Abstract
Most people eat meat, yet report valuing the environment, animal life, and their health, which contradicts this dietary behaviour. The psychological discomfort aroused by this value-behaviour inconsistency, and the strategies meat eaters use to resolve this unpleasant state, is termed the ‘meat paradox’. Vegetarians eschew meat consumption, but the negative implications of dairy are comparable to meat. We investigated the ‘dairy paradox’ in a sample of vegetarians (N = 378) using an experimental design. Specifically, we tested whether vegetarians experienced cognitive dissonance after reading about the environmental, animal welfare, and health impacts of dairy consumption when compared to a control group not exposed to this information. Then, we examined to what extent perceiving dairy consumption as Natural, Necessary, Normal, Nice, or Neglectable, and denial of cows' mental states (Experience or Agency) predicted reduced cognitive dissonance. Vegetarians in the dissonance-induction condition reported experiencing significantly greater dissonance, though they more strongly rejected the justification strategies. Instead, they reported greater intentions to reduce their dairy consumption than vegetarians in the control condition. Rather than replicating findings from the meat paradox literature, these results suggest that vegetarians respond to uncomfortable feelings about their value-behaviour conflict with a greater intention to abandon the incongruent behaviour, rather than endorsing the cognitions that justify it. This research provides evidence that vegetarians experience a dairy paradox. Given the success of our study in shifting participants away from behavioural justification and toward behavioural change intentions, our findings can help guide the design of interventions seeking to reduce dairy consumption.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call