Abstract
Meat eaters encounter a conflict between their eating behavior and their affections toward animals. Because this “meat paradox” highlights discrepancies between behavior and various ideals, a number of experts have focused on cognitive dissonance theory to explain the psychology of eating meat. The present work presents a framework to understand the phenomenon of meat-related cognitive dissonance (MRCD), herein defined as occurring when the dissonant state involves recognition of one’s behavior as a meat eater and a belief, attitude, or value that this behavior contradicts. The proposed framework explains how individuals attempt to prevent this form of dissonance from occurring (e.g., avoidance, willful ignorance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, and do-gooder derogation) and how they reduce it once it has occurred in the form of motivated cognitions (e.g., denigrating animals, offering pro- meat justifications, or denying responsibility for eating meat). The MRCD framework posits that which of a possible fifteen outlets is chosen to prevent and reduce the moral guilt associated with eating meat depends on (a) the aspect of meat consumption that produces MRCD; (b) the motivation created by MRCD; (c) individual differences in gender, values, affinity toward animals and meat, and exposure to animals; and (d) culture. Implications of the framework for those seeking to curtail meat consumption are discussed and important questions are highlighted for theorists to resolve.
Generated Summary
This research presents a framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal, which is known as meat-related cognitive dissonance (MRCD). The study is based on cognitive dissonance theory (CDT), which posits that individuals experience psychological discomfort when holding conflicting beliefs or behaviors. The research explores the various ways individuals attempt to prevent or reduce this dissonance, examining the underlying psychological mechanisms involved. The study also delves into the factors influencing these coping mechanisms, including individual differences, the aspect of meat consumption, and cultural contexts. The study draws on diverse theories, including moral disengagement and carnism, to explain how meat eaters navigate the psychological complexities of their dietary choices. The study used is not specified as a specific experiment or study, but a general overview of the subject matter.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The study references research indicating that 60% of vegetarians admitted to eating red meat, poultry, or seafood within the last twenty-four hours (Time/CNN/Harris Interactive Poll, 2002).
- Estimates of vegetarianism are predicated on how vegetarianism is defined, with self-identification yielding higher estimates than behavioral reports. Approximately 7% of people in the U.S. self-identify as vegetarian, yet only somewhere between 1-2.5% are strict vegetarians (Maurer, 2010).
- One study found that 27-28% of individuals displayed willful ignorance in the context of meat, deliberately ignoring information about the treatment of farmed animals (Onwezen & van der Weele, 2016).
- One study indicated that 67% of respondents indicated that they do not think about animal suffering when they purchase meat (Signicom, 1997).
- The study references that the average meat consumption in the U.S. increased from 176 to 240 pounds a year (Herzog, 2011).
- Projections estimate that meat consumption will increase in North America by 8%, in Europe by 7% and in Asia by 56% from 2011-2020 (OECD, 2014).
- The study notes that, per capita meat consumption in the U.S. neared a record high in 2018.
- Majorities in the U.S. believe that farmed animals are treated humanely or well (The Sentience Institute, 2017).
- The study references that three times as many Americans indicated that they had decreased meat consumption as opposed to increased it during the last three years (Neff et al., 2018).
- 54% expressed that they were attempting to reduce consumption of animal-based products (The Sentience Institute, 2017).
Other Important Findings
- The framework identifies several strategies meat eaters employ to manage MRCD. These include avoidance (ignoring information), dissociation (separating the meat from the animal), perceived behavioral change (reducing meat intake), and do-gooder derogation (criticizing those with different views).
- MRCD can be triggered by reminders of farm animals, information about animal welfare, or the presence of vegetarians.
- The framework posits that the effectiveness of the different mechanisms for reducing MRCD depends on factors such as individual differences (gender, values), motivation, and culture.
- Denial of animal mind is a key strategy, with meat eaters often downplaying animals’ capacity for suffering.
- The framework also examines how the social context (e.g., exposure to vegetarians, the framing of meat as “natural”) influences the experience and management of MRCD.
- The study suggests that appealing to the immorality or harm in eating meat may lead some to change behavior, while it may lead others to justify and increase meat consumption.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s limitations include the speculative nature of the framework, as it is based on theory rather than empirical research.
- The study notes that there has been little, if any, research on what type of dissonance motivation is associated with MRCD.
- The study also notes that research activating MRCD has not allowed participants to express their most preferred choice of dissonance reducing mechanism by generating their own responses.
- The study notes that the lack of difference in willingness to eat beef between French and Chinese in Tian et al. (2016) may indicate that both groups experienced similar amounts of MRCD, but it could also result from one group experiencing higher MRCD than the other combined with a lower desire to reduce MRCD behaviorally.
Conclusion
The study offers a valuable framework for understanding the psychological mechanisms that enable meat eaters to reconcile their behavior with potential moral concerns. The study proposes that a comprehensive understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for anyone interested in the social dynamics of meat consumption, from researchers to activists. The study also highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of human behavior, particularly in situations involving ethical dilemmas. The study underscores that the strategies used to reduce dissonance might vary widely depending on the individual and the situation. For example, the study suggests that framing the discussion in different ways can impact the effectiveness of the messaging and can produce a wide range of results. In the case of women, and those with empathy towards animals, the study suggests that focusing on the harm caused can lead to behavioral changes. On the other hand, for men, the study states that focusing on the harm to animals may cause people to consume more meat, instead of less. As a result, those seeking to influence the behavior of meat eaters must understand the nuanced ways that individuals deal with moral contradictions. The framework’s ability to predict how people might react to different appeals is a notable strength. The study emphasizes that while information-based appeals might work for some, they might reinforce existing beliefs for others, making a nuanced approach essential. The study concludes that interventions should be carefully tailored to the target audience, in order to be effective.