This work has been accepted for publication at JESP -- "Can coherence-based interventions change dogged moral beliefs about meat-eating?" To make it easier for interested readers to access the data and analyses for all three experiments, we've created a post-publication project: https://osf.io/5d3gx/ **Overview and hypothesis of study** Certain meats are tabooed in every society. Although many people believe that there are good reasons for these taboos, evidence suggests that these norms have resulted from largely arbitrary historical and ecological contingencies (Harris, 1985). Indeed, the lack of a logical basis for most meat taboos can be indicated by drawing comparisons between acceptable and proscribed meats. In this study, we aim to draw analogies between a commonly eaten meat (pork) and a strongly tabooed meat (dog meat) in American society, in order to explore whether brief analogical reasoning will lead Americans to become less accepting of pork consumption. Most people believe harm of sentient beings is morally wrong and recognize animals as sentient. Simultaneously, most people eat factory-produced meat and variously justify this habit (Norcross, 2004). Graça, Calheiros, and Oliveira propose that meat-eaters' justifications are products of cognitive dissonance (2016). If so, the way to change their beliefs is not to present new information for them to rationalize, but rather to appeal to the moral belief they have suppressed in these justifications, a strategy used by Horne, Powell, and Hummel (2015) to elicit spontaneous belief revision. To engage participants' inherent belief that animals are morally relevant, we will adapt Horne et al.'s (2015) strategy and present a single counterexample in which an animal has moral patiency - namely, a pet dog. To study moral change in a context with high ecological validity, we will present participants with brief “memes” that resemble the kinds of appeals seen on social media. Each participant will see one meme, out of a possible eight. This will either include mildly disturbing images of pigs and dogs in severely cramped conditions or no images at all, and the text will provide information appealing to qualities often used to assess moral patiency: either emotional capacity, brain structure, relationship tendency, or an irrelevant control statement. We will then measure participants’ beliefs about the moral acceptability of eating meat, as well as collect a range of demographic information. As this study is largely exploratory, we have no strong hypotheses about the effects of these manipulations. **What we are measuring** Response, on a Likert scale counting 1 as complete disagreement and 7 as complete agreement, to the following statements, also located on our Qualtrics survey: **Specific meat eating questions.** “Eating pork is morally wrong.” “Eating beef is morally wrong.” “Eating chicken is morally wrong.” “Eating dog is morally wrong. **General meat eating questions** "Eating meat is morally acceptable." “It is morally praiseworthy to not eat meat.” “Some of what I just read made me question whether it is morally acceptable to eat meat.” “I now feel uneasy about eating meat.” **How we are collecting the data** We will collect data on Amazon Mechanical Turk. We hope for 30 participants per condition. Because we expect that a minority of participants will fail our attention check measures, we have posted the study for 300 participants. Amazon Mechanical Turk workers will be randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions. After viewing the stimulus appropriate to his or her condition, every participant will respond to the questions given above, which can also be found in our Qualtrics survey here. **Exclusions** Participants will be excluded for indicating that they follow or have followed a vegetarian, vegan, kosher, or halal diet; for reporting a location outside of the United States; for failing to select “Somewhat Agree” on the last item of the specific meat-eating questions or “Yes” on question 11, both of which assess attentiveness to the study; or for answering 1-3 on the item asking whether eating dog is morally wrong.