English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In our study, we examined how people behave when intuitive, innate morality provides contradictory solutions regarding acceptance of instrumental violence against animals. We investigated two mechanisms of mediation between moral intuitions and acceptance of instrumental violence against animals: one was perception of the experience dimension of animal mind, which enables people to establish animals’ moral patient status and rights, and the other was perception of the agency dimension, the basis for anthropomorphization. To examine these topics, we conducted quasi-experimental ( n  = 533, 50% women) and correlational ( n  = 532, 91% women) studies. Participants completed on-line questionnaires measuring intuitive morality according to Moral Foundations Theory, acceptance of instrumental violence against animals, and perception of the experience and agency dimensions of animal mind. Regression and correlation analyses confirmed a contradiction in participants’ moral foundations: individualizing foundations correlated negatively with acceptance of instrumental violence, whereas binding foundations correlated positively. Moreover, the moral foundations of Authority and Care were the main predictors. Mediation analysis with both dimensions of animal mind as mediators revealed that only perception of the experience dimension plays a mediatory role between moral foundations and acceptance of instrumental violence against animals. Thus, we interpret that when people have opposing moral intuitions, they regulate this contradiction only by establishing moral patient status via perception of the experience dimension of animal mind, not by anthropomorphization via perception of the agency dimension. This, in turn, facilitates people’s acceptance of or disagreement with instrumental violence against animals. We argue that people do so to avoid moral ambivalence or dissonance, fear of moral judgment by others, or deterioration of social relationships. These findings add to our knowledge about the different functions of the perception of the experience and agency dimensions of animal mind.

Perception of Animal Mind in the Relationship Between Morality and Violence Against Animals: Moral Status Versus Anthropomorphization