Researchers in Malaysia surveyed 341 college students to understand why young people continue eating meat even when they know it affects animals and the environment. The study found that most students had low concern for animal welfare and weren’t very aware of environmental issues related to meat. Interestingly, students used mental tricks to justify eating meat—like telling themselves the benefits outweigh the harm or believing someone else is responsible for the problem. The research shows that when people use these mental tricks, they’re less likely to want to switch to plant-based foods. Understanding these psychological barriers could help create better ways to encourage people to eat more sustainably.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Why do young people continue eating meat even when they care about animals and the environment? Researchers looked at the mental tricks people use to feel okay about eating meat.
  • Who participated: 341 college students from ten different universities across Malaysia participated in the study by answering questions about their eating habits, values, and beliefs.
  • Key finding: Students used moderate-to-high levels of mental justifications for eating meat. The most common trick was telling themselves that the benefits of eating meat outweigh the harm to animals and the environment.
  • What it means for you: If you’re thinking about eating less meat, understanding these mental barriers might help you recognize when you’re making excuses. This knowledge could support your efforts to make dietary changes that align with your values.

The Research Details

This was a cross-sectional study, which means researchers collected information from students at one point in time rather than following them over months or years. Students from ten Malaysian universities completed a detailed questionnaire that asked about their beliefs regarding animal ethics, environmental awareness, and their willingness to try plant-based diets. The questionnaire also measured five specific mental tricks people use to justify eating meat: telling themselves the ends justify the means, becoming emotionally numb to the issue, denying that meat consumption causes harm, spreading responsibility among many people, and feeling like they have no choice in the matter.

The researchers used established, validated scales—meaning these measurement tools have been tested and proven reliable in previous research. This approach allowed them to gather consistent, comparable data across all participants. The study was designed to explore the relationships between how much students cared about animal ethics, their environmental awareness, and how much they used mental justifications for eating meat.

This research approach is important because it captures a snapshot of how young people actually think about meat consumption in a real-world setting. Rather than testing a specific intervention, the study identifies the psychological barriers that prevent dietary change. By understanding these mental patterns, researchers and health professionals can design more targeted, effective strategies to help people align their eating habits with their values. The cross-sectional design is efficient for exploring these relationships and generating insights for future research.

The study used established, validated measurement scales, which strengthens reliability. The sample size of 341 students is reasonable for this type of research. However, because this is a cross-sectional study, it shows relationships between variables but cannot prove that one causes the other. The study was conducted only in Malaysia with university students, so results may not apply to other countries or age groups. The study is published in Appetite, a peer-reviewed journal focused on eating behavior research, which indicates it met scientific standards for publication.

What the Results Show

The study revealed that Malaysian college students showed relatively low concern for animal ethics and only low-to-moderate awareness of environmental issues related to meat consumption. Most students were not strongly motivated to adopt plant-based diets. However, students demonstrated moderate-to-high levels of moral disengagement—meaning they frequently used mental tricks to justify eating meat.

The most common mental trick was ‘means-ends justification,’ where students told themselves that the benefits of eating meat (taste, nutrition, convenience) outweigh the harm to animals and the environment. The second most common was ‘diffused responsibility,’ where students felt that their individual meat consumption doesn’t matter because so many other people eat meat too. The third was ‘desensitization,’ where students had become emotionally numb to the suffering of animals in food production.

Crucially, the research found a clear negative relationship: students who used more mental justifications for eating meat were significantly less likely to want to switch to plant-based diets. Conversely, students who had stronger concerns about animal ethics and environmental issues used fewer mental tricks and were more open to dietary change.

The study also identified two other mental disengagement strategies that students used less frequently: ‘denial of negative consequences’ (refusing to believe that meat consumption causes real harm) and ‘reduced perceived choice’ (feeling trapped by circumstances and believing they have no option but to eat meat). These findings suggest that different students use different mental strategies, and understanding which strategies are most prevalent can help tailor interventions to address specific barriers.

This research builds on existing psychological theories about moral disengagement—a concept originally developed to explain how people justify harmful behaviors. The study applies this framework specifically to food choices and dietary sustainability, which is a relatively newer application. The findings align with previous research showing that environmental and ethical concerns are important factors in dietary choices, but this study adds important insight into the psychological mechanisms that prevent people from acting on these concerns. The moderate-to-high levels of moral disengagement found in this Malaysian sample are consistent with similar research in other countries, suggesting this is a widespread psychological pattern.

This study has several important limitations. First, it only included college students from Malaysia, so the findings may not apply to other age groups, education levels, or countries with different cultural values around meat consumption. Second, the study measured what students said they believed and intended to do, not what they actually did—people sometimes say they care about issues but don’t change their behavior. Third, because this is a cross-sectional study (a snapshot in time), it cannot prove that moral disengagement causes people to eat meat; it only shows these factors are related. Fourth, the study relied on self-reported questionnaires, which can be influenced by social desirability bias—students might have answered questions based on what they thought was the ‘right’ answer rather than their true beliefs. Finally, the study did not measure other important factors that influence dietary choices, such as family influence, food availability, cost, or cultural traditions.

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, interventions to promote plant-based eating should focus on addressing the specific mental justifications people use. Rather than simply providing information about animal welfare or environmental harm, programs should help people recognize and challenge their mental tricks—like the belief that their individual choices don’t matter or that the benefits of meat outweigh the harms. Strategies might include highlighting the cumulative impact of individual choices, increasing emotional connection to animal welfare, and making plant-based options more convenient and appealing. Confidence level: Moderate—this research identifies important psychological barriers, but more research is needed to test which intervention strategies actually work.

This research is most relevant to young people (especially college-age students) who are interested in aligning their eating habits with their values around animal welfare and environmental protection. It’s also valuable for parents, educators, nutritionists, and public health professionals working to promote sustainable eating. People who already care about these issues but struggle to change their diet may find this research particularly helpful for understanding their own mental barriers. This research is less directly applicable to people who don’t prioritize animal ethics or environmental concerns.

Recognizing and changing mental justification patterns typically takes weeks to months. You might notice shifts in your thinking within 2-4 weeks of consciously challenging these mental tricks, but actual dietary behavior change usually takes 4-12 weeks to become a stable habit. Don’t expect overnight transformation; sustainable dietary change is a gradual process.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track instances when you catch yourself using mental justifications for eating meat. Create a simple log noting: (1) what you ate, (2) which mental trick you used (e.g., ’told myself the taste is worth it’ or ’thought my choice doesn’t matter’), and (3) how you felt. Over time, this awareness can help you recognize patterns and make more intentional choices.
  • When you feel the urge to eat meat, pause and ask yourself: ‘What mental trick am I using right now?’ Then consciously challenge it. For example, if you think ‘my choice doesn’t matter,’ remind yourself that every choice contributes to larger patterns. Use the app to log these moments and celebrate when you successfully challenge a justification.
  • Set a weekly goal to identify and challenge at least three instances of moral disengagement. Track your plant-based meal attempts and note which mental barriers were hardest to overcome. Review your patterns monthly to see if certain justifications are becoming less frequent, indicating genuine attitude shift. Use this data to personalize your approach to dietary change.

This research identifies psychological patterns in college students’ attitudes toward meat consumption and plant-based diets. It does not provide medical advice about nutrition or dietary requirements. Individual nutritional needs vary based on age, health status, activity level, and other factors. Before making significant dietary changes, especially if you have health conditions or take medications, consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian. This study was conducted with Malaysian college students and may not apply to all populations. The findings describe associations between variables but do not prove cause-and-effect relationships.