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.

A Survey of Breastfeeding Attitudes and Health Locus of Control in the Nigerian Population

OBJECTIVES

Breastfeeding is important to infant health and survival in sub-Saharan Africa. To promote breastfeeding effectively, understanding of psychological factors associated with infant feeding choices is required. This study investigated breastfeeding attitudes and health locus of control (HLoC) in a Nigerian community sample.

METHODS

Men and women (N = 400) (71% female; mean age 34.2 years/ range 18-86 years) were recruited through community groups in Nigeria. Self-report survey by questionnaire measured breastfeeding attitudes using the Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale (IIFAS) and health locus of control using the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (MHLoCs).

RESULTS MEAN

IIFAS scores (mean = 57.7; sd = 7.8) became less favourable with increasing age (p = 0.02). Men had higher IIFAS scores (mean = 58.6; sd = 7.6) than women (mean = 56.6; sd = 8.0) indicating more favourable attitudes toward breastfeeding (p = 0.02). Women scored higher than men on external chance HLoC (ECHLoC) (p = 0.003) and external powerful others HLoC (EPHLoC) (p = 0.02). Increasing age was associated with higher scores on ECHLoC (p < 0.01) and EPHLoC (p < 0.01). Multiple linear regression analysis was significant (p < 0.001) and explained 7.8% of variance in breastfeeding attitude. Lower IIFAS scores, reflecting more negative attitudes to breastfeeding, were associated with higher ECHLoC (p < 0.01) and EPOHLoC (p < 0.05). Higher IIFAS scores, reflecting more positive attitudes to breastfeeding, were associated with greater IHLoC (p < 0.01). Neither age nor gender were associated with IIFAS scores in the final model.

CONCLUSIONS

This implies a need to explore health locus of control when promoting positive attitudes to breastfeeding and supporting families in breastfeeding advocacy.

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.