Summary
This study asked 42 environmental researchers about their reasons for continuing to eat meat, despite popular concerns for the impact on climate change. The authors believed that cognitive dissonance was not a likely explanation for this. This study identified four different patterns (viewpoints) in the participants’ reasoning. The first viewpoint captured common themes concerning optimism about future technological solutions (e.g., cultivated meat) that will be more effective and accessible than immediately stopping the consumption of meat. The second viewpoint focused on system change instead of individual action or the complexity of food production and vegetarianism. In contrast, the third viewpoint underscored individual responsibility and change. The fourth viewpoint expressed by some participants was that they should stop consuming meat, but admitted that they lacked the willpower or other resources to do so. Notably, contrary to the general population, the participants did not deny objections to meat, such as the capacity for animals to suffer.
Among the strengths of this study is the semi-quantitative approach that tries to identify crucial differences in the reasoning of different persons. Some limitations of this study are the exclusion of cognitive dissonances as a possible interpretation for the arguments the participants give, assuming that the researches are different in this regard than the general population. In conclusion, the authors highlight the need to consider their findings when designing interventions intended to motivate behavior change. Even though people know and care about certain topics, like meat consumption, they might not think that behavior change can make a difference, but rather see the “solution is primarily technological or political, or a complex combination of all.”
Why do people who care about the environment adopt behaviours that are not consistent with their beliefs? Previous studies approach this as a case of cognitive dissonance, researchers looking into the strategies through which people reduce gaps between their attitudes and their behaviours. Here we start from the premise that there is no dissonance, and that people have consistent reasons of why they are doing what they are doing. The research task is then to shed light on these reasons. Using Q-methodology, a mixed quantitative-qualitative approach, we interviewed 42 environmentally-minded researchers asking them why they eat meat. Our interviewees were aware of and cared about the environmental and ethical impacts of meat eating, but reasoned that they eat meat because either technological, or political changes are more important than what they personally do, because of doubts about the impact of personal action in a complex world, or simply because they lack the determination to stop eating meat. Our analysis suggests that policies and messages that try to educate or guilt meat-eaters are unlikely to work with those well aware of the impacts of their actions.