A key lifestyle change people could make to reduce their environmental impact is to reduce their meat consumption. However, meat is still a staple in many people's diet, and some consumers are reluctant to cut down. Meat substitutes, if accepted as adequate replacements for meat, may offer a suitable alternative without leaving consumers feeling dissatisfied. The aim of the present study was to identify psychological barriers to reducing meat consumption and increasing use of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers. Participants engaged in focus group discussions around purchasing, preparing, and consuming meat and meat substitutes. Four main themes were identified through thematic analysis: uncertainty, scepticism, health, and identity. These are discussed in relation to previous work on the barriers to reducing meat consumption. Strategies to communicate the environmental impact of meat to consumers and effect change through behavioural interventions are considered.

Switching out meat in favour of plant-based alternatives such as meat substitutes is an important step towards eating more sustainably. Here, the aim was to identify and explore the specific barriers experienced by Swedish consumers when replacing meat with more sustainable alternatives. All meat-eating participants in this study reported some interest in reducing their meat consumption. Aspects of home-use and central-location test methods were combined by using a digital conferencing system to host cooking sessions and focus group discussions online, which was shown to be a viable setup even in this hands-on setting. The discussions targeted participants’ experience preparing meals using meat substitutes as well as their perceived motivators and barriers to reducing meat consumption. Four themes identified through thematic analysis indicated that meat-eating participants, despite their desire or intent to reduce their meat consumption, experienced barriers relating to the following: internal conflict due to holding multiple positive and negative beliefs about meat simultaneously (ambivalence), justification of eating meat (rationalisation), a desire for variety in and control over their food choices (agency), and sensitivity to the views and expectations of other people and the situational context regarding meat (social and structuralfactors). Possible strategies to support ambivalent individuals in aligning their behaviour with their beliefs instead of vice versa are discussed in the context of the meat paradox. Agency and practical skills, including increasing knowledge in preparing meals with plant-based proteins, likely play a role in bridging this intention–behaviour gap.