Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The psychology of eating meat is an area of study seeking to illuminate the ... A 2016 review drew an analogy between the meat paradox and sexual ...
There is experimental evidence supporting the idea that the meat paradox induces cognitive dissonance in Westerners. [ 9 ] [ 25 ] [ 26 ] Westerners are more willing to eat animals which they regard as having lesser mental capacities and moral standing, and conversely, to attribute lesser mental faculties and moral standing to animals which are ...
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism is a 2009 book by American social psychologist Melanie Joy about the belief system and psychology of meat eating, or "carnism". [1]
That adds up to more than 328 pounds of meat per person each year, including 58 pounds of poultry, 37 pounds of beef, 30 pounds of pork and 22 pounds of fish and seafood, according to the Food and ...
Food aversions can be an issue from a health standpoint, but they don't necessarily need to be problematic, dietitian Jessica Cording, author of The Little Book of Game Changers, tells Yahoo Life ...
Meat-eating can involve discrepancies between the behavior of eating meat and various ideals that the person holds. [47] Some researchers call this form of moral conflict the meat paradox. [48] [49] Hank Rothgerber posited that meat eaters may encounter a conflict between their eating behavior and their affections toward animals. [47]
The term “comfort food” first appeared in a 1966 article in the Palm Beach Post newspaper, but people were likely eating chocolate after a heartbreak long before. The word was added to the ...
Meat paradox: People care about animals, but embrace diets that involve harming them. Moral paradox : A situation in which moral imperatives clash without clear resolution. Outcomes paradox : Schizophrenia patients in developing countries seem to fare better than their Western counterparts.