Through meat-eating choices, people are able to express their national social identification and adhere to broader cultural norms. The current research examines the relationship between people's ...perceptions of national descriptive and injunctive meat-eating norms and their national social identification, on the one hand, and their attitudes toward meat-eating and their intentions to eat meat, on the other hand. In a sample that includes American, British, and Australian participants, we observe that: (1) favorable attitudes toward meat eating are positively predicted by national injunctive but not descriptive norms, and (2) intentions to eat meat are positively predicted by national descriptive but not injunctive norms. National social identification positively predicts both attitudes and intentions. Intentions to eat meat were also predicted by a three-way interaction between descriptive and injunctive norms, and social identification. Alignment of relatively high descriptive and injunctive meat-eating norms predicted meat-eating intentions more than alignment of relatively low descriptive and injunctive norms. With normative misalignment, however, people began to rely on their national social identifications as a basis for meat-eating intentions. The data are discussed with reference to the impact of social factors in influencing meat consumption. Moreover, we consider the potential for national social identification to have a normative component of meat consumption independent of descriptive and injunctive norms. This work advances our understanding of meat consumption by revealing national-level normative and identity processes beyond more focused identities of, for example, an environmentalist, a health conscious person, or an animal rights activist.
Concerns over potential negative effects of excessive meat consumption on both the environment and personal health, coupled with long-standing debates over animal rights, have motivated research on ...the prevalence and predictors of plant-based versus meat-based diets. Yet few studies have examined longitudinal trends in dietary behaviours using large national samples. We address this gap by examining the prevalence, predictors, and annual change in the self-reported dietary behaviour of a large national probability sample of New Zealand adults (categorised as omnivore, vegetarian, or vegan; Ns = 12,259–50,964). Consistent with our pre-registered hypotheses, omnivore was the most prevalent dietary category (94.1%). Moreover, higher levels of conservative ideologies (i.e., political conservatism, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Social Dominance Orientation), lower subjective health, lower environmental efficacy, and lower disgust sensitivity predicted having an omnivore (vs. vegetarian or vegan) diet. Longitudinal analyses further revealed that the probability of shifting from an omnivore diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet over a one-year period was low, and that veganism was the least stable dietary category. Both gender (men) and political conservatism predicted lower probabilities of transitioning from meat to no-meat diets over time.
Meat reduction, vegetarianism, and veganism have greatly increased in popularity during the 21st century, particularly in the United Kingdom. Yet, little is known about the process of reducing or ...abstaining. Through the use of focus groups and a longitudinal, web-based survey delivered over a twelve-month period, this project provides insights into the reported dietary habits and trends of participants in UK-based meat reduction and vegan campaigns (n = 1539). Drawing on Michie, Atkins, and West (2014)'s Behavior Change Wheel to better understand the process of dietary transition, findings reveal key opportunities for policymakers and non-profit organizations to better understand and support the process of dietary change. Reported planned dietary changes suggest a tendency for gradual transitions, with planned and achieved changes generally reflecting proposed reduction and abstention hierarchies. Planned reductions were most likely to include red meat and least likely to include seafood or eggs, while seafood abstention was more common than that of dairy or eggs. Those seeking to abstain from the consumption of some or all animal-derived foods were the most likely to report meeting their anticipated dietary changes, while meat reducers were generally unlikely to indicate that they were achieving planned reductions.
•Examination of dietary changes revealed reduction and abstention hierarchies that prioritize red meat reductions.•Findings supports tendency toward gradual dietary changes.•Planned abstainers (i.e. vegans and vegetarians) were more likely to meet dietary goals than were meat reducers.•Increased consumption most commonly reported for seafood or eggs, least commonly for red meat.
As arguments become more pronounced that meat consumption harms the environment, public health, and animals, meat eaters should experience increased pressure to justify their behavior. Results of a ...first study showed that male undergraduates used direct strategies to justify eating meat, including endorsing pro-meat attitudes, denying animal suffering, believing that animals are lower in a hierarchy than humans and that it is human fate to eat animals, and providing religious and health justifications for eating animals. Female undergraduates used the more indirect strategies of dissociating animals from food and avoiding thinking about the treatment of animals. A second study found that the use of these male strategies was related to masculinity. In the two studies, male justification strategies were correlated with greater meat consumption, whereas endorsement of female justification strategies was correlated with less meat and more vegetarian consumption. These findings are among the first to empirically verify Adams's (1990) theory on the sexual politics of meat linking feminism and vegetarianism. They suggest that to simply make an informational appeal about the benefits of a vegetarian diet may ignore a primary reason why men eat meat: It makes them feel like real men.
Consumption of animal products is an important greenhouse gas emitting behavior. However, perceived hindrances to incorporating more plant-based diets present challenges for the successful design of ...behavior-change interventions. Latent profile analysis of survey responses revealed three distinct groups. Meat-reducers perceive the fewest inhibitors and are the most willing to incorporate more meat-free days in their diets. Moderate-hindrance meat eaters perceive many more inhibitors, and are hindered by a lack of social support, attachment to meat, not wanting to change their routine, and less awareness of the health benefits of eating less meat. They are willing to incorporate new healthy foods in their diet and are somewhat willing to avoid meat on some days. Strong-hindrance meat eaters report weak self-efficacy and the most inhibitors but are somewhat willing to incorporate healthier foods in their diets. Implications for tailored meat-reduction interventions are discussed. For example, when targeting meat-attached individuals, it might be beneficial to focus on replacing red meats with less carbon-intensive protein sources.
Meat eaters encounter a conflict between their eating behavior and their affections toward animals. Because this “meat paradox” highlights discrepancies between behavior and various ideals, a number ...of experts have focused on cognitive dissonance theory to explain the psychology of eating meat. The present work presents a framework to understand the phenomenon of meat-related cognitive dissonance (MRCD), herein defined as occurring when the dissonant state involves recognition of one's behavior as a meat eater and a belief, attitude, or value that this behavior contradicts. The proposed framework explains how individuals attempt to prevent this form of dissonance from occurring (e.g., avoidance, willful ignorance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, and do-gooder derogation) and how they reduce it once it has occurred in the form of motivated cognitions (e.g., denigrating animals, offering pro-meat justifications, or denying responsibility for eating meat). The MRCD framework posits that which of a possible fifteen outlets is chosen to prevent and reduce the moral guilt associated with eating meat depends on (a) the aspect of meat consumption that produces MRCD; (b) the motivation created by MRCD; (c) individual differences in gender, values, affinity toward animals and meat, and exposure to animals; and (d) culture. Implications of the framework for those seeking to curtail meat consumption are discussed and important questions are highlighted for theorists to resolve.
Background: Due to the greenhouse gases emission caused by human activities there is wide agreement about global warming. Methane is one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases in the global warming ...process which is produced through human activities and natural processes. In addition, the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides would produce nitrogen monoxide in the atmosphere. This gas is another greenhouse gas that takes its toll on global warming. Materials and Methods: In this study, we reviewed articles published between the years (2005-2022). Scientific resources were searched in both Persian and English using the keywords (meat-eating, climate change, cattle, pig, and food) in the databases (Magiran), Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Results: Population growth, economic development, and urban migration have stimulated unprecedented demand for animal protein such as meat and dairy products so that livestock in the traditional way no longer met this need of man for protein. About two to three billion cows and pigs are slaughtered annually resulting in a very high methane emission in nature that accelerates global warming. Conclusion: Shifting towards plant-rich diets and embracing alternative sources of protein could be helpful.
Most nonhuman primates prey on vertebrates. Meat-eating, defined as ingestion of vertebrate tissue, occurs in 12 families, ≥39 genera, and ≥89 species. It is most common in capuchins (Cebus and ...Sapajus spp.), baboons (Papio spp.), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and modestly common in blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis), callitrichids (Callithrix spp. and Saguinus spp.), and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri spp.). It is uncommon in other cercopithecines, rare in other haplorhines and in lemurs, and virtually absent in colobines. Birds are the prey class eaten by the most species (≥53), followed by reptiles (≥48), amphibians (≥38), mammals (≥35), and fish (≥7). Major hypotheses for the importance of meat eating are that it is (1) mainly an energy source, especially (1a) when plant-source foods (PSFs) with high energy return rates are scarce (energy shortfall hypothesis); (2) mainly a protein source; and (3) mainly a source of micronutrients scarce in PSFs. Meat eating bouts sometimes provide substantial energy and protein, and some chimpanzees gain substantial protein from meat monthly or annually. However, meat typically accounts for only small proportions of feeding time and of total energy and protein intake, and quantitative data are inconsistent with the energy shortfall hypothesis. PSFs and/or invertebrates are presumably the main protein sources, even for chimpanzees. Support is strongest for the micronutrient hypothesis. Most chimpanzees eat far less meat than recorded for hunter-gatherers, but the highest chimpanzee estimates approach the lowest for African hunter-gatherers. In fundamental contrast to the human predatory pattern, other primates only eat vertebrates much smaller than they are, tool-assisted predation is rare except in some capuchins and chimpanzees, and tool use in carcass processing is virtually absent. However, harvesting of small prey deserves more attention with reference to the archaeological and ethnographic record.
•At least 89 nonhuman primate species representing 39 genera and 12 families eat meat.•Birds are the most common prey taxon, followed by reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and fish.•Most primates eat meat rarely, if at all, but meat sometimes provides substantial immediate energy and protein gains.•The main importance of meat is probably as a source of vitamins, minerals, and micronutrients.•Chimpanzees eat more meat than all other nonhuman primates, but much less than African hunter-gatherers.•Nonhuman primates only hunt prey much smaller than themselves. Only some capuchins and some chimpanzees use tools to assist in prey capture.
•Meat eating justification strategies (MEJS) consist of apologetic and unapologetic strategies.•Unapologetic strategies predicted higher moral justifiability of conventional meat ...production.•Unapologetic strategies correlated highly positive with meat consumption frequencies.•Unapologetic strategies predicted lower willingness to substitute meat.
The enjoyment of meat and simultaneous disapproval of hurting animals create an ambivalent relationship with meat consumption. Meat-eating justification strategies are a means of coping with such cognitive dissonance. We aimed to determine whether the use of such justification strategies to defend meat consumption is linked to the moral evaluation of diverse free-range, wild and conventional meat production systems (e.g. free-range chicken, wild fish and veal from conventional production). Moreover, we endeavoured to assess how these justification strategies are linked to the consumption of meat and consumers’ willingness to substitute (WTS) meat with alternatives. An online survey was conducted with 973 participants from Germany (49% men and 51% women) to assess meat-eating justification strategies (apologetic and unapologetic justification), moral evaluation of 12 meat (including fish) production systems, frequency of meat (including processed meat) consumption as well as WTS meat. All unapologetic justification strategies (e.g. denial of animals’ suffering, health justification) correlated positively with meat consumption (between r = 0.14 and r = 0.42, p < .001) and negatively with WTS meat (between r = −0.31 and r = −0.51, p < .001). Even though participants evaluated most of the conventional animal production systems to be morally not justifiable, they seemed not to behave accordingly with regard to meat consumption or WTS. Thus, it is unlikely that animal welfare in mass production systems can be a standalone motivation to initiate dietary changes, especially in those consumers who endorse unapologetic meat-eating justification strategies. Implications for policy and consumer behaviour are discussed.
Research suggests that animals’ capacity for agency, experience, and benevolence predict beliefs about their moral treatment. Four studies built on this work by examining how fine‐grained information ...about animals’ traits and behaviours (e.g., can store food for later vs. can use tools) shifted moral beliefs about eating and harming animals. The information that most strongly affected moral beliefs was related to secondary emotions (e.g., can feel love), morality (e.g., will share food with others), empathy (e.g., can feel others' pain), social connections (e.g., will look for deceased family members), and moral patiency (e.g., can feel pain). In addition, information affected moral judgements in line with how it affected superordinate representations about animals’ capacity for experience/feeling but not agency/thinking. The results provide a fine‐grained outline of how, and why, information about animals’ traits and behaviours informs moral judgements.
PDF
