Owen Rogers,
Faunalytics
November 2018
Animal Rights/Vegan Activist Strategies ~ Using Disgust To Dissuade Meat-Eaters
Most people happily eat burgers, chicken thighs, and fish sticks. If we can’t convince these individuals through logical arguments, could we simply gross them out?
Results of the study? Overall, animal welfare and disgust were the most convincing arguments against meat consumption, with disgust producing much longer-lasting effects. Arguments from environmentalism or health benefits were somewhat effective, but much less so.
There are many arguments for the reduction or elimination of meat from our diets. Some of the most common are environmental, moral, and health-based. Meat is a significant contributor to climate change and habitat destruction. It has been linked with several major diseases, including heart disease and type II diabetes. What’s more, our growing understanding of animal intelligence has soured many people on the idea of killing them for food.
In the first two studies, the participants had to read essays arguing
against meat consumption based on morality, health, or disgust. In the
second study, the “morality” argument was divided into two – one from the
animal welfare aspect and one focusing on environmental degradation. Both
also featured control essays about an unrelated subject. After reading the
essays, participants were asked to rate meat and vegetables based on each
foods’ morality, anticipated taste, health, buying likelihood, and desire to
eat. The third study was similar, but used slideshows rather than essays.
Animal welfare, health, and disgust were all used – environmental
degradation was not.
Overall, animal welfare and disgust were the most convincing arguments
against meat consumption, with disgust producing much longer-lasting
effects. Arguments from environmentalism or health benefits were somewhat
effective, but much less so.
Read the entire study here: Using Disgust To Dissuade Meat-Eaters
Return to: Animal Rights/Vegan Activist Strategies