Meating Conflict: Toward a Model of Ambivalence-Motivated Reduction of Meat Consumption

Abstract

An increasing number of people are concerned about eating meat, despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking for contents that facilitate meat reduction. Study 1 drew on a cross-sectional 6-day food diary with 7485 observations in a quota sample to investigate why meat-related ambivalence arises and to demonstrate the correlation of ambivalence with meat reduction. Two experiments investigated the causal direction of this association by showing that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their preexisting incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the aforementioned mechanisms involved (Study 3; preregistered). The studies utilized diverse samples from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1192) and support the proposed model by indicating that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.

The Meat Ambivalence Questionnaire: Assessing Domain-Specific Meat-Related Conflict in Omnivores and Veg*ans

“…People thus cope with their ambivalence in multifaceted ways to alleviate the discomfort and reestablish cognitive consistency (van Harreveld, van der Pligt, et al, 2009). People who have to make a decision based on an ambivalent attitude object, for instance, may seek new information to regain a univalent attitude and more easily come to a decision (Itzchakov et al, 2020;Nordgren et al, 2006), they can deny responsibility for making the decision (van Harreveld, van der Pligt, et al, 2009), they can postpone their decision (Nohlen, 2015), or they can abstain from the ambivalent attitude object more generally (Pauer et al, 2022).…”

“…For omnivores, research on meat-related ambivalence indicates that ambivalence is indeed associated with reduced meat consumption (Amiot et al, 2020;Berndsen & van der Pligt, 2004;Pauer et al, 2022). To explain this association, the model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction (Pauer et al, 2022) proposes that stable ambivalent attitudes motivate people to avert the recurrence of aversive experiences of meat-related ambivalence through meat avoidance.…”

“…Indeed, research shows that not only omnivores who eat but also veg*ans who eschew meat are prone to experiencing ambivalence (Buttlar & Walther, 2018). Omnivores appreciate the taste of meat as well as its nutritional and social benefits; at the same time, they see its negative impacts, such as those pertaining to animal welfare, the environment, and human health (Berndsen & van der Pligt, 2004;Pauer et al, 2022;Povey et al, 2001). Consequently, 66.8% of omnivores reported experiencing at least some conflicting thoughts and/or feelings regarding meat consumption in a representative German sample (i.e., felt ambivalence; Pauer et al, 2022).…”

“…Omnivores appreciate the taste of meat as well as its nutritional and social benefits; at the same time, they see its negative impacts, such as those pertaining to animal welfare, the environment, and human health (Berndsen & van der Pligt, 2004;Pauer et al, 2022;Povey et al, 2001). Consequently, 66.8% of omnivores reported experiencing at least some conflicting thoughts and/or feelings regarding meat consumption in a representative German sample (i.e., felt ambivalence; Pauer et al, 2022). Although veg*ans experience less ambivalence towards meat than omnivores on average (Buttlar & Walther, 2018), we argue that their ambivalence is constituted in a similar manner: Veg*ans are motivated to follow their diet due to negative associations arising from animal welfare, environmental, and health issues associated with meat (Hopwood et al, 2020); still, many veg*ans are aware of the positive aspects of meat, considering it to be tasty and/or a central part of social life (Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2019).…”

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

“…Consumers who reject rationalizations for eating animal products may become more ambivalent about eating meat and negative about conventional meat production systems ( Berndsen and Van Der Pligt, 2004 ; Hartmann and Siegrist, 2020 ). Although they might initially be motivated to ignore claims against consuming animal products, they may be more open to eat meat alternatives (e.g., Quorn, tofu, seitan) ( Hartmann and Siegrist, 2020 ) and change their diet after effortful information seeking if concerns about eating animal products can no longer be ignored ( Rothgerber, 2020 ; Pauer et al, 2022 ). Based on interviews with veg*ns, this information may include a variety of sources, such as educational materials (e.g., documentaries, books, flyers, speeches), role models and emotionally intensive imagery related to animal cruelty ( Chuck et al, 2016 ; Grassian, 2019 ).…”