Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals
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 psych...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/151655 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-151655 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-1516552023-03-05T15:30:52Z Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals Manokara, Kunalan Lee, Albert Kamble, Shanmukh V. Krumhuber, Eva G. School of Social Sciences Social sciences::Psychology Mind Perception Animal Consumption 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. Published version 2021-06-23T06:48:59Z 2021-06-23T06:48:59Z 2020 Journal Article Manokara, K., Lee, A., Kamble, S. V. & Krumhuber, E. G. (2020). Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals. International Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 466-477. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12717 1464-066X https://hdl.handle.net/10356/151655 10.1002/ijop.12717 32996599 3 56 466 477 en International Journal of Psychology © 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Union of Psychological Science. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. application/pdf |
institution |
Nanyang Technological University |
building |
NTU Library |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
NTU Library |
collection |
DR-NTU |
language |
English |
topic |
Social sciences::Psychology Mind Perception Animal Consumption |
spellingShingle |
Social sciences::Psychology Mind Perception Animal Consumption Manokara, Kunalan Lee, Albert Kamble, Shanmukh V. Krumhuber, Eva G. Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals |
description |
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. |
author2 |
School of Social Sciences |
author_facet |
School of Social Sciences Manokara, Kunalan Lee, Albert Kamble, Shanmukh V. Krumhuber, Eva G. |
format |
Article |
author |
Manokara, Kunalan Lee, Albert Kamble, Shanmukh V. Krumhuber, Eva G. |
author_sort |
Manokara, Kunalan |
title |
Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals |
title_short |
Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals |
title_full |
Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals |
title_fullStr |
Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals |
title_full_unstemmed |
Mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals |
title_sort |
mind your meat : religious differences in the social perception of animals |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10356/151655 |
_version_ |
1759852978913673216 |