The Relationship Between Avoidance, Moralization and Disgust
- Samuel Goldberg
- Mar 13, 2025
- 3 min read
There is a correlation between avoidance and disgust and with the process of moralization, a process converting preferences into values when we assign moral value to previously neutral objects. In the context of meat eating, studies have shown that these phenomena are applicable to meat consumption and attitude.
I went vegetarian when I was 12 years old and of course while I hated to admit it, I loved meat. I loved the taste, smell and would eat meat products as a regular part of my diet. However, fast forwarding 8 years later and now when my housemates cook meat, I have a deep need to open every window to get rid of the rancid smell. I always have had some contempt for vegetarians who separate themselves from people who eat meat but I couldn’t seem to understand why my sensory experience of meat had changed so drastically. This could be explained by theories introduced by Becker et al. and Rozin et al. of meat disgust and avoidance and the moralization of becoming a vegetarian.
Becker et al. introduced the concept of meat disgust in their paper The relationship between meat disgust and meat avoidance—A chicken-and-egg problem. In this study, Becker et al. surveyed individuals who temporarily reduced their meat intake during “veganuary”. Participants were asked to describe their feelings towards meat before and after this reduction period. The study found that there was a correlation between changes in meat intake and implicit meat disgust, hence describing my change in taste after becoming a vegetarian.
However, this study only looks at temporary cuts in meat consumption and Rozin et al. proposes another interesting concept that further describes vegetarians' disgust towards meat products. This concept is called moralization. “[They] predict that the moral linkage encourages the occurrence of a hedonic shift: An object or activity that is aligned with one’s moral views is more likely to become liked, and one that is in violation of such views is more likely to become disliked” (McCauley et al., 1995). One example of moralization is smoking. When the public became aware of the negative health impacts of smoking, the practice became moralized and tied to one's values and identity. With this, the public in general became increasingly disgusted by the smell and other sensory attributes of cigarettes. We can identify similar phenomena in vegetarians and vegans who abstain from meat consumption. The moralization of meat and all associations with it become clouded by conflicts with the consumers personal values and identity, impacting the sensorial experience of the product.
So what does this mean for the broader implications of the agricultural and more specifically the cellular agriculture and alternative protein space. Studies are currently being done measuring how meat avoidant consumers respond to cultivated products and if there are differences between their previous disdain towards meat. However, because meat avoidant consumers do not make up the majority of the market for agricultural commodities and meat eaters are the target consumers for cultivated meat. However, will meat consumers experience the same moralization and disgust towards cultivated meat as meat avoiders towards conventional meat? How might we shape the image of cultivated meat to have a positive consumer perception as to not impact the sensory experience of the novel product? Will these issues persist after a consumer has tried the product and will this be a barrier to the broader acceptance of cultivated meat products. Further research should be done on what these concepts may mean for the commercialization and popularization of cultivated products.
Sources:

Comments