The effect of a factual confrontation with the meat industry on the willingness to reduce meat consumption

This study investigated whether a confrontation with uncomfortable pictures and facts about the negative impact of meat production on animal welfare and the environment effectively persuades people to reduce their meat consumption. The theory of cognitive dissonance suggests that people who are confronted often tend to justify their consumption rather than reduce it, to mitigate dissonant feelings. To test this, a randomized controlled trial was conducted. The results indicated no differences in meat-eating justifications between the treatment and control group, implying that such a confrontation neither leads people to justify more, nor to justify less. Furthermore, meat consumption and attachment were found to be positively related with justification, whereas childhood pet ownership was negatively correlated with animal-related justifications. Respondents who took their time to fill in the survey used animal justifications significantly less than respondents who rushed through it, likely indicating a difference in willingness to engage in effortful thinking, also known as need for cognition.