Understanding individual and collective response to climate change: The role of a self-other mismatch

Harrington, Rosie; Nugier, Armelle; Khamzina, Kamilla; Guimond, Serge; Monceau, Sophie; Streith, Michel

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.935209

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based literature on veg*ns’ main motives and collective goals ( MacInnis and Hodson, 2021 ; De Groeve and Rosenfeld, 2022 ), we presuppose that veg*n advocacy primarily involves claims that animal-product consumption harms animals, while claims about environmental and/or health harms are secondary. Stronger moral convictions, a stronger rejection of carnist and speciesist majority beliefs and a higher perceived inconsistency between moral vs. majority beliefs may motivate activism ( Piazza et al, 2015 ; Harrington et al, 2022 ). In addition, Judge et al (2022) showed that more principled convictions predict engagement in vegan advocacy via a stronger identification with other vegans and animals, perceived collective efficacy and moral outrage.…”

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