Children Prioritize Humans Over Animals Less Than Adults Do

First Published December 15, 2020 Research Article

Authors

1
 
Department of Psychology, Yale University
by this author
, 2
 
Department of Psychology, Harvard University

by this author
, 3
 
Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford
by this author
,
1
 
Department of Psychology, Yale University
by this author
...
First Published Online: December 15, 2020

Is the tendency to morally prioritize humans over animals weaker in children than adults? In two preregistered studies (total N = 622), 5- to 9-year-old children and adults were presented with moral dilemmas pitting varying numbers of humans against varying numbers of either dogs or pigs and were asked who should be saved. In both studies, children had a weaker tendency than adults to prioritize humans over animals. They often chose to save multiple dogs over one human, and many valued the life of a dog as much as the life of a human. Although they valued pigs less, the majority still prioritized 10 pigs over one human. By contrast, almost all adults chose to save one human over even 100 dogs or pigs. Our findings suggest that the common view that humans are far more morally important than animals appears late in development and is likely socially acquired.

Amiot, C. E., Bastian, B. (2017). Solidarity with animals: Assessing a relevant dimension of social identification with animals. PLOS ONE, 12(1), Article e0168184. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168184
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., . . . Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 5964. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247256. doi:10.1177/0146167211424291
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193196. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Buttelmann, D., Böhm, R. (2014). The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias. Psychological Science, 25, 921927. doi:10.1177/0956797613516802
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
Caviola, L., Capraro, V. (2020). Liking but devaluing animals: Emotional and deliberative paths to speciesism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 10801088. doi:10.1177/1948550619893959
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
Caviola, L., Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 10111029. doi:10.1037/pspp0000182
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Caviola, L., Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Teperman, E., Savulescu, J., Faber, N. S. (2020). Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/xge0000988
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Crimston, D., Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bastian, B. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 636653. doi:10.1037/pspp0000086
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Leite, A. C. (2016). Common ideological roots of speciesism and generalized ethnic prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD-HARM). European Journal of Personality, 30, 507522. doi:10.1002/per.2069
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 11491160.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Goodwin, G. P., Landy, J. F. (2014). Valuing different human lives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 778803. doi:10.1037/a0032796
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 21052108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Hester, N., Gray, K. (2020). The moral psychology of raceless, genderless strangers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 216230. doi:10.1177/1745691619885840
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
Kelch, T. G. (2012). A short history of (mostly) Western animal law: Part I. Animal Law Review, 19, 140.
Google Scholar
Kogut, T., Ritov, I. (2011). The identifiable victim effect: Causes and boundary conditions. In Oppenheimer, D. M., Olivola, C. Y. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 133145). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Google Scholar
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156159. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Melson, G. F. (2013). Children’s ideas about the moral standing and social welfare of non-human species. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 40, 81106.
Google Scholar
Miralles, A., Raymond, M., Lecointre, G. (2019). Empathy and compassion toward other species decrease with evolutionary divergence time. Scientific Reports, 9, Article 19555. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56006-9
Google Scholar | Crossref
Neldner, K., Crimston, D., Wilks, M., Redshaw, J., Nielsen, M. (2018). The developmental origins of moral concern: An examination of moral boundary decision making throughout childhood. PLOS ONE, 13(5), Article e0197819. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197819
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Petrinovich, L., O’Neill, P., Jorgensen, M. (1993). An empirical study of moral intuitions: Toward an evolutionary ethics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 467478. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.467
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. London, England: Penguin.
Google Scholar
Schein, C. (2020). The importance of context in moral judgments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 207215. doi:10.1177/1745691620904083
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Google Scholar
Sommer, K., Nielsen, M., Draheim, M., Redshaw, J., Vanman, E. J., Wilks, M. (2019). Children’s perceptions of the moral worth of live agents, robots, and inanimate objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 187, Article 104656. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2019.06.009
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320324. doi:10.1016/S1364-661(03)00135-9
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Topolski, R., Weaver, J. N., Martin, Z., McCoy, J. (2013). Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal: A moral dilemma with a tail. Anthrozoös, 26, 253263. doi:10.2752/175303713X13636846944321
Google Scholar | Crossref
Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., Terrell, K., Howard, M. O. (2009). Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 12131218. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.04.011
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.
  • Access Options

    My Account

    Welcome
    You do not have access to this content.

    Chinese Institutions / 中国用户

    Click the button below for the full-text content

    请点击以下获取该全文

    Institutional Access

    does not have access to this content.

    Purchase Content

    24 hours online access to download content

    Research off-campus without worrying about access issues. Find out about Lean Library here


Purchase

PSS-article-ppv for $35.00

Article available in:

Related Articles

Articles Citing this One: 0

Cookies Notification

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.
Top