Meat

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.

While felt ambivalence is thought to drive behavior change, the dynamics and boundary conditions of this effect have been underspecified. We conducted a panel study (N = 808 German and Dutch students) in the context of meat consumption and investigated the dynamics of meat-related ambivalence, meat consumption, and moralization over 7 months using Cross-Lagged Panel Models. We expected that omnivores eat less meat when ambivalence pushes them toward moralization, whereas veg*ans (vegetarians and vegans) show more dietary lapses when ambivalence pulls them away from moralization. Congruently, results indicate that ambivalence motivated omnivores to eat less meat over time, primarily when their conflicts involved moral dimensions about farm animals, sustainability, or social context; and veg*ans were likelier to violate their diets when ambivalence centered on positive sensory associations with meat. We conclude that ambivalence motivates behavior change, especially if people are pushed toward or pulled away from moralization.

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.

Using validated stimulus material is crucial for ensuring research comparability and replicability. However, many databases rely solely on bidimensional valence ratings, ranging from negative to positive. While this material might be appropriate for certain studies, it does not reflect the complexity of attitudes and therefore might hamper the unambiguous interpretation of some study results. In fact, most databases cannot differentiate between neutral (i.e., neither positive nor negative) and ambivalent (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative) attitudes. Consequently, even presumably univalent (only positive or negative) stimuli cannot be clearly distinguished from ambivalent ones when selected via bipolar rating scales. In the present research, we introduce the Trier Univalence Neutrality Ambivalence (TUNA) database, a database containing 304,262 validation ratings from heterogeneous samples of 3,232 participants and at least 20 (M = 27.3, SD = 4.84) ratings per self-report scale per picture for a variety of attitude objects on split semantic differential scales. As these scales measure positive and negative evaluations independently, the TUNA database allows to distinguish univalence, neutrality, and ambivalence (i.e., potential ambivalence). TUNA also goes beyond previous databases by validating the stimulus materials on affective outcomes such as experiences of conflict (i.e., felt ambivalence), arousal, anger, disgust, and empathy. The TUNA database consists of 796 pictures and is compatible with other popular databases. It sets a focus on food pictures in various forms (e.g., raw vs. cooked, non-processed vs. highly processed), but includes pictures of other objects that are typically used in research to study univalent (e.g., flowers) and ambivalent (e.g., money, cars) attitudes for comparison. Furthermore, to facilitate the stimulus selection the TUNA database has an accompanying desktop app that allows easy stimulus selection via a multitude of filter options.

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.

Despite concerns about animal welfare, and health and environmental issues associated with eating meat, meat consumption has continued to increase worldwide, including in Australia. One exception to this is Germany, with 2021 meat consumption levels being the lowest in the last 30 years. This pre-registered study investigated socio-cultural variables associated with meat consumption in Germany (n = 399) and Australia (n = 399) in a cross-sectional online survey. Participants reported levels of current and intended meat consumption, and they completed measures of speciesism, motivations to eat meat, empathy, animal farming perceptions, perceived behavioural control (PBC) over meat eating, and avoidance and dissociation regarding the animal origins of meat. In both Australia and Germany, enjoying the taste of meat positively predicted consumption and empathy towards farmed animals negatively predicted consumption. PBC was a strong positive predictor of intentions to reduce meat consumption in both countries. Empathy and liking the taste of meat were among the best predictors of red meat and poultry consumption, suggesting that interventions to reduce meat consumption may work best by targeting these factors while also increasing people’s sense of control over their food choices.

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.

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.

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.

Many attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviors are ambivalent, that is, they simultaneously consist of positive and negative evaluations towards the same object. According to psychological consistency theories, the experience of such ambivalence is aversive—being the basis for behavioral change if the ambivalence is reconciled. In the present chapter, we will examine how ambivalence may influence pro-environmental behaviors in general, and we will try to validate these claims by reviewing an article about meat-related ambivalence in specific. That is, ambivalence is particularly present in attitudes towards meat: On the one hand, meat is perceived as something positive as it provides traditions and enjoyment to many people; on the other hand, meat is perceived as negative as its production is detrimental for the environment, for health, and causes the death of millions of animals. By studying meat-related ambivalence, it is therefore possible to examine how omnivores (i.e., meat-eaters) and non-omnivores deal with the so-called meat paradox — a prime example of the state of ambivalence. In fact, the reviewed article demonstrates that omnivores generally experience more meat-related ambivalence than non-omnivores, indicating that most non-omnivores reconciled their ambivalence while refraining from meat. More importantly, omnivores who experience high levels of ambivalence towards meat seem to cope with their conflict via moral disengagement, allowing them to maintain their dietary practices. This bears strong implications for attitudinal and behavioral change regarding pro-environmental and consumer behavior.

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.