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 supplementary studies, four preregistered; N = 3,288). We find that the tendency to prioritize humans over animals (anthropocentric speciesism) decreases when participants were asked to think emotionally compared to deliberatively. In contrast, the tendency to prioritize dogs over other animals (pet speciesism) increases when participants were asked to think emotionally compared to deliberatively. We hypothesize that, emotionally, people like animals in general and dogs in particular; however, deliberatively, people attribute higher moral status to humans than animals and roughly equal status to dogs, chimpanzees, elephants, and pigs. In support of this explanation, participants tended to discriminate between animals based on likability when thinking emotionally and based on moral status when thinking deliberatively. These findings shed light on the psychological underpinnings of speciesism.
AmiotC. E.BastianB. (2015). Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 6.
2.
AmiotC. E.BastianB. (2017). Solidarity with animals: Assessing a relevant dimension of social identification with animals. PLoS One, 12, e0168184.
3.
AmiotC. E.SukhanovaK.BastianB. (2019). Social identification with animals: Unpacking our psychological connection with other animals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/pspi0000199
4.
BastianB.LoughnanS. (2016). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. doi:10.1177/1088868316647562
5.
BastianB.LoughnanS.HaslamN.RadkeH. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256.
6.
BearA.RandD. G. (2016). Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 936–941.
7.
BenthamJ. (1780). The principles of morals and legislation. Prometheus.
8.
BratanovaB.LoughnanS.BastianB. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196.
9.
CapraroV. (2019). The dual-process approach to human sociality: A review. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3409146
10.
CapraroV.EverettJ. A. C.EarpB. D. (2019). Priming intuition disfavors instrumental harm but not impartial beneficence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 142–149.
11.
CaviolaL.EverettJ. A. C.FaberN. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 1011–1029.
12.
CaviolaL.SchubertS.KahaneG.FaberN. S. (2019). Why people prioritize humans over animals: A framework for moral anthropocentrism. Manuscript under review.
13.
DhontK.HodsonG.CostelloK.MacInnisC. C. (2014). Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 61-62, 105–108.
14.
DhontK.HodsonG.LeiteA. C. (2016). Common ideological roots of speciesism and generalized ethnic prejudice: The social dominance human–animal relations model (SD-HARM). European Journal of Personality, 30, 507–522.
15.
DhontK.HodsonG.LoughnanS.AmiotC. E. (2019). Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations: GPIR. Retrieved fromhttps://kar.kent.ac.uk/75493/
FromellH.NosenzoD.OwensT. (2018). Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment. Retrieved from CeDEx Discussion Paper Series website: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/200432
18.
GreeneJ. D.MorelliS. A.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144–1154.
19.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.
20.
HaslamN.BastianB.LahamS.LoughnanS. (2012). Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology. The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil, 203–218.
21.
KaganS. (2016). What’s wrong with speciesism? (Society for Applied Philosophy Annual Lecture 2015). Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33, 1–21.
22.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A. C.EarpB. D.CaviolaL.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J.SavulescuJ. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125, 131–164.
23.
KvarvenA.StrømlandE.WollbrantC.AnderssonD.JohannessonM.TinghögG.…MyrsethK. O. R. (2019). The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: A meta-analytic examination of effect-size and between-study heterogeneity.
24.
LeiteA. C.DhontK.HodsonG. (2018). Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetarianism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 6.
25.
LevineE. E.BaraschA.RandD.BermanJ. Z.SmallD. A. (2018). Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 147, 702–719.
26.
LoughnanS.PiazzaJ. (2018). Thinking morally about animals. In GrayK.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 165–174). Guilford Press.
27.
PatilI.ZucchelliM. M.KoolW.CampbellS.FornasierF.CalòM.…CushmanF. (2018). Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. Retrieved fromhttps://psyarxiv.com/q86vx/download?format=pdf
28.
PiazzaJ.LoughnanS. (2016). When meat gets personal, animals’ minds matter less. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550616660159
29.
PiazzaJ.McLatchieN.OlesenC. (2018). Are baby animals less appetizing? Tenderness toward baby animals and appetite for meat. Anthrozoös, 31, 319–335.
30.
RandD. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27, 1192–1206.
31.
RandD. G.BrescollV. L.EverettJ. A. C.CapraroV.BarceloH. (2016). Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 145, 389–396.
32.
RandD. G.GreeneJ. D.NowakM. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430.
33.
RandD. G.PeysakhovichA.Kraft-ToddG. T.NewmanG. E.WurzbacherO.NowakM. A.GreeneJ. D. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications, 5, 3677.
34.
ReganT. (1987). The case for animal rights. In FoxM. W.MickleyL. D. (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1986/87 (pp. 179–189). Springer Netherlands.
35.
SingerP. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethic for our treatment of animals. Avon.
36.
TimmonsS.ByrneR. M. (2019). Moral fatigue: The effects of cognitive fatigue on moral reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 943–954.
37.
TrémolièreB.NeysW. D.BonnefonJ.-F. (2012). Mortality salience and morality: Thinking about death makes people less utilitarian. Cognition, 124, 379–384.
38.
ZickfeldJ. H.KunstJ. R.HohleS. M. (2018). Too sweet to eat: Exploring the effects of cuteness on meat consumption. Appetite, 120, 181–195.
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.
