CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 207Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactSocial and Intergroup PsychologyAnimal Law and Welfare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters

Rothgerber, Hank·2014·Appetite
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Meat eaters face dissonance whether it results from inconsistency ("I eat meat; I don't like to hurt animals"), aversive consequences ("I eat meat; eating meat harms animals"), or threats to self image ("I eat meat; compassionate people don't hurt animals"). The present work proposes that there are a number of strategies that omnivores adopt to reduce this dissonance including avoidance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, denial of animal pain, denial of animal mind, pro-meat justifications, reducing perceived choice, and actual behavioral change. The presence of vegetarians was speculated to cause meat eating to be a scrutinized behavior, remind meat eaters of their discomfort, and undermine the effectiveness of these strategies. It was therefore hypothesized that exposure to a description of a vegetarian would lead omnivores to embrace dissonance-reducing strategies. Supporting this hypothesis, participants who read a vignette about a vegetarian denied animal mind more than participants who read about a gluten-free individual. It was also hypothesized that omnivores would be sensitive to individual differences between vegetarians and would demonstrate using dissonance-reducing strategies more when the situation failed to provide cognitions consonant with eating meat or to reduce dissonant cognitions. Four experiments supported this prediction and found that authentic vegetarians, vegetarians freely making the decision to abandon meat, consistent vegetarians, and ant…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Festinger, 1957, Vol. 2
  2. Rothgerber, 2014, “But I don't eat that much meat”. Situational underreporting of meat consumption by women, Society and Animals

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 207

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rothgerber, H.
Affiliations
Bellarmine University (US)
Corresponding author
Rothgerber, Hank
ORCID
Rothgerber, Hank
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-08
Volume
79
Pages
32-41
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003
OpenAlex
W2122646351
Cited by
207
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
FWCI
9.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
Keywords
cognitive dissonance, vegetarian diet, meat consumption, omnivores, self-image, moral inconsistency
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Cognitive Dissonance, Eating, Feeding Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Meat, Middle Aged, Morals, Diet, Vegetarian, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review