The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Psychology of Eating Animals
Abstract
Most people both eat animals and care about animals. Research has begun to examine the psychological processes that allow people to negotiate this “meat paradox.” To understand the psychology of eating animals, we examine characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior). People who value masculinity, enjoy meat and do not see it as a moral issue, and find dominance and inequality acceptable are most likely to consume animals. Perceiving animals as highly dissimilar to humans and as lacking mental attributes, such as the capacity for pain, also supports meat-eating. In addition to these beliefs, values, and perceptions, the act of eating meat triggers psychological processes that regulate negative emotions associated with eating animals. We conclude by discussing the implications of this research for understanding the psychology of morality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2012.651387 · Cited by 1,008
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
Cited by
Gómez-Luciano, C. A., de Aguiar, L. K., Vriesekoop, F., & Urbano, B. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103732 · Cited by 327
Cooking and disgust sensitivity influence preference for attending insect-based food events
Hamerman, E. J. (2016) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.029 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N.
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 104-108
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2142845788
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 169.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Psychology of Eating Animals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0963721414525781
- The paper
- Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014). The Psychology of Eating Animals. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414525781
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.