Science can provide accurate information to society to inform decision-making and behavior. One contemporary topic in which the science is very clear, yet behavioral change has lagged, is climate change mitigation. Climate change scientists use evidence-based research to advocate to the public to adopt emission-reducing behaviors in various sectors such as transportation and food. However, scientists themselves often do not change their own behaviors according to the scientific consensus. We present a case study of a group of natural sciences PhD students, who, when presented with evidence and an opportunity for a behavioral change with implications for climate change mitigation, demonstrated defensive reactions that would undoubtedly frustrate these same scientists if they were doing public outreach about their own work. Our goal is to raise awareness that we scientists do not always practice what we preach but could perhaps overcome this by understanding the defense mechanisms that impede meaningful change.
IPCC. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2021.
2.
PooreJNemecekT. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science2018; 360(6392): 987-992.
3.
WillettWRockströmJLokenB, et al.Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet2019; 393(10170): 447-492.
4.
IvanovichCCSunTGordonDROckoIB. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat Clim Change2023; 13(3): 297-302.
5.
López-AizpúnMHorrocksCACharterisAF, et al.Meta-analysis of global livestock urine-derived nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils. Glob Change Biol2020; 26(4): 2002-2013.
6.
AlexanderPBrownCArnethA, et al.Human appropriation of land for food: the role of diet. Glob Environ Change2016; 41: 88-98.
7.
IPCC. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022.
8.
GliksonA. The lungs of the Earth: review of the carbon cycle and mass extinction of species. Energy Procedia2018; 146: 3-11.
ThunbergG. The climate book: the facts and the solutions. London, England: Penguin Press, 2022.
11.
LeenaertT. How to create a vegan world: a pragmatic approach. New York, NY: Lantern Books, 2017.
12.
AttariSZKrantzDHWeberEU. Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. Clim Change2016; 138(1-2): 325-338.
13.
NewellPTwenaMDaleyF. Scaling behaviour change for a 1.5-degree world: challenges and opportunities. Glob Sustain2021; 4: e22.
14.
IPCC. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022.
15.
ClarkMASpringmannMHillJTilmanD. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc Natl Acad Sci2019; 116(46): 23357-23362.
16.
SongMFungTTHuFB, et al.Association of animal and plant protein intake with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. JAMA Intern Med2016; 176(10): 1453-1463.
17.
HuangJLiaoLMWeinsteinSJ, et al.Association between plant and animal protein intake and overall and cause-specific mortality. JAMA Intern Med2020; 180(9): 1173-1184.
18.
WongCS-ALimCWMohammedHI, et al.Current perspective of plant-based diets on communicable diseases caused by viruses: a mini review. Front Nutr2022; 9: 786972.
19.
EisenMBBrownPO. Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century. PLoS Clim2022; 1(2): e0000010.
20.
SunZSchererLTukkerA, et al.Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat Food2022; 3(1): 29-37.
21.
ArrheniusS. XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Lond Edinb Dublin Philos Mag J Sci1896; 41(251): 237-276.
22.
McKibbenB. The end of nature. New York, NY: Random House, 1989.
23.
KristiansenSPainterJSheaM. Animal agriculture and climate change in the US and UK elite media: volume, responsibilities, causes and solutions. Environ Commun2021; 15(2): 153-172.
24.
KarthaSKemp-BenedictEGhoshE, et al.The carbon inequality era: an assessment of the global distribution of consumption emissions among individuals from 1990 to 2015 and beyond. Oxfam, 2020.
25.
GiffordR. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol2011; 66(4): 290-302.
26.
GiffordRLacroixKChenA. 7 - understanding responses to climate change: psychological barriers to mitigation and a new theory of behavioral choice. In: ClaytonSManningC (eds) Psychology and climate change. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2018, pp.161-183.
27.
HinesJMHungerfordHRTomeraAN. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ1987; 18(2): 1-8.
28.
BrüggerADessaiSDevine-WrightP, et al.Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat Clim Change2015; 5(12): 1031-1037.
29.
TäuberSvan ZomerenMKutlacaM. Should the moral core of climate issues be emphasized or downplayed in public discourse? Three ways to successfully manage the double-edged sword of moral communication. Clim Change2015; 130(3): 453-464.
30.
MoninB. Holier than me? Threatening social comparison in the moral domain. Rev Int Psychol Soc2007; 20: 53-68.
31.
CramerP. Defense mechanisms: 40 years of empirical research. J Pers Assess2015; 97(2): 114-122.
RothgerberH. Meat-related cognitive dissonance: a conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals. Appetite2020; 146: 104511.
34.
ProulxTInzlichtMHarmon-JonesE. Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends Cogn Sci2012; 16(5): 285-291.
35.
RubyMBRothgerberHHopwoodCJ. The psychology of eating animals and veg*nism. Appetite2023; 187: 106582.
36.
GoodAAbrahamC. Measuring defensive responses to threatening messages: a meta-analysis of measures. Health Psychol Rev2007; 1(2): 208-229.
37.
RothgerberHRosenfeldDL. Meat-related cognitive dissonance: the social psychology of eating animals. Soc Personal Psychol Compass2021; 15(5): e12592.
38.
MassonJM. The face on your plate: the truth about food. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.
39.
JoyM. Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: an introduction to Carnism. Newburyport, MA: Conari Press, 2009.
40.
de Freitas NettoSVSobralMFFRibeiroARBda Luz SoaresGR. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review. Environ Sci Eur2020; 32(1): 19.
41.
DevilleAVazquez-RoweIIta-NagyDKahhatR. Ocean-based sources of plastic pollution: an overview of the main marine activities in the Peruvian EEZ. Mar Pollut Bull2023; 189: 114785.
42.
HayekMN. The infectious disease trap of animal agriculture. Sci Adv2022; 8(44): eadd6681.
43.
LeclèreDObersteinerMBarrettM, et al.Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature2020; 585(7826): 551-556.
44.
ClarkMADomingoNGGColganK, et al.Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science2020; 370(6517): 705-708.
45.
AjzenIFishbeinMLohmannS, et al.The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: AlbarracínDJohnsonBT (eds) The handbook of attitudes, volume 1: basic principles. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018, pp.197-256.
46.
ChoueikiZGeuensMVermeirI. Animals like us: leveraging the negativity bias in anthropomorphism to reduce beef consumption. Foods2021; 10(9): 2147.
47.
LoughnanSBastianBHaslamN. The psychology of eating animals. Curr Dir Psychol Sci2014; 23(2): 104-108.
48.
EkerSReeseGObersteinerM. Modelling the drivers of a widespread shift to sustainable diets. Nat Sustain2019; 2(8): 725-735.
49.
MacInnisCCHodsonG. It ain’t easy eating greens: evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Process Intergroup Relat2017; 20(6): 721-744.
50.
ClaytonS. Psychology and climate change. Curr Biol2019; 29(19): R992-R995.
51.
RustNARiddingLWardC, et al.How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Sci Total Environ2020; 718: 137208.
52.
FergusonMASchmittMT. Editorial overview: six messages of climate psychology. Curr Opin Psychol2021; 42: iv–viii.
53.
JalilAJTasoffJBustamanteAV. Low-cost climate-change informational intervention reduces meat consumption among students for 3 years. Nat Food2023; 4(3): 218-222.
54.
AbermanYPlaksJ. When less is better: messages that present dietary carbon emissions data at the individual (vs. aggregate) level increase commitment to sustainable beef consumption. Appetite2022; 174: 105980.
55.
de BoerJAikingH. Favoring plant instead of animal protein sources: legitimation by authority, morality, rationality and story logic. Food Qual Prefer2021; 88: 104098.
56.
WilsonAV. A critical analysis of the discourses around food, identity and responsibility from vegan instagram influencers. Wageningen University, 2019.
FehérAGazdeckiMVéhaM, et al.A comprehensive review of the benefits of and the barriers to the switch to a plant-based diet. Sustainability2020; 12(10): 4136.
59.
CamilleriARLarrickRPHossainSPatino-EcheverriD. Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nat Clim Change2019; 9(1): 53-58.
60.
HansenPGSchillingMMalthesenMS. Nudging healthy and sustainable food choices: three randomized controlled field experiments using a vegetarian lunch-default as a normative signal. J Public Health2021; 43(2): 392-397.
61.
FeltzACatonJNCogleyZ, et al.Educational interventions and animal consumption: results from lab and field studies. Appetite2022; 173: 105981.
62.
RothgerberH. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol Men Masculinity2013; 14(4): 363-375.
63.
AltenburgDSpruytA. Predicting meat consumption from concurrent, automatic appraisals: Introducing nuance to product appraisals. Appetite2022; 170: 105847.
64.
MylanJ. Sustainable consumption in everyday life: a qualitative study of UK consumer experiences of meat reduction. Sustainability2018; 10(7): 2307.
65.
SabateRSBadillaYDelVCGelabertR. Feeding holy bodies: a study on the social meanings of a vegetarian diet to Seventh-day Adventist Church pioneers. HTS Theol Stud2016; 72: 1-8.
66.
FraserGE. Diet, life expectancy, and chronic disease: studies of seventh-day Adventists and other vegetarians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
67.
BaileyEJ. Promises of purity: Adventist approaches to sanctification through health reform. Int J Study New Relig2019; 10: 159-184.
68.
BuettnerD. The blue zones solution: eating and living like the world’s healthiest people. Washington, DC: National Geographic Books, 2015.
69.
AwaludinAJamalJMuttaqinM. The doctrine of Seventh-day Adventist Church on food according to Ellen G. White. Kalimah J Studi Agama Dan Pemikir Islam2018; 16(1): 51-70.
70.
MaibachEWLeiserowitzARoser-RenoufCMertzCK. Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: an audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS One2011; 6(3): e17571.
71.
LeiserowitzARoser-RenoufCMarlonJMaibachE. Global Warming’s Six Americas: a review and recommendations for climate change communication. Curr Opin Behav Sci2021; 42: 97-103.
72.
de BoerJAikingH. Key ways to legitimize diet shifts that favor plant instead of animal protein sources. Ernahrungs Umsch2021; 68: 167-173.
73.
CornerARobertsOChiariS, et al.How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change2015; 6(5): 523-534.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Federal Government direct farm program payments, 2014-2023F Nominal (current dollars), https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17833 (2023, accessed 23 June 2023).
78.
HirvonenKBaiYHeadeyDMastersWA. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob Health2020; 8(1): e59-e66.
79.
EgelerG-ABaurP. Menu choice and meat-eating habits: results of a field experiment in two university canteens. Sustainability2022; 14(6): 3296.
KwasnyTDobernigKRieflerP. Towards reduced meat consumption: a systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite2022; 168: 105739.
83.
MathurMBPeacockJReichlingDB, et al.Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite2021; 164: 105277.
84.
HessDJCollinsBM. Climate change and higher education: assessing factors that affect curriculum requirements. J Clean Prod2018; 170: 1451-1458.
85.
LohmannPM. Long-lasting impact of information on meat consumption. Nat Food2023; 4(3): 205-206.
86.
AlmironNRodrigo-AlsinaMMorenoJA. Manufacturing ignorance: think tanks, climate change and the animal-based diet. Environ Polit2022; 31(4): 576-597.
87.
GhaffariMRodrigoPGKEkinciYPinoG. Consumers’ motivations for adopting a vegan diet: a mixed-methods approach. Int J Consum Stud2022; 46(4): 1193-1208.
88.
ColeMMorganK. Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers1. Br J Sociol2011; 62(1): 134-153.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
