iv. Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive dissonance describes having contradictory and inconsistent thoughts and actions, as relating to behavioural decisions (Festinger, 1957). Three Categories contribute to the theme of cognitive dissonance (Appendix 2; Figure 27), as a barrier to adopting plant-based diets: anthropocentric views, intentional ignorance, and moral disengagement. Despite recognition of the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, in addition to animal ethics, and health, individuals lack motivation to commit to a plant-based diet; behaviour is often not representative of individual concerns (Bilewicz 2011; Graça 2014). et al., et al., Consumers often resort to moral disengagement strategies when asked to consider the impacts of their consumption practices (Bastian 2012; Rothgerber, 2013; Graça et al., et al., 2014), resulting in a barrier to behavioural change. Graça (2014) note four prominent moral et al. disengagement strategies including reconstrual of harmful conduct (“yes, but…”), obscuring personal responsibility, disregard for the negative consequences associated with current meat production and consumption, and active avoidance and dissociation. By engaging in these psychological justifications, consumers morally dissociate from the harmful effects of the industrial agricultural sector. Through suppressions of moral concern, people reduce the unpleasantness associated with meat consumption in an effort to reduce dissonance of their ambivalent and contrasting attitudes (Rothgerber, 2013; Graça 2014). The literature on et al., cognitive dissonance is more prevalent with respect to moral concern for animals, in an attempt to deny their capacity to suffer (Bilewicz 2011; Bratanova 2011; Bastian et al., et al., et al., 2012; Rothgerber, 2013; Loughnan 2010). Moreover, Rothgerber (2014) suggests that et al.,
iv. Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive dissonance describes having contradictory and inconsistent thoughts and actions, as relating to behavioural decisions (Festinger, 1957). Three Categories contribute to the theme of cognitive dissonance (Appendix 2; Figure 27), as a barrier to adopting plant-based diets: anthropocentric views, intentional ignorance, and moral disengagement. Despite recognition of the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, in addition to animal ethics, and health, individuals lack motivation to commit to a plant-based diet; behaviour is often not representative of individual concerns (Bilewicz et al., 2011; Graça et al., 2014). Consumers often resort to moral disengagement strategies when asked to consider the impacts of their consumption practices (Bastian et al., 2012; Rothgerber, 2013; Graça et al., 2014), resulting in a barrier to behavioural change. Graça et al. (2014) note four prominent moral disengagement strategies including reconstrual of harmful conduct (“yes, but…”), obscuring personal responsibility, disregard for the negative consequences associated with current meat production and consumption, and active avoidance and dissociation. By engaging in these psychological justifications, consumers morally dissociate from the harmful effects of the industrial agricultural sector. Through suppressions of moral concern, people reduce the unpleasantness associated with meat consumption in an effort to reduce dissonance of their ambivalent and contrasting attitudes (Rothgerber, 2013; Graça et al., 2014). The literature on cognitive dissonance is more prevalent with respect to moral concern for animals, in an attempt to deny their capacity to suffer (Bilewicz et al., 2011; Bratanova et al., 2011; Bastian et al., 2012; Rothgerber, 2013; Loughnan et al., 2010). Moreover, Rothgerber (2014) suggests that
Currie_Jessica_InvestigatingBarriersInVegetarianismInDevelopedEconomies.docx