Differential responses to ethical vegetarian appeals: Exploring the role of traits, beliefs, and motives

Minding some animals but not others: Strategic attributions of mental capacities and moral worth to animals used for food in pescatarians, vegetarians, and omnivores

While moral concern for animals has become increasingly important for both consumer food choice and food policy makers, previous research demonstrated that meat eaters attribute lower moral status and mental capacities to animals raised for meat compared to non-food animals. The current research investigated whether this strategic flexibility in moral concern and mind perceptions also occurs when considering aquatic food animals and animals used for dairy and egg products, and the degree to which these concerns and perceptions are evident in pescatarians and vegetarians. We compared perceptions (mind attributions and moral concern) of land food animals versus aquatic food animals, and of animals in the meat versus dairy and egg industry between omnivores (n = 122), pescatarians (n = 118), vegetarians (n = 138), vegans (n = 120), and flexitarians (n = 60). Pescatarians scored lower than other dietary groups on moral concern and mind attribution for aquatic animals relative to farmed land animals. Unlike the other dietary groups, pescatarians and vegetarians scored lower on moral concern and mind attribution for dairy than beef cows and for layer chickens than broiler chickens. These findings demonstrate that pescatarians and vegetarians were flexible in their moral thinking about different types of food animals in ways that suited their consumption habits, even when the same animal was evaluated (e.g., dairy vs beef cows). This research highlights the psychological barriers that might prevent people from reducing animal product consumption and may need to be addressed in interventions to encourage transitioning towards more plant-based diets.

Why moral psychology needs personality psychology

People vary in how they perceive, think about, and respond to moral issues. Clearly, we cannot fully understand the psychology of morality without accounting for individual differences in moral functioning. But decades of neglect of and explicit skepticism toward such individual differences has resulted in a lack of integration between moral psychology and personality psychology-the study of psychological differences between people. In recent years, these barriers to progress have started to break down. This special issue aims to celebrate and further increase the visibility of the personality psychology of morality. Here, we introduce the articles in this special issue by highlighting some important contributions a personality-based perspective has to offer moral psychology-particularly in comparison to the currently prominent social psychological approach. We show that personality psychology is well-placed to (a) contribute toward a rigorous empirical foundation for moral psychology, (b) tackle the conceptualization and assessment of stable moral tendencies, (c) assess the predictive validity of moral traits in relation to consequential outcomes, (d) uncover the mechanisms underlying individual differences in moral judgments and behavior, and (e) provide insights into moral development. For these reasons, we believe that moral psychology needs personality psychology to reach its full scholarly potential.

An Investigation of Meat Eating in Samples from Australia and Germany: The Role of Justifications, Perceptions, and Empathy

Despite concerns about animal welfare, and health and environmental issues associated with eating meat, meat consumption has continued to increase worldwide, including in Australia. One exception to this is Germany, with 2021 meat consumption levels being the lowest in the last 30 years. This pre-registered study investigated socio-cultural variables associated with meat consumption in Germany (n = 399) and Australia (n = 399) in a cross-sectional online survey. Participants reported levels of current and intended meat consumption, and they completed measures of speciesism, motivations to eat meat, empathy, animal farming perceptions, perceived behavioural control (PBC) over meat eating, and avoidance and dissociation regarding the animal origins of meat. In both Australia and Germany, enjoying the taste of meat positively predicted consumption and empathy towards farmed animals negatively predicted consumption. PBC was a strong positive predictor of intentions to reduce meat consumption in both countries. Empathy and liking the taste of meat were among the best predictors of red meat and poultry consumption, suggesting that interventions to reduce meat consumption may work best by targeting these factors while also increasing people's sense of control over their food choices.