Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-10
Sacrificing Animals in the Name of Scientific Authority: The Relationship Between Pro-Scientific Mindset and the Lethal Use of Animals in Biomedical Experimentation
The present research investigated how scientific authority increases the lethal use of animals in biomedical experimentation. In two behavioral studies (N = 151 and 150), participants were required to incrementally administer 12 doses of a toxic chemical to a 53-cm fish (in reality, a biomimetic robot) for research on animal learning. Consistent with the Engaged Followership Theory on obedience, participants placed in a pro-scientific mindset more severely harmed the laboratory animal. In a cross-sectional study (N = 351), participants in medical fields endorsed a more pro-scientific attitude than those in paramedical fields, which mediated their support for animal experimentation. Drawing on a representative European sample (N = 31,238), we also confirmed the specificity of this link by controlling for potential demographic and ideological confounds. In a final study (N = 1,598), instrumental harm was shown as mediating the link between a pro-scientific attitude and support for animal experimentation.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Academic Press.
2.
AmiotC. E.BastianB. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6–47.
3.
AnnasJ.GrondinM. A. (1992). The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code: Human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press.
4.
AsendorpfJ. B.ConnerM.de FruytF.de HouwerJ.DenissenJ. J. A.FiedlerK.FiedlerS.FunderD. C.KlieglR.NosekB. A.PeruginiM.RobertsB. W.SchmittM.van AkenM. A. G.WeberH.WichertsJ. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108–119.
5.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
6.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
7.
BauerM. W.PansegrauP.ShulkaR. (2019). Image, perception and cultural identity of science. In BauerM.W.PansegrauP.ShuklaR. (Eds.), The cultural authority of science. Comparing across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas (pp. 3–21). Routledge.
8.
BègueL.BeauvoisJ. L.CourbetD.OberléD.LepageJ.DukeA. (2015). Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm. Journal of Personality, 83, 299–312.
9.
BègueL.LaineP. J. (2017). Moral utilitarianism and attitudes toward animals. Ethics and Behavior, 27(3), 173–178.
10.
BirkeL. I.BirkeL.ArlukeA.MichaelM. (2007). The sacrifice: How scientific experiments transform animals and people. Purdue University Press.
11.
BroidaJ.TingleyL.KimballR.MieleJ. (1993). Personality differences between pro and antivivisectionists. Society and Animals, 1, 129–144.
12.
CaviolaL.EverettJ. A. C.FaberN. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(6), 1011–1029.
13.
Crettaz von RottenF. (2008). Mapping perceptions of animal experimentation: Trend and explanatory factors. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 537–549.
14.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
15.
de WaalF. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?W.W. Norton.
16.
DhontK.HodsonG.LeiteA. C.SalmenA. (2020). The psychology of speciesism. In DhontK.HodsonG. (Eds.), Why we love and exploit animals: Bridging insights from academia and advocacy (pp. 29–49). Routledge.
17.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
18.
FilippiM.RiccitelliG.FaliniA.Di SalleF.VuilleumierP.ComiG.RoccaM. A. (2010). The brain functional networks associated to human and animal suffering differ among omnivores, vegetarians and vegans. PLOS ONE, 5(5), Article e10847.
19.
FinleyA.PenningrothS. (2015). Online versus in-lab: Pros and cons of an online prospective memory experiment. In ColumbusA. M. (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (pp. 135–161). Nova Science.
20.
FootP. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
21.
ForsythD. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.
22.
ForsythD. R.PopeW. R. (1984). Ethical ideology and judgments of social psychological research: Multidimensional analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1365–1375.
23.
FunderD. C.LevineJ. M.MackieD. M.MorfC. C.SansoneC.VazireS.WestS. G. (2014). Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–12.
24.
FurnhamA.HeyesC. (1993). Psychology students’ beliefs about animals and animal experimentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(1), 1–10.
25.
GibsonS. (2019). Arguing, obeying and defying: A rhetorical perspective on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Cambridge University Press.
26.
Gonzalez-FrancoM.SlaterM.BirneyM. E.SwappD.HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D. (2018). Participant concerns for the Learner in a Virtual Reality replication of the Milgram obedience study. PLOS ONE, 13(12), Article e0209704.
27.
GorsuchR. L.McPhersonS. E. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348–354.
28.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.
29.
GuimondS.PalmerD. L. (1990). Type of academic training and causal attributions for social problems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 61–75.
30.
HagelinJ.HauJ.CarlssonH. E. (2003). The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden. Laboratory Animals, 37(1), 10–18.
31.
HaslamS. A.OakesP. J.ReynoldsK. J.TurnerJ. C. (1999). Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 809–818.
32.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D. (2017). 50 years of “obedience to authority”: From blind obedience to engaged followership. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 59–78.
33.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D.BirneyM. E. (2014). Nothing by mere authority: Evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to science. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 473–488.
34.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D.MillardK.McDonaldR. (2015). “Happy to have been of service”: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s “obedience” experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 55–83.
35.
HendricksM. J. (2019). Toward the development of a Terrorist Threat Scale. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25(2), 148–151.
36.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028.
37.
HoffarthM. R.AzevedoF.JostJ. T. (2019). Political conservatism and the exploitation of non-human animals: An application of System Justification Theory. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22, 858–878.
38.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A.EarpB. D.CaviolaL.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J.SavulescuJ. (2017). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125, 131–164.
39.
KnightA. (2011). The costs and benefits of animal experimentation. Palgrave Mc Millan.
LynchM. (1988). Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: Laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences. Social Studies of Science, 18, 265–289.
42.
MilgramS. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.
43.
MillerA. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social sciences. Praeger.
44.
MirallesA.RaymondM.LecointreG. (2019). Empathy and compassion toward other species decrease with evolutionary divergence time. Scientific Reports, 9, 19555.
45.
MonamyV. (2017). Animal experimentation. A guide to the issue (3rd ed.). Cambridge.
46.
OrmandyE. H.SchuppliC. A. (2014). Public attitudes toward animal research: A review. Animals, 4, 391–408.
47.
PeruginiM.GallucciM.CostantiniG. (2018). A practical primer to power analysis for simple experimental designs. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 20. http://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.181
48.
PlousS. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–52.
49.
ReicherS. D.HaslamS. A. (2011). After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram “obedience” studies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 163–169.
50.
ReicherS. D.HaslamS. A.MillerA. G. (2014). What makes a person a perpetrator? The intellectual, moral, and methodological arguments for revisiting Milgram’s research on the influence of authority. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3), 393–408.
51.
ReicherS. D.HaslamS. A.SmithJ. (2012). Working toward the experimenter: Reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based followership. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 315–324.
52.
RutjensB. T.HeineS. J.SuttonR. M.van HarreveldF. (2018). Attitudes towards science. In OlsonJ. M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Volume 57 (pp. 125–165). Elsevier Academic Press.
53.
SchlenkerB.ForsythD. (1977). On the ethics of psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 369–396.
54.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
55.
SigallH.MillsJ. (1998). Measures of independent variables and mediators are useful in social psychology experiments: But are they necessary?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 218–226.
56.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG.SlovicP. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 2143–2153.
57.
SuB.MartensP. (2018). How ethical ideologies related to public attitudes toward animals: The Dutch case. Anthrozöos, 31, 2179–2194.
58.
TaylorK.GordonN.LangleyG.HigginsW. (2008). Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 36(3), 327–342.
59.
WestburyH.NeumannD. L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological Psychology, 78(1), 66–74.
60.
WuenschK. L.PoteatG. M. (1998). Evaluating the morality of animal research: Effects of ethical ideology, gender, and purpose. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 139–150.
61.
YzerbytV.MullerD.BataillerC.JuddC. M. (2018). New recommendations for testing indirect effects in mediational models: The need to report and test component paths. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 929–943.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
