Abstract
Bastian et al. (2012) argued that the meat paradox—caring for animals yet eating them—creates a tension between people’s moral standards (caring for animals) and their behavior (eating them) that can be resolved via mechanisms of motivated moral disengagement. One disengagement mechanism that is thought to play a central role is the denial of food-animal minds and therefore their status as moral patients. This idea has garnered substantial interest and has framed much of the psychological approach to meat consumption. We subjected Studies 1 and 2 of Bastian et al. (2012) to high-powered direct replications and found support for the target article’s hypotheses, concluding a successful replication. Perceptions of animals’ minds were negatively related to their perceived edibility (original: r = –.42 [–.67, –.08]; replication: r = –.45 [–.69, –.12]), positively related to moral concern for them (original: r = .77 [.58, .88]); replication: r = .83 [.68, .91]) and positively related to negative affect related to eating them (original: r = .80 [.63, .90]; replication: r = .80 [.62, .90]). Learning that an animal will be used for food led people to deny its mental capabilities (original: d = 0.40 [0.15, 0.65]; replication: d = 0.30, 95% CI [0.24, 0.37]), with the affect slightly weaker than the original. Our findings support the idea that the meat paradox is resolved through people’s motivated denial of food animals’ minds. Materials, data, and code are available on the OSF: https://osf.io/h2pqu/. This Registered Report has been officially endorsed by Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100545.