Exportar Publicação

Fonseca, R. P., De Groeve, Ben, Camilleri, Lauren, Godinho, C. & Prada, M. (2026). The suppression of moral engagement in consumer responses to animal slaughter. Food Quality and Preference.

R. P. Fonseca et al.,  "The suppression of moral engagement in consumer responses to animal slaughter", in Food Quality and Preference, 2026

@article{fonseca2026_1775385115417,
	author = "Fonseca, R. P. and De Groeve, Ben and Camilleri, Lauren and Godinho, C. and Prada, M.",
	title = "The suppression of moral engagement in consumer responses to animal slaughter",
	journal = "Food Quality and Preference",
	year = "2026",
	volume = "",
	number = ""
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - The suppression of moral engagement in consumer responses to animal slaughter
T2  - Food Quality and Preference
AU  - Fonseca, R. P.
AU  - De Groeve, Ben
AU  - Camilleri, Lauren
AU  - Godinho, C.
AU  - Prada, M.
PY  - 2026
SN  - 0950-3293
AB  - Despite growing research on meat-animal reminders, the psychological impact of slaughter exposure on consumers remains underexplored. In this preregistered experiment we examined whether exposing consumers to animal slaughter increases their willingness to substitute meat by activating a moral engagement process involving perceived harm, prevention beliefs, and personal norms. A sample of 392 UK meat-eating participants was recruited via Prolific and randomly assigned to view one of four images: an image of animal slaughter (i.e., chicken or pig) or a control image (i.e., chicken or pork meat prepared for consumption). Mediation analyses revealed that slaughter exposure did not directly affect willingness to substitute meat,  but had an indirect effect through the moral engagement process, activated through increased perceived harm, prevention beliefs, and personal norms. This indirect effect was stronger upon exposure to pig slaughter compared to chicken slaughter. Higher meat consumption and especially higher meat attachment suppressed the moral engagement process, reducing the impact of animal slaughter on willingness to substitute meat. In both slaughter conditions, indirect effects were stronger when personal norms were bypassed, suggesting that perceived harm and prevention beliefs alone can shift meat-eating intentions. Our findings highlight the importance of strengthening prevention beliefs and addressing meat attachment in interventions designed to promote moral engagement towards animals and to encourage meat substitution.
ER  -