Book contents
- Animal Economics
- Animal Economics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part IPreliminaries
- Part IIThe Direct Approach
- Part IIIThe Indirect Approach
- 11Proanimal Concerns
- 12Behavioral Studies
- 13Proanimal Concerns
- 14An Economic Model of the Meat Paradox
- 15Some Economics of Pets
- 16Markets and Morals
- 17Further Excursions
- 18Conclusion
- Afterword
- Index
- References
12 - Behavioral Studies
from Part III - The Indirect Approach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 November 2025
Book contents
- Animal Economics
- Animal Economics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part IPreliminaries
- Part IIThe Direct Approach
- Part IIIThe Indirect Approach
- 11Proanimal Concerns
- 12Behavioral Studies
- 13Proanimal Concerns
- 14An Economic Model of the Meat Paradox
- 15Some Economics of Pets
- 16Markets and Morals
- 17Further Excursions
- 18Conclusion
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explores studies in psychology and related disciplines on human–animal relationships. It examines anthropomorphism, the tendency to attribute human-like traits to animals, and its opposite, anthropodenial – the refusal to acknowledge similarities between humans and animals. It also discusses the meat paradox: the psychological conflict between valuing animal welfare and consuming meat.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Animal EconomicsDirectly and Indirectly Accounting for Animal Welfare, pp. 231 - 249Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Amiot, CE, Bastian, B (2015) Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastian, B, Loughnan, S, Haslam, N, Radke, HJ (2012) Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, AM (2014) The biology of the human–animal bond. Animal Frontiers, 4(3), 32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benningstad, NC, Kunst, JR (2020) Dissociating meat from its animal origins: A systematic literature review. Appetite, 147, 104554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilewicz, M, Imhoff, R, Drogosz, M (2011) The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratanova, B, Loughnan, S, Bastian, B (2011) The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57(1), 193–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield, ME, Hill, SE, Lord, CG (2012) Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 957–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caviola, L, Everett, JAC, Faber, NS (2019) The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(6), 1011–1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caviola, L, Kahane, G, Everett, JAC et al. (2021) Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(5), 1008–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dacey, M (2017) Anthropomorphism as cognitive bias. Philosophy of Science, 84(5), 1152–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Waal, FB (1999) Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial: Consistency in our thinking about humans and other animals. Philosophical Topics, 27(1), 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhont, K, Hodson, G, Loughnan, S, Amiot, CE (2019) Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnthorsdottir, A (2001) Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, HA (2007) Gender differences in human–animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös, 20(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestermann, N, Le Yaouanq, Y, Treich, N (2017) Survey study on meat consumption and perceptions of animal welfare in France. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Ioannidou, M, Lesk, V, Stewart-Knox, B, Francis, KB (2023) Feeling morally troubled about meat, dairy, egg, and fish consumption: Dissonance reduction strategies among different dietary groups. Appetite, 190, 107024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaquet, F (2021) Speciesism and tribalism: Embarrassing origins. Philosophical Studies, 179, 933–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joy, M (2010) Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Red Wheel.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F (2012) Critical anthropomorphism and animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, S, Piazza, J, Loughnan, S et al. (2022) Unpalatable truths: Commitment to eating meat is associated with strategic ignorance of food-animal minds. Appetite, 171, 105935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leach, S, Sutton, R, Dhont, K, Douglas, K, Bergström, Z (2023) Are we smart enough to remember how smart animals are? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 10.1037/xge0001401.Google Scholar
Lobue, V, Bloom Pickard, M, Sherman, K, Axford, C, DeLoache, JS (2013) Young children’s interest in live animals. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loughnan, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morewedge, CK, Preston, J, Wegner, DM (2007) Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piazza, J, Ruby, MB, Loughnan, S et al. (2015) Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plous, S (1993) Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, J, Franks, B, Von Keyserlingk, MA (2018) “More than a feeling”: An empirical investigation of hedonistic accounts of animal welfare. PloS One, 13(3), e0193864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothgerber, H (2014) Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothgerber, H (2020) Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals. Appetite, 146, 104511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schussler, EE, Olzak, LA (2008) It’s not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Biological Education, 42(3), 112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpell, JA, Paul, ES (1994) Pets and the development of positive attitudes to animals. In Animals and Human Society, eds. Manning, A and Paul, ES, 165–182. Routledge.Google Scholar
Sevillano, V, Fiske, ST (2016) Warmth and competence in animals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(5), 276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simion, F, Regolin, L, Bulf, H (2008) A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(2), 809–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, P (1990) [1975] Animal Liberation: A New Ethics of Our Treatment of Animals. 2nd ed. Random House.Google Scholar
Taylor, N, Signal, TD (2005) Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoös, 18(1), 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenkenschuh, M, Hopwood, CJ, Dillard, C (2024) Personality aspects and attitudes about animal welfare legislation. Anthrozoös, 1–20.Google Scholar
Vezirian, K, Bègue, L, Bastian, B (2024) Mindless furry test-tubes: Categorizing animals as lab-subjects leads to their mind denial. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 114, 104629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilks, M, Caviola, L, Kahane, G, Bloom, P (2021) Children prioritize humans over animals less than adults do. Psychological Science, 32(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.