Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Revisiting the Motivated Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Food: Replication Registered Report of Bastian et al. (2012) Cover

Revisiting the Motivated Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Food: Replication Registered Report of Bastian et al. (2012)

International Review of Social Psychology
Volume 37 (2024): Issue 1
By: Tyler P. Jacobs,  Meiying Wang,  Stefan Leach,  Ho Loong Siu,  Mahika Khanna,  Ka Wan Chan,  Ho Ting Chau,  Katy Y. Y. Tam and  Gilad Feldman  
Open Access
|Apr 2024

References

  1. 1Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management, 53–56(1), 63–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2017.06.001
    Back to article
  2. 2Adelina, N., & Feldman, G. (2021). Are past and future selves perceived differently from present self? Replication and extension of Pronin and Ross (2006) temporal differences in trait self-ascription. International Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), 1–16. DOI: 10.5334/irsp.571
    Back to article
  3. 3Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6–47. DOI: 10.1037/a0038147
    Back to article
  4. 4Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., & Musch, J. (2013). Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 527–535. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2
    Back to article
  5. 5Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 278–299. DOI: 10.1177/1088868316647562
    Back to article
  6. 6Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247–256. DOI: 10.1177/0146167211424291
    Back to article
  7. 7Bentham, J. (1843). The works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 7). Edinburgh: W. Tait.
    Back to article
  8. 8Brandt, M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., Grange, J. A., Perugini, M., Spies, J. R., & van’t Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005
    Back to article
  9. 9Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57(1), 193–196. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020
    Back to article
  10. 10Buttlar, B., & Walther, E. (2018). Measuring the meat paradox: How ambivalence towards meat influences moral disengagement. Appetite, 128, 152–158. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.06.011
    Back to article
  11. 11Camilleri, L., Gill, P. R., & Jago, A. (2020). The role of moral disengagement and animal empathy in the meat paradox. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110103. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110103
    Back to article
  12. 12Chambers, C. (2024) Confirmatory evidence that the denial of animal minds explains the “meat paradox”. Peer Community in Registered Reports, 100545. DOI: 10.24072/pci.rr.100545
    Back to article
  13. 13De Groeve, B., & Rosenfeld, D. L. (2022). Morally admirable or moralistically deplorable? A theoretical framework for understanding character judgments of vegan advocates. Appetite, 168, 105693. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105693
    Back to article
  14. 14De Groeve, B., Rosenfeld, D. L., Bleys, B., & Hudders, L. (2022). Moralistic stereotyping of vegans: The role of dietary motivation and advocacy status. Appetite, 174, 106006. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106006
    Back to article
  15. 15de Waal, F. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
    Back to article
  16. 16de Waal, F. (2019). Mama’s last hug: Animal emotions and what they tell us about ourselves. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
    Back to article
  17. 17Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2020). Why we love and exploit animals: Bridging insights from academia and advocacy. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781351181440
    Back to article
  18. 18Dhont, K., Piazza, J., & Hodson, G. (2021). The role of meat appetite in willfully disregarding factory farming as a pandemic catalyst risk. Appetite, 164, 105279. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105279
    Back to article
  19. 19Dowsett, E., Semmler, C., Bray, H., Ankeny, R. A., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2018). Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite, 123, 280–288. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005
    Back to article
  20. 20Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143–155. DOI: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143
    Back to article
  21. 21Feldman, G. (2023). Registered Report Stage 1 manuscript template. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YQXTP
    Back to article
  22. 22Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781503620766
    Back to article
  23. 23Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2016). Situating moral disengagement: Motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 353–364. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.042
    Back to article
  24. 24Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. DOI: 10.1037/a0015141
    Back to article
  25. 25Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619–619. DOI: 10.1126/science.1134475
    Back to article
  26. 26Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101–124. DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387
    Back to article
  27. 27Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. (2015). An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 184–189. DOI: 10.1177/0963721414566449
    Back to article
  28. 28Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 399–423. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
    Back to article
  29. 29Horne, Z., Powell, D., & Hummel, J. (2015). A single counterexample leads to moral belief revision. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1950–1964. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12223
    Back to article
  30. 30Horne, Z., Rottman, J., & Lawrence, C. (2021). Can coherence-based interventions change dogged moral beliefs about meat-eating? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104160. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104160
    Back to article
  31. 31Ipsos Retail Performance. (2016). Vegan society poll. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/vegan-society-poll
    Back to article
  32. 32Jacobs, T. P., & McConnell, A. R. (2022). Self-transcendent emotion dispositions: Greater connections with nature and more sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101797. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101797
    Back to article
  33. 33Jané, M., Xiao, Q., Yeung, S., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Caldwell, A., Cousineau, D., Dunleavy, D. J., Elsherif, M., Johnson, B., Moreau, D., Riesthuis, P., Röseler, L., Steele, J., Vieira, F., Zloteanu, M., & Feldman, G. (2024). Guide to Effect Sizes and Confidence Intervals. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/D8C4G
    Back to article
  34. 34Kane, J. V., & Barabas, J. (2019). No harm in checking: Using factual manipulation checks to assess attentiveness in experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 234–249. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12396
    Back to article
  35. 35Kellert, R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
    Back to article
  36. 36Kunst, J. R., & Hohle, S. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.009
    Back to article
  37. 37Leach, S., Piazza, J., Loughnan, S., Sutton, R. M., Kapantai, I., Dhont, K., & Douglas, K. M. (2022). Unpalatable truths: Commitment to eating meat is associated with strategic ignorance of food-animal minds. Appetite, 171, 105935. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.105935
    Back to article
  38. 38Leach, S., Sutton, R. M., Dhont, K., & Douglas, K. M. (2021b). When is it wrong to eat animals? The relevance of different animal traits and behaviours. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 113–123. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2718
    Back to article
  39. 39Leach, S., Sutton, R. M., Dhont, K., Douglas, K. M., & Bergström, Z. M. (2023a). Are we smart enough to remember how smart animals are? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(8), 2138–2159. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001401
    Back to article
  40. 40Leach, S., Sutton, R. M., Dhont, K., Douglas, K. M., & Bergström, Z. M. (2023b). Changing minds about minds: Evidence that people are too sceptical about animal sentience. Cognition, 230, 105263. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105263
    Back to article
  41. 41Leach, S., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Dhont, K. (2021a). The ‘me’ in meat: Does affirming the self make eating animals seem more morally wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104135. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104135
    Back to article
  42. 42LeBel, E. P., McCarthy, R. J., Earp, B. D., Elson, M., & Vanpaemel, W. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 389–402. DOI: 10.1177/2515245918787489
    Back to article
  43. 43LeBel, E. P., Vanpaemel, W., Cheung, I., & Campbell, L. (2019). A brief guide to evaluate replications. Meta-Psychology, 3, 1–9. DOI: 10.15626/MP.2018.843
    Back to article
  44. 44Lin, Y., Michel, J. B., Lieberman, E. A., Orwant, J., Brockman, W., & Petrov, S. (2012). Syntactic annotations for the Google Books Ngram corpus. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations (pp. 169–174).
    Back to article
  45. 45Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114
    Back to article
  46. 46Loughnan, S., & Davies, T. (2020). The meat paradox. In K. Dhont & G. Hodson (Eds.), Why we love and exploit animals: Bridging insights from academia and advocacy (pp. 171–187). Oxfordshire: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781351181440-11
    Back to article
  47. 47Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55(1), 156–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043
    Back to article
  48. 48Marcu, A., Lyons, E., & Hegarty, P. (2007). Dilemmatic human–animal boundaries in Britain and Romania: Post-materialist and materialist dehumanization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 875–893. DOI: 10.1348/014466607X174356
    Back to article
  49. 49Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200–207. DOI: 10.1177/1948550611415695
    Back to article
  50. 50Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716
    Back to article
  51. 51Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
    Back to article
  52. 52Patil, I. (2021). Visualizations with statistical details: The ‘ggstatsplot’ approach. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(61), 3167. DOI: 10.21105/joss.03167
    Back to article
  53. 53Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 319–332. DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528519
    Back to article
  54. 54Piazza, J. (2020). Why people love animals yet continue to eat them. In K. Dhont & G. Hodson (Eds.), Why We Love and Exploit Animals (pp. 121–136). Oxfordshire: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781351181440-8
    Back to article
  55. 55Piazza, J., & Loughnan, S. (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(8), 867–874. DOI: 10.1177/1948550616660159
    Back to article
  56. 56Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011
    Back to article
  57. 57Possidónio, C., Graça, J., Piazza, J., & Prada, M. (2019). Animal images database: Validation of 120 images for human-animal studies. Animals, 9(8), 475. DOI: 10.3390/ani9080475
    Back to article
  58. 58R Core Team. (2022). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org. (R packages retrieved from CRAN snapshot 2023-04-07).
    Back to article
  59. 59Rothgerber, H. (2014). Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003
    Back to article
  60. 60Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2012). Too close to home. Factors predicting meat avoidance. Appetite, 59(1), 47–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.03.020
    Back to article
  61. 61Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Random House.
    Back to article
  62. 62Sytsma, J., & Machery, E. (2012). The two sources of moral standing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(3), 303–324. DOI: 10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7
    Back to article
  63. 63Tian, Q., Liu, X. X., Zhou, J., & Sun, T. (2021). Do animals’ minds matter less, when meat gets personal? Replications of Piazza and Loughnan (2016) in China. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 417–425. DOI: 10.1177/1948550620920982
    Back to article
  64. 64van’t Veer, A. E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004
    Back to article
  65. 65Vonasch, A. J., Hung, W. Y., Leung, W. Y., Nguyen, A. T. B., Chan, S., Cheng, B. L., & Feldman, G. (2023). “Less is better” in separate evaluations versus “more is better” in joint evaluations: Mostly successful close replication and extension of Hsee (1998). Collabra: Psychology, 9(1), 77859. DOI: 10.1525/collabra.77859
    Back to article
  66. 66Wetzel, E., Böhnke, J. R., Carstensen, C. H., Ziegler, M., & Ostendorf, F. (2013). Do individual response styles matter? Journal of Individual Differences, 34(2), 69–81. DOI: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000102
    Back to article
  67. 67Yeung, S. K., & Feldman, G. (2022). Revisiting the temporal pattern of regret in action versus inaction: Replication of Gilovich and Medvec (1994) with extensions examining responsibility. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 37122. DOI: 10.1525/collabra.37122
    Back to article
  68. 68Zwaan, R. A., Etz, A., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e120. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X17001972
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.932 | Journal eISSN: 2397-8570
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Feb 28, 2024
Accepted on: Mar 1, 2024
Published on: Apr 26, 2024
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
cognitive dissonance,
mind attribution,
mind denial,
morality,
meat,
animals,
registered replication

© 2024 Tyler P. Jacobs, Meiying Wang, Stefan Leach, Ho Loong Siu, Mahika Khanna, Ka Wan Chan, Ho Ting Chau, Katy Y. Y. Tam, Gilad Feldman, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 37 (2024): Issue 1Next article