Shaping Perspectives on What We Eat: Attitudes, Arguments, and Learning in the Meat Consumption Debate

Controversial issues offer meaningful opportunities for learning, particularly when learners are encouraged to engage with multiple perspectives. In these contexts, individual attitudes can shape how people approach, evaluate, and learn from such discussions. While prior research has highlighted the epistemic and affective challenges of engaging with value-laden topics, less is known about how specific belief systems shape attitude change, learning, and argumentation. This study examines the topic of meat consumption—a debate that activates health, environmental, and ethical values—as a case to explore these dynamics. A sample of 409 adults completed pre- and post-intervention measures, including attitudes, belief antecedents, topic interest, and knowledge. Participants were exposed to a counter-attitudinal message and then asked to argue either from their own viewpoint or from the opposing dietary perspective. Results showed that environmental beliefs predicted more tolerant attitudes toward dietary outgroups, while anti-speciesism values predicted more rigid evaluations of alternative practices. Attitude change predicted perceived—but not factual—learning, and argument content varied systematically across groups: non-meat-eaters emphasized ethical and environmental justifications, while meat-eaters relied more on pragmatic reasoning. These patterns indicate how belief systems can influence attitudes, shape how individuals construct arguments, and affect how they evaluate their own learning.