Professor John Nezlek's study, published in PLOS One in May 2025, titled "Rethinking Vegetarianism: Differences Between Vegetarians and Non-Vegetarians in the Endorsement of Basic Human Values," examined the psychological values of vegetarians and non-vegetarians across three studies involving 3,800 adults in Poland and the United States. The study utilised Schwartz's Portrait Value Questionnaire to measure ten core human values, such as benevolence, power, and achievement, on a scale of one to six. Participants also identified their dietary preferences (vegetarian, vegan, or carnivore). The findings suggest that vegetarians place less importance on benevolence, security, and conformity compared to non-vegetarians, while valuing power, achievement, and stimulation more highly. These results challenge the stereotype of vegetarians as inherently compassionate or community-oriented, suggesting instead a tendency toward independence and individuality.
Key Findings and Interpretations
The study's core findings indicate that vegetarians, compared to non-vegetarians, exhibit:
Lower endorsement of benevolence, which involves caring for close friends and family.
Lower emphasis on security and conformity, reflecting less concern for stability, safety, and adherence to social norms.
Higher valuation of power (control or dominance over people and resources), achievement (personal success through social standards), and stimulation (seeking novelty and excitement).
These differences were consistent across the U.S. and Polish samples, though some cultural variations were noted, such as weaker significance for conformity in the U.S. Nezlek emphasises that these differences are small but could have cumulative effects over time. He argues that vegetarianism may reflect values of independence and individuality, rather than the communal or altruistic motives often associated with it.
However, the study's methodology and interpretations have limitations. The reliance on self-reported questionnaires introduces potential biases, such as social desirability or inaccurate self-perception. Additionally, the oversampling of vegetarians in two of the studies (514 in the U.S., 301 in one Polish study), may skew results, as these samples may not fully represent the broader vegetarian population. The study also does not distinguish between vegetarians and vegans in its primary analysis, which could obscure nuanced differences, as veganism is often tied to stronger ideological commitments.
Steven Tucker's Interpretation and Critique
Steven Tucker's article in The Daily Sceptic extrapolates Nezlek's findings to argue that vegetarians may harbour authoritarian tendencies, seeking power and social status to impose their views on others. He uses Greta Thunberg as a case study, citing her veganism and admitted attempts to emotionally manipulate her parents into adopting a vegan lifestyle, to suggest that vegetarianism can mask a desire for control rather than genuine moral concern. Tucker also speculates about Ed Miliband's dietary habits, linking his awkward bacon sandwich incident to potential vegetarianism, though this is unsupported by evidence.
Tucker's interpretation is problematic for several reasons:
1.Overgeneralisation: Tucker's portrayal of vegetarians as manipulative or authoritarian overstates Nezlek's findings, which describe small statistical differences in values, not extreme personality traits. Nezlek explicitly cautions against such generalisations, noting that many vegetarians, like Morrissey, are motivated by sincere ethical concerns about animal welfare.
2.Sensationalism: The reference to Greta Thunberg as a "mad veggie control-freak" and comparisons to historical figures like Hitler are inflammatory and lack empirical grounding. Thunberg's activism, while polarising, is rooted in her radical Leftism, and not universal vegetarian traits. The Hitler vegetarian reference, which Nezlek does not endorse, is a rhetorical flourish that distorts the study's scope.
3.Lack of Evidence for Miliband: Tucker's speculation about Ed Miliband's dietary habits is baseless and irrelevant to the study, serving only to mock rather than substantiate his argument.
Psychological and Political Implications
Nezlek's findings contribute to the growing field of research on vegetarianism as a social identity, which shapes individuals' values, attitudes, and behaviours. Previous studies suggest that vegetarians tend to have more liberal political views and are perceived as more pro-social, though they may face social stigma as a minority group. The current study complicates this narrative by highlighting values associated with power and achievement, which could align with assertive or leadership-oriented behaviours rather than authoritarianism.
Tucker's framing, however, taps into a broader cultural debate about veganism and vegetarianism as forms of "political consumerism." Researchindicates that veganism can be a lifestyle politics, where dietary choices reflect individualised Leftist political engagement, often tied to environmental or animal welfare concerns. Tucker's suggestion that vegetarianism serves as a tool for social control may resonate with critiques of "woke" activism, but oversimplifies the diverse motivations behind plant-based diets, which range from health to ethical concerns.
Moreover, studies show that omnivores often exhibit prejudice against vegans, particularly those motivated by animal rights or environmental concerns, which could explain the defensive tone in Tucker's article. This prejudice may stem from perceived threats to social norms, aligning with Nezlek's finding that non-vegetarians value conformity and security more highly.
Greta Thunberg as a Case Study
Tucker's use of Greta Thunberg as an emblematic figure is misleading. While Thunberg's veganism and activism are well-documented, her actions reflect a commitment to Leftist environmental causes rather than a universal vegetarian trait. Her reported emotional manipulation of her parents (e.g., making them feel guilty) and her mother's career sacrifice, highlight personal dynamics, not a broader psychological profile of vegetarians. Vegans often face social disapproval, which may amplify their assertive advocacy, as seen in Thunberg's case.
Cultural and Contextual Considerations
Nezlek's study reveals cultural differences between Poland and the U.S., with Polish vegetarians showing stronger deviations from conservation values (security, conformity, tradition). This may reflect Poland's Western Slavic culture and historical context, where vegetarianism might be a more countercultural choice compared to the U.S., where plant-based diets are more mainstream. These differences suggest that vegetarianism's social and psychological implications vary by context, undermining universal claims about authoritarian tendencies.
Conclusion
Nezlek's study offers valuable insights into the values associated with vegetarianism, challenging stereotypes and highlighting the complexity of dietary identities. However, Tucker's interpretation exaggerates these findings, projecting authoritarian motives onto vegetarians and using Thunberg as an unrepresentative example. While vegetarianism may correlate with values like power and achievement, these are not inherently negative or manipulative. The study and its reception underscore the polarised discourse around dietary choices.A more important study would explore the politics of vegan/vegetarian moves to ban meat and their attitude to meat eaters.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323202