Can coherence-based interventions change dogged moral beliefs?

Abstract

Recent research suggests that coherence-based interventions can change people’s moral beliefs about abstract moral principles, but it is unclear whether these interventions would be similarly effective for specific, everyday moral beliefs. In the present research, we examined the extent to which brief coherence-based arguments about the similarity of pigs and dogs can be leveraged to shift moral beliefs about consuming meat. In two experiments, we found little evidence that strongly held beliefs about the permissibility of eating meat can be changed by coherence-based interventions. Specifically, we found that comparisons between morally relevant capacities (e.g., intelligence, capacities for emotion) of an animal that is frequently eaten by Americans (pig) and an animal that is typically considered forbidden to eat by Americans (dog) did not consistently change participants’ moral beliefs. These findings suggest that even though coherence-based interventions may be an effective tactic for shifting people’s commitment to abstract moral principles, they have a limited effect for a specific moral belief that is more entrenched. We discuss the implications of these findings for psychological and ethical theory.

Harnessing Moral Psychology to Reduce Meat Consumption

“…Thus, people can live with factory farmed meat by accepting that other similar practices (like dog fighting) are also acceptable. A recent set of studies confirms that attitudes toward meat consumption budge little when such inconsistencies are merely made salient (Horne, Rottman, & Lawrence 2021). However, certain emotional responses can combine with consistency reasoning and lead one in the right direction.…”