Do Animals’ Minds Matter Less, When Meat Gets Personal? Replications of Piazza and Loughnan (2016) in China

Abstract

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 China. Study 1 finds that the intelligence information about a fictional animal does not affect moral standing judgment or hunting decisions, inconsistent with the original study. By manipulating the intelligence of animals in one’s culture (pig) versus in other cultures (tapir or trablan), Study 2 consistently finds that intelligence information does not influence moral standing judgment only for pigs. Study 3 reveals that participants have higher moral standing judgment for pigs from another’s perspective but not from one’s own perspective, regardless of the intelligence information. These findings partly replicate the original findings, indicating inconsistency in how people apply mind information in judging the moral standing of animals. When animals become self-relevant, intelligence information no longer increases the moral standing of animals.

The Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment: An Integration of Dissonance and Ambivalence Frameworks

“…Research shows, for example, that ambivalence towards meat is experienced not only in Western countries but also by people from Argentina and Brazil (Ruby et al, 2016). In a similar vein, dissonance aroused by meat consumption is experienced and leads to similar downstream consequences in people from Ecuador, China, Singapore, or India like in THE MODEL OF AMBIVALENT CHOICE AND DISSONANT COMMITMENT 37 people from the global north (Ang et al, 2019;Khara et al, 2021;Kunst & Palacios Haugestad, 2018;Tian et al, 2016Tian et al, , 2020). Yet, this research also identifies boundary conditions for the experience and effects of conflict: For instance, conflicts that are aroused by associating meat with their animal origin are more pronounced in cultures that are less exposed to unprocessed meat (Kunst & Palacios Haugestad, 2018).…”

Unpalatable truths: Commitment to eating meat is associated with strategic ignorance of food-animal minds

“…Moreover, Piazza and Loughnan (2016) showed that people's meat eating was associated with a reluctance to utilize information about food-animals' minds in moral judgement (see also Tian et al, 2021). In this work, participants were asked to consider an animal they eat (e.g., pigs) or an animal they do not eat (but that is eaten in other cultures; e.g., tapirs), as intelligent and inquisitive or lacking these traits.…”