Compartmentalization of Animals: Toward an Understanding of How We Create Cognitive Distinctions between Animals and Their Implications

Amiot, Catherine E.; Lépine, Olivier; Zaky, Julie

doi:10.1111/asap.12177

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both research teams found that companion animals tended to receive the most flattering attributions. These animals were attributed traits related to both warmth and competence and were met with feelings of delight, tenderness, and high moral concern (see also Amiot et al, 2019;Piazza et al, 2014). By contrast, predatorsanimals such as lions and wolveswere viewed as highly competent, but low on warmth (Sevillano & Fiske, 2016).…”

Section: The Present Study and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Pets to Pests: Testing the Scope of the “Pets as Ambassadors” Hypothesis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive relationships with pets can sometimes foster more positive judgments of other animals. The present study sought to examine the scope of this "pets as ambassadors" effect in relation to four meaningful animal categories (companion, farmed, predator, and pest) derived from the Animal Images Database (Animal.ID). The Animal.ID contains ratings from 376 Portuguese individuals on pet attachment and several dimensions related to animal attributes and moral concern for 120 different animals, which offered insights into the scope and nature of the "pets as ambassadors" effect. Pet attachment was related positively to ethical concern for animals and lower levels of speciesism. The relationship between pet attachment and animal attributions were expressed, beyond companion animals, most consistently for predators and farmed animals, and least of all pests. The benefits of pet attachment centered mostly on aesthetic judgments and benevolent feelings toward predators and farmed animals, sentience attributions for pests, and concerns about the killing of all animal groups for human consumption. Pet attachment did not reliably relate to the attributions individuals made about the intelligence or dangerousness of animals, or their similarity to humans. The findings help clarify how pets might serve as ambassadors for other animals. KEYWORDSAttitudes; human-animal interaction; pet attachment; pets as ambassadors Several lines of research have converged on the finding that prolonged contact with an animal in one's care has the potential to engender and expand concern for other animals more generally (Auger & Amiot, 2017;Paul & Serpell, 1992, 1993. This is sometimes referred to as the "pets as ambassadors" hypothesis (Serpell & Paul, 1994). Studies into this phenomenon have yielded mixed findings. Some studies have demonstrated positive benefits of owning a pet on, for example, attributions of sentience and emotion to animals (Hawkins & Williams, 2016;Morris et al., 2012) or concern for their treatment (Prokop & Tunnicliffe, 2010). However, other studies have observed little to no effects of owning a pet on such measures (Knight et al., 2004;Taylor & Signal, 2005).

show abstract

Section: The Present Study and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Pets to Pests: Testing the Scope of the “Pets as Ambassadors” Hypothesis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, humans are more likely to support conservation efforts directed at birds and mammals than for reptiles and invertebrates [25,26,27]. Another criterion is to classify animals based on their utility or relationship to humans, with certain categorizations (e.g., companions) generating more positive outcomes than others (e.g., pests, see Reference [28]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Images Database: Validation of 120 Images for Human-Animal Studies

Possidónio

Graça

Piazza

et al. 2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryWith the general goal of increasing knowledge about how individuals perceive and evaluate different animals, we provide normative data on an extensive set of open-source animal images, spanning a total of 12 biological categories (e.g., mammals, insects, reptiles, arachnids), on 11 evaluative dimensions (e.g., valence, cuteness, capacity to think, acceptability to kill for human consumption). We found that animal evaluations were affected by individual characteristics of the perceiver, particularly gender, diet and companion animal ownership. Moral attitudes towards animals were predominantly predicted by ratings of cuteness, edibility, capacity to feel and familiarity. We hope this free resource may help advance research into the many different ways we relate to animals.AbstractThere has been increasing interest in the study of human-animal relations. This contrasts with the lack of normative resources and materials for research purposes. We present subjective norms for a set of 120 open-source colour images of animals spanning a total of 12 biological categories (e.g., mammals, insects, reptiles, arachnids). Participants (N = 509, 55.2% female, MAge = 28.05, SD = 9.84) were asked to evaluate a randomly selected sub-set of 12 animals on valence, arousal, familiarity, cuteness, dangerousness, edibility, similarity to humans, capacity to think, capacity to feel, acceptability to kill for human consumption and feelings of care and protection. Animal evaluations were affected by individual characteristics of the perceiver, particularly gender, diet and companion animal ownership. Moral attitudes towards animals were predominantly predicted by ratings of cuteness, edibility, capacity to feel and familiarity. The Animal Images Database (Animal.ID) is the largest open-source database of rated images of animals; the stimuli set and item-level data are freely available online.

show abstract

“…The ILS rules governing our relationships with farm animals are notably different. This aligns with our ability to compartmentalize animals between different categories (Amiot et al 2019). But, if Varner is correct about pets, the replaceability of farm animals precludes a range of attitudes that foster mutually beneficial relationships with them (of the sort that conscientious omnivores commonly claim to promote).…”

Section: Compartmentalizing Animalsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Valuing humane lives in two-level utilitarianism

Delon

2020

Utilitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I examine the two-level utilitarian case for humane animal agriculture (by R. M. Hare and Gary Varner) and argue that it fails on its own terms. The case states that, at the ‘intuitive level’ of moral thinking, we can justify raising and killing animals for food, regarding them as replaceable, while treating them with respect. I show that two-level utilitarianism supports, instead, alternatives to animal agriculture. First, the case for humane animal agriculture does not follow from a commitment to two-level utilitarianism combined with a commitment to respecting animal lives. Second, the two-level utilitarian case falls prey to a compartmentalization problem and cannot uphold both respect and replaceability. What I call ‘humane lives’ are not appropriately valued by the lights of two-level utilitarianism itself.

show abstract

Compartmentalization of Animals: Toward an Understanding of How We Create Cognitive Distinctions between Animals and Their Implications

Cited by 7 publications

References 42 publications

From Pets to Pests: Testing the Scope of the “Pets as Ambassadors” Hypothesis

From Pets to Pests: Testing the Scope of the “Pets as Ambassadors” Hypothesis

Animal Images Database: Validation of 120 Images for Human-Animal Studies

Valuing humane lives in two-level utilitarianism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About