ArticlePDF Available

Addressing Behavior and Policy Around Meat: Associating Factory Farming With Animal Cruelty “Works” Better Than Zoonotic Disease

Taylor & Francis
Anthrozoös
Authors:

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
Anthrozoös
A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions between people and
other animals
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20
Addressing Behavior and Policy Around Meat:
Associating Factory Farming with Animal Cruelty
“Works” Better than Zoonotic Disease
Olivia E. Gunther, Cara C. MacInnis, Gordon Hodson & Kristof Dhont
To cite this article: Olivia E. Gunther, Cara C. MacInnis, Gordon Hodson & Kristof Dhont (2023):
Addressing Behavior and Policy Around Meat: Associating Factory Farming with Animal Cruelty
“Works” Better than Zoonotic Disease, Anthrozoös, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738
View supplementary material
Published online: 31 Aug 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Addressing Behavior and Policy Around Meat: Associating
Factory Farming with Animal Cruelty “Works” Better than
Zoonotic Disease
Olivia E. Gunther
a,b
, Cara C. MacInnis
a,c
, Gordon Hodson
d
, and Kristof Dhont
e
a
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
b
Department of Educational and
Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada;
c
Department of Psychology, Acadia University,
Nova Scotia, Canada;
d
Department of Psychology, Brock University, Ontario, Canada;
e
School of Psychology,
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
ABSTRACT
Research on shifting attitudes or behaviors surrounding the use of
animal products traditionally focuses on animal cruelty. How this
approach may dier from exposure on the zoonotic disease
transmission risk factory farms pose is unclear. The present study
sought to examine how information regarding zoonotic disease may
stimulate concern for animals/concern for human health, respectively,
and thus predict lower willingness to consume meat, when compared
with animal cruelty and a control condition. The extent to which such
information could shift support for changing conditions on factory
farms was also examined. In a preregistered experiment (n = 454),
participants were exposed to an informative paragraph on either (a)
zoonotic disease transmission risk from factory farming, (b) animal
cruelty on factory farms, or (c) a control paragraph. Those in the
animal-cruelty condition were significantly more likely to indicate
lower meat consumption willingness and higher support for
changing conditions on factory farms, when compared with the two
other conditions. Concern for animal health and welfare mediated the
relationship between the combined experimental conditions and
both dependent variables, when compared with the control
condition. Upon examining the moderating role of human supremacy
beliefs (HSB), a conditional eect was found across all conditions, with
higher HSB predicting higher meat consumption willingness and
lower support for changing conditions on factory farms. This study
oers evidence for the intervention potential of informative excerpts.
These findings also emphasize animal cruelty as a more eective way
to mobilize support for behaviors and policies aimed at reducing
animal-product consumption.
KEYWORDS
Animal cruelty; COVID-19;
factory farming; human–
animal interaction; meat
consumption; zoonotic
disease
The human use of other animals for food is problematic for multiple reasons. For example,
animals on factory farms may be kept in unhygienic conditions (Fiber-Ostrow & Lovell,
2016) where they often cannot move, stand, or breathe fresh air (Appleby et al., 2004).
© 2023 International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)
CONTACT Olivia E. Gunther olivia.gunther@mail.mcgill.ca Department of Educational and Counselling Psy-
chology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish St, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y2, Canada
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738.
ANTHROZOÖS
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738
Additionally, livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse
gases, along with major contributions to soil, air, and water pollution globally (Alvarado
et al., 2021; Anastasiadis, 2004; Gerber & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2013; Godfray et al., 2018; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Further, diseases borne on
factory farms pose public health risks (Bueno-Marí et al., 2015; Karesh et al., 2012),
meat can be damaging to the humans who consume it (Wolk, 2017; Zhong et al.,
2020), and humans who work in slaughterhouses often experience physical and psycho-
logical harm (Blanchette, 2019; Mitloehner & Calvo, 2008), with harm spilling over to the
general community in the form of increased crime (Fitzgerald et al., 2009). It is no surprise,
then, that calls have been made for human diets to transition toward plant-based options
(e.g., Humane Society International, 2023; Mbow et al., 2019).
Attempts to shift attitudes and behaviors about the use of animals for food tradition-
ally focus on drawing attention to animal cruelty on factory farms (Freeman, 2010; Mathur
et al., 2021). Although these have been eective in reducing the purchase or consumption
of meat (Mathur et al., 2021), multiple approaches are likely necessary to engage a
broader range of people, and research on the eectiveness of other approaches is
needed. One such approach, especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic, is drawing atten-
tion to the conditions on factory farms being harmful to humans. Zoonotic diseases
such as COVID-19 are those transmitted from animals to humans via human exposure
to animals or animal products. These will often emerge on factory farms before spreading
to humans (Karesh et al., 2012). Drawing attention to zoonotic disease transmission risk or
to animal cruelty on factory farms has the potential to impact willingness to consume
animal products and to support changing policies related to factory farming. It is currently
unclear, however, whether this approach is eective (e.g., Dhont et al., 2021).
Exploring Ways to Shift Attitudes
Many meat-eaters are motivated to continue meat consumption and may actively avoid
or disregard information that makes them feel uncomfortable with their consumption
habits (Dhont et al., 2021; Leach et al., 2022; Piazza, 2020; Rothgerber & Rosenfeld,
2021). However, when information about the harm on factory farms is unavoidable and
explicit, some people may change their attitudes. That is, some may be less willing to
eat meat or be more willing to support changing conditions on factory farms in light
of such information. Of course, there are dierent aspects of factory farming to focus
on in interventions. We sought to examine and compare the outcomes of explicitly pre-
senting information on two dierent aspects of factory farming: animal cruelty and zoo-
notic disease risk.
Animal Cruelty
Support for animal rights and opposition to animal cruelty are common reasons for
adopting and maintaining a plant-based diet (Kerschke-Risch, 2015; Rosenfeld &
Burrow, 2017). Gaining awareness of animal cruelty has a longstanding history as an
eective way to shift attitudes. A systematic review by Mathur et al. (2021) found that
animal-welfare interventions were eective in short-term studies where outcomes
2 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
involved self-report or intended future behavior; lower consumption was indicated.
Tonsor and Olynk (2011) found that long-term demand for pork and poultry is hindered
by increases in animal-welfare issues being addressed by the media. Experimental work
also shows that targeting moral disengagement through displaying distressing animal
agriculture scenes, followed by discussions on the feelings the video elicited, can lead
to more negative evaluations of meat and greater willingness to reduce meat consump-
tion (Buttlar et al., 2021).
When evaluating support for policy change, Harris et al. (2022) found that providing
information about animal-welfare reforms did not increase opposition to animal
farming, whereas providing information about the cruelty of current practice increased
opposition. Given this work, we expected that presenting information about animal
cruelty on factory farms would lead to lower willingness to eat meat and greater
support for changing conditions on factory farms. We were curious, however, how this
would compare with presenting information of zoonotic disease risk on factory farms
at a time when concern about zoonotic disease (COVID-19) was high.
Zoonotic Disease
Health concerns are an additional leading motive for adopting/maintaining a meat-free
diet (Fox & Ward, 2008; Hopwood et al., 2020). This typically reects concerns with opti-
mizing one’s personal health and fitness. Although it has yet to be examined, concerns
about avoiding zoonotic disease may tie into this. With no clear consensus on whether
animal or health motivations are more eective in shifting attitudes toward animal con-
sumption (De Backer & Hudders, 2014; de Boer et al., 2017; de Oliveira Padilha et al., 2022),
we opted to compare the eects of information about zoonotic disease risk on factory
farms with information about animal cruelty on factory farms.
The COVID-19 pandemic heightened public discourse around zoonotic disease. This
could inuence attitudes toward consuming meat. Research conducted following Hong
Kong’s SARS outbreak in 2003 indicated increased consumer concern with health (Lau
et al., 2005). Wen et al. (2019) examined intentions to purchase poultry during the
2013 avian inuenza: the more a person believed that purchasing chicken products
was a risk, the less likely they were to purchase chicken. A US poll gauged the public’s
recognition of disease risk from animal agriculture, and although 43.7% of participants
indicated support for restrictions on animal agriculture to help prevent pandemics,
only 15% agreed there is a direct link between disease outbreaks and livestock farming
(Beggs & Anderson, 2020). When considering dietary changes, results were split: 17.9%
indicated they were more likely to reduce meat intake, yet 17.0% reported they were
less likely than before to reduce meat intake. Recent work by Dhont et al. (2021) suggests
zoonotic disease information may not be as eective at shifting attitudes. Participants
blamed infectious diseases on factory farms and global meat consumption less than
the wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness. This was
particularly evident for those indicated as meat-committed persons.
Like information about animal cruelty on factory farms (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017;
Loughnan et al., 2014), the above evidence suggests that people may be similarly resistant
to information linking zoonotic disease with factory farms. Nonetheless, given that animal
ANTHROZOÖS 3
rights and health are primary motivations to forgo meat (De Backer & Hudders, 2014; de
Boer et al., 2017), we expected that information regarding animal cruelty/zoonotic disease
on factory farms could stimulate concern for animals/concern for human health, respect-
ively, and thus predict lower willingness to consume meat and/or greater support for
changing conditions on factory farms. Past studies have suggested that informative inter-
ventions can eectively induce concern, and this concern can subsequently shift attitudes
toward meat and factory farms (Cordts et al., 2014; Mathur et al., 2021). We expected that
both types of information would be eective in doing this, but considering the salience of
and concern about COVID-19 at the time the research was conducted, we expected that
the zoonotic disease (vs. animal cruelty) information would be particularly eective.
We also considered a potential moderator of these eects: human supremacy beliefs
(HSB) the extent to which one believes that humans are superior to other animals.
Research shows that stronger endorsement of HSB is associated with higher meat con-
sumption and stronger support for animal exploitation (Dhont & Hodson, 2014),
making it likely that individuals higher in HSB would be particularly resistant to the
eects of animal cruelty information (and possibly information about the risks of
factory farming in general). Interestingly, a recent study revealed that among those
higher in HSB who consume less meat, health and environmental (vs. animal-related)
motives for doing so were cited (Weber & Kollmayer, 2022), suggesting that the zoonotic
disease information could be more eective for those higher in HSB. Prior awareness of
the connection between factory farming and zoonotic disease/animal cruelty was also
gauged to see where the sample stood on awareness of these issues.
Hypotheses
We predicted that, when comparing both experimental (zoonotic & animal cruelty) conditions
with the control condition, there would be lower meat consumption willingness and greater
support for changing the conditions on factory farms (Hypothesis 1). We also predicted that
there would be lower meat consumption willingness and greater support for improving farm
conditions in the zoonotic (vs. cruelty) condition (Hypothesis 2). Additionally, we predicted
that the eects predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2 would be weaker among those higher
(vs. lower) in HSB (Hypothesis 3). These hypotheses were pre-registered through AsPredicted
(56471) (https://aspredicted.org/NH9_G6P). For exploratory purposes, we also examined con-
cerns for animals and concerns for humans as potential mediators of the relationship
between the manipulation and meat consumption willingness.
Methods
Ethics approval was received from the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculty Research
Ethics Board (REB20-1621).
Participants
Undergraduate students (n = 454, M
age
= 20.00 years, SD = 3.07, range: 17–47 years) at a
Canadian (Alberta) University completed a 30-minute online survey for course credits.
4 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
Participants were excluded from the analyses if they failed both attention checks and the
manipulation check or if they did not provide consent for their data to be used. The orig-
inal sample had 469 participants; however, 10 participants failed the manipulation check
and both attention checks, and five did not reconsent to their survey data being used,
reducing the sample to 454 participants. This included 234 women, 215 men, three non-
binary participants, and two transgender men. The ethnicity of the participants included
Aboriginal/Indigenous/Inuit (1.1%), Black (3.8%), East Asian (17.2%), European/White
(39.3%), Hispanic or Latino (4.4%), Middle Eastern (including Northern African, West
Asian, Arabic, and others) (5.5%), Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian (0.4%), South Asian
(21.6%), and Southeast Asian (13.7%). In terms of diet, 89.8% indicated eating both
meat and fish, 0.9% self-identified as pescatarian, 5.7% self-identified as vegetarian, and
1.5% self-identified as vegan.
Procedure
After providing consent, participants completed Dhont and Hodson’s (2014) Human
Supremacy Beliefs Scale (e.g., “There is nothing unusual at all in the fact that humans
dominate other animal species”). The six items, rated on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly dis-
agree; 7 = Strongly Agree), were averaged after reverse-coding three items; higher scores
indicate higher HSB (α = 0.84). Participants reported their age, gender, ethnicity, and
dietary status. Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions.
Each condition included a brief paragraph that either highlighted the connections
between zoonotic diseases and factory farming, animal cruelty and factory farming, or
a description of the activity of geocaching (i.e., control condition). In the zoonotic-
disease experimental condition, an example statement was “Scientists have been
warning us for many years that factory farms are one of the most alarming causes of infec-
tious diseases.” In the animal-cruelty experimental condition, an example statement was
“Experts have been arguing for many years that factory farms are one of the most alarm-
ing causes of animal cruelty.” In the control condition, an example statement was “In
essence, geocaching is a GPS-enabled treasure hunt.” Participants then completed the fol-
lowing measures in the following order (unless otherwise noted). Full paragraphs used in
each condition and all measures can be found in the online supplemental material.
Concern for Human Health/Welfare and Animal Health/Welfare
Participants specified the extent to which they agreed with statements reecting concern
for human health/welfare and animal health/welfare (e.g., “How much do you care about
human health/welfare?”). The six items, created by the authors, were rated on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much). All items were averaged, with higher scores
indicating higher concern for human heath/welfare and animal health/welfare (α = 0.89).
Meat Consumption Willingness
The attitudes participants held toward their current consumption of meat (e.g., “To what
extent do you want to reduce your consumption of animal products from factory farms?”)
were measured by this scale (modified from Earle et al., 2019 (α = 0.93)). The three items
ANTHROZOÖS 5
were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much). All items were aver-
aged, with higher scores indicating a higher willingness to consume meat (α = 0.87).
Support for Changing Conditions on Factory Farms
The extent to which participants would endorse altering conditions on factory farms (e.g.,
“Improving hygiene on factory farms”) was measured using a 5-item scale. The items,
created by the authors, were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very
much). All items were averaged, with higher scores indicating stronger support for chan-
ging the conditions on factory farms (a = 0.87).
Manipulation Check
The manipulation check asked participants which topic their vignette addressed (i.e.,
animal cruelty, zoonotic disease, or geocaching).
Prior Awareness of Animal Cruelty, Zoonotic Diseases, and Factory Farming
Participants indicated their prior awareness of the connections between animal cruelty,
zoonotic diseases, and factory farming (e.g., “Before participating in this study, I was
aware of the connections between animal cruelty and factory farming”). The three
items, created by the authors, were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree;
7 = Strongly Agree). The items were averaged, with higher scores indicating higher pre-
vious awareness (a = 0.71).
Attention Checks
The first attention check was placed directly after the vignette and asked, “What is two
plus six?” The second was placed before the last prior awareness item and stated, “This
is an attention check question. Please choose disagree as your answer.”
All measures appear in the online supplemental material.
Preliminary Analysis
The data were checked for outliers (more than three standard deviations from the mean).
Three participants were deemed outliers and as per our pre-registration decision, these
scores were winsorized (i.e., converted to values at three standard deviations from the
mean). Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and correlations. Table 2 displays means
and standard deviations by condition.
Primary Analysis
Multiple regression analyses with the manipulation represented by orthogonal contrast
codes were used to examine our hypotheses. Orthogonal contrasts assign numerical
weights to compare conditions or groups of conditions with others (Cohen et al.,
2003). Contrast 1 compared the two experimental conditions (zoonotic disease and
6 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
animal cruelty) with the control condition (2/3, 1/3, 1/3), and contrast 2 compared the
zoonotic condition with the cruelty condition (0, 1/2, ½).
1
First, meat consumption will-
ingness was regressed on the two experimental conditions versus the control, the zoono-
tic condition versus the cruelty condition, and mean-centered HSB, as well as the
interaction terms between mean-centered HSB and each of the two contrast variables.
All five variables were entered simultaneously. This same regression analysis was then
repeated separately with support for changing conditions on factory farms as the depen-
dent variable.
Results
For meat consumption willingness, the experimental conditions against the control con-
dition was a significant predictor (β = –0.13, SE = 0.14, p = 0.001), revealing that participants
in the control condition were significantly more willing to consume meat in comparison
with the experimental conditions combined, supporting H1. The contrast between the zoo-
notic and cruelty conditions was also significant (β = 0.10, SE = 0.17, p = 0.016). Those in the
zoonotic-disease condition were unexpectedly more willing to consume meat in compari-
son with the animal-cruelty condition (contrary to H2). HSB was also significant (β = 0.46, SE
= 0.05, p < 0.001), such that those higher in HSB had a significantly higher willingness to
consume meat. No interaction terms were significant (see Table 3).
For changing conditions on factory farms, the experimental conditions against the
control condition was a significant predictor (β = 0.13, SE = 0.11, p = 0.002). Participants
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between variables.
Measure Mean SD1 2 3 4 5 6
Human supremacy beliefs 3.80 1.24
Concern for human health/welfare 6.03 0.95 –0.08
Concern for animal health/welfare 5.18 1.30 –0.45** 0.49**
Meat consumption willingness 3.80 1.64 0.47** –0.18** –0.55**
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 5.73 1.21 –0.50** 0.33** 0.61** –0.62**
Prior awareness 4.55 1.35 –0.14** 0.22** 0.25** –0.24** 0.12*
Note: n = 454, scale ranges 1–7, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
Table 2. Means and standard deviations by condition.
Mean SD
Zoonotic-disease condition (n = 153)
Meat consumption willingness 3.89 1.59
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 5.63 1.22
Concern for animal health and welfare 5.15 1.30
Concern for human health and welfare 6.02 0.89
Animal-cruelty condition (n = 151)
Meat consumption willingness 3.36 1.59
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 6.04 1.10
Concern for animal health and welfare 5.43 1.22
Concern for human health and welfare 6.14 0.92
Control condition (n = 150)
Meat consumption willingness 4.14 1.66
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 5.52 1.24
Concern for animal health and welfare 4.95 1.32
Concern for human health and welfare 5.94 1.03
ANTHROZOÖS 7
in the experimental conditions combined were significantly more likely to support chan-
ging conditions on factory farms in comparison with the control condition (supporting
H1). The contrast between the zoonotic and cruelty conditions was also significant (β
= –0.12, SE = 0.120, p = 0.003), such that those in the animal-cruelty condition were signifi-
cantly more likely to support changing conditions on factory farms when compared with
the zoonotic-disease condition (contrary to H2). HSB was also significant (β = –0.51, SE =
0.04, p < 0.001). Those higher in HSB were significantly less likely to support changing con-
ditions on factory farms. However, no interaction terms were significant (see Table 3).
Mediation analyses using Hayes Process macro model 4 in SPSS (Hayes, 2013) were per-
formed to examine the mediating role of concern for animal health and welfare, or the
separate role of concern for human health and welfare, in the relationship between
manipulation and meat consumption willingness or support for changing conditions
on factory farms. There was a significant eect of condition on concern for animal
health and welfare when comparing the control condition with the experimental con-
ditions combined (IV on Mediator: b = 0.35, SE b = 0.13, p = 0.041) but not when compar-
ing the two experimental conditions. There was no eect of condition, among either of
the contrasts, when looking at concern for human health and welfare.
Concern for animal health and welfare mediated the relationship between the exper-
imental conditions against the control condition and meat consumption willingness
(indirect eect: –0.23, 95% CI [–0.40, –0.06]), as well as between the experimental con-
ditions against the control condition and support for changing conditions on factory
farms (indirect eect: 0.20, 95% CI [0.05, 0.35]). This suggests that, compared with the
control group, those in the experimental groups were less likely to endorse meat con-
sumption willingness and more likely to indicate support for changing conditions on
factory farms. This eect can be partially explained by the participants’ concern for
animal health and welfare.
However, concern for animal health and welfare did not mediate the relationship
between the zoonotic versus cruelty conditions and meat consumption willingness or
changing conditions on factory farms. Human health and welfare did not act as a
Table 3. Multiple regressions with orthogonal contrasts.
Model β (SE) 95% CI Standardized coefficients beta t p
Meat consumption willingness coefficients
Constant 3.80 (0.07) 3.67/3.94 56.55 < 0.001
OC1 –0.46 (0.14) –0.74/–0.18 –0.13 –3.24 0.001
OC2 0.40 (0.17) 0.07/0.72 0.10 2.41 0.016
HSB 0.61 (0.05) 0.50/0.72 0.46 11.23 < 0.001
OC1 × HSB 0.03 (0.12) –0.20/0.26 0.01 0.25 0.803
OC2 × HSB –0.19 (0.13) –0.45/0.07 –0.06 –1.47 0.143
Support for changing conditions on factory farms coefficients
Constant 5.50 (0.05) 5.40/5.60 109.18 < 0.0001
OC1 0.34 (0.11) 0.13/0.55 0.13 3.17 0.002
OC2 –0.37 (0.12) –0.61/–0.13 –0.12 –3.02 0.003
HSB –0.52(0.04) –0.60/–0.44 –0.51 –12.79 < 0.001
OC1 × HSB 0.01 (0.09) –0.17/0.18 0.00 0.07 0.947
OC2 × HSB 0.04 (0.10) –0.15/0.23 0.02 0.40 0.690
Note: Constant = control condition; OC1 = experimental contrast 1 (experimental compared with control); OC2 = exper-
imental contrast 2 (zoonotic compared with cruelty); HSB = Human Supremacy Beliefs; OC1 × HSB = Moderation of HSB
on OC1; OC2 × HSB = Moderation of HSB on OC2.
8 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
mediator in any of the analyses. It appears that the experimental conditions resulted in
heightened concern for animals, which in turn was associated with decreased meat con-
sumption willingness and increased support for changing conditions on factory farms (see
Table 4).
Discussion
We examined two possible strategies for inuencing meat consumption willingness and
support for changing factory farming conditions. Hypothesis 1 that when comparing
both experimental conditions with the control condition there would be lower meat con-
sumption willingness and greater support for improving factory-farming conditions was
supported. The animal-cruelty condition demonstrated eectiveness in shifting attitudes;
however, the zoonotic-disease condition did not dier significantly from the control.
2
Hypothesis 2 – that when comparing the zoonotic condition with the animal-cruelty con-
dition there would be lower meat consumption willingness and greater support for improv-
ing factory farming conditions – was not supported. Those in the animal-cruelty condition
had significantly lower meat consumption willingness and significantly higher support for
changing conditions on factory farms. Even at a time where human health fears may have
been heightened given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, animal cruelty (vs. zoonotic
disease) information still has a stronger impact. This is consistent with recent findings that
zoonotic concerns are relatively dismissible in contexts linked to meat (Dhont et al., 2021).
Contrary to predictions, HSB did not moderate either contrast.
This then raises the question, why did animal cruelty information impact outcomes sig-
nificantly more than information about the threat of zoonotic disease? This could poten-
tially be due to participants viewing animal cruelty as more emotionally arousing and
morally relevant (Feinberg et al., 2019; Herchenroeder et al., 2022). The zoonotic-
Table 4. Results of the mediation analyses.
Mediator
Dependent
variable Contrast
IV on
Mediator a
Mediator
on DV b
Direct
effect cʹ
Indirect effect
(ab) [95% CI]
b (SE b)
Concern for
animal
health and
welfare
Meat
consumption
willingness
Support for
changing
conditions on
factory farms
C1
C2
C1
C2
0.35*(0.13)
0.28(0.15)
0.35*(0.13)
0.28(0.15)
–0.67**(0.05)
–0.67**(0.05)
0.58**(0.04)
0.58**(0.04)
–0.28*(0.14)
–0.34*(0.16)
0.18(0.10)
0.31**(0.12)
–0.23(0.09) [–0.40; 0.06]
–0.19(0.10) [–0.38; 0.01]
0.20(0.08) [0.05; 0.35]
0.16(0.09) [–0.00; 0.33]
Concern for
human
health and
welfare
Meat
consumption
willingness
Support for
changing
conditions on
factory farms
C1
C2
C1
C2
0.13(0.09)
0.12(0.11)
0.13(0.09)
0.12(0.11)
–0.28**(0.08)
–0.28**(0.08)
0.36**(0.06)
0.36**(0.06)
–0.48(0.16)
–0.49(0.18)
0.33**(0.12)
0.43**(0.14)
–0.04(0.03) [–0.10; 0.01]
–0.03(0.03) [–0.10; 0.02]
0.05(0.04) [–0.02; 0.14]
0.04(0.04) [–0.03; 0.13]
Note: IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
ANTHROZOÖS 9
disease condition may not evoke the same visceral feelings that reading about animal
cruelty does. Pre-established associations of COVID-19 origins in Wuhan, China may
have also made the risk that factory farms pose resonate less with participants. Partici-
pants may have dismissed the potential for factory farms to generate zoonotic diseases
to the same direct extent that a wet market with wild animals could (Beggs & Anderson,
2020; Dhont et al., 2021). Research also suggests that the threat of zoonotic diseases may
resonate less within the age group we examined. A North American online survey, with a
sample average age close to that of the present study (28.6 years), found that, compared
with the general population, a significant number of individuals believed they were at less
risk of contracting COVID-19 (Beggs & Anderson, 2020). The possibilities are speculative at
this point but could be examined in future work.
The insignificance of the predicted interactions suggests that the experimental eects
were similar for both those lower and higher in HSB. These results demonstrate that the
intervention “works” regardless of variation in the extent to which one views humans as
hierarchically above other animals. Our results did show that HSB was correlated with
prior awareness of zoonotic disease risk and animal cruelty such that as HSB increased,
awareness decreased. This suggests that despite generally having lower awareness,
those high in HSB still were not dierentially inuenced by any of the manipulations.
Awareness was also associated with lower meat consumption willingness and greater
support for changing conditions on factory farms, consistent with previous work (Har-
guess et al., 2020).
Implications
Although we had expected that zoonotic disease information would inuence outcomes
more strongly given the life-changing and ever-salient COVID-19 pandemic, our results
fall in line with previous work (Buttlar et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2022; Mathur et al.,
2021) that demonstrates animal cruelty to be a more eective connection to underscore.
This further establishes the intervention potential of exposure to such informative
excerpts, coinciding with past research (Amiot et al., 2018). Companies seeking to per-
suade consumers to reconsider their dietary choices, such as plant-based alternatives,
can use this insight for marketing strategies.
There are also broader implications for both public health and policy making. It
appears to be dicult for people to comprehend the danger factory-farm conditions
will continue to pose if changes are not made. A lack of understanding of local risk,
such as the threat of zoonotic disease outbreaks on factory farms, will be a barrier in fos-
tering preventative action. The human–animal relations discourse surrounding the
COVID-19 pandemic has largely focused on exotic animal consumption; so, eorts to
educate the public on how their own behavior can minimize the risk of future outbreaks
will be critical. If preventative behavior (eating less meat, supporting changing factory
farming systems) is motivated more by a focus on animal cruelty than zoonotic
disease, then perhaps emphasizing the treatment of animals on factory farms may
prove to be a more eective way to mobilize public concern and to promote support
for policies seeking to prevent future outbreaks. Thus, although companies, policy
makers, or lobbyists may be tempted to employ zoonotic-disease arguments to reduce
10 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
meat consumption, our results demonstrate that this will not be as eective as infor-
mation on animal cruelty.
Limitations and Future Directions
First, our study is limited in that our manipulation involved reading informative para-
graphs. Although this is often how people acquire new information, participants may
have struggled to visualize the information (Law, 2009). Presenting the same information
through videos and/or virtual reality would likely be more eective, consistent with evi-
dence that these are successful advocacy tools (Anderson, 2017; Herchenroeder et al.,
2022; Herrewijn et al., 2021). Our study was also limited in our focus on self-reported atti-
tudinal measures rather than objective behavioral measures. As with all self-report data, it
may be subject to bias and in particular, social desirability. Our study also only reects atti-
tudes immediately after reading the manipulation paragraph; it is unclear if long-term
attitude shifts would occur. It is also worth acknowledging that internal validity may
have been reduced through minor phrasing dierences between the manipulation para-
graphs (e.g., “scientists have been warning” [zoonotic-disease condition] vs. “experts have
been arguing” [animal-cruelty condition]).
Timing is another limitation, as participants may have felt a sense of “COVID fatigue.”
Owing to the amount of time that the pandemic had already been going on for (11
months at data collection), stronger initial concern may have faded, leaving some potentially
more indierent (Zerbe, 2020). Given the sample was of undergraduate students who were
in a psychology course at the time, the generalizability is also worth considering. Links have
been identified between higher education and a lower likelihood of consuming beef or pork
(Guenther et al., 2005) and with an increased likelihood of following a vegetarian diet (Hoek
et al., 2004). With a mean age of 20 years among our sample, it is important to consider
potential age-related impacts. A Canadian survey showed that of those identifying as veg-
etarian or vegan, more than half are under the age of 35 (Charlebois et al., 2018). This
suggests that even though the vast majority of our participants did not identity as veg-
etarian, they are likely to know those who are or to potentially be more open to the concept.
Additionally, research indicates that political orientation, specifically a desire for more
economic equality and greater tolerance of outgroups, is related to concern for farm-
animal welfare (Deemer & Lobao, 2011; see also Dhont et al., 2016, Study 3). University
samples tend to reect these more liberal-leaning views, especially among social-
science students (Hastie, 2007). It is also critical to note the local culture of Alberta (the
location of the university our sample was drawn from). Despite the presence of the
Alberta beef industry and reports indicating that Alberta has the highest red meat
intake across all Canadian provinces (Statistics Canada, 2018), our study nonetheless
demonstrated the eectiveness of an animal-cruelty manipulation in shifting meat-
eating intentions. Future research should examine how attitudes on meat consumption
and factory farming may shift in diering cultural contexts.
Lastly, when discussing attitudes toward lowering meat consumption, environmental
considerations should not be overlooked. Recent work by Herchenroeder et al. (2022)
suggests that environmental video appeals may be the most eective way for increasing
intentions to change future meat intake. A recent meta-review also echoed these
ANTHROZOÖS 11
sentiments (Grundy et al., 2022). Diving further into why some motivational factors may
work better on a moral or personal level and who is most likely to be inuenced by such
factors would be a meaningful pursuit for future inquiries.
Conclusion
Research continues to stress the need to shift away from intensive farming practices and
animal-product consumption. In order to raise public concern and to catalyze action, we
must understand how apathy or disengagement from these issues can be targeted most
eectively. The present study contributes to a growing narrative suggesting zoonotic con-
cerns do not evoke a response strong enough to broadly shift attitudes surrounding
animal products and factory farming. Our findings instead oer support for the ability
of informative paragraphs on animal cruelty to establish a desire to consume less meat
and to support changes on factory farms. This research should inform future endeavors
seeking to spark support for behaviors and policies that address the profound harm of
factory farming and animal-product consumption.
Notes
1. Those who self-identified as pescatarian, vegetarian, or vegan (n = 37) were retained in the
analyses.
2. A multivariate analysis of variance indicated that there was no significant dierence between
the zoonotic condition and the control in predicting meat consumption willingness (M =
0.25, SE = 0.19, p = 0.176) or in predicting support for changing conditions on factory farms
(M = 0.12, SE = 0.14, p = 0.384).
Disclosure Statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Alvarado, R., Ortiz, C., Jiménez, N., Ochoa-Jiménez, D., & Tillaguango, B. (2021). Ecological footprint,
air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international trade. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 288, 125589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125589
Amiot, C. E., El Hajj Boutros, G., Sukhanova, K., & Karelis, A. D. (2018). Testing a novel multicompo-
nent intervention to reduce meat consumption in young men. PLoS ONE, 13(10). https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0204590
Anastasiadis, P. (2004). Groundwater pollution from agricultural activities: An integrated approach.
Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska, 6, 19–30. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.
element.baztech-article-BPW7-0007-0002
Anderson, J. (2017). An experimental investigation of the impact of video media on pork consump-
tion. Technical report. Faunalytics. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/fapu8
Appleby, M. C., Mench, J. A., & Hughes, B. O. (2004). Poultry behavior and welfare. CABI.
Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally
troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 278–
299. http://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562
12 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
Beggs, T., & Anderson, J. (2020). Covid-19 & animals: What the public does and doesn’t know.
Faunalytics. https://osf.io/f6xck/
Blanchette, A. (2019). Living waste and the labor of toxic health on American factory farms. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, 33(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12491
Bueno-Marí, R., Almeida, A. P. G., & Navarro, J. C. (2015). Editorial: Emerging zoonoses: Eco-epide-
miology, involved mechanisms, and public health implications. Frontiers in Public Health, 3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00157
Buttlar, B., Rothe, A., Kleinert, S., Hahn, L., & Walther, E. (2021). Food for thought: Investigating com-
munication strategies to counteract moral disengagement regarding meat consumption.
Environmental Communication, 15(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1791207
Charlebois, S., Somogyi, S., & Music, J. (2018). Plant-based dieting and meat attachment: Protein
wars and the changing Canadian consumer. Dalhousie University. https://cdn.dal.ca/content/
dam/dalhousie/pdf/management/News/News%20%26%20Events/Charlebois%20Somogyi%
20Music%20EN%20Plant-Based%20Study.pdf
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed., p. 336). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). Consumer response to negative information on meat con-
sumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(24). https://
doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.164599
De Backer, C. J. S., & Hudders, L. (2014). From meatless Mondays to meatless Sundays: Motivations
for meat reduction among vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who mildly or significantly reduce
their meat intake. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53(6), 639–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03670244.2014.896797
de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2017). Towards a reduced meat diet: Mindset and motivation of
young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters. Appetite, 113, 387–397. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.007
Deemer, D. R., & Lobao, L. M. (2011). Public concern with farm-animal welfare: Religion, politics, and
human disadvantage in the food sector. Rural Sociology, 76(2), 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1549-0831.2010.00044.x
de Oliveira Padilha, L. G., Malek, L., & Umberger, W. J. (2022). Consumers’ attitudes towards lab-
grown meat, conventionally raised meat and plant-based protein alternatives. Food Quality
and Preference, 99, 104573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104573
Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation
and meat consumption? Personality and Individual Dierences, 64, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.02.002
Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Common ideological roots of speciesism and generalized
ethnic prejudice: The social dominance human–animal relations model (SD-HARM). European
Journal of Personality, 30(6), 507–522. http://doi.org/10.1002/per.2069
Dhont, K., Piazza, J., & Hodson, G. (2021). The role of meat appetite in willfully disregarding factory
farming as a pandemic catalyst risk. Appetite, 164, 105279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.
105279
Earle, M., Hodson, G., Dhont, K., & MacInnis, C. C. (2019). Eating with our eyes (closed): Eects of visually
associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 818–835. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219861848
Feinberg, M., Kovache, C., Teper, R., & Inbar, Y. (2019). Understanding the process of moralization:
How eating meat becomes a moral issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(1), 50–
72. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000149
Fiber-Ostrow, P., & Lovell, J. S. (2016). Behind a veil of secrecy: Animal abuse, factory farms, and Ag-
Gag legislation. Contemporary Justice Review, 19(2), 230–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.
2016.1168257
Fitzgerald, A. J., Kalof, L., & Dietz, T. (2009). Slaughterhouses and increased crime rates: An empirical
analysis of the spillover from “the jungle” into the surrounding community. Organization &
Environment, 22(2), 158–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609338164
ANTHROZOÖS 13
Fox, N., & Ward, K. (2008). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motiv-
ations. Appetite, 50(2–3), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.007
Freeman, C. P. (2010). Framing animal rights in the “go veg” campaigns of U.S. Animal rights organ-
izations. Society & Animals, 18(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853010X492015
Gerber, P. J., & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Eds.). (2013). Tackling
climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T.,
Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the
environment. Science, 361(6399). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324
Grundy, E. A. C., Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Watkins, K., Houlden, T., Farr, N., Askin, H., Lee, J., Mintoft-
Jones, A., Cyna, S., Dziegielewski, A., Gelber, R., Rowe, A., Mathur, M. B., Timmons, S., Zhao, K.,
Wilks, M., Peacock, J. R., Harris, J., … Zorker, M. (2022). Interventions that inuence animal-
product consumption: A meta-review. Future Foods, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100111
Guenther, P. M., Jensen, H. H., Batres-Marquez, P. S., & Chen, C. (2005). Sociodemographic, knowl-
edge, and attitudinal factors related to meat consumption in the United States. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 105(8), 1266–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.05.014
Harguess, J. M., Crespo, N. C., & Hong, M. Y. (2020). Strategies to reduce meat consumption: A sys-
tematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite, 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.
2019.104478
Harris, J., Ladak, A., & Mathur, M. B. (2022). The eects of exposure to information about animal
welfare reforms on animal farming opposition: A randomized experiment. Anthrozoös, 35(6),
773–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2022.2062868
Hastie, B. (2007). Higher education and sociopolitical orientation: The role of social inuence in the
liberalisation of students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(3), 259–274. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03173425
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach (pp. xvii, 507). Guilford Press.
Herchenroeder, L., Forestell, C. A., & Bravo, A. J. (2022). The eectiveness of animal welfare-, environ-
mental-, and health-focused video appeals on implicit and explicit wanting of meat and inten-
tions to reduce meat consumption. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163(3), 394–407. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2081529
Herrewijn, L., De Groeve, B., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2021). VR outreach and meat reduction
advocacy: The role of presence, empathic concern and speciesism in predicting meat reduction
intentions. Appetite, 166, 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105455
Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Staeu, A., & de Graaf, C. (2004). Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes
of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers.
Appetite, 42(3), 265–272. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2003.12.003
Hopwood, C. J., Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., & Chen, S. (2020). Health, environmental, and animal
rights motives for vegetarian eating. PLoS ONE, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0230609
Humane Society International. (2023, January 24). Plant-based eating. Humane Society International
Canada. https://www.hsi.org/issues/plant-based-eating/
Karesh, W. B., Dobson, A., Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Lubroth, J., Dixon, M. A., Bennett, M., & Heymann, D. I.
(2012). Ecology of zoonoses: Natural and unnatural histories. The Lancet, 380(9857), 1936–1945.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61678-X
Kerschke-Risch, P. (2015). Vegan diet: Motives, approach and duration. Initial results of a quantitative
sociological study. Ernahrungs Umsch, 62(6), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.4455/eu.2015.016
Lau, J. T. F., Yang, X., Phil, H. Y. T. M., & Kim, J. H. (2005). Impacts of SARS on health-seeking behaviors
in general population in Hong Kong. Preventive Medicine, 41(2), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ypmed.2004.11.023
Law, J. (2009). Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology, 3(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1749975509105533
14 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
Leach, S., Piazza, J., Loughnan, S., Sutton, R. M., Kapantai, I., Dhont, K., & Douglas, K. M. (2022).
Unpalatable truths: Commitment to eating meat is associated with strategic ignorance of
food-animal minds. Appetite, 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.105935
Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23(2), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414525781
Mathur, M. B., Peacock, J., Reichling, D. B., Nadler, J., Bain, P. A., Gardner, C. D., & Robinson, T. N.
(2021). Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis
and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite, 164, 105277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.
2021.105277
Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E.,
Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F. N., & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. In:
Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degra-
dation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas uxes in terrestrial ecosys-
tems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.007
Mitloehner, F. M., & Calvo, M. S. (2008). Worker health and safety in concentrated animal feeding
operations. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 14(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.13031/
2013.24349
Piazza, J. (2020). Why people love animals yet continue to eat them. In K. Dhont & G. Hodson (Eds.),
Why we love and exploit animals: Bridging insights from academia and advocacy (pp. 229–244).
Routledge.
Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017). Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the motivations of
plant-based dieters. Appetite, 116, 456–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.039
Rothgerber, H., & Rosenfeld, D. L. (2021). Meat-related cognitive dissonance: The social psychology
of eating animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/
spc3.12592
Statistics Canada. (2018). Food stats. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/32-26-0001/
322600012018001-eng.htm
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long
shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf
Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk, N. J. (2011). Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat demand.
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00266.x
Weber, M., & Kollmayer, M. (2022). Psychological processes underlying an omnivorous, vegetarian,
or vegan diet: Gender role self-concept, human supremacy beliefs, and moral disengagement
from meat. Sustainability, 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148276
Wen, X., Sun, S., Li, L., He, Q., & Tsai, F. (2019). Avian inuenza – Factors aecting consumers’ pur-
chase intentions toward poultry products. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(21), 4139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214139
Wolk, A. (2017). Potential health hazards of eating red meat. Journal of Internal Medicine, 281(2), 106–
122. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12543
Zerbe, K. J. (2020). Pandemic fatigue: Facing the body’s inexorable demands in the time of COVID-
19. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 68(3), 475–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0003065120938774
Zhong, V. W., Van Horn, L., Greenland, P., Carnethon, M. R., Ning, H., Wilkins, J. T., Lloyd-Jones, D. M.,
& Allen, N. B. (2020). Associations of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake
with incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. JAMA Internal Medicine, 180(4), 503–
512. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6969
ANTHROZOÖS 15
... Scholars have argued that meat consumers want to reduce this cognitive dissonance, for instance, by reducing or stopping meat consumption and thereby changing their behaviour (or behavioural intentions) to be more consistent with their attitudes and beliefs (Loughnan et al., 2014;Loughnan & Davies, 2020;Rothgerber, 2020). Studies have shown that moral discomfort related to meat consumption (increased feelings of guilt) leads to decreased willingness to eat meat (Earle et al., 2019;Gunther et al., 2023;Kunst & Hohle, 2016). Alternatively, meat consumers can engage in psychological strategies that change their attitudes and beliefs in ways that make them feel more comfortable with their meat-eating behaviour (Loughnan & Davies, 2020;Rothgerber, 2020). ...
... That is, to resolve the meat-related dissonance (meat paradox), meat eaters may engage in mind denial and lower their perceived moral status of animals, which helps make them feel more comfortable about their meat-eating behaviour (Bastian et al., 2012;Loughnan & Davies, 2020;Rothgerber, 2020). On the other hand, meat eaters may also express a greater willingness to consume less meat and more plant-based alternatives (Earle et al., 2019;Gunther et al., 2023;Kunst & Hohle, 2016). By showing similar patterns for dairy-related cognitive dissonance, our findings extend previous research and highlight that the theoretical scope of the meat paradox (Loughnan & Davies, 2020;Rothgerber, 2020) is not restricted to just meat consumption, but also applies to dairy consumption, and plausibly, to the consumption of a range of animal products (see Ioannidou et al., 2023a;2023b). ...
... Most relevant to the current research is work on the 'meat-paradox', which relies on a specific form of cognitive dissonance stressing the importance of the personal and behavioral commitment in dissonance arousal (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017; but see Rothgerber, 2020). Literature on the meat-paradox demonstrates that when people experience psychological con ict between their meat-eating practices and the harm experienced by animals in the meat production process, it increases their moral discomfort and guilt, and people try to reduce their responsibility by reducing their intentions to eat meat (e.g., Earle, Hodson, Dhont, & MacInnis, 201 ;Gunther, MacInnis, Hodson, & Dhont, 2023;Kunst & Hohle, 201 ), but people also engage in dementalization mechanisms to reduce the negative emotions raised by their consumptions (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam, & Radke, 2012). When people face objectifiedanimals (i.e., meat-animals) and the moral implications of eating them, then denying the ualities that make those animals morally relevant, namely their capacity to think and feel, is an efficient way to minimize and rationalize the harm animals experience during the meatproduction process (Loughnan, Bastian, & Haslam, 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Despite caring for animals, most people use products tested on lab-animals daily, and rarely consider the implications of their choices for animal testing. We experimentally examined across four preregistered and high-powered online studies (total N = 3405) whether categorizing animals as being lab-subjects, in a context where people are also reminded of the implications of their own consumer choices, could lead to their mind denial. Findings confirmed that participants consistently denied mind to animals used for product testing compared to those same animals presented outside of this context. Manipulating the perceived suffering experienced by laboratory animals and the responsibility of individuals, however, did not affect the extent of mind denial. Our findings suggest, consistent with previous work, that categorizing animals as 'furry test-tubes' changes how we perceive them, in order to rationalize their use for testing the products we consume on a daily basis.
... People differ in what they consider appropriate treatment of animals and what uses of animals they approve or disapprove of (e.g., use for human consumption, medical research, sport hunting; Herzog & Mathews, 1997). People high in speciesism tend to approve how animals are commonly used by humans and do not see these uses as animal exploitation whereas people low in speciesism tend to disapprove of these uses and see them as exploitation (Dhont et al., 2020;Gunther et al., 2023;Herzog et al., 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
The present research examined whether personality and individual differences have practical implications for effective animal advocacy (i.e., how effective an animal advocacy message is) by exploring whether individual differences in gender identity, social dominance orientation, and speciesism moderate the effects of advocacy. An online study was conducted employing an experimental design (advocacy vs. control condition). 495 participants (120 men, 375 women) watched either an advocacy video showing chickens suffering on a free range egg farm or a control video (a lifestyle video showing the preparation of plant-based meals). Data were analyzed using MANOVA, ANOVAs, correlations, and moderated regression analyses. Results indicated that participants in the advocacy condition showed more positive attitudes toward chickens and less positive attitudes toward free range eggs, and also showed stronger intentions to reduce egg consumption, compared with participants in the control condition. Importantly, whereas social dominance orientation had no moderating effects, gender identity moderated the effect of advocacy on attitudes toward chickens: Only women, but not men, showed more positive attitudes in the advocacy compared with the control condition. Furthermore, speciesism moderated the effects of advocacy on attitudes toward free range eggs and on intentions to reduce egg consumption: Participants low in speciesism expressed less positive attitudes toward free range eggs and stronger intentions to reduce egg consumption in the advocacy compared with the control condition. These effects were weaker (attitudes) or nonsignificant (intentions) in participants high in speciesism. The findings suggest that some types of animal advocacy may work only for some people, but not others. The present research contributes to the understanding of the role that personality and individual differences play in human-animal relations and has relevance for practical efforts of animal advocacy to improve these relations, increase animal welfare, and reduce the use of animal products.
... The current findings highlight the importance of animal rights motives and pro-animal views underpinning plant-based diets. For this reason, it could be argued that advocates for plant-based diets should focus primarily on trying to increase people's concern for animals and animal rights (e.g., Gunther et al., 2023). This is consistent with meta-analytic evidence suggesting that interventions appealing to animal welfare tend to be particularly effective in increasing intentions to reduce meat consumption (Mathur et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
Most people consume meat regularly but simultaneously claim to be animal lovers, which should lead to a state of cognitive dissonance and cause distress. Against this backdrop, it is important to understand why some people decide to stop consuming meat or completely eschew animal products, while others do not. Research has shown gender and self-regulatory mechanisms as important factors, but the underlying psychological processes require further examination. In total, 3259 vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores completed an online questionnaire about their diet, gender role self-concept, moral disengagement from meat consumption, and human supremacy beliefs. The results showed that male vegans described themselves as more feminine but no less masculine than male omnivores, while no such differences were found in women. Furthermore, omnivores reported the highest moral disengagement from meat consumption, followed by vegetarians and vegans. The same was true of human supremacy beliefs. Moreover, the results showed that not only is diet itself related to differences in human supremacy beliefs but also the motives for this diet, with health and environmental motives being associated with stronger human supremacy beliefs than animal-related motives. These findings present practical implications for animal rights activists, marketing, and the health and education sectors.
Article
Full-text available
Animal minds are of central importance to debates about their rights and welfare. Remaining ignorant of evidence that animals have minds is therefore likely to facilitate their mistreatment. Studying samples of adults and students from the UK and US we found that, consistent with motivational perspectives on meat consumption, those who were more (vs. less) committed to eating meat were more motivated to avoid exposure to information about food-animals’ sentience (Studies 1), showed less interest in exposure to articles about intelligent food animals (Studies 2a and 2b), and were quicker to terminate exposure to internet pop-ups containing information about food-animals’ minds (Studies 3a and 3b). At the same time, those who were more (vs. less) committed to eating meat approached information about companion-animals’ minds (Studies 2a-3b) and unintelligent food animals (Studies 2a and 2b) in largely the same ways. The findings demonstrate that, within the UK and US, the desire to eat meat is associated with strategies to avoid information that is likely to challenge meat consumption.
Article
Full-text available
Transitioning toward plant-based diets can alleviate health and sustainability challenges. However, research on interventions that influence animal-product consumption remains fragmented and inaccessible to researchers and practitioners. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews, also known as a meta-review. We searched five databases for reviews that examined interventions that influence (increase or decrease) the consumption of animal products. We quantitatively summarised results using individual studies' directions of effect because reviews rarely reported effect sizes of primary studies. Eighteen reviews met inclusion criteria, 12 of which examined interventions intended to decrease animal-product consumption and 6 of which examined interventions intended to increase animal-product consumption. In total, only two reviews conducted quantitative meta-analyses. Across all reviews, vote counting indicated that providing information on the environmental impact of meat consumption may reduce consumption, with 10 of 11 estimates suggesting reduced consumption (91% [95% CI 62.3%, 98.4%]; p = .012). Providing information on the health consequences, emphasising social norms, and reducing meat portion sizes also appeared promising, albeit with more limited evidence. Reviews examining interventions that decreased consumption predominately focused on meat (10/12 reviews). Future reviews should conduct quantitative syntheses where appropriate and examine interventions that influence the consumption of animal products other than meat.
Article
Full-text available
Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals reared in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effec-tiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of true population effects (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare inter-ventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that mini-mize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.
Article
Full-text available
Most infectious diseases are zoonotic, “jumping” from animals to humans, with COVID-19 no exception. Although many zoonotic transmissions occur on industrial-scale factory farms, public discussions mainly blame wild animal (“wet”) markets or focus on reactionary solutions, posing a psychological obstacle to preventing future pandemics. In two pre-registered studies early in the 2020 pandemic, we examined whether British adults fail to recognize factory farming in causing pandemics, and whether such dismissal represents motivated cognition. Cross-sectional data (Study 1, N = 302) confirmed that people blame factory farms and global meat consumption less than wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness, especially among meat-committed persons. Experimental exposure (Study 2, N = 194) to information blaming factory farms (vs. wild animal markets) produced lower endorsement of preventive solutions than of reactionary solutions, which was exacerbated among meat-committed persons. These findings suggest that people, especially those highly committed to eating meat, willfully disregard solutions targeting animal agriculture and global meat consumption to prevent future pandemics precisely because such solutions implicate their dietary habits. Better understanding motivated beliefs about the causes of and solutions to pandemics is critical for developing interventions.
Article
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for assessing the science related to climate change. It provides policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of human-induced climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. This IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) is the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific assessment of the multiple interactions between climate change and land, assessing climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. It assesses the options for governance and decision-making across multiple scales. It serves policymakers, decision makers, stakeholders, and all interested parties with unbiased, up-to-date, policy-relevant information. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Article
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.
Article
There is limited research on the effects of animal welfare reforms, such as transitions from caged to cage-free eggs, on attitudes toward animal farming. This preregistered, randomized experiment (n = 1,520) found that participants provided with information about current animal farming practices had somewhat higher animal farming opposition (AFO) than participants provided with information about an unrelated topic (d = 0.17). However, participants provided with information about animal welfare reforms did not report significantly different AFO from either the current-farming (d = −0.07) or control groups (d = 0.10). Although these latter effects on AFO were small and nonsignificant, they appeared to be mediated by changes in perceived social attitudes toward farmed animals and optimism about further reforms to factory farming. Exploratory analysis found no evidence that hierarchical meat-eating justification or beliefs about how well-treated farmed animals currently are mediated the effect. Further research is needed to better understand why providing information about animal welfare reforms did not substantially increase AFO overall, whereas providing information about current practice did somewhat increase AFO.
Article
Concerns over the impact of global meat production and consumption patterns are leading to increasing interest in alternative sources of protein. This study provides new insight into consumers’ attitudes towards different protein products and factors associated with the acceptance of lab-grown meat. We measured and compared 1078 Australian consumers’ beliefs regarding conventionally raised meat (chicken and beef), plant-based meat alternatives and lab-grown meat products across six attributes: health, safety, affordability, eating enjoyment, animal welfare, and environmental friendliness. Beliefs regarding the health and affordability of conventionally raised chicken were statistically highest. For all attributes, beliefs relating to plant-based meat alternatives were more positive than those relating to lab-grown meat, and with respect to animal welfare and environmental friendliness, plant-based products were viewed most positively relative to all products. Despite average negative belief scores for all attributes, except for animal welfare, around one-quarter of consumers still indicated a willingness to consume lab-grown meat. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to explain factors associated with consumers’ willingness to consume lab-grown meat products. Factors associated with willingness to consume the lab-grown meat products were positive beliefs regarding eating experience (enjoyment), safety, animal welfare, and healthiness; familiarity; higher consumption frequency of conventionally raised chicken meat; tertiary education; and younger age. Although lower environmental impact has been proposed as one of the main benefits of lab-grown meat, beliefs regarding environmental friendliness were not significant in either model.
Article
The industrial farming and slaughtering of animals may be considered one of the most pressing ethical problems of our time, yet consumers remain empathically disconnected from food animals and continue to eat meat. Therefore, animal advocacy groups have started using virtual reality (VR) outreach to promote consumers' concern for food animals and persuade them to eat less meat. In this study, we examined whether a short 360° documentary depicting the life cycle of factory farmed pigs (from their lives on the farm to their butcher in the slaughterhouse) experienced in a VR format versus in a regular video format increases participants’ intentions to eat less meat via an increased feeling of presence and empathic concern. Using a single factor experimental design, we randomly allocated participants (n = 84 after data-cleaning) to answer a questionnaire following one of both conditions (VR versus video documentary, each n = 42). Results confirmed our hypothesized serial mediation model; VR (versus video) had a positive influence on presence and additionally on empathic concern, leading to higher intentions of reduced meat consumption among participants. Yet, VR (versus video) also had a direct, negative effect on empathy when controlling for presence, so no total effect of medium format on intentions to reduce meat could be found. This counter-effect of VR on empathic concern could be explained by an increased level of speciesism among participants exposed to the VR (versus video) documentary, a finding that is consistent with prior literature on speciesism, cognitive dissonance and dissociation, and requires further confirmatory investigation. Limitations and implications for theory and practice of the study are considered.