Mind your meat: Religious differences in the social perception of animals.

Kunalan Manokara,Albert Lee,Shanmukh V Kamble,Eva G Krumhuber

doi:10.1002/ijop.12717

Abstract

While previous work demonstrated that animals are categorised based on their edibility, little research has systematically evaluated the role of religion in the perception of animal edibility, particularly when specific animals are deemed sacred in a religion. In two studies, we explored a key psychological mechanism through which sacred animals are deemed inedible by members of a faith: mind attribution. In Study 1, non-vegetarian Hindus in Singapore (N=70) evaluated 19 animals that differed in terms of their sacredness and edibility. Results showed that participants categorised animals into three groups: holy animals (high sacredness but low edibility), food animals (low sacredness but high edibility) and neutral animals (low sacredness and low edibility). Holy animals were deemed to possess greater mental life compared to other animal categories. In Study 2, we replicated this key finding with Hindus in India (N=100), and further demonstrated that the observed pattern of results was specific to Hindus but not Muslims (N=90). In both studies, mind attribution mediated the negative association between sacredness and edibility. Our findings illustrate how religious groups diverge in animal perception, thereby highlighting the role of mind attribution as a crucial link between sacredness and edibility.

Highlights

Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to test whether animals can be classified meaningfully based on ratings of sacredness, edibility, mind perception and moral treatment
We explored if mind attribution and moral deservingness would mediate the association between sacredness and edibility
Mind attribution mediated the association between sacredness and edibility, indicative that ascribing mental life to animals is an explanation for why sacred animals are avoided as food, at least in Hindu culture

Summary

Introduction

In Study 2, we replicated this key finding with Hindus in India (N = 100), and further demonstrated that the observed pattern of results was specific to Hindus but not Muslims (N = 90). In both studies, mind attribution mediated the negative association between sacredness and edibility. Our findings illustrate how religious groups diverge in animal perception, thereby highlighting the role of mind attribution as a crucial link between sacredness and edibility. Similar patterns have been observed in contemporary societies, in which religious believers imbue animals with divine or sacred status, and a mind that makes them think and feel like humans. The tendency to represent animals in terms of their mental lives—a process often known as mind perception (Epley et al, 2008)—has been shown to affect a host of social judgements; such as whether animals are considered as food items (Bastian et al, 2012) or treated with moral deservingness (see Herzog, 2010)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion