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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Manokara, Kunalan, Lee, Albert, Kamble, Shanmukh V., Krumhuber, Eva G.
Other Authors: School of Social Sciences
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