Research reportRationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns☆
Introduction
Many omnivores are confronted by a “meat paradox” (Herzog, 2010, Joy, 2010, Loughnan et al, 2014, Loughnan et al, 2010). They are morally conflicted by the thought of their behavior harming animals, while also enjoying meat as a desirable staple in their diet. Loughnan et al. (2014) argue, consistent with cognitive dissonance theory (Cooper, 2007, Festinger, 1957, Harmon-Jones, Mills, 1999), that resolution of this conflict can take one of two routes: one can reject meat consumption, bringing one's behaviors into alignment with one's moral ideals, or one can bring one's beliefs and attitudes in line with one's behavior through various psychological maneuvers (see below). The fact that omnivores continue to make up the vast majority of the world's population (see Ruby, 2012) suggests that the latter route is most commonly adopted.
Research attests that there are numerous strategies available to omnivores to bring their beliefs and behavior in line, including denying that animals used as food suffer (Bastian et al, 2012, Bratanova et al, 2011), or that such animals are worthy of moral concern (Loughnan et al., 2010). One common, yet under-studied mechanism omnivores employ when resolving the meat paradox is rationalization. Rationalization involves providing reasonable justifications for one's behavior when it comes under scrutiny or criticism, or when one's behavior is perceived as discrepant with an integral aspect of one's character (Kunda, 1990, Mercier, 2011, Tsang, 2002). Rationalizing potentially morally troublesome behaviors has both social and personal benefits. Humans live in tight-knit social groups in which it is important to manage and defend one's actions to others (Ingram, Piazza, & Bering, 2009). Providing defensible reasons and arguments for one's actions when one's actions are called into question is therefore an essential part of human sociality (Haidt, 2001, Mercier, Sperber, 2011). Rationalization is also essential in maintaining a positive image of oneself as a good, moral person (Bandura, 1999, Jordan, Monin, 2008, Mazar et al, 2008). Research suggests that people often rationalize their behavior when they are motivated to continue in a practice or belief that they might otherwise feel guilty about on account of dissenting perspectives (Haidt, 2001, Kunda, 1990, Uhlmann et al, 2009). While the ultimate goal of rationalization is to persuade others of the legitimacy of one's perspective, rationalization functions best if the actor is convinced by his or her own justifications (Tsang, 2002). One consequence of this motivated reasoning process is that people will often seek out arguments that support their own viewpoint, while overlooking or dismissing arguments that challenge it (Ditto, Lopez, 1992, Kuhn, 1991, Nickerson, 1998). This leads people to overestimate the amount of evidence that favors their position, known as “myside bias” or belief overkill (see Baron, 1995, Perkins, 1985, Stanovich et al, 2012).1
Meat eating is a practice that in recent years has become subject to criticism. Recent polls indicate that about 3–5% of adults in the U.S., and roughly 8% in Canada and 3–8% in the United Kingdom, self-identify as practicing vegetarians, though a number of polled vegetarians admit to sometimes eating meat, particularly fish or poultry (Gallup, 2012, GfK Social Research, 2009, Ruby, 2012, Vegetarian Resource Group, 2012). Vegetarians often endorse a multitude of reasons for rejecting meat or restricting meat from their diet, including health, environment, and taste (see e.g., Berndsen, van der Pligt, 2004, Rozin et al, 1997), yet an increasingly common motivation involves moral concerns about the cruel treatment of animals raised and slaughtered for food (Amato, Partridge, 1989, Beardsworth, Keil, 1991, Fessler et al, 2003, Fox, Ward, 2008, Herzog, 2010, Jabs et al, 1998, Lindeman, Väänänen, 2000, Ruby, 2012, Santos, Booth, 1996). Although meat eating is still the norm in most countries, many people – including meat eaters themselves – believe that vegetarianism is a morally admirable practice for which vegetarians deserve credit (Minson, Monin, 2012, Ruby, Heine, 2011). For example, Ruby and Heine (2011) found that, all else equal, individuals who reject meat are rated as more virtuous than individuals who eat meat. This was true both among vegetarian and omnivore participants, and when controlling for perceptions of the healthiness of the vegetarian target's diet.
One consequence of this moral accreditation is that meat eaters sometimes respond defensively to the presence of vegetarians. This may be because vegetarian appeals and campaigns sometimes come across as self-righteous, and thus off-putting. Additionally, it may be that the moral commitments of vegetarians pose an implicit threat to meat eaters' own moral identities. If some individuals refrain from eating animals out of concern for animal welfare, this raises the question of whether others should do likewise, in effect, “If we can do it, why don't you?” (see Minson & Monin, 2012). Thus, omnivores today sometimes find themselves in social situations where they must defend their commitments to eating meat.
Section snippets
The 3Ns of justification
According to Joy (2010), there are principally three categories of justifications that meat eaters have at their disposal to preserve their commitment to eating meat and diffuse any guilt they might otherwise experience as a consequence of consuming animal products. These justifications include that eating meat is natural, normal, and necessary, otherwise known as the “Three Ns of Justification” (see Joy, 2010, pp. 96–97). Joy argues that through a recurrent process of socialization people come
A fourth “N” and present research
Although there have been some qualitative studies of the 3Ns, mainly by Joy (2010), there is currently almost no systematic, quantitative research in support of the 3Ns as prevalent meat-eating justifications. Nor has there been any work investigating the relationship between 3N endorsement and people's eating practices, meat and animal-product consumption, or attitudes toward animal welfare. Thus, the present research was intended to fill this empirical gap.
Before we outline our research plan
Study 1a and 1b – spontaneous justifications for eating meat
The aim of these studies was to test whether the 4Ns would emerge as the lion's share of spontaneous justifications omnivores offer in defense of eating meat. The method was simple: we asked two different groups of individuals (university students in Study 1a; Mechanical Turk workers in Study 1b) to provide three reasons why it is “OK” to eat meat, and independent raters coded their responses.
Study 2 – The 4Ns and moral concern for animals
Study 2 had four objectives. First, we developed a scale for assessing 4N endorsement as a continuous variable. Second, we sought to show that individuals with dietary restrictions regarding meat would endorse the 4Ns to a lesser extent than individuals without these restrictions. Third, we tested whether our newly developed 4N scale would predict various morally relevant attitudes toward animals, including the diversity of animals one cares about and the degree to which individuals attribute
Study 3 – The 4Ns and other meat-eating psychological defenses
The main aim of Study 3 was to explore the relationship between the 4N scale with another recently developed measure of psychological defenses meat eaters engage in – Rothgerber's (2013) Meat-Eating Justification (MEJ) scale. The MEJ assesses a number of different psychological strategies, including both direct and indirect strategies. Within Rothgerber's theorizing, direct strategies include denying that animals suffer when being raised and killed for meat, a process related to
Study 4 – The 4Ns, animals-product choices, moral emotions and self-appraisals
Studies 2 and 3 provided some initial evidence that individuals who reject the 4Ns tend to have more meat-restricted diets (Study 2), are more concerned with the welfare of animals (Study 2), and are motivated by ethical concerns when making food choices (Study 3). The aim of Study 4 was to demonstrate in a more comprehensive manner the role of 4N endorsement in people's dietary and lifestyle practices involving animal products, as well as the self-directed emotions (e.g., guilt, pride) and
Study 5 –Test–retest validity of the 4N scale and actual meat consumption
So far we have shown 4N endorsement to be consistently higher among individuals who self-identify as omnivores than among individuals who identify as partial vegetarians, full vegetarians, and vegans. In Study 5, we sought to show that endorsement of the 4Ns correlates with the frequency with which people consume meat and other animal products in their diet. Consistent with the idea that 4N justifications are rationalizations fueled by a desire to continue eating meat, we also sought to show
General discussion
Morally motivated vegetarians, although a minority, may serve as a source of implicit moral reproach for many omnivores, eliciting behaviors designed to defend against moral condemnation (Minson & Monin, 2012). One method for rendering moral vegetarians nonthreatening, examined here, is to rationalize or provide reasonable justification for one's consumption of animal products. The present research built upon the theorizing of Joy (2010) pertaining to the 3Ns of Justification – that eating meat
References (66)
- et al.
Ambivalence towards meat
Appetite
(2004) - et al.
The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals
Appetite
(2011) - et al.
Gender differences in opinions and practices with regard to a ‘‘healthy diet”
Appetite
(1999) - et al.
Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption. A test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism
Appetite
(2003) - et al.
Health, ethics and environment. A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations
Appetite
(2008) - et al.
Model of the process of adopting vegetarian diet. Health vegetarians and ethical vegetarians
Journal of Nutrition Education
(1998) - et al.
Attitudes towards meat-eating in vegetarian and non-vegetarian teenage girls in England. An ethnographic approach
Appetite
(1998) Expanding the moral circle. Inclusion and exclusion mindsets and the circle of moral regard
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2009)- et al.
Influences on meat consumption in Australia
Appetite
(2001) - et al.
Measurement of ethical food choice motives
Appetite
(2000)
The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals
Appetite
Meta-analysis of nitrogen balance studies for estimating protein requirements in healthy adults
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Gender and age differences in food cognition
Appetite
Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study
Appetite
Meat, morals, and masculinity
Appetite
Too close to home. Factors predicting meat avoidance
Appetite
Influences on meat avoidance among British students
Appetite
Development of the motives underlying the selection of food. The food choice questionnaire
Appetite
Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores
The Journal of Social Psychology
Right-wing authoritarianism
The new vegetarians. Promoting health and protecting life
Position of the American Dietetic Association. Vegetarian diets
Journal of the American Dietetic Association
The self-importance of moral identity
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Livestock Products, Australia, 2013 (NO.7215.0)
Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Myside bias in thinking about abortion
Thinking & Reasoning
Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Vegetarianism, veganism and meat avoidance. Recent trends and findings
British Food Journal
The moral circle as a common motivational cause of cross-situational pro-environmentalism
European Journal of Social Psychology
Cognitive dissonance. Fifty years of a classic theory
Motivated skepticism. Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
How many veggies …?
Cited by (417)
“We Chinese just want meat!” An analysis of Chinese netizens’ reactions to vegetarian advocacy
2024, Food Quality and PreferenceDon't mind milk? The role of animal suffering, speciesism, and guilt in the denial of mind and moral status of dairy cows
2024, Food Quality and PreferenceRemoving barriers to plant-based diets: Assisting doctors with vegan patients
2024, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics
- ☆
Acknowledgments: We thank Paul Rozin for helpful discussions and Natalie Peelish for her assistance with Study 1a, and Kristin Wegener for her assistance with Study 1b.