Should animal advocates talk about the animals, the environment, or human health?

Researcher Network member, Dr Luiz Silva Souza, discusses his research on the different arguments in favour of veganism

Humans continue to exploit non-human animals (animals) for food, research, clothing, and entertainment, causing harm to the animals, the environment, and their own health. First and foremost, they harm the animals they exploit. Animal farming, for example, includes conditions of severe confinement, mutilations without anaesthesia, the separation of mothers and babies (cows and calves in the milk industry, for example), and the neglect of disease[1]. These practices are also present in so-called ‘free range’ animal production. Except for ‘lab-grown meat’, animals must die for ‘meat’ (animal flesh) to exist. Animals are sentient individuals and desire to keep their lives[2].

The exploitation of animals also causes substantial harm to the environment and human health. Focusing on their exploitation for food, animal agriculture is one of the major causes of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, species extinction, water consumption, and land use[3]. The consumption of animal products such as ‘meat’ (animal flesh), ‘dairy’, and eggs (animal secretions) is associated with noncommunicable diseases such as cancers, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, which are the main human killers globally[4]. Additionally, the drugs that humans give to animals in animal agriculture and the biological conditions in factory farming entail health issues such as the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the emergence of new viruses and pandemics[5].

Therefore, it is no surprise that individual and collective actors interested in understanding or challenging the exploitation of animals frequently highlight these three types of arguments: the animals, the environment, and human health. The Vegan Society itself does so on its website, under the link “Why go vegan?”[6]. The scientific literature also highlights these three types of arguments and many scientific papers on the theme mention them in their introductory sections[7]. These arguments have gained a larger cultural presence being frequently mentioned on social media and in documentaries that can be easily accessed via streaming services, such as “Dominion” (animals), “Cowspiracy” (the environment), and “What the Health” (health).

Which one of these types of arguments should advocates use to challenge the exploitation of animals? If advocates adopt a deontological approach (that is, based on principles and individual rights), they must choose to talk about the animals. Millions of sentient individuals, capable of having complex emotions, memories, and individuality[8] are right now experiencing great suffering, making this issue the most pressing one. However, when engaging the public, advocates must often be pragmatic and ask themselves which one of these arguments produces the greatest effect in changing beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. The most effective argument might depend, for example, on the course of the conversation, the characteristics of the context, and the interests and concerns of the public.

To better understand these processes, I conducted a study on the effects of these three types of arguments among meat-eaters[9]. I wanted to know which type of argument would provoke the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first defined cognitive dissonance as an unpleasant psychological tension that an individual experiences when they hold two contradictory ideas[10]. This concept applies here since meat-eaters hold contradictory beliefs regarding the harmless and harmful nature of eating animals. In my study, I adopted a more recent and comprehensive concept of cognitive dissonance referring to a state of arousal experienced as negative emotions such as anger, shame, and guilt, that occurs when an individual perceives that they freely engage in behaviour (for example, eating animals) which causes foreseeable harm[11]. I also wanted to know if greater amounts of cognitive dissonance would lead individuals to change their attitudes, a consequence which is well-documented in the scientific literature[12]. I hypothesised that individuals that experience a high amount of cognitive dissonance would express higher positive attitudes towards the ideas of reducing and ceasing the consumption of animals.

Indeed, that is what happened. I asked the participants to read three different types of text, or ‘vignettes’, corresponding roughly to half a page, containing the three targeted arguments, ‘animals’, ‘the environment’, and ‘health’. Each participant read only one type of argument. Here are some examples of the statements that the texts (‘vignettes’) contained:

Animals: “Chickens are raised in small spaces, three or four chickens in a 50 centimetres cage. […] Bovines are branded with hot irons, and they have their horns cut without anaesthesia” etc. (p. 3).

Environment: “On a global scale, animal farming […] is responsible for the emission of 18% of greenhouse gases because of the deforestation caused by the farming of food for the animals and the methane emissions related to the animals’ digestive processes among other factors”, etc. (p. 3).

Health: “The World Health Organization has classified bacon and sausage as causes of cancer. […] The individual who eats meat has one chance in three of having diabetes and two chances in three of gaining weight”, etc. (p. 3).

I asked the participants to answer questions about the emotions they were feeling right after reading the vignettes and then about their attitudes towards the ideas of reducing and ceasing the consumption of animals. Individuals who declared they were experiencing higher amounts of cognitive dissonance also declared more positive attitudes towards reducing and ceasing this consumption. I could also verify that the ‘animals’ and the ‘environmental’ arguments were more powerful than the ‘health’ argument to provoke dissonance and attitude change. Indeed, participants who read the ‘health’ text did not differ from participants who did not read a text at all. Additionally, in one of the main analyses, those who read the ‘environmental’ argument were less likely to support the proposition of ceasing the consumption of animals, probably because they considered the idea that it would be possible to save the environment without ceasing this consumption. Therefore, it is possible to state that, in my study, the ‘animals’ argument was the most powerful one.

Other researchers have found similar results. A study conducted by Bouwman and colleagues[13], for example, found that the ‘animals’ argument provoked more dissonance than the ‘health’ argument and stronger intentions to choose a vegetarian meal. The researchers also verified differences in behaviour among clients of a restaurant. They showed the clients a banner located near the counter of the restaurant and mobilised the clients’ values by including the following question on the banner, “Do you consider animal welfare to be important?” (p. 21). In this condition (compared to the condition with no banner), the participants ordered more vegetarian burgers. The banner roughly doubled this type of order. Another study, conducted by Herchenroeder and colleagues[14], found that the ‘animals’ and ‘environment’ arguments produced more dissonance than the ‘health’ argument. In this study, the participants watched a video containing one of the three arguments. The participants who watched the ‘environment’ video expressed higher intentions to reduce their consumption of animals (compared to a control condition in which participants watched a video about student loans)[15].

However, other studies produced different findings. In a study conducted by Parkinson and colleagues[16], for example, the researchers asked the participants to discuss the three types of arguments in groups and to collectively decide on the credibility of the arguments. The participants associated the ‘animals’ argument with guilt, anger, and annoyance, which matches the findings of the studies mentioned above (greater dissonance). However, they rated the ‘animals’ printouts as the least credible. It is likely that this occurred precisely because these were the arguments that provoked the greatest dissonance, which the groups of participants wanted to avoid. The difference here is that the situation allowed or even favoured such an avoidance since the participants had to reach a group decision on the credibility of the messages, and the group situation contains in itself numerous tensions that the individual members must resolve.

Another study, conducted by Grummon and colleagues[17], used an online survey to test the three types of arguments. The researchers showed participants short messages containing only two sentences. In one of the conditions (choice at a full-service online restaurant), the participants who read the ‘health’ and ‘environment’ messages chose fewer meals including red meat, which was not the case for the participants who read the ‘animals’ message. In the study conducted by Ottersen and colleagues[18], the researchers sent WhatsApp messages to the participants for one week. The messages contained images and a short text (around 20 or 25 words). In this case, all participants received messages about all three types of arguments. The findings were negative, as the self-reported consumption of animals among the participants actually increased throughout the considered week. How can we interpret these differences among the studies?

These divergent findings show that it is important to consider the conditions in which individuals and groups receive the messages and the degree to which they engage with the messages. In the study by Parkinson and colleagues, the participants might have had a knee-jerk reaction to the ‘animals’ message precisely to avoid a greater amount of dissonance. The conditions in which they received this message allowed for and possibly favoured this knee-jerk reaction. This could also explain the findings in the studies by Grummon and colleagues and Ottersen and colleagues, which used short messages. The short messages about the animals were easier to dismiss and they did not insist on the details of animal exploitation. On a related note, and perhaps more importantly, in these studies, the participants did not ‘get involved’ with the ‘animals’ argument. They might have perceived the ‘animals’ message as a totally or almost totally ‘external message’, something simply ‘being told’ to them. In simple terms, the message was ‘coming from the outside’ and not ‘from the inside’.

In conditions like these, the message might even have a negative effect and individuals might decide to do precisely what the source of social influence (the message) is asking them to avoid. This seems to have happened in the study by Ottersen and colleagues. The researchers sent WhatsApp messages to the participants for a week, and the participants might have perceived the messages as an ‘external’ insistence against which they had to resist. An unfavourable reaction to cognitive dissonance is another possible aspect of the increase in the consumption of animals observed by Ottersen and colleagues. The participants might have experienced dissonance only to an extent that led them to enhance their justifications for consuming animals (for example, it is ‘natural’, ‘normal’, and ‘necessary’[19]) – and more justifications led to more consumption[20].

In contrast, in the study by Bouwman and colleagues, the banner contained a question that aimed to mobilise the participants’ values. The ‘message’ that the researchers used was short but, in this case, it was a question (“Do you consider animal welfare to be important?” – p. 21). It was aimed at ‘the inside’. The participants did not perceive the message as totally external: they did the ‘internal psychological work’, reflected on their values, and actively engaged in the corresponding behaviour, which was, in that case, ordering a meal without pieces of animals. In my study (the ‘vignettes’ study), the participants also engaged with the messages: they had to read texts that were relatively long and, therefore, required persistence and engagement. In these conditions, the participants were freely and actively reading the vignettes. Moreover, the ‘animals’ message presented details of the exploitation of animals in the meat industry and, importantly, the participants were asked to reflect on their feelings right after reading the vignette (again, the ‘internal psychological work’).

In conclusion, the interpretation of these studies suggests that if advocates have the attention and engagement of their public, they should talk about the animals, and this is the most powerful message in comparison with ‘environment’ and ‘health’[21]. The ‘engagement of the public’ means that individuals and groups:

• Perceive that their behaviour (the consumption of animals) produces considerable harm, that this harm is foreseeable and avoidable,
• Feel that they are freely engaging with the ‘animals’ message, i.e., that their engagement is not the product of coercion,
• Reflect on their cognitions (ideas), values, and emotions in association with the message.

These conditions are consistent with classical investigations on the social psychology of social change[22]. In our current societies, animal advocates are active minorities[23] as they challenge the dominant animal-exploitation ideology, norms, and economic and political power. Social psychology has taught us that active minorities often provoke negative external reactions: that is, individuals tend to disagree with the minorities and keep an ‘external’ agreement with the dominant social norms. However, this external reaction is often accompanied by internal acceptance.

The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.

References

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2016). Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: vegetarian diets. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(12), 1970-1980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025

Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the Meat-Paradox: a motivational account of morally troublesome behaviour and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 278-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562

Bouwman, E. P., Bolderdijk, J. W., Onwezen, M. C., & Taufik, D. (2022). “Do you consider animal welfare to be important?” Activating cognitive dissonance via value activation can promote vegetarian choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83, 101871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101871

Bryant, C. J. (2019). We can’t keep meating like this: Attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 11, 6844. https://doi:10.3390/su11236844

Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance. Fifty years of a classic theory. London: Sage.

Earle, M., Hodson, G., Dhont, K., & MacInnis, C. (2019). Eating with our eyes (closed): Effects of visually associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 818-835. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219861848

Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 382-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382

FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO: Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399), eaam5324. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324

Grummon, A. H., Musicus, A. A., Salvia, M. G., Thorndike, A. N., & Rimm, E. B. (2022). Impact of health, environmental, and animal welfare messages discouraging red meat consumption: An online randomized experiment. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 123(3), 466-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2022.10.007.

Herchenroeder, L., Forestell, C. A., & Bravo, A. J. (2023). The effectiveness of animal welfare-, environmental-, and health-focused video appeals on implicit and explicit wanting of meat and intentions to reduce meat consumption. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163(3), 394-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2081529

Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows. An introduction to carnism, the belief system that enables us to eat some animals and not others. San Francisco: Conari.

Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.). Readings in social psychology (pp. 197-211). New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

Mathur, M. B., Peacock, J., Reichling, D. B., Nadler, J., Bain, P. A., Gardner, C. D., & Robinson, T. N. (2021). Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite, 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105277

Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.

Ottersen, I. S., Benningstad, N. C. G., & Kunst, J. R. (2022). Daily reminders about the animal-welfare, environmental and health consequences of meat and their main and moderated effects on meat consumption. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 5, 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100068

Paim, C. S., & Alonso, W. J. (2020). Pandemics, global health and consumer choices. Alfenas: Cria.

Parkinson, C., Twine, R., & Griffin, N. (2019). Pathways to veganism: Exploring effective messages in vegan transition. Final report, Edge Hill University. https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/research/research-projects/pathways-veganism

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, Science, 360 (6392), 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Regan, T. (1983/2004). The case for animal rights. 2 ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation. Revised edition. London: Thorsons.

Souza, L. G. S., & O’Dwyer, E. (2022). Animal rights, environment, or health? Effects of argument type and dissonance on the attitudes toward the consumption of animals. Appetite, 176, 106129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106129

Thornes, T. (2019). Animal agriculture and climate change. In A. Linzey & C. Linzey (Eds.). Ethical vegetarianism and veganism (pp. 245-253). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Notes