Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetarianism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals

Abstract

Stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals, and stronger perceived threat posed by vegetarianism to traditional practices, are associated with stronger speciesism and more meat consumption. Both variables might also be implicated in the moral exclusion of animals. We tested this potential in a 16‐month longitudinal study in the USA (N = 219). Human supremacy showed longitudinal effects on the moral exclusion of all animals. Vegetarianism threat only predicted moral exclusion of food animals (e.g., cows and pigs), and, unexpectedly, appealing wild animals (e.g., chimps and dolphins). These findings demonstrate the importance of both human supremacy and perceived threat in explaining moral exclusion of animals and highlight potential paradoxical negative consequences of the rise of vegetarianism.

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

“…Pests were included based on the work by Sevillano and Fiske (). This animal type overlaps to a certain degree with Leite and colleagues' () ‘unappealing wild animals’ category, who also hold a low status among animals. Finally, predators were included based on previous research by Sevillano and Fiske () and because of their evolutionary relevance to humans (e.g., Amiot & Bastian, ).…”

“…While theoretically, compartmentalization could take place among a host of different types, categories, and species of animals (pets vs. pests; mutts vs. pure bred dogs; lady bugs vs. tarantulas), herein we focus on one specific and particularly relevant intraindividual comparison, namely, between farm animals and other types of animals (i.e., wild animals, predators, and prey animals), including pets (e.g., who were identified as a distinct cluster of animals in Sevillano & Fiske, ). Conceptually and socially, the specific focus on farm animals—which include animals used for meat consumption—is warranted given the importance of accounting for the psychological mechanisms through which we justify the use of these specific animals for human purposes (Bastian & Loughnan, ; Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, ; Serpell, )—including by assigning them a lower social status (Leite, Dhont, & Hodson, )—and the particularly high number of animals who are killed each year for human consumption (e.g., Joy, ). Doing so also allows to directly tackle the contradictions that exist between how we perceive, value, and treat animals (i.e., farm animals vs. pets) that are, for a majority of people, part of our everyday lives.…”

“…Because the phenomenon of compartmentalization (as a somewhat restrictive cognition) has been associated with the experience of threat (Roccas & Brewer, ; see also Amiot et al, ), this feeling of being threatened by vegetarianism represents a second justification process that could operate when compartmentalizing farm animals per se. Indeed, Leite and colleagues () have shown that vegetarianism threat is associated with more moral exclusion of certain animals, including of food animals (e.g., chicken, goats, and pigs) and appealing wild animals (e.g., dolphins and kangaroos).…”

“…In fact, human supremacy beliefs can serve as a way to legitimize the exploitation of animals for humans’ benefit (Dhont & Hodson, ). These beliefs have also been shown to predict the moral exclusion of various animal types (i.e., food animals, unappealing wild animals, appealing wild animals, and companion animals; Leite et al, ). It still remains to be tested if compartmentalizing animals per se predicts higher vegetarianism threat and beliefs in human superiority.…”

Perceived outgroup characteristics as antecedents and consequences of moral exclusion

“…Social distance was typically operationalized as either perceived similarity to the ingroup (Bastian, Laham, Wilson, Haslam, & Koval, 2011;Brockner, 1990;Olson et al, 2011;Opotow, 1994;Wenzel, 2002) or the closeness of the relationship between the actor and the target (Brockner, 1990;Leite, Dhont, & Hodson, 2019;Singer, 1998Singer, , 1999. Meanwhile, variables related to perceived threat include harmful behavior of the target (Leets, 2001;Olson et al, 2011;Opotow, 1994), conflicts related to group-level goals (Olson et al, 2011;Opotow, 1994), and negative stereotypes about the outgroup emphasizing normviolating misbehaviors (Hadarics & Kende, 2019;Lima-Nunes et al, 2013b).…”