Plan B Forum

Meat eaters who justify their eating habits feel less guilty and are more tolerant of social inequality say researchers.

An international team of researchers led by Dr Jared Piazza of Lancaster University examined the ways in which people defend eating meat.

They found that the vast majority of omnivores defend consuming animals by rationalising their behaviour using one of four rationalisations, which they call the 4Ns.

He said: “The relationships people have with animals are complicated. While most people enjoy the company of animals and billions of dollars are spent each year on pet care and maintenance, most people continue to eat animals as food. People employ a number of strategies to overcome this apparent contradiction in attitude and behaviour.

“One important and prevalent strategy is to rationalise that meat consumption is Natural, Normal Necessary and Nice. “

This study asked students and adults in the United States why they find it OK to eat meat. The largest category used to justify their choice was that that it is “necessary” followed by the other three categories.

Typical comments used to justify eating meat include these 4Ns:

Natural “Humans are natural carnivores”
Necessary “Meat provides essential nutrients”
Normal “I was raised eating meat”
Nice “It’s delicious”

Dr Piazza said: “Morally motivated vegetarians may serve as a source of implicit moral reproach for many omnivores, eliciting behaviours designed to defend against moral condemnation.”
Men endorsed the 4Ns more than women while people who rejected these justifications showed a greater concern for animal welfare.

People who said meat eating is Natural, Necessary, Normal and Nice also share other characteristics; they attributed fewer mental capacities to cows and were more tolerant of social inequality.

Dr Piazza said: “The 4Ns are a powerful pervasive tool employed by individuals to diffuse the guilt one might otherwise experience when consuming animal products.”

The research Rationalising Meat Consumption. The 4Ns in the journal Appetite is co-authored by Matthew Ruby and Juliana Kulik from the University of Pennsylvania, Steve Loughnan from the University of Edinburgh and Mischel Luong, Hanne Watkins and Mirra Seigerman from Melbourne University.

Gob wrote: "...

Dr Piazza said: “The 4Ns are a powerful pervasive tool employed by individuals to diffuse the guilt one might otherwise experience when consuming animal products.”
... "

Guinevere wrote:No, I don't need to justify my choice to eat meat, but I should be respectful of the animal I'm choosing to consume and care about how that animal is raised and slaughtered.

rubato wrote:
Why would anyone experience guilt? And why would anyone think justification was required? Silly ideas.



yrs,
rubato

Lancaster University

Jared Piazza, Matthew B. Ruby, Steve Loughnan, Mischel Luong, Juliana Kulik, Hanne M. Watkins, Mirra Seigerman.

Rationalizing meat consumption.

The 4Ns. Appetite, 2015; 91: 114

DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.

2015.04.011

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Me too. So what that four or five vegetable munching left wing (sorry, left leaf) university dweebs think that meat eaters like me do or should feel guilty chowing down on a tasty animal?

He said: “The relationships people have with animals are complicated. While most people enjoy the company of animals and billions of dollars are spent each year on pet care and maintenance, most people continue to eat animals as food. People employ a number of strategies to overcome this apparent contradiction in attitude and behaviour.
“One important and prevalent strategy is to rationalise that meat consumption is Natural, Normal Necessary and Nice.

The relationships people have with animals are complicated. While most people enjoy the company of animals and billions of dollars are spent each year on pet care and maintenance, most people continue to eat animals as food. People employ a number of strategies to overcome this apparent contradiction in attitude and behaviour.

Gob wrote:

rubato wrote:
Why would anyone experience guilt? And why would anyone think justification was required? Silly ideas.



yrs,
rubato

Oh well, who are we to believe, our resident expert in nothing, or