Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Veg*ns of color continue to be underrepresented with their health less understood in veg*n scholarship. As intersectionality and health outcomes remain an understudied focus in anti-veg*n scholarship, the concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) framework offers a way to identify the link between stigmatization and health outcomes for VOC. Using the CSI framework, the paper provides a review of multilevel manifestations of anti-veg*n stigmatization in previous and current veg*n scholarship. The paper offers future directions for researchers to examine stigmatization and its impact on VOC. Recommendations are provided to generate knowledge about the experiences and health of VOC.

Keywords

stigma intersectionality veg*ns food choice concealable stigmatized identity

To date, vegetarians and vegans of color (VOC) remain underrepresented in veg*n scholarship. Despite veg*n identification growing in communities of color and the documented presence of anti-veg*n bias rooted in the devaluation of nonhuman animals, little is known about the experience with and impact of anti-veg*n stigma on VOC, as related studies do not center them or consider the interconnected effect between racism and speciesism (Harper, 2012; Horta, 2018; Joy, 2009; McCarthy & Dekoster, 2020). Intersectionality acknowledges the interconnected axes of power that expose those with multiple marginalized identities to unique tensions that are individual, interpersonal, and structural in nature (Crenshaw, 1989; Overstreet et al., 2020). The concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) framework positions external and internal processes as instrumental in health consequences for individuals with socially devalued and hidden identities (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009; Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013). This is especially the case for those with multiple stigmatized identities (Else-Quest et al., 2023; Rosenthal, 2016). As power and domination undergird stigmatization, the intersectional examination of VOC within the CSI framework is cogent. The purpose of this paper, which is grounded in an intersectional lens of the CSI framework, is to articulate how research on anti-veg*n stigmatization can progress beyond the unidimensional analysis of systemic oppression. Specifically, I aim to clarify how interconnected social dynamics shape identities and invoke stigmatization for veg*ns in racially marginalized communities.

The Psychological Well-Being of Veg*ns

Although the mental health of veg*ns has received extensive attention, scholars have predominantly focused on nutrition and consumption practices. Studies have documented mixed findings on whether veg*nism is associated either with the presence or absence (Beezhold et al., 2014; Forestell & Nezlek, 2018; Heiss, et al., 2017; Matta et al., 2018; Rosenfeld, 2018; Ruby, 2012) of psychological distress. Scholars note varied factors such as nutritional deficiencies as causes of psychological distress among veg*ns (Dobersek et al., 2021; Michalak et al., 2012). However, veg*ns generally report positive mental health outcomes. For example, despite reporting higher negative affect, veg*ns had ratings of life and health satisfaction that were comparable to those of non-veg*ns (Pfeiler & Egloff, 2020). Other studies indicate that sociopolitical contexts around veg*n identity have implications for their well-being (Nezlek & Forestell, 2020; Vestergren & Uysal, 2022). For example, one study found that veg*n participants reported a higher number of negative social experiences (e.g., conflict with a person close to them), more negative moods, and lower self-esteem than non-veg*n participants experienced (Nezlek et al., 2018).

Anti-Vegn Stigma as Understudied in the Psychological Well-Being of Vegns

Stigmatization encompasses the pervasive devaluation of an identity rooted in the institutionalization of dominant beliefs, including unaffirming cultural messages, interpersonal discrimination, and internalization of negative beliefs and messages about the identity (Bos et al., 2013; Goffman, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001). Previous and recent studies on the subject document similar devaluation of veg*ns. Veg*ns have faced historical persecution for their practice. For instance, the Catholic Church declared veg*ns heretics, who were consequently persecuted during the Inquisition (for review, see Kellman, 2000). In one recollection, a band of pilgrims escaped religious persecution from Britain to practice veg*nism (Iacobbo & Iacobbo, 2004). Despite increasing interest in veg*nism to address concerns about meat consumption, anti-veg*n sentiment continues, particularly toward vegans (Dhont & Stoeber, 2020; Earle & Hodson, 2017; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017; Nachiappan, 2020). As an example, anti-vegan stigma is so pervasive that it operates as a barrier to plant-based consumption among non-veg*ns (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017; Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019). Stigmatization has been linked to adverse health outcomes for those who wield (in)visible marginalized identities (Bos et al., 2013; Pryor & Reeder, 2011). Therefore, such impact of anti-veg*n stigmatization remains understudied.

Intersectionality as Understudied in Anti-Veg*n Stigmatization

The conception of intersectionality emerged from Black feminist challenges to single identity issues (Hancock, 2016). It contends for the interconnected influence of racism, classism, and sexism in the daily lives of Black women (Combahee River Collective, 2017; Cooper, 1988). Intersectionality, as a framework, uncovers the nuances of experiences shaped by interlocking axes of power and, consequently, matrices of domination, or it reveals a representation of oppression that sustains inequality (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1989). Intersectional research uncovers the complex impact, such as invisibility, of power dynamics on multiple marginalized groups (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). One study documented greater feelings of invisibility, experiences of mistreatment, and stereotyping concerns among participants with two or more marginalized identities than among those with one or no marginalized identities (Remedios & Snyder, 2018). Relatedly, such invisibility limits access to education about and prevention of health conditions. For example, in one qualitative study, Black women with socioeconomic disadvantage described disregard for their concerns and feeling unheard by their medical providers (Okoro et al., 2022). As health prevention and intervention requires multidimensional approaches to address injustices, intersectional research is imperative (Else-Quest et al., 2023; Rosenthal, 2016).

While intersectionality scholarship primarily centers on human oppression, related scholarship contends for the enmeshment of human and nonhuman animal oppression (Roeder, 2021; Spiegel, 1996). For example, antiracist scholarship indicates the intersection of racism and speciesism, wherein systemic oppression faced by racially marginalized communities was historically and contemporarily enacted through nonhuman animal (ab)use (Ko & Ko, 2017; McJetters, 2018), environmental injustices (e.g., animal agricultural factories located near communities of color), and systemic animalization of people of color (POC; Kim, 2011; Ko, 2019; Nicole, 2013). Thus, intersectionality is a cogent lens to examine how anti-veg*n stigmatization manifests with interlocking structural forces that shape nonhuman and human oppression.

Anti-veg*n stigmatization is multisystemic, impacting both veg*ns and non-veg*ns (Brueck, 2017). For example, structural impediment limits access to veg*n practice. Specifically, legislative policies enforce participation in nonhuman animal (ab)use (e.g., taxation toward agribusiness and hunting), businesses offer minimal dining and product options, and medical and pedagogical practices rely on nonhuman animal use (e.g., medical testing, vivisection; Horta, 2018; Kahn, 2011). Also, protections toward veg*n identities remain obscure in the U.S. legal system (Covey, 2018; McKeown & Dunn, 2021; Rhodes, 2014). These policies often intersect with other impediments (e.g., residential segregation), limiting access to veg*n practice and contributing to health disparities faced by communities of color (Carrington, 2018; Rodríguez, 2018). Addressing anti-veg*n stigmatization would be well aligned with the efforts of psychologists to address interconnected societal challenges faced by minoritized communities (Eaton et al., 2021; Neville et al., 2021).

Veg*n Identity as a CSI

CSIs are socially devalued identities that are hidden. CSIs are composed of two components, which are the internalization, anticipation, and experience of stigmatization attributed to the identity and reactions to disclosure of the identity (valenced content) and the degree of integration of identity to one’s self-concept (magnitude). These variables, among disclosure and concealment, impact health consequences for those who hold the identities (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009; Quinn & Earnshaw, 2011). Past research (e.g., mental illness, history of sexual assault, sexually transmitted infections, chronic illness, and minoritized sexual orientation, see Quinn & Earnshaw, 2013; Quinn et al., 2014) and recent applications to other stigmatized groups (e.g., atheism; see Abbott & Mollen, 2018) document adverse health consequences. CSI studies with an intersectional focus indicate that interactive axes of power contextualize external and internal processes of stigmatization and, consequently, impact health. For example, among 288 people with CSIs, those with multiple stigmatized identities who reported greater anticipation of stigmatization and rumination also reported lower quality of life (Reinka et al., 2020). In another study, it was found that Black and Latinx people with CSIs who reported anticipated stigma and increased racial discrimination also reported greater depressive symptoms (Quinn et al., 2020). Given the devalued status and invisibility of veg*n identity, the CSI framework offers a helpful lens to conceptualize the impact of stigmatization on the well-being of veg*ns, particularly those in minoritized communities. Thus, I propose an intersectional examination of the psychological well-being of VOC through a CSI framework (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Intersectional Framework of Concealable Stigmatized Identity of veg*n Identity

Valenced Content of CSI

Valenced content encompasses complex beliefs, messages, and experiences attributed to the CSI and reactions to the disclosure of the identity. In several studies, the presence of ambivalent attitudes toward veg*ns was documented such that they were perceived as moral yet arrogant or socially unattractive (De Groeve et al., 2021; Minson & Monin, 2012). In other cases, veg*nism is regarded as deviant, especially when perceived as a challenge to hierarchy-justifying beliefs and attitudes (Bresnahan et al., 2016; Dhont & Stoeber, 2020; Leite et al., 2019). For example, studies documented the association between negative attitudes toward veg*ns and social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism and hegemonic gendered beliefs among non-veg*ns (Judge & Wilson, 2019; Salmen & Dhont, 2021; Stanley, 2021; Timeo & Suitner, 2017). The nature of disclosure reactions, specifically, initial disclosures, creates unique challenges for those with CSIs such that negative reactions are associated with depression and low self-esteem (Camacho et al., 2020; Ryan et al., 2015). Similar outcomes are found among veg*ns, especially when they can experience a range of reactions from confidants (Buttny & Kinefuchi, 2020; Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012; Twine, 2014).

Adopting a veg*n identity, unlike other identity dimensions that cannot be chosen, is contentious. Notably, veg*ns face stigmatization for this decision (De Groeve et al., 2021; Joy, 2009). For example, motivations for veg*nism have been found to inform perceptions of veg*ns among non-veg*ns. Specifically, veg*ns motivated for ethical (e.g., (non)human animal welfare) and environmental reasons were perceived more negatively than those motivated by personal health (MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Despite persisting toward veg*ns, anti-vegan sentiment is particularly potent for vegans (Aguilera-Carnerero & Carretero-Gonzalèz, 2021; Cole & Morgan, 2011). In a study of social media data from an anti-vegan community, it was found that users perceived vegans as emotional, inflexible, and militant (Gregson et al., 2022). Although studies documented anti-veg*n sentiment toward veg*ns, the majority of works featured unidimensional approaches to perceptions of veg*ns. VOC are less represented in mainstream messages and culture, contributing to their invisibility and perceptions of veg*nism as a privileged practice (Greenebaum, 2018; Polish, 2016). For example, in one study, it was found that veganism was perceived as an exclusive practice associated with Whiteness among Black and White U.S. non-veg*ns (Rosenfeld et al., 2023).

People with CSIs actively search for information that is counterstereotypic, namely that which is positive about their identity (Quinn & Earnshaw, 2011). Available studies suggest that veg*ns seek out affirming information about veg*nism. Particularly, the modern interest in veganism among celebrities promotes behavioral intentions toward the practice of vegans (Doyle, 2016; Phua et al., 2020). Although they can offer positive information associated with veg*nism and veg*ns, veg*n-led communities and organizations have been critiqued for minimal diverse representation and unidimensional and, at times, controversial means of advocacy (Chatila, 2018; Wrenn & Johnson, 2013). VOC may regard POC-led veg*n organizations and activists as affirming representations of veg*nism. Organizations such as Black Vegans Rock (2016) and Afro Vegan Society (n.d.) are examples of successful organizations that not only promote social support, role models, and resources for Black vegans but also ground their advocacy in addressing intersecting devaluation of humans and nonhuman animals. Prominent social justice figures (e.g., Dick Gregory, Angela Davis, Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez, and Coretta Scott King; see Von Alt, 2015) are examples of VOC that espoused and practiced veg*nism as a form of activism to challenge the enmeshment of nonhuman and human oppression (Gregory, 2003; Navarro, 2011; Quichiz, 2019).

The stigma that is experienced, anticipated, and internalized has inimical consequences attributable to CSIs (Bos et al., 2013; Quinn & Earnshaw, 2011). High levels of internalized stigma, or acceptance of negative messages and stereotypes associated with the CSI, predicted lower psychological well-being (Guarneri et al., 2019). Examinations of internalized stigma among veg*ns are limited. However, available studies suggest that veg*ns employ internalizing strategies to navigate experienced and anticipated stigmatization such as acceptance and acknowledgment of hegemonic viewpoints (Greenebaum & Dexter, 2018; LeRette, 2014; Mycek, 2018). Anticipated stigma, or the expectation of discrimination related to the hidden identity and where disclosure of concealed identity has occurred, has been associated with adverse health outcomes (Bos et al., 2013; Chaudoir & Quinn, 2016; Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009). Despite prior studies suggesting that veg*ns anticipate discrimination and prejudice upon disclosure, the relationship between anticipated stigma and well-being remains understudied (Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019).

Mistreatment of veg*ns, ranging from insidious slights and devaluation (e.g., microaggressions, bullying, and ridicule related to veg*n identity), interpersonal discrimination (e.g., social distancing), and life-threatening experiences (e.g., violence) is well documented (LeRette, 2014; Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019; Nachiappan, 2020; Rosenfeld, 2018; Twine, 2014). Though less focused, structural stigmatization influences the experiences of veg*ns. In a survey with 1,000 U.K. vegan employees, 45% felt discriminated against, and a third reported harassment due to vegan practice. In the same study, about 48% of employers accommodated vegetarians over vegans, and 74% of employers were unaware of veganism as a protected identity (Crossland Employment Solicitors, 2019). Despite providing thorough documentation on the mistreatment of veg*ns, the aforementioned studies employed unidimensional approaches (Rosenfeld, 2018). Because VOC are underrepresented, they face unique experiences of invisibility due to their marginalized racial identities (Polish, 2016; Rosenfeld et al., 2023). Consequently, they experience tensions within White veg*n spaces (e.g., racial stress and isolation) and communities of color (e.g., invalidations and accusations of Whiteness; Botchway et al., 2022; Gorski, 2019; Greenebaum, 2018).

Disclosure and Concealment with CSI

Active disclosure and concealment hold complex health implications for people with CSIs (Camacho et al., 2020). On one hand, disclosure is associated with benefits (e.g., social support and authenticity) and challenges (e.g., increased discrimination), such that veg*ns experience authenticity yet face discriminatory behaviors (Greenebaum, 2012; Quinn & Chaudoir, 2011; B. M. Weisz et al., 2016). On the other hand, active concealment, though strategic to avoid stigma, has been associated with lower feelings of belongingness and authenticity (Newheiser & Barreto, 2014). Veg*ns, motivated to mitigate anti-veg*n bias and discomfort amongst non-veg*ns, engage in concealment through impression management such as face-saving strategies (Greenebaum, 2012; Romo & Donovan-Kicken, 2012). In other cases, veg*ns partake in meat consumption and experience guilt, anger, sadness, and fear of practicing veg*nism (Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2019). For example, in a qualitative study of Black veg*ns, participants described some hesitance to discuss their veg*nism with peers and family members and did not talk about the practice (Botchway et al., 2022).

Future Directions With Valenced Content

There is much to explore on how identity-related beliefs, feelings, and (mis)treatment impact the well-being of veg*ns, especially those from marginalized racial communities. Though VOC are underrepresented in mainstream media and face racial stress in and outside of their community, much additional research is needed to determine the impact on their well-being. Though it is likely that VOC are more or less affected by these different components, it is difficult to determine the direction in which each component is predictive of health outcomes. As qualitative studies of CSI groups from multiple marginalized backgrounds were found to experience benefits, including empowerment, improved sense of self, and connection with others attributable to positive information about their identity (e.g., atheists of color), more research is needed to understand how such information contributes to overall self-concept for VOC (Abbott et al., 2020).

Magnitude of CSI

The magnitude of the CSI, or the degree to which the identity is integrated into one’s self-concept, is determined by two similar concepts: centrality and salience. Centrality includes the degree to which an identity is important to oneself, whereas salience concerns the frequency with which one thinks about their identity (Quinn & Earnshaw, 2011). Veg*n identity, particularly among vegans, is important in that they view themselves as distinct groups based on their abstention from nonhuman animal consumption (Judge et al., 2022; Rosenfeld, 2019). For example, one study of Turkish veg*ns suggested that perceived discrimination may threaten veg*n identity, indirectly impacting their well-being (Bagci & Olgun, 2019).

Veg*n identity could operate as a buffer to discrimination through identity affirmation (Branscombe et al., 2012). Studies on self-affirmation document the psychological benefits across diverse groups (for a review, see Howell, 2017; Ferrer & Cohen, 2019; Jessop et al., 2023). Research among people with multiple stigmatized identities indicates that affirmations may be helpful (see Meca et al., 2022; Van Laar et al., 2019). In a recent study, it was found that compared to people with CSIs who did not use affirmations, those who used affirmations experienced greater life satisfaction through improved quality of life (Monheim & Himmelstein, 2023). Furthermore, identity affirmation can be helpful for those with multiple stigmatized identities. In one study, it was revealed that identity affirmation was associated with fewer depressive symptoms among queer POC (Ghabrial & Andersen, 2021). Thus, veg*ns, especially VOC, may employ identity affirmation as a resource to buffer the negative psychological consequences in spaces that may threaten their identities.

As scholars note that resistance can be a proactive strategy to challenge structural oppression, VOC may affirm their identity as an act of resistance to social injustices (Forsyth et al., 2012; Suyemoto et al., 2022). In Harper’s (2010) anthology, Black women espoused veganism as a means of resistance against and healing from anti-Black racism inside and outside Black spaces. In an unpublished honors thesis, VOC perceived veganism as a way to redefine activism and to challenge structural oppression (Chatila, 2018). Relatedly, VOC participants rejected the conception of privilege and emphasized focus on affordable practices of veg*nism and on resisting a dominant perspective of veg*nism (Greenebaum, 2018). Thus, VOC may rely on affirmation in the presence of discrimination, especially if adopted in response to social injustices (MacDonald & Struthers Montford, 2014; Meca et al., 2022; Van Laar et al., 2019; Vestergren & Uysal, 2022).

Future Directions With Magnitude

Like valenced content, salience and centrality of identity among VOC offer much to explore. As is the case with other studies on CSIs, little is known about the impact of magnitude on the well-being of veg*ns and even less for VOC. However, given the pervasiveness of anti-veg*n stigmatization, it is likely that magnitude may be attributable to health outcomes for veg*ns. As magnitude varies among veg*ns, it may also vary for VOC. Furthermore, research can explore the possible relationship between protective factors (i.e., identity affirmation) and health among VOC.

Moving Forward With Intersectionality in Anti-Veg*n Stigmatization Research

In summary, there is fruitful direction in undergirding intersectionality within examinations of anti-veg*n stigmatization, especially through the CSI framework. Below, I outline future recommendations for researchers and implications for advocacy.

Recommendations for Future Research and Advocacy in Health Prevention Science

It is imperative that researchers ground intersectionality frameworks throughout the research process. It is recommended that they center VOC in the formation of the research question to the study design, sampling, analysis, and interpretation and dissemination of findings. Consistent with recommendations from intersectionality researchers, attention to sociopolitical and institutional structures that shape the experiences and well-being of veg*ns is imperative (Lewis & Grzanka, 2016; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017). Researchers can employ multiple methodologies to attend to the sociopolitical nature of devaluation and simultaneously center the voices of multiple marginalized veg*ns. Qualitative and mixed methodologies, grounded in an intersectionality framework, offer a cogent understanding of how structural powers intersect to shape the anti-veg*n stigmatization of VOC (Stutterheim & Ratcliffe, 2021; Watson-Singleton et al., 2023). For example, if wanting to design a mixed methodology study on well-being among VOC, a researcher could incorporate systemic-level variables and could quantitatively examine the relationship between well-being and neighborhood level (e.g., segregation of neighborhood, access to veg*n resources, and neighborhood resourcefulness) and qualitatively examine the contextual nature of these relationships.

The well-being of VOC could be explored in great detail with the CSI framework. As prior examinations involving VOC have been qualitative in nature, quantitative studies, particularly grounded in a CSI framework, could examine the relationships between magnitude, valenced content, and well-being among VOC. Given tensions within and outside one’s racial community and challenges to identity, quantitative examinations could elucidate the relationship between disclosure and concealment among VOC. Conversely, strengths-based examinations of veg*n identity, especially those in marginalized communities, are scarce. Though it helps determine the multifaceted impact of stigmatization on those with invisible stigmatized identities, the CSI framework does not explicitly account for protective factors that are individual and collective in nature. Other existing stress frameworks, such as the Minority Stress Framework, may rely on the explicit inclusion of protective factors such as coping, resilience, and group involvement to clarify the impact not captured by the CSI framework (Meyer, 2003). Such employment would be helpful to clarify and expand on how VOC identity operates as a form of resistance and strength.

VOC are not monolithic. With much of the work focusing on Black veg*ns, future research could expand on how anti-veg*n stigmatization manifests across veg*ns from other racialized communities. Furthermore, there is still much to learn about veg*ns across different identities (e.g., atheist veg*ns, see Wrenn, 2019; fat veg*ns, see Wrenn, 2017; older adult veg*ns, see Wrenn & Lizardi, 2020). Thus, it is crucial to amplify the stories and voices of veg*ns with diverse identities and backgrounds. Broadly, qualitative approaches undergirded in grounded and critical theories could help explore the experiences of veg*ns within marginalized communities in the context of intersecting systemic oppressions (Levitt, 2021).

Implications for Advocacy in Health Prevention and Promotion

Interdisciplinary collaborations can be helpful for these efforts, particularly for policy development. Psychologists could consider collaborations with POC-led veg*n organizations, policymakers, and other health professionals to holistically examine the well-being of VOC. The critical dialogue could include how existing policies intersect to impact the experiences of VOC. As anti-veg*n stigmatization intersects with structural racism at the sociopolitical level, policies can target structural barriers (e.g., redlining, gentrification) that impede veg*n practice at the local, state, and national levels (Forbes et al., 2021; Hage et al., 2007). Doing so would improve access to veg*nism and other plant-based practices not only for VOC but also for communities of color. Relatedly, psychologists could support policies that destigmatize veg*nism as an exclusively White practice, and they could promote the visibility of VOC within mainstream media. Psychologists could also support health education programs that are aimed at promoting diverse content of veg*nism and plant-based consumption within communities of color, particularly those that lack access to practice veg*nism.

Conclusions

The concept of intersectionality calls for researchers to shift their focus from an individualist notion of veg*nism to a multisystemic and sociopolitical one. Grounding intersectionality in the CSI framework offers a way to capture how devaluation emerges differently across veg*ns in minoritized communities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Caitlin M. Mercier

References

Abbott

D. M.

Mollen

(2018). Atheism as a concealable stigmatized identity: Outness, anticipated stigma, and well-being. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(6), 685–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018792669

Abbott

D. M.

Mollen

Mercier

Anaya

E. J.

Rukus

V. A.

(2020). “Isn’t atheism a White thing?”: Centering the voices of atheists of color. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000399

Aguilera-Carnerero

Carretero-González

(2021). The vegan myth: The rhetoric of online anti-veganism. In Wright

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vegan studies (pp. 354–365). Routledge.

Afro Vegan Society. (n.d.). About Afro-Vegan Society. https://www.afrovegansociety.org/about-avs

Bagci

S. C.

Olgun

(2019). A social identity needs perspective to veg* nism: Associations between perceived discrimination and well-being among veg* ns in Turkey. Appetite, 143, 104441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104441

Beezhold

Radnitz

Rinne

DiMatteo

(2014). Vegans report less stress and anxiety than omnivores. Nutritional Neuroscience, 18(7), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1179/1476830514y.0000000164

Black Vegans Rock. (2016). About Black Vegans Rock. https://www.blackvegansrock.com/about

Bos

A. E.

Pryor

J. B.

Reeder

G. D.

Stutterheim

S. E.

(2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746147

Botchway

Turner-McGrievy

G. M.

Crimarco

Wilson

M. J.

Davey

Wilcox

Frongillo

E. A.

(2022). “They eat what they eat, I eat what I eat”: Examining the perspectives and experiences of African Americans who adopt plant-based diets. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 16(3), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827620908850

10.

Branscombe

N. R.

Fernández

Gómez

Cronin

(2012). Moving toward or away from a group identity: Different strategies for coping with pervasive discrimination. In Jetten

Haslam

S. A.

(Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health and well-being (pp. 115–131). Psychology Press.

11.

Bresnahan

Zhuang

Zhu

(2016). Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? Understanding vegan stigma. Stigma and Health, 1(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000011

12.

Brueck

J. F.

(Ed). (2017). Veganism in an oppressive world: A vegans of color community project. Sanctuary Publishers.

13.

Buttny

Kinefuchi

(2020). Vegans’ problem stories: Negotiating vegan identity in dealing with omnivores. Discourse & Society, 31(6), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520939689

14.

Camacho

Reinka

M. A.

Quinn

D. M.

(2020). Disclosure and concealment of stigmatized identities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.031

15.

Carrington

(2018). Food justice and race in the U.S. In Rodríguez

(Ed.), Food justice: A primer (pp. 175–191). Sanctuary Publishers.

16.

Chatila

(2018). Veganism through a racial lens: Vegans of color navigating mainstream vegan networks [Honors theses, Portland State University].

17.

Chaudoir

S. R.

Quinn

D. M.

(2016). Evidence that anticipated stigma predicts poorer depressive symptom trajectories among emerging adults living with concealable stigmatized identities. Self and Identity, 15(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2015.1091378

18.

Cole

Morgan

(2011). Vegaphobia: Derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers 1. The British Journal of Sociology, 62(1), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01348.x

19.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.

20.

Combahee River Collective. (2017). The Combahee River Collective statement. In Taylor

K. Y.

(Ed.), How we get free: Black feminism and the Combahee River Collective (pp. 15–27). Haymarket Books.

21.

Cooper

A. J.

(1988). A voice from the south. Oxford University Press.

22.

Corrin

Papadopoulos

(2017). Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of vegetarian and plant-based diets to shape future health promotion programs. Appetite, 109, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.018

23.

Covey

(2018). Ethical veganism as protected identity: Constructing a creed under human rights law. In Quinn

Westwood

(Eds.), Thinking veganism in literature and culture: Towards a vegan theory (pp. 225–247). Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–168. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5

25.

Crossland Employment Solicitors. (2019). Nearly half of vegans feel discriminated against at work. https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/nearly-half-of-vegans-feel-discriminated-against-at-work

26.

De Groeve

Hudders

Bleys

. (2021). Moral rebels and dietary deviants: How moral minority stereotypes predict the social attractiveness of veg*ns. Appetite, 164, 105284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105284

27.

Dhont

Stoeber

(2020). The vegan resistance. The Psychologist, 34(1), 24–27.

28.

Dobersek

Adkins

Altmeyer

Krout

Lavie

C. J.

Archer

(2021). Meat and mental health: A systematic review of meat abstention and depression, anxiety, and related phenomena. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 61(4), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505

29.

Doyle

(2016). Celebrity vegans and the lifestyling of ethical consumption. Environmental Communication, 10(6), 777–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1205643

30.

Earle

Hodson

(2017). What’s your beef with vegetarians? Predicting anti-vegetarian prejudice from pro-beef attitudes across cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.034

31.

Eaton

A. A.

Grzanka

P. R.

Schlehofer

M. M.

Silka

(2021). Public psychology: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1209–1216. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000933

32.

Else-Quest

N. M.

French

A. M.

Telfer

N. A.

(2023). The intersectionality imperative: Calling in stigma and health research. Stigma and Health, 8(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000397

33.

Ferrer

R. A.

Cohen

G. L.

(2019). Reconceptualizing self-affirmation with the trigger and channel framework: Lessons from the health domain. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318797036

34.

Forbes

Wochele

Peterson

Craggs

(2021). Environmental justice and Black Lives Matter: Critical reflection and advocacy for social work in the United States. Environmental Justice, 14(6), 404–410. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.0023

35.

Forestell

C. A.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2018). Vegetarianism, depression, and the Five Factor Model of personality. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 57(3), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2018.1455675

36.

Forsyth

Carter

R. T.

(2012). The relationship between racial identity status attitudes, racism-related coping, and mental health among Black Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027660

37.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster, Inc.

38.

Ghabrial

M. A.

Andersen

J. P.

(2021). Development and initial validation of the Queer People of Color Identity Affirmation Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000443

39.

Gorski

Lopresti-Goodman

Rising

(2019). Nobody’s paying me to cry: The causes of activist burnout in United States animal rights activists. Social Movement Studies, 18(3), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1561260

40.

Greenebaum

J. B.

(2012). Managing impressions: Face-saving strategies of vegetarians and vegans. Humanity & Society, 36(4), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597612458898

41.

Greenebaum

J. B.

(2018). Vegans of color: Managing visible and invisible stigmas. Food, Culture & Society, 21(5), 680–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2018.1512285

42.

Greenebaum

J. B.

Dexter

(2018). Vegan men and hybrid masculinity. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(6), 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1287064

43.

Gregory

(2003). Callus on my soul: A memoir. Kensington Books.

44.

Gregson

Piazza

Boyd

R. L.

(2022). “Against the cult of veganism”: Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans. Appetite, 178, 106143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106143

45.

Guarneri

J. A.

Oberleitner

D. E.

Connolly

(2019). Perceived stigma and self-stigma in college students: A literature review and implications for practice and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2018.1550723

46.

Hage

S. M.

Romano

J. L.

Conyne

R. K.

Kenny

Matthews

Schwartz

J. P.

Waldo

(2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(4), 493–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006291411

47.

Hancock

A. M.

(2016). Intersectionality: An intellectual history. Oxford University Press.

48.

Harper

A. B.

(Ed.) (2010). Sistah vegan: Black female vegans speak on food, identity, health, and society. Latern Books.

49.

Harper

A. B.

(2012). Going beyond the normative white “post-racial” vegan epistemology. In Williams-Forson

Counihan

(Eds.), Taking food public: Redefining foodways in a changing world (pp. 155–174). Routledge.

50.

Heiss

Hormes

J. M.

Timko

C. A.

(2017). Vegetarianism and eating disorders. In Mariotti

(Ed.), Vegetarian and plant-based diets in health and disease prevention (pp. 51–69). Academic Press.

51.

Horta

(2018). Discrimination against vegans. Res Publica, 24(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9356-3

52.

Howell

A. J.

(2017). Self-affirmation theory and the science of well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(1), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9713-5

53.

Iacobbo

(2004). Vegetarian America: A history. Greenwood Publishing Group.

54.

Jessop

D. C.

Harris

P. R.

Gibbons

(2023). Individual differences in spontaneous self-affirmation predict well-being. Self and Identity, 22(2), 247–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2022.2079711

55.

Joy

(2009). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. Red Wheel.

56.

Judge

Fernando

J. W.

Begeny

C. T.

(2022). Dietary behaviour as a form of collective action: A social identity model of vegan activism. Appetite, 168, 105730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105730

57.

Judge

Wilson

M. S.

(2019). A dual-process motivational model of attitudes towards vegetarians and vegans. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2386

58.

Kahn

(2011). Towards an animal standpoint: Vegan education and the epistemology of ignorance. In Malewski

Jaramillo

(Eds.), Epistemologies of ignorance in education (pp. 53–70). Information Age.

59.

Kellman

S. G.

(2000). Fish, flesh, and foul: The anti-vegetarian animus. The American Scholar, 69(4), 85–96.

60.

Kim

C. J.

(2011). Moral extensionism or racist exploitation? The use of Holocaust and slavery analogies in the animal liberation movement. New Political Science, 33(3), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2011.592021

61.

(2019). Racism as zoological witchcraft: A guide to getting out. Lantern Books.

62.

(2017). Aphro-ism: Essays on pop culture, feminism, and Black veganism from two sisters. Lantern Publishing & Media.

63.

Leite

A. C.

Dhont

Hodson

(2019). Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetarianism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2497

64.

LeRette

D. E.

(2014). Stories of microaggressions directed toward vegans and vegetarians in social settings [Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1523728680?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

65.

Levitt

H. M.

(2021). Essentials of critical-constructivist grounded theory research. American Psychological Association.

66.

Lewis

J. A.

Grzanka

P. R.

(2016). Applying intersectionality theory to research on perceived racism. In Alvarez

A. N.

Liang

C. T. H.

Neville

H. A.

(Eds.), The cost of racism for people of color: Contextualizing experiences of discrimination (pp. 31–54). American Psychological Association.

67.

Link

B. G.

Phelan

J. C.

(2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

68.

MacDonald

Struthers Montford

(2014). Eating animals to build rapport: Conducting research as vegans or vegetarians. Societies, 4(4), 737–752. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4040737

69.

MacInnis

C. C.

Hodson

(2017). It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(6), 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215618253

70.

Markowski

K. L.

Roxburgh

(2019). “If I became a vegan, my family and friends would hate me”: Anticipating vegan stigma as a barrier to plant-based diets. Appetite, 135, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040

71.

Matta

Czernichow

Kesse-Guyot

Hoertel

Limosin

Goldberg

Zins

Lemogne

(2018). Depressive symptoms and vegetarian diets: Results from the constances cohort. Nutrients, 10(11), 1695–1707. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10111695

72.

McCarthy

Dekoster

(2020, January 27). Nearly one in four in U.S. have cut back on eating meat. https://news.gallup.com/poll/282779/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx

73.

McJetters

C. S.

(2018). Exploring radical veganism. https://strivingwithsystems.com/2017/05/15/exploring-radical-veganism/

74.

McKeown

Dunn

R. A.

(2021). A “life-style choice” or a philosophical belief?: The argument for veganism and vegetarianism to be a protected philosophical belief and the position in England and Wales. Liverpool Law Review, 42(2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-020-09273-w

75.

Meca

Gonzales-Backen

Rodil

J. C.

Cowan

Sharma

Webb

T. N.

Hayes

(2022). The Ethnic Identity Scale: Affirmation, really? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(4), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000485

76.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

77.

Michalak

Zhang

X. C.

Jacobi

(2012). Vegetarian diet and mental disorders: Results form a representative survey. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67

78.

Minson

J. A.

Monin

(2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415695

79.

Monheim

C. L.

Himmelstein

M. S.

(2023). Mechanisms linking concealable stigmatized identity and health: Amplifiers and coping mechanisms. Stigma and Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000464

80.

Moradi

Grzanka

P. R.

(2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(5), 500–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000203

81.

Mycek

M. K.

(2018). Meatless meals and masculinity: How veg* men explain their plant-based diets. Food and Foodways, 26(3), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2017.1420355

82.

Nachiappan

(2020, August 8). Experts get their teeth into the idea of vegan hate crime. The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/experts-get-their-teeth-into-idea-of-vegan-hate-crime-65nsf6c02

83.

Navarro

M. C.

(2011). Decolonizing our plates: Analyzing San Diego and vegans of color food politics [Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego]. http://ezproxy.latech.edu:2048/dissertations-theses/decolonizing-our-plates-analyzing-san-diego/docview/869724036/se-2?accountid=26342

84.

Neville

H. A.

Ruedas-Gracia

Lee

B. A.

Ogunfemi

Maghsoodi

A. H.

Mosley

D. V.

LaFromboise

T. D.

Fine

(2021). The public psychology for liberation training model: A call to transform the discipline. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1248–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000887

85.

Newheiser

A. K.

Barreto

(2014). Hidden costs of hiding stigma: Ironic interpersonal consequences of concealing a stigmatized identity in social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.002

86.

Nezlek

J. B.

Forestell

C. A.

(2020). Vegetarianism as a social identity. Current Opinion in Food Science, 33, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2019.12.005

87.

Nezlek

J. B.

Forestell

C. A.

Newman

D. B.

(2018). Relationships between vegetarian dietary habits and daily well-being. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 57(5), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2018.1536657

88.

Nicole

(2013). CAFOs and environmental justice: The case of North Carolina. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(6), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.121-a182

89.

Okoro

O. N.

Hillman

L. A.

Cernasev

(2022). Intersectional invisibility experiences of low-income African-American women in healthcare encounters. Ethnicity & Health, 27(6), 1290–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2021.1899138

90.

Overstreet

N. M.

Rosenthal

Case

K. A.

(2020). Intersectionality as a radical framework for transforming our disciplines, social issues, and the world. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12414

91.

Pfeiler

T. M.

Egloff

(2020). Do vegetarians feel bad? Examining the association between eating vegetarian and subjective well-being in two representative samples. Food Quality and Preference, 86, 104018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104018

92.

Phua

Jin

S. V.

Kim

(2020). The roles of celebrity endorsers’ and consumers’ vegan identity in marketing communication about veganism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 26(8), 813–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2019.1590854

93.

Polish

(2016). Decolonizing veganism: On resisting vegan Whiteness and racism. In Castricano

Simonsen

R. R.

(Eds.), Critical perspectives on veganism (pp. 373–391). Palgrave Macmillan.

94.

Pryor

J. B.

Reeder

G. D.

(2011). HIV-related stigma. In Hall

J. C.

Hall

B. J.

Cockerell

C. J.

(Eds.), HIV/AIDS in the post-HAART era: Manifestations, treatment, and Epidemiology (pp. 790–806). PMPH-USA

95.

Purdie-Vaughns

Eibach

R. P.

(2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4

96.

Quinn

D. M.

Camacho

Pan-Weisz

Williams

M. K.

(2020). Visible and concealable stigmatized identities and mental health: Experiences of racial discrimination and anticipated stigma. Stigma and Health, 5(4), 488–491. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/sah0000210

97.

Quinn

D. M.

Chaudoir

S. R.

(2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of Personality, 97(4), 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/2376-6972.1.s.35

98.

Quinn

D. M.

Earnshaw

V. A.

(2011). Understanding concealable stigmatized identities: The role of identity in psychological, physical, and behavioral outcomes. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5(1), 160–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01029.x

99.

Quinn

D. M.

Earnshaw

V. A.

(2013). Concealable stigmatized identities and psychological well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12005

100.

Quinn

D. M.

Williams

M. K.

Quintana

Gaskins

J. L.

Overstreet

N. M.

Pishori

Earnshaw

V. A.

Perez

Chaudoir

S. R.

(2014). Examining effects of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, internalization, and outness on psychological distress for people with concealable stigmatized identities. PLoS One, 9(5), e96977. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096977

101.

Quichiz

(2019, January 6). 10 vegans of color on what being vegan means to them. Self. https://www.self.com/story/vegans-of-color-on-what-being-vegan-means-to-them

102.

Reinka

M. A.

Pan-Weisz

Lawner

E. K.

Quinn

D. M.

(2020). Cumulative consequences of stigma: Possessing multiple concealable stigmatized identities is associated with worse quality of life. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(4), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12656

103.

Remedios

J. D.

Snyder

S. H.

(2018). Intersectional oppression: Multiple stigmatized identities and perceptions of invisibility, discrimination, and stereotyping. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12268

104.

Rhodes

A. B.

(2014). Veganism as a nontraditional religion: First Amendment protection for employees and prisoners. Dartmouth Law Journal, 12(1), 165–185.

105.

Rodríguez

(Ed.). (2018). Food justice: A primer. Sanctuary Publishers.

106.

Roeder

(2021). Beyond diet: Veganism as liberatory praxis. In Hanganu-Bresch

Kondrlik

(Eds.), Veg(etari)an arguments in culture, history, and practice: The v word (pp. 291–318). Palgrave Macmillan.

107.

Romo

L. K.

Donovan-Kicken

(2012). “Actually, I don’t eat meat”: A multiple-goals perspective of communication about vegetarianism. Communication Studies, 63(4), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.623752

108.

Rosenfeld

D. L.

(2018). The psychology of vegetarianism: Recent advances and future directions. Appetite, 131, 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.011

109.

Rosenfeld

D. L.

(2019). A comparison of dietarian identity profiles between vegetarians and vegans. Food Quality and Preferences, 72, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.09.008

110.

Rosenfeld

D. L.

Brannon

T. N.

Tomiyama

A. J.

(2023). Racialized perceptions of vegetarianism: Stereotypical associations that undermine inclusion in eating behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(11), 1601–1614. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221099392

111.

Rosenfeld

D. L.

Tomiyama

A. J.

(2019). When vegetarians eat meat: Why vegetarians violate their diets and how they feel about doing so. Appetite, 143, 104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104469

112.

Rosenthal

(2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote social justice and equity. American Psychologist, 71(6), 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040323

113.

Ruby

M. B.

(2012). Vegetarianism: A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58(1), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019

114.

Ryan

W. S.

Legate

Weinstein

(2015). Coming out as lesbian, gay, or bisexual: The lasting impact of initial disclosure experiences. Self and Identity, 14(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2015.1029516

115.

Salmen

Dhont

(2021). On “meatheads” and “soy boys.” The Psychologist, 34, 40–43.

116.

Spiegel

(1996). The dreaded comparison: Human and animal slavery. Mirror Books/IDEA.

117.

Stanley

S. K.

(2021). Ideological bases of attitudes towards meat abstention: Vegetarianism as a threat to the cultural and economic status quo. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(6), 1534–1554. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211020356

118.

Stutterheim

S. E.

Ratcliffe

S. E.

(2021). Understanding and addressing stigma through qualitative research: Four reasons why we need qualitative studies. Stigma and Health, 6(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000283

119.

Suyemoto

K. L.

Abdullah

Godon-Decoteau

Tahirkheli

N. N.

Arbid

Frye

A. A.

(2022). Development of the Resistance and Empowerment Against Racism (REAR) scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000353

120.

Timeo

Suitner

(2017). Eating meat makes you sexy: Conformity to dietary gender norms and attractiveness. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000119

121.

Twine

(2014). Vegan killjoys at the table—Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices. Societies, 4(4), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4040623

122.

Van Laar

Meeussen

Veldman

Van Grootel

Sterk

Jacobs

. (2019). Coping with stigma in the workplace: Understanding the role of threat regulation, supportive factors, and potential hidden costs. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1879. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01879

123.

Vestergren

Uysal

M. S.

(2022). Beyond the choice of what you put in your mouth: A systematic mapping review of veganism and vegan identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 848434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.848434

124.

Von Alt

. (2015). 7 social justice leaders you never knew were veg. ChooseVeg. https://chooseveg.com/blog/7-social-justice-leaders-you-never-knew-were/

125.

Watson-Singleton

N. N.

Lewis

J. A.

Dworkin

E. R.

(2023). Toward a socially just diversity science: Using intersectional mixed methods research to center multiply marginalized Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 29(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000477

126.

Weisz

B. M.

Quinn

D. M.

Williams

M. K.

(2016). Out and healthy: Being more “out” about a concealable stigmatized identity may boost the health benefits of social support. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(12), 2934–2943. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315589392

127.

Wrenn

C. L.

(2017). Fat vegan politics: A survey of fat vegan activists’ online experiences with social movement sizeism. Fat Studies, 6(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/21604851.2017.1242359

128.

Wrenn

C. L.

(2019). Atheism in the American rights movement: An invisible majority. Environmental Values, 28(6), 715–739. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327119x15579936382509

129.

Wrenn

C. L.

Johnson

(2013). A critique of single-issue campaigning and the importance of comprehensive abolitionist vegan advocacy. Food, Culture & Society, 16(4), 651–668. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174413x13758634982092

130.

Wrenn

C. L.

Lizardi

(2020). Older, greener, and wiser: Charting the experiences of older women in the American vegan movement. Journal of Women & Aging, 33(6), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2020.1749501

Centering Veg*ns of Color: An Intersectional Imperative to Anti-Veg*n Stigma

Abstract

Keywords

The Psychological Well-Being of Veg*ns

Anti-Veg*n Stigma as Understudied in the Psychological Well-Being of Veg*ns

Intersectionality as Understudied in Anti-Veg*n Stigmatization

Veg*n Identity as a CSI

Valenced Content of CSI

Disclosure and Concealment with CSI

Future Directions With Valenced Content

Magnitude of CSI

Future Directions With Magnitude

Moving Forward With Intersectionality in Anti-Veg*n Stigmatization Research

Recommendations for Future Research and Advocacy in Health Prevention Science

Implications for Advocacy in Health Prevention and Promotion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

Centering Vegns of Color: An Intersectional Imperative to Anti-Vegn Stigma

Anti-Vegn Stigma as Understudied in the Psychological Well-Being of Vegns