Fighting Meat With Emotions, Not Facts

Meat production is one of the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and water consumption, leading to calls for a reduction in consumption. A plant-based diet has less impact on the environment, but efforts to change eating habits have so far had limited success.

A new Italian study suggests that emotional and moral appeals may be more effective than facts alone in encouraging dietary change.

Indirect pathways to behaviour change

Messages designed to trigger feelings of disgust may play a role in reducing meat consumption by changing emotional and moral perceptions of eating animals, a new study suggests.

The study investigated whether appeals triggering physical or moral disgust could weaken people’s enjoyment of meat or their ability to morally disengage from the consequences of animal suffering.

While the messages did not directly change food preferences, they had indirect effects that could prove useful in efforts to promote a plant-based diet.

Targeting pleasure and justification

The study, conducted in Italy with the participation of the PsyLab of the Catholic University of Milan, tested three types of messages: one that evoked physical disgust, such as wounds and unsanitary conditions in factory farms; another that emphasised moral disgust through emotional suffering and injustice experienced by animals; and a neutral message with no disgust-inducing content.

Researchers found that the physical disgust message reduced participants’ enjoyment of meat eating. This decrease in hedonistic response in turn led to a higher likelihood of choosing plant-based foods.

The effect was indirect, suggesting that disgust undermines the attractiveness of meat rather than directly persuading participants to change their behaviour.

Belief in human supremacy plays a role

Moral disgust had a different trajectory. It did not significantly reduce moral disengagement across the sample. However, among participants who believed moderately to strongly in human supremacy — the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals — the message decreased moral disengagement. This group was also more likely to choose plant-based options.

The results suggest that individuals with a stronger belief in human dominance may rely more heavily on moral justifications for eating meat. When these justifications are challenged by messages that portray animal suffering as unjust, their usual reasoning appears to weaken, opening a pathway for behaviour change.

Ethical awareness vs emotional habit

In contrast, participants with lower levels of belief in human supremacy were less influenced by moral disgust messages. Researchers believe this could be because these individuals already had an ethical awareness and their meat consumption was more likely to be due to habit or enjoyment rather than moral disengagement.

The study also found a marginal effect of the physical disgust message on moral disengagement, suggesting that visceral reactions to unhygienic or violent images could disrupt moral rationalisations, though not strongly enough to change food choices on their own.

Appealing beyond rationality

The study offers insights into the psychological barriers to dietary change. The enjoyment of meat, or meat hedonism, continues to be a major obstacle. Appeals that focus solely on health or climate impact may not be enough to overcome the emotional satisfaction that many consumers derive from eating meat.

The study shows the importance of addressing both the pleasure and the justifications people use to continue consuming animal products. By diminishing the emotional appeal of meat through physical disgust or questioning its moral acceptability, communicators can change perceptions and behaviour over time.

New tools for activists and policy makers

Human supremacy has proven to be a key factor in how people respond to moral arguments. Those who strongly believe in human superiority seem to rely on moral disengagement to resolve the cognitive dissonance between their values and their dietary habits. Challenging this moral distance through targeted messaging may be a more effective strategy than appealing to individuals who already share ethical concerns but continue to eat meat for other reasons.

The findings support a broader shift in behavioural science and public health communication that recognises the limitations of rational appeals. Emotions, values and social norms are increasingly seen as central to shaping behaviour, particularly in areas such as diet, health and climate change action.

Policy makers, activists and advocates seeking to reduce meat consumption might consider integrating disgust-based appeals into broader strategies. While such messages may be controversial or provoke backlash, they may also reach audiences that resist conventional arguments or are indifferent to environmental and health data.

The study suggests that disgust is more than a visceral reaction — it can be a powerful tool to challenge deeply held beliefs and habits. By framing meat consumption not only as a health or climate issue, but also as emotionally and morally reprehensible, communicators can find new ways to promote a plant-based diet.