Meat consumption: Education level makes the difference

You are what you eat?

Psychological research on meat consumption. From a psychological perspective, dietary patterns that embrace or reject the consumption of animal products are of particular interest because they contain an ethical dimension, namely the question of whether it is justified to kill animals for meat consumption.

Alongside this, considerations regarding health and environmental protection also play a role, as the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than any other industry and high consumption of meat (especially red and processed meat) is associated with an increased risk of various diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and higher mortality in general.

This article presents psychological research on dietary patterns that include the consumption of meat and dietary patterns that reject the consumption of animal products, examining them through three aspects:

1. Individual differences between dietary groups,
2. dietary pattern as a political issue, and
3. research on the perception of those being eaten. The individual dietary patterns are defined beforehand.

In an omnivorous diet, meat from certain mammal species (such as pig, cattle, and sheep) and birds (such as chicken, turkey, and duck), as well as various fish species and seafood, is consumed. While a vegetarian diet is characterized by the absence of animal flesh, a vegan diet is defined by the exclusion of all animal-derived products, meaning not only meat but also eggs, milk, and dairy products. Although more and more people are choosing not to consume meat or any animal products, the estimated number of people following a vegetarian or vegan diet fluctuates over time, across countries, and between different studies. For example, the prevalence of vegetarian diets has varied between 2 percent and 10 percent over the past 20 years in Germany. In other Western European countries and the United States, the figure fluctuates between 2 percent and 9 percent. A recent study using data representative of the German population found a share of 2.5 percent self-identified vegetarians and 0.3 percent vegans in 2014. In 2015, 5.4 percent of respondents stated that they ate predominantly or exclusively vegetarian, and 0.6 percent stated that they ate predominantly or exclusively vegan.

However, not all people who report eating predominantly vegetarian or vegan diets actually conform to these definitions in their eating behavior. There are also people who identify as vegetarians and yet consume meat and fish. These inconsistencies highlight the particular importance of distinguishing between reported membership in a group with a specific belief system (vegetarianism, veganism) and actual eating behavior. In the following, vegans and vegetarians are grouped together, as the proportion of people following a vegan diet in most studies is too small to examine them as a separate group.

Individual differences among eaters

Why do some people choose a vegan or vegetarian diet while others do not? The most frequently cited reasons for an entirely or partially plant-based diet are ethical concerns regarding animals or health considerations. In addition, environmental concerns and disgust towards meat are frequently mentioned. When people who eat meat are asked why they do so, the most commonly given reason is that they enjoy the taste, followed by habit, social influence, and health considerations (a diet without meat is perceived as unhealthy).

Furthermore, a connection with sociodemographic factors such as gender, age, and socioeconomic status is being discussed. Meat as a symbol of masculinity, strength, and dominance over nature is still regarded today as an archetypal food for men. The consumption of plant-based foods, by contrast, is more commonly associated with femininity and weakness. It is therefore unsurprising that women, on average, consume less meat than men and more frequently report living vegetarian lifestyles. Studies representative of the German population found that vegetarians are on average younger than meat-eating individuals; however, among meat-eaters, younger individuals consume more meat than older ones. Educational attainment in particular is an important influencing factor on dietary habits. A consistently negative relationship with meat consumption is observed here, meaning thatthe lower the level of education, the more meat is consumed. Individuals who follow a vegetarian diet, by contrast, more frequently have a higher level of education than omnivores.

Openness to experience encompasses the tendency to try new things, to be open to emotions, and to appreciate aesthetics. Conscientious individuals tend to be disciplined, dutiful, and prefer to plan their actions. Extraverted individuals are enthusiastic and tend more toward action, enjoy socializing, and are more assertive. Agreeableness manifests in the desire for social harmony and in viewing it as an important value to get along well with others, to be trusting and helpful. Neuroticism is characterized by experiencing more negative emotions and having a rather low tolerance for stress and aversive stimuli, as well as a tendency toward emotional instability. In research, these traits are typically assessed by asking respondents to indicate the degree to which they agree with certain statements. Each individual trait is measured using a set of multiple statements.

Self-identified vegetarians show higher scores in openness and lower scores in conscientiousness in such studies compared to meat eaters. Furthermore, international studies suggest that vegan individuals are more open, more conscientious, and more emotionally stable compared to people who follow a vegetarian diet. Conversely, individuals who score higher in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than the population average in personality tests consume less meat.

Additionally, empathy as a personality trait was examined. This revealed lower emotional empathy toward animals among meat-eating individuals compared to those living vegetarian or vegan lifestyles. Furthermore, when viewing a video depicting violence against animals, omnivorous individuals show less activity in empathy-related areas of the brain compared to vegetarian and vegan individuals, as measured by neuroimaging techniques. The same phenomenon occurs in this group when they watch a video depicting violence against humans. In summary, empirical evidence has been found across multiple studies indicating that personality traits are associated with meat consumption. However, it has not yet been conclusively determined whether causal mechanisms are at play, and if so, in which direction they operate: Do personality traits influence dietary behavior, or does dietary behavior affect personality traits?

Diet as a Political Issue

The growing proportion of people choosing a plant-based diet is also an expression of a rising social movement advocating for animal welfare and the expansion of animal rights. It is therefore not surprising that a diet free of meat or animal products in general is positively associated with political attitudes that support animal rights, animal welfare, and environmental protection. Furthermore, a vegetarian diet is associated with a more left-leaning political orientation, while meat consumption is more commonly linked to a right-leaning political orientation. In addition to conservatism, this also includes social dominance orientation — meaning the endorsement and approval of hierarchical structures among social groups — and a tendency toward authoritarianism. These attitudes are relevant and positively associated with the frequency of meat consumption. Individuals with a strongly pronounced social dominance orientation do not eat meat merely because they enjoy its taste, but use it to express their belief in social hierarchies and human superiority over animals.

Several philosophers have already described that the social norm of killing and eating certain animal species while petting others expresses prejudice against these animals and discriminates against them. This discrimination against animals based on their species was only taken up by psychology in recent decades and was termed speciesism. Speciesism is defined as a belief system that discriminates against living beings based on their membership in a particular species. The psychologist Melanie Joy transferred the concept of speciesism to meat consumption and argues that the consumption of animals is also accompanied by a belief system, which she named carnism. The fundamental idea here is that meat consumption is likewise accompanied by beliefs, just as the rejection of meat consumption or of all animal products is coupled with vegetarian or vegan beliefs. Carnism, she argues, is a widespread and deeply rooted system of norms, justifications, and motivated cognitions (for example, beliefs that serve to justify and maintain the status quo), which allows people to block out the suffering of animals in the animal industry in order to continue eating animals. Empirical studies support these assumptions. It has been shown that people are motivated to justify their meat consumption in order to morally distance themselves from it and to maintain the status quo. In this context, the eating of animals is accompanied by beliefs that justify meat consumption as normal, natural, and necessary. The suffering of animals, on the other hand, is relativized, and the killing of animals for their flesh is legitimized through human superiority. An initial study examining carnistic beliefs produced the following results: Belief statements of carnistic justification (such as that eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary) are associated with the amount of meat consumed. Beliefs of carnistic domination (for example: animals exist to be eaten; humans are permitted to kill animals) are associated with whether a person has actually already killed an animal themselves in order to eat it. People who endorse carnistic beliefs also tend to exhibit more hostile interpretations in interpersonal interactions and less empathy. Furthermore, carnistic beliefs are linked to sociopolitical views that tend to be conservative and favor hierarchies among human groups, such as social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. The consumption of meat is therefore not merely a matter of taste, but is often accompanied by beliefs that justify the killing and eating of animals.

Speciesism and carnism are also based on specific assumptions about animals, which are accompanied by simplified stereotyping (for example, all animals of a species are the same) and categorization (for example, as edible animals, pets, zoo animals). Such assumptions are generally found in the discrimination against out-groups. These are associated with the devaluation or denial of mental capacities such as subjective experience and the ability to perform active actions. This form of devaluation can be described as the cognitive component of prejudice and plays a role in the perception of animals.

Every year, more than 65 billion animals (not including hunted animals, fish species, and marine creatures) are killed worldwide for the meat, dairy, and egg industries. In other words, more animals are killed for human consumption in a year and a half than the total number of humans who have ever lived on Earth. The production of animal-based foods represents a form of institutionalized violence against animals, as these sentient subjects suffer physical harm during keeping, transport to the slaughterhouse, and the ultimate act of slaughter. At the same time, humans form emotional bonds with animals; violence against certain animals (such as pets) is not socially accepted. Most people therefore do not want animals to suffer, yet they continue to consume animal products. These two contradictory motivations can give rise to a moral conflict. This moral conflict has been described as the meat paradox. Various processes can be identified that people use to distance themselves morally from violence against animals in the context of food. One option is to give up the consumption of meat and other animal products. Another is to deny edible animals the characteristics they share with humans — intelligence, emotions, and other mental capacities such as agency and sentience. For example, the willingness to eat certain animals is negatively associated with the attribution of mental capacities to those animals. Furthermore, people who eat meat are more likely to deny uniquely human traits and secondary emotions to animals traditionally categorized as edible (such as pigs). Even an unknown species described as edible is attributed less capacity for suffering and less moral consideration when that species is described merely as an animal. The categorization as edible can even negatively affect the most basic perception of faces in primates. Conversely, focusing on the psychological characteristics of animals is more likely to evoke disgust and lead to a decreased willingness to eat those animals.

Furthermore, additional distancing mechanisms can be identified that suppress the psychological confrontation with moral conflict. Places where structural violence against animals is exercised (for example, slaughterhouses) are geographically outsourced and spatially distanced, and thus not psychologically present. The use of euphemisms in language (for example, poultry instead of chicken, production process instead of slaughter, meat instead of body part) can also be interpreted as a distancing mechanism. Such euphemisms mask acts of violence, degrade animals to lifeless objects, and prevent a psychological awareness of the violence inflicted upon the subject of the animal.

Many psychological studies illustrate how institutionalized violence against animals influences psychological processes on the human side. The distancing strategies described, as well as the beliefs underlying the eating of animals, support moral disengagement and justify both one's own and general meat consumption.

Conclusion

A psychological perspective on the consumption of animals or its rejection underscores individual differences among those who eat in terms of personality, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as in the perception of animals. Nevertheless, studies on the influence of structural, societal, and situational factors that support the consumption of animals and explain how these factors interact are still lacking. Given the negative impacts of animal consumption, it appears important to learn more about the psychological processes in the context of meat consumption, in order to initiate behavioral changes at the individual and structural level in the future.

This text is published under the Creative Commons License. by-nc-nd/3.0/ Author: Tamara Pfeiler for Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte/bpb.de.

You can help all animals and our planet with compassion. Choose empathy on your plate and in your glass. Go vegan.