ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Most people both eat animals and care about animals. Research has begun to examine the psychological processes that allow people to negotiate this "meat paradox." To understand the psychology of eating animals, we examine characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior). People who value masculinity, enjoy meat and do not see it as a moral issue, and find dominance and inequality acceptable are most likely to consume animals. Perceiving animals as highly dissimilar to humans and as lacking mental attributes, such as the capacity for pain, also supports meat-eating. In addition to these beliefs, values, and perceptions, the act of eating meat triggers psychological processes that regulate negative emotions associated with eating animals. We conclude by discussing the implications of this research for understanding the psychology of morality.
Current Directions in Psychological
Science
1 –5
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963721414525781
cdps.sagepub.com
Most people eat meat. They do so fully aware that it
comes from animals, at the cost of their lives. The rate at
which we eat animals is truly staggering. The average
American consumes approximately 120 kg (264 lb) of
meat annually (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2013), an appetite fed by the slaughter of
10 billion land animals (90% are chickens; Joy, 2010).
Globally, the average person consumes an estimated
48 kg (106 lb) of meat annually, requiring over 50 billion
land animals (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2013). We have eaten meat for millennia,
and our meat consumption predates human civilization
(Rose & Marshall, 1996).
The avidity of our meat consumption seems to imply
that we do not care about animals. This is clearly not cor-
rect. Most people find animal suffering emotionally dis-
turbing and morally repugnant (Allen et al., 2002; Plous,
1993). As our meat consumption grows, so too do our
expenditures on pets (American Pet Products Association,
2013) and the legal rights we afford animals (Tischler,
2012). This reflects the “meat paradox”: Most people care
about animals and do not want to see them harmed but
engage in a diet that requires them to be killed and, usu-
ally, to suffer (Herzog, 2010; Joy, 2010; Singer, 1975).
Despite this suffering and premature death conflicting
with peoples’ beliefs about how animals should be
treated, most people continue to eat meat. This paradox
may not apply to all forms of meat eating (e.g., the eating
of roadkill), may apply differently to meat producers, and
may not always be experienced subjectively as a conflict.
However, it highlights the moral dilemma involved in eat-
ing animals, a dilemma that all people resolve.
We will examine the psychological factors that sup-
port eating animals by focusing on characteristics of the
eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the
act of consumption). We finish by discussing how psy-
chological resolution of the meat paradox can inform our
understanding of morality.
The Eaters
The surest way to eliminate moral tension associated
with eating animals is to not eat them. Vegetarians expe-
rience no conflict between their beliefs about animal
harm and their dietary practices. Studies of vegetarianism
have revealed that moral concern regarding the raising
and slaughter of animals is a principal motivation for
eliminating meat consumption (Amato & Partridge, 1989;
Ruby, 2012). In addition to motivating dietary change,
525781CDPXXX10.1177/0963721414525781Loughnan et al.Psychology of Eating Animals
research-article2014
Corresponding Author:
Steve Loughnan, School of Psychological Sciences, University of
Melbourne, Australia, VIC 3010
E-mail: sloughnan@unimelb.edu.au
The Psychology of Eating Animals
Steve Loughnan1, Brock Bastian2, and
Nick Haslam1
1University of Melbourne and 2University of Queensland
Abstract
Most people both eat animals and care about animals. Research has begun to examine the psychological processes
that allow people to negotiate this “meat paradox.” To understand the psychology of eating animals, we examine
characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior). People who value masculinity,
enjoy meat and do not see it as a moral issue, and find dominance and inequality acceptable are most likely to
consume animals. Perceiving animals as highly dissimilar to humans and as lacking mental attributes, such as the
capacity for pain, also supports meat-eating. In addition to these beliefs, values, and perceptions, the act of eating
meat triggers psychological processes that regulate negative emotions associated with eating animals. We conclude by
discussing the implications of this research for understanding the psychology of morality.
Keywords
animals, food, mind, morality, identity, emotion
2 Loughnan et al.
valuing animal welfare helps sustain and moralize vege-
tarian diets (Rozin, Markwith, & Stoess, 1997). Vegetarians
avoid the meat paradox through a behavioral choice
driven by moral concern for animals.
Nevertheless, vegetarians seldom exceed 10% of any
national population—most people consume meat. The
primary motivation omnivores report is that meat tastes
good (Lea & Worsley, 2003). Its appetitive qualities likely
reflect an evolved preference for foods high in fat, pro-
tein, and calories (Stanford, 1999). However, meat can
also elicit disgust, arguably because it poses a higher risk
of carrying dangerous pathogens than plant material
(Fessler & Navarrete, 2003). This oral disgust can also be
a moral disgust for some, providing an emotional base
for their moral avoidance of meat (Rozin et al., 1997).
People’s feelings toward meat are therefore ambivalent,
and the balance of pleasure and disgust helps determine
who eats meat and who rejects it (Rozin, 1996, 2004;
Rozin et al., 1997).
Some meat eaters find their consumption less morally
problematic than others. Two political ideologies under-
lying this individual difference are authoritarianism, the
belief that it is acceptable to control and aggress against
subordinates (Altemeyer, 1981), and social dominance
orientation (SDO), the endorsement of social hierarchy
and inequality (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). Research has
found that omnivores are higher in both factors than veg-
etarians and that omnivores who value inequality and
hierarchy eat more red meat than those who do not
(Allen & Baines, 2002; Allen, Wilson, Ng, & Dunne, 2000).
People may also eat meat because it expresses their
identity. At a personal level, meat consumption is tied to
male identity, and its consumption makes some males
feel like “real men” (Rothgerber, 2013). The association is
so close that meat has become metaphorically “male”
(Rozin, Hormes, Faith, & Wansink, 2012), such that meat
eaters are perceived as more masculine than vegetarians
(Ruby & Heine, 2011). Rejecting meat can also help
express valued identities. A recent cross-cultural study of
vegetarianism found that Indian vegetarians value their
in-group and respect authority more than omnivorous
Indians do (Ruby, Heine, Kamble, Cheng, & Waddar,
2013). This finding indicates that the decision to reject
meat may be tied to a sense of belonging to a cultural
group and endorsement of group values.
In sum, the psychological characteristics of eaters may
influence their appetite for eating animals. People for
whom meat is a moral issue of animal welfare are inclined
to eschew it; people who accept or endorse domination
and inequality eat meat eagerly. Hedonic and identity-
related motives also play important roles.
The Eaten
Understanding how people think about animals—the
eaten—offers insights into the psychology of meat eating
that complement those based on understanding the char-
acteristics of eaters. In particular, an animal’s perceived
mind and its perceived similarity to humans are key fac-
tors influencing people’s willingness to eat it.
Eating animals is morally troublesome when animals
are perceived as worthy of moral concern. The more
moral concern we afford an entity, the more immoral it
becomes to harm it. People show considerable variability
in the extent to which they deem animals worthy of
moral concern (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam, & Radke,
2012). This variability is partially determined by the
extent to which animals are perceived to be capable of
suffering. The idea that an animal’s pain sensitivity can
determine its moral worth dates back to Jeremy Bentham
(Bentham, 1789/1907), who argued that “the question is
not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they
suffer?” (“Limits Between Private Ethics and the Art of
Legislation,” note 122). Psychologists have corroborated
Bentham’s point by finding that the perceived capacity
for subjective experience—including the capacity for
pain—partially underlies the extent to which entities are
deemed worthy of moral concern (Waytz, Gray, Epley, &
Wegner, 2010). If perceived pain sensitivity partially
underlies moral concern, reducing animals’ capacity to
suffer might facilitate eating them.
Several recent studies have found this to be the case.
We (Bastian, Loughnan, et al., 2012) asked people to rate
the extent to which each of 32 animals possessed a set of
mental capacities and their willingness to eat each ani-
mal. We found a strong negative relationship between
attributed mind and edibility. Eating a more “mindful”
animal was also judged as more morally wrong and more
subjectively unpleasant. These findings hold across
diverse samples, with other research showing that
American, Canadian, Hong Kong Chinese, and Indian
consumers report less willingness to eat “mindful” ani-
mals and more disgust at the thought of doing so (Ruby
& Heine, 2012).
These findings may reflect that omnivores reduce ani-
mals’ minds to justify the fact that they are eaten.
Alternatively, omnivores may simply choose to eat “mind-
less” animals. To test whether animals are viewed as rela-
tively lacking minds because they are eaten, we asked
American participants to rate the extent to which a tree
kangaroo was capable of feeling pain and deserved
moral concern (Bratanova, Loughnan, & Bastian, 2011).
Participants were told either that the animal was consid-
ered food by locals in Papua New Guinea or simply that
it was an animal living there. Even though participants
had never eaten tree kangaroo and did not belong to the
group that did, tree kangaroos framed as “food animals”
were judged less capable of suffering and less deserving
of moral concern. Simply being categorized as food
undermines an animal’s perceived mind.
The perception of animals as relatively mindless may
also contribute to the belief that they are dissimilar to
Psychology of Eating Animals 3
humans. Plous (1993) showed that an animal’s perceived
capacity to experience pain was strongly related to its
perceived similarity to humans. People not only judge
humanlike animals as more pain sensitive but also expe-
rience greater autonomic arousal when watching them
being mistreated (Plous, 1993) and recommend harsher
sentences for people who abuse humanlike animals
(Allen et al., 2002). By implication, seeing an animal as
dissimilar should dampen our emotional reactions to its
suffering. Indeed, people who see animals as dissimilar
to humans attribute them lesser minds and consequently
see them as less worthy of moral concern (Bastian,
Costello, Loughnan, & Hodson, 2012). This decreased
moral concern may be reflected in an increased willing-
ness to allow animals to be harmed (e.g., for meat or for
entertainment; Bastian, Costello, et al., 2012).
Attributing animals lesser minds and reducing their
perceived capacity to suffer is a powerful means of
resolving the meat paradox. Another, hitherto unexam-
ined, possibility is that people might accept that animals
can suffer but deny that animals suffer when humanely
killed. By limiting animals’ capacity to suffer, people can
judge them less worthy of moral concern. Interestingly,
reducing the perceived minds of meat animals occurs
when people are not seeking to justify their own con-
sumption—for example, when they categorize an animal
as food (Bratanova et al., 2011) or when they contem-
plate the differences between humans and animals
(Bastian, Costello, et al., 2012). These findings indicate
that the psychological processes that support eating ani-
mals cannot be reduced to self-serving, motivated rea-
sons; how we construe animals and the human/animal
boundary is critical to our willingness to eat them. In
short, the way animals are perceived is intimately tied to
eating meat.
The Eating
Personal attributes and perceptions of animals are rela-
tively independent of the act of eating. However, it is pre-
cisely in this moment—when a person is eating or
intending to eat—that we would expect the meat paradox
to require urgent resolution. Research has begun to exam-
ine the dynamic processes that facilitate meat eating.
In one study, we (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010)
randomly assigned participants to consume either beef or
nuts and, subsequently, to report their moral concern for
animals and rate a cow’s capacity to suffer. We found that
participants who had recently consumed beef, but not
nuts, restricted their moral concern for animals and rated
the cow as less capable of suffering. This response may
have served to alleviate any post hoc negative feelings
participants experienced as a result of eating meat. A
similar emotion-regulation process may occur in anticipa-
tion of eating meat. In another study, participants came
to the laboratory and were led to expect to sample meat
or fruit (Bastian, Loughnan, et al., 2012). Participants who
anticipated meat consumption attributed cows and lambs
lesser minds, consistent with previous research showing
that both situational and chronic meat consumption low-
ers mind attribution (Bilewicz, Imhoff, & Drogosz, 2011;
Loughnan et al., 2010). Importantly, people in the meat
condition who ascribed diminished mentality to the ani-
mals reported less negative emotional arousal when
anticipating meat consumption. This finding suggests that
people can alleviate unpleasant feelings aroused by meat
consumption by attributing animals lesser minds.
The tension omnivores experience when reminded
that their behavior may not match their beliefs and val-
ues, and the resolution of this tension by changing those
beliefs, fits with the theory of cognitive dissonance
(Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). Whereas some people
(e.g., vegetarians) reduce this negative state by changing
their actions, others may do so by strategically changing
their beliefs, specifically about animals’ minds, suffering,
and moral standing. Dissonance theory could help
explain why the act of eating, which makes the meat
paradox highly salient, motivates these psychological
changes.
Conclusions
Eating animals has been commonplace for millennia.
Nevertheless, it can generate a significant tension between
people’s aversion to animal harm and their desire for
meat. We have examined some factors that enable people
to negotiate this paradox. Meat eaters tend to care less
about animal welfare, to value masculinity, and to accept
social hierarchy and inequality. They tend to reduce mind
attribution to animals and see them as dissimilar to
humans. In preparation for eating meat, and after it, they
attribute diminished mental capacities to animals. These
factors combine to reduce animals’ moral standing, mak-
ing their passage from farm to fork less troubling. There
are a number of pathways through which people may
adjust their perceptions of animals in ways that appear
more consistent with their consumption of them. One
putative pathway is that people change their perceptions
to reduce negative affect associated with the act of meat
eating. Still, no work has directly captured these negative
affective reactions to the tension between concern for
animal suffering and consumption of animals. Future
research could employ physiological or neuroimaging
measures of affective reactions (cf. Plous, 1993) that
would allow researchers to capture rapid, nonconscious,
or disavowed emotions associated with meat.
Although we believe that the psychology of eating ani-
mals is a worthy topic in its own right, it can also be
viewed as an extended case study on human morality.
Psychological approaches to understanding morality
4 Loughnan et al.
have typically focused on domain-general cognitive and
emotional processes (e.g., Greene, 2007; Haidt, 2001)
and broad, encompassing moral categories (e.g., Haidt &
Joseph, 2007) or dimensions (e.g., Gray, Young, & Waytz,
2012; Janoff-Bulman, Sheikh, & Hepp, 2009; for a discus-
sion, see Rozin, 2006). By examining a single moral behav-
ior, we can illuminate how emotions (pleasure, disgust,
guilt), cognitions (categorization, attribution, justification),
and personality characteristics (values, beliefs, identities)
combine when people face everyday moral problems.
In doing so, researchers have shown how emotion
regulation, mind perception, and moral judgment are inti-
mately connected. Adopting a similar approach to under-
standing other domains of everyday morality—narrow in
its focus but deep in its attention to the complexity of the
phenomenon—may prove equally fruitful.
In 1996, Paul Rozin made an appeal in this journal for
psychologists to take meat eating seriously (Rozin, 1996).
The field has heeded his call and responded by laying
bare many of the psychological factors at play when peo-
ple eat meat. We now have a clearer idea about who eats
animals, what they think of animals, and how their psy-
chology changes when they engage in meat eating. In
doing so, we have begun to unearth the psychological
roots of an ancient, widespread, and increasingly contro-
versial behavior.
Recommended Reading
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. (2012). (See
References). An experimental study of meat eating and
emotion.
Rozin, P. (1996). (See References). A review of meat and moral-
ity.
Ruby, M (2012). (See References). A review of vegetarianism.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship or the publication of this article.
References
Allen, M., & Baines, S. (2002). Manipulating the symbolic mean-
ing of meat to encourage greater acceptance of fruits and
vegetables and less proclivity for red and white meats.
Appetite, 38, 118–130.
Allen, M., Hunstone, M., Waerstad, J., Foy, E., Hobbins, T.,
Wikner, B., & Wirrel, J. (2002). Human-to-animal similarity
and participant mood influence punishment recommenda-
tions for animal abusers. Society & Animals, 10, 267–284.
Allen, M., Wilson, M., Ng, S., & Dunne, M. (2000). Values and
beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal of Social
Psychology, 140, 405–422.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg,
Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
Amato, P., & Partridge, S. (1989). The new vegetarians: Promoting
health and protecting life. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
American Pet Products Association. (2013). U.S. pet industry
spending figures and future outlook. Retrieved from http://
www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp
Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, G. (2012).
When closing the human-animal divide expands moral
concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 36, 100–107.
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. (2012).
Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for
human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38, 247–256.
Bentham, J. (1907). An introduction to the principles of mor-
als and legislation. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
(Original work published 1789). Retrieved from http://
www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPMLCover.html
Bilewicz, M., Imhoff, R., & Drogosz, M. (2011). The humanity
of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among
vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 201–209.
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of
categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of
animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196.
Fessler, D., & Navarrete, C. (2003). Meat is good to taboo:
Dietary proscriptions as a product of the interaction of
psychological mechanisms and social processes. Journal of
Cognition and Culture, 3, 1–40.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
(2013). FAOSTAT food supply—livestock and fish primary
equivalent per capita [Data set]. Retrieved from http://
faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/C/CL/E
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the
essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124.
Greene, J. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A
dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 11, 322–323.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social
intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological
Review, 108, 814–834.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets
of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-
specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers,
S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3,
pp. 367–391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive disso-
nance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Herzog, H. (2010). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat:
Why it’s so hard to think straight about animals. New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive
versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 521–537.
Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An
introduction to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press.
Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2003). Benefits and barriers to the con-
sumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Appetite, 6, 127–136.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of
meat consumption in the denial of mind and moral status
to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159.
Psychology of Eating Animals 5
Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use
of animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–52.
Rose, L., & Marshall, F. (1996). Meat eating, hominid sociality, and
home bases revisited. Current Anthropology, 37, 307–338.
Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche:
Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 363–375.
Rozin, P. (1996). Towards a psychology of food and eating:
From motivation to module to model to marker, moral-
ity, meaning, and metaphor. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 5, 18–24.
Rozin, P. (2004). Meat. In S. Katz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of food
(pp. 666–671). New York, NY: Scribner.
Rozin, P. (2006). Domain denigration and process preference
in academic psychology. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1, 365–376.
Rozin, P., Hormes, J., Faith, M., & Wansink, B. (2012). Is meat male?
A quantitative multimethod framework to establish metaphoric
relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 629–643.
Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and
becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences
into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological
Science, 8, 67–73.
Ruby, M. (2012). Vegetarianism: A blossoming field of study.
Appetite, 58, 141–150.
Ruby, M., & Heine, S. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity.
Appetite, 56, 447–450.
Ruby, M., & Heine, S. (2012). Too close to home. Factors pre-
dicting meat avoidance. Appetite, 59, 47–52.
Ruby, M., Heine, S., Kamble, S., Cheng, T., & Waddar, M.
(2013). Compassion and contamination: Cultural differ-
ences in vegetarianism. Appetite, 71, 340–348.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An inter-
group theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: Towards an end to man’s
inhumanity to animals. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Stanford, C. (1999). The hunting apes: Meat eating and the ori-
gins of human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Tischler, J. (2012). A brief history of animal law, part II (1985–
2011). Stanford Journal of Animal Law and Policy, 27,
57–59.
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. (2010). Causes
and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 14, 383–388.]
... Samme år fik 15 % af landets kvaegbesaetninger, 24 % af slagtekyllingebesaetningerne og 41 % af svinebesaetningerne indskaerpelser, påbud eller politianmeldelser for ikke at overholde lovgivningens mindstekrav til dyrevelfaerd (ibid., p. 78-79). Hvordan vi håndterer sådanne forhold, er psykologisk interessant (Herzog, 2010;Loughnan, Bastian & Haslam, 2014). ...
... Flere foreslår i dag, at teorien har anvendelsesmuligheder inden for miljøbeskyttelse (Schultz, 2014) og dyrevelfaerd (Jamieson et al., 2013;Prunty & Appel, 2013), herunder at forstå, hvordan mennesker håndterer kødparadokset (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam & Radke, 2012;Bratanova, Loughnan & Bastian, 2011;Loughnan et al., 2014). Bastian og kolleger har med eksperimenter informeret af paradigmet vist, at mennesker nedvurderer dyrs psykiske egenskaber, hvis dyrene kategoriseres som føde. ...
Article
Produktion og forbrug af animalske produkter ligger højt iDanmark, og regering og landbrug ønsker tiltagende bevågenhedpå dyrevelfærden. En nylig analyse viste, at dette ikke kanopnås med markedskræfter alene, men at bedre målretning afinformation og kampagner kan bidrage i en samlet strategi.Validerede instrumenter til måling af holdninger er nødvendigei et sådant arbejde, men har manglet, hvorfor artiklen førstoversætter den australske “Pet Pest Profit”-skala og rapportererdens psykometriske egenskaber med et internetbaseretskandinavisk sample (N = 210). Dernæst vises med en adaptationaf det klassiske mål for “Belief in Animal Mind”, at formodningerom psyke hos kommercielt anvendte dyr kan redegørefor 38,5 % af variationen i holdning til deres velfærd.Trods tidligere studiers påvisning af, at klassifikation af dyrsom føde medfører reduceret tiltro til deres psykiske formåen,forbliver relationen mellem psyke-tiltro og velfærdsholdningdermed stærk nok til at være nyttig for promovering af animalskeprodukter, der har dyrevelfærdshensyn som kvalitetskriterium.Vi foreslår, at inddragelse af psykologisk teori og metodegenerelt kan bidrage til arbejdet for øget dyrevelfærd i Danmark.
... Most people continue to consume meat even though they care about animals. This observation is often referred to as the meat paradox, defined as the cognitive dissonance or contradiction between the compassion felt by humans towards animals and the suffering imposed on them through the consumption of animal products [12]. Eating meat can become a particularly salient moral concern when people acknowledge that the animals, they are eating are sentient and capable of suffering. ...
... Other strategies used by humans to deal with the cognitive dissonance resulting from meat consumption include endorsing speciesism, or the belief that humans are superior to other animals [16]; dissociating unpleasant ideas by referring to the bodies of sentient animals as 'meat' [15,17]; endorsing consumption as a social norm [18], and other strategies that are encapsulated in the 4N model: that meat is natural, necessary, normal, and nice [10]. Additionally, some people may acknowledge that animal farming can cause some animal suffering while asserting that farming procedures can be improved to minimize that suffering [12]. In short, beliefs about the sentience and suffering of farm animals are psychologically central to how people think about the ethicality of meat production and consumption. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this study, we examined how beliefs about farm animal sentience and their suffering vary across culture and demographic characteristics. A total of N = 5027) questionnaires were administered in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the USA. Brazilians showed higher and Chinese lower levels of perceived animal sentience. In Russia and India, the perception of suffering and sentience increases with age, with similar levels to those observed in the USA. In all the countries, more people agreed than disagreed that animals are sentient. Men in India show higher levels of agreement with the relation between eating meat and animal suffering, followed by women in Brazil and China. Lower levels of agreement are observed in Americans and Chinese. Women show higher levels of compassion than men. In Russia, there is a slightly higher level of agreement between men and in the USA younger men agree more. Young American men show higher levels of agreement, while in India and China age has the opposite effect. For fair trading competition, it is important to standardize procedures and respect the demand for both animal protein and its ethical production. Overall, our results showed that perceptions of farm animal sentience and suffering vary substantially across countries and demographic groups. These differences could have important consequences for the perceived ethicality of meat production and consumption, and for global trade in animal products.
... Specifically, dissonance between knowledge, conflicting values, and actual behaviour may contribute to a distortion of understanding, information processing and decision-making [26]. Cognitive dissonance theory has been recognised as influential in clinical medical practice and medical education [27], as well as in the psychology of eating animals [28], and it might also apply to perceptions of climate change and its influence on human health. Different models of dissonance reduction strategies have been described, targeting attitudes, distraction and forgetting, denial of responsibility, and behaviour [29]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Climate change is inseparably linked to human health. Although there is growing awareness of the threats to human health caused by climate change, it remains unclear how the German population perceives the relevance of climate change and its health consequences. Between May and September 2022, German residents were invited to participate in a cross-sectional online survey that explored three content areas: (1) the relevance of climate change, (2) health risks in connection with climate change and (3) collective and individual options for action against climate change. A total of 697 full data sets were collected for analysis (72% female, 51% ≥55 years old). The majority of participants agreed that human-induced climate change exists (85%), and that it has an impact on human health (83%). They also perceived the global population to be more strongly impacted by climate change than themselves (89% versus 68%). Most participants (76%) claimed to personally contribute to climate protection and 23% felt that their city or council contributed to climate protection. Although the majority of participants saw climate change as a threat to human health, they perceived other population groups to be most strongly affected. Cognitive dissonance might explain this lack of individual concern and one approach to addressing such distorted perceptions might be the dissemination of appropriate risk communication with health professionals involved in the communication.
... Agreeability regarding the moral acceptability of raising chickens for meat or eggs was affected only by the livestock experience of students, yet all backgrounds of students strongly agreed with this statement. While it is understood that a "meat paradox" exists, where people care about animals and simultaneously realize that animals must die to produce meat, most people continue to eat meat (Loughnan et al., 2010(Loughnan et al., , 2014. Hence, our data indicating that Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/doi/10.1093/jas/skac381/6987166 by guest on 14 January 2023 undergraduate students agree with the morality of poultry production may be unsurprising; also not altogether unexpected is the drop in agreeability from students with significant, personal livestock experience to those without. ...
Article
Full-text available
Individual background and demographics affect student perceptions of animal production. Understanding how science-based education alters these opinions is a critical aspect of improving university instruction as well as increasing consumer engagement in the poultry industry. The study objectives were to quantify the effects of student background, career interests, and science-based instruction on opinions regarding current issues in the poultry industry. Undergraduate students enrolled in a one semester poultry science course at Iowa State University between 2018 and 2021 were anonymously surveyed at the start and end of the semester as part of a 4-yr study. Students who opted to take the survey answered three demographic questions indicating their 1) livestock experience, 2) sex, and 3) career goals. The body of the survey consisted of 16 "poultry issue statements" where students were directed to mark a vertical dash on a 130 mm horizontal line indicating their level of agreement with each statement. Post-survey collection, the line was separated into 5 sections for discussion: responses within 0%-20% indicated strongly disagree, 21%-40% disagree, 41%-60% neutral, 61%-80% agree, and 81%-100% indicated strongly agree. Responses were analyzed using Proc Mixed in SAS Version 9.4 with a Tukey-Kramer adjustment for all pairwise comparisons using main effects including demographic categories, education (pre- or post-instruction), and year the survey was taken. Responses to various issue statements were affected by students' livestock experience (P < 0.05; 6 out of 16 statements affected), sex (P < 0.05; 5 out of 16 statements), and ultimate career goals (P < 0.05; 4 out of 16 statements). Pre- vs. post-education responses differed significantly in 6 out of 16 statements (P < 0.05), and in 2 out of 16 poultry issue statements, the year of instruction affected student response (P < 0.05). These data indicate that individual student background, sex, and differing career interests impact opinions of current topics in the broiler and layer industries. Further, science-based education as well as the year the course was taken over consecutive semesters significantly altered student opinions.
... Species that exhibit physical, behavioural, or cognitive similarities with humans are more likely to elicit positive affect than those which are more dissimilar (Harrison and Hall 2010;Prguda and Neumann 2014). In addition, people who perceive animals to be highly dissimilar to humans and lacking mental attributes are less likely to have empathy for their suffering, and more likely to consume meat (Loughnan et al. 2014). ...
... All meat consumption is strongly modulated by psychological determinants, personal convictions and beliefs. The concept of the "meat paradox" reflects the internal conflict within the meat eater, divided between the pleasure of eating animal flesh and the moral discomfort of killing the animal (Loughnan, Bastian, & Haslam, 2014;Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010). This cognitive conflict is stimulated by the phenomenon of anthropomorphism and the rise in empathy toward animals, which have a deterrent effect on meat consumption in general (Niemyjska, Cantarero, Byrka, & Bilewicz, 2018;Zickfeld, Kunst, & Hohle, 2018). ...
Article
In France, the horsemeat market has been declining for about 50 years and has become a specialized market. Our study aims to understand this decline with regard to the drivers and practices of consumers and non-consumers of this meat, in order to estimate the potential for this market development. To study horsemeat consumption, we analyze two sets of data: two large-scale surveys carried out on the French general population, and one ad-hoc survey focusing more specifically on the representations of horses and horsemeat. Our results underline the potential for increasing horsemeat consumption from a sustainability perspective. The question of moral acceptance remains a determining factor in the consumption of this meat. Once this factor is taken into account, horsemeat appears relevant in the diversification of animal protein consumption because of its particular nutritional and environmental properties and similar culinary use to that of other red meats. Horsemeat can thus lay claim to becoming a sustainable alternative to beef consumption.
... Even with increasing levels of ambivalence and moral aversion towards killing animals for a variety of reasons, and a rise in the number of people adopting plant-based diets (de Padilha et al. 2022), many in modern societies are still fond of consuming meat (Leroy and Praet 2017). Loughnan et al. (2014) note that cognitive dissonance can be resolved either by rejecting meat consumption entirely or through various psychological manoeuvres, both of which bring moral beliefs and attitudes into alignment with behaviours. ...
Article
Full-text available
There has been growing global interest in livestock animal welfare. Previous research into attitudes towards animal welfare has focused on Europe and the United States, with comparatively little focus on Australia, which is an important location due to the prominent position of agriculture economically and culturally. In this article, we present results from qualitative research on how Australian meat consumers conceptualise sheep and beef cattle welfare. The study was conducted in two capital cities (Melbourne, Victoria and Adelaide, South Australia) and a much smaller rural centre (Toowoomba, Queensland) using focus groups (involving 40.9% of participants) and mall-intercept interviews (59.1% of participants), totalling 66 participants. Qualitative analysis highlights that participants had clear ideas of what it means for an animal to live a ‘good life’ and experience a ‘good death,’ with their beliefs strongly tied to their expectations and cultural understandings of what Australian agriculture ‘should be.’ In response to open-ended questions, participants expressed attitudes that relied on romanticised visions of the ‘rural idyll’ as seen in frequent discussions about what is ‘normal’ for sheep meat and beef production, and relatedly, what count as ‘natural behaviours.’ Many participants rejected anything associated with the ‘other,’ classifying it as not ‘normal’: we argue that which is not considered normal, including intensive production, foreign ownership, and halal slaughter practices, appear to place participants’ conceptualizations of an animal’s ‘good death,’ and in turn the potential for a ‘good life,’ at risk.
... Speci cally, dissonance between knowledge, con icting values and actual behaviour may contribute to a distortion of understanding, information processing and decision making [23]. Cognitive dissonance theory has been recognised as in uential in clinical medical practice and medical education [24], as well as the psychology of eating animals [25], and it might also apply to perceptions of climate change and its in uence on human health. Different models of dissonance reduction strategies have been described, targeting attitudes, distraction and forgetting, denial of responsibility, and behaviour [26]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Background Climate change is inseparably linked to human health and has a direct impact on morbidity and mortality. Increasing temperatures, extreme weather events, air pollution and altered vector transmissions are leading to cardiovascular, respiratory and infectious diseases. Although there is growing awareness of the threats to human health caused by climate change, it remains unclear how the German population perceives the relevance of climate change and its health consequences. Methods Between May and September 2022, German residents were invited to participate in a cross-sectional online survey. In addition to collecting demographic data, the survey explored three content areas: (1) the relevance of climate change, (2) health risks in connection with climate change and (3) collective and individual options for action against climate change. Data were analysed descriptively. Results Over the 20-week survey period, 697 full data sets were collected for analysis (72% female, 51% ≥55 years old). The majority of participants agreed that human-induced climate change (likely) exists (85%), and that it has an impact on human health (83%). They also perceived the global population to be more strongly impacted by climate change than the German population (89% versus 74%). Most (68%) participants saw themselves affected by climate change, and approximately one in five respondents (18%) reported negative health experiences due to climate change. Accidents/deaths due to extreme weather events were perceived as the most relevant health risk in connection with climate change (62%). The majority (76%) of participants claimed to personally contribute to climate protection and 23% felt that their city or council contributed to climate protection. Conclusion Although the majority of participants saw climate change as a threat to human health, they perceived other population groups (i.e. outside of Germany) to be most strongly affected. Cognitive dissonance might explain this lack of individual concern. One approach to addressing such distorted perceptions might be the dissemination of appropriate risk communication highlighting existing health threats due to climate change, with health professionals involved in the communication. Cities and councils should play a more active role in promoting climate protection and make their actions visible to the public.
... Yet outside of these academic considerations, the study of animal affect has tangible consequences for practices of animal welfare, husbandry, and conservation, as well as human and animal medicine. For example, meat consumption and standards for animal welfare are influenced by how we conceptualize animals as beings with the ability to experience, think, and feel (Braithwaite et al., 2013;Loughnan et al., 2014;Morris et al., 2012;Wilkins et al., 2015). The translation of studies on animal affect into pharmacological treatments to improve human mental health implies a certain amount of shared affective reality between humans and animals (Milton & Holmes, 2018). ...
Article
How should we characterize the affective lives of non-human animals? There is a large body of work studying affective processes in non-human animals, yet this work is frequently overlooked. Ideas about the affective lives of animals have varied across culture and time and are reflected in literature, theology, and philosophy. Our contemporary ideas about animal affect are philosophically important within the discipline of affective science, and these ideas have consequences in several domains, including animal husbandry, conservation, and human and veterinary medicine. The articles contained within this special volume cover several levels of analysis and broad representation of species, from the non-mammalian, to rodents, to primates; but together, these articles are collectively concerned with the topic of affective processes in non-human animals.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Coginitive dissonance theory was proposed by Festinger placed in aspect of social psychology research. The theory explaining when there is a inconsistency between mental and behaviour, attitude or belief makes individuals feel discomfort, which highligths in interdisciplinary issues. Cognitive dissonance theory is used in managerial and behavioural sides of marketing in which understanding consumers' behaviour and attitude at marketplace is one of the assessed theories in marketing. If firms' mission and vision statement are dissimilar from reality, they could be creating inconsistency, thus consumers who are in marketplace is affected directly, therefore the firms' value could be shaked. Global climate crisis is one of the prominent subjects is being evaluated in different perspectives, such as, environmental, political, economics. Due to global climate change, firms speak out publicly about their green sustainability policy in operational process; however, when the firms do not apply the policy, they would be causing inconsistency in their consumer groups. In spite of businesses try to switch their positions in context of global climate crisis, and when they do not apply green sustainability policy, they be using "greenwashing" to influence consumers. Companies producing animal meat or testing of animals are being introspected by current consumers because of they have no consistency. Animal industries are an aspect of global climate change. In addition, when these industries care about recycling for environment make consumers confused. In this research, inconsistency of businesses has evaluated by assessing global climate change in critical perspective for marketplace.
Article
Full-text available
Metaphors are increasingly recognized as influencing cognition and consumption. While these linkages typically have been qualitatively generated, this article presents a framework of convergent quantitative methodologies that can further document the validity of a metaphor. To illustrate this multimethod framework, the authors explore whether there is a metaphoric link between meat and maleness in Western cultures. The authors address this in six quantifiable studies that involve (1) implicit associations, (2) free associations, (3) indirect-scenario-based inferences, (4) direct measurement profiling, (5) preference and choice, and (6) linguistic analysis and conclude that there is a metaphoric relationship between mammal muscle meat and maleness.
Article
Full-text available
Humans and animals share many similarities. Across three studies, the authors demonstrate that the framing of these similarities has significant consequences for people’s moral concern for others. Comparing animals to humans expands moral concern and reduces speciesism; however, comparing humans to animals does not appear to produce these same effects. The authors find these differences when focusing on natural tendencies to frame human–animal similarities (Study 1) and following experimental induction of framings (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 3, the authors extend their focus from other animals to marginalized human outgroups, demonstrating that human–animal similarity framing also has consequences for the extension of moral concern to other humans. The authors explain these findings by reference to previous work examining the effects of framing on judgments of similarity and self-other comparisons and discuss them in relation to the promotion of animal welfare and the expansion of moral concern.
Article
Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is thought to be caused by moral reasoning. The author gives 4 reasons for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to rationalist models. The model is a social model in that it deemphasizes the private reasoning done by individuals and emphasizes instead the importance of social and cultural influences. The model is an intuitionist model in that it states that moral judgment is generally the result of quick, automatic evaluations (intuitions). The model is more consistent than rationalist models with recent findings in social, cultural, evolutionary, and biological psychology, as well as in anthropology and primatology.
Book
Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.
Article
As arguments become more pronounced that meat consumption harms the environment, public health, and animals, meat eaters should experience increased pressure to justify their behavior. Results of a first study showed that male undergraduates used direct strategies to justify eating meat, including endorsing pro-meat attitudes, denying animal suffering, believing that animals are lower in a hierarchy than humans and that it is human fate to eat animals, and providing religious and health justifications for eating animals. Female undergraduates used the more indirect strategies of dissociating animals from food and avoiding thinking about the treatment of animals. A second study found that the use of these male strategies was related to masculinity. In the two studies, male justification strategies were correlated with greater meat consumption, whereas endorsement of female justification strategies was correlated with less meat and more vegetarian consumption. These findings are among the first to empirically verify Adams’s (1990) theory on the sexual politics of meat linking feminism and vegetarianism. They suggest that to simply make an informational appeal about the benefits of a vegetarian diet may ignore a primary reason why men eat meat: It makes them feel like real men. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)