The effect of normative conflict on meat consumption behavior: A mixed-method study

Abstract

Reducing meat consumption in sustainable diets is considered a key action in addressing the climate crisis. However, eating meat is part of most diets in Western societies and the prevailing social norm and emerging trends and collective changes lead to normative conflicts. This study examines the impact of conflicting social norms on meat consumer behavior through an exploratory empirical research with a mixed-method design. Qualitative data was collected through in-depth interviews with 13 consumers with sundry dietary profiles (vegetarians, reducers, and full meat-eaters), and a one-factor experimental design survey (N = 278) was conducted with two conditions among participants. The findings indicate that interventions based on conflicting social norms of different groups reduce meat consumption (H1, accepted) and can help reduce meat consumption among groups with higher consumption levels (full meat eaters). When approached on a conscious level, the denial-based conflict coping strategy will lead them down the path of the prevailing social norm, ultimately reducing their environmental impact. Different psychological strategies to deal with normative conflict were identified between groups of reducers and full meat eaters, as well as different effects on the behavior of experimental manipulation. These groups should be approached differently on issues related to meat consumption. Further research is needed to explore moral licensing and potential negative spillover effects among meat reducers.