The document discusses psychological barriers that prevent people from recognizing problems with animal agriculture and ways to change attitudes. It addresses defence mechanisms like justification, rationalization, and objectification that allow people to participate in nonhuman animal suffering. Common justifications for eating meat like it being normal, natural, and necessary are analyzed. The document also explores cognitive biases that can undermine efforts to change views like the backfire effect. It provides recommendations for changing behaviors and attitudes, such as using rational arguments, challenging widely held beliefs, focusing on positive framings, and emphasizing shared values.

1. Tereza Vandrovcová
Charles University in Prague

2.  Human cognition – why people don‘t see
obvious wrongs
 Defence mechanisms - barriers of social
change
 Useful techniques - ways of changing
people‘s attitudes and behavior.

3.  Why animal lovers participate in nonhuman
animal's suffering?
 Eurobarometer: people care about their well-
being and they do not want them to suffer
unnecessarily.
 What about animal agriculture?
 Tradition, taste, lack of information and
psychological barriers (justification and
rationalisation)

4.  Melanie Joy: Why we love dogs, eat pigs and
wear cows (2011)
 Invisible ideology - but visible for vegans
 3Ns (justifications): normal, natural and
necessary
 4th N: nice (delicious) – Piazza et al. (2015)
 Practical implication: use well prepared
rational and ethical arguments explaining
problems of these four justifications

5.  Learnt cognitive schema
 Helping people distance from discomfort
 objectification, deindividualization, and
dichotomization
 Practical implication: Point out to the zero
difference between these two categories,
support and promote farm sanctuaries...

6.  Steve Loughnan (2010). The role of meat
consumption in the denial of moral status
and mind to meat animals
 2 experimental groups:
◦ a) eating beef
◦ b) eating nuts
 Difference in moral concern and in perceived
cow‘s capacity for suffering
 Practical implication: Challenges like „vegan
for 30 days“

7.  Backfire effect – holding beliefs more strongly
after being exposed to the truth.
 Psychological reactance – „I will not let
anybody to manipulate me!“
 Practical implication: providing information
(instead of blames), finding a common
ground, showing them that you are not an
enemy

8.  Attitude change by behavior – change the
behavior, attitudes will follow
 Foot-in-the-door technique
 Door-in-the-face technique
 Practical implication: Challenges like „eat less
meat“, „vegan breakfasts“, „vegan for 30
days“

9.  Framing messages – focus on what they will
gain, not what they will give up
 Feeling good , Reciprocity, Mere exposure
 Practical implication: VEGAN SAMPLINGS 

10.  Email: tereza@vandrovcova.cz