Psychological Aspects of Meat consumption

Research on individual characteristics suggests that individuals affect the frequency and comfort of individual values ​​and opinions.

People who are more grateful for various studies can eat a lot of meat, and those who like their knowledge are less likely to eat. The study shows that the specificity of transparency is the preservation of the meat for qualified meat and the people of the vegetarians and the vegetarians.

Other studies have shown that meat consumption is associated with class value and inequality. Some social dominant studies can be consumed while supporting inequality and hierarchical structure. In addition, in the case of the presence of a specific group (in this case) from others (in this case), the study of people who eat people has a very right to exercise a lot. Vegetarians Dhont & Hodson (2014) can be a relic of gender differences in meat consumption (due to statistical correlation, because the characteristics of the dark triad are large and there is a high probability of eating meat).

Most of these personal characteristics have been associated with moral consumption with meat consumption. In particular, people with a high moral development of meat consumption have a low general sympathy, shameless emotional reactions, group consumption, group recording (dominant social supervision) other species (similar species, human characteristics). In addition, these are not important for moral characteristics, how to see themselves (moral adequacy), and often eat meat. 

Due to superstition, 'what you eat' can provide individual animal characteristics from many cultures and can make meat as usual. 

Personally, it can be changed between cultures. In India, for example, vegetarians value their group more than omnivores and show more respect for authority. Rather, they are concerned with pollution, purity, and tradition. This is in contrast to the United States, which encourages vegetarians to give up meat for reasons of universality and animal welfare.