Search

Our relations with other animals are ubiquitous in human life, yet the psychological structure of our connection with animals is just beginning to receive empirical attention. Drawing on theories of social identification and intergroup relations, we investigate the various ways that people identify with animals. Across 7 studies, we introduce the Identification with Animals Measure (IWAM) and uncover 3 dimensions by which humans identify with animals as a group: solidarity with animals, animal pride, and human–animal similarity. First, we establish the reliability, factorial structure, and predictive validity of the 3-factor IWAM. Next, we find that these factors predict a distinct set of attitudes and behaviors toward animals. Solidarity with animals is defined by feeling connected to other animals and is associated with more contact with animals (i.e., pets) and a greater desire to help animals and to engage in collective actions on their behalf, even if this implies withdrawing privileges to humans. Human–animal similarity is defined by the perception that animals share similarities with humans; this dimension is associated with increased moral concern for their welfare and a greater attribution of typically human traits to other animals. Finally, animal pride is defined by a direct recognition and positive endorsement of the social category that includes all animals, and is associated with viewing humans as more animal-like, and with more competitive and instrumental intergroup relations. The findings confirm that identification with animals is a multidimensional construct that is colored by the unique and complex nature of our relations with nonhuman animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both epidemiological studies and randomised controlled trials have shown that meat-eating can be harmful to human health. Meat-eating is also considered to be a moral issue, impacting negatively on the environment and the welfare of animals. To date, very little scientific research has aimed to reduce this dietary behavior. Therefore, the current research tests the effectiveness of a 4-week multicomponent intervention designed to reduce meat-eating. Using a randomised controlled trial procedure, thirty-two young men (mean age: 23.5 ± 3.1 years old) were randomly assigned into two equal groups, the intervention vs control group. Based on research in social and health psychology, the intervention was composed of five components expected to reduce meat consumption: a social norm component; an informational/educational component; an appeal to fear; a mind attribution induction; and a goal setting/self-monitoring component. Measures of different types of meat intake (using dietary journals) were taken at baseline (Time 1) as well as 2 (Time 2) and 4 weeks later (Time 3). Emotions and attitudes toward meat-eating and animals were also assessed at Time 3. Significant reductions in total and weekend red meat consumption as well as cold cuts consumed on the weekend were observed in the intervention condition from Time 1 to Time 3. Moreover, reduced positive emotions toward eating meat mediated the reduction in red meat consumption. The component of the intervention that participants most often perceived as having led to a reduction in their meat consumption was the informational component. In conclusion, results provide support for the effectiveness of the multicomponent intervention and for the mediating role of positive emotions when predicting behavioral changes in meat consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research integrates different social psychological theories to test whether human–animal similarity promotes affiliation with animals and lowers the need to affirm humans’ superiority relative to animals. On the basis of theories of intergroup relations, terror management theory, and work conducted in the field of human–animal relations, we expected that higher human–animal similarity would decrease the need to affirm humans’ superiority relative to animals, by triggering a greater sense of shared social identity. Two correlational studies (ns = 187 and 191) tested a mediation model whereby perceived human–animal similarity was expected to predict a lower need to differentiate the perceived status of humans from animals through a process of social identification with animals. Mediated regressions provided support for these associations. A repeated-measures experiment (n= 176) replicated these findings by systematically comparing objectively (phylogenetically) more vs. less similar animals and assessing perceived status and identification. Results are discussed in light of theories of intergroup relations, terror management theory, as well as recent advances in the field of social psychology and self and identity processes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]