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 comparing deep analogies between pigs and dogs with superficial analogies. The aim is to see if these different comparisons elicit attitude change.