Leveraging Cognitive Dissonance To Reduce Meat Consumption
Many people say they care about animals and the environment but still continue eating meat. The conflict between their beliefs and behaviors can give rise to uneasy feelings, or cognitive dissonance. In order to continue eating meat while avoiding cognitive dissonance, people employ adaptive thinking practices such as strategic ignorance, where they actively avoid information that conflicts with their eating habits.
Though some advocates are wary of making omnivores aware of their cognitive dissonance, the authors of this paper argue that it can be used strategically to encourage dietary change. Here, they examine the effect of triggering cognitive dissonance in a food choice setting and exploring whether it encourages consumers to choose a meat-free meal.
The authors conducted two studies, including an online survey of 725 Dutch meat-eaters and a field study at a restaurant. For the survey, participants were asked to imagine themselves at either a hospital or a zoo. Afterward, some participants were asked whether they felt animal welfare was important, while others were asked whether they felt health was important. The authors measured respondents’ meat-related cognitive dissonance, their intentions to eat a vegetarian meal, and several other factors including their strategic ignorance.
Study 1 found that participants asked to reflect on animal welfare experienced more dissonance than those asked to reflect on health. Furthermore, those who experienced more cognitive dissonance tended to choose a vegetarian meal option. Although frequent meat-eaters who cared about animal welfare tended to use strategic ignorance to justify choosing a meat option, those who ate meat only occasionally were more likely to look up information on animal welfare and, in turn, choose a vegetarian option more often.
Study 2 was conducted at a restaurant in a Dutch zoo. The researchers displayed promotional posters that either triggered cognitive dissonance (“Do you consider animal welfare to be important?”), mentioned animal welfare in another way (stating that vegetarian burgers are animal-friendly and cost the same as meat-based ones), included both messages, or did not feature any promotions. They then observed the proportion of vegetarian burgers ordered based on which type of promotional material was displayed.
Over a period of 29 days during which 1883 burgers were sold, the percentage of vegetarian burgers ordered almost doubled when promotional materials triggering cognitive dissonance were used compared to no promotional material or materials that used the alternative animal welfare promotion.
This work stresses the need for activists and policymakers to provide contexts that encourage people to reflect on the values that are important to them. However, the authors provide a word of caution: When triggering cognitive dissonance as a way to encourage meatless meal purchases, it’s important to make sure these options are just as accessible as conventional meat ones (e.g., in terms of cost). Otherwise, there is a risk that the strategy may backfire.
For those who work in dietary advocacy, one key takeaway is that cognitive dissonance isn’t necessarily something to avoid in campaigns. When used strategically and when targeting the right audience, advocates can help people live by the animal-friendly values that they claim are important.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101871