The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism

@article{Caviola2019TheMS,
  title={The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism},
  author={Lucius Caviola and Jim Albert Charlton Everett and Nadira Sophie Faber},
  journal={Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
  year={2019},
  volume={116},
  pages={1011–1029}
}
We introduce and investigate the philosophical concept of ‘speciesism’ — the assignment of different moral worth based on species membership — as a psychological construct. In five studies, using both general population samples online and student samples, we show that speciesism is a measurable, stable construct with high interpersonal differences, that goes along with a cluster of other forms of prejudice, and is able to predict real-world decision-making and behavior. In Study 1 we present… 

Figures, Tables, and Topics from this paper

Speciesism, generalized prejudice, and perceptions of prejudiced others
TLDR
The results suggest that laypeople seem intuitively aware of the connection between speciesism and “traditional” forms of prejudice, inferring similar personality traits and general prejudicial attitudes from a speciesist just as they do from a racist, sexist, or homophobe.
Speciesism, generalized prejudice, and perceptions of prejudiced others
Philosophers have argued there is a normative relationship between our attitudes towards animals (“speciesism”) and other prejudices, and psychological work suggests speciesism relies on similar
Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: An application of system justification theory
Many people in Western societies tolerate the mistreatment of nonhuman animals, despite obvious ethical concerns about the injustice of animal suffering and exploitation. In three studies, we applied
Speciesism and Speciescentrism
The term ‘speciesism’ was once coined to name discrimination against nonhuman animals (Ryder 1975) as well as the bias that such discrimination expresses (Singer 2009 [1975]). It has sparked a debate
The Speciesism Debate: Intuition, Method, and Empirical Advances
  • Jeroen Hopster
  • Sociology, Medicine
    Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
  • 2019
TLDR
The need for integrating philosophical and empirical research is underscored, to come to terms with the extent to which the interests of members of different species are alike, and with the question of whether any dissimilarities might be morally relevant.
Speciesism and tribalism: embarrassing origins
  • F. Jaquet
  • Psychology
    Philosophical Studies
  • 2021
Animal ethicists have been debating the morality of speciesism for over forty years. Despite rather persuasive arguments against this form of discrimination, many philosophers continue to assign
Hostile and benevolent sexism: The differential roles of human supremacy beliefs, women’s connection to nature, and the dehumanization of women
Scholars have long argued that sexism is partly rooted in dominance motives over animals and nature, with women being perceived as more animal-like and more closely connected to nature than men. Yet
Liking but Devaluing Animals: Emotional and Deliberative Paths to Speciesism
We explore whether priming emotion versus deliberation affects speciesism—the tendency to prioritize certain individuals over others on the basis of their species membership (three main and two
Morally admirable or moralistically deplorable? A theoretical framework for understanding character judgments of vegan advocates
TLDR
A theoretical framework for understanding the "vegan paradox" is proposed, using the perspective of the idealistic vegan advocate as a reference point, and the roles of the advocates' motives for change, the target's moral and carnist identification, and source attributes of the advocate are discussed.
Toward a New Framework for Understanding Human–Wild Animal Relations
Most animals live in the wild and a majority probably have lives of net suffering. An increasing number of ethicists argue that humans have a duty to help them. Nevertheless, people’s attitudes and
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 146 REFERENCES
Beyond Sacrificial Harm: A Two-Dimensional Model of Utilitarian Psychology
TLDR
A new scale is developed, refine, and validate to dissociate individual differences in the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ dimensions of utilitarian thinking as manifested in the general population, and it is shown that these are two independent dimensions of proto-utilitarian tendencies in the lay population, each exhibiting a distinct psychological profile.
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
Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world.
TLDR
The Moral Expansiveness Scale (MES) uniquely predicted willingness to prioritize humanitarian and environmental concerns over personal and national self-interest, willingness to sacrifice one's life to save others, and volunteering behavior.
Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.
TLDR
Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally.
Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of Morally Troublesome Behavior and Its Maintenance
  • B. Bastian, S. Loughnan
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc
  • 2017
TLDR
It is shown how societies may be shaped by attempts to resolve dissonance, in turn protecting their citizens from discomfort associated with their own moral conflicts, and how this analysis has implications for understanding immoral behavior and motivations underpinning dehumanization and objectification.
What is Speciesism?
In spite of the considerable literature nowadays existing on the issue of the moral exclusion of nonhuman animals, there is still work to be done concerning the characterization of the conceptual
Misanthropy, idealism and attitudes towards animals
Abstract When evaluating the ethical status of an action that harms a nonhuman animal (henceforth animal), one might weigh the benefit to humankind against the cost of the harm done to the animal. To
The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals
TLDR
These findings highlight the utility of the two-dimensional conceptualization and measurement of carnistic beliefs and offer new insights into one of the most common human behaviors: Eating animals is not only a gustatory behavior, as widely believed, but also an ideological one.
Psychological Mechanisms in the Human Use of Animals
American society uses millions of animals each day for food, recreation, and a variety of other purposes, yet psychologists—in contrast to other social scientists—have devoted very little attention
Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal—human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization
Little is known about the origins of dehumanization or the mechanisms through which dehumanization impacts outgroup prejudice. We address these issues by measuring and manipulating animal—human
...
1
2
3
4
5
...