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

An overview of drivers and emotions of meat consumption

Emotions are present in almost everything we do, including meat procurement, preparation and consumption. This paper examines the main drivers of this consumption, including sensory and hedonic properties, physiological needs, historical reasons and habits, social influence, ethical motives, practical aspects and other determinants, exploring the meat-related emotions as both an outcome of consumption and as consumption drivers. Emotions are affected by multiple factors relating to the context, the information provided, and the type of product. Positive emotions such as pleasure, satisfaction, proudness and joyfulness have been described in relation to meat, as well as some neutral or negative ones. To enhance positive emotions and increase meat liking, it is essential to improve animal welfare and promote a more sustainable production, focusing on nutritional and sensory quality and providing consumers with reliable information.

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.

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.

Methods to assess ambivalence towards food and diet: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Ambivalence towards food and diet, which favours behavioural inertia, might be a barrier to adopting healthier eating behaviours. Measuring it can help researchers to better understand its relationship with behaviour change and design interventions aimed at resolving it. In this scoping review, we map and describe methods and tools employed in studies to assess, measure or classify the ambivalence of participants towards food- and diet-related attitude objects.

METHODS

In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we retrieved peer-reviewed studies from MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, FSTA and Food Science Source and preprints from PsyArXiv and MedRxiv. Two independent reviewers screened the articles. We considered for inclusion peer-reviewed studies and preprints that assessed the ambivalence of participants of any age, sex or sociodemographic group towards food and diet.

RESULTS

We included 45 studies published between 1992 and 2022, which included participants from 17 countries. Eighteen methods were employed across the included studies to assess different types of ambivalence (felt, potential or cognitive-affective), the most frequent of which were the Griffin Index, the Subjective Ambivalence Questionnaire, the MouseTracker Paradigm and the Orientation to Chocolate Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified several methods and tools to assess different types of ambivalence towards food- and diet-related objects, providing an array of options for future studies.

The cheese paradox: How do vegetarians justify consuming non-meat animal products?

Researchers interested in animal ethics have proposed the 'meat paradox' - psychological discomfort arising from people's affinity for animals and conflicting desire to consume their flesh. Yet what can be said about the psychology of consuming an animal's non-meat products, in an age where most beings in these industries are harmed, and ultimately killed? Non-meat animal products (NMAPs) such as eggs and dairy entail the same, and perhaps even worse ethical issues as meat yet receive disproportionately less critical attention. Therefore, unlike meat, very little is known about the psychology of egg and dairy consumption. This study looks at vegetarians to address this gap, because they are more likely to show empathetic concern for animals than meat-eaters, yet actively choose to include these products in their diet, a conflict ripe for exploration. Interview data were analysed via thematic analysis, finding that vegetarians perceive robust ethical issues with NMAPs but give various justifications pertaining to personal benefits and social norms. Cognitive dissonance was evident and participants used various strategies to resolve it. This paper expands research on food psychology and animal ethics and may also be used to inform NMAP reduction strategies, an important pursuit in the quest for a more sustainable and compassionate world.

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.

Is Eating Less Meat Possible? Exploring the Willingness to Reduce Meat Consumption among Millennials Working in Polish Cities

Reducing the consumption of meat constitutes an important part of the global shift towards more sustainable food systems. At the same time, meat is firmly established in the food culture of most human beings, and better understanding of individual behaviors is essential to facilitate a durable change in contemporary eating patterns. To determine the level and nature of attachment to meat among consumers, the Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ) in relation to the phases of behaviour change in the meat consumption reduction process was utilised. Data collected through a survey carried out among Poles aged 25-40 years living in cities were analysed with the use of Spearman's correlations and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc tests. The biggest share of the studied group of millennials (N = 317) never considered reducing their meat consumption (Phase 1-41%) and was described by the highest level of MAQ score in all its categories: hedonism, affinity, dependence, and entitlement. More than half of the respondents in Phase 2 participants ("planners") declared a willingness to cut down meat consumption but had not yet put their intentions into practice. Respondents qualified in Phase 3 declared the highest willingness to reduce meat consumption and were significantly less attached to meat regarding all MAQ categories than respondents in Phase 1. The 9% of the study participants (Phase 4) had already limited the frequency of their meat consumption to "several times a week", this however still remains insufficient compared to the ambitious goals of sustainable healthy diets. Results indicated that meat attachment categories, especially hedonism and dependence, were identified as predictors of willingness to reduce meat consumption. Research exploring the determinants of change and possibilities of effective communication about meat reduction on an individual level in different cultural settings are needed.