“Do you consider animal welfare to be important?” activating cognitive dissonance via value activation can promote vegetarian choices

Bouwman, Emily; Bolderdijk, Jan Willem; Onwezen, Marleen C.; Taufik, Danny

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101871

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, one may try to increase individual altruism or empathy by inducing reflections about potential harms or by letting people reaffirm their moral values (Schneider & Weber, 2021). For instance, morally neutral prompts to reflect on animal welfare have shown promise in getting people to reduce their meat consumption, an area where cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance play an important role (Bouwman et al, 2022). In the same context, Bastian (2019) discussed related strategies to overcome motivated resistance in meat eating, like focusing on positive moral outcomes rather than guilt or shame, or emphasizing viable alternatives to meat.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ignorance by choice: A meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its consequences.

Vu,

Soraperra,

Leib

et al. 2023

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People sometimes avoid information about the impact of their actions as an excuse to be selfish. Such "willful ignorance" reduces altruistic behavior and has detrimental effects in many consumer and organizational contexts. We report the first meta-analysis on willful ignorance, testing the robustness of its impact on altruistic behavior and examining its underlying motives. We analyze 33,603 decisions made by 6,531 participants in 56 different treatment effects, all employing variations of an experimental paradigm assessing willful ignorance. Meta-analytic results reveal that 40% of participants avoid easily obtainable information about the consequences of their actions on others, leading to a 15.6-percentage point decrease in altruistic behavior compared to when information is provided. We discuss the motives behind willful Psychological Bulletin

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ignorance by choice: A meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its consequences.

Vu,

Soraperra,

Leib

et al. 2023

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, future research could examine the promotion of veg*n diets as a way to reclaim individuality: One does not have to identify with a particular group (veg*n or omnivore, male or female, liberal or conservative, etc. ), in order to reflect on whether one’s diet violates one’s moral values ( Bruers, 2021 ; Bouwman et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Omnivores may (privately) accept claims that animal products entail avoidable harm (e.g., to animals, the environment) and might reduce dissonance by aligning their dietary behavior more with their moral identity and principles ( Feinberg et al, 2019 ; Bouwman et al, 2022 ; De Groeve and Rosenfeld, 2022 ), thus rejecting animal-product consumption at least partially by making shifts toward veg*n diets ( Rothgerber, 2020 ). One recent study ( Silva Souza and O’Dwyer, 2022 ) found personal health arguments with a mixed recommendation (i.e., to reduce or eliminate animal products) could not persuade people to eat less animal products, but that arguments related to animal rights and environmental welfare were effective to increase omnivores’ willingness to reduce (not cease) animal-product consumption via elevated dissonance.…”

Section: Theoretical Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal-based diets in Western countries are increasingly regarded as unsustainable because of their impact on human health, environmental and animal welfare. Promoting shifts toward more plant-based diets seems an effective way to avoid these harms in practice. Nevertheless, claims against the consumption of animal products contradict the ideology of the omnivorous majority known as carnism. Carnism supports animal-product consumption as a cherished social habit that is harmless and unavoidable and invalidates minorities with plant-based diets: vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns). In this theoretical review, we integrate socio-psychological and empirical literature to provide an identity-based motivational account of ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy. Advocates who argue against the consumption of animal products often make claims that it is harmful, and avoidable by making dietary changes toward veg*n diets. In response, omnivores are likely to experience a simultaneous threat to their moral identity and their identity as consumer of animal products, which may arouse motivations to rationalize animal-product consumption and to obscure harms. If omnivores engage in such motivated reasoning and motivated ignorance, this may also inform negative stereotyping and stigmatization of veg*n advocates. These “pro-carnist” and “counter-veg*n” defenses can be linked with various personal and social motivations to eat animal products (e.g., meat attachment, gender, speciesism) and reinforce commitment to and ambivalence about eating animal products. This does not mean, however, that veg*n advocates cannot exert any influence. An apparent resistance may mask indirect and private acceptance of advocates’ claims, priming commitment to change behavior toward veg*n diets often at a later point in time. Based on our theoretical account, we provide directions for future research.

show abstract

“…On the contrary, dissonance is often only inferred from ensuing conflict reduction but experiences of conflict are seldomly measured-especially in research on meat-related dissonance (Gradidge et al, 2021). Consequently, researchers have been called out to intensify their efforts to measure meat-related dissonance (Gradidge et al, 2021), for example, by adapting established physiological (e.g., Harmon-Jones et al, 1996) or self-report measures (e.g., Elliot & Devine, 1994;Harmon-Jones, 2000); and indeed, recent research implemented more self-report measures on dissonance (e.g., Bouwman et al, 2022;Séré de Lanauze & Siadou-Martin, 2019;Weingarten & Lagerkvist, 2023). In our opinion, the AC/DC model might help researchers to design these tools.…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the conceptualization of ambivalence as a pre-decisional conflict, it is reasonable to assume that cognitive conflict is closely linked to behavior: Prior to a decision, eschewing meat is a viable option to resolve conflict (Pauer et al, 2022). Recent research has argued that dissonance may also lead to meat avoidance (Bouwman et al, 2022;Weingarten & Lagerkvist, 2023) although a sudden dietary shift is unlikely (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017). Such behavior change seems to be an especially attractive option to cope with dissonance if people believe that a behavior would be hypocritical (Stone & Fernandez, 2008).…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment: An Integration of Dissonance and Ambivalence Frameworks

Buttlar¹,

Pauer²,

Harreveld³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on ambivalence and dissonance provides crucial insight into how people experience and cope with cognitive conflict. Despite the conceptual overlap between ambivalence and dissonance, researchers often apply and discuss both constructs separately. To demonstrate how ambivalence and dissonance complement each other, we compare contemporary frameworks of meat-related conflicts as a case example: We describe which conflicts are experienced by whom, when and why they are elicited, and how they are resolved. Drawing on the notion that ambivalence reflects a pre-decisional conflict and dissonance reflects a post-decisional conflict, we then propose the Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment (AC/DC model). The AC/DC model illustrates how ambivalence and dissonance affect each other and provides insights into which triggers induce these distinct conflicts, what determines divergent routes to cope with conflict, and in which way people resolve different conflicts in the long run.

show abstract

“Do you consider animal welfare to be important?” activating cognitive dissonance via value activation can promote vegetarian choices

Cited by 12 publications

References 47 publications

Ignorance by choice: A meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its consequences.

Ignorance by choice: A meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its consequences.

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

The Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment: An Integration of Dissonance and Ambivalence Frameworks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About