Psychology of Human-Animal Intergroup Relations

Left-Wing Inertia Toward Animal Advocacy: A Research Blind Spot

2026-04-09T00:15:45+00:00

Evidence for the Common or Usual Name for Plant-Based Food Products

2026-04-09T00:15:39+00:00

Common or usual names for food products are important for regulation and consumer understanding. Because some plant-based products aimed at mimicking animal-based products are relatively new, there is little evidence concerning whether those products have common or usual names, and if they do, what those common or usual names might look like. We present evidence from a survey (Study 1) based on vocabulary tests (N = 181) suggesting that using plant-based qualifiers (e.g., ‘veggie’) along with traditional animal terms (e.g., ‘chicken’) is commonly used to identify plant-based meat and dairy analogues. These results are complemented by the results of Study 2 that takes data from posts on social media. Co-occurrence analyses on social media posts indicated that plant-based + animal terms are often used to describe plant-based meat and dairy analogues. Together, these results suggest that consumers may already have common or usual names for many plant-based meat and dairy analogues that often involve plant-based + animal terms. These results may help guide or inform regulations involving plant-based meat and dairy analogues. Changing labels from the common or usual names may reduce consumption of plant-based meat analogues potentially impacting both consumer and animal welfare.

Early Attempts to Stop Eating Meat: Prevalence, Predictors and Outcomes Among UK Youth

2026-03-26T01:08:36+00:00

Efforts to reduce meat consumption amongst adults have had mixed success. Recent research has pointed to children as one group who may have more morally inclusive attitudes towards non-human animals, yet less is known regarding their efforts to abstain from meat consumption. Using a retrospective survey with a sample of emerging adults in the UK (pre-screen study n = 1063, M age = 22.5, main study n = 461, M Age = 22.2), this study documents that approximately half of participants reported having thought about stopping eating meat while they were growing up (i.e., before they finished secondary school). In turn, half of these participants did stop for a period ranging from days to permanent abstinence. Parental support was a strong predictor of being able to stop eating meat. Most participants started eating meat again, largely for reasons of taste and convenience. Together these findings point to youth as a leveraging point for greater uptake of plant-based food options, although current pragmatic and structural barriers limit youth efforts to do so.

Rethinking the Measurement of Speciesism: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations

2026-02-19T00:09:29+00:00

What’s in a Diet? Conceptual and Methodological Challenges in Classifying Dietary Groups

2026-02-19T00:11:17+00:00

Despite longstanding calls for scientific consensus on the definitions and categorisation of animal-restrictive dietary groups (Ruby, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2018), significant discrepancies remain. Urgency to address this issue is only growing, as dietary diversity increases. Without a shared conceptual and methodological framework, the field risks hindering theoretical integration and meta-analytic work. In this commentary, we highlight two key considerations in dietary group categorisation, calling for greater clarity, consistency and collaboration to strengthen cumulative progress in the field.

Where Human–Animal Psychology Is Going Next: Introduction to Special Section of Commentaries

2026-02-19T00:10:14+00:00

Reaching the Right: Engaging Conservatives in Animal Welfare

2026-02-19T00:12:29+00:00

Time Matters: Temporal Dimensions of Change in Animal-Product Consumption and Animal Attitudes

2026-02-19T00:12:26+00:00

Educational Presentations Reduce Meat Consumption Across Two Universities

2025-12-04T00:52:16+00:00

Reducing consumption of animal products is crucial to addressing the climate crisis. Educational interventions have shown promise in promoting plant-based diets, but the picture is not yet clear. Across two interventions, we examined whether brief, targeted video interventions could influence real-world dietary behaviours in university settings. Study 1 (n = 39) employed food vouchers as a behavioural measure, revealing a significant effect: participants who watched a video focusing on the environmental tolls of animal agriculture (versus plant-based foods) were 2.5 times more likely to redeem their vouchers for vegetarian/vegan meals compared to the control group. Study 2 expanded the intervention scope (employing both an environmental- and ethics-focused intervention) and altered the outcome measure (measuring selection of vegan vs non-vegan meals at a university formal dinner). Study 2 (n = 102) effectively reduced selections of meals containing meat, but the effect was weaker than in Study 1. Methodological differences and sample limitations may explain the effect size discrepancies. These interventions highlight the potential of educational interventions for meat reduction in university contexts. To expand on this study’s results, we encourage future research to explore sustained dietary changes post-intervention, rather than single meal choices, and to test a variety of intervention videos.

Measuring Wild Animal Welfare Attitudes: The Attitudes Towards Wild Animal Welfare Scale

2025-10-29T00:59:24+00:00

Wild animals suffer from many naturally occurring harms such as starvation, diseases, and conflicts with other animals, yet little research has been conducted on how people view the natural suffering of wild animals. In this paper we introduce the Attitudes towards Wild Animal Welfare (AWAW) scale. The AWAW scale consists of four subscales: caring about wild animal welfare, support for intervening in nature, idyllic views of nature, and intervention ineffectiveness beliefs. Items were pretested and verified across four preregistered studies (N = 2866). The factors demonstrated good reliability and strongly correlated with related measures, including general animal attitudes, speciesism, and support for specific wild animal welfare interventions. The idyllic view factor showed weaker correlations with other measures but was retained due to its theoretical significance. All four factors predicted a decision to give a bonus payment to a wild animal charity. Our aim is that the scale will facilitate further psychological research on wild animal welfare and, in turn, inform interventions and policies aimed at reducing the suffering of wild animals.