Motivated Reasoning and the Psychology of Anti-Veganism
- The Young Vegan
- Oct 1
- 3 min read
Motivated reasoning is a part of the psychology of anti-veganism that makes people resistant
When people argue against veganism, they will often make claims that make little sense. Their reasoning often seems illogical. This is because they are using deep psychological processes to protect their identity, habits, and worldview. They are using mechanisms to argue that the way they do things is right. These mechanisms include motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Knowing how people think sheds light on why they resist vegan arguments. It also shows us how to respond effectively.
Motivated Reasoning: Protecting Comfort Over Truth
Motivated reasoning occurs when people decide what they want to believe. Then, they look for evidence that backs up those beliefs.
Example in anti-vegan arguments:
“My grandfather ate meat his whole life and lived to 90, so eating meat is healthy.”
“Humans have always eaten meat, so it’s natural.”
These statements aren’t genuine evidence. They’re excuses to keep a comfortable lifestyle. When faced with evidence that counters their thinking, people will reject it because it challenges their argument.
How to counter:
Gently redirect to broader evidence: "Some people live long lives despite smoking, but that doesn’t mean smoking is healthy." "Data shows strong links between meat consumption and heart disease, cancer, and climate change." "Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes."
Acknowledge the comfort factor: "I understand it's uncomfortable to think that your beliefs have been wrong. But what if giving this a try would be a positive change for you?"
Cognitive Dissonance: Reducing Inner Conflict
Cognitive dissonance occurs when people have beliefs or values that conflict. This internal conflict causes discomfort that they try to resolve. For many, it’s the clash between “I care about animals” and “I eat animals.”
Example in anti-vegan arguments:
“I only eat animals that are humanely raised.”
“I love animals, but eating them is just part of life.”
These statements reduce tension without needing real behavioural change.
How to counter:
Highlight the inconsistency gently: "You clearly care about animals, but do you think the animals we eat suffer less than the pets we love?"
Show pathways to alignment: "Vegan choices let people live more closely to their values of compassion and care."
Cognitive Bias: Distortions in Thinking
Cognitive biases are shortcuts the brain uses to simplify decision-making, often at the cost of accuracy. Several biases show up in anti-vegan arguments.
Common biases in anti-vegan reasoning:
Status quo bias: Preferring things to stay the same. “We’ve always eaten meat; why stop now?”
Confirmation bias: Seeking out only pro-meat arguments. “I read an article saying grass-fed beef helps the environment.”
Normality bias: Assuming common behaviours must be acceptable. “Everyone eats meat, so it can’t be wrong.”
How to counter:
Normalise veganism: "More people than ever are choosing plant-based options, especially among younger people. It’s becoming part of the new normal."
Provide contrasting evidence: "Yes, some articles praise grass-fed beef. But even the most sustainable beef has far higher emissions than plant-based protein."
Encourage reflection: "What if tradition isn’t always the best guide? Many harmful practices in history were once considered normal."
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Overconfidence in Limited Knowledge
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes how people with little knowledge of a subject often overestimate their understanding.
Example in anti-vegan arguments:
“Plants don’t have protein.”
“If everyone went vegan, we’d have to cut down more forests to grow soy.”
“You can’t survive without meat.”
These claims often come from people who have never looked into these issues. They haven't studied nutrition, environmental science, or agriculture. But this doesn't stop them from speaking with confidence.
How to counter:
Avoid humiliation (which makes people double down). Instead, provide simple, clear facts:
"Actually, all plants contain protein." "Foods like beans and lentils are rich in protein."
"Most soy grown today feeds livestock, not people. If we ate soy directly, we’d use far less land."
Invite curiosity: "Can you show me the latest research on this? It’s fascinating."
Bringing It Together: Compassion Over Confrontation
People rarely reject veganism because the facts are unclear. More often, it’s because the truth conflicts with their habits, identity, or social group. It is far more comfortable for them to reject information and continue with old ways. Motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias, and the Dunning-Kruger effect help them maintain the status quo.
The best way to respond isn’t with hostility but with empathy and clarity:
Recognise the psychological defences at play.
Offer facts in a calm, non-threatening way.
Connect veganism to the person’s own values.
When the discussion shifts from winning an argument to helping someone resolve their inner conflict, the possibility for real change opens up.
Comments