Tutorial 2 - Article 2: Meat related cognitive dissonance

Question 1

What is the meat paradox?

Answer 1

On one hand, people express moral concern for animals, on the other hand they continue to eat meat

Question 2

What is cognitive dissonance theory?

Answer 2

People feel discomfort when holding two or more conflicting beliefs or attitudes (eating meat but also caring for animals)

Question 3

What is the three step explanation for the meat-related cognitive dissonance framework?

Answer 3

(1) an inconsistency exists, (2) which generates an aversive arousal, (3) that will motivate inconsistency-reducation strategies

Question 4

What are three basic guilt-reducing mechanisms proposed by cognitive dissonance theories?

Answer 4

(1) hiding or avoiding injury
(2) denying one’s role/responsibility in causing harm
(3) denigrating the victim

Question 5

What are the three mentioned mechanisms to prevent MRCD?

Answer 5

Avoidance, Willful ignorance and Dissociation

Question 6

What is avoidance as a mechanisms to prevent MRCD?

Answer 6

meat eaters refrain from acknowleding animal welfaire, environmental or health concerns with meat consumption. Farms and slaughterhouses are isolated, individuals prevent themselves from being exposed

Question 7

What is willful ignorance as a mechanism to prevent MRCD?

Answer 7

Meat-eaters wish to remain ignorant, stay less knowledgable and want to be uninformed about framing practices and animal welfare issues

Question 8

What is dissociation as a mechanism to prevent MRCD?

Answer 8

Meat-eaters pretend that no animal is involved during meat consumption to some extent, by dissociating the animal from the food. They use terms like ‘bacon’ or ‘hamburger’ instead of ‘cow’ and ‘pig’. Another example is that the pieces of meat that resemble body parts the most (eyes, tongues, brains, etc.) are less liked.

Question 9

What are the indirect strategies for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 9

(1) perceived behavioral change
(2) self-definition as a humane meat-eater
(3) do-gooder derogation
(4) third-party blame
(5) moral outrage

Question 10

What is perceived behavioral change as an indirect strategy for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 10

convincing oneself and others that one does not consume a large amount of meat, or that they reduce meat consumption, or people wrongfully identifying as vegetarian

Question 11

What is self-definition as a humane meat-eater as an indirect strategy for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 11

Convincing oneself and others that the meat they eat does not harm animals because it is humanely produced

Question 12

What is do-gooder derogation as an indirect strategy for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 12

Individuals feel threated by others taking moral positions they don’t adopt. Vegetarians are seen as moral rebels and are subject to denigration. They attach negative qualities to vegetarians and vegans to reduce their cognitive dissonance.

Question 13

What is third-party blame as an indirect strategy for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 13

Obscuring personal responsibility for mistreatment of farm animals by blaming other entities in the food system

Question 14

What is moral outrage as an indirect strategy for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 14

Expressing moral outrage at third-party transgressors in the food system to assuage personal guilt and cast dispersions on others

Question 15

What are the direct strategies for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 15

(1) Animal-based reduction: denial of animal mind and dichotomization
(2) Meat-based reduction: meat as natural, normal, nice and necessary

Question 16

What is animal-based reduction: denial of animal mind and dichotomization as a direct strategy for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 16

Denying the animal mind. Claiming that farm animals do not think, feel and suffer the same way as humans do. Deny them sensiroy and intellectual capacity

Question 17

What is meat-based reduction: meat as natural, normal, nice and necessary as a direct strategy for reducing ongoing MRCD?

Answer 17

Claiming that eating meat is natural, normal, nice and necessary, supporting social normals, etc. as a consonant congition against dissonance

Question 18

How do these indirect and direct cognitive strategies diminish MRCD?

Answer 18

In two ways;
(1) in the immediacy, they neutralize it by excluding or bolstering them oral self (indirect) or by justifying meat consumption (direct)
(2) in the long term, they help insulate the individual from future MRCD, as dissonance gradually declines in the absence of a trigger

Question 19

What is Meat Polarization?

Answer 19

A polarizing, unintended effect of efforts to curtail meat consumption; individuals less attached to eating animals will lower consumption, while individuals attached to eating animals increase consumption and are more committed

Question 20

What are the two general propositions concerning interventions to reduce meat consumption?

Answer 20

(1) tactics that prompt less consumption of meat are desirable and should also reduce one’s motivated use of cognitive strategies
(2) curtailing meat consumption would benefit from confronting mechanisms by which meat-eaters bolster meat-eating

Question 21

Why does MRCD occur according to the authors?

Answer 21

They believe it has to do with moral identity and self-concept. Conflicting beliefs, yet strongly attached to identity.