Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption

@article{Bastian2012DontMM,
  title={Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption},
  author={Brock Bastian and Steve Loughnan and Nick Haslam and Helena R M Radke},
  journal={Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
  year={2012},
  volume={38},
  pages={247 - 256}
}
Many people like eating meat, but most are reluctant to harm things that have minds. The current three studies show that this dissonance motivates people to deny minds to animals. Study 1 demonstrates that animals considered appropriate for human consumption are ascribed diminished mental capacities. Study 2 shows that meat eaters are motivated to deny minds to food animals when they are reminded of the link between meat and animal suffering. Finally, Study 3 provides direct support for our… Expand
View on SAGE
foodethics.univie.ac.at
255 Citations
Highly Influential Citations
25
Background Citations
67
Methods Citations
4
Results Citations
8

Figures and Topics from this paper

255 Citations

Citation Type

Citation Type

“But I Don’t Eat that Much Meat”: Situational Underreporting of Meat Consumption by Women
As arguments become more pronounced that meat consumption harms the environment, public health, and nonhuman animals, meat-eaters should experience increased pressure to justify their behavior. The… Expand
The ‘me’ in meat: Does affirming the self make eating animals seem more morally wrong?
Abstract People typically extend limited moral standing to animals reared for food. Prominent perspectives in the literature on animal-human relations characterize this phenomenon as an outcome of… Expand
Loving or Eating?: Eating Meat and Mind Perception toward Animals and Sexually Objectified Women
1) Do animals have a mind? Our understanding about whether animals have minds depends on our relationship with animals, as we cannot determine animals' actual minds. These two studies presented here… Expand
Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters
TLDR
It was hypothesized that exposure to a description of a vegetarian would lead omnivores to embrace dissonance-reducing strategies and four experiments supported this prediction and found that authentic vegetarians, vegetarians freely making the decision to abandon meat, consistent vegetarian, and anticipating moral reproach from vegetarians produced greater endorsement of dissonances-red reducing strategies than their counterpart conditions. Expand
The Psychology of Eating Animals
Most people both eat animals and care about animals. Research has begun to examine the psychological processes that allow people to negotiate this “meat paradox.” To understand the psychology of… Expand
The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals
TLDR
It is suggested that the act of categorizing an animal as 'food' may diminish their perceived capacity to suffer, which dampens moral concern, which in turn dampens the authors' moral concern. Expand
The effect of a factual confrontation with the meat industry on the willingness to reduce meat consumption
This study investigated whether a confrontation with uncomfortable pictures and facts about the negative impact of meat production on animal welfare and the environment effectively persuades people… Expand
Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust
TLDR
A first comprehensive test of the hypothesis that dissociating meat from its animal origins may be a powerful way to avoid cognitive dissonance resulting from this 'meat paradox' is provided, highlighting underlying psychological mechanisms. Expand
When Meat Gets Personal, Animals’ Minds Matter Less
Why are many Westerners outraged by dog meat, but comfortable with pork? This is particularly puzzling, given strong evidence that both species are highly intelligent. We suggest that although people… Expand
A comparison study of meat eaters and non-meat eaters on mind attribution and moral disengagement of animals
TLDR
Analysis showed that meat eaters who reported lower perceived mental capacities of AHCs appeared to feel such animals were more edible and were less likely to perceive killing them for food as morally wrong, suggesting that there was a higher moral disengagement among meat eater who tend to view A HCs as lacking in mental capacities. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 62 REFERENCES
The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals
TLDR
Eating dried beef or dried nuts reduced the perceived obligation to show moral concern for animals in general and the perceived moral status of the cow and indirectly reduced the ascription of mental states necessary to experience suffering. Expand
The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals
TLDR
It is suggested that the act of categorizing an animal as 'food' may diminish their perceived capacity to suffer, which dampens moral concern, which in turn dampens the authors' moral concern. Expand
ON EATING ANIMALS
Abstract This essay is a critical response to Loren Lomasky's essay in this volume: “Is It Wrong to Eat Animals?” The essay argues that Lomasky both overestimates the value of eating meat and… Expand
Ambivalence towards meat
TLDR
Ambivalence, in turn, was a predictor of actual meat consumption; i.e. increased ambivalence was related to reduced meat consumption and more ambivalent meat eaters intended to further reduce their meat consumption in the future. Expand
Moralization and Becoming a Vegetarian: The Transformation of Preferences Into Values and the Recruitment of Disgust
We describe a rather common process that we call moralization, in which objects or activities that were previously morally neutral acquire a moral component. Moralization converts preferences into… Expand
The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores†
Studies on dehumanization demonstrated that denying certain human characteristics might serve as a strategy for moral disengagement. Meat consumption—especially in the times of cruel animal… Expand
Animal rights, animal minds, and human mindreading
TLDR
The current limitations of human mindreading—whether scientifically aided or not—have practical consequences for the rational justification of claims about which rights non-human animals should be accorded. Expand
Causes and consequences of mind perception
TLDR
Understanding the causes and consequences of mind perception can explain when this most social of cognitive skills will be used, and why it matters. Expand
Risks of meat: the relative impact of cognitive, affective and moral concerns
TLDR
Overall, risk acceptance was mediated by perceived health and moral risks, whereas intention about meat consumption was mediatedby risk acceptance, and intention to reduce meat consumptionwas mediated by risk acceptance. Expand
Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history
TLDR
An experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that people sensitive to animal welfare will respond to increased salience of animal origin and of animal welfare, and that they will show this by either avoiding to buy meat or by favouring free range and organic meat, and results confirmed the expected effect. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...