Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals. (1st March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rothgerber, Hank
• Is Part Of: Appetite. Volume 146(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-03-01
• Subjects: Meat eating -- Cognitive dissonance -- Dissonance reduction -- Attitudes toward meat; Food habits -- Periodicals; Appetite -- Periodicals; Appetite disorders -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 306.4613
• DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-6663

Abstract

Abstract: Meat eaters encounter a conflict between their eating behavior and their affections toward animals. Because this "meat paradox" highlights discrepancies between behavior and various ideals, a number of experts have focused on cognitive dissonance theory to explain the psychology of eating meat. The present work presents a framework to understand the phenomenon of meat-related cognitive dissonance (MRCD), herein defined as occurring when the dissonant state involves recognition of one's behavior as a meat eater and a belief, attitude, or value that this behavior contradicts. The proposed framework explains how individuals attempt to prevent this form of dissonance from occurring (e.g., avoidance, willful ignorance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, and do-gooder derogation ) and how they reduce it once it has occurred in the form of motivated cognitions (e.g., denigrating animals, offering pro-meat justifications, or denying responsibility for eating meat ). The MRCD framework posits that which of a possible fifteen outlets is chosen to prevent and reduce the moral guilt associated with eating meat depends on (a) the aspect of meat consumption that produces MRCD; (b) the motivation created by MRCD; (c) individual differences in gender, values, affinity toward animals and meat, and exposure to animals; and (d) culture. Implications of the framework for those seeking to curtail meat consumption are discussed and important questions are highlighted for theorists to resolve.