Scientific Basis: The perception of suffering, responsibility and one's own participation in un... more Scientific Basis: The perception of suffering, responsibility and one's own participation in unethical behaviors are triggers of dissonance (Festinger, 1957). For meat consumption, this state is called the meat paradox (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010): People eat meat, but they do not want animals to suffer. Instead of resolving the meat paradox by changing unethical behavior, people often actively resolve their dissonance via moral disengagement strategies (Bandura, 1999). These strategies allow people to eat meat by resolving the meat paradox. According to Bastian and Loughnan (2017), active dissonance reduction strategies include the denial of personal responsibility, the denial of harm and the protection of one's own identity (identity buffering). The following catalog of arguments tries to briefly describe these strategies, to present typical forms of such behaviors and to formulate counterarguments. Structure of this Catalog: Bullets in the form of dots contain information and explanations on moral disengagement strategies and theoretical constructs. Bullets in the form of arrows describe arguments to counter specific moral disengagement strategies. Grey colored arguments were added to improve the effectiveness of the argumentation catalog and were not evaluated in Study 2 of this investigation.
Scientific Basis: The perception of suffering, responsibility and one's own participation in un... more Scientific Basis: The perception of suffering, responsibility and one's own participation in unethical behaviors are triggers of dissonance (Festinger, 1957). For meat consumption, this state is called the meat paradox (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010): People eat meat, but they do not want animals to suffer. Instead of resolving the meat paradox by changing unethical behavior, people often actively resolve their dissonance via moral disengagement strategies (Bandura, 1999). These strategies allow people to eat meat by resolving the meat paradox. According to Bastian and Loughnan (2017), active dissonance reduction strategies include the denial of personal responsibility, the denial of harm and the protection of one's own identity (identity buffering). The following catalog of arguments tries to briefly describe these strategies, to present typical forms of such behaviors and to formulate counterarguments. Structure of this Catalog: Bullets in the form of dots contain information and explanations on moral disengagement strategies and theoretical constructs. Bullets in the form of arrows describe arguments to counter specific moral disengagement strategies. Grey colored arguments were added to improve the effectiveness of the argumentation catalog and were not evaluated in Study 2 of this investigation.
Uploads
Papers by Simon Kleinert