How many animal lovers do you know who eat meat? How can we collectively bemoan individual cases of animal abuse and then ignore the horrors of factory farming? How can decent, moral people seem invested in many good causes and yet still engage in daily behaviour riddled with such negative consequences?
I have spent much of my research over the last decade understanding what transpires in the minds of so many “nice” meat eaters, who regularly do something so unkind.
The Cognitive Dissonance of Eating Animals
The experience of eating animals is one of cognitive dissonance—we are pulled in two directions because when we eat meat, a value we hold (the importance of treating animals humanely) is contradicted by our behaviour. Dissonance is emotionally unpleasant, and we are determined to rid ourselves of its guilt.
One way to eliminate dissonance is to change behaviour by going vegetarian or vegan. Although plant-based diets seem increasingly popular, rates of vegetarianism are still low—about 6 percent in the United States and Europe. Eating animals, in contrast, is an overwhelming norm, with meat consumption reaching record highs in the United States in 2022.
So, most meat-eaters resort to psychological strategies—rationalizations and justifications that explain away the troubling behaviour. I have identified 14 such strategies.
Strategies to Reduce Meat-Related Cognitive Dissonance
Prevention
Because dissonance from eating animals is psychologically unpleasant, individuals are motivated to prevent ever experiencing it. We do so in several ways:
Avoidance. We simply try not to think or talk about eating meat and its related problems. And it’s not merely a personal effort. Avoidance is a cultural norm protected by powerful institutions. For example, factory farms are physically isolated, institutions and laws make gaining information about farm animal welfare nearly impossible, and media socializes children to view meat as originating from happy animals living on peaceful farms.
Willful ignorance. Given these socially ingrained protections, it is unsurprising that individuals know so little about the treatment of animals eaten as meat. Compared to vegetarians, meat-eaters display less knowledge of typical farming practices and underestimate the degree of livestock suffering. Evidence suggests this ignorance is motivated, by a willful ignorance intended to prevent individuals from experiencing negative arousal from eating meat.
Dissociation. Individuals can also prevent guilt by dissociating the animal from the food product. We call meat “bacon” “steak” and “hamburger” instead of the actual animal to disguise our actions and render animals absent. We get disgusted and are less likely to purchase meat that is bloody or contains other visible reminders of its once-life-as-an-animal.
These strategies work in concert to produce a conspiracy of silence where the harmful consequences of meat are absent from our thoughts, and meat eaters are let off the hook.
Indirect Strategies
Alas, sometimes guilt and anxiety from eating animals cannot be prevented. In these cases, there are two broad strategies meat eaters use. The first is indirect because they don’t directly defend eating meat but disconnect the self from its moral implications. They are slippery attempts to avoid seeming like a typical meat eater or to distract attention away from oneself and instead denigrate or blame others.
Perceived behavioural change. People may try to avoid unpleasant emotions from eating meat by pretending that the problematic behaviour doesn’t apply to them. In one study, being told they were to watch a PETA video caused individuals to lower their reported meat intake. Numerous studies have documented that many people who claim to be vegetarians simultaneously acknowledge eating meat. Although some of this discrepancy may arise from genuine confusion about what defines a vegetarian, it also reflects motivated self-identification that serves to reduce guilt and maintain innocence from meat’s ills.
Defining oneself as a humane meat eater. Relatedly, one may proclaim that the meat one eats does not harm animals because it is humanely produced. Why is this a strategy and not a moral position? First, it is debatable whether any animal killed for food can be treated humanely. Second, reliance on so-called humane meat universally would reduce meat intake by 99 percent.
Finally, humane meat eaters are less likely to perceive their diet as something that they need to adhere to strictly. This suggests that, for some, identifying with the humane meat movement flexibly reduces dissonance among individuals who still consume meat regularly.
Do-gooder derogation. In criticizing “moral rebels,” we deflect attention away from ourselves and point the finger elsewhere. Consistent with this concept of “do-gooder derogation,” several experiments have found that making meat eaters uncomfortable causes them to focus on the deficiencies of vegetarians. Only drug addicts are evaluated more negatively than vegetarians.
Nearly half of meat eaters freely generate negative associations with vegetarians.
Third-party blame. While devaluing vegetarians distracts individuals from considering their own moral shortcomings, another strategy is to obscure personal responsibility for the mistreatment of farmed animals by placing third-party blame on other entities in the food system.
Consumers generally claim that they are powerless to improve animal welfare standards, instead placing responsibility on governments for failing to implement effective laws and on retailers for failing to offer humanely produced meat.
Moral outrage. Individuals may also reduce guilt by expressing moral outrage at third-party transgressors in the food system or at others who generally mistreat animals. We get angry at corporations like Sea World or individuals like Michael Vick, in part because it lessens negative emotions from our own behaviour and helps us appear moral.
So, we have mental weapons at our disposal to escape moral condemnation for eating meat without defending the behaviour itself.
Direct Justifications
But some meat eaters openly embrace their eating behaviour and unapologetically defend their morality through a variety of direct justifications.
- Denial of the animal’s mind. One common means of reducing guilt is to deny animal minds—that is, to
claim that farm animals do not think, feel, and suffer the same way humans do. If targets can’t suffer, then harming them seems less morally troublesome.
2. Dichotomization. We compartmentalize or dichotomize animals into different categories based on our relationship to them. This allows us to maintain positive connections with selected animals, such as pets, while justifying consuming others.
3. to 14. Meat is natural, normal, nice, and necessary. Some dissonance-reduction strategies focus on the meat itself, with or without recognizing the animals involved. They direct attention to meat consumption, rather than meat production. Four prominent pro-meat justifications are claims that eating meat is natural, normal, nice, and necessary.
These justifications inform us that we are supposed to eat meat because of human dominance and animal subordination, because everyone else does, because of gustatory pleasure, or because of nutritional necessity.
As tempting as it may be to criticize these 4Ns, they seem successful for meat eaters. Endorsement of these four pro-meat justifications is associated with greater meat consumption and commitment to continue eating meat, less willingness to try meat alternatives, and less meat-related guilt.
The Bottom Line
I hope this helps you understand a meat-eater whose behaviour may be causing you bewilderment, frustration, anger, or sadness. If not eliminating those emotions, I hope it can give you a way to frame your concerns with them. If you are a meat eater, I hope this helps you reflect inward on what you may be experiencing. Often before the change occurs, we need to realize what is happening within us.
