A structured literature review of the meat paradox

Abstract

Many people wish to avoid harming animals, yet most people also consume meat. This theoretical ‘meat paradox’ is a form of cognitive dissonance and has grave negative consequences for animal welfare and the environment. Yet, despite these consequences, the meat paradox literature is sparse. The current structured literature review (SLR) explores primary literature up to May 2020, supporting the paradox and uniquely reviewing all known triggers of the paradox (e.g., exposure to meat’s animal origins), all known strategies to overcome the paradox (e.g., avoiding thinking about consumed animals) and how different people (e.g., those of different genders, occupations, ages, dietary preferences, cultures or religions) utilise varying strategies to overcome the paradox. For instance, the review uniquely demonstrates how dietary identity, dietary adherence and meat consumption frequency, among other demographic and psychographic factors, all affect moral (dis)engagement from animals. Overall, this paper has wide-ranging theoretical implications for the meat paradox and social psychological literature, and practical implications for meat reduction policies.

Perceptions of Farm Animal Sentience and Suffering: Evidence from the BRIC Countries and the United States

“…Older people also score lower on perceived animal sentience [ 70 ]. However contradictory results are also found in research relating age to meat eating and its moralities [ 71 ].…”

Is Eating Less Meat Possible? Exploring the Willingness to Reduce Meat Consumption among Millennials Working in Polish Cities

“…Despite extensive discussion and scientific evidence on the adverse consequences of eating meat, it is still widely consumed. People choosing to eat meat are often conflicted by the "meat paradox" [53][54][55]. They confront two opposite emotions-compassion towards animals suffering from farm and industry practices and the pleasure and habit of eating meat as an essential and even staple food in the everyday diet.…”

The Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment: An Integration of Dissonance and Ambivalence Frameworks

“…Although these triggers have received less attention (Gradidge et al, 2021;Rothgerber & Rosenfeld, 2021), they can arguably make an inconsistency between people's behavior and their attitudes and/or beliefs apparent (Rothgerber, 2020), and people thus experience aversive dissonance because this stands in the way of effective action (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017).…”