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.
AmiotC. E.BastianB. (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
2.
AwadE.DsouzaS.KimR.SchulzJ.HenrichJ.ShariffA.. . . RahwanI. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 59–64. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
3.
BastianB.LoughnanS.HaslamN.RadkeH. R. M. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. doi:10.1177/0146167211424291
4.
BratanovaB.LoughnanS.BastianB. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020
5.
ButtelmannD.BöhmR. (2014). The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias. Psychological Science, 25, 921–927. doi:10.1177/0956797613516802
6.
CaviolaL.CapraroV. (2020). Liking but devaluing animals: Emotional and deliberative paths to speciesism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 1080–1088. doi:10.1177/1948550619893959
7.
CaviolaL.EverettJ. A. C.FaberN. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 1011–1029. doi:10.1037/pspp0000182
8.
CaviolaL.KahaneG.EverettJ. A. C.TepermanE.SavulescuJ.FaberN. 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
9.
CrimstonD.BainP. G.HornseyM. J.BastianB. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 636–653. doi:10.1037/pspp0000086
10.
DhontK.HodsonG.LeiteA. 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, 507–522. doi:10.1002/per.2069
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
12.
GoodwinG. P.LandyJ. F. (2014). Valuing different human lives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 778–803. doi:10.1037/a0032796
13.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872
14.
HesterN.GrayK. (2020). The moral psychology of raceless, genderless strangers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 216–230. doi:10.1177/1745691619885840
15.
KelchT. G. (2012). A short history of (mostly) Western animal law: Part I. Animal Law Review, 19, 1–40.
16.
KogutT.RitovI. (2011). The identifiable victim effect: Causes and boundary conditions. In OppenheimerD. M.OlivolaC. Y. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 133–145). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
17.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.BastianB. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043
18.
MelsonG. F. (2013). Children’s ideas about the moral standing and social welfare of non-human species. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 40, 81–106.
19.
MirallesA.RaymondM.LecointreG. (2019). Empathy and compassion toward other species decrease with evolutionary divergence time. Scientific Reports, 9, Article 19555. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56006-9
20.
NeldnerK.CrimstonD.WilksM.RedshawJ.NielsenM. (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
21.
PetrinovichL.O’NeillP.JorgensenM. (1993). An empirical study of moral intuitions: Toward an evolutionary ethics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 467–478. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.467
22.
PinkerS. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. London, England: Penguin.
23.
ScheinC. (2020). The importance of context in moral judgments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 207–215. doi:10.1177/1745691620904083
24.
SingerP. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
25.
SommerK.NielsenM.DraheimM.RedshawJ.VanmanE. J.WilksM. (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
26.
TetlockP. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320–324. doi:10.1016/S1364-661(03)00135-9
27.
TopolskiR.WeaverJ. N.MartinZ.McCoyJ. (2013). Choosing between the emotional dog and the rational pal: A moral dilemma with a tail. Anthrozoös, 26, 253–263. doi:10.2752/175303713X13636846944321
28.
VaughnM. G.FuQ.DeLisiM.BeaverK. M.PerronB. E.TerrellK.HowardM. 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, 1213–1218. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.04.011
