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

TL;DR

This study adapts and validates psychological scales to measure meat-eating justifications in Turkey, helping understand the cultural and psychological factors behind meat consumption.

Contribution

The study adapts and validates the 4Ns and MEJ scales for Turkish culture, improving their structure and reliability.

Findings

The 4Ns scale showed a four-factor structure with strong reliability and validity in Turkish.

The MEJ scale had an eight-factor structure with good fit and reliability after adaptation.

Strong associations between meat-eating justifications and variables like social dominance orientation were replicated in the Turkish context.

Abstract

People often avoid and try to stay ignorant of the negative aspects of meat production and consumption. When asked, people justify their meat consumption by emphasizing the necessity of meat for health, its desirable 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. (Appetite 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.

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.

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 solution, 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).

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the meat-eating justification scales enable a better theoretical 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 cultural context. This understanding is essential for prevention and intervention efforts to reduce meat consumption.