Exploring the Effect of Imagery and Categorisation on Belief in Animal Mind

Following the horse meat scandal of 2012 the concept of the meat paradox was created: engaging in the consumption of meat whilst simultaneously disliking hurting animals. The theory of cognitive dissonance suggests that farm animals are denied mind in order to relieve negative feelings associated with eating animals. The present study explores the hypothesis that animals will be attributed mind based on their category. The effect of the presentation of the respective animal (e.g. text/image) on the attribution of animal mind is also tested, as well as association between mind attitudes toward animals. 69 participants recruited using the Hanover social research website and University of Worcester research scheme completed this study.
Participants completed a demographic questionnaire followed by the "attitudes towards animals scale" (ATAS) and an animal mental capacity rating task in either the control (text) or experimental condition (image) conditions. The animals formed a number of categories, including food and companion animals.

Leseprobe
Text Sample:
Participants:
A total number of 94 individuals participated in this research, 69 of whom completed all conditions, while 25 partially completed the study by withdrawing following the second questionnaire (the ATAS). This gave a completion rate of 73%. 37 participants (54%) were assigned to the control condition and 32 to the experimental condition (46%).
Control condition:
30 (81%) participants were women, and 7 (19%) participants were men. The mean age was 30 years (SD = 15.41), with a range of 1947 to 1999 years. 26 participants identified themselves as White (70%), 2 Hispanic/Latino; 5%, 2 Asian/Pacific Islander (5%), 2 Black/African American (5%), 2 mixed ethnicity (5%) and 2 preferred not to answer (5%). 1 participant did not answer (3%).
Participants were recruited using various methods. 35 (95%) participants were recruited via the Hanover research website (a research website that allows members of the public to participate in online research by following the link to the current study) and 2 (5%) using a personal Facebook page.
Experimental condition:
29 (91%) participants were women, and 3 (9%) were men. The mean age was 37 years (SD = 18.97), with a range of 1941 to 1991 years. 25 participants identified themselves as White (86%), 1 Hispanic/Latino (3%), 3 Asian/Pacific Islander (9%), 1 mixed ethnicity (3%), 1 preferred not to answer (3%) and 1 participant did not answer (3%).
15 (47%) participants were recruited via the Hanover research; 10 (31%) using the University of Worcester RPT credit scheme (exclusively undergraduate psychology students), 6 (19%) using a personal Facebook page, and 1 (3%) using call for participants.
It should be noted that undergraduate psychology students were offered 30 RPT credits (corresponding to the 30 minute time requirement) for participating in this research, while other participant groups were offered no incentive.
Materials:
Demographic information. Questionnaire designed to collect demographic and dietary information (See appendix 1A). The main variables with this section include age and ethnicity.
Attitudes towards the treatment of animals scale (Henry, 2004). A 26-item attitude scale developed by (B) to assess sensitivity towards the maltreatment of animals. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they would be bothered by thinking about a particular type of treatment of an animal. Each item is phrased "How much would it bother you to think about..." For example, "How much would it bother you to think about someone intentionally killing a domestic stock animal other than for food or to help the animal because the animal was hurt, old, or sick?" (The full scale can be found in the Appendix 2B).
Participants indicated their answers using a 5-point scale ranging from 5, 'A lot' to 1, 'None at all'. Total scores range from 25 - 125, with higher scores reflecting greater discomfort with the maltreatment of animal animals. Previous research has found good internal consistency within their sample (alpha = 0.93).
Mental capacity scale:
A survey was constructed and used to measure the level of mental capacities attributed to a range of difference animals (or belief in animal mind). These capacities were adapted from previous work on mind perception (Gray et al, 2007) and include the five highest loading experience-related capacities (hunger, fear, pleasure, pain and rage) and agency-related capacities (self-control, morality, memory, emotion, cognition, planning).
Participants were required to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale, the extent to which a range of animals possess different mental capacities. The animals included Food animals (cow, pig, sheep, chicken, goose, lamb), companion animals (dog, cat, horse, parrot, hamster, rabbit), wild mammals (lion, elephant, panda bear, dolphin, buffalo, gorilla), wild reptiles / amphibians (crocodile, frog, snake, komodo dragon, turtle, lizard) and pest animals (rat, fox, seagull, slug, badger, pigeon