Meat-eating justifications in Türkiye: cultural adaptation, validation, and correlates of the MEJ and 4Ns scales

Date

2025-10-01

Author

Sayat, Ruşen Ali
Bozo Özen, Özlem

Metadata

Show full item record

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Item Usage Stats

30
views

3
downloads

Cite This

Background People often avoid and try to stay ignorant of the negative aspects of meat production and consump- tion. When asked, people justify their meat consumption by emphasizing the necessity of meat for health, its desir- able taste, naturalness, and normality. Relevant measures were developed to measure how much individuals rely on meat-eating justifications. Thus, the current work aims to translate and adapt the 4Ns scale by Piazza et al. (Appe- tite 91:114–128, 2015) and the Meat-eating Justifications Scale (MEJ) by Rothgerber (Psychol Men Masc 14(4):363–375, 2013) to Turkish to enable theoretical and applied studies of meat-eating in Turkish. Methods The relevant measures are translated and adapted to Turkish by expanding the item pool. The data of the translated measures and other relevant variables is collected between May 22 and December 31, 2022 (N = 520). The sample is divided into two parts: the first subsample is used to conduct Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and the other is used to conduct Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Finally, a correlation matrix is created with the finalized versions of the meat-eating justification measures and other variables of interest. Results EFA for the 4Ns revealed a four-factor solution aligning with the original theoretical framework. Since the original measure accepted a single-factor solution, the current work improved on the original by reworking the low-loading items and introducing culture-specific items. After decisions about certain items, CFA is conducted, which indicated good fit (χ2(98) = 193.4, p < .05, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .061, [CI = .048, .074]), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = .95, McDonald’s ω_total = .95) and test–retest reliability (.92). EFA for MEJ indicated an eight-factor solu- tion, where a subscale was discarded. CFA showed good fit (χ2(224) = 435.9, p < .05, CFI = .945, RMSEA = .06, [CI = .052, .069]), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = .89, McDonald’s ω_total = .91) and test–retest reliability (.89). Conclusion Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the meat-eating justification scales enable a better theo- retical understanding of the psychology of meat-eating. This is demonstrated by replicating the strong associations between meat-eating, its justifications, social dominance orientation, speciesism, and masculinity in a different cul- tural context. This understanding is essential for prevention and intervention efforts to reduce meat consumption.

Subject Keywords

Meat-eating justifications, Speciesism, Meat-related cognitive dissonance, Social dominance orientation

URI

https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-025-03490-6#citeas
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/116399

Collections

Department of Psychology, Article