“Animals are friends, not food”: Anthropomorphism leads to less favorable attitudes toward meat consumption by inducing feelings of anticipatory guilt

Abstract

Why do people befriend animals, yet don't feel conflicted about eating some of them? Previous research on the "meat paradox" suggests that the dehumanization of meat animals plays a crucial role in attenuating the negative affective states that consumers may experience when consuming meat. However, relatively little is known about how the converse process, namely anthropomorphism, influences meat consumption. The current research provides evidence that anthropomorphizing meat animals through the friendship metaphor, "animals are friends", can alter (omnivorous) consumers' attitudes and behavioral intentions toward meat eating, and induce feelings of guilt. More specifically, our experimental findings reveal that anthropomorphism has a negative effect on consumers' attitudes toward the food served in a restaurant and their intentions to patronize it when (pork) meat is on offer. This effect holds whether consumers are invited to consider themselves (Study 1a) or staff members (Study 1b) as taking part in a friendly humananimal interaction. We also demonstrate a similar effect of anthropomorphism on attitudes toward a (pork) meat product and their intentions to buy it, when consumers consider animal-animal friendship or human-animal friendship (Study 2). Last, we show that the negative effect of anthropomorphism on consumers' attitudes and behavioral intentions toward (pork) meat consumption is mediated by increased feelings of anticipatory guilt (Studies 3a and 3c). Nevertheless, no such effect was found with another kind of meat (beef), which indicates that anthropomorphizing meat animals through the friendship metaphor cannot be successfully applied to all commonly eaten species (Study 3b). Implications of these results for meat consumption are discussed.

Sustainable Food Consumption: Investigating Organic Meat Purchase Intention by Vietnamese Consumers

“…In addition, a CFA was applied to conduct the latent common method factor test which further evaluated the potential problem of common method bias. We allowed all the items to load on their respective variables and on an unmeasured common method factor [68]. We then compared the "standardized regression weights" (β) in the model with the common method factor with those in the model without the factor.…”

“…Guilt may arise when individuals perceive that their actions have violated certain social standard or moral norms [67]. Regular purchase and consumption of conventional meat instead of organic one can make consumers feel guilty since they care about environmental quality and welfare of animals, and such action is against their moral and ethical standards [45,68]. Hence, consumers might want to purchase organic meat to avoid this negative feeling [45].…”

Meat‐related cognitive dissonance: The social psychology of eating animals

“…There have been few published interventions testing this latter approach. In one, Wang and Basso (2019) found that thinking of pigs in humanizing terms—a manipulation countering speciesism and the denial of animal mind—led individuals to have less favorable attitudes toward pork, to feel more guilty about consuming pork, and to be less likely to buy or eat pork.…”

Animals Like Us: Leveraging the Negativity Bias in Anthropomorphism to Reduce Beef Consumption

“…Attributing human characteristics to animals makes it much harder for consumers to deny animal mind. Initial research already found promising results in this respect [ 21 ]. However, this research focused on pro-social behavior only and ignored the ability to suffer or experience pain.…”