Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

Lin-Schilstra, Li; Fischer, Arnout R.H.

doi:10.3390/su12124844

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 109 publications

(188 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meat products are typically presented fresh, clean, and under sterile conditions that make it difficult for some consumers to connect eating meat with animal harm and suffering [ 142 ]. Many consumers rationalise their decision to continue consuming animal products despite concerns for animal welfare [ 143 , 144 ]. In addition, not all alternative protein sources are completely free of animal origins.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidence On the Motivations To Consume Alternamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

Tso

Lim

Forde

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative proteins are receiving increased global attention. This burgeoning interest in plants (especially plant-based meat alternatives), insects, algae, and cultured meat has been attributed to their reported health benefits, lower environmental impact and improved animal welfare compared to conventional animal-based meat. Food producers and the media are promoting acceptance of these products, claiming superior nutritional, environmental and ethical credentials and a desirable novel sensory experience. However, the evidence supporting these claims remains unclear. In this review, we summarise the main evidence underlying the nutritional, sensorial, economical, ethical, and environmental reasons reported for the rise in consumer demand for alternative proteins. We found many of these reasons to lack a strong evidence base. For instance, evidence is emerging for the nutritional benefits of plant-based meat alternatives, but present claims are largely based on established evidence for plant-based diets. Significant research gaps remain, especially longitudinal evidence on the sustained effects of replacing conventional animal-based proteins with alternative sources. For many alternative proteins, challenges exist in achieving desirable sensory properties akin to animal-based meat to promote their acceptance by consumers. Overall, fundamental shifts in the food system are required to create a culture in which healthful and sustainable food choices are the norm.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Evidence On the Motivations To Consume Alternamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

Tso

Lim

Forde

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research has also reported the effects of moral actions specifically in the food domain (Chan et al, 2014; Grauel, 2016; Honkanen et al, 2006; Kjærnes, 2012; Steim & Nemeroff, 1995; Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009). Consumers have been shown to display a preference for foods that match their moral values (Dowd & Burke, 2013; Hauser et al, 2013; Rousseau, 2015; Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009); for example, in terms of issues of sustainable and ethical food production, animal welfare, or genetically modified foods (Lin‐Schilstra & Fischer, 2020; Loughnan et al, 2014; Mooney & Walbourn, 2001; Rosenfeld et al, 2020; Rosenfeld, 2019; Scott et al, 2016).…”

Section: Conceptual Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of companies' moral associations on the product consumption experience: The role of moral disgust

Tal

Gvili

Amar

2022

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can moral associations linked with food products harm hedonic consumption experience? Across four studies, we show that moral associations linked to food that clash with values (racism and animal welfare) held by today's ethical consumers can engender moral disgust, which in turn undermines both expected and actual taste experience. The studies contribute to the literature by showing that associations impact consumption experience even in the absence of concrete actions, and by revealing moral disgust as the mechanism underlying this phenomenon. Importantly, this effect was observed even when the moral associations involved racism or sustainability (e.g., animal welfare), which have no direct relationship to product quality. This reveals that mere moral associations, rather than quality associations, influence hedonic consumption experience, rather than quality associations. More broadly, the findings point to the ways in which extrinsic attributes affect product experience and evaluation, particularly in hedonic consumption. This may be particularly impactful for values clashing with those championed by ethical consumers. From a practical perspective, these studies provide a broader perspective on corporate social responsibility by showing that companies should exercise caution when exploiting the moral associations linked to their products.

show abstract

“…Most research that examined carnist resistance until now has relied on cognitive dissonance theory ( Festinger, 1962 ) to explain the maintenance of meat consumption as a morally-conflicting behavior (i.e., the meat paradox) ( Bastian and Loughnan, 2017 ; Lin-Schilstra and Fischer, 2020 ; Rothgerber, 2020 ). Cognitive dissonance refers to a state of negative arousal that arises when someone holds two contradictory cognitions, typically involving a behavior versus an attitude (e.g., eating meat but caring for animals).…”

Section: Theoretical Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other reviews discussed meat reduction or plant-based diets/alternatives within the context of health promotion ( Corrin and Papadopoulos, 2017 ; Bryant, 2022 ), pro-environmentalism ( Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017 ; Bryant, 2022 ) and animal protection ( Mathur et al, 2021 ). In addition, various theories have been applied to examine meat-eating ( Povey et al, 2001 ; Graça et al, 2016 ; Grünhage and Reuter, 2021 ), including cognitive dissonance theory ( Festinger, 1962 ) to gain insight in the meat paradox (“how can people care about animals, but also eat them?”) ( Loughnan et al, 2014 ; Lin-Schilstra and Fischer, 2020 ) and the psychology of meat-eating as a morally questionable and dissonance-arousing activity ( Bastian and Loughnan, 2017 ; Rothgerber, 2020 ). This vast literature indicates that the promotion of meat reduction and veg*n dietary changes is held back by a complex and diverse set of barriers, involving both macro-level historical, economic, political, technological and societal barriers and micro-level psychological barriers concerning awareness and habitual behavior, conflicting goals and values, ambivalent feelings and moral disengagement ( Graça, 2016 ; Graça et al, 2019 ; Harguess et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal-based diets in Western countries are increasingly regarded as unsustainable because of their impact on human health, environmental and animal welfare. Promoting shifts toward more plant-based diets seems an effective way to avoid these harms in practice. Nevertheless, claims against the consumption of animal products contradict the ideology of the omnivorous majority known as carnism. Carnism supports animal-product consumption as a cherished social habit that is harmless and unavoidable and invalidates minorities with plant-based diets: vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns). In this theoretical review, we integrate socio-psychological and empirical literature to provide an identity-based motivational account of ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy. Advocates who argue against the consumption of animal products often make claims that it is harmful, and avoidable by making dietary changes toward veg*n diets. In response, omnivores are likely to experience a simultaneous threat to their moral identity and their identity as consumer of animal products, which may arouse motivations to rationalize animal-product consumption and to obscure harms. If omnivores engage in such motivated reasoning and motivated ignorance, this may also inform negative stereotyping and stigmatization of veg*n advocates. These “pro-carnist” and “counter-veg*n” defenses can be linked with various personal and social motivations to eat animal products (e.g., meat attachment, gender, speciesism) and reinforce commitment to and ambivalence about eating animal products. This does not mean, however, that veg*n advocates cannot exert any influence. An apparent resistance may mask indirect and private acceptance of advocates’ claims, priming commitment to change behavior toward veg*n diets often at a later point in time. Based on our theoretical account, we provide directions for future research.

show abstract

Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

Cited by 20 publications

References 109 publications

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

The influence of companies' moral associations on the product consumption experience: The role of moral disgust

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About