The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals

Boyka Bratanova, Steve Loughnan, Brock Bastian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

76 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Most people love animals and love eating meat. One way of reducing this conflict is to deny that animals suffer and have moral rights. We suggest that the act of categorizing an animal as ‘food’ may diminish their perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn dampens our moral concern. Participants were asked to read about an animal in a distant nation and we manipulated whether the animal was categorized as food, whether it was killed, and human responsibility for its death. The results demonstrate that categorization as food – but not killing or human responsibility – was sufficient to reduce the animal's perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn restricted moral concern. People may be able to love animals and love meat because animals categorized as food are seen as insensitive to pain and unworthy of moral consideration.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)193-196
Number of pages4
JournalAppetite
Volume57
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 May 2011

Fingerprint

Food
Love
Meat
Eating
Pain

Cite this

Bratanova, Boyka ; Loughnan, Steve ; Bastian, Brock. / The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. In: Appetite. 2011 ; Vol. 57, No. 1. pp. 193-196.
@article{89bd3b9903c0407ca709c8aa7251c6a2,
title = "The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals",
abstract = "Most people love animals and love eating meat. One way of reducing this conflict is to deny that animals suffer and have moral rights. We suggest that the act of categorizing an animal as ‘food’ may diminish their perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn dampens our moral concern. Participants were asked to read about an animal in a distant nation and we manipulated whether the animal was categorized as food, whether it was killed, and human responsibility for its death. The results demonstrate that categorization as food – but not killing or human responsibility – was sufficient to reduce the animal's perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn restricted moral concern. People may be able to love animals and love meat because animals categorized as food are seen as insensitive to pain and unworthy of moral consideration.",
author = "Boyka Bratanova and Steve Loughnan and Brock Bastian",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "193--196",
journal = "Appetite",
issn = "0195-6663",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. / Bratanova, Boyka; Loughnan, Steve; Bastian, Brock.

In: Appetite, Vol. 57, No. 1, 04.05.2011, p. 193-196.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals

AU - Bratanova, Boyka

AU - Loughnan, Steve

AU - Bastian, Brock

PY - 2011/5/4

Y1 - 2011/5/4

N2 - Most people love animals and love eating meat. One way of reducing this conflict is to deny that animals suffer and have moral rights. We suggest that the act of categorizing an animal as ‘food’ may diminish their perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn dampens our moral concern. Participants were asked to read about an animal in a distant nation and we manipulated whether the animal was categorized as food, whether it was killed, and human responsibility for its death. The results demonstrate that categorization as food – but not killing or human responsibility – was sufficient to reduce the animal's perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn restricted moral concern. People may be able to love animals and love meat because animals categorized as food are seen as insensitive to pain and unworthy of moral consideration.

AB - Most people love animals and love eating meat. One way of reducing this conflict is to deny that animals suffer and have moral rights. We suggest that the act of categorizing an animal as ‘food’ may diminish their perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn dampens our moral concern. Participants were asked to read about an animal in a distant nation and we manipulated whether the animal was categorized as food, whether it was killed, and human responsibility for its death. The results demonstrate that categorization as food – but not killing or human responsibility – was sufficient to reduce the animal's perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn restricted moral concern. People may be able to love animals and love meat because animals categorized as food are seen as insensitive to pain and unworthy of moral consideration.

U2 - 10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020

DO - 10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020

M3 - Article

VL - 57

SP - 193

EP - 196

JO - Appetite

JF - Appetite

SN - 0195-6663

IS - 1

ER -