Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction

Abstract

The Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction (DB scale), developed by Strässner and Hartmann in 2023, is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to quantify the perceived importance of beliefs held by consumers concerning the reduction of meat consumption. This assessment is particularly useful for understanding individuals across various stages of behavioral change.

The scale development was systematic, beginning with 42 initial items derived from a comprehensive literature review, which were subsequently refined by an expert panel. The refined measure was administered to a large sample of meat-eaters in Germany, spanning a wide age range (18 to 74 years). Factor analysis confirmed a robust structure consisting of 20 items distributed across five distinct dimensions. The original publication reported satisfactory evidence of the scale’s reliability and validity. It is important to note that a corrigendum was later published in Appetite (Volume 200, 1 September 2024, Pages 107545) to address issues related to data presented in Figure 4 and Table 6 of the initial article.

Keywords

Decisional Balance, Meat Reduction Beliefs, Behavior Change, Perceived Benefits of a Plant-Based Diet, Downsides of Factory Farming, Health Barriers, Legitimation Barriers, Feasibility Barriers, Meat Attachment, Ecological Welfare Concern, Psychometric Scale.

Authors

Strässner, Anna-Maria, Hartmann, Christina.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Decisional Balance (DB) scale is to systematically assess the varying beliefs, both perceived advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons), that consumers hold regarding a behavioral shift towards reduced meat consumption. The instrument is intended to capture the psychological conflict inherent in making dietary changes.

By evaluating the differential importance of these beliefs, the instrument helps researchers and practitioners identify specific motivational factors and perceived barriers that influence an individual’s readiness for dietary behavior change. This allows for targeted intervention strategies aimed at promoting sustainable eating habits.

Construct

The DB scale measures the psychological construct of Decisional Balance, which is a key component of the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of behavioral change. Within this context, Decisional Balance represents the relative weight an individual assigns to the perceived pros and cons of a specific behavior modification.

The construct is operationalized through a finalized 20-item structure organized into five first-order factors, which are grouped into two overarching second-order factors: “Pros” (Motivators for meat reduction) and “Cons” (Barriers to meat reduction). The factors include: Perceived benefits of a plant-based diet, Downsides of factory farming, Health barriers, Legitimation barriers, and Feasibility barriers.

Validity

The scale demonstrated strong evidence of validity across multiple statistical tests, confirming its ability to measure the intended construct.

Test Validity was established through correlation analysis. The “pros” dimension showed a significant negative correlation with constructs that maintain meat consumption, such as negative attitude towards vegetarian/vegan lifestyle (r = -0.54, p < .001) and meat attachment (r = -0.66, p < .001). Conversely, it exhibited a significant positive correlation with factors supporting reduction, including perceived behavioral control (r = 0.42, p < .001) and ecological welfare concern (r = 0.50, p < .001).

The Global Indicators further supported the scale’s predictive power, showing that the overall Decisional Balance index correlated significantly negatively with global attitude towards meat consumption (r = -0.64, p < .001) and current meat consumption frequency (r = -0.40, p < .001). Concurrent Validity was confirmed by demonstrating that the “pros” and “cons” dimensions explained additional variance in meat consumption frequency beyond what could be accounted for by global attitudes towards meat consumption, gender, and age. Lastly, Discriminant Validity was supported by the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) analysis, where the square root of the AVE for the “pros” dimension (AVE = 0.84) was greater than its correlation with the “cons” dimension (r = -0.64).

Reliability

The reliability of the DB scale was assessed primarily through internal consistency measures for all first-order factors.

The results indicated strong internal consistency, with all Cronbach’s alpha values meeting or exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.70. Specifically, the alpha coefficients were: Perceived benefits of a plant-based diet (α = 0.83), Downsides of factory farming (α = 0.79), Health barriers (α = 0.85), Legitimation barrier (α = 0.75), and Feasibility barriers (α = 0.70).

Factor Analysis

The scale’s underlying structure was established through a two-step process involving Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

The EFA confirmed the statistical assumptions for principal axis factoring (χ²(190) = 3056.863, p < .001; KMO = 0.897). During this phase, 22 items were removed due to poor performance (14 items due to communalities below 0.40 and 8 items due to cross-loadings). The remaining 20 items were finalized, yielding five first-order factors that could be summarized into two second-order factors, collectively explaining 68.7% of the total variance.

The CFA tested the hypothesized five-factor model with two higher-order factors and demonstrated a close model fit (χ²(142) = 345.942, p < .001). The fit indices were highly satisfactory, meeting recommended cutoff values: GFI = 0.948, CFI = 0.956, TLI = 0.947, NFI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.048, and SRMR = 0.047. The non-significant RMSEA (p = .178) further confirmed the close fit of the model to the data, according to established psychometric standards. Item DB14 was excluded from the final CFA model due to an extremely high modification index (MI = 61.82).

Instrument

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: The administration uses a tailored approach based on the participant’s current behavior. Participants first answer a filter question: ‘Have you reduced your meat consumption in the past?’ (Yes/No). The subsequent prompt for rating the 20 items is adjusted accordingly: either ‘How important is each of the following statements to you, regarding your decision to reduce your meat consumption?’ (for ‘yes’ responders) or ‘How important is each of the following statements to you, regarding your decision to potentially reduce your meat consumption?’ (for ‘no’ responders). All items are rated using a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 years & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 years); Thirties (30-39 years); Middle Age (40-64 years); Aged (65 years & older)

Population Details:

• Location: Germany

• Respondents: Consumers; Meat Eaters

Test Methodology: Test Validity, Concurrent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis

Keywords

Decisional Balance, Meat Reduction Beliefs, Psychometric Scale, Consumer Behavior, Dietary Change, Validation Study, Appetite.

Authors

Strässner, Anna-Maria

• Author ORCID Identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4557-3817

• Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

• Correspondence Address: Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Management and Law, Institute of Marketing Management, Theaterstr., 17, Winterthur, Switzerland, 8400

Hartmann, Christina

• Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

• Affiliation: ETH Zurich, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Consumer Behaviour

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale is available for use in research and teaching under a liberal Creative Commons license, making it accessible for academic study without financial cost.

• Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

• Commercial Use: No

• Fee: No

• Test Year: 2023

Reference’s

Strässner, A.-M., & Hartmann, C. (2023). Gradual behaviour change towards meat reduction: Development and validation of a novel decisional balance scale. Appetite, 186, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106537

A corrigendum was published regarding data presentation: Appetite, Volume 200, 1 September 2024, Pages 107545.

Items of the Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Number of Items: This measure includes 20 items.

Factors and Subscales:

• Perceived benefits of a plant-based diet

• Downsides of factory farming

• Health barriers

• Legitimation barriers

• Feasibility barriers

Test Items Availability: Yes, items are available.

Test Location: 2023-76244-001, Table 3, Page 7

Administration Method: Electronic

---

Pros: Motivators for meat reduction

Factor 1: Perceived benefits of a plant-based diet
DB1. A plant-based diet offers me a great variety of foods.
DB2. I often find vegetarian dishes simple and easy to cook.
DB3. I discover new flavours when I cut down on meat.
DB4. The availability of meatless dishes and foods is growing and getting more diverse.
DB5. A plant-based diet helps me to stay physically fit.
DB6. The production of plant-based foods is less resource intensive than the production of animal-based foods.

Factor 2: Downsides of factory farming
DB7. Industrial livestock production has significant negative impacts on the environment.
DB8. Meat from factory farming contains antibiotics that are harmful to people’s health.
DB9. All farm animals raised for meat production experience fear and suffering.
DB10. Reducing meat consumption means avoiding animal suffering.

Cons: Barriers to meat reduction

Factor 3: Health barriers
DB11. Eating meat is necessary to be healthy.
DB12. Eating meat is essential for building strong muscles.
DB13. Without meat, the body lacks vital proteins, vitamins, and minerals.
DB14. Meat dishes are more filling than vegetarian or vegan dishes.

Factor 4: Legitimation barriers
DB15. Everyone has the right to eat meat.
DB16. Eating meat is part of my culture.
DB17. Meat is delicious.

Factor 5: Feasibility barriers
DB18. I don’t know how to replace meat in my diet.
DB19. I lack the skills to prepare meatless meals.
DB20. A diet with very little meat would be inconvenient for me because I would have to change my diet a lot.

Note. Participants indicate their response to each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important).