In Western societies, consumers often remain disconnected from the animal origins of meat, which facilitates consumption by reducing empathy and moral concern. Thus, researchers investigated how different types of animal reminders influence meat consumers’ emotions and willingness to change their diet. The study addresses the “meat paradox,” where many people enjoy eating meat while simultaneously being against animal cruelty.

The research involved 421 meat-eating participants from the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions:

1. Control: viewing an image of a pork chop alone
2. Caring appeal: viewing an image of a pork chop paired with a human petting a pig
3. Cruelty appeal: viewing an image of a pork chop paired with a human stunning a pig before slaughter

The researchers measured three categories of moral emotions. These emotions arise in response to actions perceived as harmful or helpful and inform people’s moral judgments. They include:

• Victim-oriented emotions (e.g., sympathy, compassion, empathy, pity, sadness)
• Perpetrator-oriented emotions (e.g., hostility, disgust, anger, repulsion, outrage)
• Self-oriented emotions (e.g., guilt, shame, blameworthiness, anger at oneself, disgust with oneself, dissatisfaction with oneself)

Participants who saw pig images alongside the pork chop reported substantially stronger moral emotions compared to those who saw only the pork chop. The cruelty appeal produced the strongest emotional response across all three categories. Participants exposed to the image of stunning reported significantly higher levels of compassion and sadness for pigs (mean rating of 4.82 on a seven-point scale) compared to the caring (3.99) and control (2.88) conditions. The cruelty appeal also evoked substantially more anger and disgust toward humans handling pigs (3.73) compared to the caring (2.55) and control (2.30) conditions. Self-oriented emotions like guilt and shame followed a similar pattern, with the cruelty condition (3.23) generating stronger responses than the caring (2.48) and control (1.85) conditions.

These moral emotions predicted willingness to change pork chop consumption. Victim-oriented and perpetrator-oriented emotions showed the strongest effects, while self-oriented emotions had a weaker influence. The cruelty appeal increased willingness to change consumption through its effect on moral emotions, particularly those directed at perpetrators and victims.

The study revealed an important complicating factor. While moral emotions increased willingness to reduce pork consumption, the animal appeals also triggered defensive justifications for eating pork once researchers statistically controlled for emotional responses. Participants exposed to the cruelty appeal showed both higher moral emotions and, separately, increased tendency to justify pork consumption. This pattern suggests moral disengagement. When people experience moral emotions that conflict with their desire to eat meat, they may resist or ignore those emotions by constructing justifications.

Exploratory analyses showed that participants’ desire to eat meat predicted considerably more variance in both pork-eating justification and willingness to change consumption than the experimental conditions did. This indicates that taste preferences and enjoyment of meat remain a major obstacle to dietary change.

Women showed consistently stronger responses than men across nearly all measures. They reported higher levels of victim-oriented, perpetrator-oriented, and self-oriented emotions, greater willingness to change their pork consumption, fewer justifications for eating pork, and more animal solidarity. The effect sizes for gender differences were moderate to large. However, the experimental conditions explained substantially more variance in moral emotions than gender did, while gender better predicted willingness to change consumption and justification patterns.

The findings offer several practical insights for organizations and individuals working to reduce meat consumption through animal advocacy. Balance emotional appeals with practical solutions. While cruelty appeals effectively evoke moral outrage and empathy, they can also trigger defensive reactions. Advocates should pair emotional messaging with concrete, non-confrontational alternatives that help people translate moral concerns into action. Rather than simply showing animal suffering, campaigns should provide accessible information about plant-based options and resources for dietary transition.

Instead of presenting meat avoidance solely as a moral obligation, advocates could emphasize the opportunity to explore new and enjoyable taste experiences. This approach may help overcome the hedonic barrier, which appears more influential than short-term emotional responses in determining actual consumption patterns.

Women appear more responsive to animal appeals than men, suggesting that campaigns may benefit from audience segmentation. Messages targeting men might require different framing or additional elements to overcome lower baseline empathy and higher justification tendencies.

The cruelty appeal’s effectiveness stemmed largely from evoking anger and disgust toward humans causing animal harm. This suggests that making human agency visible in meat production (rather than just showing suffering animals) may strengthen moral responses. However, advocates should avoid messages that allow meat-eaters to displace responsibility onto others (such as slaughterhouse workers) while continuing their own consumption.

The study confirms that animal appeals can increase willingness for dietary change through moral emotions, but also highlights the persistent challenge of overcoming hedonic attachment to meat. Effective advocacy likely requires combining emotional appeals with practical support, positive framing, and sustained engagement to help people overcome psychological defenses and translate moral concerns into lasting behavior change.