Dissonance

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.

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 less meat would benefit environmental sustainability, human health, and animal welfare. Providing information about this, however, does often not lead people to adopt according beliefs, attitudes or behaviors. In fact, dietary changes are often prevented by dissonance reduction (i.e. moral disengagement) if information elicits a conflict regarding meat. In the present investigation we thus aimed to address moral disengagement via a communication strategy that consisted of two stages: In Stage I, we presented information by showing distressing scenes from animal agriculture. In Stage II, we then counteracted moral disengagement in a dialog. Two studies indicate that, following the dialog, people’s evaluations of meat changed and their willingness to eat meat decreased; this seemed to result from lowered moral disengagement. By providing an empirically tested communication strategy for addressing moral disengagement on the exemplary conflict regarding meat, we hope to inspire research and interventions that intend to communicate (environmental) issues.

[German]
Schnitzel essen und Tiere streicheln – ist das nicht widersprüchlich? Wenn sich Menschen dieses Widerspruchs bewusst werden, empfinden sie das als unangenehm. Um dem zu entgehen, nutzen sie verschiedene Strategien, damit sie ohne Reue weiter Fleisch essen können. Unglücklicherweise halten diese Strategien aber auch jene Menschen davon ab, auf Fleisch zu verzichten, die damit ihren ökologischen Fußabdruck verringern möchten. Doch es gibt Möglichkeiten, diesen Strategien zu begegnen.