Talk:Psychology of eating meat/Archive 1

Construction Templates?

Should we add some construction templates to various parts? E.g. consumer attitudes and as an article construction? Or should we wait until the page has gone up as an article? Very nice job, I hope this article passes the public opinion fight and editors are focused on the article and not policies. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If it were in article space I'd have hunted down the real template. As it is I'd rather spend those two minutes reading sources. \

Thanks! I hope the article is both good in itself and satisfactory according to policy recommendations. FourViolas (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough then, wasn't too sure but with the Draft status I suppose it isn't really necessary. Was just thinking of replacing the (under construction) text.

I'd say the article is good and as far as I have read, it seems to be in line with policies and guidelines but I'm still learning about half of the important MOS and Policies. XD

Dr Crazy 102 (talk)

Requested move 17 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural closure. (EDIT) Use the "submit" button or template next time. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Draft:Psychology of eating meat → Psychology of eating meat – Publishing draft (the impediment is merely technical). Target is a simple redirect—I'm actually surprised I can't move it. This article covers a phenomenon which overlaps that discussed by Carnism, but uses almost none of the same research and literature: that article is about a sociological model used by pro-vegan advocates to facilitate "questioning" and "challenging" the practices it describes, while this article merely summarizes the (much broader) sub-discipline which applies existing psychological research mechanisms to the practice of meat consumption. This move has been objected to at Talk:Carnism, but only on the grounds that one of its subsections represented a WP:POVFORK and ought to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; that change has been made. FourViolas (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose moving to main article space. Everything after the second sentence of the current draft is original research promoting a minority point of view. Repairing the article to comply with policy would result in an article that could not grow beyond those two sentences - that is, unless there are sources available that don't begin with the assumption that non-veganism is a depraved condition. If those sources don't exist, the article shouldn't, either. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead is very well supported, and the body is already cited. Here's the sentence of the lead which sems to have stopped you short:

Because meat eating is widely practiced but considered morally ambivalent, it can serve as a case study in moral psychology, testing theories of cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement.

The following are all professional research psychologists writing in reputable, peer-reviewed psychological journals (and one peer-reviewed, reputable reference book).

• Dissonance theory

Loughnan et al. 2014 write

The tension omnivores experience when reminded that their behavior may not match their beliefs and values, and the resolution of this tension by changing those beliefs, fits with the theory of cognitive dissonance (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). Whereas some people (e.g., vegetarians) reduce this negative state by changing their actions, others may do so by strategically changing their beliefs, specifically about animals’ minds, suffering, and moral standing. Dissonance theory could help explain why the act of eating, which makes the meat paradox highly salient, motivates these psychological changes.

Rothgerber 2014 writes

In short, people believe that it is wrong to hurt animals, yet in the case of Americans at least, eat 240 pounds per capita of them each year (see Herzog, 2011). How can we psychologically reconcile these two positions, what researchers have recently called the “meat paradox” (Bastian et al, 2012 and Loughnan et al, 2010)? At the heart of the meat paradox is the experience of cognitive dissonance whether one adopts classic dissonance theory focusing on inconsistency (Festinger, 1957: “I eat meat; I don’t like to hurt animals”), the new look on dissonance emphasizing aversive consequences (Cooper & Fazio, 1984: “I eat meat; eating meat harms animals”), or self-consistency/self-affirmation approaches emphasizing threats to self-integrity (Aronson, 1968 and Steele, 1988: “I eat meat; compassionate people don’t hurt animals”).

• Disengagement theory

Graça et al. 2014 write

Several patterns of response that resonate with the principles of moral disengagement theory (i.e. reconstrual of the harmful conduct; obscuring personal responsibility; disregard for the negative consequences; active avoidance and dissociation) were observed while discussing impacts and the possibility of change. Results seem to support the proposition that the process of moral disengagement may play a role in hindering openness to change food habits for the benefit of the environment, public health, and animals, and point towards the relevance of further exploring this approach.

Bilewicz 2010 writes

Studies on dehumanization demonstrated that denying certain human characteristics might serve as a strategy for moral disengagement. Meat consumption—especially in the times of cruel animal farming—is related to the exclusion of animals from the human scope of justice….These results support the claim that the lay conceptions of ‘human uniqueness’ are strategies of moral disengagement.

• Ambivalence

Loughnan et al. 2010 write

Amongst omnivores, evaluations of meat are ambivalent, with negative attitudes partially the result of moral concerns regarding the treatment of animals.

Rozin 2007 writes

Meat should be of special interest to psychologists, because it is a quintessential example of the interesting and important state of ambivalence.

Berndsen & Pligt 2004:

in a pilot study (Berndsen & Van der Pligt, 2001) we found that 69% of the meat eaters felt ambivalent about meat consumption, whereas only 4% of the vegetarians felt ambivalent about abstaining from meat. The purpose of the present study is to assess the impact of attitudinal ambivalence on actual meat consumption and intentions about meat consumption in the future.

I understand these results are surprising and displeasing to many people, but it's not our job to second-guess peer-reviewed academic sources. FourViolas (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is, though. Moral conclusions that don't match reality aren't saved by "peer review". 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What kind of policy are you basing that on? Certainly not WP:Verifiability or WP:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia content is based on scientific consensus, not your unsourced opinion. I've cited seven psychological papers on meat eating in respected journals, all clearly supporting the sentence in question, and you've cited your personal interpretation of "reality" and the fact that you don't like this information. FourViolas (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. Opinions far outside the mainstream shouldn't be presented as the last word on the matter just because they happen to be opinions held by academics. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The nature of complicated information is such that Wikipedia should indeed be biased towards the collective opinion of reputable, qualified academics. It's important to remember that Wikipedia's definition of "neutral" refers to a balance of reliable sources, not a balance of everyone's opinion. Your opinion (and your interpretation of "the mainstream") is not a reliable source for meat psychology. Expert discussions of rigorous psychological experiments are. FourViolas (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

But who says your sources are "experts"? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - 209.211.131.181, WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that this isn't the widespread, not to create an unsourced, POV statement. Find sources disclaiming this, instead of simply arguing policy and opinion. FourViolas has shown sources, fairly reliable sources, that support their statement and creation of article. Also, considering the Draft hasn't been tagged for deletion by the patrollers shows that there is at least potential for this article, at the very least. 209.211.131.181, it is becoming hard to assume good-faith in your edits since they are not offering anything constructive or providing any real argument besides opinion. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the proper procedure for this is to use {{subst:submit}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.