Lancaster University, Department of Psychology, Fylde College, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YF, UK.
University of Pennsylvania, Department of Psychology, Solomon Labs, 3720 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Appetite. 2015 Aug;91:114-28. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011. Epub 2015 Apr 9.
Recent theorizing suggests that the 4Ns - that is, the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice - are common rationalizations people use to defend their choice of eating meat. However, such theorizing has yet to be subjected to empirical testing. Six studies were conducted on the 4Ns. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the 4N classification captures the vast majority (83%-91%) of justifications people naturally offer in defense of eating meat. In Study 2, individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tended also to objectify (dementalize) animals and included fewer animals in their circle of moral concern, and this was true independent of social dominance orientation. Subsequent studies (Studies 3-5) showed that individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tend not to be motivated by ethical concerns when making food choices, are less involved in animal-welfare advocacy, less driven to restrict animal products from their diet, less proud of their animal-product decisions, tend to endorse Speciesist attitudes, tend to consume meat and animal products more frequently, and are highly committed to eating meat. Furthermore, omnivores who strongly endorsed the 4Ns tended to experience less guilt about their animal-product decisions, highlighting the guilt-alleviating function of the 4Ns.
最近的理论认为，4N——即认为吃肉是自然的、正常的、必要的和美好的——是人们用来为自己选择吃肉辩护的常见合理化依据。然而，这种理论尚未经过实证检验。本研究对 4N 进行了六项研究。研究 1a 和 1b 表明，4N 分类涵盖了人们为吃肉辩护时自然提出的绝大多数（83%-91%）理由。在研究 2 中，那些支持 4N 的人往往也会将动物客体化（去人性化），并且将更少的动物纳入他们的道德关怀范围，而且这种情况独立于社会支配倾向。随后的研究（研究 3-5）表明，那些支持 4N 的人在做出食物选择时往往不会受到伦理问题的驱动，他们对动物福利的倡导参与度较低，限制饮食中动物产品的动力较小，对自己的动物产品决策的自豪感较低，倾向于支持物种主义态度，往往更频繁地食用肉类和动物产品，并且对吃肉有高度的承诺。此外，强烈支持 4N 的杂食者往往对他们的动物产品决策感到内疚感较少，突出了 4N 的缓解内疚的功能。
