Most people care about the welfare of non-human animals. However, those same people routinely eat animal-based foods. The tension between caring for animal welfare and continuing to eat animal products contributes to a state of psychological discomfort called “cognitive dissonance.” Studies show that meat eaters use strategies to reduce feelings of unease caused by eating animals. For example, they attribute lower levels of sentience and intelligence to animals used for food as a way to reduce their cognitive dissonance. 

So far, research has mostly focused on omnivores’ attitudes towards farmed animals compared to animals not used for food. This paper aims to further expand on this subject by investigating whether vegetarians and pescatarians enact the same strategies used by meat eaters to justify their consumption of other animal products.

Vegetarians and pescatarians who don’t eat meat over welfare concerns still eat other types of animal-based foods obtained through exploitative practices (dairy, fishes, and eggs). Therefore, they too seem to attribute different moral value to different animal categories and display different levels of concern depending on their dietary choices. This may be a way to reduce cognitive dissonance and continue eating other animal foods such as eggs, fishes, or dairy while feeling comfortable expressing concern for animals used for meat.

Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind these tendencies can help us identify barriers to the adoption of a plant-based diet. This is particularly important given the increasingly alarming ethical and climate implications of animal-based diets.

For this study, 558 volunteers completed online questionnaires reporting their dietary habits. They were then divided into five categories: vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, flexitarians, and omnivores. The researchers measured speciesist beliefs, mind attribution (perceptions of an animal’s mental capacities like intelligence and feeling emotions), and moral concern for aquatic animals and farmed land animals.

Based on previous studies, the authors expected omnivores to show the highest rates of speciesism and the lowest rates of moral concern and attribution of mental abilities to animals used for food. Vegans were expected to show the exact opposite tendencies. Vegetarians and pescatarians were expected to display more flexible tendencies, in particular:

• Hypothesis 1: Pescatarians would show low moral concern for aquatic species compared to farmed land animals.
• Hypothesis 2: Pescatarians would attribute less intelligence and sentience to aquatic animals compared to farmed land animals.
• Hypothesis 3: Vegetarians and pescatarians would show more concern for animals used to produce meat (“beef cows” and broiler chickens) than those used for producing dairy and eggs (“dairy cows” and layer chickens).

The study found that pescatarians and vegetarians tend to adjust their moral concern and perception of animals’ minds to suit their dietary habits. This also happens when the same animal species is used for different types of food production (e.g., cows used for dairy vs. beef or broiler chickens vs. layer chickens).

This tendency suggests that people variably attribute value and capabilities to non-human animals based on the animal’s perceived “function” (for example, “food animals” vs “non-food animals”). Pescatarians and vegetarians, therefore, use the same strategies used by meat-eaters to reduce cognitive dissonance.

Other insights from this study show that anti-speciesist beliefs may not play a significant role in omnivore, flexitarian, and pescatarian eating choices. However, the opposite is true in vegans and vegetarians.

As the authors note, this research has some limitations. For example, the participants in this study self-categorized their diet, so categories of different eating groups may not be fully accurate. Moreover, this study may have attracted participants already interested in animal welfare, therefore the population sample may not reflect real-world society. Additionally, more research on people’s perceptions of aquatic animals is needed.

So far, research has considered consumption behavior as a predictor of mind attribution and moral concern. However, this study suggests that an increased knowledge of animal minds, level of moral concern, and mind attribution can predict consumption behavior. For this reason, the authors of this study suggest that strategies promoting an increased understanding of animals’ minds coupled with advocacy efforts aimed at increasing moral concern for all farmed animals may contribute to the reduction in animal-based foods.