduction in livestock emissions—currently estimated to account for 12% to 20% of global greenhouse gases—would have noticeable climate benefits.³ From a public health perspective, replacing just 3% of the animal protein in consumer diets with plant protein is associated with a 10% reduction in overall mortality risk.³

Despite a growing awareness of these benefits, global meat consumption remains high, especially in developed countries.³ Many consumers consider eating less meat but struggle to follow through on their intentions—around one-third of U.S. adults say they’re interested in eating less meat, but only 11% report actually reducing their meat consumption over the past year.^18,19 While intentions to cut back on meat consumption have fluctuated over the last decade, the intention-action gap remains consistent. Meanwhile, others express no desire to change their choices at all, viewing meat as central to their diet or identity. 

Diving into consumer psychology reveals several psychological barriers associated with plant-based eating, from concerns about taste, convenience, and identity alignment to hard-to-break habits and cultural norms. This action-intention gap is further reinforced by a sense of psychological discomfort called cognitive dissonance, an internal conflict that arises when our behaviors don’t align with our values or beliefs—for example, when we care about animals but still eat meat. To resolve this moral tension, consumers often justify their choices by adjusting their beliefs, whether this means attributing lower moral status to animals, dissociating meat from its animal origins, or concluding that meat eating is normal and natural because most people do it.⁴ 

Appropriately named the “meat paradox,” cognitive dissonance around meat-eating makes it incredibly difficult to change consumers’ food choices with an education-only approach. Changing how people think is slow-moving work, especially when attitudes are linked to social identities or cultural norms. Thankfully, there might be a better approach. A growing body of research suggests that changing how food options are presented might be more effective at promoting plant-based choices than relying on intrinsic consumer motivations.⁵ In the following sections, we’ll discuss how behavioral design can make plant-based choices feel more normal, convenient, satisfying, and desirable, for a powerful and much more immediate impact on consumer behavior.

One of the reasons it’s so challenging to get consumers to choose plant-based dishes is that meat-based meals are simply the default in many food settings. On restaurant menus, meat-based dishes make up most of the mains, while plant-based options are marked as exceptions or isolated to special “vegetarian” sections. In school and work cafeterias, hot entrées tend to be meat-based, while plant-based meals require specific substitutions or requests. At grocery stores, grab-and-go salads and subs almost always contain animal-based proteins, while their vegan counterparts are positioned near the “niche” or specialty foods.

These defaults are surprisingly effective at influencing consumer behavior. Studies show that when people are presented with default options, they tend to stick with the status quo rather than actively choosing other options.⁶ This happens because defaults influence our perception of effort, endorsement, and endowment. Let’s take a closer look at these three mechanisms and how they might shape our food choices.

Sticking with the Status Quo is Easier

From an effort perspective, defaults encourage consumers to stick with the status quo simply because this requires less conscious decision-making. When deciding what to pick up for dinner, opting for a vegetarian option means walking away from the prominent meat display to find the specialty foods. And in restaurants, going against the grain means searching through menus for vegetarian sections and asking servers for substitutions. These seemingly small barriers can stack up, especially in fast-paced decision-making environments where consumers are overwhelmed by existing options—if you’re already choosing between chicken, beef, and fish, do you really want to make your decision more difficult by considering tofu and tempeh as well?

Defaults Feel Like Recommendations

Defaults also convey a sense of endorsement, suggesting that the pre-selected option is the best and that making changes to the default is not recommended. At a restaurant, for example, asking for a vegetarian substitution for a meat-based main dish can feel like you’re rejecting the recommendations of the chef. In this way, presenting meat as the default shapes what we see as advisable or desirable. Plant-based choices become the less-than-optimal option—more like a step down from the “best” than a comparable alternative.

Defaults Give Us a Sense of Ownership

Finally, pre-set options establish a standard that is already assigned (or endowed) to us, so switching away from the default feels like a loss.⁶ The default option comes with a sense of entitlement, and deviating from this choice triggers a sense of loss aversion, motivating us to cling to what we already perceive as “ours.” At a cafeteria, for example, asking for a plant-based entrée means rejecting the meat-based option that’s sitting right there on the counter. The subtle sense of ownership awarded by defaults can make it hard to reject options that are pre-selected for us, even if we don’t necessarily want these options the most. 

Fortunately, since defaults shape what feels normal, we can flip conventional defaults to position plant-based options as the standard and meat-based meals as the exception. Just as meat defaults encourage meat-eating, plant-based defaults encourage plant-eating. For example, implementing plant-based defaults in dining halls is incredibly effective at increasing the proportion of vegetarian meals selected, jumping from an average of 16% to 73%.⁷ In fact, one review was unable to find any correctly executed plant-based default program that did not reduce the amount of meat that diners consumed.⁷ 

Interestingly, studies show that additional incentives to stick with the vegetarian default—like imposing a surcharge for adding meat or requiring additional effort to switch to the meat option—do not always strengthen the default.⁸ Just having a default in place alone is often enough to shift consumer behavior. 

Food Placement Signals What’s Normal

Even without establishing strict plant-based defaults, removing meat defaults through food placement and menu design can increase the popularity of non-meat options. For example, simply doubling the ratio of plant-based meal options on a menu can increase vegetarian meal selection by 41% to 79%.⁷ Vegan meat alternatives also sell 67% better in meat sections than in specialty vegan areas—one reason Beyond Meat advocates for shelving their plant-based products alongside animal proteins.⁷ Similarly, removing separate “vegetarian” sections from restaurant menus and mixing those dishes with everything else can raise their orders by 56%, even on minimal menus with just a handful of items.⁷ Instead of signaling that meat dishes are the default and vegetarian dishes are niche options reserved for “plant-based” eaters, this integration ensures all dishes feel equally relevant to the diner. This offers a low-friction, high-impact alternative for stakeholders who might be hesitant about making plant-based options the strict default.

Plant-Based Defaults in Practice

Many institutions have already implemented green defaults in real-world settings with impressive results. For example, New York City (NYC) Health + Hospitals recently made plant-based meals the default inpatient meal option in all 11 of its hospitals, resulting in 95% of eligible patients choosing plant-based options rather than requesting alternate meals.⁹ Meanwhile, in Denmark, field experiments with conference registrations found that simply presenting a vegetarian buffet as the default bumped up vegetarian choices from 2% to 87%.¹⁰

The beauty of defaults is that they don’t restrict choice, so they don’t trigger the backlash that you might get from interventions like bans or price penalties. In the case of NYC Health + Hospitals, the new plant-based default meals have received 95% acceptance and over 90% satisfaction from patients.⁹ While defaults alone might not be enough to encourage long-term behavior change, they play a central role in reshaping choice environments to encourage quick uptake with minimal resistance.

While defaults can go a long way toward changing behavior, at least in the short term, these techniques work best for people who already want to reduce their meat consumption.⁷ What about those who are less willing to swap meat for plant-based alternatives? For many omnivores, meat-eating is part of their social identity. Social identity theory tells us that people tend to build their sense of self around the groups they belong to, choosing behaviors that align with these groups while rejecting those of outgroups. As you might expect, consumers who identify as meat-eaters are generally less willing to reduce their meat consumption and more likely to hold negative views of vegetarian diets.³ But why is this? Let’s explore some of the many ways consumer identities can clash with plant-based choices.

Plant-Based Identities Feel Exclusionary 

To start, meat eaters often see plant-based foods as associated with an identity that does not belong to them.⁵ As a result, those who don’t identify as vegetarians don’t think about choosing vegetarian options, especially when these options are siloed into their own categories in restaurant menus or cafeteria lines.¹¹ Whether conscious or not, the reasoning often looks something like this: “Those options are for vegetarians. I am not a vegetarian; therefore, those options are not for me.” 

Plant-Based Choices Feel Like Threats

Without interventions to improve identity alignment, efforts to encourage or actively nudge consumers toward plant-based options can backfire, resulting in resistance from meat-eaters. For some, making plant-based choices signals a shift in their identity, which understandably triggers resistance when people feel like they are being coerced or pressured into this change.³ This identity-threatening experience often results in psychological reactance, a motivational state in which people are driven to do the opposite of what they feel pressured to do to reclaim their sense of autonomy. 

Reactance to trending vegan or plant-based advocacy may explain the recent rise in animal-based carnivore diets. As plant-based eating gains greater visibility amid growing concerns about the harms of eating animal products, many omnivores perceive this shift as a threat to their meat-eating identity.²⁰ In response, omnivores are motivated to rationalize the consumption of animal products, which often means negatively stereotyping plant-based options, praising the benefits of animal-based foods, and even doubling down on meat consumption to reassert their freedom of choice.

Plant-Based Identities Are Associated with Narrow Stereotypes

Another issue? Plant-based options are often associated with narrow vegetarian or vegan stereotypes that do not align with many meat-eater identities. Consider how, in North America, plant-based options come with a slew of associations about one’s socioeconomic status, political leanings, and personality.⁵ While these stereotypes vary widely by culture, they often reveal a distinct social identity associated with vegetarianism and veganism that can dissuade others from making plant-based choices.

Targeting meat-eating identity barriers is important for promoting plant-based choices in the general population. One way to do this is to improve alignment between meat-eater identities and plant-based product messaging. Research shows that meat-eaters are more likely to choose plant-based foods when these options are associated with a common identity rather than a distinctly vegan identity.¹² For example, messaging that promotes a common identity might focus on “food lovers” or “adventurous eaters” rather than “vegans” and “vegetarians.” These common identities are less likely to feel exclusionary or threatening because they align with how most consumers see themselves.

Reframing Plant-Based Choices for Broader Appeal

Framing, or changing how information is presented to influence how it's perceived, is key to ensuring language and imagery around plant-based options are perceived as satisfying, aspirational, filling, and comforting. This works much better than targeting niche consumers seeking purely healthy or environmentally-friendly options. One study found that using common identity primers was effective at reducing the sense of identity threat among meat-eaters, which subsequently increased their willingness to buy plant-based food.¹² 

In another study, terms like “mild and sweet,” “field grown,” and “garden” were found to boost sales of vegetarian options by up to 70%, while the same dishes framed as “meat-free” remained consistently unpopular.⁵ Yet another study found that pro-environmental framing, social framing, and even neutral framing were each more effective at encouraging vegetarian choices than vegetarian framing, suggesting that—at the very least—simply removing vegan and vegetarian framing can make vegetarian choices more likely.¹³

Emphasizing Taste, Comfort, and Familiarity

Framing can also be used to make plant-based choices feel more familiar by highlighting universally desirable features like taste, texture, and enjoyment rather than using words like “plant-based” or “planet-friendly.” Generally, taste-based framing tends to resonate better with mainstream consumers than overly environmental or vegetarian labeling.⁵ Similarly, using imagery and design to emphasize enjoyment rather than green stereotypes like “healthy” or “light” can help make plant-based dishes feel more indulgent to meat-eaters seeking a familiar and comforting dining experience. Overall, foods that are marketed as delicious tend to outsell the same foods marketed as healthy.⁵

In some research, strategically framing plant-based options as more tasty or more convenient is important for defaults to have the desired effect. For example, one Northern European study found that participants were much more likely to stick with a pre-selected plant-based default when it was accompanied by additional framing that positioned it as the tastier or more sustainable choice.¹⁴ Of course, since individual identities are largely shaped by social norms, different cultures are likely to respond differently to product framing strategies. In the next section, we’ll take a closer look at how these norms play a role in plant-based eating.

For many, eating animal products doesn’t just align with personal identities, but broader social and cultural norms that define traditions, signal group belonging, and reinforce shared values. Many meat-based foods serve as symbols of tradition, heritage, and pride, and common dietary choices are one avenue through which people can express their social cohesion with national and cultural practices.¹⁴ From this perspective, it’s less “I eat meat because I’m not a vegetarian” and more “I eat meat because that’s what we do.” Going against these norms feels like distancing oneself from their cultural identity or rejecting their place within a group. The perceived social cost that comes with plant-based choices can create friction for those who might otherwise be open to eating fewer animal products.

How Social Norms Influence Our Food Choices

Social norms have a significant and well-documented influence over our dietary choices. For example, in one study, university students were much more likely to choose salads over less-healthy food alternatives when their fellow students were described as healthy eaters.¹⁴ Similarly, research shows that the number of vegetarian friends a man has is the strongest predictor of his own meat consumption.⁵ 

Beyond the influence of our peers, common misconceptions about plant-based eating can also shape how these options are perceived. Myths like “plant-based foods don’t contain enough protein” or “plant-based diets are not natural” are often rooted in cultural norms and traditions that can make meatless meals feel unsatisfying or nutritionally incomplete. These misconceptions not only make plant-based options feel unfamiliar, but also socially unacceptable. In China, for instance, discomfort discussing dietary decisions and a lack of social support are significant barriers for flexitarians who want to eat less meat.¹⁵ While education is one way to help consumers look past these deeply held beliefs, reshaping social norms can be even more powerful.

Two main types of social norms can influence behavior: descriptive norms and injunctive norms.¹⁴ Descriptive norms describe the frequency with which members of the group hold specific attitudes or engage in a specific behavior. Injunctive norms represent what group members think should be done, but not necessarily what they actually do. Both descriptive and injunctive norms separately influence attitudes and behavior around plant-based eating: research shows that national descriptive norms, but not injunctive norms, can positively predict people’s intention to eat meat.¹⁴ This tells us that consumers are more strongly swayed by whether or not people of their social group actually eat a lot of meat, regardless of whether they think it is acceptable or not.

Exploring the social norms around dietary decisions reveals why simply telling people what they ought to do is not always enough. When making those greener choices might be perceived as abnormal or “fringe,” consumers are less likely to bear the social cost to give it a go, even if they feel like they should. With this in mind, how can we make plant-based eating feel more common, socially acceptable, and even aspirational?

As we’ve already seen, defaults are one way to make plant-based options seem more commonplace and less of a fringe choice. However, these defaults can be made even more powerful when paired with social proof, a form of social influence where information about what most people are doing encourages others to do the same. Social proof reflects our tendency to look to others to decide how to behave in uncertain situations, even if this means going against formal rules or guidelines. Social proof has been effective at promoting several beneficial behaviors, including reducing home energy consumption and re-using hotel towels, and often works even better than environment-based messaging.⁵

Making Social Norms Visible in Everyday Food Settings

Communicating desirable prevailing norms around plant-based eating can take many forms. Social proof can range from simple “most popular” labels or “join the trend” messages to more deliberate strategies like cafeteria signage showing the percentage of diners choosing plant-based lunches. Menus can highlight trending plant-based dishes, supermarkets can spotlight “customer favorites” and “most purchased” options, and online grocery platforms can use badges like “frequently bought together” or “trending in your area.” Even media campaigns can use social proof by focusing on generational shifts or changes in plant-based consumption over time.

The latter can be effective when the desirable behavior is not yet the norm, for example, when it’s not possible to claim that the majority of people have switched from red meat to lentils or given up dairy for oat-based alternatives. The Behavioral Insights Team (BIT), a global research consultancy originally established within the UK government, suggests highlighting dynamic norms or shifting trends with messaging like “more and more people are cutting back on animal products” rather than static claims like “most people don’t eat meat.” In fact, one study found that messaging around these dynamic norms doubled the number of meatless orders in a cafeteria, even when prevailing norms around meat consumption remained static.¹⁶

Governments Can Help Normalize Plant-Based Eating

According to the BIT, governments can play a trend-setting role in normalizing plant-based choices. For example, increasing the ratio of plant-based options to meat options in public eateries like hospitals and school cafeterias can reinforce the perception that these options are normal and popular, encouraging private institutions to get on board. The BIT even suggests providing social comparisons on grocery store receipts—such as showing how one’s carbon footprint stacks up against the average shopper—which could become a standardized practice or integrated into public policy initiatives.⁵ 

Unlike injunctive norms, which can increase positive attitudes toward plant-based food but not necessarily change consumer behavior, the above descriptive norms ensure these intentions are reflected in actions. Whether through cafeteria signage, menu cues, or marketing slogans, showing consumers that plant-based eating is a growing norm gives consumers a sense of social safety, reducing the perceived risk and discomfort associated with going against the grain.

Behavioral design can help make plant-based choices more appealing, but to be effective—and, importantly, ethical—they must be context-specific. The efficacy of behavioral science interventions can be highly dependent on context, so success tends to vary across situations and settings.¹ Without careful deliberation, one-size-fits-all defaults, framing messages, or social proof interventions can overlook cultural nuance, trigger backlash, or even come across as tone deaf. The last thing you want is to frame a plant-based alternative as the tastier choice in a culturally specific food environment, or use social proof messages like “most people are going meatless” in a community where this is clearly not the trending norm.

Behavioral design interventions should also be supported by broader system shifts to improve the affordability and accessibility of plant-based options. Plant-based alternatives can be expensive, hard to find, or difficult to prepare, and behavioral design strategies to promote these options can feel out of touch when they assume equal access across all communities. It’s important that advocates and governments partner with food supply chain actors to get more plant-based options onto grocery store shelves and cafeteria counters. For instance, through a 2019 partnership with WWF, food catering company Sodexo launched a Green & Lean menu to help provide consumers with more plant-based choices.¹ More partnerships like these could be beneficial for creating systemic change in the food industry and ensuring green options are a viable and attractive choice for consumers.

With this in mind, food producers, marketers, and other impactful figures in the food industry should be mindful to promote plant-based options that are genuinely healthy and sustainable. Not all vegan and vegetarian options meet these criteria, and pushing products based on these labels alone can fail to have the desired impact. For example, highly processed plant-based options can be resource-intensive to produce and pack, and some vegan options lack nutritional value—like Oreos and Ritz crackers—despite being free of animal products. Those designing interventions to promote plant-based eating should ensure that these options are more than just vegan or vegetarian, but truly good for people and the planet.

The design of food choice environments can have a significant sway over consumer dietary choices. Using what we know about behavioral science, sustainability advocates and health system leaders can nudge consumers toward plant-based choices at key moments instead of relying solely on broad, slow-moving educational campaigns. By making plant-based options the default in food selection settings, using strategic framing to align plant-based options with mainstream identities, and leveraging social proof to normalize the shift away from meat-centric eating, we can encourage more consumers to reach for plant-based options in grocery stores, restaurants, canteens, and cafeterias.

While these bottom-up approaches to shift consumer behavior should go hand-in-hand with top-down strategies to incentivize sustainable and health-focused food production, small changes at the individual level can and do create powerful ripple effects. For instance, NYC Health + Hospitals' plant-based default program served 800,000 plant-based meals in 2023, resulting in $318,000 in savings and an estimated 36% reduction in carbon emissions.⁹ Imagine if every hospital, school, and food service establishment could reach similar emission reductions. At the same time, interventions that help consumers to choose sustainable food can shift entire food industries, increasing demand for plant-based options and incentivizing major players in the food industry to move away from a focus on meat. Leaders in all countries and communities with high meat consumption have a responsibility to encourage plant-based options, both for our health and the planet we call home.

At The Decision Lab, we specialize in bridging the gap between research and action. From designing default interventions to reframing green choices and communicating norms, we help organizations design choice environments that align with how people think and behave. Together, we can redirect decision-making patterns that currently serve as barriers to meat reduction and use them to promote plant-based choices. Reach out to learn how we can help you drive meaningful consumer behavior change.

Nudging Can Encourage Sustainable Food Choices

Research shows that mixing meat substitutes with meat products in grocery store displays can effectively increase sales of plant-based alternatives. To learn more about this powerful form of choice architecture, how it works, and why it works, check out our interview with researcher Dr. Jolien Vandenbroele.

Burgers With Balance

Kids develop eating patterns that stick around for life. If we want to shift dietary decisions long-term, we must empower children to forge healthy and sustainable habits from day one. In this case study, TDL collaborates with a large fast-food chain to nudge children toward healthier options via impactful, evidence-based behavioral design.

1. Rust, N. A., Ridding, L., Ward, C., Clark, B., Kehoe, L., Dora, M., Whittingham, M. J., McGowan, P., Chaudhary, A., Reynolds, C. J., Trivedy, C., & West, N. (2020). How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Science of The Total Environment, 718, 137208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137208 
2. Modlinska, K., & Pisula, W. (2018). Selected Psychological Aspects of Meat Consumption-A Short Review. Nutrients, 10(9), 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10091301 
3. Fechner, D., & Isbanner, S. (2025). Understanding the intention-behaviour gap in meat reduction: The role of cognitive dissonance in dietary change. Appetite, 214, 108204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2025.108204 
4. Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011 
5. The Behavioural Insights Team (2020, January 29). A Menu for Change. https://www.bi.team/publications/a-menu-for-change/ 
6. Meier, J., Andor, M. A., Doebbe, F., Haddaway, N., & Reisch, L. A. (2021). Can green defaults reduce meat consumption? Food Policy, 110, 102298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102298. 
7. Ólafsson, B. (2024, July 31). Tactics In Practice: The Science of Plant-Based Defaults And Nudges. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/tactics-in-practice-the-science-of-plant-based-defaults-and-nudges/ 
8. Reinders, M. J., Bouwman, E. P., & Onwezen, M. C. (2024). Reducing meat consumption in restaurants: Exploring the default mechanism in a surprise menu, combined with effort and price incentives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 98, 102402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102402 
9. Morgenstern, S., Redwood, M., & Herby, A. (2024). An Innovative Program for Hospital Nutrition. American journal of lifestyle medicine, 19(2), 320-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/15598276241283158 
10. Hansen, P. G., Schilling, M., & Malthesen, M. S. (2021). Nudging healthy and sustainable food choices: Three randomized controlled field experiments using a vegetarian lunch-default as a normative signal. Journal of Public Health, 43(2), 392-397. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdz154 
11. Chung, E. (2025, February 2). We're being nudged to eat meat. What if the tables were turned? CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/plant-based-default-1.7447345 
12. Donato, C., Monsurrò, L., & Di Cioccio, M. (2024). A matter of identity: Promoting plant-based food among meat-eaters through a common identity priming. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 79, 103863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103863 
13. Leng, G., Adan, R. A., Belot, M., Brunstrom, J. M., De Graaf, K., Dickson, S. L., ... & Smeets, P. A. (2017). The determinants of food choice. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 76(3), 316-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101391 
14. Erhard, A., Boztuğ, Y., & Lemken, D. (2023). How do defaults and framing influence food choice? An intervention aimed at promoting plant-based choice in online menus. Appetite, 190, 107005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107005 
15. Zou, Y. (2024) Navigating dietary shift: Strategies for promoting plant-based diets in China (Doctoral dissertation, University of Otago). https://hdl.handle.net/10523/43113 
16. Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617719950 
17. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2023) Meat and Dairy Production. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
18. YYC Team. (2024, April 19) A third of U.S. adults are interested in cutting back on meat, report finds. Yale Climate Connections. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/04/a-third-of-u-s-adults-are-interested-in-cutting-back-on-meat-report-finds/ 
19. The Good Food Institute. (2024). Consumer Snapshot: Plant-Based Meat in the U.S. https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Consumer-snapshot-Plant-based-meat-in-the-US.pdf 
20. De Groeve, B., Bleys, B., & Hudders, L. (2022). Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 996250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.996250