Psychology of Human-Animal Intergroup Relations

Meating of the Minds: Who Denies Animal Mind in Response to the Meat Paradox?

Nicholas P. Tan — 2024-09-25

Most people abhor animal cruelty but choose to eat meat. To resolve feelings of conflict associated with this so-called “meat paradox”, meat-eaters appear to downplay the capacity of animals to think and feel. However, the strength of animal mind denial seems likely to vary between individuals—according to one’s concern for animal welfare or enjoyment of meat, for instance. Across two pre-registered studies (S1: N = 355, S2: N = 251), we examined personality traits, attitudes, and beliefs that may predict the strength of animal mind denial in relation to the meat paradox. Results suggest that those lower in openness/intellect or emotion regulation ability, or higher in meat-commitment, deny animal mind more strongly when reminded of the link between meat eating and animal suffering. We discuss the degree to which these findings align with dissonance-based explanations for animal mind-denial in response to the meat-paradox.

Dissociation of Dairy From its Animal Origin and the Role of Disgust to Reduce Dairy Consumption

Julie M. E. Pedersen — 2024-08-22

Human consumption of cow milk dairy is detrimental to both animal welfare and maintaining climate stability. In two studies, we investigated the relationship between dairy consumption and features of cow milk associated with disgust and food rejection: its animal origin as a bodily fluid and pathogen susceptibility. Specifically, we examined whether emphasising these features through the link between cow milk and lactate would reduce willingness to consume dairy through increased disgust. In Study 1 we conducted an online experiment (N = 155; between-persons) manipulating the salience of these features (reading about lactation vs. digestion in cows) and measured the effect on disgust towards cow milk and willingness to consume cow milk and derived dairy products. Compared to the digestion manipulation, the lactation manipulation significantly increased disgust towards dairy, which fully mediated a reduction in self-reported consumption willingness. Study 2 was a conceptual replication with an in-person experiment (N = 76; within-persons) using the same manipulation (reading about lactation in cows) and measuring disgust towards cow milk and behavioural intentions to eat dairy milk chocolate (serving size). We found a similar increase in disgust towards dairy but no effect on milk chocolate serving size. We conclude that emphasising the bodily nature of lactation increases disgust towards cow milk, but this does not reliably decrease intended consumption.

Development of the Passive and Active Meat-Animal Dissociation Scale (MADS)

Nora C. G. Benningstad — 2024-08-22

Many individuals like eating meat but condemn causing harm to animals. Dissociating meat from its animal origins is one way to avoid the cognitive dissonance this ‘meat paradox’ elicits. While the significance of meat-animal dissociation for meat consumption is well-established, a recent literature review suggested that it consists of two distinct tendencies. First, people may differ in the degree to which they passively disassociate meat from its animal origins. Second, they may differ in the extent to which they actively dissociate to decrease dissonance. By developing and validating a scale in three pre-registered studies using samples of American and British meat-eaters, the present investigation aimed to quantitatively establish whether these two proposed tendencies constitute distinct constructs with different relations to dietary preferences, meat-related cognition, and affect. Study 1 (n = 300) provided initial support for a normally-distributed scale with two orthogonal dimensions that were systematically and differently related to a range of individual differences and dietary preferences. In Study 2 (n = 628), both dimensions were non-responsive to short-term cues that highlight the animal-meat link but predicted dietary preferences independent of them. Finally, Study 3 (n = 231) showed that the dissociation dimensions predict dietary preferences even in people working in the meat industry who have long-term exposure to cues that connect meat with its animal origins. Together, the results of the three studies supported the notion that people’s dissociation tendencies can be divided into two qualitatively distinct tendencies. Implications and avenues for future research are discussed.

Speciesism and Perceptions of Animal Farming Practices as Predictors of Meat Consumption in Australia and Hong Kong

Katherine Northrope — 2024-07-09

Many people care about animals and do not wish to cause them harm yet continue to eat them. Past research, largely in Western cultural contexts, has found that people’s meat consumption is negatively related to how much they know about animal farming practices, and positively related to their endorsement of speciesism (the assignment of moral worth based on species membership). Little is known, however, about how these variables are related to meat consumption in non-Western samples. The present study aimed to determine to what extent perceptions of farming practices and speciesism predict meat consumption among people living in Australia and Hong Kong. Participants were recruited through Facebook advertising and asked to complete a questionnaire that measured speciesism, animal farming perceptions, meat consumption, and meat reduction intentions. Speciesism and perceptions of animal farming practices significantly predicted meat consumption and meat reduction intentions in the Australian sample, but only predicted some of the outcomes in the Hong Kong sample.

Prejudice Across Species Lines: Testing for a Link Between the Devaluation of Humans and Non-Human Animals

Bastian Jaeger — 2024-06-28

People who are prejudiced against one social group also tend to be prejudiced against other social groups, that is, they show generalized prejudice. Many scholars have noted parallels between the devaluation and exploitation of certain human groups (e.g., racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice) and the treatment of non-human animals (often referred to as speciesism), suggesting that generalized prejudice may even extend across species lines. I tested this hypothesis using panel data with large and demographically diverse participant samples and different operationalizations of the devaluation of humans and animals. Study 1 (56,759 participants from 46 European countries) revealed a positive association between human-directed prejudice and human supremacy beliefs and this association was still observed when controlling for various socio-demographic factors (e.g., gender, educational attainment, religiosity, political orientation). Study 2 (1,566 Dutch participants) revealed positive associations between human-directed prejudice and a host of attitudes, beliefs, emotional responses, and behaviors related to meat consumption. For the majority of tests, this positive association was still observed when controlling for socio-demographic factors. Thus, both studies suggest that people who devalue human groups also tend to devalue the welfare and interests of animals. The current findings support recent theorizing on the common psychological roots of human-directed and animal-directed prejudice and attest to the generality of generalized prejudice.

Exploring Public Support for Farmed Animal Welfare Policy and Advocacy Across 23 Countries

Christopher Bryant — 2024-03-19

Farmed animal policy and advocacy efforts both attempt to generate and depend upon public support. However, relatively little is known about the factors that predict support for animal protection legislation and advocacy across the globe. We analyse data from a large international survey (23 countries, n = 20,966) alongside other data sources on animal advocacy to investigate knowledge of factory farming, the connection between attitudes towards animals and the strength of animal protection legislation, attitudes towards animals based on their food status in different countries, and the connection between personal support for policy, animal advocacy, civic activism, and animal advocacy organisations. We found that higher support for animal welfare is associated with stronger farm animal protection legislation across countries and that concerns about specific animals can vary depending on cultural and religious factors. Contrary to study hypotheses, we did not find greater support for advocacy in countries with more advocacy organisations, suggesting important opportunities to pursue advocacy in relatively neglected regions. Results are interpreted in terms of how farmed animal advocates can take advantage of and potentially generate support for animal welfare throughout the world.

Non-Speciesist Language Conveys Moral Commitments to Animals and Evokes Do-Gooder Derogation

Stefan Leach — 2023-06-21

The use of non-speciesist language, such as referring to non-human animals as ‘someone’ instead of ‘something’, is a simple way for individuals to recognize animals’ moral standing. However, little is known about how this language is perceived and whether it may lead to do-gooder derogation. We conducted three studies involving adults in the United Kingdom (n = 1409) and found that omnivores, semi-vegetarians, and lacto-/ovo-vegetarians were less likely to want to get to know someone who used non-speciesist language. Omnivores were especially apprehensive and also saw them as less compassionate. Strict vegetarians and vegans were more positive, viewing someone who used non-speciesist language as more compassionate. Vegans were particularly so, being the only group to report greater interest in getting to know someone who used non-speciesist language. All groups, irrespective of their diet, thought that non-speciesist language communicated arrogance, an avoidance of meat, and rejection of the idea that humans take moral precedence over other animals. These effects were strongest for language that avoided euphemizing the suffering of animals and weakest for language that did not objectify them. Our findings highlight the social implications of using non-speciesist language and demonstrate how it can be a pathway through which do-gooder derogation may occur in everyday life. By doing so, they contribute to understanding how people perceive those with moral commitments to animals and the challenges facing those who want to reduce animal product consumption and improve animal welfare.

Using Food Frequency Questionnaires to Measure Traits: A Case Study of Human Consumption of Animals and Animal Products

Adam Feltz — 2023-05-03

Measuring human consumption of animals and animal products (HCAAP) is challenging but often important for researchers and animal rights advocates. We contribute to measuring HCAAP by conceptualizing that consumption as a trait. In 3 studies, we analyzed responses from traditional Food Frequency Questionnaires and created two measures of HCAAP traits based on 24-hour and 3-month self-reports. Studies 1 (N = 249) and 2 (N = 265) evaluated the item-level properties of 24-hour and 3-month self-reports, eliminating items that were not likely to provide much information about the underlying trait of HCAAP. Study 3 (N = 252) provided evidence that the two measures were predicted by knowledge of animals as food, meat-eating rationalizations, numeracy, sex, and political orientation. These results suggest that the two instruments could be used to measure HCAAP as a trait. We offer suggestions as to when using the two instruments may be beneficial.

Animalization and Dehumanization Concerns: Another Psychological Barrier to Animal Law Reform

Maneesha Deckha — 2023-02-21

Legal systems across the world classify animals as property. There is growing global momentum asking courts in anthropocentric legal systems to revisit this position through test-case litigation. This has resulted in a few discrete victories for animals, but not much more. An ongoing issue is general legal conservatism and the belief in human exceptionalism that judges exhibit in these and related cases. In addition to general human exceptionalism, this article argues that a further psychological block for judges can arise from concerns about exacerbating racism and other intra-human prejudices given histories and legacies of animalizing and dehumanizing certain human groups. The first aim of this study is to illustrate this psychological phenomenon impacting judicial decision-making in relation to race. The article discusses the 2022 decision by the New York Court of Appeals with respect to the ongoing captivity of Happy, an elephant at the Bronx Zoo. This decision is selected given its recent and landmark status in North America. The second aim of the study is to outline why the dissociation of humans from animals is counterproductive to eliminating racism and other intra-human prejudices and inequities. The third aim of the study is to explain why affirming human proximity and kinship to animals—and thus putting a positive spin on animalization—in the legal system would be a more effective anti-racist and decolonizing gesture.

Reduce by How Much? Calibrating Meat Reduction Appeals to Maximize Their Effectiveness

Sophie Cameron — 2023-02-16

Meat-rich diets have a negative impact on animal welfare, consumer health, and the environment. In recent years, research has begun to explore which approaches are most effective at reducing consumption. A question that has been the subject of extensive debate is whether appeals are more effective when they ask people to reduce vs. eliminate meat from their diets. On the one hand, the negative externalities resulting from meat consumption are reduced more if a person fully abstains from eating meat. On the other, stronger requests likely lead to lower compliance rates. Thus, to identify which appeal leads to the overall greatest reduction in meat consumption, one has to balance, (a) how many individuals comply with the request and, (b) by how much individuals reduce their consumption if they comply. In two studies, with participants from the US, UK, Australia, and the Netherlands (N = 705), we explored participants’ reported meat consumption and willingness to comply with different week-long meat reduction appeals (10–100%) to identify which would lead to the greatest overall reduction in intended meat consumption. As expected, larger requests lead to lower reported willingness to comply. Mid-range requests (40–70%) were more effective than small requests (10%) or elimination requests (100%). Although we find some differences across countries, mid-range requests were most effective in each sample. Our findings provide first insights into how to calibrate appeals to achieve the greatest reduction in overall meat consumption.