In a world increasingly conscious of dietary choices and their broader implications, a fascinating study has emerged exploring the link between what we eat and how we behave towards others. Conducted by researchers Lamy, Fischer-Lokou, Guegan, and Gueguen, and summarized by Aeneas Koosis, this series of field experiments in France delves into how proximity to vegan versus butcher shops influences people’s willingness to engage in acts of kindness. Over four distinct studies, the researchers found compelling evidence that individuals near vegan shops exhibited greater prosocial behavior compared to those near butcher shops. This article unpacks these findings, examining the potential psychological mechanisms at play and what they reveal about the intersection of diet and human values.
Summary By: Aeneas Koosis | Original Study By: Lamy, L., Fischer-Lokou, J., Guegan, J., & Gueguen, N. (2019) | Published: August 14, 2024
Across four field experiments in France, individuals near vegan shops consistently showed greater helpfulness than those near butcher shops.
A series of innovative field experiments conducted in France suggests that environmental cues related to veganism and meat consumption may significantly influence people’s willingness to engage in prosocial behavior. Researchers carried out four studies examining how proximity to vegan or meat-focused shops affected individuals’ responses to various helping requests.
Study 1
Researchers approached 144 participants near a vegan shop, a butcher shop, or in a neutral location. They were asked about attending a gathering to honor victims of the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. Results showed that 81% of vegan shop customers read the event flier, compared to 37.5% of butcher shop customers. Moreover, 42% of vegan shop customers and control group participants provided contact information to attend, versus only 15% of butcher shop customers.
Study 2
This study involved 180 participants who were asked if they would host a refugee. The findings revealed that 88% of vegan shop customers agreed to discuss the issue, compared to 53% of butcher shop customers. When it came to actually hosting a refugee, 30% of vegan shop customers expressed willingness, versus 12% of butcher shop patrons.
Study 3
142 participants were asked about joining a protest against torture. The results showed that 45% of vegan shop customers expressed interest, compared to 27% of butcher shop customers.
Study 4
This study examined the effect on 100 passersby who were asked about tutoring students. Nearby a church was used as a neutral location, compared against a butcher shop. The findings revealed that 64% of participants in the neutral location agreed to help, versus only 42% of those near the butcher shop.
The researchers interpreted these results through the lens of Schwartz’s model of competing values, which outlines 10 basic human values. They propose that meat consumption may activate self-enhancement values such as power and achievement, while veganism may promote self-transcendence values like universalism and benevolence. When primed with meat-related cues, people may be less receptive to prosocial requests that conflict with self-oriented values. This aligns with previous research linking meat consumption to greater acceptance of social dominance and right-wing ideologies, while veganism has been associated with higher levels of empathy and altruism.
The studies also revealed some interesting demographic patterns. Younger participants (aged 25-34 and 35-44) were generally more willing to engage in prosocial behaviors compared to those aged 45-55. Women tended to be slightly more responsive to prosocial requests, though this effect was not consistently significant across all studies.
The authors acknowledge several limitations to their research. First, the study did not directly measure participants’ values or control for pre-existing differences between vegan and omnivore consumers. There’s a possibility of unconscious bias from the research assistants who interacted with participants, though the authors believe this was unlikely to significantly impact results. Finally, the location of the vegan shop in a politically left-leaning area of Paris may have influenced results, potentially explaining why the vegan condition often did not differ significantly from the control condition.
Future research could address these limitations by directly measuring participants’ values and dietary habits. Researchers could test vegans’ reactions near butcher shops and omnivores’ reactions near vegan shops. They could also explore potential confounding effects, such as the visual and auditory stimuli of meat cutting in butcher shops.
This novel research provides initial evidence that environmental cues related to food choices may subtly influence prosocial tendencies. While the exact mechanisms require further study, these findings suggest that the contexts in which we make moral decisions — even seemingly unrelated ones like food environments — may play a role in shaping our behavior towards others.
For animal advocates and those promoting plant-based diets, this research hints at potential broader societal benefits of reducing meat consumption beyond the commonly cited environmental and animal welfare concerns. However, more research is needed to establish causal relationships and rule out alternative explanations for the observed effects.
Notice: This content was initially published on Faunalytics.org and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Humane Foundation.
