Cognitive Dissonance

1682: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

These days, the burning question for vegans is: "Why are so few people becoming vegan?" We find it difficult to understand. It's disappointing. It highlights two specific forces of human life: the need to make life easier and the need to aspire to do what is noble (however difficult that may be). We can live for pleasure, but we should also live to develop the self.

We all defend our 'self' concept. We build values to suit it. We might see ourselves as logical, fair-minded, kind and intelligent; but to live our values requires self discipline. It affects our daily lifestyle and the choices we make - shopping in particular. We choose what food and clothing to buy with every intention of bringing a positive effect into our lives. But when we buy food and clothing derived from animals, it not only impacts negatively on them, it impacts negatively on us. In order to maintain a benign self-image and keep our positive values, we have to find ways to disassociate ourselves from the abuse of animals. 

A 'value' can't be 'un-valued' to suit circumstances. This is hypocrisy and means we have double standards or an inconsistency. According to theory, humans strive for internal consistency and become psychologically uncomfortable when they experience inconsistency (dissonance). Vegans expose this double standard by asking the question: "If you say you love animals, why do you kill them and eat them?" On the one hand you are just serving the 'wants' of your stomach. On the other, you are attempting to uphold your ethical values. With such a contradiction, attempts should be made to reduce dissonance by bringing cognitions and actions in-line with one another.

When we come up against opposing 'animal welfare' beliefs, we are faced with certain options. We can stop eating and using animals (as vegans do). We can justify our actions (somewhat) by doing 'good works' elsewhere to balance things up. Or we can try to ignore or deny any information that conflicts with our existing beliefs.

Vegetarians face this very predicament when they try to deny the cruelty associated with milk production. Our society makes heavy use of milk. We drink it, make butter, cheese and yoghurt from it. We have it in our tea and coffee and on our breakfast cereal and we find it as an ingredient in literally hundreds of popular food products. So when vegetarians learn about the cruelty of the dairy industry, they try to justify their use of milk products. In so doing, they experience cognitive dissonance. The attempt to resolve this might lead to a phenomenon known as 'adaptive preference formation'. When the idea of becoming vegan seems unattainable, it is criticised; thus highlighting the struggle between our real self and our concept of self and how we would ideally like to be and think. 

Another aspect of this affects some vegans who believe that being vegan protects them from illness. Eating poor quality plant-based food, whilst being ethical, doesn't necessarily protect us from ill health. The food might be filling, tasty and easy to digest, but sometimes it's full of sugar or salt or fat or it's processed and therefore lifeless. If one has invested in a 'vegan position', one may not like to hear any criticism of such an ethical diet. 

Denial of information is most pronounced where cruelty or danger is worst. The shearing of sheep brings warmth to the human; but exposes the animal (from whom we stole the wool) to cold. For our own values to remain consistent, we must believe that the sheep doesn't suffer when having no protective covering. But it's rather like us walking about the hillsides at night, in the cold, in our underpants! We may think the leather of our shoes is merely 'what's left over from a carcass used primarily for meat', but it's an all too easy belief that wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Perhaps the cruellest farming practices are linked with that most useful food item - the egg. Here we find the greatest contradiction of values, where decision-making is most severely put to the test. Here's where the greatest of food attractions (the traditional breakfast egg or the egg ingredients of the light, fluffy cakes we like to eat) clashes with the most insidious cruelty connected with the egg industry. The birds who produce most of our eggs live in conditions of unbreathable air and filth. They are so cramped that they are unable to move. They're no longer regarded as living beings, but as egg-producing-machines. Everything that the noble bird had (apart from her biological egg-laying function) has been stripped from her; leaving her with no identity and no quality of life. So when we choose an 'eggy' breakfast or eat a delicious cake, we doom the hen to the anguish of acute claustrophobia and an inevitable terrifying execution when she stops laying. For those whose choice is to still eat egg products, the cognition of that choice brings with it a dissonance which is impossible to resolve.