Content uploaded by Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg on Aug 30, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
Anthrozoös
A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals
ISSN: 0892-7936 (Print) 1753-0377 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness
toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
Jared Piazza, Neil McLatchie & Cecilie Olesen
To cite this article: Jared Piazza, Neil McLatchie & Cecilie Olesen (2018) Are Baby Animals Less
Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat, Anthrozoös, 31:3, 319-335,
DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1455456
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1455456
Published online: 03 May 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 57
View Crossmark data
ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 31, ISSUE 3 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2018
PP. 319–335 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
Address for correspondence:
Jared Piazza,
Lancaster University,
Department of Psychology,
Fylde College, Lancaster,
LA1 4YF, UK.
E-mail:
j.piazza@lancaster.ac.uk
A supplemental file for this
paper is available online at
https://osf.io/m9v5q/.
319 Anthrozoös DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1455456
Are Baby Animals Less
Appetizing? Tenderness
toward Baby Animals and
Appetite for Meat
Jared Piazza*, Neil McLatchie*, and Cecilie Olesen†
*Lancaster University, Department of Psychology, Lancaster, UK
†University College London, Division of Psychology and Language
Sciences, London, UK
ABSTRACT Three studies investigated whether thoughts and feelings
generated by baby animals might oppose appetite for meat. A prestudy
established babyness as an important factor predicting moral concern for
farmed animals. Study 1 showed that presenting images of baby animals, ver-
sus adult animals, as the source of meat reduced appetite for meat, but this
effect was weak and found exclusively among women. Study 2 replicated and
extended study 1 using a larger sample and two new animal sources. Study
3 included a no animal comparison condition, and found greatest levels of
reduced appetite for meat when the meat source was presented as a baby
animal, as opposed to an adult animal or with no visual indication of the animal
source. A meta-analysis of the results using Bayes factors revealed consider-
able cumulative evidence in favor of the hypothesis that images of baby
animals temporarily reduce women’s appetite for meat. In contrast, the
evidence for men was less strong. Our results highlight a tension within some
omnivores between caring for baby animals and appetite for meat.
Keywords: appetite, baby animals, cuteness, human –animal interaction,
meat, moral concern, tenderness
As of September 28, 2016, the BuzzFeed video “Bacon Lovers
Meet Baby Pigs” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyrv
MuNPJ-Y) had 9,489,563 views on YouTube. The video depicts
five 20-year-olds sitting at a dinner table excitedly awaiting an empty plate
to be filled with mouth-watering bacon. However, as the video unfolds
you watch their expressions morph from anticipation to astonishment,
their voices rise to high-pitched squeals of affection, as they are handed
a cute baby pig. While cuddling the piglet in her arms, one female
respondent announces, “I’m never going to have bacon ever again,” while
another male respondent quips, “I mean, he does look delicious, let’s be
❖
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 319
honest.” While meant to entertain, the video raises an interesting question about our
relationship with animals slaughtered for food.
Many animal advocacy groups seem to operate under the assumption that there is an
opposition between our feelings of tenderness toward vulnerable animals and our appetite for
meat. Many groups, including Viva!, The Humane League, PETA, Animal Equality, and The
Humane Society, use images of baby animals on their websites and in their promotional
material, chosen strategically to melt the heart of the most committed meat eater. Explicit
appeals to sympathy for baby animals is a common persuasion tactic used to encourage
people to reduce their meat consumption. For example, a promotional booklet for the inter-
national NGO, Beyond Carnism includes a photo of baby chicks in distress with the caption:
“Because male chicks in the egg industry are considered useless, they are ground up alive,
gassed, electrocuted, or suffocated shortly after birth.”
The efficacy of images of baby animals as a meat-reduction tactic seems intuitive, yet
empirical evidence for this strategy is lacking. Are there actual benefits to using images of baby
animals within such campaigns? Might thoughts of baby farmed animals temporarily disarm
appetites for meat, and are there gender differences in this respect?
Baby Schemas and Their Motivational Consequences
Many studies have shown that men and women tend to converge in their judgments of which
human babies are cute (Alley, 1981; Glocker, Langleben, Ruparel et al., 2009a; Hildebrandt
& Fitzgerald, 1979). Judgments of cuteness appear to involve the identification of what ethol-
ogist Konrad Lorenz called Kindchenschema, or baby schema, a set of infantile features that
includes a large head, round face, high protruding forehead, large eyes, chubby cheeks, and
a small nose and mouth (Lorenz, 1943/1977). Men and women both find highly schematic
baby faces visually appealing and report greater motivations to care for infants with high
Kindchenschema faces (Alley, 1983; Glocker et al., 2009a; Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1979;
Langlois, Ritter, Casey, & Sawin, 1995). Nonetheless, a few studies have found that women,
particularly young women, are better than men at discriminating neotenous features
(Lobmaier, Sprengelmeyer, Wiffen, & Perrett, 2010; Sprengelmeyer, Perrett, Fagan et al.,
2009). Women with high maternal tendencies find cute infant faces especially rewarding
(Hahn, DeBruine, & Jones, 2015), which suggests that motivational factors related to
caregiving may contribute to this difference.
The emotional and motivating effects of baby features are not limited to human infants.
Several studies have found that adults and children alike prefer animal targets with neotenous
characteristics, perhaps because they associate these characteristics with being vulnerable
and dependent on others for protection. Just as infants with enhanced neotenous features
are preferred and found more attractive than infants lacking these features, similar prefer-
ences and ratings have been observed with non-human targets (e.g., cats and dogs; Archer
& Monton, 2011; Borgi & Cirulli, 2013; Borgi, Cogliati-Dezza, Brelsford, Meintis, & Cirulli,
2014; Sanefuji, Ohgami, & Hashiya, 2007). Other studies have found that viewing baby ani-
mals can promote caretaking behaviors, particularly among women. For example, Sherman,
Haidt, and Coan (2009) exposed female undergraduates to images of kittens and puppies,
or adult cats and dogs, and then had participants perform a task of fine-motor dexterity.
Women who were exposed to baby animals received higher scores on the fine-motor task
than those exposed to the adult animals, suggesting that they were influenced by the baby
schema to behave more carefully. While men also display preferences for neotenous features
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
320 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 320
in animals, baby animals may be particularly emotionally salient for women, mirroring findings
with human infants.
Baby Animals, Gender, and Appetite for Meat
If baby schemas evoke feelings of tenderness and motivations to care for the vulnerable target,
might these feelings be antithetical toward motivations to consume meat? To the best of our
knowledge, at the time of submitting to this journal, only one published paper had examined
this question. Ruby and Heine (2012) found that the appearance of an animal—how “ugly” vs.
“cute” the animal is, on a sliding scale, with “neutral” as the midpoint—predicted levels of
disgust toward eating animals. Meat from uglier and cuter animals were rated more disgust-
ing. However, because this study was correlational, it remains to be seen if the baby status of
an animal has a causal influence on appetite for meat. Recent related research has shown that
people’s beliefs about the mistreatment of animals raised for meat (e.g., animals raised in poor
living conditions) can negatively impact upon people’s appetite for meat, including considera-
tions of the look, smell, and taste of meat (Anderson & Barrett, 2016). Yet, as far as we are
aware, no experiments have tested whether positive perceptions and feelings associated with
baby animals might reduce people’s appetite for meat.
Research into meat avoidance motives suggests that when people think about animals as
living creatures they tend to exhibit more moral concern for the animal than when they conceive
of animals as food (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam, & Radke, 2012; Bilewicz, Imhoff, & Drogosz,
2011; Bratanova, Loughnan, & Bastian, 2011; Loughnan, Bastian, & Haslam, 2010), and
directly linking an animal source with meat can reduce motivations for consumption (Kunst &
Hohle, 2016; Tian, Hilton, & Becker, 2016). However, there are large gender differences in this
respect. Women appear to have more chronically accessible thoughts about the animal ori-
gins of meat (Rothgerber, 2012), and tend to report more disgust and ambivalence toward
meat than men (e.g., Beardsworth, Bryman, Keil et al., 2002; Kubberød, Ueland, Rødbotten,
Westad, & Risvik, 2002; Kubberød, Ueland, Risvik, & Henjesand, 2006; Nordin, Broman,
Garvill, & Nyroos, 2004; Ruby, 2012; Schösler, de Boer, Boersema, & Aiking, 2015). When
combined with studies that show women on average respond with greater emotion to baby
faces than men, we might speculate that women’s appetite for meat from baby animals may
be more labile and susceptible to influence compared to men’s appetite.
The Present Studies and Hypotheses
In three studies, we tested the hypotheses that (a) directly associating baby animals to meat
would temporarily reduce appetite for meat, more so than directly linking adult animals, and
(b) women would be more likely than men to exhibit such reductions. We theorized that images
of baby animals may serve to reduce appetite for meat largely due to appraisals of cuteness
and associated feelings of tenderness generated by baby animals, which appear incompati-
ble with thoughts about the slaughter of animals for meat. In this way, we expected women
to report greater feelings of tenderness toward baby animals used for meat, as well as reduced
appetite toward meat associated with these baby animals, relative to adult animals. Indeed,
in our prestudy (see below), women reported significantly greater feelings of tenderness toward
baby farmed animals, including chicks, piglets, calves, and lambs (M= 7.22, SD = 1.73), than
men (M= 5.96, SD = 2.04) (t(43) = 2.22, p= 0.03, d= 0.67, BU[0–2] = 7.51). Because of men’s
overall higher levels of positivity toward meat, and their relatively lower feelings of tenderness
toward baby animals, we did not expect men’s appetite for meat to be reduced to much
degree in response to baby animals.
Piazza et al.
321 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 321
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
322 Anthrozoös
The studies reported here were approved by the Lancaster University Research Ethics
Committee.
Prestudy
While our main studies were aimed at testing the demotivating influence of baby animals on
appetite for meat, we first ran a prestudy that established an image set of 40 farmed animals
(20 baby, 20 adult; chickens, cows, sheep, and pigs) to use in the subsequent studies. In this
prestudy, the images of baby farmed animals were rated significantly higher on appraisals of
cuteness and vulnerability, and evoked significantly greater feelings of tenderness and warmth,
than the images of adult farmed animals. These four items formed a tightly associated index,
which we labelled “babyness,” to denote the appraisals and emotions associated with the
animal’s status as a baby (Cronbach’s = 0.98)—see online supplementary materials at
osf.io/m9v5q for each image and its corresponding babyness rating. Because these four com-
ponents formed a single construct, for expediency, we used only one of the four items to
confirm the success of our subsequent manipulations (appraisals of cuteness in studies 1–2,
and feelings of tenderness in study 3). Of note, the prestudy also demonstrated that the
appraisal and emotional aspects of perceiving baby animals predicted people’s moral atti-
tudes toward animals independent of perceptions of animals’ intelligence and harmfulness, two
factors previously shown to predict the moral status of animals (see e.g., Piazza, Landy, &
Goodwin, 2014; Sytsma & Machery, 2012).
Bayes Factors and Open Science
In line with guidelines offered by Dienes and McLatchie (2018), we report Bayes factors (B)
alongside p-values for all one-degree-of-freedom effects.1Our analyses are interpreted prin-
cipally with regards to Bayes factors, which provide a continuous measure of evidence for one
hypothesis (e.g., H0) relative to another hypothesis (e.g., H1). Values greater than 1 (toward
infinity) indicate support for the alternative hypothesis. Values less than 1 (toward zero) indicate
support for the null hypothesis. Here we use Dienes’ (2008) calculator that compares a spec-
ified alternative hypothesis (H1) to a point null hypothesis (H0) (R script created by Baguely &
Kaye, 2010). Throughout the current paper we specify the uniform prior on the assumption that
raw effects of greater than 2 on scales of 1–9 are uncommon (i.e., BU[0–2]). Indeed, gender
differences in evaluations of meat often fall within this range (see, e.g., Hayley, Zinkiewicz, &
Hardiman, 2015; Rothgerber, 2012; Tian et al., 2016). Note, however, that the conclusions we
draw based on the uniform distribution are consistent with other ways of modelling H1 (see
the Analysis Script in the online supplementary materials for Bayes factors that model H1 also
using half-normal and normal distributions). Conventionally, Bs < 0.33 have been considered
noteworthy evidence for the null hypothesis, while Bs > 3 have been considered noteworthy
evidence for the alternative hypothesis; values between 0.33 and 3 have been considered as
only weak or inconclusive evidence (Jeffreys, 1939/1961). The R script for all Bs, SPSS data
files and Qualtrics files for all studies are available via the Open Science Framework:
https://osf.io/m9v5q/. All conditions and measures are reported.
Study 1—Babyness, Gender, and Appetite for Meat
In study 1, we sought an initial test of whether an image of a baby animal, when paired with
an image of meat, might effectively reduce appetite toward the meat, relative to when the meat
is paired with an image of the adult version of the same animal. We also examined, in an
exploratory manner, whether this might be the case independent of whether the animal is from
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 322
a familiar animal (cow) or exotic source (kangaroo). Since unfamiliar meat is often met with
reduced sensory appeal (e.g., Tucker, 2014), we expected meat from exotic animal sources
to be rated less appetizing than the same meat from a familiar source, but we refrained from
speculating about whether familiarity would interact with baby status or gender in any man-
ner. We hypothesized that gender would moderate the influence of baby animals on appetite
for meat, such that women would find meat from baby animals less appetizing than meat from
adult animals, while there would be little or no impact of babyness on men’s appetite. We also
expected women to find meat from baby animals much less appetizing than men did, while
we expected women and men to converge more closely in their appetite for meat produced
from adult animals.
Methods
Participants: We recruited 172 participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk online labor market
(www.mturk.com; for information about Mechanical Turk, see Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis,
2010). All participants were located in the United States and were paid $0.50 for their partic-
ipation. Four participants reported eating no meat at all or only fish, and thus were excluded
from the analysis. The final sample was comprised of 168 omnivores (i.e., individuals who “eat
meat and other animal products,” or who “eat meat, but only on rare occasions or only cer-
tain types of meat”). There were 100 males, 68 females (Mage = 31.92 years, SD = 9.54).
Design: We used a 2 (adult vs. baby animal source) 2 (familiar vs. exotic animal source) 2
(male vs. female participants) between-subjects factorial design, with random assignment.
Procedure and Materials: Participants were invited to take part in a study on “food prefer-
ences,” and were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. They were presented an
image of a cooked meat dish (same for all participants) paired with an image of one of the four
animals (calf, bull, baby kangaroo [“joey”], or adult kangaroo; see online supplementary
materials at osf.io/m9v5q for images). The animal was presented above the meat dish on the
page and participants were told the meat “comes from the animal depicted above.” The task
was to rate how “appetizing” they found the meat on a sliding scale from 0 (Not at all appe-
tizing) to 100 (Extremely appetizing). Afterwards, on a separate page, participants were
presented the image of the animal a second time and rated how “cute” the animal is on a 0
(Not at all cute) to 100 (Extremely cute) scale.
Lastly, participants answered a dietary questionnaire used to assess their stance toward
meat (omnivore, semi-vegetarian, pescatarian, lacto- or ovo-vegetarian, strict vegetarian,
dietary/lifestyle vegan) and the frequency with which they ate various meat products on a scale
from 1 (Never) to 7 (Every day). Definitions were provided for each dietary classification. The
meat items included pork, bacon, ham, beef, steak, veal, kangaroo meat, lamb, chicken,
turkey, fish, and seafood. Afterwards, participants answered some basic demographic
questions, were debriefed, and paid.
Results
Cuteness: Baby animals were rated cuter (M= 85.36, SD = 19.47) than adult animals
(M= 48.71, SD = 28.60) (F(1,160) = 100.27, p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.385, BU[0–20] = 7.48 x 1015), con-
firming the success of our manipulation of babyness. The exotic animal was also overall rated
cuter (Mkangaroo = 74.73, SD = 26.05) compared with the familiar animal (Mcow = 60.31,
SD = 32.95) (F(1,160) = 15.59, p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.089, BU[0–20] = 1039.59). There was also an
interaction of babyness and familiarity on cuteness ratings, (F(1,160) = 6.29, p= 0.013,
Piazza et al.
323 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 323
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
324 Anthrozoös
Figure 1. Appetite for meat means and standard errors (±1 SE) by gender and babyness
(study 1). 0 = “Not at all appetizing”; 100 = “Extremely appetizing.”
2
p= 0.038, BU[0–20] = 10.14). This interaction may be explained by a smaller difference in the
perceived cuteness of the joey (Mjoey = 87.41, SD = 19.22) and calf (Mcalf = 83.28, SD = 19.74)
(t(85) = 0.99, p= .326, BU[0–20] = 0.72), compared with the difference between the adult kanga-
roo (Mkangaroo = 61.45, SD = 25.83) and bull (Mbull = 35.00, SD = 25.11) (t(79) = 4.67, p< 0.001,
BU[0–20] = 4880.74). Finally, women rated the animals cuter overall (M= 74.58, SD = 27.63)
compared with men (M= 63.01, SD = 31.44) (F(1,160) = 7.23, p= 0.008, 2
p= 0.043, BU[0–20]
= 19.49). There were no other two-way interactions (ps > 0.170) and the three-way interac-
tion was marginally significant (p= 0.086).
Appetite: We conducted a 2 (male, female) 2 (baby, adult) 2 (familiar, exotic) ANOVA on
appetite ratings. Unsurprisingly, there was strong evidence for an effect of familiarity
(F(1,160) = 45.66, p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.22, BU[0–20] = 1.85107). Meat from an exotic animal was
rated less appetizing (M= 39.55, SD = 35.16) than when it was from a familiar animal
(M= 72.75, SD = 27.47). The main effect of babyness was inconclusive (F(1,160) = 2.81,
p= 0.10, 2
p= 0.02, BU[0–20] = 1.44), with baby animals being rated somewhat less appe-
tizing overall (M= 53.36, SD = 37.48) compared with adult animals (M= 58.33, SD = 33.66).
There was considerable evidence for the effect of gender (F(1,160) = 10.59, p= 0.001,
2
p= 0.06, BU[0–20] = 66.43). Overall, women rated the meat less appetizing (M= 42.84,
SD = 36.99) than men (M= 64.55, SD = 34.49). Critically, the Bayes factor suggested there
was substantial evidence for the interaction between baby and gender (F(1,160) = 3.62,
p= 0.06, 2
p= 0.02, BU[0–20] = 4.30) (see Figure 1 for appetite means and standard errors
as a function of gender and babyness). All other interactions were inconclusive (ps > 0.10,
Bs < 2.78).
We conducted simple-effects tests to further decompose the interaction effect. As can
be seen in Figure 1, there was strong evidence that men and women differed in their
appetite for the meat when the meat was paired with a baby animal (t(85) = 3.73, p< 0.001,
BU[0–20] = 133.53), with women desiring the meat less than men. Interestingly, when the
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 324
meat was paired with an adult animal, the evidence suggested that the difference between
men and women was still substantial (t(79) = 1.93, p= 0.06, BU[0–20] = 4.50), although the
evidence for gender differences in appetite following adult images was considerably weaker
than the evidence for gender differences in appetite following baby images (Bbaby/Badult = 21.71).
The influence of babyness on appetite when focusing only on women provided weak or
inconclusive evidence in favor of the experimental hypothesis (t(66) = 1.51, p= 0.14,
BU[0–20] = 2.46); for men, the evidence offered weak or inconclusive evidence in favor of the
null hypothesis (t(98) = –0.10, p= 0.92, BU[0–20] = 0.40).
Finally, there was noteworthy support for the negative correlation between animal cute-
ness ratings and appetite for the meat dish (r(167) = –0.14, p= 0.07, BU[0–.20] = 3.76). However,
because the total effect of babyness on appetite was inconclusive, we were not justified to test
whether cuteness appraisals played any mediating role between babyness and appetite in
this study.
Discussion
In study 1, as predicted, reductions in appetite due to babyness interacted with partici-
pant gender, with Bayes factors revealing substantial evidence for an interaction effect. We
found that men and women differed in their appetite toward meat when the meat was
paired with a baby animal image, with women’s appetite for meat much lower than men’s
appetite, regardless of whether the meat was from a familiar or exotic source. Although
Bayes factors suggested that the data for women do support a decline in appetite when
meat is paired with a baby animal, the evidence was weak and not conclusive. The evi-
dence also provided inconclusive support for the hypothesis that men were uninfluenced
by the animal source.
There were several limitations with study 1 that restrict the conclusions we can draw from
its results. First, the size of the sample, which was determined by resources available to the
authors at the time, was not ideal. Several of the analyses offered only weak, inconclusive
evidence for our experimental hypotheses. As sample size increases toward infinity, Bayes
factors will provide stronger evidence for the hypothesis that best predicts the data. Increas-
ing the sample size also has the beneficial outcome of improving statistical power for mak-
ing frequentist inferences. Although we interpret our results in terms of Bayes factors
throughout, it is nonetheless the case that to make accurate frequentist inferences, studies
must be sufficiently powered to reliably detect small effects (e.g., f= 0.20). For the current
study, setting to 0.05, we would want at least n= 277 to maintain power at 0.80 (n= 359
at 0.90) to identify small between-participants effects and two-way interactions, as calcu-
lated in G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Therefore, in study 2 we sought
to more than double our n.
Secondly, study 1 used a single, familiar animal source (cattle). In study 2, we sought
to determine if babyness exerts an influence on appetite for meat using two other animals:
sheep and pigs, to test the generalizability of our findings. We also included a new meat
dish, both for generalizability and for pragmatic reasons (i.e., we needed a meat dish
believably derived from both animal sources). Finally, in study 1, the animal images used for
the adult and baby counterparts had some incidental differences (e.g., the baby kangaroo
was being held by a person but the adult kangaroo was not; the bodily orientation of the
calf and bull differed) that we sought to minimize in study 2, to isolate babyness as the
principal variable.
Piazza et al.
325 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 325
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
326 Anthrozoös
Study 2—Replication and Generalizing to Other Animal Types
Methods
Participants: We recruited a sample of 361 participants via MTurk. All participants were located
in the United States and were paid $0.50 for their participation. Twenty-two participants re-
ported being vegetarian or vegan; however, three of these participants also reported eating var-
ious non-fish, non-seafood meat products to some extent, and thus were retained in the
sample. In the end, 19 participants were removed from the sample who reported not eating
meat products, including pork, bacon, ham, beef, steak, lamb, chicken, and turkey (M= 1.09,
SD = 0.29, on a scale 1 = Never to 7 = Every day). Of the remaining 342 omnivores (meat con-
sumption frequency M= 3.49, SD = 0.88), 159 were female and the mean age was 34.88
years (SD = 10.94).2
Design: We used a 2 (babyness: adult vs. baby) 2 (animal type: sheep vs. pigs) 2 (male
vs. female participants) between-subjects factorial design, with random assignment.
Procedure and Materials: The procedures were identical to study 1, except in three respects.
First, we replaced the animal images to an adult sheep and adult pig, and, for the baby con-
dition, a lamb and piglet. These images were derived from our prestudy. The orientation and
setting (standing on grass) of the adult and baby counterpart were matched for each animal
type. Second, the image of the meat dish was replaced with an image of meat suggestive of
meat sourced from sheep and pigs. The meat, which was the same in all conditions, was
actually lamb chops, but resembled pork chops as well—see online supplementary materials
at osf.io/m9v5q for images. All images were set to a standardized width of 500 mm. Finally, in
addition to making appetite ratings on the same 0–100 scale as in study 1, we added a sec-
ond measure of appetite: how willing participants would you be to eat the meat depicted in
the photograph (0 = Not at all willing, 100 = Very willing). These two ratings were highly inter-
related (= 0.93), and thus were averaged into a single index of appetite. As in study 1,
participants rated how cute they found the target animal on the same 0–100 scale from study
1. All participants provided their meat consumption frequencies (same items as study 1 minus
“veal” and “kangaroo meat”), dietary classification (same categories as study 1 plus “meat
lover”) and were fully debriefed and paid.
Results
Cuteness: Confirming the success of our choice of baby and adult images, there was a very
large effect of perceived cuteness, as baby animals were rated overall cuter (M= 82.37,
SD = 19.89) than adult animals (M= 58.46, SD = 26.81) (F(1,334) = 92.66, p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.91,
BU[0–20] = 2.411018). Sheep were also rated cuter (M= 77.02, SD = 21.88) compared with
pigs (M= 63.42, SD = 28.95) (F(1,334) = 30.45,p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.08, BU[0–20] = 1.26106).
Overall, women rated the animals slightly cuter (M= 72.65, SD = 26.74) than did men
(M= 68.34, SD = 26.11), but the results were inconclusive, (F(1,334) = 1.91, p= 0.17,
2
p= 0.006, BU[0–20] = 0.93). All interaction effects were inconclusive (Fs < 0.80, ps > 0.36,
2
p s < 0.003, 0.67 < Bs < 0.89).
Meat Appetite: We conducted a 2 (babyness) 2 (animal type) 2 (gender) ANOVA on mean
appetite scores. There was a main effect of babyness (F(1,334) = 9.24, p= 0.003, 2
p= 0.03,
BU[0–20] = 42.24). Meat sourced from a baby animal was rated overall less appetizing
(M= 49.28, SD = 32.91) than the same meat sourced from an adult animal (M= 59.42,
SD = 31.83). There was inconclusive evidence for the effect of animal type (F(1,334) = 2.96,
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 326
p= 0.09, 2
p= 0.009, BU[0–20] = 2.15), with the meat rated less appetizing when a sheep was
presented as the source (M= 50.93, SD = 33.73), compared with a pig as the source
(M= 57.95, SD = 31.35). Overall, women rated the meat dish less appetizing (M= 44.82,
SD = 32.88) than did men (M= 62.69, SD = 31.25) (F(1,334) = 26.26, p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.07,
BU[0–20] = 1.61105). However, this time the evidence for the two-way interactions (Fs < 0.30,
ps > 0.58, 2
p s < 0.001, 0.78 < Bs < 1.36) and the three-way interaction was also inconclu-
sive (F(1, 334) = 0.14, p= 0.71, 2
p< 0.001, BU[0–20] = 1.06). See Figure 2 for means and stan-
dard errors by babyness, animal type, and gender. Separating by gender, we obtained strong
evidence for a moderate effect of babyness on appetite for meat, for women (Mbaby = 38.57,
SD = 31.87 vs. Madult = 50.98, SD = 32.90) (t(157) = 2.41, p= 0.02, d= 0.38, BU[0–20] = 10.95).
We also observed weaker, inconclusive evidence for an effect of babyness on appetite for
meat for men (Mbaby = 58.57, SD = 31.09 vs. Madult = 66.76, SD = 29.11) (t(181) = 1.84, p= 0.07,
d= 0.27, BU[0–20] = 2.92).
Mediation Analysis: Animal cuteness ratings were weakly negatively correlated with appetite
ratings (r(341) = –0.13, p= 0.02, BU[0–.20] = 8.96). Since we observed an effect of babyness on
both cuteness and appetite ratings, we conducted a mediation analysis with bootstrapping
(5,000 resamples) using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS (model 4). Babyness was
entered as the independent variable (0 = adult, 1 = baby) predicting appetite scores with ap-
praisals of cuteness as the mediator. The indirect effect of babyness on appetite scores via
cuteness ratings was not significant (coefficient = –2.05, SE = 1.77, 95% CI = [–5.69, 1.29]
(a path BU[0–20] = 2.101017; b path BU[0–20] = 0.20). The evidence for the null hypothesis
for the b path offers substantial support for the conclusion of no indirect effect.
Furthermore, there was substantial evidence for a direct effect of babyness on appetite when
cuteness was entered as a mediator (coefficient = –8.09, SE = 3.92, 95% CI = [–15.81,
–0.37], BU[0–10.14] = 5.52).
Piazza et al.
327 Anthrozoös
Figure 2. Appetite for meat means and standard errors (±1 SE) by gender, babyness, and
animal type (study 2). 0 = “Not at all appetizing”; 100 = “Extremely appetizing.”
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 327
Discussion
In study 2, we found yet more support for our main hypothesis that meat sourced from baby
animals is considered less appetizing than meat from adult animals. Babyness had a reduc-
ing influence on appetites across two animal types, sheep and pigs. This time the gender did
not quite moderate the influence that babyness had on appetite scores. Nonetheless, while
the effect was observed for both groups, the effect was larger for women, and the strength of
evidence for men would conventionally be considered weak and inconclusive. Finally, although
appraisals of animal cuteness and appetite were negatively correlated, appraisals of cuteness
did not mediate the effect that babyness had on appetite in this study.
One limitation with studies 1 to 2 is the absence of a comparison condition with no men-
tion or depiction of the animal source. How does presenting meat with a baby animal source
compare with presenting no animal image at all? Might baby animal images reduce appetites
more strongly in this respect compared with adult animal images? In study 3, we contrasted
the influence of presenting an image of a familiar animal (cow), either baby or adult, with the
absence of any visual reminders of the animal source. We also switched from appraisals of
cuteness to feelings of tenderness as our check on the manipulation of babyness.
Study 3—Baby vs. Adult vs. No Animal
Methods
Participants: We recruited two waves of participants via MTurk on April 16, 2016 and May 2,
2017. All participants were located in the United States and were paid $0.50 for their partici-
pation. In the first wave, “women who eat at least some meat” were invited to participate, while
the second wave invited “men who eat at least some meat.” We recruited 134 females in the
first wave, and 144 males in the second. In the combined datasets, seven participants reported
eating no meat at all or only fish, and thus were excluded from the analysis. The final sample
was comprised of 271 omnivores (126 female, 145 male; Mage = 35.04 years, SD = 10.40).
Please note that study 3 was originally conducted exclusively with women, on the basis of
the results of study 1, which revealed no discernible influence of baby animal images on men’s
appetites (historically, we ran study 3 prior to study 2). However, in response to reviewer com-
ments, we later deemed the lack of men in our recruitment strategy premature, and therefore
ran a separate replication of study 3 in 2017 with male omnivores.
Design: We used a 3 (image condition) 2 (gender) between-subjects design. Participants
were randomly assigned to the baby animal (n= 91), adult animal (n= 87), or no image
(n= 93) condition.
Procedure and Materials: The procedures and materials were identical to study 1, except we
used a different image of a calf from our prestudy than the one used in study 1 (the same bull
image from study 1 was used as our adult animal), we used a different meat dish from the pre-
vious studies, and this time we defined the animal as a “baby cow” or “adult cow” rather than
using the generic designation “animal” (see online supplementary materials at osf.io/m9v5q for
images of the animals and meat dish used). The same 0–100 ratings of appetite were used
as in study 1. This time, as our check on babyness, we had participants rate the level of
tenderness, 0–100, they felt toward the animal (calf or bull; “I feel tenderness toward this
animal”), after making their appetite rating. Participants in the no-animal condition did not make
a tenderness rating, since there was no accompanying animal image presented alongside the
meat dish. Self-reported dietary classifications (omnivore to lifestyle vegan), frequency of meat
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
328 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 328
consumption (same items from study 1 minus “kangaroo meat”), and demographics were
collected. All participants were then debriefed.
Results
Tenderness: Our participants had more tender feelings toward the baby animal (Mcalf = 69.55,
SD = 28.08) than the adult animal (Mbull = 52.77, SD = 31.55) (F(1,174) = 14.64, p< 0.001,
2
p= 0.08, BU[0–20] = 638.83), confirming the success of the image selection. Also, women felt
more tenderness overall toward the animals (M= 72.24, SD = 26.78) compared with men
(M= 51.62, SD = 31.22) (F(1,174) = 22.91, p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.12, BU[0–20] = 2.27104). The in-
teraction of image condition and gender offered only weak evidence in favor of the null
hypothesis (F< 1, p= 0.70, 2
p= 0.001, BU[0–20] = 0.40).
Appetite for Meat: A 3 (image condition) 2 (gender) ANOVA on appetite scores provided
strong evidence for the main effect of gender (F(1,265) = 26.45, p< 0.001, 2
p= 0.09,
B[0–20] = 1.71105), and a significant effect of image condition (F(2,265) = 8.88, p< 0.001,
2
p= 0.06). As in previous studies, men overall rated the meat dish more appetizing
(M= 77.76, SD = 26.36) than did women (M= 59.57, SD = 32.15). The interaction of image
condition and gender was not significant (F(2, 265) = 1.08, p= 0.34, 2
p= 0.008) (see Figure 3
for means and standard errors as a function of gender and image condition). Collapsing across
gender, the meat was least appetizing when it was presented along with an image of a baby
animal (M= 59.38, SD = 35.14) as the source, and most appetizing when it was presented
without any image of the animal source (M= 76.89, SD = 25.99), with the adult animal source
falling in between (M= 71.56, SD = 27.17). Bayes factors indicated strong evidence for the
contrast of baby vs. adult animal images (MD = 12.18, SE = 4.46, p= 0.02, BU[0–20] = 22.28),
and the contrast of baby animal vs. no image (MD = 17.51, SE = 4.38, p< 0.001,
BU[0–20] = 1161.47). However, the contrast of adult animal vs. no image was inconclusive (MD
= 5.33, SE = 4.43, p= 0.45, BU[0–20] = 1.01).
Piazza et al.
329 Anthrozoös
Figure 3. Appetite for meat means and standard errors (±1 SE) by gender and animal condi-
tion (study 3). 0 = “Not at all appetizing”; 100 = “Extremely appetizing.”
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 329
Follow-up contrasts (Tukey’s HSD tests) were conducted for each level of image condition,
first for women and then for men. For women, there was a main effect of image condition on
appetite scores (F(2,123) = 6.47, p= 0.002, 2
p= 0.10). The contrast between the baby and
no-animal condition provided substantial evidence in favor of the experimental hypothesis
(MD = 23.42, SE = 6.65, p= 0.002, BU[0–20] = 125.08); the contrast between the baby and adult
condition also offered substantial evidence in favor of the experimental hypothesis
(MD = 15.80, SE = 6.73, p= 0.05, BU[0–20] = 9.62); the contrast between the adult and
no- animal condition was inconclusive (MD = 7.62, SE = 6.81, p= 0.505, BU[0–20] = 1.33).
For men, the overall effect of animal condition on appetite scores was not significant, (F(2,142)
= 2.37, p= 0.10, 2
p= 0.03). The comparison of appetite for the baby animal and no-image
condition was not significant, but indicated substantial evidence for the alternative hypothesis
(MD = 11.22, SE = 5.28, p= 0.09, BU[0–20] = 5.92). The comparison of appetite for baby and
adult animal, however, revealed only weak evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis
(MD = 8.02, SE = 5.39, p= 0.30, BU[0–20] = 1.88). Finally, the comparison of appetite for the
adult animal vs. no-image meat constituted only weak, inconclusive evidence in favor of the
null hypothesis (MD = 3.19, SE = 5.28, p= 0.817, BU[0–20] = 0.58).
Mediation Analysis: There was strong evidence for a negative correlation between feelings of
tenderness and appetite for the meat (r(177) = –0.42, p< 0.001, BU[0–.20] = 1.34109). To test
whether feelings of tenderness mediated the effect of babyness on appetite for the meat, we
conducted a mediation analysis as in study 2. This analysis revealed that there was a signifi-
cant indirect effect of babyness (adult = 0 vs. baby = 1) via tenderness on appetite scores
(coefficient = –6.81, SE = 2.24, 95% CI = [–11.98, –3.05]). Bayes factors of the indirect path-
way provided evidence for mediation as well (a path BU[0–20] = 488.93; bpath BU[0–20] =
3.49104). The direct effect of babyness on appetite was not significant (coefficient = –5.37,
SE = 4.54, 95% CI = [–14.34, 3.59]), suggesting full mediation. The Bayes factor for the direct
effect (BU[0–20] = 1.53) suggests the evidence for full mediation is inconclusive (i.e., more
evidence is needed to determine whether the mediating role of tenderness is partial or full).
Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Main Experimental Hypotheses
A fixed-effects Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted using Dienes’ (2008)3calculator to test
the main experimental hypotheses that across three studies participants would rate meat as
less appetizing when the meat came from a baby source relative to an adult source, and that
this would be largely the case for women more so than men. For discussion regarding the ad-
vantages of such internal meta-analyses within multi-study psychology reports, see Goh, Hall
and Rosenthal (2016) and Maner (2014). Bayes factors were calculated on the meta-analytic
data for each gender separately and combined. These cumulated Bayes factors were calcu-
lated using a half-normal distribution, which is generally more conservative than other models
used to represent H1, requiring greater evidence to distinguish evidence for H1 from evidence
for H0. The raw effects and Bayes factors are shown in Table 1, along with the meta-analytic
posterior means, standard deviations and 95% credible intervals. The posterior data represents
the best representation of the true population parameter given the data collected across all
three studies. The meta-analytic 95% credible intervals suggest that the true effect size for
both genders combined and individually is likely to be greater than zero. Furthermore, if we cal-
culate the ratio of the Bayes factors for appetite reduction (baby vs. adult animals), we observe
that the evidence is considerably larger for females than males (Bfemale/Bmale = 62.82).
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
330 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 330
General Discussion
Three studies revealed that women’s appetite toward meat declines when meat products are
paired with images of a baby animal source. We observed this effect on appetite across four
different animal species (cattle, kangaroos, pigs, sheep) and three different meat dishes (each
study used a different image of meat). Study 3 showed that this decline in appetite was largest
when comparing a baby animal condition with a condition where there is no reminder of the
animal source. Reductions in appetite were weaker when contrasting adult animal images
with no image. When we focus on the critical animal comparison, babies vs. adults, as we did
in our meta-analysis, the data presented here offer strong support for a small effect of baby-
ness on appetite for meat among women (cumulative B= 257.58). The best estimate of the
reduction in appetite for women is 13.62, along our 0–100 scale, when comparing baby and
adult animals. In contrast, the reduction in men’s appetite for meat from baby animals, com-
pared with meat from adult animals, was approximately half that of women (a posterior mean
of 6.31 along the 0–100 scale). The pooled data presented here provide weaker evidence (a
cumulative B= 4.10) that men experience a reduction in their appetite for meat when it is from
baby animals versus adult animals.
Connections with Prior Work, Limitations, and Future Directions
That the appetite of women was more affected by images of baby farmed animals than the
appetite of men is consistent with past research that has found that women tend to be more
emotionally responsive to cute babies (Glocker et al., 2009b) and to display caretaking moti-
vations in response to human and animal infants (Glocker et al., 2009a; Sherman et al., 2009).
Our findings are also in line with a large literature that has consistently uncovered greater
ambivalence, and negative attitudes, toward meat among women, compared with men. Our
findings extend this literature by revealing that the impact baby animals have on people’s
appetite for meat is more strongly observed among women.
Piazza et al.
331 Anthrozoös
Table 1. Bayesian meta-analysis of data across studies 1–3 investigating the experimental
hypothesis that participants reduce their appetite for meat when associating meat with baby ani-
mals, compared with adult animals. Statistics given for both genders combined, and individually.
Study Mean Diff SE t Study Cumulative Posterior Posterior Meta 95%
[Adult–Baby] BU[0-20] BH[0, 10] Mean SD Credible
Interval
Both Genders
1 4.97 2.96 1.68 1.44
2 10.14 3.34 3.04** 42.24 70.90 7.24 2.21 2.90, 11.59
3 12.18 4.46 2.73* 22.28 1,509.31 8.22 1.98 4.33, 12.11
Women
1 13.44 8.90 1.51 2.46
2 12.41 5.14 2.41* 10.95 23.75 12.66 4.45 3.94, 21.39
3 15.80 6.73 2.35* 9.62 257.58 13.62 3.71 6.34, 20.89
Men
1 –0.62 6.86 –0.10 0.40
2 8.19 4.45 1.84+ 2.92 1.71 5.58 3.73 –1.74, 12.90
3 8.02 5.73 1.49 1.88 4.10 6.37 3.07 0.35, 12.39
+p< 0.10, *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01.
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 331
Past work on baby animals has focused mainly on pet animals, such as dogs and cats
(e.g., Archer & Monton, 2011; Borgi et al., 2014; Borgi & Cirulli, 2013; Levin, Arluke, & Irvine,
2017; Sanefuji et al., 2007; Sherman et al., 2009), while very little work has examined the role
of baby status among farmed animals or animals traditionally used for meat. Our studies are
the first, as far as we are aware at the time of our submission to this journal, to experimentally
manipulate the animal’s status as a baby or adult and examine the consequences for appetite
toward meat. Our findings suggest perceptions of babyness and accompanied feelings of
tenderness can reduce appetite toward meat in the short term, when directly linking thoughts
of the meat product to the animal source.
Our findings also extend research on how people judge the moral status of animals (e.g.,
Piazza et al., 2014) by highlighting babyness as a potential source of moral standing beyond
intelligence and harmfulness. Studies show that people loosen their moral concern for
animals, and disregard otherwise morally relevant features (e.g., intelligence), when an animal
is categorized as food (Bratanova et al., 2011; Loughnan, Bastian, & Haslam, 2014; Piazza
& Loughnan, 2016). Yet ethical concerns for animals can impact on meat enjoyment
(Anderson & Barrett, 2016), as can associating meat with the animal source (e.g., Kunst &
Hohle, 2016). In our prestudy, we found that people, of both genders, think that baby farmed
animals deserve to be protected from harm more so than adult animals. However, images of
baby animals as the source of meat only reliably impacted on women’s appetite for meat. The
overall evidence of the impact that babyness had on men’s appetites would conventionally
be considered weak, thus, pointing to a potential disconnect between moral concern for
farmed animals and appetites.
In study 1, we found no discernible evidence that men’s appetite for meat from
cows and kangaroos was affected by the baby status of the animal source, and indeed
the data showed inconclusive but weak evidence for the null hypothesis. Study 2, using
sheep and pigs as the target animals, obtained more positive but still weak evidence
that men’s appetite was affected by baby relative to adult images. Study 3, which
utilized cows as the target, again revealed only inconclusive and weak evidence that
reductions in appetite for men existed when comparing babies and adults. When pool-
ing the data within a meta-analysis (see Table 1) we found that the data across all three
studies offered weaker evidence for men. In contrast, the data overwhelmingly
supported the experimental hypothesis for women. Future research should continue
to investigate individual differences in the way people utilize information about animals
used for meat and how this information impacts on people’s appetites, as our results
highlight one attributional dimension, babyness, for which gender seems to be an
important moderator.
While our findings suggest that there may be some value in using baby animals as images
within meat-reduction campaigns, it is important to note several limitations of our studies. First,
we only examined short-term influences on appetite within cross-sectional designs. It is ques-
tionable whether exposure to baby animals would have long-term effects on appetite for meat.
Second, study 3 labelled the animal image (“baby animal,” “adult animal”), which raises the
question of whether it was the image or the label that carried the effect. Though studies 1 and
2 did not use labels, further research should continue to isolate these variables. Finally, we
measured appetite for meat primarily with rating tasks and not actual food choices. Future
studies should examine the influence of baby schemas within actual food selection or point-
of-purchase paradigms.
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
332 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 332
Conclusion
We found that both men and women find baby farmed animals to be cute and vulnerable, and
experience feelings of tenderness and warmth toward them. Further, results indicate that
female omnivores exhibit a temporary reduction in their appetite toward meat sourced from
baby animals, while the results are less conclusive for male omnivores. Feeling tenderness
toward a baby animal appears to be an oppositional force on appetite for meat for many peo-
ple, especially women. How some individuals are able to keep their affections and appetites
separate remains an interesting and important topic for future research.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Michalina Tomaszczuk for her valuable assistance with these studies. Thanks to
Zoltan Dienes for his assistance with calculating Bayes factors.
Conflict of Interest
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors. No potential conflicts of interest exist.
Notes
1. Bayes factors for omnibus ANOVAs with k degrees of freedom depend on assumptions of independent k
contrasts which is difficult to theoretically determine. Our hypotheses are sufficiently tested using Bayes
factors conducted on analyses where df = 1. We know of past research that has reported omnibus (df >
1) Bs but only for completeness and after acknowledging that none of the conclusions were drawn from
the omnibus Bs (see Lush, Naish, & Dienes, 2016).
2. The conclusions drawn from the data in study 1 do not change when all 361 participants are included in
the analysis.
3. See Dienes (2008, box 4.5, p. 94) for an overview of Bayesian updating used by the calculator. The corre-
sponding R script has been provided in the supplemental materials. http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.
uk/home/Zoltan_Dienes/inference/bayes_normalposterior.swf.
References
Alley, T. R. (1981). Head shape and the perception of cuteness. Developmental Psychology, 17, 650–654.
Alley, T. R. (1983). Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 29, 411–427.
Anderson E. C., & Barrett L. F. (2016). Affective beliefs influence the experience of eating meat. PLoS ONE, 11,
e0160424.
Archer, J., & Monton, S. (2011). Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology, 117,
217–226.
Baguely, T., & Kaye, W. S. (2010). Review of: Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to
scientific and statistical inference, by Z. Dienes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
63, 695–698.
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. 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.
Beardsworth, A., Bryman, A., Keil, T., Goode, J., Haslam, C., & Lancashire, E. (2002). Women, men and food:
The significance of gender for nutritional attitudes and choices. British Food Journal, 104, 470–491.
Bilewicz, M., Imhoff, R., & Drogosz, M. (2011). The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness
among vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 201–209.
Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2013). Children’s preferences for infantile features in dogs and cats. Human–Animal
Interaction Bulletin, 1, 1–15.
Borgi, M., Cogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V., Meintis, K., & Cirulli, F. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces
induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 411.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411.
Piazza et al.
333 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 333
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral
standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193–196.
Dienes, Z. (2008).Understanding psychology as a science: An introduction to scientific and statistical
inference. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dienes, Z., & McLatchie, N. (2017). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian analyses over significance testing.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1266-z.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program
for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N. (2009a). Baby schema
in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115, 257–263.
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Valdez, J. N., Griffin, M. D., … Gur, R. C. (2009b).
Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proceedings from the National
Academy of Science, U.S.A., 106, 9115–9119.
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta‐analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why
and a primer on how.Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549.
Hahn, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2015). Reported maternal tendencies predict the reward value of
infant facial cuteness, but not cuteness detection. Biology Letters, 11, 20140978.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Hayley, A., Zinkiewicz, L., & Hardiman, K. (2015). Values, attitudes, and frequency of meat consumption.
Predicting meat-reduced diet in Australians. Appetite, 84, 98–106.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1979). Facial feature determinants of perceived infant attractiveness.
Infant Behavior Development, 2, 329–339.
Jeffreys, H. (1939/1961). The theory of probability (1st/3rd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Risvik, E., & Henjesand, I. J. (2006). A study on the mediating role of disgust with meat
in the prediction of red meat consumption among young females. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5, 281–
291.
Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Rødbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specific preferences and
attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 285–294.
Kunst, J. R., & Hohle, S. M. (2016). Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat
increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite, 105, 758–774.
Langlois, J., Ritter, J., Casey, R., & Sawin, D. (1995). Infant attractiveness predicts maternal behaviors and
attitudes. Developmental Psychology, 31, 464–472.
Levin, J., Arluke, A., & Irvine, L. (2017). Are people more disturbed by dog or human suffering? Influence of
victim’s species and age. Society & Animals, 25, 1–16.
Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer, R., Wiffen, B., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). Female and male responses to cuteness,
age and emotion in infant faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 16–21.
Lorenz, K. Z. (1977). Die angeborenen formen moglicher arfahrung. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie. In R. Shaw
& J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 235–409).
Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Originally published in 1943.
Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and
mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156–159.
Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23, 104–108.
Lush, P., Naish, P., & Dienes, Z. (2016). Metacognition of intentions in mindfulness and hypnosis.Neuroscience
of Consciousness, 1, niw007. doi: doi.org/10.1093/nc/niw007.
Maner, J. K. (2014). Let’s put our money where our mouth is: If authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and
editors) must change with them.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 343–351.
Nordin, S., Broman, D. A., Garvill, J., & Nyroos, M. (2004). Gender differences in factors affecting rejection of
food in healthy young Swedish adults. Appetite, 43, 295–301.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment
and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
Piazza, J., Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension
in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131, 108–124.
Are Baby Animals Less Appetizing? Tenderness toward Baby Animals and Appetite for Meat
334 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 334
Piazza, J., & Loughnan, S. (2016). When meat gets personal, animals’ minds matter less: Motivated use of
intelligence information in judgments of moral standing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7,
867–874.
Rothgerber, H. (2012). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat
consumption. The Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14, 363–275.
Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58, 141–150.
Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2012). Too close to home. Factors predicting meat avoidance. Appetite, 59,
47–52.
Sanefuji, W., Ohgami, H., & Hashiya, K. (2007). Development of preference for baby faces across species in
humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Ethology, 25, 249–254.
Schösler, H., de Boer, J., Boersema, J. J., & Aiking, H. (2015). Meat and masculinity among young Chinese,
Turkish and Dutch adults in the Netherlands. Appetite, 89, 152–159.
Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioural carefulness.
Emotion, 9, 282–286.
Sprengelmeyer, R., Perrett, D. I., Fagan, E. C., Cornwell, R. E., Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer, H. B. M., …
Young, A. W. (2009). The cutest little baby face: A hormonal link to sensitivity to cuteness in infant faces.
Psychological Science, 20, 149–154.
Sytsma, J., & Machery, E. (2012). Two sources of moral standing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3,
303–324.
Tian, Q., Hilton, D., & Becker, M. (2016). Confronting the meat paradox in different cultural contexts: Reactions
among Chinese and French participants. Appetite, 96, 187–194.
Tucker, C. A. (2014). The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption. Appetite, 81, 168–179.
Piazza et al.
335 Anthrozoös
AZ 31(3)_Layout 1 4/30/18 1:29 PM Page 335
