Meat Shame

Experiences and avoidance of consumption-related discomfort and remorse amongst meat eaters

November 2022

“This study explores feelings of shame and discomfort arising from meat consumption, and maps the characteristics and demographics of those who frequently experience or avidly resist meat shame. The findings can guide animal advocates to direct campaigns towards those most open to reducing meat consumption.  – Charlotte Flores & Chris Bryant

Background

The disconnect between liking the taste of meat and opposing the harms of meat production is referred to as ‘the meat paradox’ within the animal and plant-based advocacy movement. This study aims to further explore the feelings of shame and guilt that arise from this phenomenon. Specifically, the characteristics and demographics of those who experience meat shame, as well as those who resist it.

This study explores feelings of shame and discomfort arising from meat consumption, and maps the characteristics and demographics of those who frequently experience or avidly resist meat shame. The findings can guide animal advocates to direct campaigns towards those most open to reducing meat consumption.

Key Terminology

Meat Paradox

The psychological conflict of enjoying eating meat while disliking the slaughter and harming of animals.

Meat Shame

The culmination of negative feelings (e.g. remorse, guilt, shame) related to one’s own meat consumption levels and their contribution to meat-related harms.

Meat-Conscious Consumers

Meat-eating consumers who experience negative feelings in response to their meat consumption levels and their contribution to the harms of meat-production and demand.

Meat-Shame Resisters

Meat-eating consumers who are resistant to the concept of being shamed for their meat consumption and deny that there is reason to feel meat consumption related shame. 

This study revealed that many meat consumers experience meat shame. The desire to resolve these negative feelings related to meat consumption make these consumers particularly appropriate targets of animal advocacy campaigns. This study identifies two categories of behavioural responses to feelings of ‘meat shame’:

Meat Conscious Consumers who experience negative feelings in response to their meat consumption levels and their contribution to the harms of meat-production and demand. 

Meat Shame Resisters who are resistant to the concept of being shamed for their meat consumption and do not believe there is reason to feel meat-related shame.

This study seeks to more clearly identify the meat-consumers who are most susceptible to animal advocates’ plant-based messaging. The findings are relevant for animal advocates seeking data and guidelines for the effective use of resources for targeted animal advocacy campaigns.

For meat shame-resisters, shame-inducing campaigns may not work well or can even backfire. Because discussion groups revealed their priority is not animal welfare, it makes sense to appeal to their interest in the environment, their health, and budgets. Finally, both meat-conscious and meat shame-resistant consumers would benefit from having positive interactions with vegan advocates as well as receiving more general information about the effects of meat consumption and its alternatives.

Findings

Through a representative sample survey as well as two follow up focus groups we were able to uncover the hidden modifiers of meat conscious behaviour and consumption related shame. The hope is that this study will aid the animal advocacy movement in increasing the effectiveness of their campaigns by providing information that will help target those portions of the population that are open to change and avoid or adapt campaign methods for those who are opposed to it.

A representative survey of the UK adult population, and 2 focus group interviews with a group of Meat Conscious Consumers and Meat Shame Resisters, produced the following findings :

Demographics of Meat Shame

  • Women are more likely to be Meat Conscious Consumers, and men more likely to be Meat Shame Resisters.
  • Conservatives are most likely to be Meat Shame Resisters, and liberals the most likely to be Meat Conscious Consumers. Moderates are most likely to have no experience with meat shame. 
  • High exposure to vegetarian/veganism, and high knowledge levels on animal agriculture’s detrimental impacts, both correlate with increased feelings of meat shame.

Characteristics of Meat Shame

  • 55% of those who experience meat shame have considered plant-based dietary change as a result. 
  • Animal welfare was found to be the strongest reason for experiences of meat shame. Environmental concerns were also a predictor of meat shame, although to a lesser extent.

Meat Conscious Consumers, Focus Group

  • Focus group respondents most frequently raised animal welfare concerns as a catalyst of feelings of meat shame. 
  • They identified the diets of family and friends as a key barrier to reducing meat consumption, and expressed a desire for more information surrounding and an increased availability of meat alternatives. 

Meat Shame Resisters, Focus Group

  • Focus group respondents frequently emphasised dietary choice and personal freedoms regarding meat consumption. 
  • Animal welfare was rarely discussed, and environmental and health concerns were more prominent. 
  • Some government influence in discouraging meat consumption was seen as palatable.

Impact & Recommendations

  • When possible, target populations that are more likely to be meat-conscious consumers for dietary change interventions.

  • Guilt focussed campaigns may be effective with Meat Conscious Consumers, but could prompt disengagement from Meat Shame Resisters. Therefore, whilst animal advocacy campaigns should focus on animal welfare, a wider variety of health, environmental, and financial concerns should be considered if appealing to Meat Shame Resisters.

  • Campaigns investing in institutional change promoting meat alternatives appear to be effective with both Meat Conscious Consumers and Meat Shame Resisters.

  • Information is key and widely desired, both on the harms of meat consumption and the alternatives available.

Animal Welfare Consumer Psychology Effective Advocacy Institutional Change Psychology The Meat Paradox