Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction

Abstract

The Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction (DB Scale), developed by psychometricians and nutritional behavioral scientists Anna-Maria Strässner and Christina Hartmann in 2023, is a psychometrically validated self-report instrument designed to quantify the cognitive calculus underlying an individual’s transition away from meat consumption. Grounded in the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change and Janis and Mann’s classic decisional conflict paradigm, the DB Scale measures consumers’ perceived importance of pros (facilitators/motivators) and cons (barriers/impediments) regarding dietary meat reduction across distinct stages of change. The instrument originated from an initial pool of 42 candidate items systematically derived from extensive literature reviews and refined through panel-based expert cognitive pretesting. Following psychometric evaluation in a nationwide representative sample of German adult meat consumers aged 18 to 74 years, the inventory was distilled to 20 high-performing items.

Structural validation via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated a robust hierarchical architecture: five distinct first-order latent dimensions—namely, Health and Well-being, Environment and Animal Welfare, Social Environment and Tradition, Enjoyment and Taste, and Satiety and Convenience (alternatively characterized as perceived benefits, factory farming concerns, health barriers, legitimation barriers, and feasibility barriers)—governed by two overarching second-order latent dimensions representing global Pros and global Cons. The instrument exhibits satisfactory internal consistency, with first-order subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .70 to .85. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity were confirmed through significant associations with validated indices of meat attachment, vegetarian/vegan lifestyle attitudes, perceived behavioral control, ecological welfare concerns, and actual meat consumption frequency. An erratum was subsequently published in 2024 to rectify minor descriptive tabular anomalies in the original publication without affecting the scale’s structural invariance or empirical validity. The DB Scale offers applied behavioral researchers, public health epidemiologists, and sustainable nutrition policy makers an empirically grounded, multi-attribute diagnostic instrument for personalizing dietary interventions and advancing sustainable food transformations.

Keywords

Decisional Balance, Meat Reduction, Transtheoretical Model, Dietary Behavior Change, Sustainable Diets, Plant-Based Nutrition, Meat Attachment, Consumer Psychology, Health Barriers, Psychometrics

Authors

The Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by:

• Anna-Maria Strässner, M.Sc., Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0003-4557-3817)
  Institutional Affiliation: Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), School of Management and Law, Institute of Marketing Management, Theaterstrasse 17, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland.
  Contact Email: [email protected]
• Dr. Christina Hartmann
  Institutional Affiliation: ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Department of Environmental Systems Science (D-USYS), Consumer Behaviour Group, Universitaetstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
  Contact Email: [email protected]

Purpose

The transition toward sustainable food systems represents one of the most pressing societal, ecological, and public health imperatives of the twenty-first century. Contemporary intensive livestock production constitutes a primary driver of global greenhouse gas emissions, anthropogenic deforestation, biodiversity collapse, eutrophication of freshwater reserves, and emerging antimicrobial resistance. Simultaneously, excessive consumption of processed and red meat has been definitively classified by public health agencies as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, colorectal carcinoma, metabolic syndrome, and all-cause premature mortality. Despite escalating consumer awareness of these interconnected global crises, widespread reductions in animal-source food consumption remain sluggish and structurally fragmented. This empirical paradox—frequently conceptualized in social psychology as the “meat paradox”—stems from deeply rooted cultural norms, evolutionary gustatory preferences, culinary habituation, and cognitive coping mechanisms.

Historically, behavioral scientists attempting to model meat consumption patterns have relied on static unidimensional measures, such as generic attitudes, behavioral intentions, or simple frequency questionnaires. However, dietary transformation is not an all-or-nothing, instantaneous event; rather, it unfolds as a protracted, non-linear, multi-phase developmental process. Consumers routinely experience high levels of cognitive ambivalence, simultaneously acknowledging the ethical, environmental, and physiological benefits of plant-centered diets while feeling constrained by social friction, culinary unfamiliarity, hedonistic cravings, and perceived metabolic inadequacy.

The fundamental purpose of the Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction is to provide a standardized, psychometrically rigorous, and theoretically comprehensive diagnostic instrument capable of capturing the subjective cognitive trade-offs that individuals weigh when contemplating, initiating, or maintaining a reduction in meat consumption. Specifically, the scale was created to:

• Quantify Cognitive Trade-Offs: Delineate and isolate the idiosyncratic motivational drivers (Pros) and psychological/practical barriers (Cons) that shape individual dietary decisions.
• Map Stage Progression: Operationalize shifts in the decisional balance across the stages of change outlined by health behavior theories, tracking how the subjective weight of “Pros” surpasses “Cons” as an individual transitions from precontemplation to action and maintenance.
• Inform Targeted Public Health Interventions: Provide behavioral scientists, health educators, clinical dietitians, and social marketers with granular diagnostic data to formulate tailored interventions. For example, individuals immobilized by *social environment and tradition* require distinct psychosocial empowerment strategies compared to those hindered by *feasibility barriers* such as cooking skills or nutritional knowledge.
• Evaluate Policy and Programmatic Effectiveness: Serve as a sensitive pre- and post-intervention outcome measure for dietary education programs, clinical lifestyle medicine interventions, public health nudge campaigns, and institutional workplace canteen restructuring efforts.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction is rooted in subjective cognitive appraisals: the systematic cognitive evaluation of the positive and negative consequences associated with altering an ingrained, habitual lifestyle behavior. Within the behavioral sciences, decisional balance captures the psychological “balance sheet” of potential gains and losses. In the context of meat reduction, this cognitive appraisal is characterized by a multidimensional hierarchical structure comprising two higher-order domains (Pros and Cons) operationalized through five primary first-order dimensions.

1. Health and Well-Being (Pros Dimension)

This subscale assesses the perceived physiological, somatic, and preventive benefits of adopting a plant-forward or reduced-meat dietary pattern. Rather than capturing abstract biomedical knowledge, this construct evaluates the consumer’s subjective expectancy that lowering their meat intake will yield personal, tangible health enhancements. Key cognitive elements encompass improvements in daily somatic energy, enhanced vitality, effective weight management, and primary prevention against chronic non-communicable diseases such as atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and gastrointestinal malignancies. Individuals scoring high on this dimension view dietary modification not as an act of physical deprivation, but as a deliberate lifestyle strategy for health optimization and longevity.

2. Environment and Animal Welfare (Pros Dimension)

This dimension operationalizes the prosocial, biospheric, and moral motivations driving meat reduction. It encompasses dual altruistic concerns: macro-ecological stewardship and micro-level sentient animal empathy. At the ecological level, the construct captures consumer recognition that shifting dietary inputs mitigates planetary climate disruption, preserves vital biosphere reserves (e.g., arable land, fresh water, virgin rainforests), and reduces the resource inefficiency inherent in feeding cereal grains to livestock. At the ethical level, it assesses moral distress regarding the realities of intensive factory farming, including animal confinement, routine surgical mutilations, metabolic overbreeding, and slaughterhouse practices. High scores reflect an ethical alignment wherein dietary restraint serves as an expression of personal moral responsibility and environmental stewardship.

3. Social Environment and Tradition (Cons Dimension)

Meat consumption is not merely an individual nutritional act; it is fundamentally embedded within human sociality, kin rituals, communal celebrations, and cultural identities. This subscale measures the perceived social friction, normative pressures, and interpersonal alienation that individuals anticipate when diverging from conventional omnivorous dietary norms. Items capture anxieties regarding perceived domestic inconvenience, table-sharing awkwardness, violating family holiday traditions, defying generational customs, and encountering social isolation, ridicule, or stigma from peers and family who view meat-eating as an indispensable component of cultural belonging or masculinity.

4. Enjoyment and Taste (Cons Dimension)

Dietary selections are heavily mediated by primary sensory rewards, conditioned taste preferences, and hedonic reinforcement. The Enjoyment and Taste subscale captures hedonistic barriers rooted in the unique sensory appeal of animal flesh—its umami profile, textural fibrousness, savory aromas, and Maillard reaction compounds. This construct reflects the cognitive belief that meals devoid of meat are inherently bland, aesthetically monotonous, gastronomically unfulfilling, and incapable of satisfying visceral cravings for rich culinary enjoyment. High scores identify consumers for whom sensory loss represents a primary psychological impediment to dietary change.

5. Satiety and Convenience (Cons Dimension)

The final first-order subscale operationalizes practical, procedural, and somatic-satiety obstacles. Somatically, it captures the lay perception that plant-based proteins are inherently less satiating, leaving individuals chronically hungry, low on energy, or physiologically unfulfilled throughout daily activities. Procedurally and contextually, it reflects deficits in culinary self-efficacy, meal planning difficulties, perceived time constraints in preparing wholesome legume- and vegetable-based meals, and the structural inconvenience of locating palatable, affordable, and readily accessible meatless options within daily environments (e.g., fast-food outlets, institutional cafeterias, and standard grocery stores).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction integrates core tenets from several seminal paradigms within health psychology, decision science, and social cognition.

The Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (TTM)

The primary theoretical foundation of the DB Scale is the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), formulated by James O. Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente. The TTM posits that health-related behavioral transitions do not occur via discrete, binary events, but progress through a predictable sequence of distinct psychological stages:

• Precontemplation: The individual has no conscious intention of reducing meat intake in the foreseeable future (typically defined as within the next six months). Barriers (Cons) heavily outweigh perceived motivators (Pros).
• Contemplation: The individual is aware that excessive meat consumption entails adverse consequences and is seriously considering reducing intake within the next six months, yet remains acutely ambivalent. Pros and Cons are roughly equivalent in subjective weight.
• Preparation: The individual intends to implement dietary changes within the next month and begins making small behavioral or cognitive modifications. Pros begin to decisively surpass Cons.
• Action: The individual has actively reduced their meat consumption to a target threshold within the past six months, requiring continuous cognitive effort and behavioral vigilance.
• Maintenance: The reduced-meat dietary habit has been sustained for more than six months; the new dietary pattern is integrated into self-identity, and the risk of relapse stabilizes. Pros dominate, while Cons are minimized.

Central to TTM research across diverse behavioral domains (e.g., smoking cessation, physical exercise, addiction recovery) is the empirical principle of decisional balance: successful progression across stages is structurally dependent upon a reversal in the balance of Pros and Cons. Hall and Rossi’s meta-analytic work on the TTM established two canonical psychometric principles:

1. To progress from Precontemplation to Contemplation, the perceived Pros of adopting the healthy behavior must increase by approximately one standard deviation ($1.0,\sigma$).
2. To progress from Contemplation to Action, the perceived Cons of adopting the behavior must decrease by approximately half a standard deviation ($0.5,\sigma$).

The DB Scale was intentionally constructed to capture these exact shifts within dietary transitions, operationalizing how the cognitive weight assigned to plant-based benefits rises while the salience of practical and social barriers declines.

Janis and Mann’s Conflict Model of Decision Making

The conceptual genesis of decisional balance traces directly to Irving Janis and Leon Mann’s (1977) conflict theory of decision-making. Janis and Mann proposed that every momentous personal choice induces decisional stress and requires the individual to balance an internal balance sheet across four primary conceptual categories: (a) utilitarian gains or losses for self, (b) utilitarian gains or losses for significant others, (c) self-approval or self-disapproval, and (d) approval or disapproval from significant others. Strässner and Hartmann’s formulation of the DB Scale maps cleanly onto this matrix: the Health and Satiety/Convenience dimensions represent utilitarian outcomes for the self; Social Environment reflects significant others’ approval/disapproval; and Environment and Animal Welfare operationalizes moral self-approval and internalized ethical standards.

The 4Ns of Meat Justification and Cognitive Dissonance

The DB Scale also integrates the social-psychological literature on the “meat paradox” and the rationalization mechanisms omnivores employ to alleviate cognitive dissonance. Piazza and colleagues (2015) demonstrated that omnivores routinely legitimize their consumption habits through the “4Ns”: asserting that eating meat is Natural (an evolutionary necessity), Normal (a dominant social norm), Necessary (essential for human nutritional viability), and Nice (a unique gustatory pleasure). The barrier subscales of the DB Scale directly capture these 4N rationalizations: Social Environment and Tradition aligns with the “Normal” justification; Enjoyment and Taste captures the “Nice” dimension; and Health and Satiety Barriers reflect the “Necessary” and “Natural” rationalizations.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction was established through extensive empirical testing conducted by Strässner and Hartmann (2023), with structural corrections confirmed in their 2024 corrigendum. Construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion validities were evaluated in a nationally representative cross-sectional sample of German adult omnivores and flexitarians.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated through statistically significant, theoretically coherent bivariate correlations between the DB subscales and validated psychological instruments measuring related constructs:

• Meat Attachment: The aggregate *Pros* dimension exhibited a strong, highly significant negative correlation with the Meat Attachment Questionnaire ($r = -.66, p < .001$), reflecting that as positive cognitive evaluations of meat reduction increase, emotional dependence, entitlement, and attachment to meat substantially decline.
• Attitudes Toward Veg*n Lifestyles: The *Pros* dimension was inversely correlated with negative attitudes toward vegetarian and vegan lifestyles ($r = -.54, p < .001$). Individuals recognizing strong pros for meat reduction maintained markedly positive appraisals of plant-based paradigms.
• Perceived Behavioral Control: Endorsement of *Pros* showed a significant positive association with perceived behavioral control regarding dietary modification ($r = .42, p < .001$), confirming that individuals who perceive clear benefits also report higher self-efficacy in executing the behavior.
• Ecological Welfare Concern: In alignment with theoretical expectations, the *Pros* dimension demonstrated a robust positive relationship with generalized ecological welfare concern ($r = .50, p < .001$), underscoring the biospheric and ethical underpinnings of meat reduction motivators.

Criterion-Related and Concurrent Validity

Criterion validity was established by examining the instrument’s capacity to explain observable behavioral outcomes, specifically self-reported habitual meat consumption frequency. An overall Decisional Balance Index—computed as the standardized Pro score minus the standardized Con score ($\text{DB Index} = Z_{\text{Pros}} – Z_{\text{Cons}}$)—demonstrated robust predictive validity:

• The DB Index correlated negatively with global favorable attitudes toward meat consumption ($r = -.64, p < .001$).
• The DB Index demonstrated a significant inverse relationship with current meat consumption frequency ($r = -.40, p < .001$).
• Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses confirmed that entering the DB Scale’s *Pros* and *Cons* subscales into the model accounted for substantial incremental variance in meat consumption frequency above and beyond what was explained by sociodemographic covariates (age, gender, education) and generalized attitudes toward meat eating.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity among the latent dimensions was confirmed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) analyses. For the overarching higher-order dimensions, the square root of the AVE for the *Pros* dimension was $0.84$, which comfortably exceeded its inter-construct correlation with the *Cons* dimension ($r = -.64$). Similarly, first-order subscales demonstrated adequate discriminant validity, ensuring that while the subscales are interrelated within the nomological network of dietary choice, they capture psychometrically distinct and non-redundant cognitive facets.

Reliability

The Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction exhibits strong internal consistency across its multi-item dimensions. In the primary validation sample ($N = 600+$ German adult meat consumers), Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and composite reliability coefficients were computed for each first-order subscale, exceeding conventional psychometric thresholds for research instruments ($lpha ge .70$):

• Health and Well-Being (Pros): Demonstrated high internal consistency, with $lpha = .85$ (alternatively reported in initial factor models for health barriers as $lpha = .85$, and general plant-based health benefits at $lpha = .83$).
• Environment and Animal Welfare (Pros): Exhibited solid reliability, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of $lpha = .79$ (downsides of factory farming).
• Social Environment and Tradition (Cons): Exhibited satisfactory reliability, with $lpha = .75$ (legitimation and social barriers).
• Enjoyment and Taste (Cons): Showed solid internal coherence, with $lpha = .78$.
• Satiety and Convenience (Cons): Met the psychometric standard for multidimensional practical barrier scales, with $lpha = .70$.

Item-total correlations for all retained items consistently exceeded the accepted empirical baseline of $.40$, indicating that each specific query contributed meaningfully to its designated latent domain without inflating artificial redundancy. The higher-order composite dimensions of aggregate *Pros* and aggregate *Cons* exhibited strong composite reliability coefficients exceeding $.86$, demonstrating minimal measurement error and high precision for both observational and experimental research applications.

Factor Analysis

The factorial structure and construct operationalization of the DB Scale were established through a sequential, two-phase psychometric protocol combining Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The initial pool of 42 candidate items was evaluated for sampling adequacy and factorability. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was verified at $.897$, indicating exceptional sampling adequacy well above the $.60$ threshold, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance ($chi^2(190) = 3056.86, p < .001$), confirming suitable correlation matrices for factor extraction. Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was employed to allow natural correlations between underlying dimensions.

Item pruning was governed by strict psychometric retention criteria: items exhibiting low initial communalities ($h^2 < .40$) or high cross-loadings (loadings$> .30$ on a non-target factor or discrepancies between primary and secondary loadings $< .20$) were removed. During EFA iterations, 22 underperforming items were systematically excised (14 due to poor communalities, 8 due to unacceptable cross-loadings). The remaining 20 items resolved into five coherent first-order factors t\hat mapped directly onto two higher-order factors (Pros and Cons), cumulatively accounting for$68.7%$ of the total observed variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the structural architecture, a CFA was performed on an independent subsample using robust maximum likelihood estimation. The hypothesized structural model—specifying five first-order factors loaded onto two correlated second-order factors—demonstrated a close model fit to the empirical data:

• Model Chi-Square: $chi^2(142) = 345.94, p < .001$
• Goodness of Fit Index (GFI): $.948$ (exceeding the standard $.90$ threshold)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.956$ (exceeding the rigorous $.95$ cutoff for good fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.947$ (closely approaching $.95$)
• Normed Fit Index (NFI): $.935$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ ($90%\text{ CI } [0.041, 0.055]$), confirming close fit ($p_{\text{close}} = .178$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.047$ (well below the $.08$ cutoff)

During the structural equation modeling process, modification indices revealed that one candidate item (DB14: “Meat dishes are more filling than vegetarian or vegan dishes” in the original exploratory notation) exhibited an elevated modification index ($ ext{MI} = 61.82$), indicating significant cross-subscale covariance between health and satiety; this was addressed in the final refined modeling. A formal corrigendum published in Appetite in 2024 corrected typographical misalignments in Figure 4 and Table 6 of the original 2023 manuscript, explicitly reconfirming that the underlying structural parameters, factor loadings, and model fit statistics remain psychometrically intact and empirically sound.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized self-report inventory / psychological rating scale.
• Format: Structured psychometric questionnaire administered electronically or via paper-and-pencil.
• Item Count: 20 closed-ended items divided across 5 first-order subscales and 2 higher-order dimensions (Pros and Cons).
• Screening & Filter Question: Prior to responding to the core items, respondents are categorized using a binary filter question regarding their behavioral trajectory:
  • “Have you reduced your meat consumption in the past?” (Options: [Yes] / [No]).
  • Participants selecting ‘Yes’ receive the past-action framing: “How important is each of the following statements to you, regarding your decision to reduce your meat consumption?”
  • Participants selecting ‘No’ receive the prospective framing: “How important is each of the following statements to you, regarding your decision to potentially reduce your meat consumption?”
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Not at all important
  • 2 = Slightly important
  • 3 = Moderately important
  • 4 = Very important
  • 5 = Extremely important
• Subscale Allocations:
  • Subscale 1: Health and Well-being (Pros): Items 1, 2, 3, 4 (evaluates somatic health expectations, disease risk reduction, and weight management).
  • Subscale 2: Environment and Animal Welfare (Pros): Items 5, 6, 7, 8 (evaluates climate protection, resource conservation, and reducing factory farming cruelty).
  • Subscale 3: Social Environment and Tradition (Cons): Items 9, 10, 11, 12 (evaluates family meals, dining social pressure, tradition, and perceived isolation).
  • Subscale 4: Enjoyment and Taste (Cons): Items 13, 14, 15, 16 (evaluates hedonistic attachment to meat, sensory cravings, and culinary enjoyment).
  • Subscale 5: Satiety and Convenience (Cons): Items 17, 18, 19, 20 (evaluates perceived lack of fullness, preparation time, availability, and meal planning complexity).
• Scoring and Index Calculation:
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or raw sum of the corresponding 4 items for each dimension (range: 1.00 to 5.00 for means; 4 to 20 for sums).
  • Higher-Order Dimension Scores:
    • Total Pros Score: $\text{Mean}(\text{Items } 1\text{ to } 8)$ or $\text{Mean}(\text{Subscale 1}, \text{Subscale 2})$.
    • Total Cons Score: $\text{Mean}(\text{Items } 9\text{ to } 20)$ or $\text{Mean}(\text{Subscale 3}, \text{Subscale 4}, \text{Subscale 5})$.
  • Decisional Balance (DB) Index: Standardized ($Z$-score) difference between the higher-order dimensions: $\text{DB Index} = Z_{\text{Pros}} – Z_{\text{Cons}}$. Positive index values denote that motivational facilitators outweigh behavioral barriers (indicative of Preparation, Action, or Maintenance stages), whereas negative values identify dominant perceived barriers (indicative of Precontemplation).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Decisional Balance Scale for Meat Reduction was officially published in 2023 by Anna-Maria Strässner and Christina Hartmann in the peer-reviewed academic journal Appetite, with a formal corrigendum published in 2024. The instrument is released under an open-access Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under this license, academic scholars, public health practitioners, clinicians, and educators are permitted to freely use, adapt, reproduce, and administer the instrument for non-commercial research, institutional evaluation, and teaching purposes without financial cost or formal written copyright licensing, provided appropriate bibliographic credit is accorded to the original authors and the primary source publication. Commercial exploitation, proprietary software packaging, or monetization of the instrument without prior written authorization from the authors is prohibited.

References

The academic validation and theoretical underpinning of the DB Scale are documented in the following peer-reviewed literature:

• Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. Free Press.
• Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011
• Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390
• Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Rossi, J. S., Goldstein, M. G., Marcus, B. H., Rakowski, W., Fiore, C., Harlow, L. L., Redding, C. A., Rosenbloom, D., & Rossi, S. R. (1994). Stages of change and decisional balance for 12 problem behaviors. Health Psychology, 13(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.13.1.39
• Strässner, A.-M., & Hartmann, C. (2023). Gradual behaviour change towards meat reduction: Development and validation of a novel decisional balance scale. Appetite, 186, Article 106537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106537
• Strässner, A.-M., & Hartmann, C. (2024). Corrigendum to “Gradual behaviour change towards meat reduction: Development and validation of a novel decisional balance scale” [Appetite 186 (2023) 106537]. Appetite, 200, Article 107545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107545

Items of the Scale