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.

Caviola, L., Capraro, V. (2020). Liking but Devaluing Animals: Emotional and Deliberative Paths to Speciesism. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL & PERSONALITY SCIENCE, 11(8), 1080-1088 [10.1177/1948550619893959].

Liking but Devaluing Animals: Emotional and Deliberative Paths to Speciesism

Capraro V
2020

Abstract

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.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
animals; dual-process; moral judgment; speciesism;
English
2020
11
8
1080
1088
none
Caviola, L., Capraro, V. (2020). Liking but Devaluing Animals: Emotional and Deliberative Paths to Speciesism. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL & PERSONALITY SCIENCE, 11(8), 1080-1088 [10.1177/1948550619893959].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/399447
Citazioni
  • Scopus 25
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 25
Social impact