The effects of dissociation on willingness to eat meat are moderated by exposure to unprocessed meat: A cross-cultural demonstration

Introducing the trier univalence neutrality ambivalence (TUNA) database: A picture database differentiating complex attitudes

Using validated stimulus material is crucial for ensuring research comparability and replicability. However, many databases rely solely on bidimensional valence ratings, ranging from negative to positive. While this material might be appropriate for certain studies, it does not reflect the complexity of attitudes and therefore might hamper the unambiguous interpretation of some study results. In fact, most databases cannot differentiate between neutral (i.e., neither positive nor negative) and ambivalent (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative) attitudes. Consequently, even presumably univalent (only positive or negative) stimuli cannot be clearly distinguished from ambivalent ones when selected via bipolar rating scales. In the present research, we introduce the Trier Univalence Neutrality Ambivalence (TUNA) database, a database containing 304,262 validation ratings from heterogeneous samples of 3,232 participants and at least 20 (M = 27.3, SD = 4.84) ratings per self-report scale per picture for a variety of attitude objects on split semantic differential scales. As these scales measure positive and negative evaluations independently, the TUNA database allows to distinguish univalence, neutrality, and ambivalence (i.e., potential ambivalence). TUNA also goes beyond previous databases by validating the stimulus materials on affective outcomes such as experiences of conflict (i.e., felt ambivalence), arousal, anger, disgust, and empathy. The TUNA database consists of 796 pictures and is compatible with other popular databases. It sets a focus on food pictures in various forms (e.g., raw vs. cooked, non-processed vs. highly processed), but includes pictures of other objects that are typically used in research to study univalent (e.g., flowers) and ambivalent (e.g., money, cars) attitudes for comparison. Furthermore, to facilitate the stimulus selection the TUNA database has an accompanying desktop app that allows easy stimulus selection via a multitude of filter options.

An Investigation of Meat Eating in Samples from Australia and Germany: The Role of Justifications, Perceptions, and Empathy

Despite concerns about animal welfare, and health and environmental issues associated with eating meat, meat consumption has continued to increase worldwide, including in Australia. One exception to this is Germany, with 2021 meat consumption levels being the lowest in the last 30 years. This pre-registered study investigated socio-cultural variables associated with meat consumption in Germany (n = 399) and Australia (n = 399) in a cross-sectional online survey. Participants reported levels of current and intended meat consumption, and they completed measures of speciesism, motivations to eat meat, empathy, animal farming perceptions, perceived behavioural control (PBC) over meat eating, and avoidance and dissociation regarding the animal origins of meat. In both Australia and Germany, enjoying the taste of meat positively predicted consumption and empathy towards farmed animals negatively predicted consumption. PBC was a strong positive predictor of intentions to reduce meat consumption in both countries. Empathy and liking the taste of meat were among the best predictors of red meat and poultry consumption, suggesting that interventions to reduce meat consumption may work best by targeting these factors while also increasing people's sense of control over their food choices.

Consumers' Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change

Planetary and human health depend on Westerners' ability to reduce meat consumption. Meat production degrades the environment while excessive meat intake is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease, among others. Effective reasons and motivations are needed for consumers to change their diet. The fact that modern animal agriculture inflicts a great deal of pain on animals from their birth to their slaughter, animal welfare/suffering may drive consumers to curtail their meat consumption. This systematic review examined a total of 90 papers to ascertain consumers' awareness of the pain animals experience in animal agriculture, as well as consumer attitudes towards meat reduction due to animal welfare. Results show that consumers have low awareness of animal agriculture. Awareness of animal agricultural practices and animal sentience is associated with increased negative attitudes towards animal suffering. Animal suffering due to farming practices, transportation, slaughter, and animal sentience are factors that may encourage a reduction in meat consumption, and even dietary change in the short term. There is also evidence that animal suffering may be a more compelling motivation for consumers' willingness to change their diet than for health or environmental reasons. Therefore, increasing consumers' awareness of animal suffering in meat production is paramount to contributing to reduced pressure on the environment and improved human health.

Jumping on the Bandwagon of Responsibility—Or Not? Consumers’ Perceived Role in the Meat Sector

It is evident that sustainable meat consumption and production require shared responsibility for actions and consequences by consumers and producers. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the relevant focus areas within the meat food value chain that consumers attach relevance to. Furthermore, the study provides an understanding of potential actions of consumer social responsibility (CNSR) and reasons for not taking responsibility. The study is based on an online consumer survey (n = 1003) including standardized and open-ended questions. Data were analyzed via content analysis using a combination of inductive and deductive analyses in an iterative process. Results reveal that consumers consider animal husbandry as the core area where there is a need to take responsibility. This is followed by food safety, slaughtering, and transport, while environment and social issues related to the working conditions of employees are judged to have lower relevance. In most focus areas, the large majority of respondents attribute responsibility to one or several of the other stakeholder groups but not to consumers of meat products. Recommendations for the meat sector as well as for policymakers are derived in this paper to further encourage meat consumers to take their part of the overall responsibility.

Meating Conflict: Toward a Model of Ambivalence-Motivated Reduction of Meat Consumption

An increasing number of people are concerned about eating meat, despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking for contents that facilitate meat reduction. Study 1 drew on a cross-sectional 6-day food diary with 7485 observations in a quota sample to investigate why meat-related ambivalence arises and to demonstrate the correlation of ambivalence with meat reduction. Two experiments investigated the causal direction of this association by showing that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their preexisting incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the aforementioned mechanisms involved (Study 3; preregistered). The studies utilized diverse samples from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1192) and support the proposed model by indicating that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.

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.

An appetite for meat? Disentangling the influence of animal resemblance and familiarity

Consumers in modern society are often less exposed to meat that resembles the animal, and thus are less familiar with it, making it difficult to disentangle the influence of these two inputs (familiarity vs. animal resemblance) on meat appetite. Across three studies, we sought to systematically disentangle the impact of familiarity and animal resemblance on meat appetite using inductive (Study 1) and experimental (Studies 2a-2b) approaches. In Study 1 (N = 229) we separated familiarity and animal resemblance into orthogonal dimensions using 28 meat products. Participants provided free associations and rated the products on familiarity, animal resemblance, and appetitive appeal. In Studies 2a and 2b (N = 514) we experimentally examined the independent contributions of familiarity and animal resemblance, using stimuli normed in Study 1. We hypothesized that animal resemblance has its most pronounced influence on appetite when meat products are unfamiliar. Participants' free associations and ratings of the products were in line with this conditional hypothesis (Study1), as were the experimental manipulations of familiarity and animal resemblance (Studies 2a-2b), confirmed by a mini meta-analysis. In all three studies, familiarity had a pervasive influence on appetite. These findings suggest that product familiarity can attenuate the psychological impact that animal reminders have on appetite. Thus, interventions aimed at eliciting animal associations with meat should consider the familiarity of the products employed.

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.

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.

VR outreach and meat reduction advocacy: The role of presence, empathic concern and speciesism in predicting meat reduction intentions

The industrial farming and slaughtering of animals may be considered one of the most pressing ethical problems of our time, yet consumers remain empathically disconnected from food animals and continue to eat meat. Therefore, animal advocacy groups have started using virtual reality (VR) outreach to promote consumers' concern for food animals and persuade them to eat less meat. In this study, we examined whether a short 360° documentary depicting the life cycle of factory farmed pigs (from their lives on the farm to their death in the slaughterhouse) experienced in a VR format versus in a regular video format increases participants' intentions to eat less meat via an increased feeling of presence and empathic concern. Using a single factor experimental design, we randomly allocated participants (n = 84 after data-cleaning) to answer a questionnaire following one of both conditions (VR versus video documentary, each n = 42). Results confirmed our hypothesized serial mediation model; VR (versus video) had a positive influence on presence and additionally on empathic concern, leading to higher intentions of reduced meat consumption among participants. Yet, VR (versus video) also had a direct, negative effect on empathy when controlling for presence, so no total effect of medium format on intentions to reduce meat could be found. This counter-effect of VR on empathic concern could be explained by an increased level of speciesism among participants exposed to the VR (versus video) documentary, a finding that is consistent with prior literature on speciesism, cognitive dissonance and dissociation, and requires further confirmatory investigation. Limitations and implications for theory and practice of the study are considered.

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.

Who Wants Chicken? Uncovering Consumer Preferences for Produce of Alternative Chicken Product Methods

As ethical and environmental concerns regarding current poultry production systems arise, consumers look for alternatives. This study assesses consumers’ preferences for chicken meat of dual-purpose breeds (DPBs), regionally produced feedstuff, and specific breeds, along with attitudes and social norms that explain these preferences. We conducted an online survey (n = 934) including a discrete choice experiment and elements of the theory of planned behavior. Results show that after price, product and feedstuff origin are preferred by consumers, followed by breeding form and specific breed. Utilities for each attribute and level were calculated and consumer segments were created using latent class analysis. Three different consumer groups were identified: (1) price-sensitive consumers, (2) price-sensitive and origin-oriented consumers, and (3) origin-oriented consumers. We conclude that although consumers are interested in meat from DPBs, this attribute alone is not enough to influence the purchase decision, and geographical origin seems to be of crucial importance. However, by highlighting important attributes (i.e., animal welfare, regional/local production), DPB products could be introduced to the market. The consumption of these alternative products has economic implications, such as not relying on imports and promoting local production/consumption, along with social implications as refraining from killing day-old chicks.

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.

Food Disgust Scale: Spanish Version

INTRODUCTION

The Food Disgust Scale (FDS) was recently developed and validated in Swiss adult population. This study aims to: (1) validate the FDS for the first time in a Spanish-speaking Mexican population, (2) correlate food disgust sensitivity with picky eating measures, and (3) explore the association between food disgust sensitivity and body mass index (BMI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Spanish version of the FDS (FDS-Sp) and its short version (FDS-Sp short) were tested with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to test the original item/factor structure. Bivariate correlations were performed to determine the association between FDS-Sp/FDS-Sp short scores and picky eating. Lastly, hierarchical linear regression analysis was carried out to determine the relationship between food disgust sensitivity and BMI.

RESULTS

The factor structure of the FDS was replicated and acceptable internal consistency values were observed for FDS-Sp subscales (α varied between 0.781 and 0.955). Moreover, FDS-Sp subscales and FDS-Sp short were correlated with picky eating. Higher score in VEGI subscale of the FDS-Sp was a significant predictor for higher BMI, explaining 4% of the variance.

CONCLUSION

FDS-Sp is a useful, reliable and robust psychometric instrument to measure the sensitivity to unpleasant food situations in a Mexican adult Spanish-speaking population. A relationship between food disgust sensitivity and picky eating, selective eating behaviors and neophobia in Mexicans was confirmed. BMI is multifactorial and only one subscale of FDS-Sp is a significant predictor for BMI status. These results are helpful to continue exploring food disgust in diverse populations.

The Meat Paradox, Omnivore's Akrasia, and Animal Ethics

Western cultures have witnessed an intriguing phenomenon in recent years: People are both more concerned for animal wellbeing and consume more animal products than ever before. This contradiction has been explored in psychology under the term "meat paradox". However, what has been omitted from the explorations is the age-old philosophical notion of "akrasia", within which one both knows "the good" and acts against it. The paper seeks to address this omission by comparing psychological research on the meat paradox with philosophy of akrasia. Applying Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza, I investigate the underlying factors of and solutions to what is here called "omnivore's akrasia". Whilst contemporary research on the meat paradox focuses on various descriptive cognitive errors (such as cognitive dissonance), philosophy of akrasia has tended to focus more prescriptively on moral reason and virtue. After discussing "nudging" as an implication of the descriptive approach, the paper supports the prescriptive perspective and "the cultivation argument". The claim is that contemporary research on the contradictions concerning attitudes toward other animals would greatly benefit from paying more attention to the value-laden mental factors underlying moral agency.

Eating with our eyes (closed): Effects of visually associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness

Negative attitudes toward vegetarians/vegans (i.e., veg*ns) are common, particularly among those who desire/like/consume meat more. In two studies, we replicated and extended past work, showing that visual reminders of meat’s animal origins (vs. images of meat alone) decreased meat consumption willingness via increased empathy for animals, distress about meat consumption, and disgust for meat. We also assessed how animal–meat reminders influence antiveg*n attitudes. In Study 1 ( N = 299) experimental animal–meat reminders (vs. meat-alone images) indirectly reduced negative attitudes toward veg*ns via increased empathy and distress (together, but not independently). The same manipulation in Study 2 ( N = 280) lowered antiveg*n attitudes through greater empathy and lowered veg*n threat through greater distress. Implications for promoting less antiveg*n attitudes are discussed.

Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Reducing meat consumption could help to protect the natural environment and promote population health. Interventions restructuring physical micro-environments might help to change habitual behaviour. We synthesised the scientific evidence pertaining to whether, and which, interventions restructuring physical micro-environments effectively reduce the demand for meat.

METHODS

We did a systematic review of quantitative studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat. We identified relevant records by searching six electronic databases (CAB Abstracts, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, MEDLINE, and Dissertations & Theses) on Aug 31, 2017, contacting experts, screening publicly accessible online resources, and searching references. We included studies that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat, defined as the actual or intended consumption, purchase, or selection of meat in real or virtual environments. We extracted data pertaining to the study samples, the interventions, and meat demand at the follow-up closest to intervention completion and at the longest follow-up, with the former representing our primary outcome. We synthesised data narratively and did a qualitative comparative analysis to identify configurations of intervention characteristics associated with, and those not found to be associated with, significant reductions in meat demand. Our Systematic Review is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017081532.

RESULTS

Of 10 733 titles and abstracts screened for eligibility, we assessed 60 full papers and included 14 papers reporting on 18 studies with 22 intervention conditions. Three interventions reducing the portion size of meat servings reduced meat consumption in randomised trials. Three interventions providing meat alternatives with supporting educational material were associated with reduced meat demand in pre-post design studies. Three of four interventions altering the sensory properties (eg, visual presentation) of meat or meat alternatives at point of purchase reduced meat demand in randomised trials. Four interventions repositioning meat products to be less prominent at point of purchase were associated with lower meat demand, but only two such interventions reached statistical significance in a randomised trial and a multiple treatment reversal design. Only one of five interventions manipulating the description of meat or meat alternatives at point of purchase was associated with lower meat demand in a multiple treatment reversal design. Evidence from randomised trials evaluating a pricing intervention or interventions restructuring several aspects of micro-environments was too scarce or inconsistent to be conclusive. The results from our qualitative comparative analysis supported the findings of this narrative synthesis.

INTERPRETATION

Some interventions restructuring physical micro-environments could help to promote lower demand for meat. Interventions reducing portion sizes of meat servings, providing meat alternatives, or changing the sensory properties of meat and meat alternatives at point of purchase offered the most promise in the context of experimental studies.

FUNDING

None.

Meat as a Pharmakon: An Exploration of the Biosocial Complexities of Meat Consumption

In contemporary dietary advice, meat is depicted as a pharmakon: it is believed to either heal or poison the human body (and mind). Often, it also serves as a scapegoat for a wide range of public health issues and other societal problems. Related attitudes, practices, and beliefs pertain to a demarcated mode of thinking or episteme that is characteristic for the so-called post-domestic or industrialized societies. The latter are not only typified by an abundant yet largely concealed production of meat, but increasingly also by moral crisis and confusion about its nutritional meaning. For an improved appreciation of the ambiguous position of meat in human health and disease, as well as the concomitant scattering into different subject positions (e.g., the omnivore, flexitarian, vegetarian, vegan, permaculturalist, and carnivore position), an interdisciplinary approach is required. To this end, the current study tentatively combines food research with a selection of (post-structuralist) concepts from the humanities. The aim is to outline a historical and biosocial need for meat (as well as its rejection) and to analyze how its transformative effects have contributed to a polarized discourse on diet and well-being in academia and society at large. Excessive categorization (for instance with respect to meat's alleged naturalness, normalness, necessity, and niceness) and Manichean thinking in binary opposites are among the key factors that lead to impassioned yet often sterile debates between the advocates and adversaries of meat eating in a post-truth context.