A comparison study of meat eaters and non-meat eaters on mind attribution and moral disengagement of animals

This study aims to investigate how the distinction between animals that humans consume (AHCs) and pet animals influence meat eaters' and non-meat eaters' perceived mind attribution on animals and moral disengagement. Following this, a two-way mixed ANOVA with repeated measures on the type of animals being slaughtered and type of eaters was conducted. For meat-eaters, perceived mental capacity ratings for AHCs were lower than pet animals. For non-meat eaters, the difference between these animals was negligible. In addition, meat eaters had higher levels of moral disengagement in comparison to non-meat eaters. Further analysis showed that meat eaters who reported lower perceived mental capacities of AHCs appeared to feel such animals were more edible and were less likely to perceive killing them for food as morally wrong. Moral disengagement was also negatively associated with mental capacity of AHCs as food, suggesting that there was a higher moral disengagement among meat eaters who tend to view AHCs as lacking in mental capacities.