Most people both eat animals and care about animals. Research has begun to examine the psychological processes that allow people to negotiate this “meat paradox.” To understand the psychology of eating animals, we examine characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior). People who value masculinity, enjoy meat and do not see it as a moral issue, and find dominance and inequality acceptable are most likely to consume animals. Perceiving animals as highly dissimilar to humans and as lacking mental attributes, such as the capacity for pain, also supports meat-eating. In addition to these beliefs, values, and perceptions, the act of eating meat triggers psychological processes that regulate negative emotions associated with eating animals. We conclude by discussing the implications of this research for understanding the psychology of morality.
BastianB.LoughnanS.HaslamN.RadkeH. (2012). (See References). An experimental study of meat eating and emotion.
2.
RozinP. (1996). (See References). A review of meat and morality.
3.
RubyM (2012). (See References). A review of vegetarianism.
4.
AllenM.BainesS. (2002). Manipulating the symbolic meaning of meat to encourage greater acceptance of fruits and vegetables and less proclivity for red and white meats. Appetite, 38, 118–130.
5.
AllenM.HunstoneM.WaerstadJ.FoyE.HobbinsT.WiknerB.WirrelJ. (2002). Human-to-animal similarity and participant mood influence punishment recommendations for animal abusers. Society & Animals, 10, 267–284.
6.
AllenM.WilsonM.NgS.DunneM. (2000). Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 405–422.
7.
AltemeyerB. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
8.
AmatoP.PartridgeS. (1989). The new vegetarians: Promoting health and protecting life. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
BastianB.CostelloK.LoughnanS.HodsonG. (2012). When closing the human-animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 36, 100–107.
11.
BastianB.LoughnanS.HaslamN.RadkeH. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256.
BilewiczM.ImhoffR.DrogoszM. (2011). The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 201–209.
14.
BratanovaB.LoughnanS.BastianB. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196.
15.
FesslerD.NavarreteC. (2003). Meat is good to taboo: Dietary proscriptions as a product of the interaction of psychological mechanisms and social processes. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3, 1–40.
GrayK.YoungL.WaytzA. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124.
18.
GreeneJ. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 322–323.
19.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
20.
HaidtJ.JosephC. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In CarruthersP.LaurenceS.StichS. (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
Harmon-JonesE.MillsJ. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22.
HerzogH. (2010). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: Why it’s so hard to think straight about animals. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
23.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.HeppS. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 521–537.
24.
JoyM. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press.
25.
LeaE.WorsleyA. (2003). Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Appetite, 6, 127–136.
26.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.BastianB. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of mind and moral status to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159.
27.
PlousS. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–52.
28.
RoseL.MarshallF. (1996). Meat eating, hominid sociality, and home bases revisited. Current Anthropology, 37, 307–338.
29.
RothgerberH. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 363–375.
30.
RozinP. (1996). Towards a psychology of food and eating: From motivation to module to model to marker, morality, meaning, and metaphor. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 18–24.
31.
RozinP. (2004). Meat. In KatzS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of food (pp. 666–671). New York, NY: Scribner.
32.
RozinP. (2006). Domain denigration and process preference in academic psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 365–376.
33.
RozinP.HormesJ.FaithM.WansinkB. (2012). Is meat male? A quantitative multimethod framework to establish metaphoric relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 629–643.
34.
RozinP.MarkwithM.StoessC. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67–73.
35.
RubyM. (2012). Vegetarianism: A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58, 141–150.
36.
RubyM.HeineS. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56, 447–450.
37.
RubyM.HeineS. (2012). Too close to home. Factors predicting meat avoidance. Appetite, 59, 47–52.
38.
RubyM.HeineS.KambleS.ChengT.WaddarM. (2013). Compassion and contamination: Cultural differences in vegetarianism. Appetite, 71, 340–348.
39.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SingerP. (1975). Animal liberation: Towards an end to man’s inhumanity to animals. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
41.
StanfordC. (1999). The hunting apes: Meat eating and the origins of human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
TischlerJ. (2012). A brief history of animal law, part II (1985–2011). Stanford Journal of Animal Law and Policy, 27, 57–59.
43.
WaytzA.GrayK.EpleyN.WegnerD. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 383–388.]
