Non-speciesist language conveys moral commitments to animals and evokes do-gooder derogation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19590404 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Stefan Leach (0000-0003-4065-3519, University of Kent), Kristof Dhont (0000-0001-6060-8083, University of Kent) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Publication date | 2023-06-21 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychology of Human-Animal Intergroup Relations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2750-6649 • E-ISSN: 2750-6649 |
| Publisher | Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.5964/phair.9869 |
| OpenAlex | W4381665716 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 26 |
The use of non-speciesist language, such as referring to non-human animals as ‘someone’ instead of ‘something’, is a simple way for individuals to recognize animals’ moral standing. However, little is known about how this language is perceived and whether it may lead to do-gooder derogation. We conducted three studies involving adults in the United Kingdom (n = 1409) and found that omnivores, semi-vegetarians, and lacto-/ovo-vegetarians were less likely to want to get to know someone who used non-speciesist language. Omnivores were especially apprehensive and also saw them as less compassionate. Strict vegetarians and vegans were more positive, viewing someone who used non-speciesist language as more compassionate. Vegans were particularly so, being the only group to report greater interest in getting to know someone who used non-speciesist language. All groups, irrespective of their diet, thought that non-speciesist language communicated arrogance, an avoidance of meat, and rejection of the idea that humans take moral precedence over other animals. These effects were strongest for language that avoided euphemizing the suffering of animals and weakest for language that did not objectify them. Our findings highlight the social implications of using non-speciesist language and demonstrate how it can be a pathway through which do-gooder derogation may occur in everyday life. By doing so, they contribute to understanding how people perceive those with moral commitments to animals and the challenges facing those who want to reduce animal product consumption and improve animal welfare
Animal rights · Animal welfare · Derogation · Political science · Behavioral Health and Interventions · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Law · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology
The Behavioral Impact of Moral Appeals
The sociomoral construction of the dairy industry on social media
Psychology of Human-Animal Intergroup Relations (PHAIR) ombudspersons’ evaluation of articles published in 2022 and 2023
Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets
Defensive reactions to a meat reduction intervention
Health, environmental, and animal rights motives for vegetarian eating
Social norms and human cooperation
Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption?
Psychological Aspects of Natural Language Use
Racialized Perceptions of Vegetarianism
Do-Gooder Derogation
Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series Life
A Three-Factor Model of Social Identity
Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche
It ain’t easy eating greens
Morally admirable or moralistically deplorable? A theoretical framework for understanding character judgments of vegan advocates
Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns
Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters
Meat-related cognitive dissonance
Moral rebels and dietary deviants
The moral standing of animals
A room with a cue
| Citations per year | 2.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |