A new study by psychology researchers from the UK and Australia surveyed 1,861 participants from the United States and Germany to explore how moral values relate to attitudes toward cultured meat.
The authors explain that cultivated meat promotes less animal and environmental harm, aligning with the “harm/care” dimension of the Moral Foundations Theory, which emphasizes concern for the suffering of others and the desire to care for and protect people from harm.
However, after three surveys, the researchers found that the “harm” dimension was unexpectedly weak in predicting favorable attitudes despite “harm” being a significant narrative in media and industry.
The five moral foundations
For the surveys, the researchers used the five moral foundations — harm, purity, fairness, loyalty, and authority — to predict attitudes toward cultivated meat. These ethical dimensions help to explain the variance in what people consider moral or immoral behaviors and beliefs.
Loyalty, authority, and purity are binding foundations that focus on the integrity and maintenance of groups and adherence to traditional social norms. Right-leaning people are more likely to emphasize these morals.
Meanwhile, harm, fairness, and liberty belong to “individualizing foundations” because they prioritize individual rights and well-being over group cohesion. Left-leaning individuals tend to prioritize this group.
The harm-reduction claim
Against predictions, the study found that the harm foundation was unexpectedly weak in predicting attitudes. This result was surprising given the harm-reduction narrative often associated with cultivated meat. In one of the studies, inconsistent findings appeared, where the harm foundation was correlated with perceiving cultivated meat as good.
However, the authors say that this correlation did not hold when all moral foundations were considered in a regression model, suggesting that harm does not have a robust effect on attitudes.
On the contrary, the study found a significant correlation between the moral value of purity and negative attitudes toward cultivated meat. This correlation, evident in all studies, was stronger and more consistent among US participants than German participants.
Additionally, those scoring high on purity viewed cultivated meat as unnatural, leading to its rejection, which ties back to emotions, particularly disgust. The researchers point out that the interplay between disgust, purity, and the moralization of cultivated meat is fertile ground for future research.
Political orientation and attitudes
Regarding political orientation, those on the political left exhibited more positive attitudes toward novel meat than those on the right, consistent with US and German studies. Furthermore, younger and better-educated individuals generally showed more favorable attitudes. Notably, men and meat lovers also had more positive attitudes toward technology.
Despite this evidence, the researchers note that the association between political orientation and moral foundations in Western cultures does not always hold in non-Western contexts.
“To clarify, we do not think that these results are strong enough to justify a shift away from harm-reduction claims in general. However, we hope that they encourage advocates and activists to more carefully consider the values that may underlie opposition to cultured meat—and take seriously the possibility of purity-based values as a contributor to shaping our attitudes,” the study reads.
The complete study can be found here.
