Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

The present study examined the justifications used by children, adolescents, and adults to justify eating animals. Children (n = 100, Mage = 9.82, SD = 0.77, female n = 49) as compared to adolescents (n = 76, Mage = 14.0, SD = 1.62, female n = 36) and adults (n = 113, Mage = 44.1, SD = 14.4, female n = 54) were more ambivalent or opposed to eating animals, and they showed a distinct reasoning pattern. Children relied less on arguments about meat eating being natural or with to humane slaughter practices. These findings align with recent theoretical perspectives that reasoning may be used to counter cognitive dissonance arising from knowledge of food production systems.

Original publication

DOI

10.1111/cdev.14217

Type

Journal article

Journal

Child Dev

Publication Date

01/02/2025

Keywords

human–animal intergroup relations, meat eating, reasoning