'Meating' the animal and moral emotions: Exploring animal caring and cruelty appeals for dietary change

In modern Western societies, consumers are often disconnected from the animal origins of meat, which facilitates meat consumption by reducing empathy towards animals, and feelings of disgust and guilt. Conversely, animal advocates may appeal to meat's animal origins to evoke moral emotions that discourage meat consumption. This preregistered study investigated the effectiveness of such meat-animal reminders among 421 meat-eating participants from the UK, recruited via Prolific. Participants were randomly exposed to one of three images: a pork chop without animal reminder (control condition), a pork chop paired with a human petting a pig (animal caring appeal) or paired with a human stunning a pig before slaughter (animal cruelty appeal). Based on harm-based accounts of moral judgment, we measured moral emotions oriented to the pig victim (e.g., empathy, sadness), the human perpetrator (e.g., anger, disgust) and the self (e.g., guilt, shame), and examined their effects on participants' willingness to change pork chop consumption and tendency to justify pork-eating. ANOVA analysis revealed that both animal appeals (vs. control) increased moral emotions, while mediation analyses indicated that these emotions indirectly decreased pork-eating justification and increased willingness for dietary change. The animal cruelty appeal seemed particularly effective by evoking perpetrator- and victim-oriented emotions. However, we also found evidence of counteractive effects on pork-eating justification and willingness for dietary change once moral emotions were controlled for, suggesting moral disengagement. Hedonic motivations to eat meat remain a significant barrier. Future research should further explore interventions that enable consumers to translate moral concerns into lasting dietary change.

Personality aspects and proenvironmental attitudes

OBJECTIVE

Climate change is a serious threat. Personality psychologists can help address this threat by understanding what kind of people tend to endorse proenvironmental attitudes and engage in sustainable behavior. Previous research supports reliable associations between proenvironmental attitudes and personality traits. However, this research has generally aggregated different kinds of attitudes into a single composite and has focused on the domain level of personality traits.

METHOD

This study explored how 10 lower-order aspects of the Big Five personality traits were related to eight different proenvironmental attitudes in three convenience samples from the United States (N = 1234; 1000) and the United Kingdom (N = 538).

RESULTS

All five trait domains were related to at least one proenvironmental attitude across all three samples. Seven of eight proenvironmental attitudes could be predicted by one or more traits in all three samples. We also found evidence that the Openness aspect of Openness to Experience was a more consistent predictor of proenvironmental attitudes than the Intellect aspect. In contrast, there was little benefit in distinguishing between the aspects of other trait domains. We did not find evidence that age or political orientation moderated the associations between proenvironmental attitudes and personality.

CONCLUSION

Results point to the need for more fine-grained research on individual differences in proenvironmental attitudes and behavior.

Perceived Similarity of the Self to Animals, Creativity, and Anxiety-: A Terror Management Analysis

According to terror management theory, humans avoid death anxiety by embedding themselves within cultural worldviews that allow them to perceive themselves as more than mortal animals. However, individuals also differ in their trait-like tendency to dissociate from other animals. In six studies, we tested whether individuals who perceive themselves as more similar to animals (high-perceived similarity of the self to animals [PSSA]) invest more in creativity for terror management than low-PSSA individuals, but are also more vulnerable to experiencing anxiety and existential concerns. Supporting our hypotheses, PSSA was associated with investment in creativity and arts, especially after death primes (Studies 3 and 4). High-PSSA individuals had heightened trait anxiety and death-thought accessibility (Studies 5 and 6), and showed increased state anxiety following a negative feedback about their creativity (Study 6). Findings highlight the role of PSSA as a personality variable predicting human motivation and emotion.

Awe promotes moral expansiveness via the small-self

The experience of awe has been shown to challenge how people think about themselves and the world around them, linking them to something greater than themselves. We investigated whether this emotional experience of awe may also challenge the boundaries of our moral consideration, leading to a generalized expansion in our moral worlds. Across five studies (N = 990), we examined whether awe might promote moral expansiveness; that is, increased moral concern across a broad range of entities (e.g., out-groups, animals, plants, environments). Cross-sectional Studies 1a and 1b, found dispositional awe was related to greater moral expansiveness. Experimental Studies 2 and 3, using video-induced awe, found consistent indirect effects on moral expansiveness, via self-reported awe and the small-self sense of vastness. Experimental Study 4, using Virtual Reality induced awe, found those in the awe condition (vs. control) reported greater moral expansiveness, and this was fully mediated by the small-self sense of vastness. Our findings show awe expands our sense of connectedness to the broader world, and through this, increases the breath of our moral concern.

Consumers' Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change

Planetary and human health depend on Westerners' ability to reduce meat consumption. Meat production degrades the environment while excessive meat intake is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease, among others. Effective reasons and motivations are needed for consumers to change their diet. The fact that modern animal agriculture inflicts a great deal of pain on animals from their birth to their slaughter, animal welfare/suffering may drive consumers to curtail their meat consumption. This systematic review examined a total of 90 papers to ascertain consumers' awareness of the pain animals experience in animal agriculture, as well as consumer attitudes towards meat reduction due to animal welfare. Results show that consumers have low awareness of animal agriculture. Awareness of animal agricultural practices and animal sentience is associated with increased negative attitudes towards animal suffering. Animal suffering due to farming practices, transportation, slaughter, and animal sentience are factors that may encourage a reduction in meat consumption, and even dietary change in the short term. There is also evidence that animal suffering may be a more compelling motivation for consumers' willingness to change their diet than for health or environmental reasons. Therefore, increasing consumers' awareness of animal suffering in meat production is paramount to contributing to reduced pressure on the environment and improved human health.

Perceptions of Farm Animal Sentience and Suffering: Evidence from the BRIC Countries and the United States

In this study, we examined how beliefs about farm animal sentience and their suffering vary across culture and demographic characteristics. A total of N = 5027) questionnaires were administered in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the USA. Brazilians showed higher and Chinese lower levels of perceived animal sentience. In Russia and India, the perception of suffering and sentience increases with age, with similar levels to those observed in the USA. In all the countries, more people agreed than disagreed that animals are sentient. Men in India show higher levels of agreement with the relation between eating meat and animal suffering, followed by women in Brazil and China. Lower levels of agreement are observed in Americans and Chinese. Women show higher levels of compassion than men. In Russia, there is a slightly higher level of agreement between men and in the USA younger men agree more. Young American men show higher levels of agreement, while in India and China age has the opposite effect. For fair trading competition, it is important to standardize procedures and respect the demand for both animal protein and its ethical production. Overall, our results showed that perceptions of farm animal sentience and suffering vary substantially across countries and demographic groups. These differences could have important consequences for the perceived ethicality of meat production and consumption, and for global trade in animal products.

Evidence of the unidimensional structure of mind perception

The last decade has witnessed intense interest in how people perceive the minds of other entities (humans, non-human animals, and non-living objects and forces) and how this perception impacts behavior. Despite the attention paid to the topic, the psychological structure of mind perception-that is, the underlying properties that account for variance across judgements of entities-is not clear and extant reports conflict in terms of how to understand the structure. In the present research, we evaluated the psychological structure of mind perception by having participants evaluate a wide array of human, non-human animal, and non-animal entities. Using an entirely within-participants design, varied measurement approaches, and data-driven analyses, four studies demonstrated that mind perception is best conceptualized along a single dimension.

Meat and interpersonal motives: the case of self-enhancement

Meat eaters have a more hierarchical, less egalitarian view at the world than vegetarians. This can be manifested in social dominance orientation, at the intergroup level, but also at the interspecies level, yielding more empathy with nonhuman animals, and at the interpersonal level. We examined if interpersonal motives in human-human relationships and empathy with people are associated with frequency of meat eating, using a cross-sectional survey (N = 580). For the motives power and affiliation, no significant relationships emerged, but the self-enhancement motive was positively related to the number of days that participants ate meat. This predicted additional variance over and above variables at the intergroup and interspecies level, such as social dominance orientation and human-animal continuity. Empathy with people was negatively related to meat consumption, but this was explained by its correlation with empathy with animals. Discussion focuses on the importance of the self-enhancement motive in attachment to meat, the symbol of human superiority, as well as resistance to meat refusers.

The Moral Significance of Aesthetics in Nature Imagery

To solicit support for nature and wildlife conservation, mission-driven organizations rely on professional nature and wildlife imagery in their media outlets and campaigns. We investigated whether-and if so, why-the aesthetics of images increase social media engagement (e.g., number of likes) and the extent to which images elicit moral concern for nature and wildlife. In Study 1 (N = 782 U.S. adults), we trained a neural network to predict image aesthetics in National Geographic's Instagram data and identified image-specific attributes that influence aesthetics. We found that image aesthetics predicted engagement with the Instagram posts. In Study 2 (N = 775 U.S. adults), we established the causal effect of aesthetics on engagement and moral concern, which is explained by self-transcendent emotions (awe and inspiration) and purity associated with an image. Study 3 (N = 406 U.S. adults) replicated the results, showing that our key effects were stronger for individuals who place higher importance on beauty. By demonstrating the moral significance of image aesthetics, we highlight the potential of the beauty of nature to invigorate global conservation efforts.

Natural, enjoyable, and Finnish: Social representations of eating meat in Finnish meat product advertisements

In this study, we examine how meat product advertisements shape the image of meat-eating at a time when alternatives to meat-eating are increasingly being discussed in many Western countries. Drawing on social representations theory, multimodal analysis, and deconstructive reading, we explore how certain meanings are attached to meat-eating while others are put aside. The research material consisted of 65 advertisement videos published by the two largest Finnish meat product companies between 2013 and 2021. We identified naturalness, enjoyment, and Finnishness as the main concepts used to promote meat consumption. The social representations in the advertisements were constituted by three embedded themata namely, edible/inedible, human/animal, and us/them, structuring everyday conceptions regarding meat-eating. Theoretically we seek to show how the advertisements participate in dialogical negotiation on socially salient topics in present-day societies and contribute to the construction of social representations.

Psychological Processes Underlying an Omnivorous, Vegetarian, or Vegan Diet: Gender Role Self-Concept, Human Supremacy Beliefs, and Moral Disengagement from Meat

Most people consume meat regularly but simultaneously claim to be animal lovers, which should lead to a state of cognitive dissonance and cause distress. Against this backdrop, it is important to understand why some people decide to stop consuming meat or completely eschew animal products, while others do not. Research has shown gender and self-regulatory mechanisms as important factors, but the underlying psychological processes require further examination. In total, 3259 vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores completed an online questionnaire about their diet, gender role self-concept, moral disengagement from meat consumption, and human supremacy beliefs. The results showed that male vegans described themselves as more feminine but no less masculine than male omnivores, while no such differences were found in women. Furthermore, omnivores reported the highest moral disengagement from meat consumption, followed by vegetarians and vegans. The same was true of human supremacy beliefs. Moreover, the results showed that not only is diet itself related to differences in human supremacy beliefs but also the motives for this diet, with health and environmental motives being associated with stronger human supremacy beliefs than animal-related motives. These findings present practical implications for animal rights activists, marketing, and the health and education sectors.

Lowering Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption With Environmental, Animal Welfare, and Health Arguments in Italy: An Online Experiment

Introduction

In addition to being a source of valuable nutrients, meat consumption has several negative consequences; for the environment, for animal welfare, and for human health. To persuade people to lower their meat consumption, it is assumed that the personal relevance of the topic of lowering meat consumption is important as it determines how people perceive the quality of the arguments.

Method

In an experimental exploratory field study (n = 139), participants recruited from the general Italian population were randomized to one of the four conditions with a text with pictures on the environmental, animal welfare, or health consequences of meat consumption, or a text on mustard (the control condition). The dependent variables were self-reported consumption of red meat and processed meat after 2 weeks. Personal relevance was assessed in the pre-test with self-reported meat consumption and intention.

Results

The interaction between pre-test meat consumption and condition was significant: In participants who scored high on pre-test meat consumption, the self-reported red meat consumption after 2 weeks in the health argument condition was significantly lower compared to the control condition and the environmental argument condition. The effects of pre-test intention as a moderator were less certain.

Discussion

The persuasive effects of the different arguments made a difference only in people who ate a relatively high level of meat in pre-test, and the type of arguments made a difference. Although the present outcomes are caused by the specific formulations of the arguments in this study, the results do show that it is relevant to choose the arguments carefully to ensure effectiveness.

Effects of Transparency on Perceived Humanness: Implications for Rendering Skin Tones Using Optical See-Through Displays

Current optical see-through displays in the field of augmented reality are limited in their ability to display colors with low lightness in the hue, saturation, lightness (HSL) color space, causing such colors to appear transparent. This hardware limitation may add unintended bias into scenarios with virtual humans. Humans have varying skin tones including HSL colors with low lightness. When virtual humans are displayed with optical see-through devices, people with low lightness skin tones may be displayed semi-transparently while those with high lightness skin tones will be displayed more opaquely. For example, a Black avatar may appear semi-transparent in the same scene as a White avatar who will appear more opaque. We present an exploratory user study ( N=160) investigating whether differing opacity levels result in dehumanizing avatar and human faces. Results support that dehumanization occurs as opacity decreases. This suggests that in similar lighting, low lightness skin tones (e.g., Black faces) will be viewed as less human than high lightness skin tones (e.g., White faces). Additionally, the perceived emotionality of virtual human faces also predicts perceived humanness. Angry faces were seen overall as less human, and at lower opacity levels happy faces were seen as more human. Our results suggest that additional research is needed to understand the effects and interactions of emotionality and opacity on dehumanization. Further, we provide evidence that unintentional racial bias may be added when developing for optical see-through devices using virtual humans. We highlight the potential bias and discuss implications and directions for future research.

Dehumanization: trends, insights, and challenges

Despite our many differences, one superordinate category we all belong to is 'humans'. To strip away or overlook others' humanity, then, is to mark them as 'other' and, typically, 'less than'. We review growing evidence revealing how and why we subtly disregard the humanity of those around us. We then highlight new research suggesting that we continue to blatantly dehumanize certain groups, overtly likening them to animals, with important implications for intergroup hostility. We discuss advances in understanding the experience of being dehumanized and novel interventions to mitigate dehumanization, address the conceptual boundaries of dehumanization, and consider recent accounts challenging the importance of dehumanization and its role in intergroup violence. Finally, we present an agenda of outstanding questions to propel dehumanization research forward.

Humanizing Stakeholders by Rethinking Business

Can business humanize its stakeholders? And if so, how does this relate to moral consideration for stakeholders? In this paper we compare two business orientations that are relevant for current business theory and practice: a stakeholder orientation and a profit orientation. We empirically investigate the causal relationships between business orientation, humanization, and moral consideration. We report the results of six experiments, making use of different operationalizations of a stakeholder and profit orientation, different stakeholders (employees, suppliers, labor unions), and different participant samples. Our findings support the prediction that individual stakeholders observing a stakeholder-oriented firm see the firm’s other stakeholders as more human than individual stakeholders observing a profit-oriented firm. This humanization, in turn, increases individual stakeholders’ moral consideration for the firm’s other stakeholders. Our findings underscore the importance of humanization for stakeholders’ moral consideration for each other. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the firm as a moral community of stakeholders. Specifically, we move away from a focus on managers, and how they can make business more moral. Instead we direct attention to (other) stakeholders, and how business can make these stakeholders more moral.

How children and adults value different animal lives

The current study modeled the attributions underlying moral concern for animals during childhood and adulthood with the aim of better understanding how concern for animals develops. In total, 241 children aged 6-10 years and 152 adults appraised a range of animals on seven appraisal dimensions and, subsequently rank-ordered which animals they would save in a medicine allocation task. Structural equation modeling revealed several developmental continuities and discontinuities in the dimensions children and adults used to evaluate animal lives. Whereas participants of all ages valued animals based on their aesthetic qualities, intelligence, and perceived similarity to humans, younger children valued animal aesthetics most of all. They also valued benevolence in animals more than older children and adults. Only older children and adults comprehended and valued animals on the basis of their utility as food for humans. Furthermore, neither younger nor older children grasped the role of sentience in the valuation of animals. Only adults factored sentience into their view of what makes animals similar to humans and worthy of moral concern. The results highlight the ways in which moral concern for animals changes across development in several important respects, reflecting an increasingly human-centric orientation.

Tree-Huggers Versus Human-Lovers: Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization Predict Valuing Nature Over Outgroups

Previous examinations of the scope of moral concern have focused on aggregate attributions of moral worth. However, because trade-offs exist in valuing different kinds of entities, tabulating total amounts of moral expansiveness may conceal significant individual differences in the relative proportions of moral valuation ascribed to various entities. We hypothesized that some individuals ("tree-huggers") would ascribe greater moral worth to animals and ecosystems than to humans from marginalized or stigmatized groups, while others ("human-lovers") would ascribe greater moral worth to outgroup members than to the natural world. Additionally, because moral valuation is often treated as being zero-sum, we hypothesized that there would be no difference in aggregate levels of moral concern between tree-huggers and human-lovers. Finally, because attributions of mental capacities substantially contribute to moral valuation, we predicted that tree-huggers and human-lovers would show different patterns of mind attribution for animals versus humans. Three studies (N = 985) yielded evidence in support of our hypotheses. First, over one-third of participants valued nature over outgroups. Second, extending moral value to animals and nature was not indicative of more expansive moral concern overall; instead, tree-huggers and human-lovers were identical in their aggregate ascriptions of moral worth. Third, tree-huggers had relatively amplified tendencies to attribute mental capacities to animals and relatively reduced tendencies to attribute mental capacities to outgroup members-thus having elevated rates of both anthropomorphism and dehumanization. These findings necessitate a reconceptualization of both the extension of moral worth and the attribution of minds.

A cross cultural meat paradox: A qualitative study of Australia and India

The 'meat paradox' is the psychological conflict between people's enjoyment of meat and their moral discomfort in relation to animal suffering. To date, most studies on the meat paradox have been in Western contexts where meat-eating is a cultural norm. In comparison, little is known about how the meat paradox is experienced in emerging economies such as India, where the longstanding cultural commitment to vegetarianism is under challenge. Further, most studies to date have been quantitative. This study bridges the knowledge gap by providing a qualitative comparison of the meat paradox in urban Australia and India, using cognitive dissonance theory as its main framework. We conducted in-depth interviews with twenty-two Sydney residents and thirty-three Mumbai residents, aged 23-45 years. The interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. In both countries, common strategies to reduce dissonance included distancing, belief in a human-animal hierarchy, carnism and criticisms of alternative dietary practices. Despite these commonalities, the manner in which these strategies manifested was different in each country, reflecting key socio-cultural and institutional differences. Australian participants became aware of the ethical challenges of meat consumption primarily via the media, whereas many Indian participants had direct experience of animal slaughter in wet markets. Thus, while Australian participants had reduced their meat consumption or turned to 'kinder' alternatives, Indian participants resorted to distancing and emotional numbing to reduce dissonance. Further, participants in both countries highlighted instances of moral hypocrisy in relation to vegetarian/vegan practices. While Australian participants discussed self-proclaimed vegetarians who might succumb to a dietary lapse, Indian participants discussed inconsistencies in relation to religious and caste-based norms.

Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

More and more consumers, at least in Western developed countries, are attentive to the sustainability aspects of their food, one of which concerns animal welfare. The conflict of harming an animal for the joy of eating meat causes a moral dilemma, affecting consumers’ reactions to, and choices of, animal-friendly products. This systematic review identified 86 studies from Scopus and Web of Science. The review outlines: (1) What are the personal antecedents among consumers regarding moral conflicts?; (2) In what situation do moral conflicts occur in consumer food choice?; (3) How do consumers emotionally experience the moral dilemma?; (4) How do consumers resolve moral conflicts over animal products? Researchers have studied personal factors and situational factors that arouse consumers’ moral dilemma and how the dilemma is solved, during which emotions and dissonance come into play. When synthesizing these findings into a comprehensive model, we notice that the current research is lacking on how personal factors change and interact with situations, which limits the understanding of the real-life context of consumers’ moral dilemma as well as their choices of animal-friendly products. More in-depth studies are needed to find situational factors that contribute to this complex psychological process.

Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology

People deeply value their social bonds with companion animals, yet routinely devalue other animals, considering them mere commodities to satisfy human interests and desires. Despite the inherently social and intergroup nature of these complexities, social psychology is long overdue in integrating human-animal relations in its theoretical frameworks. The present body of work brings together social psychological research advancing our understanding of: 1) the factors shaping our perceptions and thinking about animals as social groups, 2) the complexities involved in valuing (caring) and devaluing (exploiting) animals, and 3) the implications and importance of human-animal relations for human intergroup relations. In this article, we survey the diversity of research paradigms and theoretical frameworks developed within the intergroup relations literature that are relevant, perchance critical, to the study of human-animal relations. Furthermore, we highlight how understanding and rethinking human-animal relations will eventually lead to a more comprehensive understanding of many human intergroup phenomena.

Moral expansiveness short form: Validity and reliability of the MESx

Moral expansiveness refers to the range of entities (human and non-human) deemed worthy of moral concern and treatment. Previous research has established that the Moral Expansiveness Scale (MES) is a powerful predictor of altruistic moral decision-making and captures a unique dimension of moral cognition. However, the length of the full MES may be restrictive for some researchers. Here we establish the reliability and validity of a reduced moral expansiveness scale, the MESx. Consistent with the full version, the MESx is strongly associated with (but not reducible to) theoretically related constructs, such as endorsement of universalism values, identification with all humanity, and connectedness to nature. The MESx also predicted measures of altruistic moral decision-making to the same degree as the full MES. Further, the MESx passed tests of discriminant validity, was unrelated to political conservatism (unlike the full MES), only mildly associated with the tendency to provide socially desirable responses, and produced moderate reliability over time. We conclude that the MESx is a psychometrically valid alternative for researchers requiring a short measure of moral expansiveness.

Children Consider Their Own Group to Be More Human Than Other Social Groups

Abstract. Three studies were conducted to determine whether outgroups were dehumanized through animalization since childhood. Using the Implicit Association Test (IAT), in Study 1 we found faster reaction times in the compatible condition (ingroup names and human words, outgroup names and animal words), compared with the incompatible condition (ingroup names and animal words, outgroup names and human words). In Study 2, we used a paper-and-pencil design and found that the association between animal-related words and outgroups was more prevalent in comparison to ingroups. The participants of Study 3 selected a larger number of animal-related words to describe the outgroups than their own groups. Results revealed that the tendency to animalize is a process that begins during early childhood.

Toward a Psychology of Moral Expansiveness

Theorists have long noted that people’s moral circles have expanded over the course of history, with modern people extending moral concern to entities—both human and nonhuman—that our ancestors would never have considered including within their moral boundaries. In recent decades, researchers have sought a comprehensive understanding of the psychology of moral expansiveness. We first review the history of conceptual and methodological approaches in understanding our moral boundaries, with a particular focus on the recently developed Moral Expansiveness Scale. We then explore individual differences in moral expansiveness, attributes of entities that predict their inclusion in moral circles, and cognitive and motivational factors that help explain what we include within our moral boundaries and why they may shrink or expand. Throughout, we highlight the consequences of these psychological effects for real-world ethical decision making.

Theory of Animal Mind: Human Nature or Experimental Artefact?

Are animals capable of empathy, problem-solving, or even self-recognition? Much research is dedicated to answering these questions and yet few studies have considered how humans form beliefs about animal minds. Evidence suggests that our mentalising of animals is a natural consequence of Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities. However, where beliefs regarding animal mind have been investigated, there has been slow progress in establishing the mechanism underpinning how this is achieved. Here, we consider what conclusions can be drawn regarding how people theorise about animal minds and the different conceptual and methodological issues that might limit the accuracy of conclusions currently drawn from this work. We suggest a new empirical framework for better capturing the human theory of animal mind, which in turn has significant political and social implications.

Solidarity with Animals: Assessing a Relevant Dimension of Social Identification with Animals

Interactions with animals are pervasive in human life, a fact that is reflected in the burgeoning field of human-animal relations research. The goal of the current research was to examine the psychology of our social connection with other animals, by specifically developing a measure of solidarity with animals. In 8 studies using correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, solidarity with animals predicted more positive attitudes and behaviors toward animals, over and above existing scales of identification, and even when this implied a loss of resources and privileges for humans relative to animals. Solidarity with animals also displayed predicted relationships with relevant variables (anthropomorphism, empathy). Pet owners and vegetarians displayed higher levels of solidarity with animals. Correlational and experimental evidence confirmed that human-animal similarity heightens solidarity with animals. Our findings provide a useful measure that can facilitate important insights into the nature of our relationships with animals.

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM)

Recent research and theorizing suggest that desires for group–based dominance underpin biases towards both human outgroups and (non–human) animals. A systematic study of the common ideological roots of human–human and human–animal biases is, however, lacking. Three studies (in Belgium, UK, and USA) tested the Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM) proposing that Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a key factor responsible for the significant positive association between ethnic outgroup attitudes and speciesist attitudes towards animals, even after accounting for other ideological variables (that possibly confound previous findings). Confirming our hypotheses, the results consistently demonstrated that SDO, more than right–wing authoritarianism (RWA), is a key factor connecting ethnic prejudice and speciesist attitudes. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 showed that both SDO and RWA are significantly related to perceived threat posed by vegetarianism (i.e. ideologies and diets minimizing harm to animals), but with SDO playing a focal role in explaining the positive association between threat perceptions and ethnic prejudice. Study 3 replicated this pattern, additionally including political conservatism in the model, itself a significant correlate of speciesism. Finally, a meta–analytic integration across studies provided robust support for SD–HARM and offers important insights into the psychological parallels between human intergroup and human–animal relations. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology

Animals as Social Objects

Abstract. Nonhuman animals are typically excluded from the scope of social psychology. This article presents animals as social objects – targets of human social responses – overviewing the similarities and differences with human targets. The focus here is on perceiving animal species as social groups. Reflecting the two fundamental dimensions of humans’ social cognition – perceived warmth (benign or ill intent) and competence (high or low ability), proposed within the Stereotype Content Model ( Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002 ) – animal stereotypes are identified, together with associated prejudices and behavioral tendencies. In line with human intergroup threats, both realistic and symbolic threats associated with animals are reviewed. As a whole, animals appear to be social perception targets within the human sphere of influence and a valid topic for research.

Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing

Entities that possess moral standing can be wronged and deserve our moral consideration. Past perspectives on the folk psychology of moral standing have focused exclusively on the role of "patiency" (the capacity to experience pain or pleasure) and "agency" (usually defined and operationalized in terms of intelligence or cognitive ability). We contend that harmfulness (i.e., having a harmful vs. benevolent disposition) is an equally if not more important determinant of moral standing. We provide support for this hypothesis across four studies using non-human animals as targets. We show that the effect of harmfulness on attributions of moral standing is independent from patiency and intelligence (Studies 1-2), that this effect pertains specifically to an animal's harmful disposition rather than its capacity to act upon this disposition (Study 3), and that it primarily reflects a parochial concern for human welfare in particular (Study 4). Our findings highlight an important, overlooked dimension in the psychology of moral standing that has implications for real-world decisions that affect non-human animals. Our findings also help clarify the conditions under which people perceive patiency and agency as related versus truly independent dimensions.

Dehumanization and infrahumanization

We review early and recent psychological theories of dehumanization and survey the burgeoning empirical literature, focusing on six fundamental questions. First, we examine how people are dehumanized, exploring the range of ways in which perceptions of lesser humanness have been conceptualized and demonstrated. Second, we review who is dehumanized, examining the social targets that have been shown to be denied humanness and commonalities among them. Third, we investigate who dehumanizes, notably the personality, ideological, and other individual differences that increase the propensity to see others as less than human. Fourth, we explore when people dehumanize, focusing on transient situational and motivational factors that promote dehumanizing perceptions. Fifth, we examine the consequences of dehumanization, emphasizing its implications for prosocial and antisocial behavior and for moral judgment. Finally, we ask what can be done to reduce dehumanization. We conclude with a discussion of limitations of current scholarship and directions for future research.

Explaining dehumanization among children: the interspecies model of prejudice

Although many theoretical approaches have emerged to explain prejudices expressed by children, none incorporate outgroup dehumanization, a key predictor of prejudice among adults. According to the Interspecies Model of Prejudice, beliefs in the human-animal divide facilitate outgroup prejudice through fostering animalistic dehumanization (Costello & Hodson, 2010). In the present investigation, White children attributed Black children fewer 'uniquely human' characteristics, representing the first systematic evidence of racial dehumanization among children (Studies 1 and 2). In Study 2, path analyses supported the Interspecies Model of Prejudice: children's human-animal divide beliefs predicted greater racial prejudice, an effect explained by heightened racial dehumanization. Similar patterns emerged among parents. Furthermore, parent Social Dominance Orientation predicted child prejudice indirectly through children's endorsement of a hierarchical human-animal divide and subsequent dehumanizing tendencies. Encouragingly, children's human-animal divide perceptions were malleable to an experimental prime highlighting animal-human similarity. Implications for prejudice interventions are considered.