sign in sign up
<<
Home , Animal welfare, Carnism, Diet for a New America, Melanie Joy, Slaughterhouse, Subsistence agriculture

Consequences of consumption: A study of conditions for social change

Alma Mayo Richart BA thesis Liberal Arts and Sciences; Social Sciences University College Tilburg Supervised by Dr. E. Dreezens June 28th, 2018

1

To Nora. For a compassionate, healthy, and beautiful future.

2 Index

Abstract……………………………………………………….….5

Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………….……..6

Chapter 2 Literature review……………………………….……..9 2.1Theory of …………………………….....…….9 2.1.1 Schemas and perception………………..……9 2.1.2 …………….…...... 10 2.1.3 Defence mechanisms of Carnism…………....11 2.1.3.1 Denial……………………………...12 2.1.3.2 Justification………………………..13 2.1.3.3 Cognitive distortion…………….….15 2.1.4 Model theory of Carnism………………...….17 2.2. Conditions for change……………………………...... 17 2.2.1 Awareness……………………………….…..17 2.2.2 Dissonance…………………………….…….19 2.2.2.1 External Dissonance……………….20 2.2.2.2 Internal dissonance………………...20 2.2.2.3 Cultural Change………………..….21 2.2.2.4 Former , dissonance and meat consumption...22 2.3 Hypothesis…………………………………….....……24

Chapter 3 ………………………………………….25 3.1 Dataset and sample selection…………………...……..25 3.2 Variables……………………………...………...……..25 3.3 Method: experimental design…………………...……..27

Chapter 4 Data Analysis…………………………..………...…...28 4.1 Descriptive statistics…………………………….…….28 4.2 Factor analysis and Combach’s alpha……………...…29 4.3 Hypothesis 1………………………………………...... 31

3 4.4 Hypothesis 2…………………………………………..32 4.5 Hypothesis 3……………………………..……………33

Chapter 5 Conclusion……………………………….…..………..35 5.1 Conclusion……………………………….……………35 5.2 Limitations and recommendations………………….…37

Appendix………………………………………...... ……….....…39

Bibliography…………………………………………………...... 41

4 Abstract

Animal is the leading cause of , species , and . It is also directly associated with heart attack, and diabetes. A decrease in meat consumption could help solve many of these problems. However, vegetarians and vegans are still a minority. The central question of this research is: How aware are individuals of the impact of eating meat and how does this awareness affect their meat consumption? In this paper, Carnism is presented as the cause of people’s resistance to a more sustainable based . Carnism is a system that hides the truth behind meat production, normalizes meat composition, and conditions people to certain . 145 people participated in this research through questionnaires. This research shows that making people aware of the consequences of meat consumption by exposing them to makes them more likely to stop eating meat. Awareness about the consequences of meat consumption is a great tool to make people decrease or eliminate meat from their diet, and thus, decrease animal suffering, climate change and health issues.

5 Chapter 1: Introduction

Global warming, animal cruelty, species extinction, the increase in childhood , heart attacks and diabetes are problems that society faces today (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015; Greger & Stone, 2016). These problems are directly related with production — which includes meat, and — and the overconsumption of these products in developed countries. Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of , more than the combined exhaust from all transportation (Steinfeld, 2016). Livestock covers 45% of the earth’s total land (Thornton, Herrero, & Ericksen, 2011). And, animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, , and (Beaty, 2015). Meat and dairy products also affect people's health. A report by the World health organization has classified and as carcinogenic to (International Agency for research on cancer, 2015), and The American journal of clinical stated that one serving of processed meat per day increases the risk of developing diabetes by 51% (Pan, 2011). These problems do not only affect animals or people as individuals, but it concerns all species, the planet we inhabit and future generations. It seems evident that the production and consumption of animal products poses a wide range of environmental, ethical, and health issues. Why, even with increasing scientific understanding of the harm this behaviour causes, do many people continue to consume animal products? Dr. studied this phenomenon for 15 years and her research concluded that the reason why people do not change their behaviour is due to an called Carnism. Carnism is an invisible belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals including dairy products (Joy, 2011). Carnism has three defence mechanisms to conceal the truth behind meat consumption. The first is Denial, people deny the behind meat and dairy production which makes the victims of livestock production invisible: the animals killed, the workers in working under harsh conditions, that suffer diseases caused by meat and dairy products, and the planet's climate which is undergoing severe changes. The second defence mechanism is Justification. People justify their actions with three different myths about meat composition: eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary for humans. Lastly, the third defence mechanism

6 is Cognitive distortion in which individuals objectify, de-individualise, and dichotomise animals in order to make the process of slaughtering animals and eating meat easier. Even though there are ideologies that go against Carnism such as (the abstention from eating meat) and (exclusion of all forms of animal cruelty or exploitation to animals for , clothing or any other purpose) (, 2008), which demand for cultural change, the impact meat composition has on the animals, health, and environment is a controversial topic which most people do not want to know or talk about. The demand for cultural change occurs when the fundamental pillars of an ideology or culture are doubted and questioned. Two conditions for change which could be the solution for Carnism are presented. The first is awareness. According to Joy, awareness about the consequences of meat consumption gives people the opportunity to fully understand the problems livestock production and meat consumption bring. The second one is Cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a conflict between attitudes (a psychological tendency which is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour), and behaviour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1995). This discomfort created by cognitive dissonance, leads individuals to reconsider their values and beliefs to mitigate this discomfort. Joy’s research measured the defence mechanisms of Carnism, however, her study did not encompass the causation between more awareness and no meat intake. Therefore, this research follows up on Joy’s research by testing if awareness on the impact of meat consumption increases the possibility of stopping individuals consuming meat. Participants are also exposed to information about the consequences of meat consumption to analyse if this information affects their cognitive dissonance and attitudes toward meat consumption. Could awareness be the solution for Carnism? The central question of this research is: How aware are individuals of the impact of eating meat and how does this awareness affect their meat consumption?

Three hypotheses are drawn in this research: People that are more aware of the impact of eating meat are less likely to eat meat.

7 People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will experience more cognitive dissonance than people who did not receive this information.

People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will have more negative attitudes toward meat consumption than those that did not received this information.

The structure of the paper is as follows: The second chapter will extensively explain Melanie Joy’s theory of Carnism. This is followed by two conditions for ideology change: Awareness, which is presented as a mechanism against Carnism, and Cognitive Dissonance. In the third chapter the experimental design and procedures are explained. During chapter 4 the analysis is conducted and presented in tables. Chapter 5 includes a conclusion, limitations and recommendations.

8 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Theory of Carnism Joy, apart from being the author of the Carnism theory, is a professor of psychology and sociology at the university of Massachusetts Boston, and at the end of her lectures Joy often asks her students why they eat cows but not , or why they eat meat at all? The most prominent answer she hears is “It is just the way things are”. Joy was intrigued by the observation that people do not really know the reason of their meat eating habit. It seemed as if people were avoiding confronting the reason behind why they eat meat. And even though most people spend much time deciding what clothes to buy, most do not spend time thinking about what animal species they eat and why. People's choices as meat and dairy consumers are affecting the planet we inhabit, the animals we share this planet with and our own health (Robbins, 2012). In the last 6 years, veganism and vegetarianism have becoming increasingly more popular, however, 96% of the world’s population still chooses to support the with their dietary choices (de Boer, 2017). Therefore, why do people consume meat and dairy products and yet most prefer not to acknowledge or ignore the atrocities meat production brings? Joy's research found that the cause is Carnism. Carnism is a violent and invisible belief system that conditions people to behave in ways they would not, if they were fully aware of the situation. In the case of Carnism, eating certain animals and animal products. Carnism is considered the opposite of veganism, it hides the truth behind meat production and normalises meat composition. Joy argues that people eat meat not because they need to, but because they choose to, and those choices steam from beliefs (assumptions and convictions that are held to be true by an individual or group (Bem, 1970) which are influenced by Carnism.

2.1.1 Schemas and perception Joy argues that the reason people eat certain animals such as , but not others, like dogs, is due to perception. According to Joy, people react differently towards these animals not because they are different but because their perception of them is different. People have a different perspective on different kinds of animals, and this variation in perception is due to schemas.

9 A is a psychological framework that shapes and is shaped by our beliefs, ideas, experiences, and perceptions. A schema automatically organises and interprets incoming information (Baldwin, 1992; Joy, 2011). For example, when you think about the word engineer, you probably envision a well-dressed man with a helmet in his head, even though, engineers may also be female and wear different clothes. Schemas act as mental classification systems, and allow us to process information quicker (Baldwin,1992). People aren’t born with schemas, they are constructed and shaped by our culture and ideologies (Light & Butterworth, 2016). People aren’t born with the idea that eating a cow is something normal, whereas, eating a or a is not. It is the culture and people around you that condition your idea of which animals are acceptable to eat and which are not. Therefore, animals you consider normal may not be acceptable or even considered disgusting to eat to other people. In France for instance, eating ’ legs is completely normal and even considered a delicacy. In Cambodia people eat fried spiders, in Thailand are a rich source of , in The people eat raw fish called Herring, and in Ecuador people eat Guinea , an animal considered a in Europe. This shows that for most people the lack of disgust when it comes to eating cows is largely learned (Joy, 2011). The perceptual process follows a sequence: first there is a stimulus, then there is a belief or perception, followed by a thought, continued by a feeling of the situation or object, and ends with an action (Joy, 2011). For example, when people perceive a baby, (1) the baby is the stimulus, (2) then there is a belief that babies needs to be protected, (3) followed by a thought, one must protect the baby, and (4) an action that could be hugging the baby. When people are confronted with , generally the perceptual process that makes the mental connection between meat and the living animal is skipped (Powell & Kalina, 2009). This means that when people have a piece of meat in their plate, they perceive it merely as food, instead of thinking that that meat was once a living animal. The perceptual process goes as followed: (1) People see the meat. (2) People skip the connection between the meat and the animal, (3) people think eating the meat is necessary. (4) Action, people eat the meat.

2.1.2 Cognitive dissonance Why do individuals have to avoid the connection between the animal and the meat they are eating? Joy argues that is because people care about animals, even though they eat

10 them. When people make a connection between the meat they eat and the animal from who this meat comes from, they feel discomfort (Diamond, 1978). This discomfort is called cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a conflict between attitudes (a psychological tendency which is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1995)), beliefs, and behaviour (McLeod, 2008). For example, when people smoke (behaviour) and they know smoking is not good for their health (cognition). In the case of meat consumption, people eat meat (behaviour) and they know eating meat harms the animals (cognition). Nowadays there is a dissonance in society: people have the capacity to care about animals, yet there still is a widespread support for animal cruelty.

Cognitive dissonance produces discomfort in people’s mind. Therefore, in order to mitigate this discomfort, we have three choices: we can change our values to match our behaviour; we can change our behaviour to match our values, or, we can change our perception of our behaviour so it appears to match our values (Joy, 2011) (McLeod, 2008). According to Joy, it is around the third option that our meat schema is shaped. When giving people information about how animals are treated in slaughterhouses or how animal agriculture affects climate change, people make a connection between what they eat (meat) and the consequences of their behaviour. This realisation induces people cognitive dissonance (Joy, 2011).

2.1.3 Defence mechanisms of Carnism Carnism is an ideology as , vegetarianism and veganism are. However, the difference is that Carnism is a violent system, since meat cannot be produced without violence. Violent systems like Carnism keep themselves alive by using defence mechanism systems. Carnism’s defences hide the truth about animal agriculture and distorts what people can see, so that people support a system that they would likely otherwise find offensive or non- sense (Joy, 2011). Carnism counts three defence mechanisms to keep people uninformed of the reality behind meat consumption.

11 2.1.3.1 Denial

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored” -Aldous Huxley

The first defence mechanism of Carnism is Denial. Denial is a subconscious mechanism developed to avoid a reality people don’t want to face (Cohen, 2013). The first step to denying a reality is by not giving a name and definition to the ideology; when the system is not named, the truth is avoided and approaching the problem is more difficult. That is why the ideology of Carnism was never previously named. One of the most effective ways to deny a reality is to make it invisible, and denying the truth makes the ideology and the victims of that ideology invisible (Joy, 2011). The victims of Carnism are invisible to much of the population. Even though ten billion animals are killed for meat production every year, most people are not fully aware of the conditions those animals live in or how they are killed (Joy, 2011). Joy argues that there are three invisible victims of Carnism: the animals, humans, and the planet. The main victims of denying Carnism are animals, those which are raised to be killed for meat consumption, and those that face extinction by the lateral causes of animal agriculture for instance deforestation and dead see zones (Beaty, 2015). The U.S. slaughters one million animals per hour, and that does not include the estimated billions of fish and other sea animals that are killed annually (Matheny & Leahy, 2007). This equates to 19.011 per minute, or 317 animals per second (Joy, 2011) Due to the bad living conditions those animals live in and the brutality in which those animals are killed, some of the biggest meat companies deny journalists access to their facilities. This, may indicate an awareness of immoral behaviour among the actors in the meat industry (Zwerdling, 2007). Humans are the second invisible victims of denying Carnism. Workers in meatpacking and slaughterhouses spend long workdays in crowded factories with floors covered in blood and grease. Workers are exposed to noxious gases from concentrated waste products with risk of respiratory diseases and neurological degeneration. These workers are also exposed to constant violence (killing animals 8 hours per day non-stop), which can generate psychological issues, and exploitative working conditions (Joy, 2011). Other victims are residents living near livestock operations for fattening and raising hogs, who have been poisoned by factory wastes (including sulphites and nitrates). These toxins contaminate the air and drinking water of residential areas near slaughter houses, this can lead to chronic asthma, bronchitis, severe

12 headaches, and nausea for those living in those areas (Von Essen & Auvermann, 2005). Furthermore, meat is often laced with synthetic that have been linked to cancer development, which makes meat consumers another group of victims (Norat, Bingham, Ferrari, Slimani, Jenab, Mazuir, & Boutron-Ruault, 2005). Animal diseases for example Salmonella, Scrapie and Trichinosis can also be contracted through meat consumption (Bryan, 1980). The third victim of denying Carnism is the planet. Animal agriculture is responsible for the largest mass extinction in 65 million years (Ceballos, Ehrlich, Barnosky, García, Pringle, & Palmer, 2015), for 80-90% of US water consumption (Schaible & Aillery, 2016), and 91% of Amazon deforestation (Margulis, 2004). By 1995, 70% of the Amazon forest had been deforested for cattle due to the large demand of meat, and what would have previously been a small-scale , today is a mechanized cropland big-scale production (Margulis, 2004).

2.1.3.2 Justification

“If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities”. - Voltaire

The second defence mechanism of Carnism is Justification. Most people feel affection towards cows, pigs and chickens and believe that they do not deserve to suffer or die (Joy, 2011). However, still most people consume the meat of these animals. To consume the meat of the very species people feel affection for, there must be a strong belief in the justness of eating those animals. Joy argues that there are three myths that have been invoked to justify Carnism, as well as all other exploitative systems, from African , male dominance to homosexual supremacy. The three myths are: eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary. The first myth is: eating meat is normal. When we view the principles of an ideology as normal, it means that the ideology has become normalised, and its principles become social norms (Joy, 2011). Social norms are not merely prescriptive (something you are expected to do, for example covering your mouth when coughing or sneezing), they are also descriptive, dictating how we ought to behave (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Another way norms keep people in line is by rewarding those who conform to the norm and punishing people that do not conform (Bicchieri & Mercier, 2014). For example, eating meat it is much easier (both practically and socially) than not eating meat. Although the is

13 currently undergoing changes, vegan and vegetarian options are rare in many supermarkets, and many menus do not include vegetarian or vegan options. Furthermore, vegetarians and vegans find themselves having to explain their choices, defending their diet, and apologising for inconveniencing others. However, most meat eaters do not question their own choices (Bisogni, 2002). The second myth is: eating meat is natural. When an ideology is naturalised, its principles come naturally to all who share the ideology. Eating meat is seen as simply following the natural order of things (Joy, 2011). Joy argues that like norms, many naturalised behaviours are constructed by those who place themselves at the top of the “natural hierarchy”, in this case humans. However, the belief of biological superiority has been used for centuries to justify violent ideologies (Wallestein, 1990): Africans were biologically suited to be slaves, women were naturally inferior to men and homosexuality was unnatural. The third myth is: eating meat is necessary. The belief that eating meat is necessary is linked to the myth that eating meat is natural: If meat eating is biological, it may be necessary for the survival of the human species. The belief that eating meat is necessary makes the system inevitable, and therefore abolishing Carnism would be like asking to commit suicide. However, it is proven that meat is not necessary for the survival of the human species (Greger & Stone, 2016). On the contrary, research suggests that eating meat is detrimental to our health and its consumption has been related to major diseases of the modern industrialised world (McMichael, Powles, Butler, & Uauy, 2007). If you think about, in North America just 155 years ago people believed that slavery was normal, natural and necessary, that inequality between men and women was normal, natural and necessary, and heterosexual supremacy was normal, natural and necessary. In the case of Carnism: eating meat is normal, is natural and is necessary. These myths are created and supported by private and public institutions that are the pillars of the system (Joy, 2011). When a system is rooted, it is supported by every major institution in society, from education to medicine. Two institutions that play a major role in legitimisation are the legal system and the media. The legal system has defined animals as legal properties, that can be bought, sold and eaten. And the media maintains the invisibility of the system and reinforces the justification of eating meat. For example, images of the process of meat production are rarely shown on TV or newspapers, and when anti- Carnism movements such as veganism are mentioned in the media, generally 74% of the articles have a negative attitude towards them (Cole & Morgan, 2011).

14 2.1.3.3 Cognitive Distortion

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; is the illusion of knowledge” -Stephen Hawking

The third defence mechanism of Carnism is Cognitive distortion. Joy argues that Carnism distorts reality: just because we do not see the animals that are killed for meat production, does not mean they do not exist. And Carnism distorts our perception of the animals we eat. Even though animals are living beings, we perceive them as things or as abstractions. By perceiving animals in this way, three mechanisms, part of cognitive distortion called the cognitive trio are employed. The cognitive trio is comprised of objectification, deindividualization, and dichotomization. Objectification is the process of viewing a living being as an inanimate object. By viewing animals as objects, their bodies can be treated accordingly, without the moral discomfort we might otherwise feel. Animals are objectified in a variety of ways, most notably through language. Consider how, when speaking of their meat, cows are referred to as beef, and pigs as . And the Department of Agriculture (USDA) refers to animals as units. This way animals are viewed not as living creatures, but as pieces of meat. Deindividualization is the process of viewing individuals only in terms of their group identity and as having the same characteristics as the other individuals of the group. This way the individuality of animals is taken away. Therefore, it is easier to see them as objects; for example, in slaughterhouses animals are given numbers instead of names so it is easier to kill them without feeling remorse. Recognising the individuality of an animal interrupts the process of deindividualization, making it more difficult to maintain the psychological and emotional distance necessary to harm them (Joy, 2011). A well-known case is the Stanford prison experiment. The Stanford prison experiment was attempted to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power (Zimbardo, 2007). In 1971 Dr Zimbardo recreated a prison using students. Some students were given the role of guards and some the role of prisoners, it is important to mention than those playing the guards role did not have criminal records or display violent behaviours before the experiment. Guards were given full authority and prisoners were de-individualised by wearing the same clothes, and changing their names to numbers. The experiment was planned to last from 7 to 14 days, however, it was stopped after 6 days

15 as violence used against the prisoners became a serious concern. One of the findings of this experiment was that when you de-individualise and objectify a person, it becomes easier to treat them violently. The animals is slaughterhouses play the same role as the prisoner, they are deindividualized so it becomes easier to be violet with them (Joy, 2011). Dichotomization is the process of mentally placing others into one of two (often opposing) categories based on our beliefs about them (Cohen, 1983). In the case of meat, we classify dogs as friends, clever and loyal therefore we do not want to eat them. However, we classify pigs as dirty, ugly and stupid. As previously mentioned, creating mental classification is a natural process that helps individuals classify information. However, Dichotomization does not only classify the information, it also creates a black and white picture of reality. The purpose of Dichotomization is to create a distance between individuals and the discomfort of eating meat. Dichotomization enables meat- eaters to feel justified because the animal from which their food originates is not intelligent, not cute, unlike a pet, etc., and therefore edible (Joy, 2011). Carnism is a social system that works as a schema. However, Carnism does not only classify information, but also filters the information people receive. People tend to notice and remember only that what confirms their pre-existing assumptions (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979). This phenomenon is called the confirmation (Oswald & Grosjean, 2004). For instant, people that love to eat meat may only pay attention to information that is consistent with the belief that eating meat is normal, natural and necessary. The Carnistic schema can be found everywhere from marketing to education, and manipulates information so rationalise irrational behaviour. Joy argues that only when the Carnistic schema is deconstructed the absurdities and cruelty of Carnism can be seen.

The Matrix is everywhere. It's all around us. Even now, in this room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work…when you go to church…when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth…it is a prison for your mind. -Morfeo, The Matrix

16 2.1.4 Model Theory of Carnism

2.2 Conditions for change

2.2.1 Awareness

“Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act” - Albert Einstein

Joy proposes awareness as the solution to eliminate Carnism. When we become aware of Carnism, we are not merely acting as observers, but we empathise as well. Doing so we close a gap in our , the gap that enables the violence of Carnism to endure. Today there are many ways of witnessing Carnism; from lectures, demonstrations, articles, and documentaries to a dinner discussion. However, Carnism, as all violent ideologies, depends on mass dissociation which arises from mass denial. As previously mentioned, mass denial is the mechanism developed in one’s subconscious to avoid a reality that one does not want to face (Cohen, 2013). Dissociation is psychologically and emotionally disconnecting from the truth of our experiences, the feeling of not being fully present or conscious (Joy, 2011). Dissociation is a threat to awareness because it limits people to make choices that reflect what they really feel and want. Carnism makes people disassociate from the consequences of meat consumption. Humans have a natural capacity to care for and empathise with other

17 individuals (Batson, 1990), when people witness and suffering of other individuals they are able to suffer themselves. For example, when we see someone being harmed, it activates the same neurological areas as if it would be to us. Therefore, Carnistic defences may actually oppose human nature (Joy, 2011). If people would understand the sources of their resistance, for example that their resistance of stopping eating meat comes from Carnism, they may become aware that their resistance to change is due to Carnism. There are five main reasons for resistance: The first reason is that we tend to adjust to the norm. People want to act in accordance with the system; they do not want to be deviant. (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). People have the need to belong to a group or community, and to be accepted they must adjust to the norms groups or communities impose (Pickett,Gardner, & Knowles, 2004). Another reason people resist to witness Carnism is that awareness hurts (Joy, 2011). Being aware of the reality of this system means choosing to suffer. Empathy literally means “suffer with” (Carter, Harris & Porges, 2011). Once people witness Carnism they will begin to suffer with the animals, the planet and individuals that are affected by it. The third reason is the feeling of powerlessness. Realising how much pain Carnism brings to everyone including loved ones, makes people feel powerless and frustrated (Joy, 2011). And the difficulty of fighting against multinationals, traditions and people that do not want to witness becomes a frustrating task. The forth reason is reactance. Reactance occurs when people feel that their freedom is being threaten, or that their choices are being limited (Brehm, 1966). If people feel that other people are choosing for them or prohibiting them from doing something, they will do the contrary to what is being imposed or suggested. An example of this is how companies used reactance in their marketing campaigns. In 1950 -1963, tobacco companies claimed that cigarettes were not malicious to one’s health and their advertisements were launched during popular TV series, and smoking was allowed in public spaces as: schools, planes and hospitals. However, in 1964 scientific evidence claimed that cigarettes are a leading cause of cancer and smoking in public was forbidden. Therefore, tobacco companies next strategy to spread the idea that scientist where trying to limit people’s freedom of choice and claimed that people had the right to choose by themselves. A similar reaction occurs when people feel their choice of eating meat is being threatened, people believe they are fighting for their freedom to eat meat (Joy, 2011).

18 The last reason for resistance is that the human identity comes into question. Witnessing compels people to view themselves as an equal part of the natural system rather than at the top of the food chain (Joy, 2011). It forces individuals to acknowledge the interconnection of humans with the rest of the natural world, an interconnectivity that the majority of the industrialised west have tried to deny for thousands of years (Joy, 2011). However, witnessing is ultimately liberating, when people understand that they are part of a living .

“We must witness the truth of Carnism while witnessing ourselves. We must extend to ourselves the same we allow ourselves to feel for the animals. When we compassionately witness ourselves, we witness our feelings, but without judgment. We recognize our self as victims in a system that led us down the path of least resistance. But we also recognize that we have the power to choose a different path: we have the opportunity to make our choices freely, without the psychological constraints of a covert and coercive system”. -Melanie Joy

2.2.2 Dissonance

“Be the change you want to see in the world” - Mahatma

Like Carnism today, ideologies like slavery, male dominance or heterosexual supremacy, were ideologies rooted and strongly supported in our culture (Facchiny & Melki, 2011). However, today they are seen by most of the western countries as unethical ideologies. What happened for these ideologies to fade out and their contra movements to become something to be proud of and worth fighting, leading to the abolishment of slavery, gender equality and LGTB rights?

According to Facchiny and Melki (2011) cultural and ideological changes are explained by events that cause dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance as mentioned in the theory of Carnism, occurs when people are confronted with new information or perform an action that contradicts their beliefs, values and ideals. Dissonance leads individuals to reconsider their values and beliefs. There are two types of dissonance: external

19 dissonance (new information) and internal dissonance (inconsistency and mental experience) (Facchiny & Melki, 2011).

2.2.2.1 External dissonance

External dissonance occurs when an individual faces an external situation that makes one question the trust one has in their beliefs and norms (Facchiny & Melki, 2011). This new external information can also create dissatisfaction. For example: 1) A individual in the 19th century witnesses a slave is being severely punished. He realises that the way black people are treated is not humane. He doubts. This information questions his beliefs and values and, the ethic perspective of his culture. 2) A man whom always believed men to be more capable than women, meets women scientist. He realises that women are as capable as men. This information breaks his cognitive consonance. 3) A homophobic person discovers that their own child in homosexual. They realise that homosexual people are the same as any other, and deserve to be loved and be free to love whoever they want. This new experience questions their entire homophobic position. 4) A person that eats meat goes to a and witnesses how animals are treaded and killed. They realise that these animals suffer their whole life at the slaughterhouse. This new experience makes them question whether it is necessary to eat meat as its production causes animal suffering.

2.2.2.2 Internal dissonance

Internal dissonances are incoherence and internal mental experiences. Internal Dissonance occurs when an individual discovers that common beliefs and norms which are rooted in our society are contradictory. (Denzau et North, 1994). For example, a meat eater is confronted with the contradiction that humans need meat to survive, however, vegans survive without eating meat. Or, humans are compassionate creatures, however, to produce meat, millions of animals must live in horrific conditions and be killed, usually in an inhumane way (Denzau et North, 1994). A lack of coherence of an ideological system places the individual in a position of dissonance, which leads to an internal crisis (Denzau et North, 1994). When the individual does not find information that confirms their beliefs, they find themselves in a crisis. This creates discomfort which incites the individual to act and try to change the current to one in accordance with beliefs. For example, a meat eater is informed about the suffering of animals endure for meat

20 production, this creates a discomfort and the individual stops eating meat to conform with the new realisation. However, most of the time more than one realisation is needed for a permanent change (Joy, 2011).

2.2.2.3 Cultural change

The demand for cultural change occurs when the fundamental pillars of an ideology or culture are doubted and questioned. People start questioning the statements when those social norms become problematic (Radnitzky, 1987). The more contradictory information circulates and is shared, the greater the probability of a personal crisis which may lead to a societal ideological crisis (Morin, 1991). Another factor that helps an ideological or cultural change is freedom of speech. Since freedom of speech increases the probability of an individual being confronted with dissonance.

When a person or a group breaks away from its culture or ideology it becomes open to a world of unknown possibilities. This person or group is considered deviant. Deviants are those whose behaviour differs from the norm or from the accepted standards of a society (Akers, 1977). Deviance is understood as being a new or a new way of doing things (Choi, 1999, 256). A deviant individual develops an ideology distinct from their group. This person sees the world in a different way. “She/he is able to give up the conventional manner of seeing the world and changing it.” (Choi, 1999).

Even though vegetarians and vegans are still minorities in today’s society, people are more aware of what veganism and vegetarianism are (Ginsberg, 2017). The popularisation of these movements expose their ideologies to the public. These ideologies stand for the wellbeing of animals, the protection of the planet, and a healthier diet. Therefore, knowing more about these ideologies expose people to information about the consequences of meat consumption (Ginsberg, 2017). By being presented with information about the consequences of meat consumption people will start feeling more dissonance than 5 or 6 year ago when veganism and vegetarianism where hardly known (Ginsberg, 2017).

According to new figures from the Vegan Society, the number of vegans in the UK has risen 350 percent over the past ten years (Meager, 2016). Why is veganism and vegetarianism becoming popular? Meager argues that findings published by the World

21 Health Organisation last year, which linked processed like bacon and to cancer is a reason why veganism and vegetarianism are becoming a healthier option for people. Other reason is the diet's growing popularity among celebrities and social media, which makes the movement more appealing to youth. Before vegetarianism and veganism was seen as something only people will follow however the increasing popularity of this movements is expanding its popularity (Meager, 2016).

2.2.2.4 Former ideologies, dissonance and meat consumption

Slavery liberation started in December 1833 when delegates of both races and genders founded the American Anti-Slavery Society, going against the culture of the time. The founders of the America Anti- Slavery Society were deviant people that felt a dissonance between their beliefs (we should all be equals) and slavery. They believed that the norms and beliefs of that time were not ethical and right. The creation of this society and constant demonstrations by those who believed in race equality, were key to the success of slavery liberation (Franklin & Higginbotham, 1956). The Anti-Slavery movement can be related to the vegan and vegetarian movements. Vegan and vegetarian movements go against typical food habits in today’s cultures and is supported by people who feel a dissonance between their belief (animals should be treated with respect) and meat consumption. In July 1848 Elisabeth Cady gathered with a group of female friends, who, like her, felt that there was a disconnection between their ideas and their society’s values. They believed that the way women were treated in society was unjust. This marked the beginning of The Women’s Rights Movement. That same year they organised their first to which hundreds of women attended and argued about the injustices women where living at the time. Even though The Women’s Rights Movement was a success among women, media attacked the Women’s Rights Movement accusing the movement of being nonsensical and defending as what is normal, natural and necessary (Marched Rupp & Taylor, 1987). The vegan and vegetarian movements of today are also attacked by the media. As mentioned before when anti- Carnism movements such as veganism are mentioned in the media, a reported 74% of the articles have a negative attitude towards them (Cole & Morgan, 2011), positioning Carnism as normal, natural and necessary for humans.

22 In 1785 homosexual liberation started with the visionary ’s law reform which decriminalised homosexual acts. What also helped the development of homosexuals’ rights were the publication of articles that made the movement more visible, and the formation of homosexual rights group across western countries (Lee, 1977). Due to the visibility and normalisation of homosexuality, people’s negative attitudes toward homosexuality slowly changed and kept evolving. The “normalisation” and mainstreaming of vegetarianism and veganism is also helping to give the movement increasing recognition. These ideologies where changed by pioneers who questioned what was establish and what was considered natural, normal and necessary. Veganism and Vegetarianism is a movement which is gaining traction. People as well as the food industries in general are increasingly joining this movement (Pendergrast, 2016). Dissonance creates the conditions of change. Dissonance creates a situation in which a part of the beliefs, norms and values that make up an individual’s culture become obsolete. The obsolescence of the knowledge which is rooted in the culture is the condition of an ideological change. And this change can give rise either to a partial revision of the previous beliefs or to a total conversion (Facchiny & Melki, 2011). A partial revision of eating meat would be that people would decrease their meat intake, and a total conversion would be that they would become vegans or vegetarians.

As Margaret Mead said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

2.3 Hypothesis

1) People that are more aware of the impact of eating meat are less likely to consume meat.

23 2) People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will experience more cognitive dissonance than people who did not receive this information.

3) People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will have more negative attitudes toward meat consumption than those that did not received this information.

24 Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Dataset and sample selection

This chapter is a quantitative research to study attitudes and meat consumption patterns. The participants (meat eaters and non- meat eaters) in the study were randomly selected. The recruitment of participants was performed in two main ways: through social media platforms, and via email. 211 individuals filled out an online questionnaire developed with the online survey software Qualtrics. This questionnaire measured participants’ awareness on the consequences of meat consumption, participants’ cognitive dissonance toward meat consumption, their attitudes toward meat consumption, and a of socio- demographics such as gender, age, and educational attainment. To test the three research hypotheses, information was drawn from this dataset.

3.2 Variables

Socio-demographics. People were asked three socio-demographic questions. First, age groups in the following 6 categories: Under 20 years old, 20-30 years old, 31-40 years old, 41-50 years old, 51-60 years old, or 61 or more years old. As there were only 6 participants under 20 years old category, the under 20 years old and 20-30 years old categories were combined for the analysis. Likewise, given the small number of observations for the categories 51-60 years old (n=16) and >=61 years old (n=6), the age group 41-60 was combined. Thus, age is finally recoded into the following three categories: 20-30, 31 to 40, and 41 to 60. Second, degree of education was originally asked in the following 5 categories: Basic education, High school graduate, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree or Doctorate degree. Given that only 6 participants pertained to the first category (basic education) and 4 to Ph.D., to maximize the categories, education was recoded from the original five categories available on the questionnaire to three categories: low education (basic education and high school), medium education (Bachelor’s Degree), and high education (Master and Ph.D.). Third, respondents’ sex was coded as a dummy in which male=0 and female=1.

Meat intake. For the questionnaire, meat intake was originally coded into four categories: never, sometimes, often, and always. However, for a better analysis of

25 Hypothesis 1, always, often and sometimes were categorised as and those who answered never as vegetarians. Consequently, the variable meat intake is operationalised into the following 2 categories for the empirical analysis: 1 Vegetarianism 0 Carnivore.

This 2-category variable on meat intake was used as the dependent variable to test hypothesis 1 on the causal association between awareness and meat consumption.

Awareness. To measure the degree of awareness people hold on the consequences of meat consumption, participants answered 6 statements and 3 questions. Büyükkaragöz, Bas, Sağlam, and Cengiz, (2014) Methodology on Consumers' awareness, acceptance and attitudes towards functional in Turkey was used for the first 6 statements: I think that eating meat is contributing to animals suffering or I think that eating meat is contributing to climate change. (the rest of the statements used can be found in the appendix). The last three questions measuring awareness were also taken from Büyükkaragöz et al. (2014) survey. However, the word “product” used in their statement it is substituted by “the consequences of meat consumption”, “animal suffering”, “climate change”, and “health issues”. Have you ever heard about the consequences of meat consumption on people’s health before taking this questionnaire? The rest of the questions can also be found on the appendix. For all these 9 items, the respondents’ answers were measured on a 100-point scale were 0 stands for not at all, 100 stands for completely, and 50 stands for neutral. Thus, larger scores on these items indicate that people are more aware of the consequences of meat consumption.

Cognitive dissonance. To measure cognitive dissonance, Oshikawa’s (1972) questions were used. The subjects answered 4 questions on a 100-point scale were 0 stands for not at all, 100 stands for completely, and 50 stands for neutral. People that score high on the scale have high cognitive dissonance on meat consumption. Some of the questions were: People make many decisions in their lives. To what extent do you feel that you have been taking right decisions about meat consumption? After a person makes a decision, they usually feel uneasy about it. To what extent do you worry whether you’ve made the right decision concerning meat consumption? The rest of the questions used can be found on the appendix.

This index was used as a dependent variable or outcome to test hypothesis 2 on the causal association between information exposure and cognitive dissonance.

26 Attitudes. To measure the participants’ attitudes toward meat consumption participants answered 4 questions on a 100-point scale were 0 stands for not at all, 100 stands for completely, and 50 stands for neutral by Dreezens, Martijn, Tenbült, Kok, and de Vries (2005). What do you in general think about GMF/OGF?. However, the words “GMF/OGF” used by Dreezens et al. (2005) were substituted for “meat consumption”. People that score high in the scale have a positive attitude toward meat consumption. Questions used can be find on the appendix.

This index was used as a dependent variable or outcome to test hypothesis 3 on the causal association between information exposure and attitudes toward meat consumption

Information provided. Randomly, 50% of the participants were exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption. The information provided to the participants was a short paragraph which explained the consequences meat consumption has on the animals, people’s health and the planet. The full paragraph can be found on the appendix. In addition to the paragraph, a 2.27 minutes-video named “Why taking time away from meat can make a difference” in which the consequences of meat consumption are graphically explained was displayed. A screenshot of the video can be found on the appendix.

3.3 Method: Experimental design

To test hypothesis 1 on the effect of awareness on meat intake, a binary logistic regression model was implemented. To test research hypotheses 2 and 3 on the effects of information exposure on attitudes and dissonance towards meat consumption, a linear regression was conducted. As explained above, 50% of the participants were randomly assigned to be exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption (treated group), while the remaining 50% were not (control group).

27 Chapter 4: Data Analysis

The purpose of this study is to examine whether awareness on the consequences of meat consumption influences meat consumption, and to examine how information affects people cognitive dissonance and attitudes towards meat consumption. Chapter 4 summarises the main findings from descriptive, , and linear regression statistical analyses to test the research hypotheses of this project.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

211 people participated in the research. However, after eliminating missing observations on at least one of the variables used in the analysis (list-wise deletion) the overall sample consisted of 145 participants. Table 1 below displays the distribution of the main socio- demographic variables of the analysis. As can be seen, the gender distribution in the sample is 31.72% men and 68.28% women. As shown in table 1, 69.66% of the respondents are 30 years old or younger, 16.55% between 31 to 40 years old; and 13.79% are between 41 or older. Regarding educational attainment, as shown in table 1, 31.03% of the sample have low education, 42,07% medium education and 26.90% high education.

Table 1.

Variable Freq. Percent Gender Male 46 31.72 Female 99 68.28 Total 145 100 Age <20-30 101 69.66 31-40 24 16.55 41-60 21 13.79 Total 145 100 Education Basic/High- 45 31.03 School Bachelor Degree 61 42.07 Master/Ph.D. 39 26.90 Total 145 100

28

Table 2 below illustrates the mean, standard deviation and range of the three standardised indexes on awareness, cognitive dissonance and attitudes. As can be seen in table 2 the treatment group has slightly higher awareness (75,04) than the control group (72,15), treatment groups also has higher dissonance (39,59) than the control group (34,59) and the control group has higher positive attitudes (64,60) than the treatment group (59,38) group. Table 3 shows the distribution of meat intake, so that 35.53% of the respondents answered Never, 28.95 % Sometimes, 30.26 Always and 5,26% Often.

Table 2.

Control Group Treatment Group Total Variable Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Awareness 72,15 25,69 75,04 24,14 73,53 24,92 Dissonance 34,59 24,46 39,50 24,41 36,93 24,48 Attitudes 64,60 25,04 59,38 24,81 62,12 24,99

Table 3.

Control Group Treatment Group Total Meat Intake Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Never 27 35,53 24 34,78 51 35,17 Sometimes 22 28,95 20 28,99 42 28,97 Often 23 30,26 21 30,43 44 30,35 Always 4 5,26 4 5,80 8 5,51 76 100 69 100 145 100

4.2 Factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha

A factor analysis with principal components was carried out on 9 variables (see appendix for a detailed description of each item) on awareness of the consequences of meat consumption. This factor analysis shows that the 9 sub-questions on awareness load strongly on a single component. Thus, from these 9 variables, an average index of awareness was constructed by weighting for the corresponding factor loadings of these items with a scale ranging from 0 to 100. To assess the internal consistency of the awareness index, a Cronbach’s Alpha test was carried out, standing at 0.90 (>.70 for

29 acceptable reliability). This means that the average inter-correlation among the items is high, and the index has a relatively high internal consistency. This index was used as the main independent variable or predictor to test hypothesis 1 on the causal association between awareness and meat intake, and for the analysis of hypothesis 2 and 3 as control variable.

A factor analysis with principal components on 4 variables on cognitive dissonance was carried out (see appendix for a detailed description of the variables included). This factor analysis shows that the 4 sub-questions on cognitive dissonance load strongly on a single component. From these 4 variables, an average index of cognitive dissonance by weighting for the corresponding factor loadings of these items was constructed with a scale ranging from 0 to 100. To assess the internal consistency of the cognitive dissonance index, a Cronbach’s Alpha test was carried out, standing at 0.68. This means that the average inter-correlation among the items is acceptable, and the index has a relatively high internal consistency.

A factor analysis with principal components on 4 variables on attitudes toward meat consumption (see appendix) was carried out. This factor analysis shows that the 4 questions on attitudes load strongly on a single component. From these 4 variables, average index of awareness was constructed by weighting for the corresponding factor loadings of these items with a scale ranging from 0 to 100. To assess the internal consistency of the attitudes index, a Cronbach’s Alpha test was carried out, standing at 0.94. This means that the average inter-correlation among the items is acceptable, and the index has a relatively high internal consistency.

For each of the three indexes the Cronbach’s alpha was computed. These indexes show acceptable to very good inter-correlation among the items (see table 4). Additionally, a factor analysis for the three indexes was carried out and the results show that they load strongly on two different principal components, the first one for awareness, and the second one for cognitive dissonance and attitudes. However, an independent analysis with cognitive dissonance and attitudes as different dependent variables in hypothesis 2 and 3, respectively, was carried out to follow the theoretical argumentation in previous chapters.

30 Table 4.

Items Alpha Awareness 9 0.90 Cognitive Dissonance 4 0.68 Attitudes 4 0.94 Awareness+Dissonance+Attitudes 3 0.72

4.3. Hypothesis 1

People that are more aware of the impact of eating meat are less likely to consume meat

Given that the outcome on meat intake is a dichotomous variable (1=carnivore; 0=vegetarian), a binary logistic regression model was implemented to predict the probability of meat consumption. Table 5 shows a logistic model with controls for socio- demographic variables such as gender, educational attainment and age group. Concerning hypothesis 1, table 3 shows that, holding other factors constant, for each unit-increase in awareness (as measured in a 0-100 scale), the probability of meat consumption decreases by 1.3%. This coefficient is statistically significant at p=0.001. Therefore, hypothesis 1 on the negative causal relationship between awareness and meat consumption finds support. Furthermore, table 3 also shows that, holding other factors constant, women are 14% less likely to consume meat than men. The remaining variables are not statistically significant. The model explains a great share of total variation in meat intake at 40.1%, as shown by the R-squared in table 5.

31

Table 5. Logistic regression (1=carnivore / 0=vegetarian)

Probability Std. Err. p- Female (Male) -0.141 0.073 0.055 Age (<21-30) 31-40 -0.109 0.081 0.182 41-61 -0.037 0.086 0.669 Education (Basic/High-School) Bachelor’s Degree -0.053 0.074 0.478 Master/Ph.D. -0.057 0.081 0.483 Awareness -0.013*** 0.002 0.000 Observations 145 R-Squared 0.4056 Notes: reference categories between parentheses; ***p<=0.001; **p<=0.01; *p<=0.05; + p<=0.10

4.4 Hypothesis 2

People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will experience more cognitive dissonance than people who did not receive this information.

In order to test hypothesis 2, a linear regression model was conducted with information exposure (control group as reference category) as independent variable or main predictor, awareness as control variable, and cognitive dissonance as dependent variable. As seen in table 6, the difference in average dissonance between these groups is not statistically significant, likely due to the small sample size of the subgroups. However, this regression shows that, controlling for awareness, those individuals exposed to information (treated group) show larger cognitive dissonance (5,522) than individuals not exposed (control group) to information. Thus, while the direction of the association between information exposure and cognitive dissonance is in line with hypothesis 2, the null hypothesis on no differences between the treated and control groups cannot be rejected as the significance level (p-value) stands at 0.17.

32 Table 6. Cognitive Dissonance Variables Coefficient p-value Treated Group 0.168 (received information) 5,522 (3.989) Awareness -0,21** 0.010 (0.0802) Constant 50.25*** 0.000 (6.407) n 145 R-squared 0.056 Standard errors in parentheses; reference category between parentheses *** p<=0.001; ** p<=0.01; * p<=0.05; + p<=0.10

4.5. Hypothesis 3

People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will have more negative attitudes toward meat consumption than those that did not received this information.

To test hypothesis 3, a linear regression model was conducted with information exposure (control group as reference category) as independent variable or main predictor, awareness as control variable, and attitudes towards meat consumption as dependent variable. As seen in table 7, the difference in average attitudes between these groups is not statistically significant, likely due to the small sample size of the subgroups. However, this regression shows that, controlling for awareness, those individuals exposed to information (treated group) show less positive attitudes (-5,82) toward meat consumption than those individuals not exposed (control group) to information. Thus, while the direction of the association between information exposure and attitudes is in line with hypothesis 3, the null hypothesis on no differences between the treated and control groups cannot be rejected as the significance level (p-value) stands at 0.16.

33 Table 7.

Attitudes Variables Coefficient p-value Treated Group (received 0.156 information) -5.818 (4.078) Awareness 0.206* 0.013 (0.0820) Constant 49.74*** 0.000 (6.550) Observations 145 R-squared 0.053 Standard errors in parentheses; reference category between parentheses

*** p<=0.001; ** p<=0.01; * p<=0.05; + p<=0.10

The overall data showed that holding other factors constant, for each unit-increase in awareness the probability of meat consumption decreases by 1.3%. Therefore, hypothesis 1 on the negative causal relationship between awareness and meat consumption finds support. And that holding other factors constant, women are 14% less likely to consume meat than men. A linear regression model was conducted with information exposure as independent variable or main predictor, awareness as control variable, and cognitive dissonance as dependent variable. As seen in table 5, the difference in average dissonance between these groups is not statistically significant A linear regression model was also conducted with information exposure as independent variable or main predictor, awareness as control variable, and attitudes towards meat consumption as dependent variable. As seen in table 7, the difference in average attitudes between these groups is not statistically significant.

34 Chapter 5 Conclusion

This chapter presents the conclusions, limitations and recommendations based on the results of the analysis from the previous chapter and the literature review. The purpose of this research was to analyse the effect awareness of the consequences of meat consumption has on participants’ meat intake, and analyse how information on the consequences of meat consumption affects individuals’ attitudes and cognitive dissonance toward meat consumption.

5.1 Conclusion

How aware are individuals of the impact of eating meat and how does this awareness affect their meat consumption?

Hypothesis one was accepted. It was confirmed that people who are more aware of the impact of meat consumption are less likely to eat meat than those who are not aware. This means that more awareness on the consequences of meat consumption leads to less probability of not consuming meat. This finding suggests that awareness about the consequences of meat consumption can be used as a tool to pursued people to consume less or no meat. As mentioned in the literature, animal agriculture is the leading cause of animal suffering, species extinction, deforestation and climate change. It is also directly associated with heart attacks, cancer and diabetes. Therefore, awareness could be used as a medical intervention to reduce cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes. A decrease in diseases would benefit patients who adopt a healthy and balanced diet. Social care may also benefit from a decrease in meat consumption across the population as meat causes diseases, and hence, cost millions of euros in health care every year (Stewart, S., 2002).

Additionally, as it has been shown that people exposed to awareness are more likely to not eat meat, awareness could be used as a tool in political interventions to reduce meat intake, subsequently, helping the preservation of the planet. Public campaigns in which information about the consequences of meat consumption is displayed could be used to raise awareness among the population ( & Roland, 2005)

Another useful finding when socially and politically campaigning is that women are already less likely to eat meat than men. Campaigns may benefit from focusing more on

35 men than women. A reason why men are more likely to eat meat than women could be because of which dictate that eating meat is manly (Rothgerber, 2013).

Hypothesis 2 is not statistically significant. Therefore, the results should not be taking as academic statements. The sample of this research was significantly small which could have led to non-statistically significant results. However, it is still interesting to comment on these results, whilst taking into account their non-significant nature. The analysis shows that awareness of the consequences of meat consumption could lead to more cognitive dissonance. People feel cognitive dissonance when there is a conflict between their attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. Knowledge on the consequences of meat consumption could cause people to feel cognitive dissonance which according to Denzau et North (1994), can incite people to change their behaviour because they feel discomfort with their current behaviour. If new research is conducted that supports this claim, creating cognitive dissonance on people could be a good mechanism to prevent or reduce meat intake. Policy makers could follow the same steps as those in the questionnaire conducted for this research. First, information about the Consequences of meat consumption would have to be given, followed by questions in which people question their dietary choices as: To what extent do you feel that you have been taking right decisions about meat consumption? This may make people that consume meat re-consider their dietary choices and create cognitive dissonance.

The third hypothesis similarly to the second hypothesis is not significant. Therefore, the results should not be taking as academic statements. The sample of this research was significantly small which could have led to non-statistically significant results. However, it is still interesting to comment on the results, whilst considering their non-significant nature. Awareness on the consequences of meat consumption could lead to more negative attitudes toward meat consumption. When people are exposed to consequences of meat consumption as the way animals are treated in slaughter houses or the devastating consequences of livestock production on the planet, their attitude on meat consumption is likely to decrees. This means that by changing people’s attitudes, people could be more open towards changing their dietary choices because negative attitudes about meat consumption are developed when exposed to information.

36 Consequently, awareness could make Carnism visible. As hypothesis one shows, if people’s awareness about the consequences of meat consumption increases, their meat consumption will decrease, and this could help their health, the animals and the planet.

5.2 Limitations and recommendations

An issue to be considered is that the sample size was relatively small. 211 individuals participated in the questionnaire however only 145 questionnaires were fully completed. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study with a larger sample for stronger significant results.

In the questionnaire used to collect the data for this research, meat consumption was divided in 4 different categories to give more detailed results. However, due to the low number of participants in 2 of the categories and for the sake of a clearer result of hypothesis 1, all 4 categories were combined into 2 categories: vegetarian and carnivore. For further investigations with a larger sample, if the aim is to investigate the variation on the amount of meat consumption between participants, it is recommended to separate meat consumption into more than 2 categories.

Due to the time limitation of this research a longer data collection and monitoring period was not possible. Therefore, it would be interesting to further research on how the information about the consequences of meat consumption presented to the control group influences their long-term attitudes and behaviour. This will show whether information works in the long run (participants negative attitude on meat consumption remains) or is just something momentarily (participants’ negative attitudes on meat consumption fade away). This could be done by sending an initial questionnaire exposing participants to information and measuring their attitudes and behaviour. 2 or 3 months later, those participants that changed their attitudes or behaviour would answer another questionnaire to measure if their attitude and behaviour are still influenced by the information.

It would be also interesting to further research the possible reasons of why women are less likely to eat meat than men. Do women care more about animals and the planet, or is it that women are more greatly targeted by vegetarian and vegan media? Are men more influenced by Carnism than women?

37 For a further development of this study, it would be also interesting to study how awareness affects people with level of education as a moderator. This could help the development and provide a clear target for political and social campaigns in schools to raise awareness on the consequences of meat consumption for improving people’s health, the environment and .

38 Appendix

Demographics. Multiple choice question

What is your age? • Under 20 years old • 21-30 years old • 31-40 years old • 41-50 years old • 51-60 years old • 61 or older

What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? If currently enrolled, highest degree received. • Basic education • High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent • Bachelor’s degree • Master degree • Doctorate degree

What is your sex? • Male • Female

How often do you eat meat? • Never • Sometimes • Often • Always

Awareness These statements are measured on a 100-point scale, where 0 stands for not at all, 100 stands for completely and 50 stands for neutral.

I think that eating meat is contributing to animals suffering.

I think that eating meat is contributing to climate change.

I think that eating meat is contributing to health issues.

I think that eating less meat would be good for the environment.

I think that eating less meat would be good for animals.

I think that eating less meat would be good for people’s health.

Have you ever heard about the consequences of meat consumption on people’s health before taking this questionnaire? 0 I have never heard, 100 I have heard.

Have you ever heard about the consequences of meat consumption on the environment before taking this questionnaire? 0 I have never heard, 100 I have heard.

39

Have you ever heard about the consequences of meat consumption on animals before taking this questionnaire? 0 I have never heard, 100 I have heard.

Cognitive dissonance. The following questions are measured on a 100-point scale, where 0 stands for not at all, 100 stands for completely and 50 stands for neutral.

People make many decisions in their lives. To what extent do you feel that you have been taking right decisions about meat consumption?

After a person makes a decision, he /she usually feels uneasy about it. To what extent do you worry whether or not you made the right decision concerning meat consumption?

A person is subject to various pressures of from other people when making a decision. To what extent do you feel you are likely to be influenced by a persuasion when making a decision concerning meat consumption?

Do you feel that in general you are confident you make right decisions?

Attitudes. These questions are measured on a 100-point scale. Be aware that 0 and 100 stand for different adjectives.

What do you in general think about meat consumption? 0 stands very unpleasant, 100 stands for very pleasant and 50 stands for neutral.

What do you in general think about meat consumption? 0 stands very bad, 100 stands for very good and 50 stands for neutral.

What do you in general think about meat consumption? 0 stands very unfavourable, 100 stands for very favourable and 50 stands for neutral.

What do you in general think about meat consumption? 0 stands very negative, 100 stands for very positive and 50 stands for neutral.

I intend to inform myself about the consequences of meat consumption in the future. 0 not intend, 100fully intend.

40 Bibliography

Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behaviour: A social learning approach. NCJRS Virtual Library Collection.

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological bulletin.

Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for caring. American psychologist.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin.

Beaty, T. A. (2015). Life on the Mississippi: Reducing the Harmful Effects of Agricultural Runoff in the Mississippi River Basin. Ohio NUL Rev.

Bem, D.J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Oxford, England: Book.

Bicchieri, C., Mercier, H. (2014). Norms and beliefs: How change occurs. In The complexity of social norms. Springer, Cham.

Bisogni, C. A., Connors, M., Devine, C. M., & Sobal, J. (2002). Who we are and how we eat: a qualitative study of identities in . Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior.

41 Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic. Press.

Bryan, F. L. (1980). Foodborne diseases in the United States associated with meat and . Journal of Food Protection.

Büyükkaragöz, A., Bas, M., Sağlam, D., & Cengiz, Ş. E. (2014). Consumers' awareness, acceptance and attitudes towards functional foods in Turkey. International journal of consumer studies.

Carter, C. S., Harris, J., & Porges, S. W. (2011). 13 Neural and Evolutionary Perspectives on Empathy. The social neuroscience of empathy, 169.

Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science advances.

Choi, Y. B. (1999). Conventions and economic change: A contribution toward a theory of political . Constitutional Political Economy.

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. New , McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied psychological measurement, 7, 249-253.

42 Cohen, S. (2013). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. John Wiley & Sons.

Cole, M., & Morgan, K. (2011). : derogatory discourses of veganism and the of in UK national newspapers. The British Journal of Sociology, 62(1), 134-153.

De Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2017). Towards a reduced meat diet: and motivation of young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters. Appetite, 113, 387-397.

Denzau, A. T., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental models: ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3-31.

Diamond, C. (1978). Eating meat and eating people. , 53, 465-479.

Dreezens, E., Martijn, C., Tenbült, P., Kok, G., & de Vries, N. K. (2005). Food and the relation between values and attitude characteristics. Appetite, 45(1), 40-46.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, 4, 413-432.

Facchini, F., & Melki, M. (2011). Ideology and Cultural Change: A Theoretical Approach. Association for the Study of , Economics & Culture.

43

Franklin, J. H., & Higginbotham, E. B. (1956). From slavery to freedom (p. 247). New York: Knopf.

Ginsberg, C. (2017). The market for vegetarian foods. Age 8.

Greger, M., & Stone, G. (2016). How not to die: Discover the foods scientifically proven to prevent and reverse disease. Pan Macmillan.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2015). Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2015). IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of and processed meat. World Health Organization.

Joy, M. (2011). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. Conari Press.

Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of personality and , 37(11), 2098.

Margulis, S. (2004). Causes of deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon (Vol. 22). World Bank Publications.

Matheny, G., & Leahy, C. (2007). -animal welfare, legislation, and . Law and contemporary problems, 70(1), 325-358.

44

McLeod, S. (2008). Cognitive dissonance. Simply psychology, 31(1).

McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The lancet, 1253-1263.

Mead, M. (2011). Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. GoodReads.

Meager, D. (2016). This is why are all turning vegan. Munchies.

Norat, T., Bingham, S., Ferrari, P., Slimani, N., Jenab, M., Mazuir, M., ... & Boutron- Ruault, M. C. (2005). Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97(12), 906-916.

Oetsch, J., Tompits, H., & Woltran, S. (2007, July). Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored: Relativised uniform equivalence with answer-set projection. (Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 458). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.

Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and in thinking, judgement and memory, 79.

Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2011). Red meat consumption and risk of : 3 cohorts of US adults

45 and an updated meta-analysis. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 94(4), 1088- 1096.

Pendergrast, N. (2016). Environmental concerns and the mainstreaming of veganism. In Impact of Meat Consumption on Health and Environmental . IGI Global.

Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1095-1107.

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-251.

Radnitzky, G. (1987). La perspective économique sur le progrès scientifique: Application, en philosophie de la science, de l'analyse coût-bénéfice. Archives de philosophie, 177-197.

Robbins, J. (2012). 25th Anniversary Edition: How Your Food Choices Affect Your Health, Your Happiness, and the Future of Life on Earth. HJ Kramer.

Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat () quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363.

Rupp, L. J., & Taylor, V. A. (1987). Survival in the Doldrums the American Women's Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s.Oxford.

46 Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic change, 125(2), 179-192.

Schaible, G. D., & Aillery, M. P. (2016). Challenges for US Irrigated Agriculture in the Face of Emerging Demands and Climate Change.Elsevier.

Slovic, P., Zionts, D., Woods, A. K., Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2013). Psychic numbing and mass atrocity. The behavioral foundations of public policy, 126-142.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T. D., Castel, V., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food & Agriculture Org.

Stewart, S., Jenkins, A., Buchan, S., McGuire, A., Capewell, S., & McMurray, J. J. (2002). The current cost of heart failure to the in the UK. European journal of heart failure, 4(3), 361-371.

Taylor, V., & Rupp, L. J. (1993). Women's culture and lesbian feminist : A reconsideration of cultural feminism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19(1), 32-61.

Thornton, P. K., Herrero, M., & Ericksen, P. (2011). Livestock and climate change. International livestock Research Institute.

Vega, M. Y., & Roland, E. L. (2005). Social marketing techniques for communication: a review of syphilis awareness campaigns in 8 US . Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 32, S30-S36.

47 Von Essen, S. G., & Auvermann, B. W. (2005). Health effects from breathing air near CAFOs for feeder cattle or hogs. Journal of agromedicine, 10(4), 55-64.

Wallerstein, I. (1990). Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world- system. Theory, culture & society, 7(2-3), 31-55.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Lucifer effect. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Zwerdling, D. (2007). A View to a Kill. Gourmet.

48