4 ms·

The study is on college kids.

4ad 7y ago
You are downvoted for no reason. Not only that college kids are not representative for the entire population, but most importantly college kids tend not to have money. The article says: > variables that influenced dining choices included the relative prices of vegetarian and non-vegetarian options
- castis 7y ago
  Its not for no reason, they add nothing to the conversation. Their comment is redundant after having read past the first sentence in the article.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  > most importantly college kids tend not to have money But if that's a very important factor and vegetarian was cheapest, anyone strapped for cash would always have chosen the vegetarian option even before this experiment, so nothing would change. Also, from the actual abstract (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/24/1907207116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/24/1907207116): "Linking sales data to participants’ previous meal purchases revealed that the largest effects were found in the quartile of diners with the lowest prior levels of vegetarian meal selection."
  - 4ad 7y ago
    You are assuming they would always chose the cheapest, not the best (by some criteria) they could afford. If suddently the sole meat option is more expensive than yesterdays cheaper meat, that might be too expensive for them, so they are forced onto the cheaper vegetarian options that they could avoid the day before.
    - tom_mellior 7y ago
      > If suddently the sole meat option is more expensive than yesterdays cheaper meat My understanding was that they went from three meat options to two, and I saw no indication in the abstract that they changed pricing (but I haven't read the paper), but yes, there are possible scenarios in which they were "forced" to eat non-meat. More plausible, to me, is that most people who regularly eat meat are not that uptight about it, and willing to try other stuff without feeling victimized. But yes, I also know people who are the opposite.
thrower123 7y ago
It does sort of raise the issue of this being a captive audience. If the dining hall at my college suddenly went vegetarian, I would have pretty much had to go along with it; it's the most convenient option, and often the only real choice to get something to eat between classes - going off campus would take too long. And then there is the case that your meal plan is only valid there, and in the case at the school I went to, you could not opt out of paying for the meal plan even if you wanted to, so you'd be flushing $500-$1000 down the drain.

4ad 7y ago

You are downvoted for no reason. Not only that college kids are not representative for the entire population, but most importantly college kids tend not to have money. The article says: > variables that influenced dining choices included the relative prices of vegetarian and non-vegetarian options

castis 7y ago
Its not for no reason, they add nothing to the conversation. Their comment is redundant after having read past the first sentence in the article.
tom_mellior 7y ago
> most importantly college kids tend not to have money But if that's a very important factor and vegetarian was cheapest, anyone strapped for cash would always have chosen the vegetarian option even before this experiment, so nothing would change. Also, from the actual abstract (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/24/1907207116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/09/24/1907207116): "Linking sales data to participants’ previous meal purchases revealed that the largest effects were found in the quartile of diners with the lowest prior levels of vegetarian meal selection."
- 4ad 7y ago
  You are assuming they would always chose the cheapest, not the best (by some criteria) they could afford. If suddently the sole meat option is more expensive than yesterdays cheaper meat, that might be too expensive for them, so they are forced onto the cheaper vegetarian options that they could avoid the day before.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    > If suddently the sole meat option is more expensive than yesterdays cheaper meat My understanding was that they went from three meat options to two, and I saw no indication in the abstract that they changed pricing (but I haven't read the paper), but yes, there are possible scenarios in which they were "forced" to eat non-meat. More plausible, to me, is that most people who regularly eat meat are not that uptight about it, and willing to try other stuff without feeling victimized. But yes, I also know people who are the opposite.

thrower123 7y ago

It does sort of raise the issue of this being a captive audience. If the dining hall at my college suddenly went vegetarian, I would have pretty much had to go along with it; it's the most convenient option, and often the only real choice to get something to eat between classes - going off campus would take too long. And then there is the case that your meal plan is only valid there, and in the case at the school I went to, you could not opt out of paying for the meal plan even if you wanted to, so you'd be flushing $500-$1000 down the drain.