Eating with our eyes (closed): Effects of visually associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness

@article{Earle2019EatingWO,
  title={Eating with our eyes (closed): Effects of visually associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness},
  author={Megan Earle and Gordon Hodson and Kristof Dhont and Cara C. MacInnis},
  journal={Group Processes \& Intergroup Relations},
  year={2019},
  volume={22},
  pages={818 - 835}
}
Negative attitudes toward vegetarians/vegans (i.e., veg*ns) are common, particularly among those who desire/like/consume meat more. In two studies, we replicated and extended past work, showing that visual reminders of meat’s animal origins (vs. images of meat alone) decreased meat consumption willingness via increased empathy for animals, distress about meat consumption, and disgust for meat. We also assessed how animal–meat reminders influence antiveg*n attitudes. In Study 1 (N = 299… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Intergroup attitudes between meat-eaters and meat-avoiders: The role of dietary ingroup identification
Why might some meat-eaters and meat-avoiders express negative attitudes toward each other? We investigated intergroup attitudes and potential underpinnings of these attitudes across three different
Butchers' and deli workers' psychological adaptation to meat.
TLDR
Significant reductions in disgust, empathy, and meat-animal association are observed within the first year or 2 of meat handling for all types of meat.
The Role of State and Trait Emotional Empathy Toward Animals in the Associations of Dissociation and Meat Consumption
Many people enjoy eating meat but dislike the harming of animals that it entails. Dissociating meat from its animal origins has been identified as a powerful way to avoid cognitive dissonance
A structured literature review of the meat paradox
Many people wish to avoid harming animals, yet most people also consume meat. This theoretical ‘meat paradox’ is a form of cognitive dissonance and has grave negative consequences for animal welfare
Effectiveness of a Theory-Informed Documentary to Reduce Consumption of Meat and Animal Products: Three Randomized Controlled Experiments
TLDR
It is found that some past studies of similar interventions may have overestimated effects due to methodological biases, and novel intervention strategies to reduce MAP consumption may be needed.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 53 REFERENCES
Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters
It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target
Vegetarianism and veganism are increasingly prevalent in Western countries, yet anecdotal expressions of negativity toward vegetarians and vegans are common. We empirically tested whether bias exists
The Psychology of Eating Animals
Most people both eat animals and care about animals. Research has begun to examine the psychological processes that allow people to negotiate this “meat paradox.” To understand the psychology of
Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns
Painfully Aware: The Effects of Dissonance on Attitudes toward Factory Farming
ABSTRACT We examine the moderating effects of cognitive dissonance on the persuasiveness of a message designed to influence attitudes and behaviors supportive of intensive-production animal
Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM)
Recent research and theorizing suggest that desires for group–based dominance underpin biases towards both human outgroups and (non–human) animals. A systematic study of the common ideological roots
Myths used to legitimize the exploitation of animals: An application of Social Dominance Theory
Abstract Social Dominance Theory (SDT) is used as a framework for understanding human attitudes towards the use of animals. According to SDT, people high in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) prefer
...
...