Can a Picture Change What We Eat? Exploring the Research Behind Animal Imagery and Meat Consumption

The animal was always part of the story. The photograph simply made it visible.

When most of us order lunch, we see a finished product: a chicken burrito, a beef burger, a pork sandwich. What we often don't see is the living animal that came before it.

For researcher Siobhan Murray, that disconnect became the focus of an intriguing master's project at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England. Her research examined a simple but provocative question: What happens when people are reminded where their meat comes from?

The results attracted international attention, sparked criticism from some commentators, and reignited conversations about the psychology of meat consumption.

From Environmental Psychology to Animal Welfare

Siobhan's path into animal welfare research wasn't straightforward.

Originally, she hoped to pursue a degree in environmental psychology, a field that uses  psychology to address environmental issues like climate change (University of Groningen, n.d.). However, because the discipline was highly specialized, she instead studied social psychology, focusing on how people's behaviour can be influenced to make better environmental decisions.

Her interest in animal welfare grew through her involvement with Effective Altruism, a philosophy and social movement that encourages people to use evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to help others (Centre for Effective Altruism n.d.).

Through this framework, she began to see animal welfare as an area where meaningful impact could be achieved.

A vegan for many years, Siobhan initially adopted the lifestyle because of environmental concerns. Over time, after learning more about industrial animal agriculture, animal welfare became equally important to her.

Yet she still sees climate change and animal welfare as deeply interconnected.

"I've always been really interested in climate change," she explained. "The intersection between those interests is that reducing meat consumption can help address climate change."

That connection ultimately shaped her master's research.

The Question: Can Animal Imagery Influence Meat Consumption?

The idea emerged from research by psychologist Erin R. Hahn, who found that many children do not fully understand where meat comes from. In some cases, children do not realize that meat is derived from animals at all (Hahn 2017).

Hahn's work also explored what psychologists call the "meat paradox"—the moral tension people experience when they care about animals while simultaneously eating them.

To resolve this discomfort, people often develop justifications for meat consumption.

Common examples include beliefs that eating meat is natural, necessary, or acceptable because certain animals are perceived as having lower cognitive abilities.

What fascinated Siobhan was the possibility that adults may also psychologically distance themselves from the origins of their food.

"Are people forgetting what they're eating?" she wondered.

As she explored the literature, she discovered previous studies showing that pairing images of animals with images of meat reduced people's reported desire to eat meat.

However, most of this work relied on self-reported attitudes.

Siobhan wanted to know whether the effect could be observed in real-world behaviour.

Would people actually make different purchasing decisions if they were reminded of the animals behind their food?

Bringing the Research Into the Real World

To test the idea, Siobhan conducted her study in the main cafeteria at the University of East Anglia. For eight days, researchers collected baseline sales data using the cafeteria's standard menu displays. 

Then came the intervention.

For another eight days, menu boards displayed images of the corresponding animals beside meat dishes: a chicken burrito appeared alongside a photograph of a chicken; beef burgers were accompanied by an image of a cow; pork dishes featured a pig.

The images were simple and direct. There were no graphic slaughterhouse photographs or emotionally charged messages. The menus simply made visible the connection between the food item and the animal it came from.

Interestingly, the pig image appeared to have the strongest effect.

Siobhan recalls using a photograph of a small pink piglet—a seemingly innocent image that nonetheless prompted a noticeable response from diners.

Understanding the "Meat Paradox"

One of the most fascinating aspects of the study is what it reveals about human

psychology. Why would a simple photograph influence food choices?

According to Siobhan, the answer lies in cognitive dissonance—the discomfort people experience when two conflicting beliefs collide. Many people care about animals. At the same time, many people eat animals. Normally, society provides enough psychological distance that these two realities coexist without much tension. 

A photograph disrupts that distance. "The brain can no longer forget about the process of turning living things into food," she explained. While empathy, guilt, and even disgust may all play a role, Siobhan believes "discomfort" is the best word to describe the reaction.

"It's a very subconscious process," she said. "The photos only disrupt it a little bit, but that little disruption can make people feel uncomfortable without fully understanding why."

Her observations were supported by feedback gathered after the study. Although these survey responses did not make it into the final report, several participants specifically mentioned that the photographs made them uncomfortable.

Was the Study Trying to Make People Feel Guilty?

Not everyone viewed the research positively. Some media outlets characterized the study as an attempt to "guilt-trip" meat eaters. Siobhan disagrees with that interpretation. As a researcher, she emphasizes that the project was designed to measure behaviour, not shame participants.

"We didn't know what effect it would have," she said. The study did not involve collecting personal data from diners. Researchers analyzed sales patterns rather than individual participants.

From her personal perspective, however, she challenges the assumption that guilt is inherently negative."If you feel guilty, there may be a reason," she reflected. After all, the images presented no deception. A pig beside a pork dish is simply an accurate representation of what the food is. Still, she stresses that the purpose was never to ridicule meat eaters. "Meat eating is so normalized," she noted. "It's not really anyone's fault." The study was simply designed to investigate whether making the animal-food connection more visible would influence consumer choices.

Can Small Changes Really Reduce Animal Suffering?

One criticism often directed at animal advocacy is that individual actions seem insignificant compared to the scale of industrial animal agriculture.

Siobhan sees things differently. She points to behavioural "nudges"—small interventions that can lead to large cumulative effects.

One example comes from the UK's plastic bag charge. Although the fee was relatively minor, it dramatically reduced plastic bag usage across the country. The change itself was small. The behavioural impact was enormous. The same principle could apply to food choices.

Even if only a few people choose a vegetarian option because of an animal image on a menu, those choices still matter. "You might have just saved an animal's life," she said. "And that's really great." Perhaps more importantly, small behavioural shifts can help reshape social norms. Every person who chooses a vegetarian meal makes plant-based eating slightly more visible and more socially accepted. Over time, those individual decisions can contribute to larger cultural changes.

Could Restaurants Put This Research Into Practice?

When asked whether she would like restaurants to adopt similar menu designs, Siobhan's answer was straightforward. "I would love it." The challenge, she acknowledges, is economic.

Many restaurants rely heavily on meat sales and may have little incentive to encourage customers to purchase less meat.

Still, she believes the approach could be particularly useful for businesses actively promoting plant-based options. Restaurants with strong vegetarian offerings could potentially use animal imagery while simultaneously improving and marketing their meat-free alternatives.

In theory, this could help shift demand without necessarily reducing overall revenue.

An Unexpected Global Conversation

What began as a master's project quickly grew into something much larger. Siobhan never expected the research to attract widespread public attention, let alone coverage from major media outlets and television personalities. Some responses were supportive. Others were highly critical. Yet regardless of where people stood on the issue, she sees one encouraging takeaway. People cared.

For a topic that often struggles to gain mainstream attention, the fact that animal welfare research generated such passionate discussion felt meaningful. Even criticism signalled engagement. And for someone interested in creating positive change for animals, that conversation alone represents a step forward. 

Whether or not restaurants ultimately adopt animal imagery on menus, Siobhan's research highlights a powerful psychological truth: sometimes a simple reminder is enough to make us look at our choices differently.

Sources:

Centre for Effective Altruism. n.d. “Centre for Effective Altruism.” Centre for Effective Altruism. Accessed June 21, 2026. https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/

Hahn, Erin R., and Marybeth K. Garrett. 2017. “Preschoolers’ Moral Judgments of Environmental Harm and the Influence of Perspective Taking.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 53: 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.004.

University of Groningen. n.d. “Environmental Psychology.” University of Groningen Master’s Programme. Accessed June 21, 2026. https://www.rug.nl/masters/environmental-psychology/