When Meat Gets Personal, Animals’ Minds Matter Less

  title={When Meat Gets Personal, Animals’ Minds Matter Less},
  author={Jared Piazza and Steve Loughnan},
  journal={Social Psychological and Personality Science},
  pages={867 - 874}
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 consider intelligence a key factor in determining animals’ moral status, they disregard this information when it is self-relevant. In Study 1, we show that intelligence plays a major role in the moral concern afforded to animals in the abstract. In Study 2, we manipulated the intelligence of three… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Do Animals’ Minds Matter Less, When Meat Gets Personal? Replications of Piazza and Loughnan (2016) in China
Piazza and Loughnan found that the high intelligence information about animals leads to higher moral standing judgment except for self-relevant animals. We replicated the original three studies in
A debunking argument against speciesism
It is concluded that the authors are not justified in believing that human interests matter more than the similar interests of non-humans, because this belief-forming process does not track moral truth.
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
A meta-analysis of the results using Bayes factors revealed considerable cumulative evidence in favor of the hypothesis that images of baby animals temporarily reduce women’s appetite for meat.
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
Effect of Anthropomorphizing Food Animals on Intentions to Eat Meat
Gender moderated the effect of the anthropomorphism manipulation, indicating that anthropomorphizing food animals is not uniformly beneficial or harmful to the animals, but depends on the gender of those asked to humanize.
The Development of Speciesism: Age-Related Differences in the Moral View of Animals
Humans care for the well-being of some animals (e.g., dogs) yet tacitly endorse the maltreatment of others (e.g., pigs). What treatment is deemed morally appropriate for an animal can depend on
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
Humans first: Why people value animals less than humans
People routinely give humans moral priority over other animals. Is such moral anthropocentrism based in perceived differences in mental capacity between humans and non-humans or merely because humans
A structured literature review of the meat paradox
Many people wish to avoid harming animals, yet most people also consume meat. This theoretical ‘meat paradox’ is a form of cognitive dissonance and has grave negative consequences for animal welfare
Mind your meat: Religious differences in the social perception of animals.
How religious groups diverge in animal perception is illustrated, thereby highlighting the role of mind attribution as a crucial link between sacredness and edibility.


Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption
The role of dissonance reduction in facilitating the practice of meat eating and protecting cultural commitments is highlighted, showing that expectations regarding the immediate consumption of meat increase mind denial and reduces negative affect associated with dissonance.
Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns
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
Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters
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
We propose that the tendency to anthropomorphize nonhuman agents is determined primarily by three factors (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007), two of which we test here: sociality motivation and
Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows : an introduction to carnism : the belief system that enables us to eat some animals and not others
Downloading the book in this website lists can give you more advantages. It will show you the best book collections and completed collections. So many books can be found in this website. So, this is