Gendered Meat? Cognitive Dissonance and Individual Differences in Meat Eaters

Abstract

Complex cognitions are involved in professing to love animals whilst eating them – the “meat paradox.” Meat-related cognitive dissonance varies depending upon the self-identified gender of the individual, with women more likely to report more negative affect and more likely to express a desire to reduce meat consumption than men. In this study, we investigated possible reasons for why gender effects are observed. We hypothesized that there may be an effect across different species – do we feel bad about eating lambs but not chickens? Is it the case that dissonance is most strongly elicited when the meat-animal connection involves animals thought to have less intelligence? What role does identification with particular gender roles play in the justifications that drive the meat paradox? Does the idea that qualities of food are related to the way an animal is killed play a role – this being the concept of magical thinking, which has been demonstrated to be more common in women? In two experiments involving 466 participants, we aimed to better understand the meat paradox in the context of cognitive dissonance, gender, magical thinking, empathy, and gender-role orientation. We found that exposure to information about the intelligence of animals (lamb and chicken) and the slaughter process induced negative affect in comparison with the control condition (apples). We replicated the finding that women who identify with more traditional gender roles experience greater meat-related cognitive dissonance. Further, there was a significant correlation between increased negative affect and higher scores on magical thinking. Finally, experiencing meatrelated cognitive dissonance led to an increase in rates of intention to decrease meat consumption. Whilst we replicated several previous findings reported in the literature, we did not show unequivocal relationships between gender, gender roles, and magical thinking and the meat paradox. The ways in which people manage meat-related cognitive dissonance remains an area for further interrogation to better understand these contradictions of thinking and behavior. Understanding the meat paradox has implications for animal welfare and human and planetary health.