New study: So­cial eat­ers con­sume more meat

What makes us eat meat? And do we put pork on our fork in certain situations – but not in others?

That was the question an international research team set out to answer. The team included Visiting Professor Wencke Gwozdz from CBS. Their aim was to examine how situational factors shape whether our plate contains meal. 

The researchers asked 230 participants to complete a five-day diary, reporting each main meal everything they ate. After 2,461 meals, a surprising pattern emerged.

Rather than being explained by socio-demographic differences, meat consumption in this study was strongly associated with situational context.

Social gatherings increase meat consumption

"The results show that it is first and foremost the social situation we are in during a meal that is strongly associated with whether we eat meat. And that did come as a surprise to us," says Wencke Gwozdz.

When you eat alone, the likelihood increases that your plate will be filled with rocket, root vegetables and rice. When you eat together with others, it is more likely to be steak or bolognese.

According to the German-born professor, the team’s research may reflect the enduring cultural norm that meat is seen as the ‘proper’ or expected component of a shared meal.. Meals without meat, by contrast, may require more explanation.

"The social aspect is interesting because our results showed that it mattered in two ways. First, participants were more likely to eat meat when they were with others. In addition, those who ate many meals in the company of others were also more likely, overall, to have meals that contained meat. Social context was associated with meat consumption both at the level of individual meals and at the level of individuals’ typical eating patterns," Wencke Gwozdz points out.

Future campaigns should change focus

Another striking finding is that traditional background factors such as age, gender, income and household size were not significantly associated with the likelihood of consuming meat at a given mealhave no measurable impact on how often we eat meat.

"This challenges our traditional understanding of consumer behaviour. Perhaps demographic-based segmentation is not the right approach when it comes to eating habits," says Wencke Gwozdz.

Instead, she and her colleagues argue that future campaigns should focus on the specific situation in which the meal is consumed – not on the individual consumer.

In other words, if situational factors drive our meat consumption, it is unlikely to be sufficient to communicate rational messages about general climate or health advice.

New technology can refine insights

Wencke Gwozdz emphasises that she and her team have a clear ambition to carry out further measurements to gain deeper insights into our eating habits.

"As consumers, we are often more inconsistent than we think. We make many unconscious choices. And even when we understand what has led to our actions, we often forget it again quickly. That is why, as researchers, we need to stay very close to consumers in order to obtain reliable data," says Wencke Gwozdz.

In the current research project, participants completed a daily diary over five consecutive days, reporting all meals consumed and the context in which they took place.

If possible in future studies, the visiting professor hopes to use GPS, sensors and other technologies that can be installed on participants’ mobile phones.

"We are very close to having technology that can track movements in such detail that it can tell us when a participant is eating. That would allow us to contact them in the moment and perhaps gain even more insight into their choices," she explains.