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

  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},
  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… 

Figures from this paper

“But I Don’t Eat that Much Meat”
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
The ‘me’ in meat: Does affirming the self make eating animals seem more morally wrong?
Loving or Eating?: Eating Meat and Mind Perception toward Animals and Sexually Objectified Women
  • Hong-im Shin
  • Psychology
    Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility
  • 2019
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
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
Meat‐related cognitive dissonance: The social psychology of eating animals
As the practice of eating animals as meat faces increased scrutiny for its ethical, health, and environmental implications, a subfield devoted to its psychology has begun to flourish. Researchers
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


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
Ambivalence towards meat
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
The rights of humans and other animals.
  • T. Regan
  • Philosophy
    Acta physiologica Scandinavica. Supplementum
  • 1986
The implications of these approaches for animal experimentation will be explained, as will the fundamental difference between the philosophy of animal rights and these traditional approaches, whereas the traditional approaches are reformist at best.
Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: when and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable?
The relation between conflicting evaluations of attitude objects (potential ambivalence) and associated unpleasant feelings (felt ambivalences) was investigated and similarities of ambivalent and cognitive dissonance constructs are discussed.
Are Shame , Guilt , and Embarrassment Distinct Emotions ?
182 undergraduates described personal embarrassment, shame, and guilt experiences and rated these experiences on structural and phenomenological dimensions. Contrary to popular belief, shame was no
An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment
It is argued that moral dilemmas vary systematically in the extent to which they engage emotional processing and that these variations in emotional engagement influence moral judgment.
Not quite human: infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing.
It is proposed that infrahumanization may be a strategy for people to reestablish psychological equanimity when confronted with a self-threatening situation and that such a strategy may occur concomitantly with other strategies, such as providing reparations to the out-group.