Litcius/Paper detail

Food for Thought: Investigating Communication Strategies to Counteract Moral Disengagement Regarding Meat Consumption

Benjamin Buttlar, Alisa Rothe, Simon Kleinert, Lena Hahn, Eva Walther

2020Environmental Communication31 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

Eating less meat would benefit environmental sustainability, human health, and animal welfare. Providing information about this, however, does often not lead people to adopt according beliefs, attitudes or behaviors. In fact, dietary changes are often prevented by dissonance reduction (i.e. moral disengagement) if information elicits a conflict regarding meat. In the present investigation we thus aimed to address moral disengagement via a communication strategy that consisted of two stages: In Stage I, we presented information by showing distressing scenes from animal agriculture. In Stage II, we then counteracted moral disengagement in a dialog. Two studies indicate that, following the dialog, people’s evaluations of meat changed and their willingness to eat meat decreased; this seemed to result from lowered moral disengagement. By providing an empirically tested communication strategy for addressing moral disengagement on the exemplary conflict regarding meat, we hope to inspire research and interventions that intend to communicate (environmental) issues.

Topics & Concepts

Cognitive dissonanceDisengagement theoryPsychologyMoral disengagementSocial psychologyDialog boxPsychological interventionConsumption (sociology)Animal welfareSustainabilitySociologyMedicineSocial scienceGerontologyBiologyWorld Wide WebPsychiatryComputer scienceEcologyEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactAnimal and Plant Science Education
Food for Thought: Investigating Communication Strategies to Counteract Moral Disengagement Regarding Meat Consumption | Litcius