The Influence of the FFA on the Cognitive Dissonance of the Meat Paradox

Abstract

The FFA, an American agricultural educational organization, was studied to determine its influence on the meat paradox, an ambivalent response towards eating meat while being troubled about its moral consequences. The study was completed using survey research, which involved asking FFA and non-FFA members about their feelings towards eating different types of meat, such as cows and rabbits. Participants were asked whether they would eat a particular animal and then their reasoning when choosing not to. The results were collected and compared between the FFA and non-FFA members’ responses. Overall, FFA members were more likely to eat abnormal animals. However, whenever participants decided that they were unwilling to eat an animal, FFA members reasoned that they wouldn’t like its taste while non-FFA members chose that it was against their morals. This may reveal a lower moral connection to animals when FFA members, or other individuals who work with animals regularly, spend more time with specific species. This study has implications in the field of psychology, but more specifically paradox, cognitive dissonance, and dehumanization studies. These results suggest for further research into the influence of other variables on ambivalence as well as additional maintenance strategies involved in paradoxes.