IndexIntroductionApplication of cognitive dissonanceEmpirical studyConclusionReferencesIntroductionThe research paper addresses the critical communication theory that defines the problems or events in the story. Researchers raise major questions regarding red meat consumption and differ sharply regarding its impact on consumers. Different researchers defend their views through various observations, findings and cognitive understanding. Cognitive dissonance theory is then used throughout the story to illustrate the contrast in research observations. The approach comes into play when the credibility of a researcher's conclusions and beliefs is challenged. It is done based on past research findings, ethical beliefs, and individuals' trust in scientific evidence. The research paper also addresses empirical studies that support the research and apply cognitive dissonance theory. Various methodological approaches are applicable to produce reliable and accurate results. The rationale for the research, therefore, aims to highlight the exact meaning of eating less red meat. It is particularly important as it will raise critical questions that will facilitate nutritional and medical research. Eating red meat is healthy but in reasonable quantities due to increased health risks. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Applying Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive dissonance refers to a tendency in which an individual seeks consistency between his or her beliefs and opinions (cognitions). Cognitive dissonance is primarily caused by contradictory beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and/or research. Individuals tend to seek consistency between their beliefs, and when an inconsistency (dissonance) between their actions is identified, they eliminate the conflict (Mcleod, 2018). These discrepancies lead to an alteration in a person's attitude-behavior or beliefs. Human beings have a personal drive to hold attitudes and behaviors together to avoid dissonance. We talk about cognitive coherence. Cognitive dissonance can be reduced; reducing the importance of beliefs and attitudes, modifying beliefs, behavior and reactions to create a consonant relationship or acquire new information that overcomes dissonant beliefs. It can also be divided into three sections, namely; decision making, forced compliance behavior, and applied effort. Consumers are often not presented with accurate dietary information to make a balanced judgment about their health. When a person has a conflict between attitude, behavior, and belief, there is mental distress that alters one's beliefs, attitudes, and responses to reduce the distress. For example, when people eat red meat (behavior) and know that it causes cardiovascular disease and cancer (cognition), they are usually in a state of cognitive dissonance. Beliefs influence attitude, which in turn influences behavior (Mcleod, 2018). When there is an inconsistency between beliefs and attitudes, a change is necessary to eliminate the dissonance. It can be reduced by reducing the importance of cognition, that is, beliefs and attitudes. You might convince yourself that a short life with red meat consumption is better than living a life without meat. In this way, they will reduce the importance of dissonant cognition (eating red meat is harmful to health). Having new information that could overcome dissonant beliefs, e.g.think that red meat consumption causes cardiovascular disease and that cancer causes dissonance. However, further information, such as research, has not proven that consuming red meat causes cancer and that other diseases can reduce conflict (Mcleod, 2018). Furthermore, changing one or more beliefs and attitudes to create a consonant relationship reduces conflict, that is, when one of the dissonant elements is a behavior, a person can change to eliminate the behavior. This presents a problem because a well-learned behavior (red meat consumption) can be difficult to change. Dissonance theory does not always state that modes work, only that people will reduce the amount of their dissonance. The cognitive origins of meat-related beliefs and attitudes are uncertain. The study shows several factors associated with beliefs about meat, such as use of and trust in information sources. Difficulties are encountered when people try to change their food consumption patterns. Such challenges can be attitudinal and can only change when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Beliefs that meat is harmful to health, such as causing cancer and heart disease, form the basis of attitudes and behaviors (Lea, 2000). These beliefs concern the intrinsic perception of the unhealthiness of meat and are often not supported by scientific research. For example, not eating meat is associated with a decrease in heart disease, but red meat is highly unlikely to cause heart disease. Health is not the only reason to avoid or reduce red meat consumption, but also environmental issues and animal welfare. Scientists argue that reducing meat consumption decreases methane production, water waste and soil erosion. Empirical Study According to researchers' reports on the article, eating red meat has huge impacts on people's health. Red meat has been associated with increased cases of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Other researchers have argued that red meat does not pose a significant threat to people's health. They say that meaning can only be delineated in significantly huge populations. In an empirical study conducted on the role of different meat consumption in mortality and stroke cases, a significant correlation was found. The theory of cognitive dissonance is clearly outlined in the concepts and events of the article. The authors believe that, although dietary habits constitute a considerable risk factor for the incidence of stroke, they are manageable and modifiable (Kim et al., 2017). The authors also believe that stroke cases are increasing despite disparities between high- and low-income areas. Dietary changes such as meat consumption have been attributed to such factors. The research analysis was quantitative and a meta-analysis was used to objectify the observations. A qualitative study was also conducted on relevant journal articles to ascertain the effectiveness of the research material. A cohort was used in the study and an impact assessment was conducted based on stroke-related mortality. Relative risks on outcomes were assessed at 95% interval levels. Natural logarithms and a random effects model were used in the statistical analysis. The latter is based on the Laird and Der Simonian method (Kim et al., 2017). They brought about heterogeneity and eliminated bias in the population. During the publication of the results several articles were excluded due to lack of credibility. The conclusion explained that different types of meat have different impacts on the body. Following the theory of.