Disentangling the Meat Paradox: A Comparative Review of Meat-Related Ambivalence and Dissonance

The domain of meat consumption has become a blossoming area for advancing our knowledge of how people experience and resolve cognitive conflicts. Within the field, however, the conceptual overlap and distinctions between two types of cognitive conflict have been neglected: ambivalence and dissonance. This oversight has contributed to seemingly contradictory conclusions and constrained theory development. We reexamine the literature on meat-related cognitive conflicts, drawing on the notion that ambivalence is experienced when inconsistencies within an attitude become accessible, whereas dissonance is experienced when inconsistencies between an attitude and a commitment become accessible. Our review clarifies previous confusions by delineating (a) how people who eat (omnivores) and eschew meat (vegetarians and vegans) are affected by each of the two conflicts, (b) what constitutes these conflicts, (c) under what circumstances conflict experiences arise, and (d) what shapes their downstream consequences. This allows us to derive several novel predictions, ranging from why conflict avoidance strategies may paradoxically increase the likelihood of experiencing conflict to the role of ability and motivation for the behavioral consequences of conflict. By reevaluating prevailing assertions in the literature on meat-related conflict, we offer numerous theoretical and practical implications regarding cognitive conflict and the psychology of (not) eating meat.