Beyond social expectations: norms, moral commitment, and rule compliance among vegetarians

Beyond social expectations: norms, moral commitment, and rule compliance among vegetarians | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Beyond social expectations: norms, moral commitment, and rule compliance among vegetarians Fernando Sanantonio This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7329005/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Vegetarianism is becoming increasingly prevalent in western societies. However, many self-identified vegetarians and vegans occasionally consume animal-derived products. This inconsistency between identity and behaviour raises questions regarding how individuals interpret and adhere to dietary norms. Although previous research has explored the role of social norms in dietary transitions, little attention has been paid to norm compliance among self-identified vegetarians. This study addresses that gap by analysing the influence of social expectations and internal motivations on adherence to the vegetarian norm “Don’t eat animals.” To do so, I conducted a survey of 469 Spanish vegetarians and vegans, including an experimental vignette in which participants were randomly exposed to different types of normative information. The study also measured respondents’ moral commitment and normative beliefs about vegetarianism. The vignette experiment results showed no significant effect of normative cues on the participants' stated likelihood of breaking the rule. However, regression analyses revealed that beliefs about the appropriateness of norm violations and dietary restrictiveness (vegan vs. vegetarian) were significant predictors compliance. Moral commitment to diet was not a strong predictor of norm following, although it reached statistical significance in one model. Notably, having more vegetarian contacts was associated with a higher likelihood of norm violations, whereas time on the diet predicted greater adherence. These findings suggest that compliance with the vegetarian norm is driven more by internalised normative beliefs than by external social expectations. They support a rule-based rather than expectation-based view of norm adherence, challenging the effectiveness of brief normative nudges in contexts where identity and moral reasoning are already salient. This study contributes to theories of norm compliance by highlighting the motivational diversity in lifestyle-based normative practices. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction Despite the increasing visibility of vegetarian diets, many self-identified vegs 1 still consume animal products. In the 2023 Encuesta Social General Española (CIS), 74 respondents described themselves as vegetarian or vegan, although 31 of them admitted to eating meat at least once a week. This discrepancy between identity and behaviour has been documented in several contexts. Scholars have interpreted it in multiple ways, understanding vegetarianism: as a continuum between strict and casual avoidance of animal products (Beardsworth and Keil 1992; Barr and Chapman 2002), as an identity derived from general patterns of behaviour and group identification (Plante et al. 2019), as a norm that can be violated (Rosenfeld and Tomiyama 2019) or as a combination of these factors (Jabs et al. 2000). In this study, I argue that the defining feature of vegetarianism is its norm-based nature. First, becoming vegetarian implies deviating from a near-universal descriptive, and sometimes injunctive, norm of the regular consumption of animal products. Second, following a vegetarian diet means adhering to the normative rule "Don’t eat animals (or animal-derived products)." This rule is increasingly institutionalised in many Western societies through official definitions, food labelling, and public discourse (Hargreaves et al. 2023). Therefore, I suggest that the mismatch between self-identification and actual dietary behaviour among vegetarians is best understood as a problem of norm compliance. Contemporary theories of social norms emphasise how normative pressures generate stable behavioural patterns (Opp 2020). Empirical research has examined various aspects of this dynamic: how norms emerge (Linares 2007; Gelfand et al. 2024), how they persist over time (Kimbrough et al. 2024; Bicchieri and Garzino Demo 2025), how false beliefs about others' preferences can sustain compliance (Prentice and Miller 1996; Sargent and Newman 2021), and how competing norms affect individual decisions (Boivin et al. 2008; Teekens et al. 2025). In most of these works, social expectations about what others do and approve, and social sanctions are central to norm compliance. Among existing theories, this perspective is most comprehensively captured by Bicchieri’s Theory of Conditional Preferences (TCP) (Bicchieri 2017; 2005). In contrast, other scholars argue that norms can influence behaviour simply by virtue of being rules: obligations, proscriptions, or prescriptions (Brennan et al. 2013). While the first approach views norms as instruments for coordinating equilibria, the second sees them as “the rules of the social game” (Hindriks and Guala 2015). Building on this theoretical landscape, this study examines vegetarianism as a norm-governed practice. Research on vegetarianism has often blurred the boundaries between the strict avoidance of animal products (full norm compliance) and related practices, such as meat reduction, flexitarianism, or sustainable consumption (Harguess et al. 2020; Kwasny et al. 2022; Salehi et al. 2023). In particular, studies on the influence of social expectations and moral commitment on these practices have tended to focus on the process of adopting a plant-based diet rather than rule-following among self-identified vegetarians (Salehi et al. 2023). This study draws on a survey of 469 Spanish vegetarians, which included an experimental vignette examining how participants responded to a hypothetical situation involving norm compliance. Participants were randomly assigned to scenarios containing different combinations of empirical and normative information. First, I tested how social expectations influence vegetarians’ self-reported likelihood of violating the dietary rule. Second, I examined how other factors, such as moral commitment to a veg diet, beliefs about the normative status of vegetarianism, or diet restrictiveness (vegan vs. vegetarian), shape individual responses. Previous research How social norms work Since this research is concerned with norm compliance, I adopt an approach centred on social norms theories, drawing mainly on Bicchieri’s TCP (Bicchieri 2005; 2017) and its more recent extensions, such as the Rules and Equilibria Theory (RaET) (Hindriks 2019). According to TCP, a behavioural rule qualifies as a social norm if it is followed conditionally by social expectations. There are two kind of expectations: empirical expectations, which refer to beliefs about whether others comply with the rule, and normative expectations, which refer to beliefs about whether others think one should follow the rule. These may or may not be accompanied by expectations of sanctions, a significant departure from other equilibrium-based proposals in social norm research, where sanctions are regarded as the foundation of norm compliance (Heckathorn 1990). TCP suggests that social norms are grounded in shared beliefs, while the imposition of sanctions for noncompliance is considered optional. Nevertheless, many studies based on TCP also incorporate this dimension (Bicchieri et al. 2021; Dimant and Gesche 2023; Meiske et al. 2024) Social expectations can influence behaviour by transforming an individual’s initial preference not to comply into a conditional preference to do so. In this framework, violations are likely to occur when expectations are not met or aligned. This formulation synthesises a wide range of social norm approaches found in the literature, from the distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms in social psychology (Cialdini et al. 1991) to equilibrium-based approaches common in economics (Ullmann-Margalit 2015). The key difference between social norms and other types of norms (such as moral norms) is that the latter are followed independently of what others do or think of (Bicchieri 2017). However, other important views on norms have highlighted that complying with a norm is also a matter of following it because the norm requires one to do so (Brennan et al. 2013). RaET aims to reconcile these two perspectives, integrating both expectation-based (external) and rule-based (internal) motives for compliance (Hindriks and Guala 2015; Hindriks 2019; Hindriks 2023). In this sense, the role of normative beliefs remains controversial. From a rule-based view, people’s belief in the obligation to follow a normative rule is crucial, whereas from an expectation-based approach, it is not, as illustrated by the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance (Prentice and Miller 1996). Assuming that individuals may follow rules for different reasons, norm compliance may be driven by external factors (e.g. social expectations), internal factors (e.g. personal moral commitment), or both (Hindriks 2022). Indeed, it is often difficult to find a social practice in which all individuals comply for the same reasons. RaET seeks to account for this motivational diversity — “saints, sinners, and villains” — within rule-based practices, extending the framework from strict social norms to norm-governed social practices. Furthermore, research has shown that unconditional compliers (individuals who follow a rule regardless of social expectations) play a crucial role in the emergence and enforcement of norms (Zachník 2024). In strict TCP terms, these individuals fall outside the scope of social norms because their behaviour is not based on social expectations. RaET overcomes this limitation by defining norm-governed social practices as social phenomena in which a significant portion of participants “are motivated to conform to its normative rule to a nontrivial degree” (Hindriks 2019). This broader definition allows researchers to explore rule-based behaviour while acknowledging multiple sources of both compliance and deviation. The study adopts this dual framework to examine whether social expectations influence compliance with the vegetarian norm “Don’t eat animals” and to assess the role of internal motivations such as moral commitment and personal beliefs about the norm's legitimacy. Social norms and veg diets Existing literature has confirmed that norm-related factors can both facilitate and hinder adherence to vegetarianism. In line with the framework proposed in this article, vegetarianism can be understood as being situated between two competing norms: a general descriptive, and at times injunctive, norm that encourages the consumption of all types of food, including animal products, and the vegetarian norm that proscribes it. Descriptive norms, understood as empirical expectations of what others do, play a significant role in shaping adherence to plant-based diets. Experimental and survey-based literature has shown that when individuals perceive others—particularly peers or close social groups—as choosing plant-based options, they are more likely to choose the same. For instance, Sharps et al. (2021) found that participants who believed that their extended family, friends, or significant others frequently ate plant-based meals also reported a higher intake of such meals. Similarly, seeing others demand vegetarian dishes increases the likelihood of doing so in choice-based experiments (Christie and Chen 2018). These results suggest that descriptive norms can reinforce plant-based habits, particularly when they align with an individual’s immediate social environment. Other findings highlight how individuals navigate normative conflict, situations in which different social groups model incompatible practices. In such cases, some individuals resolve this tension by aligning with the dominant descriptive norm, which may lead to reduced meat consumption (Ostermann et al. 2024). However, these effects are neither uniform nor guaranteed; in some contexts, descriptive norm-based nudges fail to significantly increase vegetarian food sales (Reinholdsson et al. 2023). Moreover, not all descriptive norms favour vegetarianism. Some studies suggest that dominant meat-based norms actively inhibit plant-based choices. For example, Griesoph et al. (2021) found a counterintuitive effect: the higher the presumed proportion of vegetarian dishes sold, the lower the likelihood that an individual would choose a vegetarian option. This suggests a possible reactance effect or distancing from what is perceived as normative in that context. Similarly, in a field and laboratory experimental study (Hammami et al. 2023) it was observed that participants with low intentions to become vegetarians consumed fewer plant-based foods when eating in the presence of vegetarians than when eating alone. These findings illustrate that when perceived as externally imposed or deviant, descriptive norms may backfire, particularly among those who are not already aligned with vegetarian values. Similarly, social norms, understood as shared expectations about what should be done, exert a powerful yet context-dependent influence on vegetarian behaviour. When aligned with personal intentions, social norms reinforce vegetarian choice. The referred study found that individuals with higher vegetarian intentions were significantly more likely to choose vegetarian options and that the presence of a perceived vegetarian social norm increased the probability of choosing a vegetarian main course, though not necessarily a starter (Hammami et al. 2023). This indicates that social norms may interact with both internal motivation and situational cues, shaping specific elements of a meal rather than uniformly affecting dietary behaviour. Likewise, Engel et al. (2024) showed that social norms embedded in one's network, particularly attitudes towards innovative meat alternatives such as cultured proteins, increase the willingness to consume such products. These findings underscore the role of normative alignment within social networks as a reinforcing mechanism for plant-based or alternative food consumption. However, social norms can also discourage vegetarianism when dominant expectations favour meat consumption. Markowski and Roxburgh (2019) showed that fear of stigmatization in meat-normative scenarios acts as a barrier: individuals may avoid adopting or disclosing vegetarian practices to prevent judgement or exclusion. Sharps et al. (2021) found that while plant-based eating by close others encouraged vegetarian intake, greater family approval of occasional meat consumption corresponded with lower adherence. This suggests that the direction of normative pressure, supportive or discouraging, matters significantly. Finally, Salmivaara et al. (2022) explored how individuals navigate conflicts between their dietary norms and social environments. They found that norm conflict often arises in tense relational contexts, particularly when in-group/out-group boundaries are salient. Individuals use various strategies to manage such tensions: adaptation to dominant norms tends to occur in distant relationships, whereas closer relationships allow for strategies that challenge or weaken dominant norms. This complex scenario illustrates that norm compliance is not simply about conforming to the majority but also about negotiating one’s position in a web of relational and moral expectations. The role of moral norms and normative beliefs in veg diets While social expectations can shape dietary behaviour, internal motivations, particularly moral ones, also play a crucial role. Rule-based reasons are not contingent on what others do or believe, but rather reflect a commitment to what Hindriks (2019) calls “the power of the norm itself.” In this sense, following a norm is not simply a means to conform to conventional behaviour, but rather a consequentialist commitment to what is perceived as the right thing to do (Elster 1994). In vegetarian research, the most widely used operationalisation of moral motivation is found in the moral dimension of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire (DIQ) (Rosenfeld and Burrow 2018), which includes the following items: I feel that I have a moral obligation to follow my dietary pattern. I am motivated to follow my dietary pattern because eating foods that go against my dietary pattern is immoral. I follow my dietary pattern because eating this way is the morally right thing to do. Multiple studies using the DIQ have shown that vegs (and vegans in particular) report higher moral commitment to their dietary practices than omnivores or flexitarians (Plante et al. 2019; Kirsten et al. 2020; Holler et al. 2021; Chinea-Montesdeoca et al. 2021). This supports the idea that vegetarian practices can be grounded in internalised moral norms. Further empirical evidence reinforces the centrality of moral reasoning. Moral obligation has been identified as the variable with the highest explanatory power in predictive models of vegetarianism (Gómez-Román et al. 2024). Moreover, consistent differences in moral concerns for animals have been observed across dietary groups, with vegans scoring higher than vegetarians (Dhont and Ioannidou 2024). Moral flexibility also appears to vary accordingly, with vegetarians exhibiting greater adaptability in their thinking about different animal categories than vegans, while still being more rigid than omnivores or flexitarians (Ioannidou et al. 2024). Nevertheless, moral motivation alone may not be sufficient to produce sustained behavioural changes. Some research suggests that moral appeals are unlikely to alter food choices in the absence of pre-existing favourable attitudes or supportive sociodemographic conditions (Mrchkovska et al. 2024). Likewise, while moral disgust is sometimes reported in response to animal products, it tends to play a secondary role compared to core or animal reminder disgust (Becker and Lawrence 2025). However, targeted activation of moral reasoning can still yield behavioural effects. For example, exposure to ethical arguments about animal consumption has been shown to increase the avoidance of animal products in university dining settings (Schwitzgebel et al. 2023). These findings suggest that moral norms reinforce rule-based compliance among individuals already inclined towards such concerns. Taken together, these findings indicate that moral commitment is a critical but complex motivational force behind vegetarianism. While its strength varies across individuals and contexts, it consistently distinguishes between those who internalise the dietary norm and those who follow it instrumentally. Normative beliefs, when rooted in moral reasoning rather than social expectations, appear to exert a durable influence on compliance. Hypothesis Grounded in TCP and prior literature on the role of social expectations in norm compliance, Hypotheses 1 to 3 examine the effect of experimentally manipulated social cues on individuals’ self-reported likelihood of violating the vegetarian norm (“Don’t eat animals”) in a hypothetical scenario as follows: H1: The presence of individuals who self-identify as vegetarian and comply with the rule "Don’t eat animals" increases respondents' likelihood of complying with the same rule in a hypothetical decision-making scenario. H2: The presence of individuals who self-identify as vegetarian and deviate from the rule "Don’t eat animals" increases respondents' likelihood of deviating from the same rule in a hypothetical decision-making scenario. H3: The presence of individuals who self-identify as vegetarian and sanction deviation from the rule "Don’t eat animals" increases respondents' likelihood of complying with the same rule in a hypothetical decision-making scenario. Hypothesis 4 extends this logic by contrasting the effect of having close contacts who are vegetarians on the self-perceived likelihood of norm violations: H4: Having more vegetarians among respondents’ close contacts increases the likelihood of complying with the rule 'Don’t eat animals' in a hypothetical decision-making scenario. Building on the existing literature on the moral foundations of vegetarianism, Hypotheses 5 to 7 address the influence of internal motivations and personal normative beliefs. H5: Compared to vegetarians, vegan respondents are more likely to comply with the rule "Don’t eat animals" in a hypothetical decision-making scenario. H6: The more morally committed respondents are to their dietary habits, the more likely they are to comply with the rule "Don’t eat animals" in a hypothetical decision-making scenario. H7: The stronger the normative beliefs respondents have about veg rule following, the more likely they are to comply with the rule "Don’t eat animals" in a hypothetical decision-making scenario. Methods Survey To test these hypotheses, I designed a pre-registered 2 survey that incorporated a vignette-based experimental question. Data collection was conducted in collaboration with 40dB, a Spanish polling company that recruited a sample of Spanish vegetarians and vegans aged 18 years and above. The initial sample comprised 500 respondents from the target population. After applying exclusion criteria based on the time taken (below Q1 - 1.5 * IQR or above Q3 + 1.5 * IQR), the final analytic sample consisted of 469 participants. Eligibility was confirmed by a screening items for dietary habits. Only those who identified as following a vegetarian diet (including ovolactovegetarian, ovovegetarian, lactovegetarian, etc.) or a strict vegan diet were included in the study. Fieldwork was completed over three days in February 2025. Participants were compensated according their agreement with the polling firm. The questionnaire was administered in Spanish only. English translations of the relevant items are provided throughout this article, and the full questionnaire is available in the Supplementary Materials. All statistical analyses and visualisations were conducted using R (code included in the supplementary files). Descriptive variables Before testing whether social expectations and other variables influence vegetarian norm compliance, I measured several components commonly associated with social norms in the literature: empirical expectations, normative expectations, sanction expectations, normative beliefs, and moral commitment to one's diet. Empirical expectations were assessed by asking participants to estimate how many of the 74 vegetarians who responded to the 2023 Spanish ESGE admitted to eating meat at least once per week. Normative and sanction expectations were captured through a hypothetical scenario in which participants estimated how many individuals out of a fictional group of 100 vegetarians would: disapprove of another vegetarian eating animal products, and express disapproval or sanctions for such behaviour. To assess normative beliefs, respondents rated the appropriateness of the following statement: “A person who self-identifies as a vegetarian consumes animal products such as meat, fish, or seafood.” Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “Totally inappropriate” to 5 “Totally appropriate.” Moral commitment was measured using the Moral Commitment subscale of the DIQ (Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2018). This subscale consists of three items, each scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), which capture: I feel that I have a moral obligation to follow my dietary pattern. I am motivated to follow my dietary pattern because eating foods that go against my dietary pattern is immoral. I follow my dietary pattern because eating this way is the morally right thing to do. Normative beliefs and moral commitment were used as independent variables in subsequent analyses. Dependent variable Participants responded to a hypothetical scenario (see Table 1) designed to test how exposure to different types of social information affected their self-reported likelihood of violating the vegetarian norm. This vignette experiment was designed to test whether empirical and normative expectations about others’ behaviour influence respondents' willingness to comply with the vegetarian norm. Group 1 served as the control group and had no normative information. Group 2 received information about a positive descriptive norm (others complied with the norm). Group 3 received a negative descriptive norm (others deviated from the norm). Group 4 was presented with a negative descriptive norm and a positive normative cue (social sanction reinforcing the norm). Table 1. Vignette question. Imagine that you attend a gathering with friends and acquaintances to celebrate a birthday. The organisers have hired a catering company that has brought various drinks and appetisers to the venue. Although the organisers were informed that vegetarian and vegan guests would be attending, due to a lack of coordination, no suitable appetisers were prepared for those following these dietary habits. Among the available appetisers, there is a wide variety, some containing meat and others containing fish or seafood. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: Group 1: [Nothing] Group 2: Besides you, two other guests follow vegetarian or vegan diets, and neither of them is eating these appetisers. Group 3: Besides you, two other guests follow vegetarian or vegan diets, and both have already eaten some of these appetisers. Group 4: Besides you, two other guests follow vegetarian or vegan diets. One of them has already eaten some of these appetisers, receiving disapproval from the other one. If you found yourself in this situation, on a scale from 0 ("I would never do it") to 6 ("I would definitely do it"), how likely would you be to consume any of these appetisers? 0 – I would never do it 1 2 – I would probably not do it 3 4 – I would probably do it 5 6 – I would definitely do it Independent variables Table 2 summarises the distribution of key demographic and attitudinal variables across the experimental groups. These include gender, age, dietary type, transition motive, years following a vegetarian/vegan diet, and the number of close contacts who are vegs. The distribution across conditions indicates generally balanced groups, supporting the internal validity of the random assignment. Table 2. Distribution of independent variables by experimental groups. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Total Gender Female 54 56 59 54 223 Male 61 57 65 63 246 Age Under 25 12 21 19 19 71 25–34 38 31 32 37 138 35–44 32 34 35 25 126 45–54 22 16 25 26 89 55–64 10 11 11 7 39 65 or older 1 0 2 3 6 Diet Vegetarian 55 57 61 60 233 Vegan 60 56 63 57 236 Transition motive Ethical 59 76 64 61 260 Health 50 31 48 46 175 Dietary preferences 6 6 12 10 34 Year on veg diet Less than 1 year 17 18 20 14 69 1–5 years 68 61 67 67 263 6–10 years 15 14 22 19 70 11–20 years 12 16 9 10 47 More than 20 years 3 4 6 7 20 Veg contacts (out of 6 closest) 0 19 16 24 22 81 1 25 21 23 22 91 2 28 35 38 22 123 3 19 17 19 15 70 4 7 15 12 14 48 5 14 6 6 10 36 6 3 3 2 12 20 Total 115 113 124 117 469 Results Social expectations Figure 2 displays the distribution of empirical, normative and sanction expectations related to compliance with the vegetarian norm. All values are standardised on a 0 to 1 scale, where higher scores reflect stronger expectations of adherence or enforcement. Empirical expectations show the highest average (M = 0.58, SD = 0.28), suggesting that respondents generally believed that most vegetarians followed the dietary rule. Respondents answered a question related to an actual data point about norm violation, with 31 vegs admitting to sometimes eating meat at the Spanish 2023 ESGE. The mean approaches this data point, with 31.1, which indicates general accuracy. Normative expectations closely follow (M = 0.54, SD = 0.29), capturing the belief that others think the rule should be followed. In contrast, sanction expectations yielded the lowest mean (M = 0.51, SD = 0.28), indicating that anticipated social disapproval or sanctions were perceived as less likely. These differences are also visible in the boxplot distribution (Figure 1). Empirical expectations exhibit the highest median and upper quartiles, whereas sanction expectations display a more compact range centred around the midpoint. Although all three distributions show similar variability (SD ≈ 0.28–0.29), the slightly wider spread in normative expectations suggests greater disagreement among respondents regarding others’ normative stances. FIGURE 1 Taken together, these results indicate that, while there is a shared perception of moderate-to-high compliance, the perceived normative and social pressure to enforce the rule is slightly weaker, especially regarding anticipated sanctions. Normative beliefs and moral commitment Figure 2 illustrates the overall percentage distribution of responses to the question: “How appropriate do you think it is for other vegetarians to consume non-vegetarian products?” The most frequent response was “Totally inappropriate,” indicating strong disapproval of norm violations among a segment of the sample. However, the overall distribution reveals a notable diversity in normative views. Approximately half of the participants did not express clear disapproval: around 25% selected the neutral category “Neither inappropriate nor appropriate,” and another 25% viewed the behaviour as either “Appropriate” or “Totally appropriate.” This distribution suggests that strict adherence to the dietary rule is not universally perceived as a moral or normative obligation among self-identified vegetarians. Rather, the vegetarian norm appears to coexist with a range of interpretations, including more flexible or permissive stances regarding occasional rule violations. FIGURE 2 Figure 3 complements this picture by displaying the distribution of responses to the three items from the moral commitment subscale of the DIQ. These items capture the extent to which individuals perceive their dietary patterns as morally significant. The overall trend reveals a strong inclination towards moral affirmation: across all three items, most respondents selected values at the upper end of the scale (“6” or “7”), reflecting agreement or strong agreement. FIGURE 3 Given the strong internal consistency observed among the three items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82), they were combined into a single composite variable to capture overall moral commitment for the statistical analysis. This index reflects a coherent and robust underlying dimension, supporting its use in subsequent analyses (see Figure 4). FIGURE 4 The effect of social expectations on norm following The vignette experiment results show no statistically significant differences across the four treatment groups in the participants’ self-reported likelihood of breaking the vegetarian norm. Although each group was exposed to a different type of normative cue, none of the conditions produced a measurable effect on respondents’ decisions. As shown in Figure 4, the distribution of responses remained relatively consistent, with overlapping interquartile ranges and medians concentrated around the lower-middle values of the scale. As none of the groups exhibited a normal distribution of the dependent variable (Shapiro–Wilk tests, all p < 0.05), a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test was used to assess the differences. The test confirmed that there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (χ²(3) = 0.93, p = 0.818), reinforcing the conclusion that self-perceived compliance was unaffected by the behaviour or judgements of others. FIGURE 5 Final model To better understand the factors that predict the participants’ willingness to comply with the vegetarian norm, two multiple linear regression models were estimated using the vignette response as the dependent variable. Model 1 (M1) includes basic sociodemographic variables, dietary identity (vegan vs. vegetarian), experimental group, normative beliefs, and moral commitment. Model 2 (M2) extends this by incorporating three additional variables: motivational reasons for dietary transition, number of years following a vegetarian or vegan diet, and the number of vegetarians among the participants’ six closest social contacts. As expected based on the previous analysis, the coefficients for the experimental group indicators remain non-significant in both models, reinforcing the conclusion that exposure to different normative cues had no measurable effect on participants’ behavioural intentions. In contrast, several other predictors show robust and consistent effects. Most notably, the perceived appropriateness of norm violation, captured through a five-category normative belief variable, emerges as a strong and highly significant predictor in both models. Compared to the baseline category (“Totally inappropriate”), higher levels of perceived appropriateness are strongly associated with a greater likelihood of consuming non-vegetarian appetisers. This finding suggests that the subjective legitimacy attributed to rule-breaking plays a central role in shaping intentions. Moral commitment is negatively associated with the outcome in both models, reaching conventional significance in M1 and approaching it in M2. This suggests that individuals who perceive their dietary pattern as a moral obligation are less likely to engage in norm-violating behaviour, although this effect weakens slightly after introducing additional factors. Among the sociodemographic variables, neither age nor gender shows a statistically significant association with the outcome. The direction of the coefficients remains consistent across models, slightly negative for age and slightly positive for identifying as male, but the magnitude and statistical relevance are minimal, suggesting that individual variation in norm compliance is not strongly related to these traits. Table 3. Multiple linear regression models. M1 M2 Age -0.0004 -0.0019 (-0.0066) (0.0066) Gender Male 0.1864 0.0893 (0.1567) (0.1500) Habit Vegan -0.3118* -0.2452· (-0.1541) (0.1477) Experimental Group 2 -0.0196 0.0775 (0.2191) (0.2101) 3 -0.0106 -0.0065 (0.2146) (0.2048) 4 0.1302 0.0789 (0.2162) (0.2065) Normative beliefs Inappropriate 1.213*** 1.0425*** (0.2231) (0.2148) Neither inappropriate nor appropriate 1.3832*** 1.1292*** (0.2205) (0.2155) Appropriate 2.2877 *** 1.8676*** (0.2519) (0.2489) Totally appropriate 3.0858*** 2.4241*** (0.2828) (0.2859) Moral commitment -0.1408* -0.1065· (0.0623) (0.0608) Transition motive Health 0.5616*** (0.1620) Dietary preference 0.9725** (0.2965) Years being veg -0.0221* (0.0112) Veg contacts (out of 6 closest) 0.2412*** (0.0471) (Intercept) 2.0249*** 1.4502** (0.4714) (0.4616) Adjusted R2 0.2758 0.344 N= 469 N= 469 P value: <0.001***; <0.01**; <0.05*; <0.1· Regarding dietary identity, vegan respondents are less likely than vegetarians to report norm-violating behaviour, and the difference reaches statistical significance in Model 1. Although the effect becomes marginal in Model 2, the negative direction persists, supporting the idea that stricter dietary identification is linked to greater norm adherence. Model 2 further highlights the relevance of transition motives and social context. Respondents who reported health or dietary preferences as their primary reason for transitioning to vegetarianism were significantly more likely to accept norm violations than those with ethical motives (the reference category). This aligns with the notion that ethical motivation provides a strong normative anchor. The number of years participants have followed a vegetarian or vegan diet is negatively associated with the likelihood of norm violation, and this effect is statistically significant in Model 2. This suggests that individuals with a longer history of dietary adherence are less likely to be willing to break the vegetarian norm. Although the magnitude of the effect is relatively modest, the direction aligns with the expectation that sustained commitment over time reinforces internalisation and consistent behaviour. Unexpectedly, the number of close vegetarian contacts is positively associated with norm violation: participants with more vegs among close contacts reported a higher likelihood of consuming non-vegetarian food in the vignette. This counterintuitive result suggests that greater social exposure to vegetarians does not necessarily reinforce strict adherence, and may even normalise occasional deviations. Overall, Model 2 explains more variance in the outcome (Adjusted R² = 0.344 vs. 0.276 in M1), suggesting that including motivational and social-contextual variables improves the explanatory power. These findings underline the central role of internalised norms and moral framing, while also raising questions about the nuanced influence of social embeddedness on compliance with the vegetarian norm. Discussion and conclusions This study examined how social expectations and internal motivations shape compliance with the core vegetarian norm “Don’t eat animals” using a vignette-based experimental design and a theoretical framework grounded in Bicchieri’s Theory of Conditional Preferences (TCP) and Hindrik’s Rules and Equilibria Theory (RaET). These frameworks distinguish between expectation-based compliance, which depends on what individuals believe others do or expect them to do, and rule-based compliance, which stems from internal commitment to the norm. I tested whether experimentally manipulating social expectations would influence the participants’ willingness to violate the norm and explored which individual-level factors better explain the variation in normative adherence. The experimental manipulation produced null results: participants’ self-reported likelihood of consuming a non-vegetarian appetiser did not differ significantly across the four treatment groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 to 3 are rejected. From a TCP perspective, this may indicate either that the manipulation failed to effectively shift participants’ empirical or normative expectations, or that their behaviour was not conditional on these expectations. This aligns with previous mixed findings in the field: while some studies have shown that descriptive or injunctive signals can shape food choices (Christie and Chen 2018; Sharps et al. 2021), others have reported no effects (Reinholdsson et al. 2023). The ineffectiveness of normative cues in this case may reflect the high level of internalisation of the vegetarian norm among some participants, and the flexibility of others. RaET explicitly accounts for such cases, emphasising that norms can be followed even in the absence of social pressure, if individuals see the rule as intrinsically binding (Hindriks 2019, 2022). This rule-based motivation was captured in the present study through the moral commitment dimension of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire (Rosenfeld and Burrow 2018) and normative beliefs about the appropriateness of deviating from the veg rule. In the first case, Model 1 showed that moral commitment was significantly negatively associated with norm violations. However, this effect lost significance in the second model after including additional explanatory factors, suggesting limited support for Hypothesis 6. These results do not entirely align with the findings of previous studies (Plante et al. 2019; Holler et al. 2021; Chinea-Montesdeoca et al. 2021), which claim that morally grounded motivations play a central role in sustaining dietary practices. Additionally, participants’ normative beliefs about the appropriateness of breaking the rule emerged as one of the strongest predictors of their responses. Those who believed such behaviour was acceptable were significantly more likely to endorse it, regardless of the experimental condition, confirming Hypothesis 7. From RaET, this complexity can be understood by treating internal and external motivations as coexisting and sometimes overlapping, allowing for moral commitment and perceived appropriateness to shape compliance in different ways. The analysis also revealed differences between dietary groups: vegans were more rule-abiding than vegetarians, as predicted in Hypothesis 5, and individuals who reported ethical motives for their dietary transition showed higher compliance than those who cited health or preference reasons. These results are consistent with prior research indicating stronger moral concern among vegans (Dhont and Ioannidou 2024) and more flexible moral reasoning among vegetarians (Ioannidou et al. 2024). They suggest that, beyond identity labels, the normative meaning assigned to dietary practices plays a decisive role in norm internalisation. Longer adherence to vegetarian or vegan diets is also associated with increased norm compliance. This pattern may reflect accumulated moral salience, habituation, or sustained identity reinforcement over time, which is supported by studies associating moral motivation with long-term dietary stability (Gómez-Román et al. 2024). Perhaps more surprising was the finding that having more vegs among close contacts was positively associated with norm violations, contrary to Hypothesis 4. While descriptive norm theories would predict that social exposure to norm-followers should reinforce compliance, this result suggests a more nuanced dynamic. It may be that familiarity with occasional rule-bending among peers normalises such behaviour, or that individuals adjust their own standards in response to perceived flexibility within the group. RaET explicitly anticipates this kind of variation by recognising that not all individuals within a norm-governed social practice follow the rule for the same reason — “saints, sinners, and strategic actors” can coexist (Hindriks 2022; Zachník 2024). Taken together, these findings support the view that vegetarian norm compliance is not reducible to social expectations. Internal motivations, particularly normative beliefs, play a decisive role and often override the influence of external normative factors. This aligns more closely with the rule-based orientation of RaET than with TCP’s stricter conditionality. Moreover, the results challenge the assumption that brief normative nudges are sufficient to modify behaviour in domains where morality and identity are intertwined. Future research should explore how internal and external motivations interact over time and how social dynamics within lifestyle groups shape the interpretation and enforcement of these shared norms. Limitations This study has some limitations that should be considered. First, the dependent variable is based on the participants’ self-reported likelihood of violating the vegetarian norm in a hypothetical scenario. Although this method avoids the ethical and practical complications of placing vegetarians or vegans in real situations where their dietary values might be tested, it also raises questions about the real-world applicability of the responses. Intentions do not always correspond to actual behaviour, particularly when issues of social desirability or moral framing are involved. Simultaneously, creating an experimental setting that simulates norm violations in real life would likely raise ethical concerns and cause discomfort or distress in participants. Second, obtaining a sufficiently large and diverse sample of vegetarians through survey panels remains challenging. Given that vegetarians and vegans represent a relatively small share of the general population, recruiting them using probability-based or stratified sampling approaches is often infeasible. While screening procedures and quota controls were used, this limitation may affect the generalisability of the findings and introduce some degree of sampling bias. Overall, these limitations do not undermine the main contributions of this study, which offers new empirical insights into the normative dimensions of vegetarian practices and opens up promising directions for further research. Declarations Data availability All data and code underlying this study can be accessed at the following repository: [URL]. Ethics declarations Competing interest The author declares no competing interests. Ethical approval The Ethics Research Committee of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona stated that, according to its policy aligned with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, this study did not require formal ethical clearance. This decision was issued on 28 July 2025. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants upon joining the 40db panel. Additionally, participants explicitly agreed to take part in the study after reading information regarding the study's purpose, data handling procedures, and anonymity assurances, which was presented before the start of the questionnaire. References Barr SI, Chapman GE (2002) Perceptions and practices of self-defined current vegetarian, former vegetarian, and nonvegetarian women. J Am Diet Assoc 102:354–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90083-0 Beardsworth A, Keil T (1992) The vegetarian option: varieties, conversions, motives and careers. Sociol Rev 40:253–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb00889.x Becker E, Lawrence NS (2025) Disgust and distaste – Differential mechanisms for the rejection of plant- and animal-source foods. Appetite 212:108033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2025.108033 Bicchieri C (2005) The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616037 Bicchieri C (2017) Norms in the wild: how to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190622046.001.0001 Bicchieri C, Dimant E, Xiao E (2021) Deviant or wrong? The effects of norm information on the efficacy of punishment. J Econ Behav Organ 188:209–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.04.002 Bicchieri C, Garzino Demo L (2025) Norm strength and norm stability. Curr Opin Psychol 62:101957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101957 Boivin A, Légaré F, Gagnon MP (2008) Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians’ perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decisionmaking. J Health Serv Res Policy 13:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007052 Brennan G, Eriksson L, Goodin RE, Southwood N (eds) (2013) Explaining norms. Oxford University Press, Oxford Chinea-Montesdeoca C, Suárez E, Hernández B, Duarte-Lores I (2021) Adaptation and validation of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire (DIQ) into the Spanish context. Int J Soc Psychol 36:510–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2021.1940703 Christie CD, Chen FS (2018) Vegetarian or meat? Food choice modeling of main dishes occurs outside of awareness. Appetite 121:50–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.036 Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 24:201–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5 Dhont K, Ioannidou M (2024) Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets. Appetite 195:107232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107232 Dimant E, Gesche T (2023) Nudging enforcers: how norm perceptions and motives for lying shape sanctions. PNAS Nexus 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad224 Elster J (1994) Rationality, emotions, and social norms. Synthese 98:21–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064024 Engel L, Vilhelmsen K, Richter I et al (2024) Psychological factors influencing consumer intentions to consume cultured meat, fish and dairy. Appetite 200:107501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107501 Gelfand MJ, Gavrilets S, Nunn N (2024) Norm dynamics: interdisciplinary perspectives on social norm emergence, persistence, and change. Annu Rev Psychol 75:341–378. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-013319 Gómez-Román C, Vila-Tojo S, Orge A, Sabucedo J-M (2024) Axiological factors as predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. PsyEcology 15:235–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/21711976241280512 Griesoph A, Hoffmann S, Merk C et al (2021) Guess what …?—How guessed norms nudge climate-friendly food choices in real-life settings. Sustainability 13:8669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158669 Hammami A, Garcia A, Darcel N et al (2023) The effect of social norms on vegetarian choices is moderated by intentions to follow a vegetarian diet in the future. Front Psychol 14:1081700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1081700 Hargreaves SM, Rosenfeld DL, Bandeira Moreira AV, Zandonadi RP (2023) Plant-based and vegetarian diets: an overview and definition of these dietary patterns. Eur J Nutr 62:1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-023-03086-z Harguess JM, Crespo NC, Hong MY (2020) Strategies to reduce meat consumption: a systematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite 144:104478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104478 Heckathorn DD (1990) Collective sanctions and compliance norms: a formal theory of group-mediated social control. Am Sociol Rev 55:366–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095762 Hindriks F (2019) Norms that make a difference: social practices and institutions. Analyse Kritik 41:125–146. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2019-410109 Hindriks F (2022) Institutions and their strength. Econ Philos 38:354–371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267121000195 Hindriks F (2023) Rules, equilibria and virtual control: how to explain persistence, resilience and fragility. Erkenntnis 88:1367–1389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-021-00406-9 Hindriks F, Guala F (2015) Institutions, rules, and equilibria: a unified theory. J Inst Econ 11:459–480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000496 Holler S, Cramer H, Liebscher D et al (2021) Differences between omnivores and vegetarians in personality profiles, values, and empathy: a systematic review. Front Psychol 12:579700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579700 Ioannidou M, Francis KB, Stewart-Knox B, Lesk V (2024) Minding some animals but not others: strategic attributions of mental capacities and moral worth. Appetite 200:107559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107559 Jabs J, Sobal J, Devine CM (2000) Managing vegetarianism: identities, norms and interactions. Ecol Food Nutr 39:375–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2000.9991625 Kimbrough EO, Krupka EL, Kumar R et al (2024) On the stability of norms and norm-following propensity. Exp Econ 27:351–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-024-09821-5 Kirsten H, Seib-Pfeifer LE, Lüth CA, Rosenfeld DL (2020) Validation and application of a German version of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire. Food Qual Prefer 86:103988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103988 Kwasny T, Dobernig K, Riefler P (2022) Towards reduced meat consumption: a systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness. Appetite 168:105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739 Linares F (2007) El problema de la emergencia de normas sociales en la acción colectiva. Rev Int Sociol 65:131–160. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2007.i46.7 Meiske B, Álvarez-Benjumea A, Andrighetto G, Polizzi E (2024) Nudging punishment against sharing of fake news. Eur Econ Rev 168:104795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104795 Mrchkovska N, Dolšak N, Prakash A (2024) Morality meets menu: investigating the impact of moral appeals on vegetarianism. Clim Change 177:38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03695-5 Opp K-D (2020) What a theory of social norms and institutions should look like. Analyse Kritik 42:313–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2020-0013 Ostermann CM, Trevisan LV, Nicolao L et al (2024) The effect of normative conflict on meat consumption behavior. Sustain Prod Consum 44:87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.12.001 Plante CN, Rosenfeld DL, Plante M, Reysen S (2019) The role of social identity motivation in dietary attitudes and behaviors. Appetite 141:104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.038 Prentice DA, Miller DT (1996) Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 28:161–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60238-5 Reinholdsson T, Hedesström M, Ejelöv E et al (2023) Nudging green food: the effects of cues and descriptive norms. J Consum Behav 22:557–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2129 Rosenfeld DL, Burrow AL (2018) Development and validation of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire. Appetite 127:182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.003 Rosenfeld DL, Tomiyama AJ (2019) When vegetarians eat meat: why vegetarians violate their diets. Appetite 143:104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104417 Salehi G, Díaz E, Redondo R (2023) Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism. Heliyon 9:e16091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16091 Sargent RH, Newman LS (2021) Pluralistic ignorance research in psychology: a scoping review. Rev Gen Psychol 25:163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268021995168 Schwitzgebel E, Cokelet B, Singer P (2023) Students eat less meat after studying meat ethics. Rev Philos Psychol 14:113–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0 Sharps MA, Fallon V, Ryan S, Coulthard H (2021) The role of perceived descriptive and injunctive norms. Appetite 167:105615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105615 Teekens T, Giardini F, Wittek R (2025) Competing norms and shifting saliences. Rationality Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631251315324 Ullmann-Margalit E (2015) The emergence of norms. Clarendon Press, Oxford Zachník V (2024) Social norms and agent types: bridging theoretical models and applications. Philos Soc Sci 54:3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931231181168 Footnotes In the following, I will use “veg” for both vegetarian and vegan diets and “veg/s” for their followers. url. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files DataVegStudy.sav CodeVegStudy.r QuestionnaireSPANISH.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 24 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 09 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 06 Dec, 2025 Editor invited by journal 16 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 01 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 01 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7329005","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":589868871,"identity":"d447f01e-e9a6-419f-96e9-db209e8ca67f","order_by":0,"name":"Fernando Sanantonio","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Autonomous University of Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fernando","middleName":"","lastName":"Sanantonio","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-08 16:23:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7329005/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7329005/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102597663,"identity":"fa6cb0c0-9d1a-4d91-979d-d2e5715ee379","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48537,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Social Expectations Regarding Vegetarian Norm Compliance. All values are standardized between 0 and 1. For comparison, empirical expectations were reverse-coded such that higher values represent stronger perceived compliance.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/6c757a03ba11af24f0836ed2.png"},{"id":102597667,"identity":"45ff5dd8-48c0-4626-af87-0338924d8314","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:10","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42623,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of normative beliefs about veg norm violations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/860ea0d08e55c79efd88ac64.png"},{"id":102597634,"identity":"19627d33-1225-4825-97aa-7427b40c3552","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:03","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39968,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of moral commitment across the three DIQ items.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/04c87f457a2097237bde1d56.png"},{"id":102597635,"identity":"65f8b751-a24d-4542-aae3-45beefeccaa4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:03","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26823,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of moral commitment across the three DIQ items and the composed index.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/f5d8503a2620b7776a4bbba1.png"},{"id":102597675,"identity":"a2376009-2f36-4c5a-bb34-cde9dc0cee78","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:15","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":52448,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExperimental group comparation in responses to vignette experiment.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/f2856988585de7c2cadc6e96.png"},{"id":102597785,"identity":"31ea0d40-5783-43c6-b35e-fb45d2d7bb97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1133350,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/a45ded80-7fdf-4d91-8b03-86232c812318.pdf"},{"id":102597712,"identity":"95985023-733b-423c-a9f6-e55667fc86b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:18","extension":"sav","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":120174,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"DataVegStudy.sav","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/41bef187813cd9454296b355.sav"},{"id":102597657,"identity":"89b31c0b-e242-4b1f-901e-65e9cb4209d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:06","extension":"r","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":9829,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"CodeVegStudy.r","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/ab67e3b8790d7c0a96dcc0a0.r"},{"id":102597661,"identity":"3e988424-a997-4c79-8675-b5ce4e3b1af4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-13 12:26:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":188267,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"QuestionnaireSPANISH.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7329005/v1/285b482615f72f54fa6ca55c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eBeyond social expectations: norms, moral commitment, and rule compliance among vegetarians\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite the increasing visibility of vegetarian diets, many self-identified vegs\u003ca href=\"#_edn1\" name=\"_ednref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e still consume animal products. In the 2023 Encuesta Social General Espa\u0026ntilde;ola (CIS), 74 respondents described themselves as vegetarian or vegan, although 31 of them admitted to eating meat at least once a week. This discrepancy between identity and behaviour has been documented in several contexts. Scholars have interpreted it in multiple ways, understanding vegetarianism: as a continuum between strict and casual avoidance of animal products (Beardsworth and Keil 1992; Barr and Chapman 2002), as an identity derived from general patterns of behaviour and group identification (Plante et al. 2019), as a norm that can be violated (Rosenfeld and Tomiyama 2019) or as a combination of these factors (Jabs et al. 2000).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, I argue that the defining feature of vegetarianism is its norm-based nature. First, becoming vegetarian implies deviating from a near-universal descriptive, and sometimes injunctive, norm of the regular consumption of animal products. Second, following a vegetarian diet means adhering to the normative rule \u0026quot;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals (or animal-derived products).\u0026quot; This rule is increasingly institutionalised in many Western societies through official definitions, food labelling, and public discourse (Hargreaves et al. 2023). Therefore, I suggest that the mismatch between self-identification and actual dietary behaviour among vegetarians is best understood as a problem of norm compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContemporary theories of social norms emphasise how normative pressures generate stable behavioural patterns (Opp 2020). Empirical research has examined various aspects of this dynamic: how norms emerge (Linares 2007; Gelfand et al. 2024), how they persist over time (Kimbrough et al. 2024; Bicchieri and Garzino Demo 2025), how false beliefs about others\u0026apos; preferences can sustain compliance (Prentice and Miller 1996; Sargent and Newman 2021), and how competing norms affect individual decisions (Boivin et al. 2008; Teekens et al. 2025). In most of these works, social expectations about what others do and approve, and social sanctions are central to norm compliance. Among existing theories, this perspective is most comprehensively captured by Bicchieri\u0026rsquo;s Theory of Conditional Preferences (TCP) (Bicchieri 2017; 2005). In contrast, other scholars argue that norms can influence behaviour simply by virtue of being rules: obligations, proscriptions, or prescriptions (Brennan et al. 2013). While the first approach views norms as instruments for coordinating equilibria, the second sees them as \u0026ldquo;the rules of the social game\u0026rdquo; (Hindriks and Guala 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on this theoretical landscape, this study examines vegetarianism as a norm-governed practice. Research on vegetarianism has often blurred the boundaries between the strict avoidance of animal products (full norm compliance) and related practices, such as meat reduction, flexitarianism, or sustainable consumption (Harguess et al. 2020; Kwasny et al. 2022; Salehi et al. 2023). In particular, studies on the influence of social expectations and moral commitment on these practices have tended to focus on the process of adopting a plant-based diet rather than rule-following among self-identified vegetarians (Salehi et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study draws on a survey of 469 Spanish vegetarians, which included an experimental vignette examining how participants responded to a hypothetical situation involving norm compliance. Participants were randomly assigned to scenarios containing different combinations of empirical and normative information. First, I tested how social expectations influence vegetarians\u0026rsquo; self-reported likelihood of violating the dietary rule. Second, I examined how other factors, such as moral commitment to a veg diet, beliefs about the normative status of vegetarianism, or diet restrictiveness (vegan vs. vegetarian), shape individual responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePrevious research\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHow social norms work\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince this research is concerned with norm compliance, I adopt an approach centred on social norms theories, drawing mainly on Bicchieri\u0026rsquo;s TCP (Bicchieri 2005; 2017) and its more recent extensions, such as the Rules and Equilibria Theory (RaET) (Hindriks 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to TCP, a behavioural rule qualifies as a social norm if it is followed conditionally by social expectations. There are two kind of expectations: empirical expectations, which refer to beliefs about whether others comply with the rule, and normative expectations, which refer to beliefs about whether others think one should follow the rule. These may or may not be accompanied by expectations of sanctions, a significant departure from other equilibrium-based proposals in social norm research, where sanctions are regarded as the foundation of norm compliance (Heckathorn 1990). TCP suggests that social norms are grounded in shared beliefs, while the imposition of sanctions for noncompliance is considered optional. Nevertheless, many studies based on TCP also incorporate this dimension (Bicchieri et al. 2021; Dimant and Gesche 2023; Meiske et al. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial expectations can influence behaviour by transforming an individual\u0026rsquo;s initial preference not to comply into a conditional preference to do so. In this framework, violations are likely to occur when expectations are not met or aligned. This formulation synthesises a wide range of social norm approaches found in the literature, from the distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms in social psychology (Cialdini et al. 1991) to equilibrium-based approaches common in economics (Ullmann-Margalit 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe key difference between social norms and other types of norms (such as moral norms) is that the latter are followed independently of what others do or think of (Bicchieri 2017). However, other important views on norms have highlighted that complying with a norm is also a matter of following it because the norm requires one to do so (Brennan et al. 2013). RaET aims to reconcile these two perspectives, integrating both expectation-based (external) and rule-based (internal) motives for compliance (Hindriks and Guala 2015; Hindriks 2019; Hindriks 2023). In this sense, the role of normative beliefs remains controversial. From a rule-based view, people\u0026rsquo;s belief in the obligation to follow a normative rule is crucial, whereas from an expectation-based approach, it is not, as illustrated by the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance (Prentice and Miller 1996).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAssuming that individuals may follow rules for different reasons, norm compliance may be driven by external factors (e.g. social expectations), internal factors (e.g. personal moral commitment), or both (Hindriks 2022). Indeed, it is often difficult to find a social practice in which all individuals comply for the same reasons. RaET seeks to account for this motivational diversity \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;saints, sinners, and villains\u0026rdquo; \u0026mdash; within rule-based practices, extending the framework from strict social norms to norm-governed social practices.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, research has shown that unconditional compliers (individuals who follow a rule regardless of social expectations) play a crucial role in the emergence and enforcement of norms (Zachn\u0026iacute;k 2024). In strict TCP terms, these individuals fall outside the scope of social norms because their behaviour is not based on social expectations. RaET overcomes this limitation by defining norm-governed social practices as social phenomena in which a significant portion of participants \u0026ldquo;are motivated to conform to its normative rule to a nontrivial degree\u0026rdquo; (Hindriks 2019). This broader definition allows researchers to explore rule-based behaviour while acknowledging multiple sources of both compliance and deviation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study adopts this dual framework to examine whether social expectations influence compliance with the vegetarian norm \u0026ldquo;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026rdquo; and to assess the role of internal motivations such as moral commitment and personal beliefs about the norm\u0026apos;s legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSocial norms and veg diets\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExisting literature has confirmed that norm-related factors can both facilitate and hinder adherence to vegetarianism. In line with the framework proposed in this article, vegetarianism can be understood as being situated between two competing norms: a general descriptive, and at times injunctive, norm that encourages the consumption of all types of food, including animal products, and the vegetarian norm that proscribes it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive norms, understood as empirical expectations of what others do, play a significant role in shaping adherence to plant-based diets. Experimental and survey-based literature has shown that when individuals perceive others\u0026mdash;particularly peers or close social groups\u0026mdash;as choosing plant-based options, they are more likely to choose the same. For instance, Sharps et al. (2021) found that participants who believed that their extended family, friends, or significant others frequently ate plant-based meals also reported a higher intake of such meals. Similarly, seeing others demand vegetarian dishes increases the likelihood of doing so in choice-based experiments (Christie and Chen 2018). These results suggest that descriptive norms can reinforce plant-based habits, particularly when they align with an individual\u0026rsquo;s immediate social environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther findings highlight how individuals navigate normative conflict, situations in which different social groups model incompatible practices. In such cases, some individuals resolve this tension by aligning with the dominant descriptive norm, which may lead to reduced meat consumption (Ostermann et al. 2024). However, these effects are neither uniform nor guaranteed; in some contexts, descriptive norm-based nudges fail to significantly increase vegetarian food sales (Reinholdsson et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, not all descriptive norms favour vegetarianism. Some studies suggest that dominant meat-based norms actively inhibit plant-based choices. For example, Griesoph et al. (2021) found a counterintuitive effect: the higher the presumed proportion of vegetarian dishes sold, the lower the likelihood that an individual would choose a vegetarian option. This suggests a possible reactance effect or distancing from what is perceived as normative in that context. Similarly, in a field and laboratory experimental study (Hammami et al. 2023) it was observed that participants with low intentions to become vegetarians consumed fewer plant-based foods when eating in the presence of vegetarians than when eating alone. These findings illustrate that when perceived as externally imposed or deviant, descriptive norms may backfire, particularly among those who are not already aligned with vegetarian values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, social norms, understood as shared expectations about what should be done, exert a powerful yet context-dependent influence on vegetarian behaviour. When aligned with personal intentions, social norms reinforce vegetarian choice. The referred study found that individuals with higher vegetarian intentions were significantly more likely to choose vegetarian options and that the presence of a perceived vegetarian social norm increased the probability of choosing a vegetarian main course, though not necessarily a starter (Hammami et al. 2023). This indicates that social norms may interact with both internal motivation and situational cues, shaping specific elements of a meal rather than uniformly affecting dietary behaviour. Likewise, Engel et al. (2024) showed that social norms embedded in one\u0026apos;s network, particularly attitudes towards innovative meat alternatives such as cultured proteins, increase the willingness to consume such products. These findings underscore the role of normative alignment within social networks as a reinforcing mechanism for plant-based or alternative food consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, social norms can also discourage vegetarianism when dominant expectations favour meat consumption. Markowski and Roxburgh (2019) showed that fear of stigmatization in meat-normative scenarios acts as a barrier: individuals may avoid adopting or disclosing vegetarian practices to prevent judgement or exclusion. \u0026nbsp;Sharps et al. (2021) found that while plant-based eating by close others encouraged vegetarian intake, greater family approval of occasional meat consumption corresponded with lower adherence. This suggests that the direction of normative pressure, supportive or discouraging, matters significantly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, Salmivaara et al. (2022) explored how individuals navigate conflicts between their dietary norms and social environments. They found that norm conflict often arises in tense relational contexts, particularly when in-group/out-group boundaries are salient. Individuals use various strategies to manage such tensions: adaptation to dominant norms tends to occur in distant relationships, whereas closer relationships allow for strategies that challenge or weaken dominant norms. This complex scenario illustrates that norm compliance is not simply about conforming to the majority but also about negotiating one\u0026rsquo;s position in a web of relational and moral expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe role of moral norms and normative beliefs in veg diets\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile social expectations can shape dietary behaviour, internal motivations, particularly moral ones, also play a crucial role. Rule-based reasons are not contingent on what others do or believe, but rather reflect a commitment to what Hindriks (2019) calls \u0026ldquo;the power of the norm itself.\u0026rdquo; In this sense, following a norm is not simply a means to conform to conventional behaviour, but rather a consequentialist commitment to what is perceived as the right thing to do (Elster 1994).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn vegetarian research, the most widely used operationalisation of moral motivation is found in the moral dimension of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire (DIQ) (Rosenfeld and Burrow 2018), which includes the following items:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI feel that I have a moral obligation to follow my dietary pattern.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI am motivated to follow my dietary pattern because eating foods that go against my dietary pattern is immoral.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI follow my dietary pattern because eating this way is the morally right thing to do.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultiple studies using the DIQ have shown that vegs (and vegans in particular) report higher moral commitment to their dietary practices than omnivores or flexitarians (Plante et al. 2019; Kirsten et al. 2020; Holler et al. 2021; Chinea-Montesdeoca et al. 2021). This supports the idea that vegetarian practices can be grounded in internalised moral norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther empirical evidence reinforces the centrality of moral reasoning. Moral obligation has been identified as the variable with the highest explanatory power in predictive models of vegetarianism (G\u0026oacute;mez-Rom\u0026aacute;n et al. 2024). Moreover, consistent differences in moral concerns for animals have been observed across dietary groups, with vegans scoring higher than vegetarians (Dhont and Ioannidou 2024). Moral flexibility also appears to vary accordingly, with vegetarians exhibiting greater adaptability in their thinking about different animal categories than vegans, while still being more rigid than omnivores or flexitarians (Ioannidou et al. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, moral motivation alone may not be sufficient to produce sustained behavioural changes. Some research suggests that moral appeals are unlikely to alter food choices in the absence of pre-existing favourable attitudes or supportive sociodemographic conditions (Mrchkovska et al. 2024). Likewise, while moral disgust is sometimes reported in response to animal products, it tends to play a secondary role compared to core or animal reminder disgust (Becker and Lawrence 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, targeted activation of moral reasoning can still yield behavioural effects. For example, exposure to ethical arguments about animal consumption has been shown to increase the avoidance of animal products in university dining settings (Schwitzgebel et al. 2023). These findings suggest that moral norms reinforce rule-based compliance among individuals already inclined towards such concerns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings indicate that moral commitment is a critical but complex motivational force behind vegetarianism. While its strength varies across individuals and contexts, it consistently distinguishes between those who internalise the dietary norm and those who follow it instrumentally. Normative beliefs, when rooted in moral reasoning rather than social expectations, appear to exert a durable influence on compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eHypothesis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGrounded in TCP and prior literature on the role of social expectations in norm compliance, Hypotheses 1 to 3 examine the effect of experimentally manipulated social cues on individuals\u0026rsquo; self-reported likelihood of violating the vegetarian norm (\u0026ldquo;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026rdquo;) in a hypothetical scenario as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH1: The presence of individuals who self-identify as vegetarian and comply with the rule \u0026quot;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026quot; increases respondents\u0026apos; likelihood of complying with the same rule in a hypothetical decision-making scenario.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH2: The presence of individuals who self-identify as vegetarian and deviate from the rule \u0026quot;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026quot; increases respondents\u0026apos; likelihood of deviating from the same rule in a hypothetical decision-making scenario.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH3: The presence of individuals who self-identify as vegetarian and sanction deviation from the rule \u0026quot;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026quot; increases respondents\u0026apos; likelihood of complying with the same rule in a hypothetical decision-making scenario.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis 4 extends this logic by contrasting the effect of having close contacts who are vegetarians on the self-perceived likelihood of norm violations:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH4: Having more vegetarians among respondents\u0026rsquo; close contacts increases the likelihood of complying with the rule \u0026apos;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026apos; in a hypothetical decision-making scenario.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on the existing literature on the moral foundations of vegetarianism, Hypotheses 5 to 7 address the influence of internal motivations and personal normative beliefs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH5: Compared to vegetarians, vegan respondents are more likely to comply with the rule \u0026quot;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026quot; in a hypothetical decision-making scenario.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH6: The more morally committed respondents are to their dietary habits, the more likely they are to comply with the rule \u0026quot;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026quot; in a hypothetical decision-making scenario.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH7: The stronger the normative beliefs respondents have about veg rule following, the more likely they are to comply with the rule \u0026quot;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026quot; in a hypothetical decision-making scenario.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch3\u003eSurvey\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test these hypotheses, I designed a pre-registered\u003ca href=\"#_edn1\" name=\"_ednref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e survey that incorporated a vignette-based experimental question. Data collection was conducted in collaboration with 40dB, a Spanish polling company that recruited a sample of Spanish vegetarians and vegans aged 18 years and above. The initial sample comprised 500 respondents from the target population. After applying exclusion criteria based on the time taken (below Q1 - 1.5 * IQR or above Q3 + 1.5 * IQR), the final analytic sample consisted of 469 participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEligibility was confirmed by a screening items for dietary habits. Only those who identified as following a vegetarian diet (including ovolactovegetarian, ovovegetarian, lactovegetarian, etc.) or a strict vegan diet were included in the study. Fieldwork was completed over three days in February 2025. Participants were compensated according their agreement with the polling firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was administered in Spanish only. English translations of the relevant items are provided throughout this article, and the full questionnaire is available in the Supplementary Materials. All statistical analyses and visualisations were conducted using R (code included in the supplementary files).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDescriptive variables\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore testing whether social expectations and other variables influence vegetarian norm compliance, I measured several components commonly associated with social norms in the literature: empirical expectations, normative expectations, sanction expectations, normative beliefs, and moral commitment to one\u0026apos;s diet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical expectations were assessed by asking participants to estimate how many of the 74 vegetarians who responded to the 2023 Spanish ESGE admitted to eating meat at least once per week.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNormative and sanction expectations were captured through a hypothetical scenario in which participants estimated how many individuals out of a fictional group of 100 vegetarians would:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003edisapprove of another vegetarian eating animal products, and\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eexpress disapproval or sanctions for such behaviour.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess normative beliefs, respondents rated the appropriateness of the following statement: \u0026ldquo;A person who self-identifies as a vegetarian consumes animal products such as meat, fish, or seafood.\u0026rdquo; Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 \u0026ldquo;Totally inappropriate\u0026rdquo; to 5 \u0026ldquo;Totally appropriate.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoral commitment was measured using the Moral Commitment subscale of the DIQ (Rosenfeld \u0026amp; Burrow, 2018). This subscale consists of three items, each scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), which capture:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI feel that I have a moral obligation to follow my dietary pattern.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI am motivated to follow my dietary pattern because eating foods that go against my dietary pattern is immoral.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI follow my dietary pattern because eating this way is the morally right thing to do.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNormative beliefs and moral commitment were used as independent variables in subsequent analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDependent variable\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants responded to a hypothetical scenario (see Table 1) designed to test how exposure to different types of social information affected their self-reported likelihood of violating the vegetarian norm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis vignette experiment was designed to test whether empirical and normative expectations about others\u0026rsquo; behaviour influence respondents\u0026apos; willingness to comply with the vegetarian norm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGroup 1 served as the control group and had no normative information.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGroup 2 received information about a positive descriptive norm (others complied with the norm).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;Group 3 received a negative descriptive norm (others deviated from the norm).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;Group 4 was presented with a negative descriptive norm and a positive normative cue (social sanction reinforcing the norm).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Vignette question.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"599\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 599px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImagine that you attend a gathering with friends and acquaintances to celebrate a birthday. The organisers have hired a catering company that has brought various drinks and appetisers to the venue.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlthough the organisers were informed that vegetarian and vegan guests would be attending, due to a lack of coordination, no suitable appetisers were prepared for those following these dietary habits.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmong the available appetisers, there is a wide variety, some containing meat and others containing fish or seafood.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 599px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants were randomly assigned to one of the following groups:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 599px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1: [Nothing]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 2: Besides you, two other guests follow vegetarian or vegan diets, and neither of them is eating these appetisers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 3: Besides you, two other guests follow vegetarian or vegan diets, and both have already eaten some of these appetisers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 4: Besides you, two other guests follow vegetarian or vegan diets. One of them has already eaten some of these appetisers, receiving disapproval from the other one.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIf you found yourself in this situation, on a scale from 0 (\u0026quot;I would never do it\u0026quot;) to 6 (\u0026quot;I would definitely do it\u0026quot;), how likely would you be to consume any of these appetisers?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"600\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0 \u0026ndash; I would never do it\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2 \u0026ndash; I would probably not do it\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4 \u0026ndash; I would probably do it\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6 \u0026ndash; I would definitely do it\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIndependent variables\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 summarises the distribution of key demographic and attitudinal variables across the experimental groups. These include gender, age, dietary type, transition motive, years following a vegetarian/vegan diet, and the number of close contacts who are vegs. The distribution across conditions indicates generally balanced groups, supporting the internal validity of the random assignment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2. Distribution of independent variables by experimental groups.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"576\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e223\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnder 25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u0026ndash;44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u0026ndash;54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u0026ndash;64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65 or older\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVegetarian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVegan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e236\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransition motive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e175\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDietary preferences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear on veg diet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLess than 1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e263\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore than 20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVeg contacts (out of 6 closest)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 194px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e113\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e117\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e469\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch3\u003eSocial expectations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 2 displays the distribution of empirical, normative and sanction expectations related to compliance with the vegetarian norm. All values are standardised on a 0 to 1 scale, where higher scores reflect stronger expectations of adherence or enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical expectations show the highest average (M = 0.58, SD = 0.28), suggesting that respondents generally believed that most vegetarians followed the dietary rule. Respondents answered a question related to an actual data point about norm violation, with 31 vegs admitting to sometimes eating meat at the Spanish 2023 ESGE. The mean approaches this data point, with 31.1, which indicates general accuracy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNormative expectations closely follow (M = 0.54, SD = 0.29), capturing the belief that others think the rule should be followed. In contrast, sanction expectations yielded the lowest mean (M = 0.51, SD = 0.28), indicating that anticipated social disapproval or sanctions were perceived as less likely.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese differences are also visible in the boxplot distribution (Figure 1). Empirical expectations exhibit the highest median and upper quartiles, whereas sanction expectations display a more compact range centred around the midpoint. Although all three distributions show similar variability (SD \u0026asymp; 0.28\u0026ndash;0.29), the slightly wider spread in normative expectations suggests greater disagreement among respondents regarding others\u0026rsquo; normative stances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFIGURE 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these results indicate that, while there is a shared perception of moderate-to-high compliance, the perceived normative and social pressure to enforce the rule is slightly weaker, especially regarding anticipated sanctions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNormative beliefs and moral commitment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 2 illustrates the overall percentage distribution of responses to the question: \u0026ldquo;How appropriate do you think it is for other vegetarians to consume non-vegetarian products?\u0026rdquo; The most frequent response was \u0026ldquo;Totally inappropriate,\u0026rdquo; indicating strong disapproval of norm violations among a segment of the sample. However, the overall distribution reveals a notable diversity in normative views. Approximately half of the participants did not express clear disapproval: around 25% selected the neutral category \u0026ldquo;Neither inappropriate nor appropriate,\u0026rdquo; and another 25% viewed the behaviour as either \u0026ldquo;Appropriate\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Totally appropriate.\u0026rdquo; This distribution suggests that strict adherence to the dietary rule is not universally perceived as a moral or normative obligation among self-identified vegetarians. Rather, the vegetarian norm appears to coexist with a range of interpretations, including more flexible or permissive stances regarding occasional rule violations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFIGURE 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 3 complements this picture by displaying the distribution of responses to the three items from the moral commitment subscale of the DIQ. These items capture the extent to which individuals perceive their dietary patterns as morally significant. The overall trend reveals a strong inclination towards moral affirmation: across all three items, most respondents selected values at the upper end of the scale (\u0026ldquo;6\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;7\u0026rdquo;), reflecting agreement or strong agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFIGURE 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the strong internal consistency observed among the three items (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha = 0.82), they were combined into a single composite variable to capture overall moral commitment for the statistical analysis. This index reflects a coherent and robust underlying dimension, supporting its use in subsequent analyses (see Figure 4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFIGURE 4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe effect of social expectations on norm following\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe vignette experiment results show no statistically significant differences across the four treatment groups in the participants\u0026rsquo; self-reported likelihood of breaking the vegetarian norm. Although each group was exposed to a different type of normative cue, none of the conditions produced a measurable effect on respondents\u0026rsquo; decisions. As shown in Figure 4, the distribution of responses remained relatively consistent, with overlapping interquartile ranges and medians concentrated around the lower-middle values of the scale. As none of the groups exhibited a normal distribution of the dependent variable (Shapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk tests, all p \u0026lt; 0.05), a non-parametric Kruskal\u0026ndash;Wallis rank sum test was used to assess the differences. The test confirmed that there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;(3) = 0.93, p = 0.818), reinforcing the conclusion that self-perceived compliance was unaffected by the behaviour or judgements of others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFIGURE 5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFinal model\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo better understand the factors that predict the participants\u0026rsquo; willingness to comply with the vegetarian norm, two multiple linear regression models were estimated using the vignette response as the dependent variable. Model 1 (M1) includes basic sociodemographic variables, dietary identity (vegan vs. vegetarian), experimental group, normative beliefs, and moral commitment. Model 2 (M2) extends this by incorporating three additional variables: motivational reasons for dietary transition, number of years following a vegetarian or vegan diet, and the number of vegetarians among the participants\u0026rsquo; six closest social contacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs expected based on the previous analysis, the coefficients for the experimental group indicators remain non-significant in both models, reinforcing the conclusion that exposure to different normative cues had no measurable effect on participants\u0026rsquo; behavioural intentions. In contrast, several other predictors show robust and consistent effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost notably, the perceived appropriateness of norm violation, captured through a five-category normative belief variable, emerges as a strong and highly significant predictor in both models. Compared to the baseline category (\u0026ldquo;Totally inappropriate\u0026rdquo;), higher levels of perceived appropriateness are strongly associated with a greater likelihood of consuming non-vegetarian appetisers. This finding suggests that the subjective legitimacy attributed to rule-breaking plays a central role in shaping intentions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoral commitment is negatively associated with the outcome in both models, reaching conventional significance in M1 and approaching it in M2. This suggests that individuals who perceive their dietary pattern as a moral obligation are less likely to engage in norm-violating behaviour, although this effect weakens slightly after introducing additional factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the sociodemographic variables, neither age nor gender shows a statistically significant association with the outcome. The direction of the coefficients remains consistent across models, slightly negative for age and slightly positive for identifying as male, but the magnitude and statistical relevance are minimal, suggesting that individual variation in norm compliance is not strongly related to these traits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3. Multiple linear regression models.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.0066)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.0066)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1864\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0893\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.1567)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.1500)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHabit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVegan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.3118*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.2452\u0026middot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0.1541)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.1477)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0196\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0775\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2191)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2101)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0065\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2146)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2048)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1302\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2162)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2065)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNormative beliefs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInappropriate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.213***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0425***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2231)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2148)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeither inappropriate\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;nor appropriate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3832***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1292***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2205)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2155)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAppropriate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2877 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8676***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2519)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2489)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotally appropriate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0858***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4241***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2828)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2859)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoral commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.1408*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.1065\u0026middot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.0623)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.0608)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransition motive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5616***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.1620)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDietary preference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9725**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.2965)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYears being veg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0221*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.0112)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVeg contacts (out of 6 closest)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2412***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.0471)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Intercept)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0249***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4502**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.4714)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.4616)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 267px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2758\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.344\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN= 469\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN= 469\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eP value: \u0026lt;0.001***; \u0026lt;0.01**; \u0026lt;0.05*; \u0026lt;0.1\u0026middot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding dietary identity, vegan respondents are less likely than vegetarians to report norm-violating behaviour, and the difference reaches statistical significance in Model 1. Although the effect becomes marginal in Model 2, the negative direction persists, supporting the idea that stricter dietary identification is linked to greater norm adherence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel 2 further highlights the relevance of transition motives and social context. Respondents who reported health or dietary preferences as their primary reason for transitioning to vegetarianism were significantly more likely to accept norm violations than those with ethical motives (the reference category). This aligns with the notion that ethical motivation provides a strong normative anchor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of years participants have followed a vegetarian or vegan diet is negatively associated with the likelihood of norm violation, and this effect is statistically significant in Model 2. This suggests that individuals with a longer history of dietary adherence are less likely to be willing to break the vegetarian norm. Although the magnitude of the effect is relatively modest, the direction aligns with the expectation that sustained commitment over time reinforces internalisation and consistent behaviour.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnexpectedly, the number of close vegetarian contacts is positively associated with norm violation: participants with more vegs among close contacts reported a higher likelihood of consuming non-vegetarian food in the vignette. This counterintuitive result suggests that greater social exposure to vegetarians does not necessarily reinforce strict adherence, and may even normalise occasional deviations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, Model 2 explains more variance in the outcome (Adjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.344 vs. 0.276 in M1), suggesting that including motivational and social-contextual variables improves the explanatory power. These findings underline the central role of internalised norms and moral framing, while also raising questions about the nuanced influence of social embeddedness on compliance with the vegetarian norm.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion and conclusions ","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined how social expectations and internal motivations shape compliance with the core vegetarian norm \u0026ldquo;Don\u0026rsquo;t eat animals\u0026rdquo; using a vignette-based experimental design and a theoretical framework grounded in Bicchieri\u0026rsquo;s Theory of Conditional Preferences (TCP) and Hindrik\u0026rsquo;s Rules and Equilibria Theory (RaET). These frameworks distinguish between expectation-based compliance, which depends on what individuals believe others do or expect them to do, and rule-based compliance, which stems from internal commitment to the norm. I tested whether experimentally manipulating social expectations would influence the participants\u0026rsquo; willingness to violate the norm and explored which individual-level factors better explain the variation in normative adherence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experimental manipulation produced null results: participants\u0026rsquo; self-reported likelihood of consuming a non-vegetarian appetiser did not differ significantly across the four treatment groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 to 3 are rejected. From a TCP perspective, this may indicate either that the manipulation failed to effectively shift participants\u0026rsquo; empirical or normative expectations, or that their behaviour was not conditional on these expectations. This aligns with previous mixed findings in the field: while some studies have shown that descriptive or injunctive signals can shape food choices (Christie and Chen 2018; Sharps et al. 2021), others have reported no effects (Reinholdsson et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ineffectiveness of normative cues in this case may reflect the high level of internalisation of the vegetarian norm among some participants, and the flexibility of others. RaET explicitly accounts for such cases, emphasising that norms can be followed even in the absence of social pressure, if individuals see the rule as intrinsically binding (Hindriks 2019, 2022). This rule-based motivation was captured in the present study through the moral commitment dimension of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire (Rosenfeld and Burrow 2018) and normative beliefs about the appropriateness of deviating from the veg rule. In the first case, Model 1 showed that moral commitment was significantly negatively associated with norm violations. However, this effect lost significance in the second model after including additional explanatory factors, suggesting limited support for Hypothesis 6. These results do not entirely align with the findings of previous studies (Plante et al. 2019; Holler et al. 2021; Chinea-Montesdeoca et al. 2021), which claim that morally grounded motivations play a central role in sustaining dietary practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, participants\u0026rsquo; normative beliefs about the appropriateness of breaking the rule emerged as one of the strongest predictors of their responses. Those who believed such behaviour was acceptable were significantly more likely to endorse it, regardless of the experimental condition, confirming Hypothesis 7. From RaET, this complexity can be understood by treating internal and external motivations as coexisting and sometimes overlapping, allowing for moral commitment and perceived appropriateness to shape compliance in different ways.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis also revealed differences between dietary groups: vegans were more rule-abiding than vegetarians, as predicted in Hypothesis 5, and individuals who reported ethical motives for their dietary transition showed higher compliance than those who cited health or preference reasons. These results are consistent with prior research indicating stronger moral concern among vegans (Dhont and Ioannidou 2024) and more flexible moral reasoning among vegetarians (Ioannidou et al. 2024). They suggest that, beyond identity labels, the normative meaning assigned to dietary practices plays a decisive role in norm internalisation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLonger adherence to vegetarian or vegan diets is also associated with increased norm compliance. This pattern may reflect accumulated moral salience, habituation, or sustained identity reinforcement over time, which is supported by studies associating moral motivation with long-term dietary stability (G\u0026oacute;mez-Rom\u0026aacute;n et al. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerhaps more surprising was the finding that having more vegs among close contacts was positively associated with norm violations, contrary to Hypothesis 4. While descriptive norm theories would predict that social exposure to norm-followers should reinforce compliance, this result suggests a more nuanced dynamic. It may be that familiarity with occasional rule-bending among peers normalises such behaviour, or that individuals adjust their own standards in response to perceived flexibility within the group. RaET explicitly anticipates this kind of variation by recognising that not all individuals within a norm-governed social practice follow the rule for the same reason \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;saints, sinners, and strategic actors\u0026rdquo; can coexist (Hindriks 2022; Zachn\u0026iacute;k 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings support the view that vegetarian norm compliance is not reducible to social expectations. Internal motivations, particularly normative beliefs, play a decisive role and often override the influence of external normative factors. This aligns more closely with the rule-based orientation of RaET than with TCP\u0026rsquo;s stricter conditionality. Moreover, the results challenge the assumption that brief normative nudges are sufficient to modify behaviour in domains where morality and identity are intertwined. Future research should explore how internal and external motivations interact over time and how social dynamics within lifestyle groups shape the interpretation and enforcement of these shared norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations that should be considered. First, the dependent variable is based on the participants\u0026rsquo; self-reported likelihood of violating the vegetarian norm in a hypothetical scenario. Although this method avoids the ethical and practical complications of placing vegetarians or vegans in real situations where their dietary values might be tested, it also raises questions about the real-world applicability of the responses. Intentions do not always correspond to actual behaviour, particularly when issues of social desirability or moral framing are involved. Simultaneously, creating an experimental setting that simulates norm violations in real life would likely raise ethical concerns and cause discomfort or distress in participants. Second, obtaining a sufficiently large and diverse sample of vegetarians through survey panels remains challenging. Given that vegetarians and vegans represent a relatively small share of the general population, recruiting them using probability-based or stratified sampling approaches is often infeasible. While screening procedures and quota controls were used, this limitation may affect the generalisability of the findings and introduce some degree of sampling bias. Overall, these limitations do not undermine the main contributions of this study, which offers new empirical insights into the normative dimensions of vegetarian practices and opens up promising directions for further research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data and code underlying this study can be accessed at the following repository: [URL].\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthics declarations\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCompeting interest\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Ethics Research Committee of the Universitat Aut\u0026ograve;noma de Barcelona stated that, according to its policy aligned with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, this study did not require formal ethical clearance. This decision was issued on 28 July 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInformed consent\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained electronically from all participants upon joining the 40db panel. Additionally, participants explicitly agreed to take part in the study after reading information regarding the study\u0026apos;s purpose, data handling procedures, and anonymity assurances, which was presented before the start of the questionnaire.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarr SI, Chapman GE (2002) Perceptions and practices of self-defined current vegetarian, former vegetarian, and nonvegetarian women. J Am Diet Assoc 102:354\u0026ndash;360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90083-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeardsworth A, Keil T (1992) The vegetarian option: varieties, conversions, motives and careers. Sociol Rev 40:253\u0026ndash;293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb00889.x\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBecker E, Lawrence NS (2025) Disgust and distaste \u0026ndash; Differential mechanisms for the rejection of plant- and animal-source foods. Appetite 212:108033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2025.108033\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBicchieri C (2005) The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616037\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBicchieri C (2017) Norms in the wild: how to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190622046.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBicchieri C, Dimant E, Xiao E (2021) Deviant or wrong? The effects of norm information on the efficacy of punishment. J Econ Behav Organ 188:209\u0026ndash;235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.04.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBicchieri C, Garzino Demo L (2025) Norm strength and norm stability. Curr Opin Psychol 62:101957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101957\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoivin A, L\u0026eacute;gar\u0026eacute; F, Gagnon MP (2008) Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians\u0026rsquo; perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decisionmaking. J Health Serv Res Policy 13:79\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007052\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrennan G, Eriksson L, Goodin RE, Southwood N (eds) (2013) Explaining norms. Oxford University Press, Oxford\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChinea-Montesdeoca C, Su\u0026aacute;rez E, Hern\u0026aacute;ndez B, Duarte-Lores I (2021) Adaptation and validation of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire (DIQ) into the Spanish context. Int J Soc Psychol 36:510\u0026ndash;543. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2021.1940703\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChristie CD, Chen FS (2018) Vegetarian or meat? Food choice modeling of main dishes occurs outside of awareness. Appetite 121:50\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.036\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 24:201\u0026ndash;234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDhont K, Ioannidou M (2024) Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets. Appetite 195:107232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107232\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDimant E, Gesche T (2023) Nudging enforcers: how norm perceptions and motives for lying shape sanctions. PNAS Nexus 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad224\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElster J (1994) Rationality, emotions, and social norms. Synthese 98:21\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064024\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEngel L, Vilhelmsen K, Richter I et al (2024) Psychological factors influencing consumer intentions to consume cultured meat, fish and dairy. Appetite 200:107501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107501\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGelfand MJ, Gavrilets S, Nunn N (2024) Norm dynamics: interdisciplinary perspectives on social norm emergence, persistence, and change. Annu Rev Psychol 75:341\u0026ndash;378. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-013319\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eG\u0026oacute;mez-Rom\u0026aacute;n C, Vila-Tojo S, Orge A, Sabucedo J-M (2024) Axiological factors as predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. PsyEcology 15:235\u0026ndash;252. https://doi.org/10.1177/21711976241280512\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGriesoph A, Hoffmann S, Merk C et al (2021) Guess what \u0026hellip;?\u0026mdash;How guessed norms nudge climate-friendly food choices in real-life settings. Sustainability 13:8669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158669\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHammami A, Garcia A, Darcel N et al (2023) The effect of social norms on vegetarian choices is moderated by intentions to follow a vegetarian diet in the future. Front Psychol 14:1081700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1081700\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHargreaves SM, Rosenfeld DL, Bandeira Moreira AV, Zandonadi RP (2023) Plant-based and vegetarian diets: an overview and definition of these dietary patterns. Eur J Nutr 62:1109\u0026ndash;1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-023-03086-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarguess JM, Crespo NC, Hong MY (2020) Strategies to reduce meat consumption: a systematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite 144:104478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104478\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHeckathorn DD (1990) Collective sanctions and compliance norms: a formal theory of group-mediated social control. Am Sociol Rev 55:366\u0026ndash;384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095762\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHindriks F (2019) Norms that make a difference: social practices and institutions. Analyse Kritik 41:125\u0026ndash;146. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2019-410109\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHindriks F (2022) Institutions and their strength. Econ Philos 38:354\u0026ndash;371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267121000195\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHindriks F (2023) Rules, equilibria and virtual control: how to explain persistence, resilience and fragility. Erkenntnis 88:1367\u0026ndash;1389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-021-00406-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHindriks F, Guala F (2015) Institutions, rules, and equilibria: a unified theory. J Inst Econ 11:459\u0026ndash;480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000496\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHoller S, Cramer H, Liebscher D et al (2021) Differences between omnivores and vegetarians in personality profiles, values, and empathy: a systematic review. Front Psychol 12:579700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579700\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIoannidou M, Francis KB, Stewart-Knox B, Lesk V (2024) Minding some animals but not others: strategic attributions of mental capacities and moral worth. Appetite 200:107559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107559\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJabs J, Sobal J, Devine CM (2000) Managing vegetarianism: identities, norms and interactions. Ecol Food Nutr 39:375\u0026ndash;394. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2000.9991625\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKimbrough EO, Krupka EL, Kumar R et al (2024) On the stability of norms and norm-following propensity. Exp Econ 27:351\u0026ndash;378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-024-09821-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKirsten H, Seib-Pfeifer LE, L\u0026uuml;th CA, Rosenfeld DL (2020) Validation and application of a German version of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire. Food Qual Prefer 86:103988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103988\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKwasny T, Dobernig K, Riefler P (2022) Towards reduced meat consumption: a systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness. Appetite 168:105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLinares F (2007) El problema de la emergencia de normas sociales en la acci\u0026oacute;n colectiva. Rev Int Sociol 65:131\u0026ndash;160. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2007.i46.7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeiske B, \u0026Aacute;lvarez-Benjumea A, Andrighetto G, Polizzi E (2024) Nudging punishment against sharing of fake news. Eur Econ Rev 168:104795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104795\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMrchkovska N, Dol\u0026scaron;ak N, Prakash A (2024) Morality meets menu: investigating the impact of moral appeals on vegetarianism. Clim Change 177:38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03695-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOpp K-D (2020) What a theory of social norms and institutions should look like. Analyse Kritik 42:313\u0026ndash;342. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2020-0013\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOstermann CM, Trevisan LV, Nicolao L et al (2024) The effect of normative conflict on meat consumption behavior. Sustain Prod Consum 44:87\u0026ndash;100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.12.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlante CN, Rosenfeld DL, Plante M, Reysen S (2019) The role of social identity motivation in dietary attitudes and behaviors. Appetite 141:104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.038\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrentice DA, Miller DT (1996) Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 28:161\u0026ndash;209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60238-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReinholdsson T, Hedesstr\u0026ouml;m M, Ejel\u0026ouml;v E et al (2023) Nudging green food: the effects of cues and descriptive norms. J Consum Behav 22:557\u0026ndash;568. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2129\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRosenfeld DL, Burrow AL (2018) Development and validation of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire. Appetite 127:182\u0026ndash;194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRosenfeld DL, Tomiyama AJ (2019) When vegetarians eat meat: why vegetarians violate their diets. Appetite 143:104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104417\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSalehi G, D\u0026iacute;az E, Redondo R (2023) Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism. Heliyon 9:e16091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16091\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSargent RH, Newman LS (2021) Pluralistic ignorance research in psychology: a scoping review. Rev Gen Psychol 25:163\u0026ndash;184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268021995168\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchwitzgebel E, Cokelet B, Singer P (2023) Students eat less meat after studying meat ethics. Rev Philos Psychol 14:113\u0026ndash;138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharps MA, Fallon V, Ryan S, Coulthard H (2021) The role of perceived descriptive and injunctive norms. Appetite 167:105615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105615\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeekens T, Giardini F, Wittek R (2025) Competing norms and shifting saliences. Rationality Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631251315324\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUllmann-Margalit E (2015) The emergence of norms. Clarendon Press, Oxford\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZachn\u0026iacute;k V (2024) Social norms and agent types: bridging theoretical models and applications. Philos Soc Sci 54:3\u0026ndash;30. https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931231181168\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIn the following, I will use \u0026ldquo;veg\u0026rdquo; for both vegetarian and vegan diets and \u0026ldquo;veg/s\u0026rdquo; for their followers.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eurl.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7329005/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7329005/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Vegetarianism is becoming increasingly prevalent in western societies. However, many self-identified vegetarians and vegans occasionally consume animal-derived products. This inconsistency between identity and behaviour raises questions regarding how individuals interpret and adhere to dietary norms. Although previous research has explored the role of social norms in dietary transitions, little attention has been paid to norm compliance among self-identified vegetarians. This study addresses that gap by analysing the influence of social expectations and internal motivations on adherence to the vegetarian norm “Don’t eat animals.” To do so, I conducted a survey of 469 Spanish vegetarians and vegans, including an experimental vignette in which participants were randomly exposed to different types of normative information. The study also measured respondents’ moral commitment and normative beliefs about vegetarianism. The vignette experiment results showed no significant effect of normative cues on the participants' stated likelihood of breaking the rule. However, regression analyses revealed that beliefs about the appropriateness of norm violations and dietary restrictiveness (vegan vs. vegetarian) were significant predictors compliance. Moral commitment to diet was not a strong predictor of norm following, although it reached statistical significance in one model. Notably, having more vegetarian contacts was associated with a higher likelihood of norm violations, whereas time on the diet predicted greater adherence. These findings suggest that compliance with the vegetarian norm is driven more by internalised normative beliefs than by external social expectations. They support a rule-based rather than expectation-based view of norm adherence, challenging the effectiveness of brief normative nudges in contexts where identity and moral reasoning are already salient. This study contributes to theories of norm compliance by highlighting the motivational diversity in lifestyle-based normative practices.","manuscriptTitle":"Beyond social expectations: norms, moral commitment, and rule compliance among vegetarians","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-13 12:23:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7329005/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-24T14:08:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"53932341187876144522531111699282027967","date":"2026-02-23T15:25:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-09T21:29:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-06T19:16:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-16T17:01:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-01T09:49:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-09-01T09:46:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d7c0e516-24cd-4e6b-a2ca-dd284939dbe1","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":62836590,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":62836591,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":62836592,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-13T12:23:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-13 12:23:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7329005","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7329005","identity":"rs-7329005","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}