Meating conflict: Toward a model of ambivalence-motivated reduction of meat consumption

An increasing number of people are concerned about the ethics of eating meat despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking aimed at facilitating behavioral change. Study 1 drew on a 6-day food diary with 7,485 observations in a relatively representative sample to investigate the predictors of meat-related ambivalence and demonstrate its correlation with meat reduction. Two experiments showed that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the hypothesized process variables (Study 3; preregistered). These findings in diverse samples from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1,192) indicate that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.