Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals

The taste of compassion: Influencing meat attitudes with interhuman and interspecies moral appeals

Consumers of meat products are generally shielded from the moral dissonance associated with the killing of livestock. Nonetheless, consumers increasingly look for ways to reduce or avoid meat in their diets due to concerns about individual health and the harmful global impacts of meat production. Campaigns that promote plant-based diets seek to facilitate such efforts by appealing to consumers' compassion, but the effects of such moral appeals on immediate food choice have not been studied. The literature on the psychology of meat consumption, its gendered associations in western cultural contexts are reviewed, and a compassion appraisal model for ethical food choice is tested. In a longitudinal restaurant field study and three laboratory experiments, the effects of interhuman as well as interspecies compassion appeals on meat-containing vs. meatless food choices are investigated. Compassion mediates ethical food choices, but is moderated by denial of the harmful consequences of meat production. Threats to masculinity that are often associated with meat advertising increase men's likelihood to choose meat instead of a vegetarian option. Overall, results indicate that men are less amenable to reduce their meat consumption and that they evaluate vegetarian options as less palatable when exposed to compassion appeals. These effects were opposite for women. Implications for meatless food products and for consumer well-being are discussed.

Meet your meat: The effect of imagined intergroup contact on wanting and liking of meat

Increased global meat consumption has negative impacts on animal welfare, the environment, as well as health. The current study is the first to investigate whether imagined intergroup contact with a farmed animal changes wanting and liking of beef and reduces willingness to consume meat. Collegians [N = 100, 67% female] imagined having a positive experience with either a calf (n = 36), kitten (n = 33), or child (n = 31). Following the imagined interaction, they completed the Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire to measure implicit and explicit wanting and explicit liking of beef and other types of meat relative to other food categories. Participants also indicated their willingness to reduce meat consumption. Results revealed that there were no significant differences between groups in explicit wanting or liking of beef or meat, nor in willingness to reduce future meat consumption. Nevertheless, compared to the kitten and child conditions, participants who imagined interacting with a calf experienced lower levels of implicit wanting and relative preference for beef and other meat products. Our findings suggest that imagined intergroup contact may be an effective manipulation to reduce meat consumption as a part of a broader intervention program.

Effectiveness of a Theory-Informed Documentary to Reduce Consumption of Meat and Animal Products: Three Randomized Controlled Experiments

Several societal issues could be mitigated by reducing global consumption of meat and animal products (MAP). In three randomized, controlled experiments (n=217 to 574), we evaluated the effects of a documentary that presents health, environmental, and animal welfare motivations for reducing MAP consumption. Study 1 assessed the documentary's effectiveness at reducing reported MAP consumption after 12 days. This study used methodological innovations to minimize social desirability bias, a widespread limitation of past research. Study 2 investigated discrepancies between the results of Study 1 and those of previous studies by further examining the role of social desirability bias. Study 3 assessed the documentary's effectiveness in a new population anticipated to be more responsive and upon enhancing the intervention content. We found that the documentary did not decrease reported MAP consumption when potential social desirability bias was minimized (Studies 1 and 3). The documentary also did not affect consumption among participants whose demographics suggested they might be more receptive (Study 3). However, the documentary did substantially increase intentions to reduce consumption, consistent with past studies (Studies 2 and 3). Overall, we conclude that some past studies of similar interventions may have overestimated effects due to methodological biases. Novel intervention strategies to reduce MAP consumption may be needed.

Five Shapes of Cognitive Dissonance - Using Objective Hermeneutics to Understand the Meat Paradox

Objective Hermeneutics is a qualitative method that focuses on few sequences of texts, which helps understand single cases. It is used to explore how consumers cope with the contradiction between their enjoyment for meat and their empathy for animals without using frameworks drafted by social scientists. Five cases are analysed, which range from strong references towards the societal norm of meat eating to a feeling of uncertainty in the face of the animals' death. None of the cases, however, sees the necessity to find a rationale for their own meat consumption. The study concludes by raising the question about the persistence of a societal consensus for meat consumption.

Meat replacer? No thanks! The clash between naturalness and processing: An explorative study of the perception of plant-based foods

A shift towards a plant-based diet is desired to promote sustainability, improve health, and minimize animal suffering. However, many consumers are not willing to make such a transition, because of attachment to meat and unwillingness to change habits. The present work explored the perception of Norwegian and French consumers' attitudes, barriers and opportunities to increase the likelihood of a shift in diet. Three creative focus groups (CFGs), using interactive tasks such as photo-collage, projective mapping, story completion and third person technique, were run with omnivorous adult consumers in each country. CFGs gathers undirected feedback, providing less biased responses than other exploration methods, related to e.g. social norms. In both countries, results were in general lines comparable. Nutritional knowledge was low regarding vegetable proteins; familiar sources of protein were mostly animal. There is a strong gap between respondents' desired behaviour (balancing nutrition, eating less meat) and their actual behaviour: meat is very important, and the menu is often organized around it. Consumers are curious about vegetable sources of protein, but major constraints were hedonics in France, and convenience in Norway. The main barrier to a shift in diet is the lack of knowledge on how to prepare plant-based meals. Many participants find a conflict between health & sustainability in industrial products, perceiving them as highly processed and suggesting that meat replacers might not be a straightforward way to drive omnivorous consumers to shift to a more plant-based diet.

Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001-2019

A reduction of meat consumption and shift to plant-based diets, especially in industrialized countries, is acknowledged as crucial for reaching climate targets, addressing public health problems, and protecting animal welfare. While scholarly research distilled drivers of meat consumption and barriers to its reduction, insights into the effectiveness of measures to initiate such a profound change in consumer behaviour are relatively scarce. This paper presents a systematic literature review on consumption-side interventions in the context of meat consumption across scholarly disciplines. Our analysis confirms that existing research predominantly assessed interventions addressing personal factors of behavioural change such as knowledge and emotions. Whether these interventions are effective depends on whether information (i) is provided on health, animal welfare or environmental effects, (ii) is emotionally or cognitively framed, and (iii) is aligned with consumers' information needs. Moreover, linking meat to living animals or to the humanness of animals activates negative emotions and, thus, reduces meat consumption. Further, increasing the visibility and variety of vegetarian dishes in food environments decreases meat-eating. Also, educational courses on how to shop and cook vegetarian food are effective in reducing meat consumption. There is less evidence on the effectiveness of interventions addressing socio-cultural factors such as social norms. Regarding future research directions, existing research mainly investigated the influence of interventions on attitudes and behavioural intentions. Hence, there is still a need for studies to assess more long-term effects of intervention measures on actual meat consumption and their potential to initiate fundamental changes in dietary habits.

Motivated Moral Outrage Among Meat-Eaters

Many meat-eaters experience cognitive dissonance when aware that their eating behaviors contradict their moral values, such as desires to protect the environment or animals from harm. One way in which people morally disengage from their behaviors—and thus avoid dissonance—is to displace responsibility onto others. Aligning with this notion, results of three studies (total N = 1,501) suggest that expressing moral outrage at third-party transgressors reduces dissonance and preserves moral identity among meat-eaters. When participants understood their in-group as responsible for factory farming’s negative impact or read about factory farming’s harms to animals, expressing moral outrage at third-party transgressors reduced guilt and elevated self-rated moral character. Moreover, reflecting on the morally troublesome nature of meat-eating led participants to express more moral outrage at a third-party organization responsible for animal abuse, an effect eliminated by self-affirmation. These findings substantiate moral outrage as a new mechanism to justify meat consumption.

Escaping from the meat paradox: How morality and disgust affect meat-related ambivalence

Meat production and its consumption harm animals, the environment, and human health; nevertheless, many people like to eat meat. If people become aware of this so-called meat paradox, they experience an aversive cognitive conflict. People, therefore, have to eschew meat if they permanently want to resolve this conflict. Eschewing meat is demanding, however, because people have to resist their temptation to eat meat and challenge social norms. In the present research, we thus conducted two pre-registered studies to investigate how people may overcome these obstacles: We hypothesized that people may go through a hedonic shift in which they establish cognitive consistency by forming univalent instead of ambivalent attitudes and that this process is fueled by the moral emotion disgust. In Study 1, we found that veg*ans who pursued moral goals with their diet reported more disgust towards meat, which was associated with reduced meat-related ambivalence. In Study 2, we found that disgust towards meat was again associated with decreased meat-related ambivalence. That is, veg*ans and omnivores similarly reported greater disgust after reading a text describing bad hygienic conditions in meat production. Besides this physical disgust, they also experienced heightened disgust if they read a text on animal cruelty in meat production. This moral disgust, however, was only elicited in people who did not morally disengage from their harmful behavior, i.e., in people who attributed relatively high emotional and mental capacities towards animals. While the latter findings of Study 2 are rather exploratory, taken together our findings suggest that morality and disgust may indeed promote cognitive consistency. The outlined processes thus could play a pivotal role in adopting and maintaining meat-less diets.

Monitoring a meat-free pledge with smartphones: An experimental study

Pledges are a popular strategy to encourage meat reduction, though experimental studies of their efficacy are lacking. Three-hundred and twenty-five participants from three different countries (UK, Germany, Australia) were randomly assigned to pledge 28 days meat-free or not, and their behavior was tracked via smartphones. Participants answered daily surveys regarding their eating behavior, meat cravings, and shared photos of their meals. Baseline data was collected prior to the pledge, after the 28 days, and one-month post-intervention. Participants assigned to the pledge condition ate less meat across the 28 days, compared to control participants. Meat reductions, observed at outtake, did not endure one-month post-intervention. Overall, German participants ate the least amount of meat, and showed the sharpest decrease in consumption when pledging. Meat cravings tended to increase among pledgers, relative to control participants. Pledgers who reported high starting intentions and conflict about meat tended to eat less meat and reported fewer cravings. All participants reported reduced meat-eating justifications one-month post-intervention. These findings provide experimental evidence that pledges can encourage meat consumers to reduce their intake, though additional mechanisms are needed to sustain commitments.

"How do you know someone's vegan?" They won't always tell you. An empirical test of the do-gooder's dilemma

A growing number of people (privately) endorse the benefits associated with adopting a meat-free diet. Yet, the societal transition to a more plant-based diet is taking place rather slowly. Why do people's private meat-free preferences fail to materialize in their daily food choices? One potential explanation is that vegetarians and vegans, at this time still a minority group, are worried about eliciting stigma and thus may not feel comfortable expressing their meat-free preferences during social interactions with meat-eaters. Their self-silencing could reinforce the notion that adopting a meat-free diet is nothing more than a niche phenomenon, and in turn discourage others from eliminating meat from their diet as well, thus perpetuating the non-vegetarian norm. Adapting the classic conformity paradigm by Asch, we found that vegetarian and vegan participants were hesitant to express their meat-free preferences. Vegan and vegetarian participants avoided signing a petition that promoted veg*an food options after a majority of confederates had declined to do so. When the experimenter endorsed veg*an food options, however, participants went against the majority, and did sign the petition. Together, these findings point to a pivotal role for exemplars and institutions: by signaling that there are allies who endorse a meat-free diet, they may liberate vegetarians and vegans to publicly express their deviant, meat-free preferences, and thus speed up wider societal change.

A structured literature review of the meat paradox

Many people wish to avoid harming animals, yet most people also consume meat. This theoretical ‘meat paradox’ is a form of cognitive dissonance and has grave negative consequences for animal welfare and the environment. Yet, despite these consequences, the meat paradox literature is sparse. The current structured literature review (SLR) explores primary literature up to May 2020, supporting the paradox and uniquely reviewing all known triggers of the paradox (e.g., exposure to meat’s animal origins), all known strategies to overcome the paradox (e.g., avoiding thinking about consumed animals) and how different people (e.g., those of different genders, occupations, ages, dietary preferences, cultures or religions) utilise varying strategies to overcome the paradox. For instance, the review uniquely demonstrates how dietary identity, dietary adherence and meat consumption frequency, among other demographic and psychographic factors, all affect moral (dis)engagement from animals. Overall, this paper has wide-ranging theoretical implications for the meat paradox and social psychological literature, and practical implications for meat reduction policies.

Morally admirable or moralistically deplorable? A theoretical framework for understanding character judgments of vegan advocates

Over the last decade, vegan advocates have become a growing minority. By arguing against animal-product consumption and imposing the virtue-loaded call to "go vegan," advocates have posed a direct challenge to the mainstream dietary ideology (termed "carnism") in hopes of positive social change. As a consequence, while vegan advocates may be admired for their morality and commitment, they may also be derogated with moralistic traits such as arrogance and overcommitment. We call this mixed-valence perception the "vegan paradox" and propose a theoretical framework for understanding it. Next, we develop a future research agenda to test and apply our framework, and inquire vegan advocacy for ethical, health, and environmental aims. Using the perspective of the idealistic vegan advocate as a reference point, we discuss the roles of the advocate's motives for change (i.e., the effectiveness of moral persuasion), the advocate's call for change (i.e., radical versus incremental change), the target's moral and carnist identification, and source attributes of the advocate. Lastly, we qualify our framework by highlighting further conceptual and methodological considerations.

Animals Like Us: Leveraging the Negativity Bias in Anthropomorphism to Reduce Beef Consumption

Our current work contributes to the literature of meat consumption reduction. Capitalizing on the inherent humanizing characteristic of anthropomorphism coupled with leveraging negativity bias, we created a novel approach to reduce meat-eating intention. Using on-pack product stickers, we compare an anthropomorphic message stressing the capacity to experience pain with two other anthropomorphic messages that have been used before in the literature (intelligence and pro-social behavior of animals). We find that an on-pack pain anthropomorphic sticker reduces purchase intentions of the meat product and intention to consume meat in general and is more effective than stickers displaying pro-social or intelligence messages. We also show that the pain message's negative impact on purchase intention is serially mediated by anticipatory guilt and attitude towards meat. In addition, we show that the differential effectiveness of the anthropomorphic messages can be explained by the negativity bias. That is, when the pro-social and intelligence messages were formulated in a negative way (as is pain), all three messages were equally effective at reducing intention to purchase meat and increase intention to reduce meat consumption.

Identifying barriers to decreasing meat consumption and increasing acceptance of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers

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.

Meta-regression methods to characterize evidence strength using meaningful-effect percentages conditional on study characteristics

Meta-regression analyses usually focus on estimating and testing differences in average effect sizes between individual levels of each meta-regression covariate in turn. These metrics are useful but have limitations: they consider each covariate individually, rather than in combination, and they characterize only the mean of a potentially heterogeneous distribution of effects. We propose additional metrics that address both limitations. Given a chosen threshold representing a meaningfully strong effect size, these metrics address the questions: "For a given joint level of the covariates, what percentage of the population effects are meaningfully strong?" and "For any two joint levels of the covariates, what is the difference between these percentages of meaningfully strong effects?" We provide semiparametric methods for estimation and inference and assess their performance in a simulation study. We apply the proposed methods to meta-regression analyses on memory consolidation and on dietary behavior interventions, illustrating how the methods can provide more information than standard reporting alone. To facilitate implementing the methods in practice, we provide reporting guidelines and simple R code.

Changing Hearts and Plates: The Effect of Animal-Advocacy Pamphlets on Meat Consumption

Social movements have driven large shifts in public attitudes and values, from anti-slavery to marriage equality. A central component of these movements is moral persuasion. We conduct a randomized-controlled trial of pro-vegan animal-welfare pamphlets at a college campus. We observe the effect on meat consumption using an individual-level panel data set of approximately 200,000 meals. Our baseline regression results, spanning two academic years, indicate that the pamphlet had no statistically significant long-term aggregate effects. However, as we disaggregate by gender and time, we find small statistically significant effects within the semester of the intervention: a 2.4 percentage-point reduction in poultry and fish for men and a 1.6 percentage-point reduction in beef for women. The effects disappear after 2 months. We merge food purchase data with survey responses to examine mechanisms. Those participants who (i) self-identified as vegetarian, (ii) reported thinking more about the treatment of animals or (iii) expressed a willingness to make big lifestyle changes reduced meat consumption during the semester of the intervention. Though we find significant effects on some subsamples in the short term, we can reject all but small treatment effects in the aggregate.

Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations

Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.

Meat disgust is negatively associated with meat intake - Evidence from a cross-sectional and longitudinal study

Meat consumption is increasingly seen as unsustainable, unhealthy, and unethical. Understanding what factors help people reduce their meat intake is urgently needed. One such factor is meat disgust, a feeling reported by many vegetarians, and which could be a promising basis for meat reduction interventions. However, meat disgust and its impact on meat consumption is poorly understood. We examined meat disgust and its role in vegetarianism and reducing meat intake in a cross-sectional and longitudinal online study. We measured self-reported meat consumption, meat disgust (by self-report and Implicit Association Test), meat liking, self-control, and disgust sensitivity in N = 711 adults (57% omnivores, 28% flexitarians, 15% vegetarians) recruited from a community cohort. Results showed that 73% of vegetarians can be classified as 'meat disgusted', and that meat disgust predicted meat intake better than self-control in omnivores and flexitarians at baseline. Following up a sub-sample of participants (N = 197) after six months revealed that changes in meat intake over time were also associated with changes in meat disgust. This is the first study to quantify the impact of meat disgust on (changes in) meat consumption and its prevalence in the vegetarian and the general population. Our findings advance research into meat disgust and encourage the development of disgust-based interventions to reduce meat intake.

Moral rebels and dietary deviants: How moral minority stereotypes predict the social attractiveness of veg*ns

In this preregistered study we examined why people with an omnivorous diet (i.e., omnivores) would view vegetarians and vegans (i.e., veg*ns) as less socially attractive based on their status as stigmatized moral minorities. Drawing on a recently demonstrated distinction between perceived morality and sociability in research on universal dimensions of stereotype content, we expected that veg*ns would be perceived as more moral but less sociable compared to omnivores. A lower perceived sociability would predict a lower social attractiveness of veg*ns, supported by two additional stereotypes theorized to be specifically associated with moral minorities: moralistic and eccentric impressions. In addition, we explored impressions toward people who consciously reduce their meat intake (i.e., flexitarians) and we complemented our quantitative analysis with an analysis of stereotype content omnivores freely associated with the dietary groups. Accordingly, using a single factor between-subjects experimental design, we randomly allocated a diverse sample of omnivores from the UK to answer questions about either omnivores (n = 100), flexitarians (n = 101), vegetarians (n = 105) or vegans (n = 106). Results largely confirmed our hypotheses: Although veg*ns were perceived as more moral, they were also stereotyped more negatively (especially vegans). More specifically, they were seen as more eccentric and, in particular, more moralistic, predicting a lower social attractiveness, though indirect effects via sociability were relatively small. Notably, flexitarians shared positive attributes of both non-flexitarian groups. Free association data were largely consistent with our results and provide additional direction for further inquiry. Novel theoretical contributions are highlighted and limitations, future research directions, and implications of our study for theory and practice are discussed.

The role of meat appetite in willfully disregarding factory farming as a pandemic catalyst risk

Most infectious diseases are zoonotic, "jumping" from animals to humans, with COVID-19 no exception. Although many zoonotic transmissions occur on industrial-scale factory farms, public discussions mainly blame wild animal ("wet") markets or focus on reactionary solutions, posing a psychological obstacle to preventing future pandemics. In two pre-registered studies early in the 2020 pandemic, we examined whether British adults fail to recognize factory farming in causing epidemics, and whether such dismissal represents motivated cognition. Cross-sectional data (Study 1, N = 302) confirmed that people blame factory farms and global meat consumption less than wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness, especially among meat-committed persons. Experimental exposure (Study 2, N = 194) to information blaming factory farms (vs. wild animal markets) produced lower endorsement of preventive solutions than of reactionary solutions, which was exacerbated among meat-committed persons. These findings suggest that people, especially those highly committed to eating meat, willfully disregard solutions targeting animal agriculture and global meat consumption to prevent future pandemics precisely because such solutions implicate their dietary habits. Better understanding motivated beliefs about the causes of and solutions to pandemics is critical for developing interventions.

Prescribing vegetarian or flexitarian diets leads to sustained reduction in meat intake

Many people agree that reducing the consumption of meat has good ends (e.g., for animal welfare, the environment, and human health). However, the question of which advocacy strategies are most effective in enabling wide-spread meat reduction remains open. We explored this by prescribing four different meat reduction diets to omnivorous participants for a seven-day adherence period, and studied their meat consumption over time. The diets included a Vegetarian diet, and three flexitarian diets (Climatarian - limit beef and lamb consumption; One Step for Animals - eliminate chicken consumption; Reducetarian - reduce all meat consumption). Results showed pronounced differences between groups in meat consumption during the adherence period, where the Vegetarian group ate significantly less meat than the flexitarian groups. All groups decreased their meat intake in the weeks following the adherence period compared to baseline, however, there were no significant group differences in the level of decrease over time. Participants also changed their attitudes toward meat and animals from pre-to post-intervention, and decreases in commitment toward and rationalization of meat-eating partially mediated change in meat intake. These findings reveal that the diet assignments had some impact on participants' meat consumption and attitudes even after the prescribed adherence period had ended. However, the sustained decrease in consumption did not vary depending on what meat reduction strategy was originally used.

Pro-environmental behavior predicts adherence to plant-based diets

Plant-based diets are beneficial to human health and environmental sustainability but suffer from low rates of adherence. For example, many people who self-identify as vegetarian sporadically eat meat and eventually give up their vegetarian diet entirely. We theorize that valuing a lifestyle of pro-environmental behaviors can enable people to adhere to a plant-based diet more successfully. In the current survey study, we tested this prediction among plant-based dieters for two outcomes: short-term adherence (for the past three days) and future-intended dietary adherence (intention to continue one's diet for the next 1-2 years). Over and above other dietary, motivational, and demographic factors, pro-environmental behavior positively predicted both short-term and future-intended adherence to plant-based diets. Moreover, pro-environmental behavior mediated links between (a) connectedness to nature and dietary adherence and (b) political ideology and dietary adherence. These findings highlight pro-environmental behavior as a tool for explaining and predicting adherence to plant-based diets.

A cross cultural meat paradox: A qualitative study of Australia and India

The 'meat paradox' is the psychological conflict between people's enjoyment of meat and their moral discomfort in relation to animal suffering. To date, most studies on the meat paradox have been in Western contexts where meat-eating is a cultural norm. In comparison, little is known about how the meat paradox is experienced in emerging economies such as India, where the longstanding cultural commitment to vegetarianism is under challenge. Further, most studies to date have been quantitative. This study bridges the knowledge gap by providing a qualitative comparison of the meat paradox in urban Australia and India, using cognitive dissonance theory as its main framework. We conducted in-depth interviews with twenty-two Sydney residents and thirty-three Mumbai residents, aged 23-45 years. The interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. In both countries, common strategies to reduce dissonance included distancing, belief in a human-animal hierarchy, carnism and criticisms of alternative dietary practices. Despite these commonalities, the manner in which these strategies manifested was different in each country, reflecting key socio-cultural and institutional differences. Australian participants became aware of the ethical challenges of meat consumption primarily via the media, whereas many Indian participants had direct experience of animal slaughter in wet markets. Thus, while Australian participants had reduced their meat consumption or turned to 'kinder' alternatives, Indian participants resorted to distancing and emotional numbing to reduce dissonance. Further, participants in both countries highlighted instances of moral hypocrisy in relation to vegetarian/vegan practices. While Australian participants discussed self-proclaimed vegetarians who might succumb to a dietary lapse, Indian participants discussed inconsistencies in relation to religious and caste-based norms.

Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years

Alternatives to conventional meat are considered an increasingly important tool in the drive to reduce consumption of animal products for environmental, public health and ethical reasons. We present two waves of a cross-sectional survey from a nationally representative sample in Belgium in 2019 (n = 1001) and 2020 (n = 1000). Participants answered questions online about their diets, attitudes towards existing plant-based meat alternatives, and attitudes towards cultured meat (grown from animal cells). We find that the proportion of Belgian consumers who said existing plant-based meat alternatives met their needs increased significantly from 44% in 2019 to 51% in 2020. We also find a significant increase in concern for issues related to animal agriculture, in particular the environment. We found no significant change in attitudes towards cultured meat between the two waves; in both 2019 and 2020, 39.3% of Belgian consumers said they would buy cultured meat. Regression analyses revealed that plant-based alternatives were more appealing to women and those with vegetarian diets, whilst cultured meat was more appealing to men. Overall, just 11.2% of consumers are both unsatisfied with existing meat alternatives and unwilling to buy cultured meat, while 43.2% of respondents were positive towards either plant-based or cultured meat, but not both, highlighting the need for a variety of alternative proteins in the market. Both cultured meat and plant-based meat were more appealing to younger consumers and those in the northern, predominantly Dutch-speaking region of Flanders. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers and those seeking to strategically displace demand for animal products.

Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018–2020)

Cultured meat is one of a number of alternative proteins which can help to reduce the demand for meat from animals in the future. As cultured meat nears commercialization, research on consumers’ perceptions of the technology has proliferated. We build on our 2018 systematic review to identify 26 empirical studies on consumer acceptance of cultured meat published in peer-reviewed journals since then. We find support for many of the findings of our previous review, as well as novel insights into the market for cultured meat. We find evidence of a substantial market for cultured meat in many countries, as well as markets and demographics which are particularly open to the concept. Consumers mostly identified animal- and environment-related benefits, but there is plenty of potential to highlight personal benefits such as health and food safety. The safety of cultured meat and its nutritional qualities are intuitively seen as risks by some consumers, although some recognize potential benefits in these areas. Evidence suggests that acceptance can be increased with positive information, as well as frames which invoke more positive associations. We conclude by arguing that cultured meat will form one part of a varied landscape of future protein sources, each appealing to different groups of consumers to achieve an overall reduction in conventional meat consumption. We acknowledge a range of pro-cultured meat messaging strategies, and suggest that framing cultured meat as a solution to existing food safety problems may be an effective approach to increase acceptance. In the long-term, objections based in neophobia and norm violation will decrease, and widespread acceptance will depend in large part on the price and taste.

Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

More and more consumers, at least in Western developed countries, are attentive to the sustainability aspects of their food, one of which concerns animal welfare. The conflict of harming an animal for the joy of eating meat causes a moral dilemma, affecting consumers’ reactions to, and choices of, animal-friendly products. This systematic review identified 86 studies from Scopus and Web of Science. The review outlines: (1) What are the personal antecedents among consumers regarding moral conflicts?; (2) In what situation do moral conflicts occur in consumer food choice?; (3) How do consumers emotionally experience the moral dilemma?; (4) How do consumers resolve moral conflicts over animal products? Researchers have studied personal factors and situational factors that arouse consumers’ moral dilemma and how the dilemma is solved, during which emotions and dissonance come into play. When synthesizing these findings into a comprehensive model, we notice that the current research is lacking on how personal factors change and interact with situations, which limits the understanding of the real-life context of consumers’ moral dilemma as well as their choices of animal-friendly products. More in-depth studies are needed to find situational factors that contribute to this complex psychological process.