Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns.

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Ethics
• Consumer Behavior

Background:

• Theories suggest the "4Ns" (natural, normal, necessary, nice) justify meat consumption.
• Empirical validation of the 4Ns as common rationalizations is lacking.

Purpose of the Study:

• To empirically test the prevalence and implications of the 4Ns.
• To investigate the relationship between endorsing the 4Ns and attitudes/behaviors towards meat consumption and animals.

Main Methods:

• Six studies were conducted, involving justification analysis, correlational designs, and behavioral assessments.
• Participants' endorsement of the 4Ns, animal objectification, moral circle inclusion, ethical motivation, advocacy involvement, dietary restrictions, pride, speciesism, meat consumption frequency, and guilt were measured.

Main Results:

• The 4N classification captured 83-91% of naturally occurring justifications for meat consumption.
• Endorsing the 4Ns correlated with animal objectification, reduced moral concern, lower ethical motivation, less advocacy, less dietary restriction, less pride, higher speciesism, and higher meat consumption.
• Strong endorsement of the 4Ns was associated with reduced guilt regarding animal product consumption.

Conclusions:

• The 4Ns are prevalent rationalizations that facilitate meat consumption.
• Endorsing the 4Ns is linked to a suite of attitudes and behaviors that support omnivory and reduce moral concern for animals.
• The 4Ns serve a guilt-alleviating function for meat-eaters.