The psychology of eating animal products in today’s world

© averey, Unsplash

Our desire for animal products causes immense suffering to animals and significant harm to the environment. We all know that that delicious piece of chicken or cheeseburger originally came from a living animal. However, most of us can live perfectly healthy lives without these foods. Despite the abundance of high-quality evidence demonstrating the damage caused by our appetite for meat and cheese, many people still choose to consume them. So then, how do we justify it? Why do some people become vegan and others continue to hold on to their habits? There have been numerous studies in the field of psychology that have attempted to answer this question, and in this article I will summarise and discuss those studies.


Summary

  • We define and treat different species of animals inconsistently and arbitrarily.
  • If our values and actions do not align, we may experience a negative feeling called cognitive dissonance.
  • In order to rationalise our behaviour and prevent cognitive dissonance, our brains utilise various strategies and mental gymnastics. For example, avoiding information, mentally separating between the animals we are eating and the animal that was killed, making fun of vegans, blaming other groups for the problem, creating arbitrary definitions, and downplaying the abilities and experiences of animals.
  • Many people believe that meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice, which are a misleading set of justifications for our actions.
  • People tend to follow a similar path when transitioning from meat eater to vegan. Initially, we implement many strategies to resist the change, however as we consider veganism more thoroughly, unlearn our misguided beliefs and biases, and continue to learn more about the topic, reducing our consumption of animal products becomes more realistic.

Our inconsistent behaviours and values

© ericjamesward, Unsplash

Many people simultaneously care about animals but still consume them. This is known as the meat paradox.1 We treat pets like family, and when a pet dies, we become sad. However, at the same time, we exploit and kill other animals that are quite similar. We arbitrarily define some animals as appropriate for consumption, while defining others as deserving of affection and love. In the West, people often judge and disdain the culture of consuming dog meat in the East, but at the same time, happily consume the meat of other animals.

Someone once told me a story about an incident from when they worked in a retirement village. One day, a stench was coming from one of the rubbish bins. So they checked the bin and inside there was a dog that had passed away. The dog’s carer did not know what to do with their body, and so they placed them in the bin. We might find this situation sad due to the special bond we have with dogs. However, if it were the body of a chicken, pig, or cow that had died or the leftover meat from dinner, we might not feel the same way. Chickens, cows, and pigs, just like that dog, had a life, and had we come to know those animals, we could have formed a connection. But we do not consider this as we discard their bodies into the trash. We overlook the individual traits of farm animals and consider all farm animals to be the same. But if we were to get to know each farm animal individually, our attitude would probably change. In saying that, the capacity of humans to form relationships with animals does not define their worth. Whether we know a particular animal or like a certain species,our biases do not change an animals worth or whether they deserve to be exploited.

However, sometimes we do empathise with farm animals. For instance, if a cow escapes from a slaughterhouse, we might cheer for that cow, but at the same time, we could be eating the body of another cow that didn’t manage to escape. Similarly, if a farmer has to cull thousands of chickens to prevent the spread of a virus, people might find that sad. Yet, a few weeks later, the same farmer would have sent those same chickens to the slaughterhouse to be forcibly killed. To further illustrate this point, Gordon Ramsay once posted a video on social media where he selected a lamb that would later be slaughtered and eaten while taunting them. Many meat eaters considered this action to be cruel. However, from the perspective of the lamb, being slaughtered is much more horrific than being made fun of. It is the killing, purchasing, and consumption of the lamb that is the problem, not the taunting. However, the context significantly influences how we subjectively feel about a situation.

When a person illegally harms a dog, how do you feel? How do you feel when the same harm is legally inflicted upon an animal within a farm or slaughterhouse? In what way is the situation different? In the first scenario, the person harming the dog takes pleasure in their action. In the second scenario, we tolerate harming the animal because we enjoy the taste of their flesh. In both cases, the person engages in the action for the sake of sensory pleasure, but our attitudes about these two scenarios are vastly different.

Many people do not want to watch videos filmed inside slaughterhouses. In fact, these videos are freely available on YouTube. What is stopping you from clicking that link and watching it right now if you do not truly care about animals? If meat is natural, why do we feel bad when watching this kind of footage? Have we just become too sensitive? Or is it that we just do not understand nature these days? Maybe there are deeper psychological mechanisms at play.


What is cognitive dissonance?

When our values and actions do not align, we can experience a sense of discomfort. This internal conflict is known as cognitive dissonance. For example, if we believe that animal cruelty is unethical and we are aware of the experiences of farm animals, but we also enjoy the taste of meat, we might feel guilty when we eat meat. Cognitive dissonance is the process of protecting the way we see ourselves and the way we view society. We want to maintain positive views about themselves and we do not want to believe that society collectively engages in unethical behavior.2

There are also people who eat meat without experiencing cognitive dissonance.3 Cultural norms and traditions can also influence cognitive dissonance.4 Additionally, due to preformed habits, people may not experience cognitive dissonance every time that they eat meat. Without a stimulus, many people may not reflect on their behaviour. However, exposure to information related to the process of meat production can lead us to experience cognitive dissonance.5

If a person must consume animal products in order to survive, that is an entirely different situation. However, many people, especially those who have access to this information, can most likely live perfectly healthily animal products. So, in those cases, consuming animal-based food is entirely a choice. When we know that our choices are somewhat unethical, the process of justifying that choice is related to cognitive dissonance. In fact, the existence of cognitive dissonance demonstrates not that we are bad or evil, but rather it highlights our desire to do what is morally right.


How do our brains try to avoid cognitive dissonance?

© szvmanski, Unsplash

To completely avoid the negative feelings associated with cognitive dissonance, we employ various strategies. Below is a brief summary of the two main strategies that we use5-7:

Avoiding information

We can avoid learning about the negative effects of animal agriculture. Without that knowledge, we can avoid a sense of responsibility to change our behaviour. For example, if we were to watch videos filmed inside slaughterhouses, we might find it easier to empathise with farm animals and emotionally connect with the source of the animal products we consume. Hence, while eating these products, we might feel more guilt or at least consume less of it. As we do not want these two options, we try to blind ourselves from reality.

Mental separation

It can be even easier to separate our consumption from the animals that were harmed in the process by buying products that do not resemble the shape of the animal. For example, nuggets, sausages, and burger patties. Additionally, we can choose to believe that no harm occurs during the production of the food that we consume.


When cognitive dissonance arises, how do you try to overcome it?

© vmxhu, Unsplash

However, if these efforts fail and we still experience cognitive dissonance, we have a few coping mechanisms up our sleeves to reduce these feeling. These strategies can act as a shield against negative emotions. There are three main strategies to overcome cognitive dissonance. We can change our behaviour, which is the most effective method, but most people are reluctant to do this. We can change our beliefs, which is possible but requires consistent effort over a long period of time. Alternatively, we can try to convince ourselves that our actions and beliefs align through various mental gymnastics. Most people choose this third option. Our brains are very sneaky. The following summarises the key strategies that we use5-7:

Self persuasion

Convincing ourselves that we do not really consume a large quantity of animal products can help alleviate guilt.

Buying “humane” animal products

Consuming animal products advertised as “humane” can lower our feelings of guilt.

Making fun of vegans (ad hominem fallacy and confirmation bias)

To feel better, we might mock vegans or vegetarians. By focusing on and blaming different groups, we can distract ourselves from the issues that we are contributing to. It is easier to make fun of vegans than to listen to and reflect on their arguments. Additionally, if we maintain an attitude that vegans are all crazy, it becomes easier to dismiss veganism as a whole. This is a form of the ad hominem fallacy, where instead of challenging or responding to a person’s actual argument, we attack the person instead. Politicians like this strategy, and it might seem valid to us, but it is indeed a logical fallacy. We should always consider the other person’s argument, regardless of who that person is and their personal behaviour.

Many people tend to more easily believe in attitudes that are similar to their own. Since most people consume animal products, they can more easily mock vegans if those around them agree, thus reinforcing each other’s biases. For example, if a vegan politely informs someone that they are vegan, some people immediately become defensive. Even before the vegan mentions any specifics about veganism, it is common to receive some form of attack or defense. For instance, someone might say to a vegan, “I don’t care if you only eat plants, but don’t tell me what to eat.” They might also make jokes about vegans. If the vegan is male, they might make jokes about their masculinity. However, this isn’t really a personal attack, just a result of cognitive dissonance. We do not want to confront our behaviour because we do not want to change our actions. Instead, if we can make fun of vegans, it might make us feel better.

Blaming other groups

Similarly, we can shift blame to systems outside of ourselves, such as the food industry or government. Cognitive dissonance is not just about animal rights, it is a mechanism that can occur whenever we contradict any of our values. For example, people who care about the environment may be aware of the negative environmental impact of consuming meat, yet they may continue to do so. They might believe that technological or political changes are more important than personal ones. If we can blame external factors, we can avoid our personal responsibility. Some people may even acknowledge the contradiction but still accept it.8

Normal, natural, necessary, nice

Some may justify consuming animal products by believing that they are normal, natural, necessary, or nice (delicious), the four N’s. One study found that 83-91% of justifications for meat consumption included these four flawed reasons.5-7 In the past, eating animal products was indeed natural and necessary for survival. However, in most of our cases today, we can live healthily without them. Additionally, just because something is natural does not automatically justify the action. Our ancestors may have naturally attacked each other in the past, but that doesn’t excuse attacking each other in the present. Similarly, consuming animal products is considered normal at this point in time, but that alone does not justify the action. Would beating a dog be justified if we all did it? Of course not. Furthermore, even if we derive sensory pleasure from an action, that does not automatically justify it. We probably wouldn’t accept the justification for beating a dog just because it brings us some form of pleasure.

Creating arbitrary definitions

We can arbitrarily categorize animals of different species into distinct groups. For instance, we can arbitrarily define pets and farm animals as different categories.

Downplaying the abilities of animals

If one holds beliefs and attitudes that value masculinity, tolerates inequality, views animals as fundamentally different from humans, and underestimates their capacity to feel pain or possess intelligence, they are more likely to consume animal products. These attitudes make it easier to justify our behaviour and overcome the meat paradox.1

In one experiment, researchers gave participants either nuts or beef jerky while they answered questions about the intelligence, abilities, emotions, and moral worth of cows while looking at pictures of them. Participants who had recently consumed beef jerky were found to be less morally concerned about animals and perceived the capacity of cows to experience suffering as lower compared to those who had recently consumed nuts. The people who ate meat used these attitudes to temporarily avoid negative emotions.9 Additionally, when participants knew they were about to eat meat, they exhibited similar attitudes.10 Therefore, if others are consuming animal products, it might be less effective to discuss veganism with them. At that time, people’s cognitive dissonance may be stronger, leading to a more defensive, less empathetic, and more irrational discussion.

Holding on to our values more tightly

Some individuals might eat more meat in order to reinforce their beliefs or to seek confirmation for their opinions. This is an irrational, reactive, and defensive behavior.11 Similarly, individuals with a strong liking for meat, may consume more meat when confronted with ethical information as a response to their cognitive dissonance. They may either resist this information or try to move in the opposite direction.5 Furthermore, if men believe that they might lose the freedom to eat meat in the future, they might be inclined to engage in meat consumption even more.11


The path to veganism

The section below outlines the path we typically follow from meat lover to vegan, developed through a review of scientific studies.2 At each stage, there are various barriers, attitudes, biases, and motivations that influence our decisions.

Before considering veganism

  • Belief in misinformation and incorrect assumptions regarding animal agriculture
  • Ignorance about viable alternatives to animal products
  • Avoidance of information related to animal agriculture in order to avoid uncomfortable emotions.
  • Confirmation bias – seeking information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs

While considering veganism

  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Automatically assuming that all information related to animal agriculture is biased
  • Bias in protecting one’s identity – attempting to convince ourselves that we are a good person
  • Psychic numbing related to the scale of the problem – irrationally caring more about one animal that was killed compared to the billions we kill each year
  • Societal justification bias – assuming that there is a good excuse for a behavior merely because many people engage in it, and trying to convince ourselves that society is ethical in doing so.
  • Status quo bias – a preference for continuing what we are already doing
  • Carnism and speciesism – tolerating the raising of certain species of animals for food while simultaneously wanting to protect other species
  • Social norms – the attitude of disregarding veganism simply due to the majority of people in our social circle not being vegan (in contrast, the more vegans there are in our social circle, the easier it may become for others to adopt veganism)
  • Viewing oneself as different from people who are vegan (making excuses such as “I am not that kind of person”)
  • Desire to eat traditional foods and participate in traditional events
  • Wanting to appear affluent to others
  • Stereotypes associated with the label of “vegan” and the desire to avoid “potential” conflicts

While preparing to go vegan

  • Wanting to avoid judgment from others
  • Reluctance to be the only vegan among peers
  • Learning how to cook vegan food
  • Learning more about veganism
  • Overcoming habits and the desire for taste and comfort
  • Developing our self-efficacy and willpower

Making the change

  • Changing your identity – if our identity includes veganism, we are more likely to continue living a vegan lifestyle

Maintenance

  • Having supportive relationships with those around you – we are more likely to continue living a vegan lifestyle if our social circle support us

So, which stage are you at?


Conclusion

We inconsistently and arbitrarily define and treat different species of animals. If our values and actions do not align, we may experience a negative feeling known as cognitive dissonance. To prevent cognitive dissonance, we employ various strategies and mental gymnastics. For instance, in the context of consuming animal products we avoid information, mentally separate animals from the ones we consume, make fun of vegans, blame other groups for the problem, creating arbitrary definitions, and disregard the abilities of animals. Additionally, many people justify their actions via the misled beliefs that meat consumption is normal, natural, necessary, and nice. We tend to follow a similar path when transitioning from a regular meat consumer to becoming vegan. There are indeed many strategies that people use to resist the change to a more plant based diet. However, the more we learn about veganism, the more likely we are to shed our misled beliefs and biases and the more feasible it becomes. Of course, in addition to these psychological factors, culture, politics, and economics also influence our decision to consume animal products. In upcoming posts, I will discuss these topics in detail.


References

1.            Loughnan S, Bastian B, Haslam N. The Psychology of Eating Animals. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2014;23(2):104-108.
2.            Bryant CJ, Prosser AM, Barnett J. Going veggie: Identifying and overcoming the social and psychological barriers to veganism. Appetite. 2022;169:105812.
3.            Bastian B, Loughnan S, Haslam N, Radke HR. Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2012;38(2):247-256.
4.            Tian Q, Hilton D, Becker M. Confronting the meat paradox in different cultural contexts: Reactions among Chinese and French participants. Appetite. 2016;96:187-194.
5.            Rothgerber H, Rosenfeld DL. Meat‐related cognitive dissonance: The social psychology of eating animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2021;15(5):e12592.
6.            Rothgerber H. Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals. Appetite. 2020;146:104511.
7.            Piazza J, Ruby MB, Loughnan S, et al. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite. 2015;91:114-128.
8.            Scott E, Kallis G, Zografos C. Why environmentalists eat meat. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219607.
9.            Loughnan S, Haslam N, Bastian B. The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite. 2010;55(1):156-159.
10.         Bastian B, Costello K, Loughnan S, Hodson G. When closing the human–animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2012;3(4):421-429.
11.         Dowsett E, Semmler C, Bray H, Ankeny RA, Chur-Hansen A. Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite. 2018;123:280-288.

Enter your email below to stay up to date with the latest posts:

By subscribing you agree to receive emails from The Elephant On Our Plates and agree with our Privacy Statement. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Enter your email below to stay up to date with the latest posts:

By subscribing you agree to receive emails from The Elephant On Our Plates and agree with our Privacy Statement. You can unsubscribe at any time.