The research studies support the social dominance orientation model, which proposes that the same psychological mechanism that underlie human prejudice towards other humans (e.g., racism, sexism) also give rise to prejudice towards non-human animals (speciesism). The results show people who would not like to have a person from another race as their neighbor were also more likely to endorse human supremacy beliefs over animals. People who expressed more prejudice towards immigrants were also more likely to endorse attitudes (e.g., positive evaluation of meat consumption) and beliefs (e.g., meat production is morally acceptable) about animal exploitation.
BASTIAN JAEGER: For decades, scientists, philosophers, and animal advocates have pointed out parallels between the derogation and exploitation of certain human groups (e.g., racism, antisemitism), and the derogation and exploitation of non-human animals (i.e., speciesism). For example, for a long time, slaves were treated as property, experimented upon, and exploited for manual labor. They had few rights and were seen as inherently inferior. Although most people today condemn these beliefs and practices, the same is not true with regard to non-human animals. More recently, researchers have proposed that similarities between the devaluation of humans and the devaluation of non-human animals not only exist at the surface. Psychological theories, like the Social Dominance Human-Animal Relations Model, propose that the same psychological mechanism that underlie racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice also give rise to speciesism (i.e., prejudice towards non-human animals). This theory therefore predicts that individuals who are more prejudiced towards humans are also more prejudiced towards non-human animals.
The main goal of the studies was to test this proposed link between prejudice towards humans and non-human animals. Previous work already found evidence for this hypothesis. However, these studies also had some important limitations. Most of the work was conducted with people from English-speaking countries (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom) or with university students who tend to be much younger, more liberal, and more educated than the general population. It is unclear whether the same results would be observed in more representative samples from different countries. There are also many different ways in which prejudice towards humans and non-human animals can be measured. For example, researchers often measure speciesism by asking people about their attitudes and beliefs concerning non-human animals (e.g., whether the use of animals in experiments, entertainment, or food production is morally justifiable). But there are also emotional and behavioral responses that are indicative of the devaluation of non-human animals that have received less attention in previous work. The present studies tested for a link between prejudice towards humans and non-human animals across various measures of prejudice using existing panel data with large and demographically diverse samples of participants.
Study 1 relied on nationally representative samples from the European Values Survey. The data set contained responses from 56,759 participants from 46 European countries spanning Northern Europe (e.g., Sweden, Iceland), Western Europe (e.g., France, Ireland), Eastern Europe (e.g., Russia, Azerbaijan), and Southern Europe (e.g., Turkey, Portugal). People who scored higher on human-directed prejudice (e.g., indicating that they would not like to have a person from another race as their neighbor) were also more likely to endorse human supremacy beliefs (i.e., “human were meant to rule over nature”), which is a key component of speciesist ideology. Study 2 relied on data from 1,566 Dutch participants. Again, people who expressed more prejudice towards immigrants were also more likely to endorsed a host of attitudes (e.g., a positive evaluation of meat consumption), beliefs (e.g., that meat production is morally acceptable), emotional responses (e.g., guilt or shame when thinking about meat production), and behaviors (e.g., how often and how frequently they consume meat) related to the devaluation of animals.
Together, the present results support the hypothesis that individuals who are more prejudiced towards humans are also more prejudiced towards non-human animals, which may be due to common underlying psychological mechanisms (e.g., social dominance orientation). In comparison to most previous work on this topic, the presents studies relied on larger and more diverse samples of participants and broader sets of measures of prejudice towards humans and non-human animals. Thus, the present results can strengthen our confidence in the proposed psychological mechanisms underlying the devaluation of animals, as suggested, for example, by the Social Dominance Human-Animal Relations Model. Ultimately, a detailed understanding of these psychological mechanisms can inform interventions aimed at combatting prejudice. For example, if prejudice towards humans and non-human animals share common causes, then interventions that tend to be successful in reducing the former (e.g., positive intergroup contact) may also succeed in reducing the latter. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: