Meat And Feelings Do Not Mix
It is common knowledge that the majority of the world’s population eats meat. I eat meat, my family eats meat, the family two houses down eats meat, and there are so many people in this same situation. Along with eating meat, my family also has a dog, and the family two houses down has three cats. A question that has been on a lot of people’s minds is how can people say they love animals, but eat them? Many people love having animals and want them to be safe and taken care of. Those same people also enjoy consuming meat. Meat-eaters often display mixed feelings about eating meat, because of the negative side of where that meat comes from, ie slaughtering them. This is known as the “meat paradox.” This “meat paradox” calls attention to the divergence between behavior and numerous ideals. I will investigate the meat paradox and the responses to it, in the context of everyday meat consumption.
In an effort to collect more data, I searched for research and studies that would talk more in-depth about my topic. I found and read two different studies- one that discussed Meat‐related cognitive dissonance and the social psychology of eating animals, and the second which wanted to understand how meat-eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals.
To better understand the research, I will first need to introduce what the meat paradox and Cognitive dissonance are. The meat paradox is the belief system that allows society to eat and use the products of certain animals but not others(Rothgerber,2019). Cognitive dissonance, regarding eating animals, is when one expresses both concerns for their (animals') well-being and being aware that their production results in animal suffering. (Rosenfeld,2021)
The first study:
In the last decade, many people have been questioning the morality of consuming animals, as well as the health and environmental implications. In this article, the researchers wanted to conduct a study to better understand how individuals who care for animals and want them to experience no harm, yet eat them as food. This study provided information about meat-related cognitive dissonance (MRCD), which explains the inconsistency mentioned previously. First, they evaluated situations that “(a) prevent MRCD from occurring and (b) reduce MRCD once it has occurred.”(Rothgerber). The paper broke down the three main things that occur when talking about cognitive dissonance. First, avoidance and Dissociation.
Avoidance-- MRCD causes one to have unpleasant emotions that meat-eaters try to avoid at all costs. They ignore the health concerns and the origins of the meat that they consume. Dissociation-- Individuals can ignore MRCD by pretending that no animal is involved during meat consumption(Rothgerber,2021). This is when one disconnects the animals from being food products. To gather more data about their topic, the researchers distributed an online questionnaire. The link was made public and posted on a Facebook page (origin France). In China, participants were given links to the study through their universities and were asked to volunteer. During the study, the participants were assigned to one of the eight conditions, which were conditions of dissonance manipulation: abattoir, pasture, meat, control, willingness measurement first, mind perception measurement first, between-subjects factorial design. (Rothgerber). In total, the study had 520 participants: 243 French (176 females, 53 males, 14 non-reported; the average age for the French was 26.48. There were 277 Chinese subjects: 236 females, 40 males, 1 non-reported; the median age was 19.92. When asked a question about eating meat and whether they thought of the origins, they discovered that meat-eaters subconsciously separated themselves from the origins of meat, and when they associated animals with meat, it caused them to be more conflicted about eating it.
First, participants were shown a stimulus for one of the four conditions of dissonance manipulation. The first was an abattoir(a slaughterhouse) condition, the purpose to try and create a connection between animals and meat. To do this, they showed an image of a cow that was accompanied by a short statement saying “that the cow will be sent to the abattoir tomorrow”(Rothgerber et al.,2021). The results were as follows: the willingness to eat meat (beef) The main effect of conditions of dissonance manipulation was marginally significant; when examining the French data, the willingness to eat beef decreased by 3.15 percent, and the Chinese data decreased by 2.5 percent. Finally, it was concluded that those who were a part of the abattoir condition group were less willing to eat beef than those in other conditions.
The second study:
In the article, Rosenfeld et al. research and explore how subjects attempted to avert cognitive dissonance from transpiring, and how they try to minimize the effects after it had happened, using motivated cognitions(Rosenfeld,2021). To do this, they conducted a study where they observed and conducted interviews of their subjects. The MRCD(meat-related cognitive dissonance) study found that halting and diminishing the guilt and shame linked to eating meat is dependent on (1) the amount of meat consumption that produces MRCD; (2) differences among subjects in gender, experience with animals, their culture, and feelings toward animals and meat... In the article, they concluded that people who participate in the world generally do not like to think about the act of killing and eating meat. They keep the two separate because if they connect the two, it causes negative reactions. Circumstances that caused the MRCD show that individuals think in “motivating” ways to lessen the C D (cognitive dissonance) state. Using information appeals to reduce meat consumption will possibly create behavioral change in the subjects if they are receptive to it, but for many of them, these appeals reinforced meat-eating by increased justification.
During another study sourced in the article, Wang and Basso (2019) had their participants read news articles about a restaurant where workers were said to play with dead piglets. After the participants read, the investigators asked them a series of questions. The results stated that reading the article caused an increase in guilt when thinking of eating pork, and “were less likely to buy and to eat pork”(Rothgerber). This is because when they thought about pork, they thought back to the article. This method served as a way to humanize the pigs(animals). This treatment made it harder to distinguish between the pigs and pork(meat)s. This trial seemed a success due to the fact that when viewed a second time about whether or not they would eat pork, the number of people who said yes decreased significantly. The study also notes that the decrease in pork consumption will only occur if they have active memories of negative events involving animals.
After reading the information gathered by other researchers, I decided to conduct my own study. I created and then distributed a survey to family and friends. In the survey, I had asked the participants to answer ten questions. Some of the questions that were a part of the survey are as follows: Do you own any pets? How many pets do you have? Do you think it’s wrong to eat animals? How do you feel about animal poaching? How do you feel about animal cruelty? Do you agree with this statement? It is natural for animals to be eaten by humans and other creatures. 71.4 % of my survey participants owned a pet,57.7% said that they were carnivores, and 75% said it was not wrong to eat animals. In my survey, I gave the option for them to leave comments. Only one commented, and this is what they had to say: “It’s natural for people to eat animals, but producing meat en masse has led to cruelty and environmental problems”. I also conducted an interview with one of the survey participants, and they said that they “ don’t really think about it [eating animals]; if they did, it would be harder to do it, and now that I’m thinking about it, it does seem gross”. After reading the article, I now know that the interviewee has cognitive dissonance and that when connecting the animal to meat, and if you keep thinking about it, make it harder to look at meat the same.
I myself wondered how others faced this dilemma, and I wanted to take the time and explore more about the topic. After a long battle with research, this is what I can conclude. Cognitive dissonance is why we can easily separate meat and animals. We will continue to think of our pets as nothing more than pets or cute animals. Based on the research and studies, the only way we can cause the two to merge is if we as a society keep imposing negative images related to meat. Based on the studies, it looks like no time soon will the planet be filled with vegans and vegetarians, because the images they want us to see every time we take a bite of that steak or burger will fade or will not bother us anymore.