Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18547379 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p>Anonymised individual-level responses from an online survey of adults (≥18 years) living in Scotland, collected February to July 2023. Participants were recruited via Qualtrics to approximate a nationally representative sample stratified by age, gender, education, and ethnicity.</p> <p>The survey included three sections: (1) attitudes to meat reduction and current behaviour using COM-B framed items (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation) on Likert scales, (2) a Best-Worst Scaling task rating the perceived effectiveness of 25 potential meat-reduction policies and interventions, and (3) socio-demographic characteristics. In the associated publication, latent class analysis was used to identify four attitudinal subgroups (Resistant, Ambivalent, Open, Active meat reducers).</p> <p>Files in this record include: a cleaned CSV dataset, a machine-readable codebook (TSV and JSON), and a README describing the variables and processing steps. The open-release dataset contains 1,590 respondent records and 150 variables (columns). A sequential participant_id was generated for the open-release file.</p> <p>Ethical approval was granted by the Rowett Ethics Panel at the University of Aberdeen, and informed consent was obtained from participants.</p> <p>Associated publication: McBey D, Martinez Sanchez G, Horgan G, Macdiarmid JI, McCormick BJJ. “Perceived effectiveness of 25 interventions and policies designed to reduce meat consumption”. Food Quality and Preference, 135, 105693. <a target="_new" rel="noopener">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105693</a></p>