Feeling morally troubled about meat, dairy, egg, and fish consumption: Dissonance reduction strategies among different dietary groups

Abstract

A largescale shift towards plant-based diets is considered a critical requirement for tackling ethical, environmental, and global health issues associated with animal food production and consumption. Although previous research has identified psychological strategies that enable meat-eaters to justify and continue meat consumption and feel less morally conflicted about it, research on the psychological strategies that enable consumers to continue dairy, egg, and fish consumption is scarce. We conducted an online survey study using an adjusted version of the Meat-Eating Justification Scale to investigate the use of psychological strategies to cope with cognitive dissonance related to meat, dairy, egg, and fish consumption in omnivores (n = 186), pescatarians (n = 106), vegetarians (n = 143), vegans (n = 203), and flexitarians (n = 63). Results indicated greater use of meat-related dissonance reduction strategies among omnivores as compared to other dietary groups, greater use of fish-related dissonance reduction strategies among fish consumers (omnivores, flexitarians and pescatarians) compared to vegetarians and vegans, and greater use of dairy and egg-related dissonance reduction strategies among dairy and egg consumers (omnivores, flexitarians, pescatarians, and vegetarians) as compared to vegans. This pattern was particularly clear for justifications used to defend animal product consumption, denial of animal suffering, and use of dichotomization when considering meat and fish consumption. These findings highlight the importance of extending the research on dissonance reduction strategies beyond meat consumption and studying the consumption of a range of animal products. This can help in identifying the psychological barriers to adopting a plant-based diet and informing interventions for behaviour change.