The three most common motives for plant-based diets in western populations are health, the environment, and animal rights. This study compares the structure, endorsement rates, and personality correlates of these motives among vegetarian and omnivorous (i.e., non-vegetarian) respondents. We found evidence for configural, metric, and scalar equivalence in the measurement of these motives across vegetarians and omnivores, suggesting that vegetarian diet motives function similarly whether or not the respondent identifies as vegetarian. Vegetarians, notably, reported being more motivated by the environment and animal rights than omnivores; health motivations were similarly high across groups. Several significant effects emerged linking vegetarian motives to personality traits, with patterns of correlations between motives and traits being highly similar across vegetarians and omnivores. Overall, these findings suggest that vegetarian eating motives are similar in terms of structure and personality correlates, but differ in endorsement rates, between vegetarian and omnivorous individuals.

Workplace Dignity has long been the subject of scholarly enquiry, although until recently the body of research has been dominated by ethnographic work. Recently, Thomas and Lucas ( 2019 ) developed the first quantitative, direct measure of perceptions of workplace dignity: the Workplace Dignity Scale (WDS). Given the importance of understanding dignity in the workplace, this study sought to replicate the initial scale validation study conducted by Thomas and Lucas, so as to further test the validity of the WDS and the reliability of the scores it produces. Moreover, the current study contributes to the ongoing methodological reform of psychology towards a transparent and rigorous science by preregistering the method and analysis script prior to collecting data. A large sample of workers ( N = 812) from the United States were recruited through Prolific Academic and completed an online questionnaire that included the WDS, as well as theoretically related scales (e.g., workplace incivility). Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the model specified by Thomas and Lucas had reasonable global fit, although it did not meet all of our criteria for good fit, and estimates of reliability ( ωt ) indicated that responses to items making up the two subscales of the WDS, Dignity and Indignity, had high internal consistency. Nomological analyses revealed that the Dignity subscale of the WDS was significantly correlated in the expected directions with theoretically related variables. Furthermore, the Dignity and Indignity factors of the WDS were found to highly correlate with one another, and an exploratory analysis suggested that the Indignity factor might be a methodological artefact, posing questions as to whether the two factors are qualitatively different phenomena as was argued by Thomas and Lucas. It is concluded that the WDS is a promising tool for measuring workplace dignity although refinement of the proposed measurement model may be necessary.