Conflict

People regularly have to navigate decisions about which they feel ambivalent, for instance, regarding unhealthy food, recycling, or financial investments. It is assumed that people cope with such felt ambivalence by seeking information that sways their ambivalent attitudes (potential ambivalence) about these topics. However, empirical evidence for this proposition is scarce because most studies measure information seeking intentions instead of behavior. As such, it remains doubtful whether information seeking indeed helps people to reduce felt ambivalence while making decisions. To test this proposition, we adapted a sample-based information seeking paradigm that enabled us to measure actual information seeking behavior in financial decisions. In four preregistered studies (total N = 542 participants; k = 16.538 decisions), we demonstrated that when people feel ambivalent about an initial set of information about a stock, they seek more information about its development to decide whether it develops positively or negatively; this information seeking, in turn, helps them to reduce felt ambivalence when making the decision. However, this is only the case when the initial information is ambivalent and the sought information is univalent; otherwise, information seeking increases felt ambivalence. This supports a central proposition in ambivalence research, indicating that people can indeed solve their felt ambivalence through information seeking. However, our data also showed that the effect of information seeking on felt ambivalence cannot be fully explained by changes in potential ambivalence and a resolution of the attitudinal basis of the conflict. Future research should, therefore, examine whether and how information seeking can also serve as an emotion-focused coping strategy that helps people reduce felt ambivalence by coping with conflict-induced discomfort.

Food preparation plays a key role in shaping how people perceive meat: It helps people to dissociate meat from its animal origin and allows them to eat meat without experiencing conflict. Although food preparation involves different steps, including processing and cooking, research has used food preparation as an umbrella term. Therefore, we analyzed a sample of omnivores from a US-representative dataset (N = 1189) to explore the distinct impacts of processing and cooking as well as their interaction on the perception of meat. In line with the dissociation hypothesis, processing and cooking reduced empathy elicited by meat. However, processing decreased general emotional arousal, while cooking reduced negative evaluations, conflict experiences in felt ambivalence, and specific negative emotions such as disgust and anger while increasing valence perceptions more generally. There were no interaction effects between cooking and processing, which might suggest that these food preparation steps operate through distinct mechanisms. To explore whether there are separate mechanisms driving these effects, we conducted network analyses. Our results showed that the structure of meat-related perception networks did not differ significantly between food preparation steps, suggesting that there are no indications of distinct mechanisms depending on the different preparation steps.

The regulation of self-control conflicts is integral to exerting self-control and pursuing (long-term) goals. Nonetheless, prevailing conceptualizations of self-control conflict remain vague, and the mechanisms and boundary conditions through which self-control conflict emerges are rarely empirically tested. In the present research, we thus propose that self-control conflicts originate in accessible ambivalent attitudes. To examine our attitudinal perspective on self-control and self-regulation, we investigated how (ambivalent) attitudes influence self-control conflicts and how resolving these attitudinal origins may enhance self-control and avert future conflicts. We ran a 21-day diary study assessing daily inhibition conflicts about eating meat among conflicted vegetarians (N = 156, k = 2,346). Our findings suggest that holding (positive) attitudes that conflict with predominant (negative) attitudes predicted heightened conflict frequency in people’s daily lives, and the situational accessibility of both positive and negative attitudes is associated with conflict magnitude. Moreover, to cope with these conflicts, people often engaged in attitude-based self-regulation involving the affirmation of negative and the disaffirmation of positive attitudes toward eating meat, thereby successfully exerting self-control. Contrary to our prediction, however, we did not find evidence for the effectiveness of attitude-based self-regulatory strategies for mitigating subsequent conflict. In fact, various self-regulatory strategies, including the disaffirmation of positive attitudes, self-distraction, and thought suppression, even escalated subsequent conflict. These findings suggest that our attitudinal perspective on self-control and self-regulation provides a parsimonious and testable conceptualization of self-control conflicts.

Ambivalence and dissonance research provides insights into the experiences and consequences of cognitive conflict. Despite the conceptual overlap between both conflicts, they are typically discussed and applied separately. Based on the notion that ambivalence reflects pre-decisional and dissonance reflects post-decisional conflict, we propose the Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment (AC/DC model). The AC/DC model outlines that both conflicts are rooted in attitudes; however, as they succeed each other in decision-making, they entail distinct cognitive and emotional underpinnings, leading to different motivational consequences. Their sequence in decision-making entails far-reaching interrelations, depending on whether people cope with the conflict-induced discomfort or the conflict origins. Thereby, the AC/DC model elucidates how conflicts are navigated within decision-making and how they either resolve or manifest over time. This offers various novel implications, for instance, about conflicts regarding time-sensitive decisions, conflicts between alternatives, conflicts outside of decision situations, and conflict resolution and behaviour change.

The domain of meat consumption has become a blossoming area for advancing our knowledge of how people experience and resolve cognitive conflicts. Within the field, however, the conceptual similarities and differences between ambivalence and dissonance have been underspecified. This has led to seemingly inconsistent conclusions about the experiences and downstream consequences of cognitive conflict. We therefore examine the tacit assumptions in the field and integrate the two kinds of literature on meat-related cognitive conflicts. In a comparative review, we specifically delineate (a) which groups of people are affected by which of the two meat-related conflicts, (b) what constitutes these conflicts, (c) when these conflicts are experienced, and (d) what downstream consequences result from these conflicts. We conclude that meat-related ambivalence is experienced when inconsistent attitudes become accessible and that meat-related dissonance is experienced when inconsistencies between attitudes and commitments become accessible. Our integrative perspective challenges established assertions regarding meat-related conflict and offers various theoretical and practical implications. One such implication concerns, for example, how cognitive conflict is associated with behavior change and maintenance depending on people’s commitment to eating meat. We hope that this will help researchers and practitioners to apply the insights from this flourishing field of research.

Eating meat is a prime example of cognitive conflict. Research on meat-related conflict has focused on people who eat meat (omnivores), and mostly neglected that people who avoid eating meat (vegetarians and vegans; veg*ans) can also experience conflict in the form of ambivalence. Here, we provide a conceptual model explaining how ambivalence comes to exist in omnivores and veg*ans, and how it is associated with dietary behavior. We hypothesize that ambivalence in omnivores arises when they become aware of the negative aspects of meat. Yet, even veg*ans, who predominantly hold negative attitudes towards meat, may experience ambivalence if past positive attitudes resurface. We investigated this model in a cross-sectional study (N = 1028) via the stages of change, which explain qualitative steps in people's adoption and maintenance of new behaviors such as a veg*an diet. Our data show that meat consumption decreases linearly across the five stages of change. In line with our model, ambivalence increases from the pre-contemplation via the contemplation to the preparation stage among omnivores and decreases right after people become veg*ans (action stage) until they reach the maintenance stage. This inverted u-shaped trajectory was accompanied by a) an increase in negative evaluations of meat and b) a decrease in positive evaluations of meat from the pre-contemplation to the preparation stage. However, especially positive hedonic evaluations that render meat pleasurable partly persisted in the action stage and only dissolved in the maintenance stage. We thus argue that the observed pattern of felt ambivalence might explain why a growing number of people become open to eschewing meat and why veg*ans often eat meat and/or return to their omnivorous diets shortly after becoming veg*an.

People are increasingly concerned about how meat affects the environment, human health, and animal welfare, yet eating and enjoying meat remains a norm. Unsurprisingly, many people are ambivalent about meat—evaluating it as both positive and negative. Here, we propose that meat-related conflict is multidimensional and depends on people’s dietary group: Omnivores’ felt ambivalence relates to multiple negative associations that oppose a predominantly positive attitude towards meat, and veg*ans’ ambivalence relates to various positive associations that oppose a predominantly negative attitude. A qualitative study (N = 235; German) revealed that omnivores and veg*ans experience meat-related ambivalence due to associations with animals, sociability, sustainability, health, and sensory experiences. To quantify felt ambivalence in these domains, we developed the Meat Ambivalence Questionnaire (MAQ). We validated the MAQ in four pre-registered studies using self-report and behavioral data (N = 3,485; German, UK, representative US). Both omnivores and veg*ans reported meat-related ambivalence, but with differences across domains and their consequences for meat consumption. Specifically, ambivalence was associated with less meat consumption in omnivores (especially sensory-/animal-based ambivalence) and more meat consumption in veg*ans (especially sensory-/socially-based ambivalence). Network analyses shed further light on the nomological net of the MAQ while controlling for a comprehensive set of determinants of meat consumption. By introducing the MAQ, we hope to provide researchers with a tool to better understand how ambivalence accompanies behavior change and maintenance.

Meat production and its consumption harm animals, the environment, and human health; nevertheless, many people like to eat meat. If people become aware of this so-called meat paradox, they experience an aversive cognitive conflict. People, therefore, have to eschew meat if they permanently want to resolve this conflict. Eschewing meat is demanding, however, because people have to resist their temptation to eat meat and challenge social norms. In the present research, we thus conducted two pre-registered studies to investigate how people may overcome these obstacles: We hypothesized that people may go through a hedonic shift in which they establish cognitive consistency by forming univalent instead of ambivalent attitudes and that this process is fueled by the moral emotion disgust. In Study 1, we found that veg*ans who pursued moral goals with their diet reported more disgust towards meat, which was associated with reduced meat-related ambivalence. In Study 2, we found that disgust towards meat was again associated with decreased meat-related ambivalence. That is, veg*ans and omnivores similarly reported greater disgust after reading a text describing bad hygienic conditions in meat production. Besides this physical disgust, they also experienced heightened disgust if they read a text on animal cruelty in meat production. This moral disgust, however, was only elicited in people who did not morally disengage from their harmful behavior, i.e., in people who attributed relatively high emotional and mental capacities towards animals. While the latter findings of Study 2 are rather exploratory, taken together our findings suggest that morality and disgust may indeed promote cognitive consistency. The outlined processes thus could play a pivotal role in adopting and maintaining meat-less diets.

Food waste is the origin of major social and environmental issues. In industrial societies, domestic households are the biggest contributors to this problem. But why do people waste food although they buy and value it? Answering this question is mandatory to design effective interventions against food waste. So far, however, many interventions have not been based on theoretical knowledge. Integrating food waste literature and ambivalence research, we propose that domestic food waste can be understood via the concept of ambivalence—the simultaneous presence of positive and negative associations towards the same attitude object. In support of this notion, we demonstrated in three pre-registered experiments that people experienced ambivalence towards non-perishable food products with expired best before dates. The experience of ambivalence was in turn associated with an increased willingness to waste food. However, two informational interventions aiming to prevent people from experiencing ambivalence did not work as intended (Experiment 3). We hope that the outlined conceptualization inspires theory-driven research on why and when people dispose of food and on how to design effective interventions.

Meat consumption is conflicted, because meat provides pleasure to many people, but it also causes animals to suffer. This so-called meat paradox elicits discomfort in meat-eaters and they try to reduce their discomfort, for example, by means of moral disengagement. In the present investigation, we tried to scrutinize this process and examine the boundary conditions that increase moral disengagement. We assumed that, due to a domain general action-oriented state, people tend to resolve the meat paradox via moral disengagement, even if inconsistency is elicited in a different, not food-related domain. Two experiments were conducted, in which we assessed people's moral disengagement efforts via ambivalence measures after we induced inconsistency using different threats in meat-unrelated domains. Supporting our assumptions, people showed reduced ambivalence towards food in affective priming (Experiment 1) and Mouse-Tracker tasks (Experiment 2) after experiencing inconsistency. In fact, plant-based dishes became more positive and meat dishes more negative after inconsistency was induced, indicating that people disguise their endorsement of meat. This provides first convergent evidence that an inconsistency induced action-oriented state may influence cognitions regarding the meat paradox.

Meat consumption elicits highly ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, it is associated with sensory pleasure and tradition; on the other hand, it is linked to moral, ecological, and health-related issues. This conflict is referred to as the meat paradox and it is hypothesized that people who experience the meat paradox resolve resulting discomfort by moral disengagement. However, ambivalence—a central process variable underlying the meat paradox—has never been measured directly, and theorizing on the meat paradox, so far, remains rather elusive. In the present investigation, we assessed meat-related ambivalence by tracking mouse trajectories of people who evaluated meat and plant-based dishes. By using this behavioral measure, our findings support the assumption that omnivores experience greater meat-related ambivalence and use moral disengagement strategies more frequently than non-omnivores. Importantly, our findings also show that experiencing meat-related ambivalence has far-reaching consequences: the larger behavioral ambivalence in omnivores, the higher the use of moral disengagement strategies. Thereby, our findings indicate the importance of ambivalence as a central process variable underlying the meat paradox and highlight how process-orientated research may contribute to our understanding of dietary practices and other potentially harmful behaviors.