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

To stand out or to conform: Stereotypes and meta-stereotypes as barriers in the transition to sustainable diets

What factors hinder the reduction of meat and/or dairy intake? In this study, we explored the perceived barriers that meat and/or dairy reducers experienced when shifting their diets. We particularly focused on how meat and/or dairy reducers were affected by their beliefs about how omnivores stereotype vegans (i.e., meta-stereotypes), as meta-stereotypes have not been previously explored in this context. Through open-ended questions in an online survey, we explored the experiences and perceived barriers among female meat and/or dairy reducers (n = 272), as well as their perceptions of vegans (i.e., stereotypes and meta-stereotypes), and how these perceptions affected their lived experiences. We analysed the data using reflexive thematic analysis and generated six themes. We highlighted perceptions of cost (Theme 1) and perceptions of health concerns (Theme 2) as the most dominant barriers to the reduction of meat and/or dairy intake. Regarding (meta) stereotypes, participants' perceptions of vegans were shaped by personal experiences and encounters with vegans (Theme 3), and how participants related to vegans was sometimes reflected in the language they used to describe vegans (Theme 4). Participants felt that they, or reducers more generally, were occasionally judged as vegans (Theme 5), which might influence participants' choices and conformity to eating norms (Theme 6). Meta-stereotypes may play a role in polarised dietary group perceptions, and we discuss how they are shaped by social identity processes as well as by aspects of Western food systems.

Social impediments to meat-eaters' adherence to critical calls for a meat-free diet: An experimental test of social norm and message source effects

Reducing meat consumption is highly effective for reducing personal carbon emissions, yet most people in Western nations still eat meat. We build on recent research highlighting that group boundaries may impede dietary change by (a) promoting pro-meat norms and (b) prohibiting critical calls for a veg* diet (vegetarian and vegan, i.e., meat-free). Past research relied on self-reports and behavioural measures of engagement, leaving open whether these effects extend to food consumption settings and ad-hoc meal choice. We conducted two pre-registered experiments in which meat-eaters read critical calls to adopt a veg* diet, either by a vegan (outgroup) or a meat-eater (ingroup). In Experiment 2, participants moreover read an article either highlighting a veg* or a meat-eating norm. We then assessed actual (Experiment 1) or hypothetical (Experiment 2) meal choice as dependent variables. As predicted, intergroup criticism (i.e., voiced by veg*s) consistently led to message rejection in comparison to the same criticism voiced by meat eaters, but we did not observe effects on meal choice. Norms neither had a main nor interaction effect on self-reports and behaviour. We discuss potential intermediary processes between engagement with and adoption of a vegan diet and derive evidence-based recommendations for constructive communication across group boundaries.

Minding some animals but not others: Strategic attributions of mental capacities and moral worth to animals used for food in pescatarians, vegetarians, and omnivores

While moral concern for animals has become increasingly important for both consumer food choice and food policy makers, previous research demonstrated that meat eaters attribute lower moral status and mental capacities to animals raised for meat compared to non-food animals. The current research investigated whether this strategic flexibility in moral concern and mind perceptions also occurs when considering aquatic food animals and animals used for dairy and egg products, and the degree to which these concerns and perceptions are evident in pescatarians and vegetarians. We compared perceptions (mind attributions and moral concern) of land food animals versus aquatic food animals, and of animals in the meat versus dairy and egg industry between omnivores (n = 122), pescatarians (n = 118), vegetarians (n = 138), vegans (n = 120), and flexitarians (n = 60). Pescatarians scored lower than other dietary groups on moral concern and mind attribution for aquatic animals relative to farmed land animals. Unlike the other dietary groups, pescatarians and vegetarians scored lower on moral concern and mind attribution for dairy than beef cows and for layer chickens than broiler chickens. These findings demonstrate that pescatarians and vegetarians were flexible in their moral thinking about different types of food animals in ways that suited their consumption habits, even when the same animal was evaluated (e.g., dairy vs beef cows). This research highlights the psychological barriers that might prevent people from reducing animal product consumption and may need to be addressed in interventions to encourage transitioning towards more plant-based diets.

Eating pigs, not Peppa Pig: The effect of identifiability on children's propensity to humanize, befriend, and consume edible animals

This research aimed to provide experimental evidence on whether identifying an edible animal by a name and specific preferences encourages children to perceive the animal as more similar to humans, increases their willingness to befriend the animal, and makes them less willing to consume it. In two pre-registered studies involving 208 preschool children, participants were presented with pictures of pigs (Study 1) and chickens (Study 2). In the identifiability condition, one animal was depicted with individual qualities such as a name and personal preferences, while in the non-identifiability condition, animals were portrayed with characteristics representative of the entire species. The children then rated their desire to befriend and consume the animal, while in Study 2, they also rated the animal's similarity to humans. The results revealed that animal identifiability led to higher perceived similarity to humans, increased the desire to befriend it, and reduced inclination to consume the animal. These findings highlight animal identifiability's powerful and robust effect on children's attitudes toward edible animals.

Personality, self-knowledge, and meat reduction intentions

OBJECTIVE

Meat consumption has a host of serious negative consequences for nonhuman animals, underprivileged humans, and the natural environment. Several interventions have been developed to encourage meat reduction but to relatively limited effect. There is also a range of established predictors of meat consumption, but much less is known about the factors that predict intentions to reduce meat consumption. The goal of this study was to determine the roles of personality and self-knowledge in meat reduction intentions.

METHOD

In this set of three preregistered studies, we tested brief interventions to encourage meat reduction intentions and examined personality predictors of intentions to reduce meat consumption.

RESULTS

We found no evidence that brief interventions with or without a self-knowledge component had a meaningful effect on changing meat reduction intentions. However, we found robust evidence for relatively small associations between intending to eat less meat and high Openness to Experience, high Emotionality, and perceiving meat reduction as moral behaviors.

CONCLUSION

Individual differences may be a more influential predictor of meat reduction intentions than brief interventions. Implications for promoting meat reduction are discussed.

Still just a matter of taste? Sensorial appreciation of seafood is associated with more frequent and diverse consumption

Improving health and sustainability outcomes in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic) nations necessitates a reduction in red meat consumption. Seafood is often overlooked in achieving this goal. However, simply consuming more of familiar fish species places high stress on production of these species. For this reason, diversification of seafood consumption is also critical. Here the motives for seafood consumption (frequency and diversity) are investigated across two studies by adapting the 4Ns survey to the seafood category. This 16-item survey measures four factors underpinning meat consumption: namely that it is 'Natural', 'Necessary', 'Normal' and 'Nice'. Swedish consumers' hedonic and sensory expectations of two herring concepts (traditional pickled contra novel minced and presented as a burger) are also evaluated in relation to the 4Ns. Study 1 (N = 304) revealed that the seafood 4Ns scale had a similar underlying structure to that of meat and had good test-retest reliability. Study 2 (N = 514) showed that consumers expected to like the pickled herring (associated with being 'seasoned', 'salty', 'sweet', 'firm', 'juicy', 'chewy', and 'slimy') more than the minced herring (associated with being 'mushy', 'fishy', 'grainy', 'dry' and having 'small bones'), and that 'Nice' scores affected expectations of both herring concepts. Food neophobia correlated inversely with seafood consumption frequency, expected liking, the 'Nice' subscale, and food agency. Critically, in both studies, enjoyment of seafood (higher 'Nice' scores) predicted more frequent and diverse seafood consumption, whilst agreeing that seafood is 'Necessary' for health predicted only consumption frequency, not diversity. Communicating the positive sensory attributes of seafood and developing novel product concepts in ways that disconfirm sceptical consumers' negative sensory expectations may increase acceptance of both familiar and unfamiliar seafood concepts.

Shades and shifts in flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles in a German panel study

Consumers' growing awareness of the adverse effects of high meat consumption has led to increased attention to flexitarian or meat-reduced diets. However, most flexitarians do not significantly reduce their meat consumption and still eat many meat-based meals. This study aims to classify the large and heterogeneous consumer group of flexitarians into different profiles based on attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs about meat reduction. Being aware that consumer profiles can change over time, this study explores the dynamics of the identified profiles using a two-wave panel survey of 430 German consumers. Latent profile analysis revealed distinct flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles, including three stable profiles and one non-stable profile across both waves. The findings indicate that flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles differ significantly in their belief structure about meat reduction and that consumers can switch back and forth to other profiles over time. Practitioners should be aware of changes in the belief structure of flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles when developing meat reduction interventions. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind these profile shifts.

Differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals: Exploring the role of traits, beliefs, and motives

OBJECTIVE

This research examines differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals as a fuction of individuals' personalities.

BACKGROUND

Ethical vegetarian appeals are persuasive messages promoting the adoption of a plant-based diet on moral grounds. Individuals may vary in their receptivity to such appeals, depending on their morally relevant traits (e.g., agreeableness), beliefs (e.g., speciesism), and motives (e.g., concerns about animal welfare).

METHODS

We explored (Study 1, N = 907) and then attempted to confirm (Study 2, N = 980) differential responses to three vegetarian appeals-two highlighting moral concerns (animal welfare, the environment) and a third focusing on individual health (control condition).

RESULTS

Both studies revealed several differential effects of our vegetarian appeals on the perceived effectiveness of the appeal and resultant intentions to reduce meat consumption. These mostly consisted of differences in receptivity to appeals focused on animal welfare. However, only one such effect observed in Study 1 was clearly replicated in Study 2: People who more strongly believed that eating meat was "normal" rated the vegetarian appeals focused on animal welfare as less effective.

CONCLUSION

Ethical vegetarian appeals may elicit different responses from different people, particularly those focused on animal welfare, depending on how normative one believes meat-eating to be. Such insights can inform behavior change efforts in this area.

Using Evidence-based Scientific Research to Influence Dietary Behavioral Change: Taking a Look in the Mirror

Science can provide accurate information to society to inform decision-making and behavior. One contemporary topic in which the science is very clear, yet behavioral change has lagged, is climate change mitigation. Climate change scientists use evidence-based research to advocate to the public to adopt emission-reducing behaviors in various sectors such as transportation and food. However, scientists themselves often do not change their own behaviors according to the scientific consensus. We present a case study of a group of natural sciences PhD students, who, when presented with evidence and an opportunity for a behavioral change with implications for climate change mitigation, demonstrated defensive reactions that would undoubtedly frustrate these same scientists if they were doing public outreach about their own work. Our goal is to raise awareness that we scientists do not always practice what we preach but could perhaps overcome this by understanding the defense mechanisms that impede meaningful change.

Moral disengagement in the media discourses on meat and dairy production systems

Meat and dairy production and consumption are the subject of ongoing public debates that touch on various sustainability issues such as biodiversity loss, climate change, animal welfare, and social and health aspects. Despite extensive discussions specifically relating to the environmental impacts of livestock farming in conjunction with animal welfare aspects, there have been no substantial changes in production or consumption patterns. Moreover, the focus of extant research is usually on consumers' responses to public concerns around livestock production. In this study, we shed light on the discrepancy between the normative discourse and action of relevant value chain actors with the help of Bandura's theory of moral disengagement, which allows us to identify mechanisms that contribute to the perpetuation of unsustainable production and consumption patterns. In particular, we focus on the shifting of responsibility between actors in the normatively charged field of sustainable livestock production. We collected 109 media interviews on meat and dairy production and consumption from the years 2020-2022, including interviews with actors from agriculture, processing industries, and food retail. Using qualitative content analysis, we investigated the role of moral disengagement in the media discourse on meat and dairy production and explored differences between actors in terms of moral disengagement. We found that shifting of responsibility shows a quasi-circular dynamic of being shifted from all actors to all, in our case most frequently to consumers, politics, and (diffuse) economic forces. In addition, our analysis showed the use of social justifications, beneficial comparisons, and euphemistic labelling to be common mechanisms of moral disengagement, constituting a collective problem within agri-food systems.

Too anthropomorphized to keep distance: The role of social psychological distance on meat inclinations

Keeping a distance from food animals helps alleviate moral conflicts associated with meat consumption. Prior research on the 'meat paradox' has shown that physical distance from animals reduces negative emotional responses when consuming meat. However, even with physical distance, the presence of animals in meat advertisements and packaging can establish psychological contact. The impact of psychological distance on meat consumption and purchase inclinations has not been well explored. Through four experiments, we discovered that animal anthropomorphism psychologically brings consumers closer to food animals, resulting in reduced intentions to consume and purchase meat. Anthropomorphized animal images notably reduced social psychological distance for consumers with moderate to high (vs. lower) levels of anthropomorphic tendencies. Furthermore, the effect of anthropomorphism was influenced by moral self-efficacy. Specifically, when social psychological distance was reduced, consumers with higher (vs. lower) moral self-efficacy exhibited a significant decrease in their willingness to consume and purchase meat. These findings expand our understanding of the role of anthropomorphism in meat marketing, its limitations, and offer insights for sales strategies. Additionally, the research could inform public health policies on meat consumption, addressing environmental and ethical concerns tied to meat production amid growing worries about animal welfare.

Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets

Plant-based diets are quickly gaining popularity for their benefits to animal welfare, the environment, and public health. Compared to meat-eaters, meat-abstainers such as vegetarians and vegans are especially motivated by animal rights and the environment. However, little is known about the motivational and psychological factors that distinguish vegetarians from vegans, and what prevents vegetarians to shift towards a fully plant-based diet. In a sample of vegans (n = 335) and vegetarians (n = 182), we investigated a) motives for reducing or quitting meat consumption and b) motives for reducing or quitting animal product (dairy and egg products) consumption, as well as moral psychological and social-contextual factors that may explain potential differences. Results demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans tend to be similar in their motives to abstain from meat consumption and are most strongly motivated by animal rights. However, vegetarians are less motivated by health, environmental, and especially animal rights for dairy/egg reduction compared to meat reduction and compared to vegans. Lower moral concern for animals, stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals, and heightened veganism threat among vegetarians (vs. vegans) partly explained why vegetarians were less strongly motivated by animal rights for dairy/egg reduction. Human supremacy beliefs also explained differences between vegetarians and vegans in health and environmental motives for dairy/egg reduction. Furthermore, vegetarians reported significantly less social support for plant-based diets and perceived more practical barriers to plant-based diets than vegans. These findings reveal meaningful differences in the motivational and psychological profiles of vegetarians and vegans and highlight the value of distinguishing between motives for meat-free diets and motives for plant-based diets.

How (not) to talk about plant-based foods: using language to support the transition to sustainable diets

Reducing meat consumption is essential to curb further climate change and limit the catastrophic environmental degradation resulting from the current global food system. However, consumers in industrialised countries are hesitant to reduce their meat intake, often because they find plant-based foods less appealing. Despite the climate emergency, eating meat is still perceived as the norm, and recommended in most national dietary guidelines. To support the transition to more sustainable diets by providing insights for increasing the appeal of plant-based foods to mainstream consumers, this review presents recent research findings on how people think and communicate about meat-based and plant-based foods. The key findings we review include: (1) while vegans think about plant-based foods in terms of enjoyable eating experiences, omnivores think about plant-based foods in terms of health, vegan identity and other abstract information that does not motivate consumption in the moment. (2) Packages of ready-meals and social media posts on Instagram present plant-based foods with fewer references to enjoyable eating experiences than meat-based foods. (3) Presenting plant-based foods with language that references enjoyable eating experiences increases their appeal, especially for habitual meat eaters. This language includes words about sensory features of the food (e.g., crunchy, creamy), eating context (e.g. pub; with family) and immediate positive consequences of eating (e.g. comforting, delicious). In contrast, the term 'vegan' is strongly associated with negative stereotypes. Hence, rather than referring to being vegan, meat-free or healthy, the language used for plant-based foods should refer to sensory appeal, attractive eating situations and enjoyment.

Feeling morally troubled about meat, dairy, egg, and fish consumption: Dissonance reduction strategies among different dietary groups

A largescale shift towards plant-based diets is considered a critical requirement for tackling ethical, environmental, and global health issues associated with animal food production and consumption. Although previous research has identified psychological strategies that enable meat-eaters to justify and continue meat consumption and feel less morally conflicted about it, research on the psychological strategies that enable consumers to continue dairy, egg, and fish consumption is scarce. We conducted an online survey study using an adjusted version of the Meat-Eating Justification Scale to investigate the use of psychological strategies to cope with cognitive dissonance related to meat, dairy, egg, and fish consumption in omnivores (n = 186), pescatarians (n = 106), vegetarians (n = 143), vegans (n = 203), and flexitarians (n = 63). Results indicated greater use of meat-related dissonance reduction strategies among omnivores as compared to other dietary groups, greater use of fish-related dissonance reduction strategies among fish consumers (omnivores, flexitarians and pescatarians) compared to vegetarians and vegans, and greater use of dairy and egg-related dissonance reduction strategies among dairy and egg consumers (omnivores, flexitarians, pescatarians, and vegetarians) as compared to vegans. This pattern was particularly clear for justifications used to defend animal product consumption, denial of animal suffering, and use of dichotomization when considering meat and fish consumption. These findings highlight the importance of extending the research on dissonance reduction strategies beyond meat consumption and studying the consumption of a range of animal products. This can help in identifying the psychological barriers to adopting a plant-based diet and informing interventions for behaviour change.

Listen to Us: Perceptions of Animal Voice and Agency

In many contexts, the interests of nonhuman animals (hereafter "animals") are often overlooked or considered to be a lower priority than those of humans. While strong arguments exist for taking animal moral claims seriously, these largely go unheard due to dominant anthropocentric attitudes and beliefs. This study aimed to explore how animal interests might be best represented in the human world. We conducted interviews to investigate people's perceptions of what it means to speak for other animals and who can reliably represent animal interests. Using Grounded Theory analytical methods, we identified one major theme: "Animal voice", and its subthemes: "Animals do/do not have a voice", "Human language constructs realities and paradigms", and "Let animals speak". Our findings illustrate how human language constructs contribute to shaping the realities of animals by contextually defining them as voiceless. This has serious implications for animals, society, and the environment. Drawing parallels with the relevant literature, our results reflect calls for the social and political recognition of animal voice as fundamental to animal representation. We recommend future research to focus on developing ethical and compassionate approaches to understanding animal subjective experiences to empower and amplify animal voices.

Hunger modulates perceptions of food health but not taste in restricted eaters

Introduction

Food taste and health perceptions are of particular interest for their implications on food choice. Most in vivo food choice studies experimentally control for hunger via a set preload or fast.

Methods

To explore how hunger may interact with these perceptions to impact food decisions, we compared taste and health perceptions of sweet and savory obesogenic food items among hungry or satiated participants with varying restrained eating tendencies.

Results

In our sample of 232 adults (M BMI = 25.9; M age = 36.4 yrs), highly palatable foods were perceived as tasty but unhealthy. Tastiness ratings were high, consistent across restrained eating groups, and unassociated with hunger. Perceptions of health, however, were impacted by the interaction of restrained eating group and hunger. Amongst hungry participants only, a graded association between restrained eating group and perceptions of health emerged for both food types. Specifically, hungry and highly restrained eaters viewed sweet foods as 2.8x healthier and savory foods as 2.1x healthier than their satiated counterparts.

Discussion

Our data suggest that hunger predicts differential health perceptions, but not tastiness ratings, among restrained eaters. We argue that the generalization of food perception data-especially among different eater types-may be limited if the continuum of hunger level is experimentally constrained. Therefore, hunger is a critical dynamic to consider in explorations of food perceptions and eating behavior in restrained eaters.

Why don't politicians talk about meat? The political psychology of human-animal relations in elections

Building on literature from political science and psychology, I argue that political attention on animals and animal-friendly political candidates cause voter backlash. I test this using two different kinds of experiments with large, representative samples. I ask respondents to consider political candidates running for office in a U.S. presidential primary context. I find that, overall, political attention on the need to reduce meat consumption for environmental reasons caused voter backlash compared to both a control condition and attention on the need to reduce reliance on gasoline-powered vehicles (also for environmental reasons). But, the heterogeneous effects of partisan identification were strong: voter backlash was mainly driven by Republicans and Democrats were neutral. Surprisingly, candidates who put attention on farm animal rights during elections faced no voter backlash from Republicans or Democrats. Animal-friendly candidates, particularly Black women and Latinas, with attributes that demonstrate personal concern for farm animals and strong support for animal rights generally fared very well in elections, receiving large boosts in voter support. This work launches a research agenda in political psychology that "brings the animal in" to politics.

Why children moralise harm to animals but not meat

Many children care about animals yet are accepting of meat consumption. This may reflect a disconnect between children's meat eating, food-systems knowledge, and their moral evaluations. A theoretical framework is proposed for understanding the developmental trajectory of this disconnection. We discuss its components and the implications for dietary interventions.

Loss framing effect on reducing excessive red and processed meat consumption: Evidence from Italy

A reduction of meat consumption is crucial for addressing public health problems, especially in industrialized countries. Among low-cost interventions, emotionally provocative health-information strategies could be effective options in fostering meat reduction. Through an online experimental survey, administrated to a quota-based national sample (N = 1142), this study analysed the profile of Italians consuming red/processed meat above World Health Organization (WHO) recommended amounts. Via a between-subjects design, the research tested whether two health frame-nudges (societal impact and individual impact of over consumption) persuaded these individuals to reduce future meat consumption. Results showed that adhering to an omnivore diet, higher consumption of meat than peers, household size (larger) and positive moral perception of meat consumption increased the likelihood of overconsumption. In addition, both nudges proved to be effective in positively impacting future intentions to reduce meat consumption among individuals exceeding WHO recommended amounts. The two frame-nudges were more effective among females, respondents with children in the household and individuals with a low health status perception.

Triggering cognitive dissonance with textual information and images: Data from three experiments with meat-eaters

This article presents data from three experiments in which we triggered and measured cognitive dissonance in meat-eaters. Cognitive dissonance is a well-established concept in the social psychology literature; however, empirical measures are scarce. In all datasets, we used textual information and/or images related to meat consumption as means to trigger cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance data was collected in Study 1 with a Likert scale, whereas Study 2 and 3 used a Semantic Bipolar scale. Each experiment was programmed with Qualtrics and consisted of four conditions. Data was collected online; Study 1 utilized social media to recruit participants while Study 2 and 3 were hosted on Prolific. All datasets contain items on participants' socio-demographic background, liking of different food products, cognitive dissonance, and a measure of meat avoidance. The data can be used to analyze the effect of information provision on cognitive dissonance and meat avoidance. Moreover, the relationship between socio-demographic variables and cognitive dissonance, as well as other exploratory purposes regarding meat avoidance can be explored. Furthermore, researchers can use the data to investigate differences between Likert scales and Semantic Bipolar scales. This data is related to the paper Can images and textual information lead to meat avoidance? The mediating role of cognitive dissonance[1].

Moral emotions and justifying beliefs about meat, fish, dairy and egg consumption: A comparative study of dietary groups

Meat eaters and meat abstainers differ in their beliefs and moral emotions related to meat consumption alongside gender differences. Few studies have investigated beliefs and moral emotions in pescatarians and vegans. Little is known about differences in moral emotions and beliefs regarding dairy, eggs, and fish or about speciesist beliefs within and between specific dietary groups. To address this gap, we investigated moral emotions (consumption-related disgust and guilt), attitudes towards animals (Animal Attitudes Scale) and justifying beliefs related to meat (Carnism Inventory), dairy, egg, and fish consumption in omnivores (n = 167), pescatarians (n = 110), vegetarians (n = 116), and vegans (n = 149). Results showed that people who consumed animal-derived products reported lower disgust and guilt and held stronger justifying beliefs about consumption of these products than those who did not consume animal products. All dietary groups significantly differed from each other in their attitudes about using animals for human benefit, with omnivores showing the least positive attitudes towards animals, followed by pescatarians and vegetarians, and with vegans showing the most positive attitudes towards animals. Women experienced greater moral emotions and held fewer justifying beliefs than men within groups where animal products were consumed and related to the animal-based products they consume (i.e., fish for pescatarians and eggs/dairy for vegetarians). These findings emphasise the importance of considering a wider range of animal products, such as eggs, dairy and fish, and dietary groups in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the psychological underpinnings of animal product consumption. The results highlight differences between dietary groups in attitudes and moral concern towards animals, which may be important to consider when designing interventions to reduce animal product consumption.

Deliberate ignorance-a barrier for information interventions targeting reduced meat consumption?

OBJECTIVE

Despite abundant information about negative consequences of consuming meat, consumption in many Western countries is many times higher than recommended. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that people consciously decide to ignore such information-a phenomenon called deliberate ignorance. We investigated this potential barrier for information interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption.

METHODS

In three studies, a total of 1133 participants had the opportunity to see 18 information chunks on negative consequences of meat consumption or to ignore part of the information. Deliberate ignorance was measured as the number of ignored information chunks. We assessed potential predictors and outcomes of deliberate ignorance. Interventions to reduce deliberate ignorance (i.e., self-affirmation, contemplation, and self-efficacy) were experimentally tested.

RESULTS

The more information participants ignored, the less they changed their intention to reduce their meat consumption (r = -.124). This effect was partially explained by cognitive dissonance induced by the presented information. While neither self-affirmation nor contemplation exercises reduced deliberate ignorance, self-efficacy exercises did.

CONCLUSION

Deliberate ignorance is a potential barrier for information interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption and needs to be considered in future interventions and research. Self-efficacy exercises are a promising approach to reduce deliberate ignorance and should be further explored.

When meat-eaters expect vegan food to taste bad: Veganism as a symbolic threat

People who eat meat generally expect vegan food to taste bad. We theorize that this expectation stems in part from the perception that veganism is symbolically threatening; devaluing vegan food may enable meat-eaters to defend in-group values and defuse symbolic threat. We conducted four studies (total N = 1,563) on meat-eaters residing in the US. In Studies 1a and 1b, participants who most strongly endorsed carnism—the ideology that humans have a right to eat animals and their byproducts as food—were most likely to expect vegan food to taste bad. In Study 2, perceptions of veganism as symbolically threatening explained the relationship between carnism and taste expectations. In Study 3, experimentally increasing the salience of symbolic threat worsened taste expectations. Attachment to dominant group values and perceptions of intergroup threat may be barriers to the acceptance of veganism.

Review: Connecting circularity to animal welfare calls for a 'novel' conceptual framework based on integrity

The current food system is not sustainable. Circular agriculture aims to save the environment and produce food sustainably by closing nutrient cycles, possibly without improving animal welfare. This paper proposes a new conceptual framework, called a circular welfare economy (CWE), to facilitate a transition towards a sustainable agriculture based on integrity. The CWE framework explains how welfare relates to circular agriculture, how potential conflicts can be solved and what future livestock farming could look like. CWE applies the notion of circularity to welfare defined as the quality of life as perceived by the individual itself. CWE also identifies human integrity, defined as being open and honest, as a sine qua non for sustainability. Animal-welfare problems arise when animals are merely used as a means, e.g., for profits. Instead, profits and circular agriculture are means to the end of welfare. In a CWE, welfare is promoted sustainably, without causing undue need frustration in other individuals. This requires informed moral decision-making involving human integrity and the closure of welfare-related feedback loops. Conflicts between circular agriculture and animal welfare are solved by weighing all welfare needs impartially. Three future scenarios are presented: Animal-welfare-exclusive circular agriculture, which resembles modern intensive livestock farming, animal rights agriculture without livestock farming, and a CWE-based agriculture which integrates circular agriculture and animal welfare. In the latter case, we will not use animals merely as a means to close nutrient cycles, but take every effort, openly and honestly, to understand and benefit their points of view as we do our own.

Evaluating the effectiveness of vegetarian appeals in daily life: Comparing positive and negative imagery, and gauging differential responses

Persuasive appeals designed to reduce meat consumption often employ graphic images of the harms perpetuated by eating meat (e.g., cruel factory farming practices). However, because people are motivated to see themselves as moral, appeals that highlight omnivores' moral failings might be resisted or even backfire. Furthermore, individuals differ in ways that may influence their motivations and attitudes toward animals and meat-eating, and their responses to these appeals. Thus, in a two-week intervention study (N = 427), we compared effects of two vegetarian appeals-one employing graphic negative imagery (footage of factory farming cruelty), the other employing positive imagery (footage from farmed animal sanctuaries)-on daily meat consumption and related affects and cognitions. We also examined several personality traits and other individual differences that may confer differential effects of these appeals. Although neither appeal significantly reduced meat consumption, both the positive and negative appeal increased intentions to eat less meat, and led to more negative affect and cognition when eating meat. Moreover, several individual difference variables moderated the effects of these appeals on actual and intended meat consumption. Findings are discussed in relation to the difficulty of changing morally troublesome behaviour, and the use of graphic appeals despite their unclear impact on behaviour.

Changing minds about minds: Evidence that people are too sceptical about animal sentience

Our relationships with other animals are governed by how we view their capacity for sentience and suffering. However, there is currently little agreement as to whether people's beliefs about animal minds are largely accurate or inaccurate. We used an innovative task to examine how people update their beliefs in response to noisy but informative clues about animal minds. This allowed us to compare participants' posterior beliefs to what a normative participant ought to believe if they conform to Bayes' theorem. Five studies (four pre-registered; n = 2417) found that participants shifted their beliefs too far in response to clues that suggested animals do not have minds (i.e., overshooting what a normative participant ought to believe), but not far enough in response to clues that suggested animals have minds (i.e., falling short of what a normative participant ought to believe). A final study demonstrated that this effect was attenuated when humans were the targets of belief. The findings demonstrate that people underestimate animal minds in a way that can be said to be inaccurate and highlight the role of belief updating in downplaying evidence of animal minds. The findings are discussed in relation to speciesist beliefs about the supremacy of humans over animals.

Veganuary and the vegan sausage (t)rolls: conflict and commercial engagement in online climate-diet discourse

Social media platforms have become critical venues for a wide spectrum of influence campaigns, from activism to advertising. Sometimes these two ends overlap and it remains unknown how the latter might impact the former. Situated within contemporary scholarship on vegan activism, this work examines corporate involvement with the Veganuary 2019 campaign on Twitter, as well as the antagonistic backlash it received. We find that the activists and commercial entities engage mostly separate audiences, suggesting that commercial campaigns do little to drive interactions with Veganuary activism. We also discover strong threads of antagonism reflecting the "culture wars" surrounding discussions of veganism and climate-diet science. These findings inform our understanding of the challenges facing climate-diet discourses on social media and motivate further research into the role of commercial agents in online activism.

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.

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

Animal-based diets in Western countries are increasingly regarded as unsustainable because of their impact on human health, environmental and animal welfare. Promoting shifts toward more plant-based diets seems an effective way to avoid these harms in practice. Nevertheless, claims against the consumption of animal products contradict the ideology of the omnivorous majority known as carnism. Carnism supports animal-product consumption as a cherished social habit that is harmless and unavoidable and invalidates minorities with plant-based diets: vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns). In this theoretical review, we integrate socio-psychological and empirical literature to provide an identity-based motivational account of ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy. Advocates who argue against the consumption of animal products often make claims that it is harmful, and avoidable by making dietary changes toward veg*n diets. In response, omnivores are likely to experience a simultaneous threat to their moral identity and their identity as consumer of animal products, which may arouse motivations to rationalize animal-product consumption and to obscure harms. If omnivores engage in such motivated reasoning and motivated ignorance, this may also inform negative stereotyping and stigmatization of veg*n advocates. These "pro-carnist" and "counter-veg*n" defenses can be linked with various personal and social motivations to eat animal products (e.g., meat attachment, gender, speciesism) and reinforce commitment to and ambivalence about eating animal products. This does not mean, however, that veg*n advocates cannot exert any influence. An apparent resistance may mask indirect and private acceptance of advocates' claims, priming commitment to change behavior toward veg*n diets often at a later point in time. Based on our theoretical account, we provide directions for future research.

Meat-eating justification and relationship closeness with veg*n family, friends, and romantic partners

A study of 190 omnivores examined their meat-eating justification (MEJ) beliefs and relationship closeness with veg*n friends, family members, and romantic partners; and how relationship closeness changes after veg*n diets are adopted. Denial and dissociation MEJs predicted lower closeness, whereas the hierarchical MEJ predicted higher closeness. Results also showed that relationship closeness significantly decreased for frequency and diversity of activities after adoption of veg*n diets. Closeness in terms of strength significantly increased after adoption of veg*n diets. A significant interaction was found between relationship type and time in which frequency of interactions decreased for friends and family after adoption of veg*n diets but did not change for romantic partners. These results suggest that only MEJs with moral considerations that elicit meat-related cognitive dissonance reduce relationship closeness after the adoption of veg*n diets; and that relationship closeness decreases after the adoption of veg*n diets only with friends or family members.

Consumers attitudes toward animal welfare friendly produce: An island of Ireland study

Public concern has arisen between increased productivity in animal production systems and farm animal welfare (FAW). Consumers demand ethical production systems and tend to purchase products that reflect their animal welfare concerns. They are becoming increasingly judicious, with growing expectations around animal produce. Nonetheless, positive attitudes concerning FAW do not always correspond to purchasing behavior, where higher concern is not related to higher purchasing frequency. The study seeks to determine if individuals behave differently in their dual roles as citizens and consumers, expressing preferences for FAW but ultimately failing to act on such preferences when making purchasing decisions. Theoretically, the research uses elements of the COM-B model to investigate the importance of capability, opportunity, and motivation for consumers. The study is conducted on an island of Ireland basis and investigates the perceptions and purchasing frequency of Irish and Northern Irish consumer’s (n = 972). Firstly, attitudes towards purchasing animal welfare products are elicited using Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA). Cluster analysis subsequently defines three distinct typologies based upon the final cluster centers attained from CATPCA. The largest cluster is characterized as being Indifferent (n = 672) and differentiated by relatively low concern for animal welfare. Despite this, their purchasing frequency of animal welfare products is monthly. The other two clusters, The Engaged and The Struggling, are similar in size and share the same concern for animal welfare but are polarized in their motivation, capability, and opportunity to purchase animal welfare friendly products. The Struggling typology act as citizens rather than consumers; while they are highly concerned for welfare they have significantly lower purchasing frequency even compared to The Indifferent. Finally, Non-Linear Canonical Correlation Analysis (NLCCA) is used to reveal and visually demonstrate the structure of the whole dataset. The analysis demonstrates that concern for animal welfare is not associated with purchase frequency of animal welfare friendly produce when contextual factors are not conducive to doing so. The findings are relevant to a broad audience including industry, policymakers, and academics.

The relationship between meat disgust and meat avoidance-A chicken-and-egg problem

Feelings of disgust toward meat have been researched for at least 30 years, but so far the causal relationship that may link meat disgust and meat consumption has remained elusive. Two possible pathways have been proposed in previous literature: the more common pathway seems to be that meat disgust is developed after a transition to vegetarianism, potentially via the process of moralization and recruitment of (moral) disgust. Other accounts suggest the existence of a second pathway in which disgust initiates the avoidance of meat and this can be explained by existing theories of disgust functioning as a pathogen avoidance mechanism and meat serving as a pathogen cue. However, the evidence base for either relationship remains thin and to our knowledge no research has examined whether temporary meat abstention can lead to increases in meat disgust, as the first pathway suggests. We measured meat disgust and meat intake in n = 40 meat eaters before and after attempting a meat-free diet for 1 month (while taking part in the annual vegan campaign Veganuary). Although most participants lapsed to eating meat during this period, we found that reductions in meat intake during the month were predictive of increases in meat disgust afterwards. This supports the view that meat disgust is expressed as a result of meat avoidance in meat eaters. Implications for theoretical understanding of the relationship between meat disgust and meat avoidance, as well as the development of disgust based interventions are discussed.

Examining young Chinese consumers' engagement in restaurant food waste mitigation from the perspective of cultural values and information publicity

Food waste is a serious problem with regard to social equity and environmental challenges across the world. In recent decades, a dramatic growth of restaurant food waste has been seen in China. This study integrated the norm activation model (NAM), Chinese cultural values (i.e. face saving and group conformity) and information publicity to examine young Chinese consumers' food waste behaviors in a dining-out context. By drawing data from 311 respondents from Shenyang, Northeast China, this research finds that Chinese cultural values significantly influence personal norms and food waste practices. Meanwhile, publicized information could effectively shape cultural values and food waste behaviors. This study advances our understanding of young Chinese consumers' food waste behaviors from the perspective of cultural values and information publicity, which sheds light on how to mitigate the food waste challenge for policy makers, relevant NGOs, food service providers and even individuals.

'Against the cult of veganism': Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans

Despite the established health and ecological benefits of a plant-based diet, the decision to eschew meat and other animal-derived food products remains controversial. So polarising is this topic that anti-vegan communities - groups of individuals who stand vehemently against veganism - have sprung up across the internet. Much scholarship on veganism characterizes anti-vegans in passing, painting them as ill-informed, uneducated, or simply obstinate. However, little empirical work has investigated these communities and the individuals within them. Accordingly, we conducted a study using social media data from the popular platform, Reddit. Specifically, we collected all available submissions (∼3523) and comments (∼45,528) from r/AntiVegan subreddit users (N = 3819) over a five-year period. Using a battery of computerized text analytic tools, we examined the psychosocial characteristics of Reddit users who publicly identify as anti-vegan, how r/AntiVegan users discuss their beliefs, and how the individual user changes as a function of community membership. Results from our analyses suggest several individual differences that align r/AntiVegan users with the community, including dark entertainment, ex-veganism and science denial. Several topics were extensively discussed by r/AntiVegan members, including nuanced discourse on the ethicality and health implications of vegan diets, and the naturalness of animal death, which ran counter to our expectations and lay stereotypes of r/AntiVegan users. Finally, several longitudinal changes in language use were observed within the community, reflecting enhanced group commitment over time, including an increase in group-focused language and a decrease in cognitive processing. Implications for vegan-nonvegan relations are discussed.

A Scenario Analysis for Implementing Immunocastration as a Single Solution for Piglet Castration

Simple Summary

The 2010 European Declaration aimed at abandoning surgical castration and switching to alternative methods. With an intention to facilitate the internal trade, the European Union (EU) was initially in favor of a single alternative. Immunocastration, as an active vaccine against the Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone, was proposed as a potential solution. However, its market potential is not yet well understood. This study applied the method of scenario analysis to examine whether and under what conditions immunocastration could be the general solution sought by the EU. Specifically, it developed two extreme scenarios. Both scenarios suggest that it is unlikely that immunocastration will become a single solution for all producers in the EU.

Abstract

Painful castration of male piglets to avoid boar taint can potentially be replaced by three more ethical alternatives: entire male production in combination with a detection method, immunocastration (an active vaccination against the gonadotrophin-releasing factor, GnRF), and castration with pain relief (anesthesia and/or analgesia). With the aim of abandoning piglet castration and facilitating internal trade, the European Union (EU) was initially in favor of a single alternative. Immunocastration was proposed as a potential solution, but it has not yet been sufficiently assessed regarding its market potential. To address this point, this paper uses scenario analysis to examine whether and under what conditions immunocastration could be the general solution sought by the EU. The study constructs two extreme scenarios: one in which all uncertain elements negatively influence the growth of immunocastration; another in which all uncertain elements have positive influences. These scenarios provide insights into the variance in possible futures for the implementation of immunocastration. The results show that it is unlikely that immunocastration will become a single solution for all producers in the EU, because it is not the optimal solution for all types of EU pork production systems (i.e., cost-efficiency oriented, quality oriented, animal-friendly oriented, import dependent). Rather than debating and looking for evidence about which single method is the best for the entire EU, EU authorities are advised to allow the co-existence of all alternatives and to develop protocols for applying them in the pork industry.

Animal rights, environment, or health? Effects of argument type and dissonance on the attitudes toward the consumption of animals

The scientific literature and advocacy organisations highlight three harm-related arguments as paramount reasons for the reduction and cessation of the consumption of animal-derived products (ADP) - violence toward animals, damage to the environment, and human health. However, research on their comparative effects is scarce and there is no clear definition of which type of argument is the most effective in restricting ADP consumption. Based on cognitive dissonance theory, this study aimed to investigate the effects of these types of arguments on meat-eaters' attitudes and beliefs toward the propositions of reducing and ceasing ADP consumption. The study sample comprised 545 Brazilian adults. We adopted an experimental between-subjects design based on the presentation of vignettes. Each participant responded to one of the vignettes (animal rights, environmental, or health arguments) or a control condition. Results showed that greater levels of ADP-related dissonance provoked greater positive attitudes toward the reduction and cessation of ADP consumption. Compared to baseline, the animal rights and environmental messages significantly increased dissonance and positive attitudes toward ADP restriction, but not the health argument. Participants most frequently adopted the dissonance-management strategies of denial of responsibility, denial of harm, and the articulation of beliefs favourable to change. The discussion highlights that the different effects of social influence contexts and argument types depend on their capacity to reveal ADP consumption as morally problematic behaviour. To our knowledge, this is the first study to experimentally compare the effects of animal rights, environmental and health-related arguments in generating ADP-related dissonance and attitude change.

The effectiveness of animal welfare-, environmental-, and health-focused video appeals on implicit and explicit wanting of meat and intentions to reduce meat consumption

The production of meat and its consumption are associated with negative consequences for the environment, the animals raised and slaughtered for food, and the health of those who consume animal-based foods. We investigated whether video appeals that addressed these topics affected participants' wanting of meat and intentions to reduce meat relative to a control video. Results indicated only the environmental video led to increased intentions to reduce meat relative to controls. Nevertheless, implicit wanting of meat was lower in all three experimental conditions compared to the control condition. Additionally, moral emotions and agreement with the video's message mediated the relationships between condition and implicit wanting and intentions for the animal welfare and environment conditions. For the health condition, only agreement with the message served as a mediator. These results suggest that although animal welfare-, environmental-, and health-focused video appeals may be effective at shifting immediate desire to consume meat, environmental video appeals may be the most effective for increasing intentions to change future meat intake.

"Meating halfway": Exploring the attitudes of meat eaters, veg*ns, and occasional meat eaters toward those who eat meat and those who do not eat meat

Empirical studies have persistently reported negative attitudes of meat eaters toward vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns), but scant attention has been paid to veg*ns' attitudes toward meat eaters. We aimed to investigate the attitudes of meat eaters and veg*ns from both perspectives. In addition, we explored the attitudes of occasional meat eaters. We performed a cross-sectional study (Study 1) among meat eaters, veg*ns, and occasional meat eaters, as well as a content analysis of publicly available tweets (Study 2). Study 1 (N = 477, M_age = 23.45, SD = 5.91) showed that the attitudes of veg*ns toward meat eaters are significantly more negative compared to the attitudes of meat eaters toward veg*ns, but both were lower than the midpoint on scales measuring negative attitudes toward the other. Study 2 showed that only a small portion (<1%) of tweets (N = 1,328) on meat eating or veg*nism contained signs of negative attitudes. The two studies provide little evidence of the existence of strong negative attitudes.

Making More Sustainable Food Choices One Meal at a Time: Psychological and Practical Aspects of Meat Reduction and Substitution

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.

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.

When Less is better: Messages that Present Dietary Carbon Emissions Data at the individual (vs. Aggregate) Level Increase Commitment to Sustainable Beef Consumption

The environmental footprint embedded in the human diet is massive. To convey the enormity of the problem, persuasive environmental messages often report large-scale, aggregate data (such as the billions of tons of greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere annually by the beef industry.) Is this strategy effective? In five studies (total N = 1237), the environmental footprint of beef was presented to participants with either aggregate, nation-level numeric data, or with the same data scaled to the individual level. Across the studies, a clear pattern emerged: Participants who received aggregate-level (versus individual-level) data perceived less of a connection between their behavior and the environment and expressed less intention to curb their meat consumption. These data suggest that aggregate environmental figures, rather than raising urgency, may instead demotivate many message recipients.

Moralistic stereotyping of Vegans:The role of dietary motivation and advocacy status

Ambivalent attitudes exist toward vegans: While people may admire vegans' moral aims and commitment, they may also derogate vegans for seeming arrogant and overcommitted. These latter negative perceptions may undermine the effectiveness of efforts to reduce meat consumption for health, animal-welfare, and sustainability benefits. In the present research, we investigated the role of a vegan's motivation (animal ethics vs. health) in moralized attitudes toward vegans among omnivorous participants through two preregistered studies. In Study 1 (N = 390), we found that a vegan advocate motivated by animal ethics (vs. health) was seen as more moral but not as more arrogantly overcommitted. In Study 2 (N = 1177), we found that animal ethics (vs. health) vegans were seen as both more arrogantly committed and more morally committed, but that relative moral commitment perceptions were attenuated when vegans were described as actively advocating. Both advocating (vs. non-advocating) vegans and animal ethics (vs. health) vegans were generally seen as less socially attractive by omnivores due to stronger attributions of arrogant overcommitment, and a lower social attractiveness was associated with a lower willingness to eat less animal products. Our findings inform ongoing debates within the vegan movement about the effectiveness of signaling moral commitment in promoting plant-based diets.