The research study showed that increased awareness of animal harm in dairy farms, elicits guilt and dissonance reduction reactions similar to meat-related dissonance reactions. These effects were especially pronounced for participants higher in speciesism. Evidence of dairy-related cognitive dissonance highlights the need for a greater focus on the consumption of animal products other than meat.
MARIA IOANNIDOU: People experience moral conflicts regularly and one of the most salient examples concerns people’s relationships with other animals. While most people claim to love animals, they may also engage in activities or consume products that involve the exploitation of animals (e.g., in food, cosmetics, clothes, and zoos). Some animals, however, are treated better than others. People distinguish between different animal categories such as companion animals (e.g., cats and dogs) and farm animals (e.g., pigs, cows, and chickens), and attribute different moral value to them which has implications for how they are then treated. For example, many people consider companion animals as part of their family and form strong bonds with them, showing them affection and care. However, many of these people still eat farm animals, which are considered less sentient and unworthy of being treated with the same level of care and respect as companion animals. This moral inconsistency and differential treatment of animals has been referred to as speciesism which is the ideological belief in human superiority over animals and the belief that some animals are more worthy of moral concern than others.
A specific example of this moral conflict is illustrated by the ‘meat paradox’ where people claim to care about animals yet eat them. The treatment of animals in factory farm settings, especially in the meat industry (e.g., animals are being shot, suffocated and/or electrocuted), has been widely criticized, and is often at the centre of public debate. Research has indicated that when people are reminded that animals are being harmed for meat production, they experience psychological tension (i.e., cognitive dissonance) and guilt about meat consumption. Only recently researchers have started to explore these processes in the context of the consumption of other animal products, including dairy. Experimental research investigating dissonance reduction strategies in response to animal harm in the dairy industry is currently lacking. Would similar reactions occur when considering dairy consumption, given that the dairy industry also involves animal exploitation?
Reminding meat-eaters that animals are being harmed for meat production, elicits psychological tension about meat consumption. Individuals deal with this tension by either reducing or stopping meat consumption or by denying the mind of food animals, thereby lowering the moral status of animals. It is currently unclear whether similar reactions occur when considering dairy consumption. In a preregistered experiment (N = 345 animal product consumers), we manipulated perceived harm levels inflicted upon dairy cows (higher versus lower) to investigate people’s use of dairy-related cognitive dissonance reduction strategies. Participants in the high (vs low) harm condition felt more guilty which in turn, was associated with a) lower mind attribution and moral concern for the cow and b) greater intentions to reduce or stop dairy consumption. These effects were especially pronounced for participants higher in speciesism, while among those lower in speciesism, the effects were weaker (on guilt and intentions to change dairy consumption) or non-significant (on mind attribution, moral concern). The findings demonstrate that increased awareness of animal harm in dairy farms, elicits guilt and dissonance reduction reactions similar to meat-related dissonance reactions. Evidence of dairy-related cognitive dissonance highlights the need for a greater research focus on the consumption of animal products other than meat. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: