Assuntos

RESUMO

Vegetarian and vegan (Veg*n) diets are increasingly popular in Western societies and an increasingly common topic of psychological research. Animal-free diets hold considerable potential for helping curb the climate crisis and improving interspecies justice. This special issue presents recent contributions from research on the psychology of meat eating and veg*nism. To situate these articles in a broader context, we first establish the importance of studying veg*nism. We then review papers in this special issue, organized into themes of motivations and characteristics of veg*ns, attitudes towards veg*ns, attitudes toward meat and alternative proteins, intentions to eat meat or plant-based foods, consumption of meat or plant-based foods, and meat reduction interventions. We conclude with future directions for this blossoming field of study.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

Assuntos

RESUMO

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.

Assuntos

RESUMO

As criticisms of factory farming continue to mount, an increasing number of individuals have changed their existing dietary practices. Perhaps the two most important options for those reacting against industrial farming are (1) vegetarianism/veganism (i.e., veg*nism), the avoidance of animal flesh/all animal products; and (2) conscientious omnivorism (CO), the consumption of meat or fish only when it satisfies certain ethical standards. While the former group has recently received much attention in the social science literature, studies specifically examining those who identify themselves as COs have been virtually nonexistent. The present research sought to investigate possible underlying attitudinal differences between the two groups. Results indicated that relative to veg*ns, COs evaluated animals less favorably, meat more favorably, and were lower in idealism, misanthropy, and ingroup identification. Mediation analysis demonstrated that differences between COs and veg*ns in the perceived acceptability of killing animals for food were mediated by beliefs about animals and meat. The discussion largely speculates on the causal direction of these effects.

Assuntos

RESUMO

As criticisms of factory farming continue to mount, an increasing number of individuals have changed their existing dietary practices. Perhaps the two most important food movements reacting against industrial farming are (1) vegetarianism, the avoidance of animal flesh; and (2) conscientious omnivorism (CO), the consumption of meat or fish only when it satisfies certain ethical standards. While the former group has been well-studied in the social science literature, there have been few, if any, studies specifically examining those who identify themselves as ethical meat eaters. The present research sought to determine if one particular diet was more greatly adhered to by its followers. Results revealed that COs were less likely to perceive their diet as something that they absolutely needed to follow, reported violating their diet more, felt less guilty when doing so, believed less in animal rights, were less disgusted by factory-farmed meat, rated its sensory characteristics more favorably, and were lower in ingroup identification than vegetarians. Mediation analysis demonstrated that differences in the amount of violations and guilt associated with these violations could in part be traced to practical and psychological factors, making it more difficult to follow conscientious omnivorism.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The present study examined intergroup judgments made between four groups of non-meat eaters: health vegetarians; ethical vegetarians; health vegans, and ethical vegans. Consistent with hypotheses based on horizontal hostility and the need to maintain ingroup distinctiveness, ethical vegetarians gave unfavorable evaluations to health vegetarians relative to vegans, especially when the mainstream omnivore group was made salient. Contrary to expectations, vegans gave relatively more favorable evaluations to ethical vegetarians than health vegetarians when mainstream salience was low. This was especially true for vegans who were motivated primarily by ethical concerns. When mainstream salience was high, vegans did not distinguish between the vegetarian subgroups. Results suggest that one's motives for abstaining from meat often play a larger role in this type of intergroup perceptions than one's dietary practices.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Meat eaters face dissonance whether it results from inconsistency ("I eat meat; I don't like to hurt animals"), aversive consequences ("I eat meat; eating meat harms animals"), or threats to self image ("I eat meat; compassionate people don't hurt animals"). The present work proposes that there are a number of strategies that omnivores adopt to reduce this dissonance including avoidance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, denial of animal pain, denial of animal mind, pro-meat justifications, reducing perceived choice, and actual behavioral change. The presence of vegetarians was speculated to cause meat eating to be a scrutinized behavior, remind meat eaters of their discomfort, and undermine the effectiveness of these strategies. It was therefore hypothesized that exposure to a description of a vegetarian would lead omnivores to embrace dissonance-reducing strategies. Supporting this hypothesis, participants who read a vignette about a vegetarian denied animal mind more than participants who read about a gluten-free individual. It was also hypothesized that omnivores would be sensitive to individual differences between vegetarians and would demonstrate using dissonance-reducing strategies more when the situation failed to provide cognitions consonant with eating meat or to reduce dissonant cognitions. Four experiments supported this prediction and found that authentic vegetarians, vegetarians freely making the decision to abandon meat, consistent vegetarians, and anticipating moral reproach from vegetarians produced greater endorsement of dissonance-reducing strategies than their counterpart conditions.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Researchers studying childhood pet ownership outcomes do not typically focus on measures of adult diet, and those studying the psychology of meat consumption do not normally consider early experiences with companion animals. The present research sought to integrate these two areas by examining relationships between childhood pet ownership, pet attachment, empathy toward animals, belief in human-animal similarity, meat avoidance, and justifications for eating meat. Results from 273 individuals responding to a survey on an internet platform revealed that participants with greater childhood attachment to a pet reported greater meat avoidance as adults, an effect that disappeared when controlling for animal empathy. Greater childhood pet attachment was also related to the use of indirect, apologetic justifications for meat consumption, and this effect too, was mediated by empathy toward animals. Child pet ownership itself predicted views toward animals but not dietary behavior or meat-eating justifications. The authors propose a sequence of events by which greater childhood pet attachment leads to increased meat avoidance, focusing on the central role played by empathy toward animals.

Assuntos

RESUMO

A number of studies have documented a phenomenon whereby individuals self-identify as vegetarians but then simultaneously acknowledge that they eat red meat, chicken, and/or fish. Despite being a consistent and fairly robust effect, there has been little attempt to explain these semi-vegetarians, why they would define themselves in a category whose membership criteria they violate, and ways they might differ from strict vegetarians. The present research highlights possible reasons for the discrepancy and focuses on several dimensions that may demarcate semi-from strict vegetarians: belief in human-animal similarity and liking of and disgust toward meat. Survey results indicated that semi-vegetarians (n=57) were less likely to dislike meat and to find meat disgusting than were strict vegetarians (n=157), even accounting for diet motives. There were no differences between the groups in their beliefs about human-animal similarity although semi-vegetarians who consumed a wider range of animal products perceived marginally less human-animal similarity than those who consumed only fish. The results suggest that semi-vegetarians are distinct from strict vegetarians primarily in their evaluation of and disgust toward meat, likely as a cause or consequence of their occasional consumption of animal flesh.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The present research examined pet ownership, current pet diet, and guilt associated with pet diet among a fairly large sample of non-meat-eaters (n=515). It specifically focused on the conflict that pits feeding one's pet an animal-based diet that may be perceived as best promoting their well-being with concerns over animal welfare and environmental degradation threatened by such diets, here labeled the vegetarian's dilemma. Questionnaire responses indicated that ethically motivated meat abstainers were more likely to own pets and owned more of them than those motivated by health concerns or a combination of ethical and health concerns. Vegans and those resisting meat on ethical grounds were more likely to feed their pet a vegetarian diet and expressed the greatest concerns over feeding their pet an animal-based diet. For vegans and ethical meat abstainers, it is suggested that questions concerning what to feed their pet approaches a tragic tradeoff contrasting two sacred values: protecting the well-being of their pets and protecting the well-being of other animals and the environment. For meat abstainers motivated by health concerns, this constitutes a relatively easy moral problem because the primary concern for such individuals is the health of their pet with less or no regard for other ramifications of the decision, i.e., harming other animals or the environment.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Two studies demonstrated that greater identification with a group was associated with more positive emotions for members who conformed with versus violated the group's norms. These effects were found with injunctive norms, which specify what members should do or what they ideally would do, but emerged less consistently with descriptive norms, which specify what members typically do. Descriptive norms affected emotional responses when they acquired identity-relevance by differentiating an important ingroup from a rival outgroup. For these descriptive norms, much like injunctive norms, greater identification yielded more positive emotions following conformity than violation. The authors suggest that positive emotions and self-evaluations underlie conformity with the norms of self-defining groups.

Assuntos