Farmers rely on animal slaughter to generate a living. However, they also need to spend time, effort, and money to care for their animals, including providing shelter, food, and medical treatments. Therefore, inevitable moral conflict — or cognitive dissonance — frequently occurs.

In this study, researchers aimed to identify how farmers in the U.K. cope psychologically with this moral conflict, namely the slaughtering of animals who they also care for. The researchers hypothesized that farmers might exhibit “detached attachment,” meaning that they don’t consider farmed animals as either companion animals or simply as products of the farming industry but somewhere in between these views. Using the cognitive dissonance framework, the study assessed farmers’ detachment strategies to avoid psychological conflict about meat production.

A sample of 274 people participated. They were divided into three groups:

1. Farmers, all of whom ate meat
2. Non-farmers who ate meat
3. Non-farmers who avoided meat

Most farmers were male (72%) and identified cows as the farmed animal they were in frequent contact with (64%). Most non-farmers were female (71% for meat eaters and 91% for meat avoiders) and all were companion animal guardians. More than 50% of non-farmers lived with dogs, while over 30% lived with cats.

The participants completed a questionnaire, which assessed their:

• Attachment to their companion animals and farmed animals (the latter for farmers only);
• Perception of the mental abilities of cows (relative to dogs);
• Degree of conflict about meat eating; and
• Perception of practical alternatives to meat.

The researchers found that while levels of attachment to companion animals were similar for farmers and non-farmers, farmers had significantly greater attachments to their companion animals than to their farmed animals.

Farmers also identified more with their companion animals than with their farmed animals — a concept known as solidarity. Meat-avoiding non-farmers identified with their companion animals more than the two other groups.

In addition, the researchers found that, in general, the less participants attributed mental abilities to cows, the less conflict they felt about eating meat. So, even though many worked with cows, farmers didn’t view them as having any more mental abilities than non-farmers did. Meat-avoiding non-farmers were the group who attributed the most mental abilities to cows and experienced the highest levels of meat conflict, significantly more than farmers and meat-eating non-farmers.

Similarly, the less participants viewed that there were alternatives to meat consumption, the less conflicted they felt about eating meat. As expected, farmers were the group who viewed that there were fewer practical alternatives to meat consumption and therefore were less conflicted about meat.

The study suggests that farmers do not experience much conflict about meat despite their role in animal slaughter, implying that they use a number of methods to distance themselves psychologically from their farmed animals to continue their work. This was despite farmers having similar levels of attachment to their companion animals as meat-eating non-farmers.

The dissonance-avoidance strategies used by farmers include detachment from (or weaker attachment to) farmed animals, denial of farmed animals’ mental abilities, and denial of choice of alternatives to meat. These internalized perceptions result in meat consumption being normal behavior for them. Therefore, the findings emphasize how psychological strategies can effectively be used to cope with the recurring moral conflict inherent in caring for but also killing animals.

The research had numerous limitations. The study didn’t explore the causes of people becoming farmers, which could be a significant factor in farmers’ subsequent behaviors and attitudes. The three different groups differed in which animals they frequently interacted with, making direct comparisons difficult. In addition, due to the nature of the work, farmers may not have the opportunity to develop deeper relationships with their farmed animals, even if they wished to.

Still, this study suggests that psychological strategies are used by farmers to distance themselves from the stark realities of caring for and then killing their farmed animals. Three strategies include detaching oneself from animals, denying that animals have complex minds, and denying that people have practical alternatives to eating meat. Considering these “three Ds” could support animal advocates to reduce the reliance on meat in society.

Also, the researchers suggest that the impact of the expanding market for meat alternatives may change future perceptions and raise questions as to how farmers continue to balance maintaining animal welfare alongside a functional psychological distance from the animals. The disruption of this balance may have implications for the welfare of farmers and farmed animals.