Is It Bittersweet to Eat Meat?

Is it bittersweet to eat meat? How young, single Norwegian adults feel about eating meat, and their intention to eat less Sofie Tellefsen Holm Submitted as a Master Thesis in Community Psychology Department of Psychology University of Oslo May 2018 I II III © Author Year: 2018 Title: Is it bittersweet to eat meat? How young, single Norwegian adults feel about eating meat, and their intention to eat less Author: Sofie Tellefsen Holm http://www.duo.uio.no Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo IV Abstract The purpose of the current thesis was to explore meat induced cognitive dissonance in a population of young, single Norwegian adults. This was examined by conducting 12 semi- structured interviews adressing three research questions: Is cognitive dissonance experienced? If yes, how is it described, and how is it dealt with? Thematic analysis showed that single adult Norwegians do experience cognitive dissonance related to eating meat, however not to an extent where it is experienced as very problematic. The conflict was induced by knowing that meat eating negatively impacts the environment, concerns about animal welfare, and as a result of making the animal-meat connection. Behavioural changes and managing attitudes were mechanisms used to deal with the cognitive dissonance. A quantitative Pilot Study was designed to test how well Theory of Planned behaviour predicts people’s meat eating intentions, and how well it explains cognitive dissonance in meat eaters. Based on data from the Pilot Study, habit strength, knowledge, and outcome expectancies were added as dependent variables for Study 1. Study 1 adressed two research questions: (1) How can we predict people’s meat eating behaviours from their intentions and what determines these intentions?, and (2) How can we understand the intention-behaviour gap with regard to meat eating, i.e. those who intend to eat less meat than they actually do, the conflicted omnivores? We can predict meat eating behaviour based on individuals previous intentions. If they have previously had a period where they did not eat meat, they are likely to eat less meat today, as a result of changing their attitude towards meat eating, and increasing their PBC. For our second research question we tested two hypothesis and found that habit strength to eat meat did not predict meat consumption when controlling for intention and PBC. Keywords: Cognitive dissonance; meat eating, conflicted omnivore, Theory of Planned behaviour, behavoural intention V VI Summary Title: Is it bittersweet to eat meat?: How young, single Norwegian adults feel about eating meat, and their intention to eat less Author: Sofie Tellefsen Holm Supervisor: Beate Seibt Humans are omnivores. Animals are a part of our diet in most cultures, to varying amounts. However, the types and amounts of animals eaten depend a lot on the culture, and humans can opt for a plant-based diet without any negative health consequences. In more recent years, psychology has taken an interest in our meat eating habits, introducing the conflicted omnivore: those who feel conflicted about their meat consumption. Theory of cognitive dissonance has also contributed to the debate about meat-induced cognitve dissonance, where there is a conflict between values, beliefs, and behaviour. The current thesis aims to contribute to the discussion of eating meat from a psychological perspective, exploring how Norwegians think about these issues. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to explore the experience of meat-induced cognitive dissonance in young, single Norwegian adults. The findings resulted in four master themes: Culture and social norms (Habit and tradition, Background and information, Culturally acceptable meat, and No questions asked), The bittersweet taste of meat (“I have double standards regarding my values and what I eat”, Animal Welfare, Environmental impact, and Making the connection), Changing behaviour (“I don’t eat chicken” Being a conscious consumer, Eating less meat, “I don’t want to be an inconvenience for anyone”, “Am I supposed to only eat spaghetti?”, Price, accessibility, and taste), and Managing attitudes (“I thought about eating less meat, but…”, The meat industry is important, That doesn’t happen in Norway, Taste before suffering). Thematic analysis identified that cognitive dissonance had been experienced at some point in time by all informants, however most had now found a way of balancing conflict and meat consumption. Behaviour change and managing attitudes were the two major ways in which informants had dealt with the dissonance. A Pilot Study was conducted to test how well we can predict people’s meat eating intentions and explain cognitive dissonance based on Theory of Planned Behaviour. This was VII tested through an online survey on Qualtrics. Based on the these findings we conducted Study 1 where we addressed the following two questions by testing 7 hypotheses: (1) How can we predict people’s meat eating behaviours from their intentions and what determines these intentions? (2) How can we understand the intention-behaviour gap with regard to meat eating, i.e. those who intend to eat less meat than they actually do, the conflicted omnivores? Undergraduate psychology students (N = 145) at The University of Oslo completed an online survey in Qualtrics. Two multiple regression analyses revealed that for our first research question we found that we can predict meat eating behaviour based on individuals previous intentions. If they have previously had a period where they did not eat meat, they are likely to eat less meat today, as a result of changing their attitude towards meat eating, and increasing their PBC due to vegetarian eating and cooking. For our second research question we tested two hypothesis and found that habit strength to eat meat did not predict meat consumption when controlling for intention and PBC. This result can potentially be explained by our habit measure/scale. This study is an independent project and all data was collected and analysed by the author. VIII IX X Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Beate Seibt for being the best supervisor I could have hoped for. She provided me with guidance and feedback throughout this project, especially towards the end. I literally would not have been able to cross the finishing line without her. I also want to thank all participants who completed the survey for the Pilot Study and Study 1. I am especially grateful to the 12 informants who let me interview them. It was a great experience for me, and I want to thank them all for sharing their opinions and thoughts with me, and for wishing me the best of luch with my thesis. I want to acknowledge my fantastic friends (and landlords) Hilde and Adam for giving me great study advice, for helping me navigate the sometimes confusing landscape of my hypotheses, and making sure I ate enough food and got enough sleep. Special appreciation goes out to my mum and dad for their constant support. They (quite naivley) believed in me, even when this seemed like an impossible task, and it really helped. Finally, I want to thank my cat Finn and dog Jake for providing positive energy, cuddles, love, and for forcing me outside for a walk every day – I needed some fresh air. XI Table of Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................................V Summary.............................................................................................................................. VII Acknowledgements................................................................................................................ XI Theoretical background ......................................................................................................... 1 Cognitive dissonance theory.....................................................................................................................2 Theory of Planned behaviour ..................................................................................................................3 Existing literature on cognitive dissonance in meat eaters ................................................. 4 Meat consumption and cognitive dissonance .......................................................................................6 Conflicted omnivore...................................................................................................................................7 Dissonance reduction.................................................................................................................................8 Attitudes, beliefs and intentions towards eating meat........................................................................9 Why a mixed-methods approach ......................................................................................................... 10 Objectives and hypotheses of the current studies ............................................................................ 11 Qualitative Interview Study ................................................................................................. 11 Method....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Results and discussion ............................................................................................................................ 15 Pilot Study.............................................................................................................................

Load more