Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns.

By Jared Piazza, M. Ruby, S. Loughnan, M. Luong, J. Kulik, Hanne M. Watkins, Mirra Seigerman. Appetite, 2015

635 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Recent theorizing suggests that the 4Ns - that is, the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice - are common rationalizations people use to defend their choice of eating meat. However, such theorizing has yet to be subjected to empirical testing. Six studies were conducted on the 4Ns. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the 4N classification captures the vast majority (83%-91%) of justifications people naturally offer in defense of eating meat. In Study 2, individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tended also to objectify (dementalize) animals and included fewer animals in their circle of moral concern, and this was true independent of social dominance orientation. Subsequent studies (Studies 3-5) showed that individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tend not to be motivated by ethical concerns when making food choices, are less involved in animal-welfare advocacy, less driven to restrict animal products from their diet, less proud of their animal-product decisions, tend to endorse Speciesist attitudes, tend to consume meat and animal products more frequently, and are highly committed to eating meat. Furthermore, omnivores who strongly endorsed the 4Ns tended to experience less guilt about their animal-product decisions, highlighting the guilt-alleviating function of the 4Ns.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Ecology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/41845bf784453bbc757c9727a324d9dbb47d7f5e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Ecology

Citations in the corpus

Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors (2017, background): “…et al. 2014) which meat-eaters experience when they are reminded that their behaviour may not match their values and attitudes, and the resolution of this tension by changing diet fits with this dissonance (Bastian et al. 2012; Bergmann et al. 2010; Harmon-Jones and Mills 1999; Piazza et al. 2015).”
Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution (2016, background): “…is increasingly popular amongst vegetarians who avoid meat and meat reducers who are actively seeking to reduce their meat consumption (van Dooren et al., 2014; Hoek et al., 2011) due to religious, animal welfare, health and environmental concerns (Radnitz et al., 2015; Piazza et al., 2015).”
Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare (2020, methodology): “It also contributes to the local pollution of water, soil and air (Dumont et al., 2016; Poore and Nemecek, 2018).”