The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption
Abstract
Many people like eating meat, but most are reluctant to harm things that have minds. The current three studies show that this dissonance motivates people to deny minds to animals. Study 1 demonstrates that animals considered appropriate for human consumption are ascribed diminished mental capacities. Study 2 shows that meat eaters are motivated to deny minds to food animals when they are reminded of the link between meat and animal suffering. Finally, Study 3 provides direct support for our dissonance hypothesis, showing that expectations regarding the immediate consumption of meat increase mind denial. Moreover, this mind denial in turn reduces negative affect associated with dissonance. The findings highlight the role of dissonance reduction in facilitating the practice of meat eating and protecting cultural commitments.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This has been clearly demonstrated in the “meat paradox”, which shows that those that consume meat may overcome the cognitive dissonance resulting from a positive attitude towards both animals and meat by living either in a state of “tacit denial” regarding animals being killed to produce meat or by denying that animals can suffer [63,64].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [64]
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206553 · Cited by 17,383
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1134475 · Cited by 2,342
Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions?
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1256 · Cited by 1,556
Causes and consequences of mind perception
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 · Cited by 759
(2010) · doi:10.1002/9780470561119 · Cited by 649
Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance.
Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0036651 · Cited by 577
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1348/014466610X521383 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb00889.x · DOI
- Beardsworth A., 1997, Sociology on the menu: An invitation to the study of food and society
- 10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00119-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.appet.2004.10.003 · DOI
- 10.1002/ejsp.766 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1368430207071344 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105 · DOI
- 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143 · DOI · Paper page
- Fiddes N., 1991, Meat: A natural symbol
- Foer J. S., 2009, Eating animals
- 10.1037/a0013748 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1062872 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/01461672002612004 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167202289001 · DOI
- 10.1024/0044-3514.38.1.7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1037/10318-000 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.appet.2005.01.010 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1014 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.543 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.012 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ejsp.755 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/jme.2005.013086 · DOI
- 10.1348/014466607X174356 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.157 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085555 · DOI
- Plous S., 2003, Understanding prejudice and discrimination, 509
- 10.1207/s15327019eb0702_2 · DOI
- 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772690 · DOI
- Rozin P., 2004, Encyclopedia of food, 666
- 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00685.x · DOI · Paper page
- Ryder R., 1971, Animals, men and morals, 41
- 10.1086/292273 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.247 · DOI
- Singer P., 1990, Animal liberation
- 10.1037/0033-2909.127.5.629 · DOI
- Vialles N., 1994, Animal to edible
- Wennberg R. N., 2003, God, humans, and animals: An invitation to enlarge our moral universe
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters
Rothgerber, H. (2014) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003 · Cited by 207
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Predicting the moral consideration of artificial intelligences
Pauketat, J. V. T., & Anthis, J. R. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107372 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
- University of Kent, Kent, UK
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-10-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 247-256
- ISSN
- 0146-1672
- 1552-7433
- Cited by
- 411
- References
- 9
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review