The relationship between humans and animals is extraordinarily complex. There are a variety of subcategories and issues that revolve around the topic of human-animal interaction, including consumption of meat and animal products, animal testing, animal slaughter and our general relationship and companionship with other animals. Previous studies have shown that a high consumption of animals and animal products are detrimental for human and animal health and wellbeing. (T. Raphaely, D. Marinova, 2015) There are a lot of differing opinions among people regarding this issue. For example, there are people who may be completely unaware of the health and environmental detriments that come with high consumption of animals and animal products, those who disagree completely because they believe it to be untrue and then there are also those who are aware of the negative impact meat consumption can have and choose to act in a way that supports this belief by consuming minimal or no meat. But there are also a large number of people that do not like the thought of animals being consumed and are aware of the negative impact it can have but choose to act in a way that does not support this belief. While they may feel that killing animals is cruel and/or are aware of the evidence behind red meat in particular leading to an increased risk of developing heart disease and a number of different types of cancer but will continue to eat a lot of meat anyway. (Tappel, 2007) A possible theory that might explain this is cognitive dissonance theory.
Cognitive dissonance theory refers to the feeling of mental discomfort caused by a situation that involves attitudes, beliefs or behaviours that are conflicting. This leads to a change in their attitude with the hope of reducing the discomfort and restoring a sense of balance and self-consistency. (simplepsychology.org, 2018) An example of how cognitive dissonance theory might apply to human-animal interaction, is in the general attitudes of people towards vegetarianism and veganism. There are 2.5 million people in Australia being vegetarian, which is equivalent to 12.1% of the population. (animalsaustralia.org, 2019) This means that majority of people do choose to consume meat, but also most people do care about animals and hesitate at the thought of harm being caused to any intelligent life. Recent studies demonstrate that dissonance is a strong motivation towards the denial of associating minds with animals. According to previous studies, it was shown that animals that are considered to be appropriate for human consumption are attributed with decreased mental abilities. (Bastian et al., 2011) It was also demonstrated that meat eaters were particularly eager to consider making that association of decreased mental abilities when the thought of the connection between meat and animal suffering was brought to the surface. This is a really good example of how often a person might change their attitude in order to reduce the feeling of discomfort. Perceiving animals as being highly different from humans and lacking the mental abilities that we have, including the capacity for pain is a provenly strong reason that influences the behaviour of meat consumption. (Loughnan et al., 2014)
Due to cognitive dissonance being something that is not physically measurable, it can sometimes be very subjective and vague. Perhaps sometimes a shift in attitude may appear to be nothing more than excuses or guilt, as opposed to being cognitive dissonance. Whereas a lot of people may place a lot of importance on self-consistency, this may not be important to others and so cognitive dissonance theory could be less predictive and explanatory of their behaviour. Another limitation is that cognitive dissonance does not consider the nature of the persuasive message. (cios.org, 2019) There are some messages that may be based on evidence and are highly relevant to the audience and so this would likely create more dissonance. However, other messages may be weaker and create less dissonance. Dissonance theory also may not take individual differences into account. An example of this in relation to human-animal interaction is that while some people who feel uncomfortable when they think about animal product consumption or the potential health risks that come with high meat consumption, they may still choose to be accepting of their behaviour and be willing to put up with some inconsistency in their thoughts rather than excusing this behaviour and trying to reduce dissonance. It will affect individuals differently and to a different extent and while someone who is highly anxious might is even more likely to behave in the way that cognitive dissonance describes, a lot of individuals will be willing to cope with a considerable amount of dissonance and therefore not experience the same level of tension or act in accordance to this theory. (simplepsychology.org, 2018)
While many people may be unaware of the cruelty that comes with animal testing for cosmetics or unaware of which brands do and don’t test on animals, there are also a lot of people who are disturbed by the thought of animal testing and either avoid such products or still continue to use them. Despite these negative attitude towards animal testing, a person who chooses to continue using products which test on animals may experience dissonance and so they will alter their attitude which could mean that they decide that one person not purchasing these products won’t stop animal testing, or something along those lines. Often this alteration in attitude will depend on the strength of their attitude in the first place and this could perhaps be a limitation to dissonance theory, that it doesn’t always take strength of attitude and individualism into account. Cognitive dissonance theory ignores the effects of message variables on cognitive dissonance and persuasion. While someone who is very passionate about their beliefs regarding animals and animal testing will very likely be well informed on the matter and steer away from purchasing cosmetics tested on animals or sometimes behaving in a manner that causes cognitive dissonance to occur, a person who doesn’t necessarily agree with animal testing but isn’t as passionate about the matter may be willing to accept an inconsistency between their attitudes and behaviour rather than attempting to reduce the dissonance.
A way in which people are attempting to fix this global issue, is through the protesting against animal testing and meat consumption. Many cafes are offering a variety of options for vegans and vegetarians making it easier to reduce animal product consumption, as well as there being a lot of people speaking out about their beliefs through social media and utilising other tools to reach the community. Vegetarianism and veganism are growing rapidly, with vegans having quadrupled in the 5 years between 2012 and 2017. (vegansociety.com, 2018) Recently Australia has also banned the use of data from animal tests in cosmetics. (smh.com.au, 2019) While this serves as evidence to show a positive change overtime in the global issues surrounding human-animal interaction, there are definitely some issues that remain in our approaches towards these issues. One of them includes the extremism in certain approaches and the stigma that comes with certain labels and as a result of this extremism. Some people become so outraged about farm animal treatment that they violently attack fast-food restaurants, fur farms, and furriers. (Micheletti and Stolle, 2015) Due to this, often when a person labels themselves as being “vegan” or “vegetarian” they may risk falling into a stereotype and there is a strong stigma that comes with this.
Overall, psychology can most definitely be used to understand Human-Animal interaction. Cognitive dissonance theory certainly has its limitations such as its inability to take individual differences into account and the fact that it does not consider the nature of the persuasive message, but dissonance theory can definitely explain human behaviour towards animals in many instances. It provides a great level of insight into the reasoning as to why some people feel love towards animals and disgust at the thought of killing or testing on animals, but behave in a way that conflicts with this belief or why people may disagree with animal testing but continue to purchase products that have been tested on animals, just to name a few instances in which cognitive dissonance might occur. Through a more gradual change, education and encouragement and an acceptance of individualism regarding the reduction of animal product consumption, use of products that do not test on animals and the appreciation of our companionships with animals, we could most definitely improve our relationship with animals and benefit towards the health and wellbeing for ourselves, the environment and other animals.
2019-9-22-1569185527