Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Social Psychology ·

Volume 4 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2026.1899432

Another one bites the dust? Threatened meat-eater identity and veg * n conspiracy beliefs

  • Dominika Adamczyk1*corresponding author
  • Natalia Korczak1
  • Marta Marchlewska1
  1. Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Vegetarianism and veganism (veg*nism) have been criticized as challenging traditional lifestyles and meat-related practices. Some criticisms take the form of conspiracy beliefs, involving assumptions about hidden intentions and coordinated efforts to impose social change. We define veg * n conspiracy beliefs as convictions that veg*ns secretly seek to manipulate and control individuals and societies by restricting meat consumption and imposing a single dietary ideology. Across three studies among meat-eaters in Poland (Study 1 N = 1011; Study 2 N = 800; Study 3 N = 569), we examined psychological correlates of veg * ns conspiracy beliefs. We hypothesized that these beliefs would be associated with a defensive and entitled identification with meat-eaters, reflected in meat-eaters collective narcissism. Across all three studies, including two cross-sectional and one experimental study, meat-eaters collective narcissism consistently predicted veg * ns conspiracy beliefs. Collective narcissism also predicted outgroup hostility, operationalized as dehumanization of veg * ns, with this association partially mediated by veg * ns conspiracy beliefs. These findings suggest that conspiracy beliefs about veg * ns may serve as a defensive response to perceived threats to the status and identity of meat-eaters. They further indicate that such beliefs can contribute to hostility toward veg*ns, showing a potential pathway through which identity threat may translate into intergroup prejudice.

Keywords

Introduction

Beyond representing a dietary choice, veg*nism1 may also function as a social identity reflecting values related to sustainability, animal welfare, and social change (Nezlek and Forestell, 2020). For individuals strongly attached to meat-based dietary traditions, the growing visibility of veg*nism may represent a symbolic challenge to established norms and values. Veg*ns are often perceived by omnivores as threatening traditional cultural practices, particularly when dietary choices are interpreted as moral judgments of existing lifestyles (Minson and Monin, 2012; Rosenfeld et al., 2024). Thus, opposition toward veg*nism may reflect not only disagreement about food choices but also concerns about identity, morality, and the legitimacy of meat consumption. One extreme expression of such perceived threat may involve conspiracy beliefs, in which veg*ns are portrayed as a coordinated group with hidden intentions to manipulate societies. Unlike general criticism of veg*nism, conspiracy beliefs involve assumptions about secret plots orchestrated by powerful and malevolent actors (Goertzel, 1994; Marchlewska and Adamczyk, 2026). For instance, Raw Egg Nationalist, a British far-right influencer has popularized conspiratorial narratives about “soy globalism”—belief that the promotion of soy-based foods and plant-based diets represents a deliberate attempt by powerful actors to weaken populations and undermine traditional lifestyles (Feola, 2026). Similarly, Tucker Carlson, an American conservative political commentator, has framed attempts to reduce meat consumption and promote alternative diets as reflecting broader efforts to control ordinary people's lifestyles and values (Carlson, 2022). These examples illustrate how some people perceive the veg*n movement as a coordinated effort by powerful actors aimed at harming or controlling meat-eaters. This raises an important question: why do some individuals interpret the growing popularity of veg*nism through a conspiratorial lens, whereas others do not? In the present research, we argue that individuals who identify with meat-eaters in a defensive and insecure way—that is, through collective narcissism, characterized by a belief that one's group is exceptional but insufficiently recognized by others (Golec de Zavala et al., 2009) may be particularly prone to interpreting the growing popularity of veg*nism as a conspiracy, perceiving veg*ns as actors pursuing hidden agendas aimed at weakening or controlling meat-eaters. Collective narcissism is consistently associated with heightened sensitivity to intergroup threat and increased endorsement of conspiracy beliefs concerning outgroups perceived as hostile toward the ingroup (e.g., Adamczyk et al., 20262; Cichocka et al., 2016; Karakula et al., 2026; Marchlewska et al., 2019; Molenda et al., 2026). Thus, the aim of the present research is to examine how defensive (i.e., narcissistic) identification with meat-eaters is associated with belief in veg*ns conspiracy theories and, consequently, with the dehumanization of veg*ns.

Veg*nism as a threat to meat-eaters' norms and values

In contemporary societies characterized by a wide range of available food choices, dietary practices often serve not only functional purposes but also provide a means through which people express their values and construct social identities (Fischler, 1988). Therefore, food choices can serve as a means of connecting individuals to communities that share similar dietary patterns and, by extension, similar values and beliefs. Research suggests that veg*ns differ from omnivores on a number of political and social attitudes as well as prosocial dispositions (Nezlek and Forestell, 2020). Compared to omnivores, veg*ns tend to be more liberal and egalitarian (Ruby, 2012), less conservative (Nezlek and Forestell, 2019), lower in right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation (Dhont and Hodson, 2014), and higher in empathy and altruism (Dietz et al., 1995; Preylo and Arikawa, 2008). These differences suggest that dietary choices may function not only as everyday behavioral distinctions but also as signals of broader norms and values. While differences in dietary practices may sometimes create practical challenges in social interactions, value-based interpretations of these differences can further intensify intergroup tensions. Research suggests that omnivores' reactions to veg*ns can range from admiration and social support to indifference, ambivalence, or negative evaluations (e.g., De Groeve et al., 2022). Nevertheless, a substantial body of research indicates that omnivores tend to evaluate veg*ns negatively (e.g., MacInnis and Hodson, 2017; De Groeve et al., 2021), a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “vegaphobia” or “anti-veganism” (Cole and Morgan, 2011; Gregson et al., 2022). Previous research demonstrates that individuals who make morally motivated lifestyle choices often evoke defensiveness and derogation among majority group members because their behavior implicitly challenges the moral adequacy of the majority's practices (Minson and Monin, 2012). Thus, the presence of veg*ns may threaten not only dietary norms, but also meat-eaters' moral self-image (Loughnan et al., 2014).

In the face of the growing popularity of veg*nism, carnism—an ideological belief system that normalizes the consumption of certain animals and justifies species-based differences in moral consideration (Joy, 2010)—often provokes defensive reactions in which plant-based diets are perceived as a threat to group identity, the status quo, and traditional cultural values (Bagci et al., 2022). Veg*nism challenges these traditional structures on both symbolic and ideological levels—they may be viewed as attacks on culinary traditions, social norms, or even economic stability (e.g., traditional agriculture). Moreover, veg*nism may be perceived as threatening not only dietary norms but also gender identities. Meat consumption is often symbolically linked to masculinity and dominance, whereas plant-based diets may be framed as inconsistent with traditional masculine ideals (Ruby and Heine, 2011; Rothgerber, 2013). Thus, opposition toward veg*nism may reflect broader identity-based concerns, in which rejecting meat is perceived as challenging established norms regarding gender, hierarchy, and social identity.

In response to this perceived threat, conspiracy narratives may function as tools for discrediting veg*nism and protecting the status quo. By presenting veg*nism as an organized movement with hidden agenda (control over the food production system, controlling societies, indoctrination) rather than acknowledging its stated motivations related to ethical, environmental, and animal welfare concerns, conspiracy narratives may provide an explanation to complicated social and dietary transition. Indeed, a report investigating online misinformation surrounding the meat and dairy industry (Changing Markets Foundation, 2023) found that rather than engaging with ethical or environmental arguments raised by veg*ns, conspiracy believers redefine veg*nism as part of an agenda promoted by global elites, such as Bill Gates or the World Economic Forum, who have never publicly endorsed veg*n diet. Dietary change is framed not as a moral choice, but as a conspiracy intended to weaken populations and establish total control. Veg*nism and alternative proteins are also linked to narratives surrounding the so-called “Great Reset,” according to which elites allegedly seek to ban meat and force people to eat insects. To maintain the carnist belief that meat is the only truly “healthy” food, conspiracy narratives also target meat alternatives. False claims circulate that lab-grown meat causes aggressive forms of cancer, sometimes referred to as “turbo cancers.” Plant-based products, in turn, are portrayed as “unnatural mush” full of dangerous chemicals, redirecting attention away from scientifically established health risks associated with excessive consumption of processed meat (Changing Markets Foundation, 2023). Importantly, criticism of veg*nism should be distinguished from endorsing conspiracy beliefs. Whereas criticism may reflect evidence-based concerns, such as discussions regarding nutrition, environmental impacts, or the composition of specific plant-based products (Curtain and Grafenauer, 2019; Monteiro et al., 2019), conspiracy beliefs involve allegations of secret, coordinated actions by powerful actors pursuing hidden agendas (Douglas et al., 2017). Importantly, some conspiracy narratives may build on real social processes or publicly expressed goals. For example, veg*ns may advocate reducing meat consumption, but conspiracy narratives extend this observation by portraying such advocacy as part of a secret and coordinated attempt to control society (Frenken et al., 2025; Douglas et al., 2019). The present research focuses on conspiracy beliefs rather than evidence-based criticism or negative attitudes toward veg*ns.

Although veg*ns are often negatively evaluated and perceived as morally threatening, not all individuals respond to such a threat in the same way. While some meat-eaters may simply disagree with veg*nism or express negative stereotypes toward veg*ns, others may adopt more extreme interpretations, portraying veg*n movements as coordinated, manipulative, and intentionally harmful. In other words, some individuals appear particularly prone to construing veg*nism through a conspiratorial lens. This raises an important question: why do certain individuals respond to rising popularity of veg*nism with conspiracy beliefs, whereas others do not? One possibility is that conspiracy beliefs emerge as a defensive response among individuals whose identification with meat-eaters is narcissistic and therefore particularly sensitive to threat. Such beliefs may foster a perception that the ingroup is under attack (e.g., Marchlewska et al., 2023), while simultaneously affirming the importance of the ingroup by portraying meat-eaters as targets of coordinated and powerful forces seeking to undermine their way of life (Karakula et al., 2026).

Conspiracy beliefs as a tool for defending the ingroup

Endorsement of conspiracy beliefs is often understood as a motivated process of meaning-making, through which individuals organize complex and uncertain social realities into coherent narratives that protect identity and explain perceived threats (Kossowska and Bukowski, 2015; Marchlewska et al., 2018; Van Prooijen, 2019; for a review, see Marchlewska and Adamczyk, 2026). In the context of intergroup relations, conspiracy beliefs might help maintain a positive image of an ingroup as competent and moral, while portraying it as a victim of sabotage by powerful and dishonest outgroups (Douglas et al., 2017). They allow group members to feel important by suggesting that they possess rare knowledge unavailable to others and that their ingroup is sufficiently significant to become the target of covert attacks (Karakula et al., 2026). Importantly, such beliefs are particularly likely to emerge when the ingroup's status, norms, or way of life are perceived to be under threat (Mashuri and Zaduqisti, 2015). In these circumstances, conspiracy narratives may help identify alleged hostile outgroups responsible for the threat, which may in turn foster negative attitudes and prejudice toward these groups (Douglas et al., 2015; Marchlewska et al., 2019).

Contemporary social changes related to food ethics, environmental concerns, and the growing visibility of veg*n movements may therefore constitute a source of identity-related threat for some meat-eaters (Bagci et al., 2022). Such threat may be particularly salient among individuals whose identification with meat-eaters takes a narcissistic form, characterized by a strong need to protect the positive image and status of their ingroup (e.g., Adamczyk et al., 2024). Such individuals may become more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs portraying veg*ns as manipulative groups seeking to impose social change or undermine traditional lifestyles. Indeed, previous research suggests that conspiracy beliefs are strongly associated with different forms of collective narcissism (Cichocka et al., 2016; Golec de Zavala and Federico, 2018; Marchlewska et al., 2020).

Narcissistic identification with meat-eaters and veg*n conspiracy beliefs

Defensive forms of group identity may play an important role in understanding hostility toward veg*ns and endorsement of veg*n conspiracy beliefs. One of the most extensively studied defensive ingroup identities is collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013a,b), which is characterized by a constant need for external validation and recognition. Unlike individual narcissism, which refers to beliefs and motivations concerning the self, collective narcissism concerns the perceived exceptional value and recognition of one's group. Individuals high in collective narcissism tend to react defensively whenever they perceive criticism, disrespect, or symbolic threat directed at their ingroup (e.g., Marchlewska et al., 2023). Such defensive identity is often linked to underlying psychological insecurities, including low personal control (Cichocka et al., 2018; Marchlewska et al., 2020), narcissistic vulnerability [Adamczyk et al., 2026 (see text footnotes 2)], attachment anxiety (Marchlewska et al., 2022a,b), and difficulties coping with stress (e.g., Molenda et al., 2023) or negative emotions (Molenda et al., 2025).

A growing body of research demonstrates that collective narcissism predicts hostile intergroup attitudes and exaggerated perceptions of threat (e.g., Golec de Zavala and Lantos, 2020; Marchlewska et al., 2019, 2023). Individuals high in collective narcissism are especially likely to perceive outgroups as intentionally acting against the interests of their ingroup. Consequently, they often respond aggressively not only to direct attacks but also to subtle or imagined threats (Cichocka et al., 2016). Previous studies have linked collective narcissism to prejudice against minorities, support for retaliatory aggression, and endorsement of exclusionary social attitudes, particularly under conditions in which the ingroup is perceived as endangered or disrespected (Cichocka and Cislak, 2020). These mechanisms may be particularly relevant in the context of growing tensions surrounding meat consumption and veg*nism. Veg*ns are often associated with ethical criticism of meat consumption, environmental activism, and calls for broader social change. As a result, some meat-eaters may perceive veg*ns as challenging the legitimacy, morality, or normality of eating meat. Previous research suggests that meat-eaters frequently react defensively to morally motivated veg*ns, perceiving them as judgmental, arrogant, or threatening to their moral self-image (e.g., Minson and Monin, 2012; Piazza et al., 2021). Furthermore, stronger identification with meat-eaters as a social group has been linked to more negative evaluations of veg*ns and greater intergroup Polarization (Bagci et al., 2022). However, previous research (e.g., Bagci et al., 2022; Randers et al., 2021) has focused primarily on identification with meat-eaters as a relatively uniform construct, overlooking the possibility that it is the narcissistic form of this identification, rather than identification per se, that may account for negative intergroup attitudes and perceptions.

Collective narcissism can emerge around any meaningful social identity, including political (Marchlewska et al., 2025), religious (Marchlewska et al., 2019), gender (Marchlewska et al., 2022a,b), social class (Molenda et al., 2026) or lifestyle-based groups (Marinthe et al., 2025). Therefore, individuals may also develop a narcissistic attachment to meat-eaters as a social category. Although dietary identities may not generally be as salient as identities based on nationality or religion, food practices can become meaningful markers of social identity (Nezlek and Forestell, 2020). This is particularly likely when dietary choices become connected to moral values, cultural traditions, and perceptions of threat (Fischler, 1988; Piazza et al., 2015). Therefore, collective narcissism may emerge around lifestyle-based identities when individuals perceive these identities as important to the self and insufficiently recognized by others (Cichocka, 2016). We propose that similarly to other intergroup contexts, meat-eater collective narcissism may involve perceiving meat-eaters as unfairly criticized, culturally marginalized, or threatened by changing social norms surrounding food consumption, animal rights, and climate responsibility. Individuals high in meat-eater collective narcissism may therefore become especially sensitive to messages perceived as anti-meat or pro-veg*n, interpreting them as attacks on their group and its way of life.

Research further indicates that collective narcissism is strongly associated with conspiratorial thinking [e.g., Adamczyk et al., 2026 (see text footnotes 2); Cichocka et al., 2016; Karakula et al., 2026; Marchlewska et al., 2019; Molenda et al., 2025]. Specifically, collective narcissists appear particularly prone to endorsing conspiracy theories portraying the ingroup as targeted by hostile outgroups acting secretly and maliciously against collective interests. For example, previous studies showed that religious collective narcissism predicted endorsement of conspiracy theories claiming that feminists and gender equality activists aim to secretly undermine traditional values and destroy social order (Marchlewska et al., 2019). In Poland, national narcissism is strongly linked to the belief that the 2010 crash of a government plane was the result of a Russian conspiracy (Cichocka et al., 2016), while French national narcissism has been linked to beliefs in conspiracies that the results of scientific research on climate change are fabricated by elites (Bertin et al., 2021), and American national narcissism to beliefs in conspiracies regarding election fraud in 2016 (Golec de Zavala and Federico, 2018). Recent study of social class narcissism has shown that narcissistic identification with social class group correlated with stronger psychological help conspiracy beliefs which involve perceiving mental health professionals as a hostile outgroup that intentionally acts against the interests and wellbeing of their clients and patients (Molenda et al., 2026). These findings suggest that collective narcissism may generally predispose individuals to endorse conspiratorial narratives involving hostile outgroups acting secretly and maliciously against perceived victims (e.g., Cichocka et al., 2016; see also Marchlewska and Adamczyk, 2026, for a review).

Applying this reasoning to dietary identities, individuals high in meat-eater collective narcissism may be especially likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs about veg*ns. Such beliefs may frame veg*ns not as ordinary individuals making dietary choices, but rather as members of a coordinated and hostile movement attempting to impose social control, manipulate food systems, indoctrinate children, weaken traditional lifestyles, or eliminate meat consumption altogether. Although veg*ns are a minority in most societies, minority status does not necessarily prevent a group from being perceived as threatening. Research on intergroup relations suggests that perceived threat is determined by the extent to which the outgroup is seen as challenging important values, norms, and aspects of collective identity, regardless of its size or actual power (Stephan and Stephan, 2000; Branscombe et al., 1999). Consequently, veg*ns may be perceived as threatening not because of their numbers, but because they challenge practices and beliefs that are central to some individuals' social identities. In this sense, veg*n conspiracy beliefs may represent a defensive response to perceived identity threat. By construing veg*ns as dangerous and secretly influential, individuals high in meat-eater collective narcissism may restore a sense of moral legitimacy and symbolic superiority of their ingroup while justifying hostility toward the dietary outgroup. Importantly, collective narcissism should be distinguished from more conventional forms of identification with meat-eaters. Although both constructs reflect attachment to the ingroup, collective narcissism is characterized by a defensive belief in the ingroup's exceptional value coupled with a perception that this value is insufficiently recognized by others (Cichocka, 2016). Consequently, collective narcissism, rather than identification per se, is expected to be more strongly associated with the endorsement of veg*ns conspiracy beliefs and derogation of veg*ns.

Overview of the current research

We expected meat-eaters (collective) narcissism to show a unique positive association with veg*ns conspiracy beliefs beyond the effect of meat-eaters identification (H1; Study 1–3). Additionally, we assumed that meat-eaters narcissism (but not meat-eaters identification) would be uniquely associated to dehumanization of veg*ns (H2; Study 3) and that this relation should be accounted for by veg*ns conspiracy beliefs (H3; Study 3). Study 1 and Study 3 were cross-sectional. In Study 2, we decided to test our basic assumption in experimental design and manipulated meat-eaters (collective) narcissism to check for its effect on to veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. In cross-sectional studies, we aimed to include at least 400 participants, which gave us a power of 0.80 for detecting even small associations between variables (for r = 0.14; Cohen, 1988; G*Power yields a target of 395 participants). In experimental study we needed at least 787 participants to detect an effect of f = 0.075, assuming a statistical power of 0.80, α = 0.05 and dividing participants into 2 groups. Study 1 was preregistered prior to data collection, including hypotheses, and the planned analyses (https://osf.io/eswk4). Studies 2 and 3 were not preregistered. Data for all studies are available at: https://osf.io/8fhj5.

Study 1

In Study 1, we tested our basic hypotheses that meat-eaters (collective) narcissism (but not meat-eaters identification per se) would be positively related to veg*ns conspiracy beliefs (H1). Given that collective narcissism at the national level (especially when controlled for national identification) has previously been identified as a robust predictor of various forms of conspiracy beliefs (e.g., Marchlewska et al., 2022a,b, 2024), we also controlled for national collective narcissism and national identification. In such a way, we aimed to examine whether the effects of meat-eaters narcissism would remain significant beyond these more classic national forms of group-based identities. We also accounted for potentially confounding effects of the ideological predispositions that show robust effects on attitudes toward veg*ns (Judge and Wilson, 2019): right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)—preference for conformity, obedience, and social order (Altemeyer, 1981), and social dominance orientation (SDO)—a general desire for group-based hierarchy (Altemeyer, 1998).

Method

Participants and procedure

Data for Study 1 was collected by an external research company, Pollster Research Institute. Participants received compensation in accordance with the research company's standard incentive policy. Data was obtained through an online survey conducted on a nationwide probability random-quota sample of Poles. The quotas on gender, age, settlement size, were based on how the population of Poland is represented among the nation's internet users. Because we were interested in examining meat-eaters (collective) narcissism, we excluded from the analyses anyone who reported their dietary preferences as veg*n (n = 25). The final sample included 1,011 participants (548 women, 462 men, 1 other). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 82 (Mage = 48.53, SDage = 16.67). Participants filled out (in that order) measures of meat-eaters narcissism and meat-eaters identification and veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. Besides the variables reported here, the survey also involved a set of individual differences variables included for the purposes of different projects (a full list of measured constructs can be found in the OSF).

Measures3

Meat-eaters (collective) narcissism

We used the five-item version (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013a,b) of the Collective Narcissism Scale, adapted to the meat-eaters group with statements such as “Meat-eaters deserve special treatment.” Participants were asked to respond on a scale from 1 = definitely disagree to 5 = definitely agree, Cronbach's α = 0.89.

Meat-eaters identification

We used the shortened, three-item Social Identification Scale based on Cameron (2004; see also Górska et al., 2020) with a dietary in-group (meat-eaters) as a reference group, using statements such as “I have a lot in common with other meat-eaters.” Participants were asked to respond on a scale from 1 = definitely disagree to 5 = definitely agree, Cronbach's α = 0.83.

Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs

Beliefs in conspiracies related to veg*ns were measured with a newly developed nine-item scale: “The vegan and vegetarian movement is, in fact, striving to take control over the food production system,” “Restricting access to meat is part of a broader strategy aimed at controlling societies worldwide,” “The true goal of vegans and vegetarians is to create a society subordinated to a single dietary ideology,” “Certain substances are deliberately added to some food products to gradually shift the dietary preferences of meat-eaters toward more plant-based ones,” “Vegans and vegetarians are, in fact, conducting a kind of social experiment by encouraging others to give up eating meat,” “Plant-based products promoted by vegans and vegetarians contain ingredients that may influence human thinking or behavior,” “There are hidden laboratories working on agents designed to discourage people from eating meat,” “Vegans and vegetarians aim to weaken meat-eaters in order to more easily dominate them,” “In schools, there is covert dietary indoctrination targeting children from meat-eating families,” 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, Cronbach's α = 0.96. An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation supported a one-factor solution.4

National (collective) narcissism

We used the five-item version (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013a,b) of the Collective Narcissism Scale, adapted to the Polish national context with statements such as “Poles deserve special treatment.” Participants were asked to respond on a scale from 1 = definitely disagree to 5 = definitely agree, Cronbach's α = 0.91.

National identification

We used the 12-item Social Identification Scale based on Cameron (2004) with a national in-group (Poles) as a reference group, using statements such as “I have a lot in common with other Poles.” Participants were asked to respond on a scale from 1 = definitely disagree to 5 = definitely agree, Cronbach's α = 0.89.

Right-wing authoritarianism

RWA was measured with six items from the scale by (see also Funke, 2005; Bilewicz et al., 2017; Górska et al., 2022). A sample item is “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important values children should learn.” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), Cronbach's α = 0.84.

Social dominance orientation

SDO was measured with a short scale (SSDO; Pratto et al., 2013; see also Bilewicz et al., 2017; Górska et al., 2022) consisting of four items, such as “Superior groups should dominate inferior groups” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), Cronbach's α = 0.69.

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations

Correlations between continuous variables are presented in Table 1. In line with our assumptions, meat-eaters narcissism was positively related to Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations (Study 1).

MeasureM (SD)1.2.3.4.5.6.7.
1. Meat-eaters narcissism2.46 (1.01)–
2. Meat-eaters identification3.51 (0.97)0.49***–
3. Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs2.51 (1.14)0.52***0.29***–
4. National narcissism3.09 (1.06)0.53***0.34***0.41***–
5. National identification3.96 (0.93)0.17***0.38***0.10**0.52***–
6. RWA3.46 (0.87)0.34***0.36***0.38***0.50***0.39***–
7. SDO2.32 (0.80)0.25***0.08*0.28***0.11***−0.11***0.09**–

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Regression analyses

Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs

To investigate the effects of meat-eaters narcissism (when controlled for meat-eaters identification) on veg*ns conspiracy beliefs while controlling for national narcissism, national identification, RWA, and SDO, we computed a linear regression analysis (Table 2). We found significant positive effects of meat-eaters narcissism (but not meat-eaters identification), even after controlling for additional variables in Step 2. Although not a main focus of our analysis, we observed significant positive effect of national narcissism, and significant negative effect of national identification on veg*ns conspiracy beliefs.

Table 2. Predictors of veg*ns conspiracy beliefs (Study 1).

VariableB95% CIpSE BβRAdj2F
LLUL
Step 10.27F(2, 1, 008) = 185.40***
Meat-eaters narcissism0.560.490.63< 0.0010.040.49
Meat-eaters identification0.06−0.020.130.120.040.05
Step 20.35F(6, 1, 004) = 92.99***
Meat-eaters narcissism0.360.290.44< 0.0010.040.32
Meat-eaters identification0.04−0.030.120.240.040.04
National narcissism0.190.120.27< 0.0010.040.18
National identification−0.16−0.24−0.09< 0.0010.04−0.13
RWA0.280.200.36< 0.0010.040.21
SDO0.200.120.27< 0.0010.040.14

***p < 0.001.

Study 2

Study 1 showed that meat-eaters (collective) narcissism (but not meat-eaters identification per se) was positively related to veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, we employed an experimental design to test whether meat-eaters narcissism may affect veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. In two conditions, participants were asked to read fabricated articles about meat consumption. The manipulation was designed to strengthen meat-eaters collective narcissism by highlighting both the exceptional value of the dietary ingroup and its perceived lack of external recognition. This allowed us to test the effects of meat-eaters narcissism on veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. We expected that boosting meat-eaters narcissism would result in an increase in veg*ns conspiracy beliefs.

Method

Participants and procedure

Data for Study 2 was collected by an external research company, IQS. Participants received compensation in accordance with the research company's standard incentive policy. Data was obtained through an online survey conducted on a nationwide probability random-quota sample of Poles. The quotas on gender, age, and settlement size, were based on how the population of Poland is represented among the nation's internet users. Because we were interested in examining meat-eaters collective narcissism, we excluded from the analyses anyone who reported their dietary preferences as veg*n (n = 30), as well as those who failed the attention check by answering the question about the manipulation text incorrectly (n = 335).5 The final sample included 800 participants (423 women, 377 men). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 81 (Mage = 49.42, SDage = 16.23).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: meat-eaters narcissism boosting (n = 400) or control (n = 400). In the meat-eaters narcissism boosting condition, the participants read a fabricated article presenting meat consumption as a natural and socially important aspect of human life. The article emphasized that eating meat contributes to building social bonds, is part of long-standing cultural traditions, and is unfairly criticized in contemporary public debate. It also suggested that meat-eaters are increasingly being portrayed in a negative way, despite representing behaviors described as normal, healthy, and universal historically. The control condition article described how eating habits are highly diverse and influenced by many different factors and emphasized that meals serve various social and practical functions. Although control condition addressed eating practices and their social functions, it did not contain identity-boosting elements or references to threats toward meat-eaters as a group. Both manipulation and control texts are available at the OSF. After reading the article, participants were asked to fill out measures of meat-eaters (collective) narcissism and meat-eaters identification. The order of scale presentation was counterbalanced across the participants. Finally, we measured veg*ns conspiracy beliefs.

Measures

Meat-eaters (collective) narcissism (M = 2.83, SD = 0.96, Cronbach's α = 0.85), meat-eaters identification (M = 3.58, SD = 0.99 Cronbach's α = 0.84), and veg*ns conspiracy beliefs (M = 2.58, SD = 1.06, Cronbach's α = 0.94) were measured using the same scales as in Study 1.

Results

Manipulation check and effects

First, a one-way ANCOVA was conducted to compare the effects of experimental condition on meat-eaters narcissism whilst controlling for meat-eaters identification. We found that participants in the meat-eaters narcissism boosting condition reported higher levels of meat-eaters narcissism (M = 3.04, SD = 0.99) than participants in the control condition (M = 2.62, SD = 0.88), F(1, 797) = 11.53, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.01.

Second, we conducted an independent-samples t-test to check for the effects of meat-eaters narcissism boosting (vs. control) condition on veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. Results indicated that participants in the meat-eaters narcissism boosting condition (M = 2.77, SD = 1.06) reported significantly higher levels of veg*ns conspiracy beliefs than participants in the control condition (M = 2.38, SD = 1.03), t(798) = −5.30, p < 0.001, d = −0.38, 95% CI [−0.52, −0.24] (Figure 1).

Mean veg*ns conspiracy beliefs for participants in the meat-eaters boosting narcissism and control conditions (Study 2). Error bars represent standard errors.
Figure 1. Mean veg*ns conspiracy beliefs for participants in the meat-eaters boosting narcissism and control conditions (Study 2). Error bars represent standard errors.

Study 3

Study 2 showed that experimentally boosted meat-eaters narcissism increased conspiracy beliefs about veg*ns. In Study 3, we aimed to extend these findings by examining whether such conspiracy beliefs are associated with a more severe intergroup outcome–blatant dehumanization of veg*ns. Specifically, we examined whether meat-eaters (collective) narcissism would be associated with blatant dehumanization of veg*ns, and whether this relationship would be partially accounted for by veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. As in Study 1, we also controlled for meat-eaters identification, national narcissism, national identification, RWA, and SDO. Additionally, we controlled for general conspiracy beliefs (Brotherton et al., 2013) to examine the unique effect of veg*ns conspiracy beliefs on the dehumanization of veg*ns over and above a general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories.

Method

Participants and procedure

Data for Study 3 was collected by the same external research company as in Study 1. Participants received compensation in accordance with the research company's standard incentive policy. Data was obtained through an online survey conducted on a nationwide probability random-quota sample of Poles. The quotas on gender, age, and settlement size, were based on how the population of Poland is represented among the nation's internet users. Because we were interested in examining meat-eaters collective narcissism, we excluded from the analyses anyone who reported their dietary preferences as veg*n (n = 16). The final sample included 569 participants (279 women, 290 men). The age of participants ranged from 21 to 86 (Mage = 55.71, SDage = 14.84). Participants filled out (in that order) measures of meat-eaters narcissism and meat-eaters identification, veg*ns conspiracy beliefs, and dehumanization of veg*ns. Besides the variables reported here, the survey also involved a set of individual differences variables included for the purposes of different projects (a full list of measured constructs can be found in the OSF).

Measures

The following measures were measured as in Study 1: meat-eaters (collective) narcissism (Cronbach's α = 0.88), meat-eaters identification (Cronbach's α = 0.79), veg*ns conspiracy beliefs (Cronbach's α = 0.96), national narcissism (Cronbach's α = 0.93), national identification (Cronbach's α = 0.91), right-wing authoritarianism (Cronbach's α = 0.89), and social dominance orientation (Cronbach's α = 0.76).

Dehumanization of veg*ns

To measure blatant dehumanization, we used the Ascent of Man measure, operationalized as the explicit perception of a target group as less than fully human (Kteily et al., 2015). Previous research has demonstrated its validity as a measure of overt dehumanizing attitudes. At the same time, this measure has limitations, as the visual representation of evolution on which it is based reflects a simplified and scientifically inaccurate depiction of evolutionary change as a linear progression (Bowler, 2003). Therefore, we interpret this measure as assessing an explicit form of perceived outgroup dehumanization. Participants were presented with a picture depicting five phases of evolutionary progress from ape to human, accompanied by a 9-point scale, where 1 meant the least and 9 to the most developed stage of evolution. Participants were asked to report how evolved they consider different groups of people, including veg*ns to be. Responses were then recoded, so the higher result indicated higher dehumanization of veg*ns.

General conspiracy beliefs

We used five-item version of Generic Conspiracist Beliefs scale (GCB; Brotherton et al., 2013), using statements such as “The power held by heads of state is second to that of small unknown groups who really control world politics.” Participants were asked to respond on the scale from 1 = definitely not true, 5 = definitely true, Cronbach's α = 0.89.

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations

Correlations between continuous variables are presented in Table 3. Meat-eaters narcissism was positively related to veg*ns conspiracy beliefs and dehumanization of veg*ns. Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs were positively linked to dehumanization of veg*ns.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations (Study 3).

MeasureM (SD)1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
1. Meat-eaters narcissism2.44 (0.98)–
2. Meat-eaters identification3.61 (0.91)0.47**–
3. Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs2.33 (1.12)0.64**0.29**–
4. Dehumanization of veg*ns3.04 (2.18)0.44**0.20**0.43**–
5. National narcissism2.89 (1.13)0.58**0.31**0.44**0.23**–
6. National identification3.80 (0.77)0.09*0.29**0.04−0.050.47**–
7. RWA3.40 (0.93)0.35**0.30**0.33**0.12**0.59**0.42**–
8. SDO2.23 (0.83)0.22**−0.0020.25**0.23**0.16**−0.13**0.13**–
9. General conspiracy beliefs2.65 (1.09)0.43**0.23**0.61**0.24**0.37**−0.020.29**0.23**–

*p < 0.01. **p < 0.001.

Regression analyses

Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs

To investigate the effects of meat-eaters narcissism (when controlled for meat-eaters identification) on veg*ns conspiracy beliefs while accounting for the effects of national narcissism, national identification, RWA, and SDO, we computed a linear regression analysis (Table 4). We found significant positive effects of meat-eaters narcissism (but not meat-eaters identification) on veg*ns conspiracy beliefs, even after controlling for additional variables in Step 2. Although not a main focus of our analysis, we observed significant negative effect of national identification on veg*ns conspiracy beliefs.

Table 4. Predictors of veg*ns conspiracy beliefs (Study 3).

VariableB95% CIpSE BβRAdj2F
LLUL
Step 10.41F(2, 566) = 200.45***
Meat-eaters narcissism0.740.660.83< 0.0010.040.65
Meat-eaters identification−0.02−0.100.070.720.05−0.01
Step 20.44F(4, 562) = 74.89***
Meat-eaters narcissism0.620.520.72< 0.0010.050.54
Meat-eaters identification0.003−0.090.090.950.050.002
National narcissism0.08−0.010.180.090.050.08
National identification−0.13−0.25−0.020.020.06−0.09
RWA0.150.050.240.0030.050.12
SDO0.120.030.210.010.050.09

***p < 0.001.

Dehumanization of veg*ns

Next, we computed a multiple regression analysis to investigate the effects of meat-eaters narcissism (when controlled for meat-eaters identification) and veg*ns conspiracy beliefs on dehumanization of veg*ns while controlling for national narcissism, national identification, RWA, SDO, and general conspiracy beliefs (Table 5). We found a positive effect of meat-eaters narcissism (but not meat-eaters identification) on dehumanization of veg*ns. After introducing veg*ns conspiracy beliefs in Step 2, we found its positive effect on dehumanization of veg*ns. These associations proved to be consistent even after controlling for additional variables in Step 3.

Table 5. Predictors of dehumanization of veg*ns (Study 3).

VariableB95% CIpSE BβRAdj2F
LLUL
Step 10.41F(2, 566) = 67.66***
Meat-eaters narcissism0.980.791.17< 0.0010.100.44
Meat-eaters identification−0.03−0.200.200.980.10−0.001
Step 20.44F(3, 565) = 56.24***
Meat-eaters narcissism0.620.390.84< 0.0010.120.28
Meat-eaters identification0.01−0.190.200.960.100.002
Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs0.490.310.67< 0.0010.090.25
Step 3F(8, 560) = 23.66***
Meat-eaters narcissism0.590.330.85< 0.0010.130.27
Meat-eaters identification0.11−0.090.320.280.110.05
Veg*ns conspiracy beliefs0.540.330.75< 0.0010.110.28
National narcissism−0.01−0.220.220.970.11−0.002
National identification−0.17−0.440.090.200.13−0.06
RWA−0.10−0.310.120.380.11−0.04
SDO0.310.110.510.0030.100.12
Generic conspiracy beliefs−0.14−0.330.050.140.10−0.07

***p < 0.001.

To perform a full test of our hypothesis, we also checked indirect effect of meat-eaters narcissism (when controlled for meat-eaters identification, national narcissism, national identification, RWA, SDO, and general conspiracy beliefs) on dehumanization of veg*ns via veg*ns conspiracy beliefs using Model 4 of PROCESS 4.1 (Hayes, 2022) with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Figure 2). Mediation analysis showed significant indirect effect of meat-eaters narcissism, IE = −0.28, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.16, 0.41] on dehumanization of veg*ns via veg*ns conspiracy beliefs.

The effects of meat-eaters narcissism, meat-eaters identification, and veg*ns conspiracy beliefs on dehumanization of veg*ns (Study 3). ***p* < 0.001. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
Figure 2. The effects of meat-eaters narcissism, meat-eaters identification, and vegns conspiracy beliefs on dehumanization of vegns (Study 3). **p < 0.001. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.

Study 3 showed that meat-eaters narcissism (but not meat-eaters identification) was linked to dehumanization of veg*ns, and that this relationship was partially accounted for by veg*ns conspiracy beliefs.

General discussion

Across a series of three studies (two cross-sectional and one experimental), we examined the relationship between meat-eaters narcissism and veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. Specifically, we focused on beliefs that veg*ns constitute an ideological movement that secretly seeks to impose a single dietary worldview and threaten the values, traditions, and way of life associated with meat consumption. We also investigated how these convictions may, in turn, correspond to the dehumanization of veg*ns. Theoretically, the studies build upon previous findings concerning the link between collective narcissism and conspiracy beliefs (e.g., Cichocka et al., 2015; Golec de Zavala et al., 2022; Marchlewska et al., 2019).

We found consistent evidence that meat-eaters narcissism was positively related to veg*n conspiracy beliefs in all studies (S1–S3), and even when controlling for Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) in Study 1 and Study 3. This indicates that veg*ns conspiracy beliefs may have group-identity-based underpinnings, particularly connected to a defensive connection to meat-eaters as an ingroup. Although previous research has shown that collective narcissism predicts conspiracy beliefs in areas such as COVID-19 (Hughes and Machan, 2021), gender equality (Marchlewska et al., 2019), and climate change (Bertin et al., 2021), our studies extend this pattern to veg*nism—a domain not previously examined in this context. Observed rise in the popularity of veg*nism might feel threatened to those who, on one hand, perceive their ingroup (meat-eaters) as a unique group with great achievements, and on the other, feel that this group is not recognized enough by others. In this perspective, growing availability of veg*n products might be perceived not as a consumer trend or the reflection of changing consumer values but rather as a sinister plan of a group that is willing to threaten meat-eaters position. In this context, treating veg*nism as a conspiracy may serve as a defensive strategy by framing the growing popularity of veg*nism and the declining centrality of meat-related practices as the result of a hostile outgroup's deliberate actions rather than broader social and cultural change. At the same time, conspiracy beliefs may serve a mobilizing function by legitimizing resistance toward veg*ns and efforts to protect the ingroup's social position. This response may, in turn, foster negative perceptions of veg*ns.

Indeed, Study 3 demonstrated that veg*ns conspiracy beliefs–reflecting suspicions that veg*ns are hostile and secretly manipulative may account for the relationship between meat-eaters narcissism and dehumanization of veg*ns. Conspiracy beliefs have a number of negative consequences at the level of intergroup relations, for example, increased prejudice toward outgroups, and not only those involved in the conspiracy theory itself (Jolley et al., 2020). In the present research, veg*ns conspiracy beliefs may have facilitated the dehumanization of veg*ns by framing them as a powerful and malevolent group working against meat-eaters and their way of life. Thus, although conspiracy beliefs can be adopted as a way of coping with uncertainty (Lamberty et al., 2018) or stress (Marchlewska et al., 2022b), our study shows that it might lead to the devaluation of an outgroup. Because veg*ns are often perceived as challenging established dietary norms and traditions, their dehumanization may reinforce resistance to social change and deepen antagonism between groups holding different lifestyle values. This raises an important question: how can social change be promoted without triggering perceptions of intergroup threat that foster conspiracy beliefs and hostility toward those associated with change?

Interestingly, both in Study 1 and Study 3 we observed negative relation between traditional form of national identification and veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. This association might suggest that non-narcissistic forms of group identity play a potential protective role in the conspiratorial interpretations of outgroup intentions. This is in line with previous research linking non-narcissistic national identity to greater tolerance and more positive attitudes toward outgroups (e.g., Marchlewska et al., 2020; Rogoza et al., 2025). Individuals who feel securely attached to broader and more inclusive social identities may be less likely to perceive social change as threatening and, consequently, less inclined to attribute hostile intentions to groups associated with such change. As a result, higher-order, non-narcissistic identification may reduce conspiracy-based explanations of the growing popularity of veg*nism. Superordinate identity has shown a potential for reducing intergroup threat (Riek et al., 2010), thus it would be interesting to see if making a shared identity (e.g., national) salient would decrease conspiracy beliefs, and consequently, outgroup hostility. Future research is needed to determine whether this is indeed the case.

In our study we controlled for RWA and SDO, and observe their positive relation to veg*ns conspiracy beliefs. Both RWA and SDO have previously been linked to belief in conspiracies (e.g., Imhoff and Bruder, 2014), but not always in the same way or with respect to all conspiracies. Individuals with high levels of RWA tend to believe in conspiracies involving groups that threaten the current social order (Wood and Gray, 2019), while those with high levels of SDO tend to believe in conspiracies involving minorities that could threaten the hierarchy, and consequently, they are more likely to be willing to use violence against these groups (Schrader et al., 2025). The conspiracy theories examined suggested that veg*ns want to take control of the food system, engage in indoctrination, and attempt to subjugate society to a single ideology—a narrative that might be perceived as a threat to the traditional way of life, mainstream norms, and an attempt to alter the existing hierarchy. According to this narrative, veg*ns can be perceived as a group that both challenges tradition and social norms (which is important to people with high RWA) and challenges meat-eating as an element of the status quo or human domination over animals (which is important to people with high SDO). The relationship between RWA and SDO and negative attitudes toward veg*ns has been observed previously (Judge and Wilson, 2019). Our findings suggest that veg*ns conspiracy beliefs may represent one mechanism through which these ideological orientations translate into hostility toward veg*ns. Future research could examine whether conspiracy beliefs mediate the relationship between RWA and SDO and various forms of anti-veg*n attitudes.

Although the observed results were consistent between studies, all of them were conducted in Poland, a society where meat consumption remains dominant. Future research should investigate whether these associations generalize across cultural contexts with different levels of meat consumption or different attitudes toward plant-based diets. Future research would also do well to examine whether similar psychological mechanisms operate among veg*ns themselves. Specifically, it would be worthwhile to investigate whether collective narcissism among veg*ns predicts conspiracy beliefs about meat-eaters and whether such beliefs, in turn, contribute to negative attitudes toward meat-eaters. Such research could help determine whether the observed effects reflect a broader psychological process linking defensive ingroup identification to conspiracy beliefs and intergroup hostility, regardless of the group's relative social position. Additionally, future research could examine whether the effects of meat-eaters collective narcissism depend on contextual factors that increase dietary identity salience. For example, direct encounters with veg*ns or discussions involving moral aspects of food choices may heighten perceived identity threat and activate defensive responses among individuals high in collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala et al., 2013a,b; Cichocka, 2016). An interesting extension for future research would be to examine whether masculinity threat contributes to or amplifies the effects of meat-eaters collective narcissism, particularly given that contemporary anti-veg*n conspiracy narratives frequently frame plant-based diets as undermining traditional masculinity (Ruby and Heine, 2011; Rothgerber, 2013; Feola, 2026).

Although Study 2 employed experimental design, most research on the relationship between collective narcissism and conspiracy beliefs is cross-sectional, which limits causal inference regarding the direction of effects. In particular, the mediation model tested in Study 3 should be interpreted as a test of theoretically derived model based on the previous research linking collective narcissism with conspiracy beliefs and outgroup hostility (e.g., Cichocka et al., 2016; Golec de Zavala et al., 2019), rather than as evidence of causal mediation. Although our model assumes that veg*ns conspiracy beliefs account for the association between collective narcissism and outgroup dehumanization, alternative explanations are possible, such as conspiracy beliefs and dehumanization representing correlated outcomes of collective narcissism. Future studies should employ experimental and longitudinal methods to confirm the causal pathways assumed in the model, particularly regarding the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and outgroup dehumanization. There are also reports of interventions that effectively reduce conspiracy beliefs, for example, by strengthening analytical thinking (O'Mahony et al., 2025). It would be worthwhile to test experimentally whether reducing conspiracy beliefs prevents the threat posed by veg*nism from translating into such beliefs and, in turn, into dehumanization of veg*ns.

A limitation of the Study 2 is the high proportion of participants who failed the attention check and were therefore excluded from the analyses. Although the attention check was designed to directly assess whether participants had read the experimental materials, the substantial exclusion rate may reflect broader challenges associated with online CAWI data collection, where participants are often less engaged and more likely to respond inattentively. Similar rates of exclusion due to failed attention checks have also been reported in other online studies (e.g., Molenda et al., 2026), suggesting that this issue is not unique to the present research. Future studies could address this limitation by employing interviewer-administered data collection methods (e.g., CAPI) or other procedures that allow for greater control over participant engagement and attention during the study.

Overall, the present research demonstrates that collective narcissism rooted in seemingly mundane dietary practices may foster conspiracy beliefs and hostility toward outgroups. These findings suggest that collective narcissism can shape responses to social change even in domains that might initially appear apolitical. More broadly, they illustrate how ordinary practices can become increasingly politicized and transformed into symbols of intergroup hostility. In fact, history offers numerous examples of food-related practices becoming symbols of larger social conflicts, from religious dietary prohibitions to political disputes over food production and consumption. The present findings suggest that when food becomes a marker of group identity, disagreements over what people eat may extend far beyond personal preferences and become a source of conspiracy thinking and intergroup hostility.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsps.2026.1899432/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Conor O'Dea, Butler University, United States

Reviewed by: Roland Mayrhofer, University of Regensburg, Germany

Ben De Groeve, Independent Researcher, Ghent, Belgium

George Schreer, Manhattanville College, United States

Footnotes

The terms “veg*n” and “veg*nism” are used in the text to refer to both vegans and vegetarians. If a distinction between those two groups is necessary, the specific term “vegan” or “vegetarian” is used.

Adamczyk, D., Karakula, A., Cichocka, A., Molenda, Z., and Marchlewska, M. (2026). When the modest mask slips: vulnerable narcissism, male collective narcissism, and hostile sexism towards women. (Manuscript submitted for publication).

The full list of study variables, together with their reliability coefficients and the corresponding items, is provided in the Supplementary Materials.

For the factor analysis and inter-item correlations, see the Supplementary materials.

The attention check consisted of a multiple-choice question with four response options, of which only one was correct in each condition. In the experimental condition, the correct response referred to meat consumption as a natural and important part of human life, whereas in the control condition it referred to food choices being shaped by various factors and preferences. Participants who selected an incorrect response were excluded from further analyses.

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the National Science Centre under PRELUDIUM grant (2024/53/N/HS6/01867) and SONATA BIS grant (2023/50/E/HS6/00409). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.

Data availability

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary material.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Poland (approval number: 15/0804/2025) and Research Ethics Committee of Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences (approval number: 36/X/2024). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

DA: Formal analysis, Data curation, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. NK: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MM: Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision.

References

  1. Adamczyk D., Nezlek J. B., Maison D. (2024). Dating a vegetarian? Perception of masculinity, attractiveness, and the willingness to date vegetarians. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19: e14457. doi: doi:10.32872/spb.14457
  2. Altemeyer B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press.
  3. Altemeyer B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 30, 47 – 91. doi: doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
  4. Bagci S. C., Rosenfeld D. L., Uslu D. (2022). Intergroup attitudes between meat-eaters and meat-avoiders: the role of dietary ingroup identification. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 1223 – 1247. doi: doi:10.1177/13684302211012768
  5. Bertin P., Nera K., Hamer K., Uhl-Haedicke I., Delouvée S. (2021). Stand out of my sunlight: the mediating role of climate change conspiracy beliefs in the relationship between national collective narcissism and acceptance of climate science. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 24, 738 – 758. doi: doi:10.1177/1368430221992114
  6. Bilewicz M., Soral W., Marchlewska M., Winiewski M. (2017). When authoritarians confront prejudice. Differential effects of SDO and RWA on support for hate-speech prohibition. Polit. Psychol. 38, 87 – 99. doi: doi:10.1111/pops.12313
  7. Bowler P. J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, 3rd Edn. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. doi: doi:10.1525/9780520929784
  8. Branscombe N. R., Ellemers N., Spears R., Doosje B. (1999). “The context and content of social identity threat,” in Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content, eds. N. Ellemers, R. Spears, and B. Doosje (Malden, MA: Blackwell), 35 – 58.
  9. Brotherton R., French C. C., Pickering A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: the generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Front. Psychol. 4: 279. doi: doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279
  10. Cameron J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self Identity 3, 239 – 262. doi: doi:10.1080/13576500444000047
  11. Carlson T. (Executive Producer). (2022). Tucker Carlson originals: the end of men [TV series episode]. Fox Nation.
  12. Changing Markets Foundation (2023). Truth, Lies and Culture Wars – Social Listening Analysis of Meat and Dairy Persuasion Narratives. Changing Markets Foundation. Available online at: (Accessed May 10, 2026).
  13. Cichocka A. (2016). Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: the role of collective narcissism. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 27, 283 – 317. doi: doi:10.1080/10463283.2016.1252530
  14. Cichocka A., Cislak A. (2020). Nationalism as collective narcissism. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 69 – 74. doi: doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.12.013
  15. Cichocka A., Golec de Zavala A. G., Marchlewska M., Bilewicz M., Jaworska M., Olechowski M. (2018). Personal control decreases narcissistic but increases non-narcissistic in-group positivity. J. Personal. 86, 465 – 480. doi: doi:10.1111/jopy.12328
  16. Cichocka A., Golec de Zavala A. G., Marchlewska M., Olechowski M. (2015). “Grandiose delusions: collective narcissism, secure in-group identification, and belief in conspiracies,” in The Psychology of Conspiracy, eds. M. Bilewicz, A. Cichocka, and W. Soral (London: Routledge), 42 – 61.
  17. Cichocka A., Marchlewska M., Golec de Zavala A. G. (2016). Does self-love or self-hate predict conspiracy beliefs? Narcissism, self-esteem, and the endorsement of conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7, 157 – 166. doi: doi:10.1177/1948550615616170
  18. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum.
  19. Cole M., Morgan K. (2011). Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers. Br. J. Sociol. 62, 134 – 153. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01348.x
  20. Curtain F., Grafenauer S. (2019). Plant-based meat substitutes in the flexitarian age: an audit of products on supermarket shelves. Nutrients 11: 2603. doi: doi:10.3390/nu11112603
  21. De Groeve B., Hudders L., Bleys B. (2021). Moral rebels and dietary deviants: how moral minority stereotypes predict the social attractiveness of veg * ns. Appetite 164: 105284. doi: doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105284
  22. De Groeve B., Rosenfeld D. L., Bleys B., Hudders L. (2022). Moralistic stereotyping of vegans: the role of dietary motivation and advocacy status. Appetite 174: 106006. doi: doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106006
  23. Dhont K., Hodson G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption? Personal. Individ. Differ. 64, 12 – 17. doi: doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002
  24. Dietz T., Frisch A. S., Kalof L., Stern P. C., Guagnano G. A. (1995). Values and vegetarianism: an exploratory analysis. Rural Sociol. 60, 533 – 542. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1995.tb00589.x
  25. Douglas K. M., Sutton R. M., Cichocka A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 538 – 542. doi: doi:10.1177/0963721417718261
  26. Douglas K. M., Sutton R. M., Jolley D., Wood M. J. (2015). “The social, political, environmental, and health-related consequences of conspiracy theories: problems and potential solutions,” in The Psychology of Conspiracy, eds. M. Bilewicz, A. Cichocka, and W. Soral (London: Routledge), 183 – 200.
  27. Douglas K. M., Uscinski J. E., Sutton R. M., Cichocka A., Nefes T., Ang C. S.. (2019). Understanding conspiracy theories. Polit. Psychol. 40, 3 – 35. doi: doi:10.1111/pops.12568
  28. Feola M. (2026). Sun, steel, and raw eggs: the far-right politics of the male body. Theor. Event 29, 298 – 320. doi: doi:10.1353/tae.2026.a986562
  29. Fischler C. (1988). Food, self and identity. Soc. Sci. Inf. 27, 275 – 292. doi: doi:10.1177/053901888027002005
  30. Frenken M., Reusch A., Imhoff R. (2025). “Just because it'sa conspiracy theory doesn't mean they're not out to get you”: differentiating the correlates of judgments of plausible versus implausible conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 16, 684 – 696. doi: doi:10.1177/19485506241240506
  31. Funke F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Polit. Psychol. 26, 195 – 218. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x
  32. Goertzel T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Polit. Psychol. 15, 731 – 742. doi: doi:10.2307/3791630
  33. Golec de Zavala A., Cichocka A., Bilewicz M. (2013a). The paradox of in-group love: differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. J. Personal. 81, 16 – 28. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00779.x
  34. Golec de Zavala A., Cichocka A., Iskra-Golec I. (2013b). Collective narcissism moderates the effect of in-group image threat on intergroup hostility. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 104: 1019. doi: doi:10.1037/a0032215
  35. Golec de Zavala A., Dyduch-Hazar K., Lantos D. (2019). Collective narcissism: political consequences of investing self-worth in the ingroup's image. Polit. Psychol. 40, 37 – 74. doi: doi:10.1111/pops.12569
  36. Golec de Zavala A., Federico C.M. (2018). Collective narcissism and the growth of conspiracy thinking over the course of the 2016 United States presidential election: a longitudinal analysis. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 1011 – 1018. doi: doi:10.1002/ejsp.2496
  37. Golec de Zavala A., Lantos D. (2020). Collective narcissism and its social consequences: the bad and the ugly. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 29, 273 – 278. doi: doi:10.1177/0963721420917703
  38. Golec de Zavala A. G., Bierwiaczonek K., Ciesielski P. (2022). An interpretation of meta-analytical evidence for the link between collective narcissism and conspiracy theories. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 47: 101360. doi: doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101360
  39. Golec de Zavala A. G., Cichocka A., Eidelson R., Jayawickreme N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 97, 1074 – 1096. doi: doi:10.1037/a0016904
  40. Górska P., Stefaniak A., Lipowska K., Malinowska K., Skrodzka M. Marchlewska, M. (2022). Authoritarians go with the flow: social norms moderate the link between right-wing authoritarianism and outgroup-directed attitudes. Polit. Psychol. 43, 131 – 152. doi: doi:10.1111/pops.12744
  41. Górska P., Stefaniak A., Malinowska K., Lipowska K., Marchlewska M., Budziszewska M.. (2020). Too great to act in solidarity: the negative relationship between collective narcissism and solidarity-based collective action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 50, 561 – 578. doi: doi:10.1002/ejsp.2638
  42. Gregson R., Piazza J., Boyd R. L. (2022). ‘Against the cult of veganism': unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans. Appetite 178: 106143. doi: doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106143
  43. Hayes A. F. (2022). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  44. Hughes S., Machan L. (2021). It's a conspiracy: covid-19 conspiracies link to psychopathy, machiavellianism and collective narcissism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 171: 110559. doi: doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110559
  45. Imhoff R., Bruder M. (2014). Speaking (un–) truth to power: conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. Eur. J. Personal. 28, 25 – 43. doi: doi:10.1002/per.1930
  46. Jolley D., Meleady R., Douglas K. M. (2020). Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. Br. J. Psychol. 111, 17 – 35. doi: doi:10.1111/bjop.12385
  47. Joy M. (2010). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism: the Belief System that Enables Us to Eat Some Animals and Not Others. Nashville, TN: Conari Press.
  48. Judge M., Wilson M. S. (2019). A dual-process motivational model of attitudes towards vegetarians and vegans. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 169 – 178. doi: doi:10.1002/ejsp.2386
  49. Karakula A., Marchlewska M., Molenda Z., Rogoza M. (2026). Their sinister plans validate our greatness! Need for uniqueness mediates the link between national narcissism and conspiracy beliefs. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 29, 173 – 196. doi: doi:10.1177/13684302251391148
  50. Kossowska M., Bukowski M. (2015). “Motivated roots of conspiracies: the role of certainty and control motives in conspiracy thinking,” in The Psychology of Conspiracy, eds. M. Bilewicz, A. Cichocka, and W. Soral (London: Routledge), 145 – 161.
  51. Kteily N., Bruneau E., Waytz A., Cotterill S. (2015). The ascent of man: theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 109: 901. doi: doi:10.1037/pspp0000048
  52. Lamberty P. K., Hellmann J. H., Oeberst A. (2018). The winner knew it all? Conspiracy beliefs and hindsight perspective after the 2016 US general election. Personal. Individ. Differ. 123, 236 – 240. doi: doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.033
  53. Loughnan S., Bastian B., Haslam N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 104 – 108. doi: doi:10.1177/0963721414525781
  54. MacInnis C. C., Hodson G. (2017). It ain't easy eating greens: evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 721 – 744. doi: doi:10.1177/1368430215618253
  55. Marchlewska M., Adamczyk D. (2026). Choosing (pseudo) authorities in a non-local world: conspiracy beliefs as a response to epistemic dependence. Psychol. Inq. 37, 53 – 57. doi: doi:10.1080/1047840X.2026.2650217
  56. Marchlewska M., Cichocka A., Furman A. Cislak, A. (2022a). Who respects the will of the people? Support for democracy is linked to high secure national identity but low national narcissism. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 61, 599 – 621. doi: doi:10.1111/bjso.12499
  57. Marchlewska M., Cichocka A., Jaworska M., Golec de Zavala A., Bilewicz M. (2020). Superficial ingroup love? Collective narcissism predicts ingroup image defense, outgroup prejudice, and lower ingroup loyalty. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 59, 857 – 875. doi: doi:10.1111/bjso.12367
  58. Marchlewska M., Cichocka A., Kossowska M. (2018). Addicted to answers: need for cognitive closure and the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 109 – 117. doi: doi:10.1002/ejsp.2308
  59. Marchlewska M., Cichocka A., Łozowski F., Górska P., Winiewski M. (2019). In search of an imaginary enemy: catholic collective narcissism and the endorsement of gender conspiracy beliefs. J. Soc. Psychol. 159, 766 – 779. doi: doi:10.1080/00224545.2019.1586637
  60. Marchlewska M., Górska P., Green R., Szczepańska D., Rogoza M., Molenda Z.. (2024). From individual anxiety to collective narcissism? Adult attachment styles and different types of national commitment. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 50, 495 – 515. doi: doi:10.1177/01461672221139072
  61. Marchlewska M., Górska P., Molenda Z., Lipowska K., Malinowska K. (2023). The fear of confession? High Catholic collective narcissism and low secure identification with Catholics predict increased pedophilia myth acceptance. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 53, 354 – 366. doi: doi:10.1002/ejsp.2907
  62. Marchlewska M., Górska P., Podsiadłowski W., Rogoza M., Szczepańska D. (2025). So different yet so alike? Political collective narcissism predicts blatant dehumanization of political outgroups among conservatives and liberals. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 64: e12803. doi: doi:10.1111/bjso.12803
  63. Marchlewska M., Green R., Cichocka A., Molenda Z., Douglas K. M. (2022b). From bad to worse: avoidance coping with stress increases conspiracy beliefs. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 61, 532 – 549. doi: doi:10.1111/bjso.12494
  64. Marinthe G., Cislak A., Stronge S., Biddlestone M., Azevedo F., Kasper A.. (2025). Yes, we can (but for different reasons): collective narcissism is linked to different values but similar pro-ingroup collective action tendencies among disadvantaged and advantaged ethnic groups. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 64: e12790. doi: doi:10.1111/bjso.12790
  65. Mashuri A., Zaduqisti E. (2015). The effect of intergroup threat and social identity salience on the belief in conspiracy theories over terrorism in Indonesia: collective angst as a mediator. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 8, 24 – 35. doi: doi:10.21500/20112084.642
  66. Minson J. A., Monin B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3, 200 – 207. doi: doi:10.1177/1948550611415695
  67. Molenda Z., Green R., Marchlewska M., Cichocka A., Douglas K. M. (2023). Emotion dysregulation and belief in conspiracy theories. Personal Individ. Differ. 204: 112042. doi: doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.112042
  68. Molenda Z., Marchlewska M., Cislak A. (2025). Emotion (dys)regulation and national narcissism. Polit. Psychol. 47: e70073. doi: doi:10.1111/pops.70073
  69. Molenda Z., Marchlewska M., Michalski P., Rogoza M., Bagrowska P., Adamczyk D.. (2026). Habitus of doubt? The role of social class narcissism in shaping psychological help conspiracy beliefs. Br. J. Psychol. doi: [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1111/bjop.70071.
  70. Monteiro C. A., Cannon G., Levy R. B., Moubarac J. C., Louzada M. L., Rauber F.. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 22, 936 – 941. doi: doi:10.1017/S1368980018003762
  71. Nezlek J. B., Forestell C. A. (2019). Where the rubber meats the road: relationships between vegetarianism and socio-political attitudes and voting behavior. Ecol. Food Nutr. 58, 548 – 559. doi: doi:10.1080/03670244.2019.1641801
  72. Nezlek J. B., Forestell C. A. (2020). Vegetarianism as a social identity. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 33, 45 – 51. doi: doi:10.1016/j.cofs.2019.12.005
  73. O'Mahony C., Murphy M., Linehan C., Murphy G. (2025). The critical thinking about conspiracies (CTAC) test: development and validation. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 39: e70120. doi: doi:10.1002/acp.70120
  74. Piazza J., Hodson G., Oakley A. (2021). Butchers' and deli workers' psychological adaptation to meat. Emotion 21, 730–741. doi: doi:10.1037/emo0000738
  75. Piazza J., Ruby M. B., Loughnan S., Luong M., Kulik J., Watkins H. M.. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption: the 4Ns. Appetite 91, 114 – 128. doi: doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011
  76. Pratto F., Çidam A., Stewart A. L., Zeineddine F. B., Aranda M., Aiello A.. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries: contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 4, 587 – 599. doi: doi:10.1177/1948550612473663
  77. Preylo B. D., Arikawa H. (2008). Comparison of vegetarians and non-vegetarians on pet attitude and empathy. Anthrozoös 21, 387 – 395. doi: doi:10.2752/175303708X371654
  78. Randers L., Grønhøj A., Thøgersen J. (2021). Coping with multiple identities related to meat consumption. Psychol. Mark. 38, 159 – 182. doi: doi:10.1002/mar.21432
  79. Riek B. M., Mania E. W., Gaertner S. L., McDonald S. A., Lamoreaux M. J. (2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13, 403 – 423. doi: doi:10.1177/1368430209346701
  80. Rogoza R., Molenda Z., Rogoza M., Podsiadłowski W., Adamczyk D., Szczesna M.. (2025). Enhancing national identity reduces affective polarization and increases political tolerance. Soc. Psychol. 56, 140 – 150. doi: doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000582
  81. Rosenfeld D. L., Rothgerber H., Tomiyama A. J. (2024). When meat-eaters expect vegan food to taste bad: veganism as a symbolic threat. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 27, 453 – 468. doi: doi:10.1177/13684302231153788
  82. Rothgerber H. (2013). Real men don't eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol. Men Masc. 14, 363 – 375. doi: doi:10.1037/a0030379
  83. Ruby M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite 58, 141 – 150. doi: doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019
  84. Ruby M. B., Heine S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite 56, 447 – 450. doi: doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018
  85. Schrader T., Jolley D., Jolley R. P., Krahenbuhl S. (2025). Upholding social hierarchies: social dominance orientation moderates the link between (intergroup) conspiracy exposure and violent extremism. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 28, 277 – 299. doi: doi:10.1177/13684302241247985
  86. Stephan W. G., Stephan C. W. (2000). “An integrated threat theory of prejudice,” in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, ed. S. Oskamp (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 23 – 45.
  87. Van Prooijen J. W. (2019). An existential threat model of conspiracy theories. Eur. Psychol. 25, 16 – 25. doi: doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000381
  88. Wood M. J., Gray D. (2019). Right-wing authoritarianism as a predictor of pro-establishment versus anti-establishment conspiracy theories. Personal. Individ. Differ. 138, 163 -166. doi: doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.036

Citation

Adamczyk, D., et al. (2026). Another one bites the dust? Threatened meat-eater identity and veg * n conspiracy beliefs. Frontiers in Social Psychology, Volume 4. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
4 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Adamczyk, Korczak and Marchlewska.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Dominika Adamczyk

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchHow does belief in conspiracy theories affect loneliness and connectedness? A longitudinal investigationMatt N. Williams, John R. Kerr, Mathew D. Marques, Haneen Abu-Obeid, Stephen R. HillOriginal Research“They got what they deserved”: situational justification and schadenfreude toward an LGBTQIA+ organizationIvan Giuseppe Cammarata, Costanza Scaffidi Abbate, Martina Macrillò, Stefano BocaOriginal ResearchSignals and meaning-context articulations: role of emotions and their salience in the social representations of protective policies in 11 countriesPaulo Jorge Nogueira Ramos, Lisete dos Santos Mendes Mónico