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.
AgerströmJ.BjörklundF.CarlssonR. (2013). Look at yourself! Visual perspective influences moral judgment by level of mental construal. Social Psychology, 44, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000100
2.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919
3.
BastianB.LoughnanS. (2017). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562
4.
BastianB.LoughnanS.HaslamN.RadkeH. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
5.
BilewiczM.ImhoffR.DrogoszM. (2011). The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.766
6.
BrandtM. J.IJzermanH.DijksterhuisA.FarachF. J.GellerJ.Giner-SorollaR.GrangeJ. A.PeruginiM.SpiesJ. R.van’t VeerA. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005
7.
BratanovaB.LoughnanS.BastianB. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000182
10.
DowsettE.SemmlerC.BrayH.AnkenyR. A.Chur-HansenA. (2018). Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite, 123, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005
11.
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, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
12.
FeinbergM.KovacheffC.TeperR.InbarY. (2019). Understanding the process of moralization: How eating meat becomes a moral issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000149
13.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2017). Food supply quantity in selected country. http://faostat3.fao.org
GrayK.ScheinC. (2012). Two minds vs. two philosophies: Mind perception defines morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3, 405–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0112-5
KunstJ. R.HohleS. M. (2016). Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite, 105, 758–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.009
20.
LeBelE. P.VanpaemelW.CheungI.CampbellL. (2019). A brief guide to evaluate replications. Meta-Psychology, 3, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2018.843
21.
LibbyL. K.ShaefferE. M.EibachR. P. (2009). Seeing meaning in action: A bidirectional link between visual perspective and action identification level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016795
22.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.BastianB. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043
PiazzaJ.LandyJ. F.GoodwinG. P. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131, 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.013
25.
PiazzaJ.LoughnanS. (2016). When meat gets personal, animals’ minds matter less: Motivated use of intelligence information in judgments of moral standing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 867–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616660159
26.
PossidónioC.GraçaJ.PiazzaJ.PradaM. (2019). Animal images database: Validation of 120 images for human-animal studies. Animals, 9, E475. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9080475
27.
RozinP. (1996). Towards a psychology of food and eating: From motivation to module to model to marker, morality, meaning, and metaphor. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772690
TianQ.HiltonD.BeckerM. (2016). Confronting the meat paradox in different cultural contexts: Reactions among Chinese and French participants. Appetite, 96, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.009
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.
