ArticlePDF Available

Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: An application of system justification theory

September 2019
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 22(6):858-878

DOI:10.1177/1368430219843183

Authors:

Flávio Azevedo

University of Cambridge

John T Jost

New York University

Many people in Western societies tolerate the mistreatment of nonhuman animals, despite obvious ethical concerns about the injustice of animal suffering and exploitation. In three studies, we applied system justification theory to examine the ideological basis of human–animal relations. In Studies 1a and 1b, we showed in both a large convenience sample ( N = 2,119) and a nationally representative sample in the US ( N = 1,500) that economic system justification uniquely explained the relationship between political conservatism and animal welfare attitudes even after adjusting for social dominance orientation. In Study 2, we replicated and extended these findings using more elaborate measures of animal welfare attitudes in the context of an MTurk sample of U.S. respondents ( N = 395). Specifically, we found that conservatism was associated with less support for animal welfare and greater endorsement of speciesism (the belief that humans are morally superior to nonhuman animals) and that individual differences in economic system justification mediated these associations. We discuss several ways in which system justification theory may inform interventions designed to promote support for animal welfare in society at large.

Mediation model predicting animal welfare support, speciesism, and meat consumption with self-reported conservatism as a predictor and ESJ as a mediator.

…

Bivariate Correlations (Study 1a)

…

Bivariate Correlations (Study 2)

…

Figures - uploaded by Flávio Azevedo

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Flávio Azevedo

Content may be subject to copyright.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

2019, Vol. 22(6) 858 –878

DOI: 10.1177/1368430219843183

All animals are equal, but some animals are more

equal than others.

(Orwell, 1945/1993)

The treatment of nonhuman animals in Western

societies has been identified as a major ethical

problem for several decades (Singer, 1975).

Nonhuman animals suffer greatly and are often

killed to provide human beings with meat and

other food products, clothing, entertainment, and

land that is used for residential and industrial

Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman

animals: An application of system justification theory

Mark R. Hoffarth,1 Flávio Azevedo1 and John T. Jost1

Abstract

Many people in Western societies tolerate the mistreatment of nonhuman animals, despite obvious

ethical concerns about the injustice of animal suffering and exploitation. In three studies, we

applied system justification theory to examine the ideological basis of human–animal relations. In

Studies 1a and 1b, we showed in both a large convenience sample (N = 2,119) and a nationally

representative sample in the US (N = 1,500) that economic system justification uniquely explained the

relationship between political conservatism and animal welfare attitudes even after adjusting for social

dominance orientation. In Study 2, we replicated and extended these findings using more elaborate

measures of animal welfare attitudes in the context of an MTurk sample of U.S. respondents (N =

395). Specifically, we found that conservatism was associated with less support for animal welfare

and greater endorsement of speciesism (the belief that humans are morally superior to nonhuman

animals) and that individual differences in economic system justification mediated these associations.

We discuss several ways in which system justification theory may inform interventions designed to

promote support for animal welfare in society at large.

Keywords

animal rights, animal welfare, conservatism, political ideology, system justification

1New York University, USA

Preprint

APA Style Citation

Hoffarth, M. R., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2019). Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman

animals: An application of system justification theory. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 858-878.

Hoffarth et al.

activities (Amiot & Bastian, 2015). The mistreat-

ment of nonhuman animals also has detrimental

effects on humans due to environmental degra-

dation and climate change, both of which are

exacerbated by the meat industry (Macdiarmid,

Douglas, & Campbell, 2016). Harmful practices

such as factory farming and inhumane forms of

slaughter—including raising animals in cramped,

unsanitary conditions and killing them while they

are conscious—continue to receive legal protec-

tion (Joy, 2010). Furthermore, the U.S. Animal

Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 makes it illegal

to engage in animal rights activism that causes

economic damage to businesses that exploit non-

human animals. Although there were some

improvements in animal welfare laws under

President Obama’s administration, a number of

laws protecting the welfare of farm animals were

rescinded in the early years of President Trump’s

administration (Wheeler, 2018). Many people

continue to defend, bolster, and justify the pre-

sent system of exploiting nonhuman animals for

profit despite the troubling ethical implications.

Given that people also love and admire non-

human animals (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017), it is

important to understand what social and psycho-

logical factors promote the maintenance of insti-

tutions that exploit nonhuman animals—and

how they might be altered or transcended in the

future. A number of insightful analyses highlight

the role of beliefs, rationalizations, and ideolo-

gies—such as carnism or speciesism—that are

used to justify the exploitation of nonhuman ani-

mals (Amiot & Bastian, 2015; Bastian &

Loughnan, 2017; Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam, &

Radke, 2011; Caviola, Everett, & Faber, 2019;

Hodson & Costello, 2018; Loughnan, Bastian, &

Haslam, 2014; Piazza et al., 2015). These belief

systems are invariably system-justifying in the

sense that they provide ideological support for

the societal status quo (Jost & Hunyady, 2005), in

which the domination of nonhuman animals by

humans is regarded as legitimate and acceptable

(Dhont & Hodson, 2014; Joy, 2010; Monteiro,

Pfeiler, Patterson, & Milburn, 2017).

For instance, people who endorse ideologies

such as right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer,

1981) and social dominance orientation (Sidanius

& Pratto, 1999) are more likely to justify the

exploitation of other species, tolerate animal cru-

elty, and report high levels of meat consumption

(Dhont & Hodson, 2014; Dhont, Hodson,

Costello, & MacInnis, 2014; Dhont, Hodson, &

Leite, 2016; Monteiro et al., 2017). In the present

research program, we seek to further explore the

role of system justification processes in defend-

ing the societal status quo of animal mistreat-

ment and resistance to the improvement of

animal welfare. In all three studies, we examined

the ways in which individual differences in system

justification were related to attitudes about ani-

mal protection. In our final study, we homed in

on three attitudinal outcomes in particular: sup-

port for animal welfare, speciesism (the ideology

that people are morally superior to other species),

and meat consumption.

System Justification Theory

According to system justification theory, individ-

uals and groups are motivated to hold beliefs that

defend and justify aspects of the societal status

quo, including the social, economic, and political

institutions and arrangements on which they

depend (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost &

Hunyady, 2005). System justification theory has

been used effectively to understand and explain

societal phenomena such as the tolerance of

injustice and human rights violations (Blasi &

Jost, 2006; Jost, Gaucher, & Stern, 2015); the

motivational basis of skepticism, denial, and inac-

tion with respect to anthropogenic climate change

(Feygina, Jost, & Goldsmith, 2010; Hennes,

Ruisch, Feygina, Monteiro, & Jost, 2016; Hoffarth

& Hodson, 2016; Jost, 2015); and backlash against

feminists and women who challenge traditional

gender roles (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, &

Nauts, 2012; Yeung, Kay, & Peach, 2014). System

justification theory has also helped to illuminate

processes of rationalization when it comes to

inequalities between human social groups based

on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, geo-

graphical region, and social class (Jost & Kay,

2005; Jost, Kivetz, Rubini, Guermandi, & Mosso,

2005; Jost & Thompson, 2000; Kay et al., 2009;

Kay & Jost, 2003; Prusaczyk & Hodson, 2018;

Rudman, Feinberg, & Fairchild, 2002; van der

Toorn, Jost, Packer, Noorbaloochi, & van Bavel,

2017). Given that human abuse of nonhuman

animals is, among other things, a case of inter-

group domination (Dhont et al., 2014; Dhont

et al., 2016; Swim & Bloodhart, 2018), there may

be psychological similarities in the ways in which

people rationalize the exploitation and unequal

treatment of human and nonhuman groups. If

so, system justification theory may shed addi-

tional light on problems associated with animal

welfare.

Furthermore, because system justification the-

ory highlights the ways in which politically con-

servative beliefs, opinions, and values serve the

motivation to defend and bolster the status quo

(Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003), it

may provide valuable context for understanding

recent findings concerning the relationship

between political orientation and support for ani-

mal rights. In particular, studies suggest that con-

servatives and rightists are more tolerant of

animal cruelty and eat more meat, in comparison

with liberals and leftists (Dhont & Hodson,

2014). In addition, those on the right (vs. left)

exhibit stronger biases against vegetarians and

vegans—especially those who are identified as

being motivated by animal rights concerns

(MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Finally, vegans and

vegetarians who were more conservative were

found to “backslide” or “relapse” (i.e., resume

meat consumption) at higher rates than vegans

and vegetarians who were more liberal (Hodson

& Earle, 2018).

Most previous research on the ideological

basis of attitudes about animal welfare has

focused on the role of social dominance orienta-

tion (e.g., Dhont et al., 2016). This is an impor-

tant factor, but it is probably not the only

ideological variable of relevance. We propose

that system justification theory can be applied

fruitfully to questions of animal (mis)treatment,

insofar as defensive motivational processes asso-

ciated with support for the societal status quo

play a key role in the justification of animal

exploitation. Some studies provide preliminary

evidence for the notion that system justification

would be linked to decreased support for animal

welfare. For instance, high (vs. low) system justi-

fiers are more likely to regard as legitimate vari-

ous national and international systems of food

production, consumption, and distribution—

systems that are closely linked to the mistreat-

ment of nonhuman animals (Vainio, Mäkiniemi,

& Paloniemi, 2014). Furthermore, previous stud-

ies have found correlations between (a) eco-

nomic system justification and the endorsement

of carnism (Monteiro et al., 2017), and (b) gen-

eral system justification and the endorsement of

speciesism (Caviola et al., 2019).

There are reasons to suppose that both gen-

eral (Kay & Jost, 2003) and economic system jus-

tification (Jost & Thompson, 2000) would be

associated with a lack of concern about animal

welfare. This is because animal rights movements

challenge long-standing social and cultural tradi-

tions, such as hunting and holiday feasts, as well

as the economic status quo, which includes

exploitative factory farming practices in capitalist

systems (Dhont & Hodson, 2014). The demand

for improved animal welfare is perceived as espe-

cially threatening to the profits of powerful cor-

porations (Joy, 2010). In addition, previous

research suggests that economic system justifica-

tion is more strongly related than general system

justification to attitudes about climate change and

environmental issues (Feygina et al., 2010; Hennes

et al., 2016). To our knowledge, no prior study of

attitudes about animal welfare has measured both

general and economic forms of system justifica-

tion. Therefore, in the present research program

we administered general and economic system

justification scales to explore potential differ-

ences in predictive validity. We hypothesized that

system justification would help to explain why—

in comparison with liberals—political conserva-

tives would be less supportive of animal

protection, measured in terms of attitudes about

animal welfare, speciesism, and meat consump-

tion (a commonly used behavioral indicator of

indifference to animal welfare; see Dhont &

Hodson, 2014).

Hoffarth et al.

The Present Research Program

In our first study, we applied system justification

theory to illuminate the ways in which attitudes

about animal rights are resistant to social change

in light of ideological motives to defend, bolster,

and justify aspects of the societal status quo (Jost,

2015). We hypothesized, first and foremost, that

political conservatism would be associated with

low levels of support for animal rights. Data

from the nationally representative General Social

Survey (GSS; Smith, Marsden, Hou, & Kim,

2017) provide initial support for this hypothesis.

Respondents who identified themselves as more

conservative (or less liberal) were less supportive

of animal rights in 1993, r (1421) = −.13, p <

.001, and 1994, r (1260) = −.18, p < .001.1 These

preliminary analyses were suggestive and interest-

ing, but there are clear limitations stemming from

the fact that the survey was administered more

than 20 years ago and did not include any system

justification measures.

In the present research program, we tested an

integrative theoretical model aimed at elucidating

the connection between political conservatism and

lack of support for animal welfare from a system

justification perspective. We hypothesized that

conservatism would be associated with stronger

general and economic system justification (H1,

consistent with previous research). We also

hypothesized that conservatism would be associ-

ated with less support for animal welfare (H2a),

more endorsement of speciesism (H2b), and more

self-reported meat consumption (H2c). With

regard to system justification, we hypothesized

that it, too, would be associated with less support

for animal welfare (H3a), more endorsement of

speciesism (H3b), and more meat consumption

(H3c). We also hypothesized that system justifica-

tion would mediate the effects of political con-

servatism on lack of support for animal welfare.

That is, we predicted that conservatism would be

associated with stronger system justification, which

would be associated with lower levels of support

for animal welfare (H4a), more endorsement of

speciesism (H4b), and more meat consumption

(H4c). Whereas support for Hypotheses 1 through

3b would replicate previous findings in the litera-

ture, support for Hypotheses 3c, 4a, 4b, and 4c

would constitute new evidence pertaining to the

role of system justification in undermining sup-

port for animal protection.

In Studies 1a and 1b, which were based on a

large convenience sample (N = 2,119) and a

nationally representative U.S. sample (N = 1,500),

we tested a mediation model in which social dom-

inance orientation and system justification were

modeled as simultaneous mediators. We hypoth-

esized that system justification would make a

unique contribution, mediating the effect of

political conservatism on lack of support for ani-

mal rights even after adjusting for social domi-

nance orientation (H5). Because previous

research has established that there are meaningful

differences between the two facets (or subscales)

of social dominance orientation, namely group-

based dominance (or SDO-dominance) and

opposition to equality (or SDO-antiegalitarianism)

when it comes to predicting other ideological

outcomes (Ho et al., 2015; Jost & Thompson,

2000; Kugler, Cooper, & Nosek, 2010), we con-

sidered the possibility that the two facets would

be differentially correlated with support for ani-

mal rights. This represents a conceptual and

empirical advance over previous research on the

ideological basis of attitudes about animal wel-

fare (Dhont & Hodson, 2014; Dhont et al., 2014;

Dhont et al., 2016), which has treated social dom-

inance orientation as a unidimensional construct

rather than a multidimensional one.

However, a clear limitation of our first two

studies is that we relied upon single-item meas-

ures of support for animal welfare. In Study 2, we

overcame this limitation by generating several

questionnaire items designed to measure support

for animal rights in a more comprehensive man-

ner. This also enabled us to gauge public opinion

on more contemporary animal rights issues, such

as “cruelty-free” products and the consumption

of certain animal products such as dairy and eggs

that were not included in instruments that were

developed in previous decades (e.g., Herzog,

Betchart, & Pittman, 1991; Wuensch, Jenkins, &

Poteat, 2002).

Study 1a

Method

Participants. For Study 1a, we analyzed survey data

collected shortly before the 2016 U.S. presidential

election (from August 20 to September 13, 2016).

A total of 2,119 U.S. adults (of whom 21.5% were

female) were surveyed by Survey Sampling Inter-

national (now named Dynata), a U.S.-based mar-

ket research institute that recruits participants

from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens. The

age distribution was as follows: 18–24 (9.1%),

25–34 (13.8%), 35–44 (11.4%), 45–54 (2.7%),

55–65 (3.6%), 65 and older (59.3%). In terms of

ethnicity, 85.9% identified as White/European

American, 5.1% as Black/African American,

4.1% as Latino, and 5.0% as “other.” Data from

this survey were analyzed and described elsewhere

in the context of different research questions (e.g.,

Azevedo, Jost, & Rothmund, 2017; Womick,

Rothmund, Azevedo, King, & Jost, 2018). For the

present purposes, we analyzed data pertaining to

ideological self-placement, general system justifi-

cation (GSJ), economic system justification (ESJ),

SDO, and responses to a single question pertain-

ing to support for animal rights.

Measures

Ideological self-placement. Participants answered

three items assessing their political orientation

in terms of general attitudes, social/cultural

issues, and economic issues on 5-point scales (1

= strongly liberal, 5 = strongly conservative; α = .91;

Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). Higher

scores indicate greater (self-reported) political

conservatism.

General system justification. Participants com-

pleted the eight-item General System Justification

Scale (GSJ; Kay & Jost, 2003), which contains

items such as, “In general, the American political

system operates as it should” and “American soci-

ety needs to be radically restructured” (reverse-

scored). Responses were provided on 7-point

scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), with

a higher overall score indicating stronger system

justification in general (α = .84).

Economic system justification. Participants

also completed the 17-item Economic System

Justification Scale2 (ESJ; Jost & Thompson,

2000), which includes items such as, “Laws

of nature are responsible for differences in

wealth in society” and “There are many rea-

sons to think that the economic system is

unfair” (reverse-scored). Responses were pro-

vided on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree,

7 = strongly agree), with a higher overall score

indicating stronger justification of the eco-

nomic system (α = .88).

Social dominance orientation. The 16-item SDO7

scale (Ho et al., 2015) was administered (α = .89).

Sample items include “Some groups of people

must be kept in their place” and “We should work

to give all groups an equal chance to succeed”

(reverse-scored). Reponses were provided on a

9-point scale (1 = strongly oppose, 9 = strongly favor).

Higher mean scores indicate higher social domi-

nance orientation (after reverse-scoring some

items). In addition to computing an overall SDO

score, we also computed subscale scores based on

group-based dominance (SDO-dominance) and

opposition to equality (SDO-antiegalitarianism),

because previous research shows that a two-fac-

tor solution is superior to a one-factor solution

(Ho et al., 2015; Jost & Thompson, 2000; Kugler

et al., 2010).

Support for animal rights. Participants were

asked to indicate on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly

agree, 9 = strongly disagree) how strongly they

agreed or disagreed with an item taken from the

GSS, namely “The rights of animals ought to

be considered just as important as the rights of

humans.”

Results and Discussion

Correlations among latent variables were esti-

mated with MPlus Version 7 (Múthen & Múthen,

1998–2012) using 10,000 bootstrap replications.

Percentile bootstraps were used because bias-

corrected bootstraps can produce inflated Type I

errors (Biesanz, Falk, & Savalei, 2010). Bivariate

Hoffarth et al.

correlations involving manifest variables are

shown in the upper right triangle and those

involving latent variables comprised of parcels

are shown in the lower left triangle of Table 1.

Using latent variables helps reduce the bias pro-

duced by measurement error (Cohen, Cohen,

West, & Aiken, 2003), and thus provides more

statistical power in estimating indirect effects.

Because the results were consistent for manifest

and latent variables, we report results for the

latter.

We observed that political conservatism,

SDO, ESJ, and GSJ were all negatively associ-

ated with support for animal rights, with rs

ranging from −.08 to −.37 (ps < .001).

Interestingly, we observed that only one of the

two facets (or subscales) of SDO was corre-

lated with attitudes about animal rights.

Opposition to equality (SDO-antiegalitarianism)

was negatively correlated with support for ani-

mal rights (r = −.31, p < .001), but group-

based dominance (SDO-dominance) was not (r

= −.02, p = .675). Additionally, ESJ (r = −.37,

p < .001) was more strongly associated with

lower support for animal rights than GSJ (r =

−.08, p = .003).

Next, we tested mediation models using

10,000 bootstrap replications in Mplus Version 7

(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). We report

standardized effect sizes. We modelled GSJ, ESJ,

SDO-dominance, and SDO-antiegalitarianism as

potential mediators of the relation between

political conservatism and support for animal

rights (see Figure 1a and the left column of Table

2). Political conservatism, GSJ, ESJ, SDO-

dominance, and SDO-antiegalitarianism were

latent variables comprised of parcels. The path

Table 1. Bivariate correlations (Study 1a).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. M SD

1. Political conservatism – .47*** .31*** .50*** .62*** .17*** −.32*** 5.58 2.43

2. SDO .49*** – .86*** .89*** .59*** .16*** −.18*** 3.89 1.39

3. SDO-dominance .34*** – – .54*** .41*** .14*** −.01 3.60 1.49

4. SDO-antiegalitarianism .53*** – .62*** – .62*** .15*** −.30*** 4.18 1.68

5. ESJ .68*** .65*** .47*** .68*** – .41*** −.34*** 5.07 1.17

6. GSJ .16*** .21*** .20*** .17*** .49*** – −.12*** 5.29 1.32

7. Animal rights support −.33*** −.19*** −.02 −.31*** −.37*** −.08** – 5.07 2.53

Note. SDO = social dominance orientation; ESJ = economic system justification; GSJ = general system justification. Bivari-

ate correlations in the upper right triangle are based on manifest variables whereas those in the lower left triangle are based on

latent variables composed of parcels for SDO, SDO-dominance, SDO-antiegalitarianism, ESJ, and GSJ.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1. Mediation model predicting support

for animal rights with self-reported conservatism

as a predictor and system justification and social

dominance orientation as simultaneous mediators

(Study 1a).

Note. Standardized effect sizes are reported. The predictor

and mediators are latent variables composed of parcels.

Nonsignificant paths are shown in dashed lines. Study 1a

(large convenience sample).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

model was fully saturated (i.e., all possible paths

were included) and the measurement model had

adequate fit, χ2(156) = 1,170.80, p < .001, CFI =

.962, RMSEA = .055, 90% CI [0.052, 0.058].

As shown in Table 2, the indirect effect

through SDO-antiegalitarianism was negative (IE

= −.13, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.17, −0.08]), but

the indirect effect through SDO-dominance was

positive (IE = .10, p < .001, 95% CI [0.08, 0.13]).

In support of H5, the indirect effect through ESJ

was significant in the expected direction (IE =

−.20, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.27, −0.12]); however,

the indirect effect through GSJ was not signifi-

cant (IE = .01, p = .124, 95% CI [−0.002, 0.02]).

To strengthen confidence in this conclusion, we

conducted an internal replication with a sample

that was representative of the U.S. population in

Study 1b.

Study 1b

Method

Participants and measures. For Study 1b, we ana-

lyzed data from a nationally representative survey

of U.S. adults (N = 1,500; 50.7% women) con-

ducted by SSI shortly before the 2016 presidential

election (August 16 to September 9, 2016). As in

the case of Study 1a, data from this survey have

been analyzed in previously published research

on other topics (Azevedo et al., 2017; Womick

et al., 2018). (The two samples were nonoverlap-

ping.) The age distribution for Study 1b was as

follows: 18–24 (12.9%), 25–34 (17.6%), 35–44

(17.5%), 45–54 (19.5%), 55–65 (15.6%), and

older than 65 (16.9%). In terms of ethnicity,

82.5% identified as White/European American,

7.7% as Black/African American, 5.9% as Latino,

and 4.0% as “other.” We analyzed data pertaining

to the same measures used in Study 1a (including

GSJ eight items, α = .76; ESJ 16 items, α = .80;

SDO 16 items, α = .89).

Results and Discussion

Bivariate correlations involving manifest variables

are shown in the upper right triangle and those

involving latent variables comprised of parcels

are shown in the lower left triangle of Table 3.

Results were similar for manifest and latent vari-

ables, so we focus on the latter. Consistent with

prior research, political conservatism, SDO-

dominance, SDO-antiegalitarianism, ESJ, and

GSJ were all negatively associated with support

for animal rights, with rs ranging from −.06 to

−.31 (ps < .05). SDO-antiegalitarianism was neg-

atively correlated with support for animal rights (r

= −.29, p < .001), and SDO-dominance was

Table 2. The effect of self-reported conservatism on animal welfare support via social dominance orientation

and system justification.

Study 1a Study 1b

β95% CI β95% CI

Animal welfare support

Total effect −.33*** [−0.37, −0.29] −.31*** [−0.36, −0.26]

Direct effect −.12** [−0.19, −0.05] −.17*** [−0.24, −0.09]

Indirect effect −.21*** [−0.27, −0.16] −.15*** [−0.20, −0.10]

Via SDO-dominance .10*** [0.08, 0.13] .10*** [0.07, 0.13]

Via SDO-antiegalitarianism −.13*** [−0.17, −0.08] −.14*** [−0.19, −0.09]

Via GSJ .01 [−0.002, 0.02] .01 [−0.003, 0.02]

Via ESJ −.20*** [−0.27, −0.12] −.11** [−0.19, −0.04]

Note. SDO-dominance = social dominance orientation-dominance; SDO-antiegalitarianism = social dominance orientation-

antiegalitarianism; GSJ = general system justification; ESJ = economic system justification. Standardized effect sizes are

reported. SDO and ESJ were latent variables composed of parcels.

**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hoffarth et al.

negatively (but more weakly) associated with sup-

port for animal rights (r = −.06, p = .049). As in

Study 1a, ESJ (r = −.28, p < .001) was more

strongly associated with lower support for animal

welfare than GSJ (r = −.07, p = .021). Next, we

tested the same mediation model as in Study 1a

(see Figure 1b and right column of Table 2). The

path model was fully saturated, and the measure-

ment model had adequate fit, χ2(156) = 1,269.14,

p < .001, CFI = .940, RMSEA = .069, 90% CI

[0.065, 0.073].

Direct and indirect effects in the mediation

model are shown in Table 3. The indirect effect

through SDO-antiegalitarianism was negative (IE

= −.14, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.19, −0.09]), but

the indirect effect through SDO-dominance was

positive (IE = .10, p < .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.13]).

In support of H5, the indirect effect through ESJ

was significant in the expected direction (IE =

−.11, p = .003, 95% CI [−0.19, −0.04]); however,

the indirect effect through GSJ was not signifi-

cant (IE = .01, p = .182, 95% CI [−0.003, 0.02]).

Thus, we obtained clear and consistent support

for Hypothesis 5 in Studies 1a and 1b. In both

studies, economic system justification signifi-

cantly mediated the relation between political

conservatism and lack of support for animal

rights, even after adjusting for social dominance.

However, a clear limitation of these studies is that

in both cases, attitudes about animal rights were

estimated on the basis of a single-item measure.

We overcame this limitation in Study 2, in which

we developed a new and more comprehensive

instrument for measuring attitudes concerning

animal welfare.

Study 2

Method

Participants. Based on an a priori power analysis,

we aimed to have at least 90% power to detect a

bivariate correlation of .21 (the average effect size

in social psychology; Richard, Bond, & Stokes-

Zoota, 2003), and at least 80% power to conduct

the proposed theoretical mediation (assuming r =

.21 for each path in our model). Therefore, we

decided to recruit at least 400 participants for

Study 2. A total of 414 participants residing in the

US were recruited through Amazon Mechanical

Turk (MTurk) and compensated $2.50 for their

time. Compared to nationally representative sam-

ples in American National Election Studies

(ANES), MTurkers are younger, lower in income,

more likely to be liberal and agnostic/atheist, and

less diverse in terms of race and ethnicity (Levay,

Freese, & Druckman, 2016). Nevertheless, MTurk

samples are somewhat more representative of the

general population than university and other con-

venience samples (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014).

Nineteen participants were excluded from anal-

yses because they declined to have their data used

Table 3. Bivariate correlations (Study 1b).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. M SD

1. Political conservatism – .48*** .32*** .51*** .57*** .16*** −.32*** 5.24 2.42

2. SDO .50*** – .87*** .90*** .60*** .15*** −.19*** 3.74 1.44

3. SDO-dominance .36*** – – .57*** .45*** .10*** −.04 3.52 1.49

4. SDO-antiegalitarianism .54*** – .65*** – .60*** .16*** −.28*** 3.97 1.75

5. ESJ .61*** .67*** .56*** .66*** – .39*** −.31*** 4.87 1.13

6. GSJ .16*** .18*** .16*** .17*** .52*** – −.09*** 5.06 1.32

7. Animal rights support −.31*** −.20*** −.06* −.29*** −.28*** −.07* - 5.66 2.60

Note. SDO = social dominance orientation; ESJ = economic system justification; GSJ = general system justification. Bivari-

ate correlations in the upper right triangle are based on manifest variables whereas those in the lower left triangle are based

on latent variables composed of parcels for political conservatism, SDO, SDO-dominance, SDO-antiegalitarianism, ESJ, and

GSJ.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

at the end of the study (n = 4); incorrectly

answered one or both attention checks that simply

asked them to select a specific number (n = 9); or

finished the survey too quickly (i.e., in ⩽ 200 sec-

onds; n = 6). Thus, data from 395 participants

(229 females and 166 males) were used for our

analyses.3 The mean age of the sample was 35.36,

ranging from 18 to 82. In terms of race/ethnicity,

303 (77%) identified as White, 27 (7%) as Black, 24

(6%) as Hispanic, 20 (5%) as Asian, and 21 (5%) as

“other,” including one participant who declined to

provide information about ethnicity. There were

21 self-identified vegetarians (5.32%) and 17 self-

identified vegans (4.30%) in the sample. The latter

percentage corresponded reasonably well to the

national estimate of 5.5% of Americans who iden-

tify themselves as vegan (Global Data, as cited in

Jewish Vegetarian Society, 2018).

Procedure. Participants completed the measures in

the order specified by our hypothesized media-

tional model. First, they answered a demographic

questionnaire that included ideological self-place-

ment and religious importance. Second, they

completed an issue-based scale used to measure

social and economic conservatism. Third, they

completed measures of general and economic

system justification (with the order of these two

scales randomized). Fourth, they answered ques-

tions about support for animal welfare and spe-

ciesism; these questions were administered in a

completely randomized order to avoid potential

order effects. Fifth and finally, participants

reported on their meat consumption.

Measures

Ideological self-placement. Participants answered

three items assessing their political orientation

in terms of general attitudes, social/cultural

issues, and economic issues on 5-point scales

(1 = strongly liberal, 5 = strongly conservative; α =

.91; Carney et al., 2008). Higher scores indicate

greater (self-reported) political conservatism.

Religious importance. Participants indicated the

importance of religion in their lives in response

to two items (r = .95): “To what extent do you

consider yourself a religious person?” and “How

important a role does religion play in your life?”

Responses were provided on 5-point scales (1 =

not at all, 5 = extremely).

Social and Economic Conservatism Scale

(SECS). The SECS measures issue-based con-

servatism in terms of evaluations of specific social

and economic stimuli (Everett, 2013). Participants

reported their attitudes concerning 12 social and

economic topics (e.g., patriotism, limited govern-

ment) on feeling thermometers (0 = greater negativ-

ity, 100 = greater positivity). Two of the items were

reverse-scored (abortion, welfare benefits). Higher

scores indicate greater social and economic con-

servatism (α = .87). We analyzed ideological self-

placement and SECS scores to determine whether

the relationship of interest (in particular, whether

conservatism would be negatively associated with

support for animal welfare through system justi-

fication) held for both symbolic and operational

measures of political ideology.

System justification measures. Complete scales for

measuring general system justification (α = .78)

and economic system justification (α = .82) were

administered, as in Study 1. Responses were pro-

vided on 9-point scales, with higher mean scores

indicating greater system justification (after cer-

tain items were reverse-scored).

Support for animal welfare. We generated 24

items to measure support for animal welfare.4

Responses were provided on 7-point scales (1 =

strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We dropped five

items from the scale because of problems with

the response distribution, modification indices,

or statistical or face-value redundancy (see the

supplemental material for item exclusion pro-

cesses). The final 19 items (α = .94) are listed

in Table 4 along with their loadings, descriptive

statistics, and model fit indices. Higher scores for

the composite variable indicate stronger support

for animal welfare.

Speciesism. Participants completed six items

that measured speciesism, defined as the

Hoffarth et al.

Table 4. Support for animal welfare (19 items): Standardized factor loadings and descriptive statistics (Study 2).

Item Factor loadings M SD

1. I would like to learn more about what I can do to protect pets. .85 5.22 1.46

2. I am not really interested in learning about animal rights. (R) .80 5.25 1.56

3. I would donate my time or money to animal rights causes and organizations. .77 4.88 1.58

4. I want to learn more about how to protect wild animals from extinction. .77 5.44 1.40

5. There should be federal funding to feed and protect animals in animal shelters. .77 5.14 1.62

6. The government should do more to protect pets from abuse and neglect. .74 5.55 1.40

7. I would like more information about how animals are used in research. .72 4.93 1.59

8. I want to learn more about the treatment of farm animals. .72 4.81 1.54

9. I like it when companies donate some of their profits to animal rights organizations. .71 5.72 1.17

10. I would rather go to a restaurant that cares about animal welfare than one that does not. .70 5.54 1.27

11. There should be stricter laws protecting zoo animals. .67 5.68 1.22

12. I often think about animal welfare when choosing which products to buy and use. .66 4.59 1.73

13. I prefer to buy products that haven’t been tested on animals. .61 5.44 1.44

14. The government should provide tax incentives to encourage people to adopt animals from animal shelters. .56 5.20 1.55

15. The government shouldn’t get involved in animal rights issues. (R) .56 5.48 1.46

16. I have no problem buying clothing made from animal products such as leather. (R) .55 3.91 1.87

17. Farmers and ranchers should be allowed to treat their cows, pigs, and chickens however they like. (R) .50 5.75 1.38

18. Laws aimed at protecting endangered species are too strict and should be loosened. (R) .49 6.01 1.20

19. I try to buy milk, eggs, and meat that are “free range” and “cruelty free.”a.45 4.92 1.68

Note. (R) indicates that the item was reverse-scored. Model fit indices: number of free parameters: 57; χ2 (152) = 556.42, p < .001; CFI = .86, RMSEA = .08, 90% CI [0.075, 0.089],

p < .001.

aA reviewer noted that Item 19 may have been confusing for vegetarians and vegans. By “cruelty free,” we meant to include products such as vegan alternatives to milk (e.g., soy and

almond milk), eggs (e.g., vegan egg replacer, apple sauce), and meat (e.g., seitan, tofu). It might be useful to reword this item in future administrations of the scale to avoid ambiguity.

domineering assumption that human beings

are morally superior to other species (Caviola

et al., 2019). Sample items include: “Morally,

animals always count for less than humans”

and “Chimpanzees should have basic legal

rights such as a right to life or a prohibition

of torture” (reverse-scored). Responses were

provided on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree,

7 = strongly agree), with a higher score indicating

stronger endorsement of speciesism (α = .83).

Meat consumption. At the end of the study,

participants answered a single question (“What

percentage of your meals have meat products?”)

using an 11-point scale (1 = 0%, 11 = 100%),

with higher scores indicating more consumption

of meat (modified from Dhont & Hodson, 2014).

Results and Discussion

Bivariate correlations. Correlations among latent

variables were estimated with Mplus Version 7

(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) using 10,000

bootstrap replications. Specifically, the following

constructs were modeled as latent variables com-

posed of parcels: self-reported conservatism,

SECS, GSJ, ESJ, animal welfare, and speciesism.

We parceled items so that items in each parcel

were balanced in terms of their factor loadings.

Meat consumption was used as a manifest varia-

ble because it was measured with a single item.

See Table 5 for bivariate correlations among

manifest variables (the upper right triangle) as

well as those among latent variables composed of

parcels (the lower left triangle).

As shown in Table 5, bivariate correlational

analyses supported Hypotheses 1 through 3, and

the results were consistent for both latent and

manifest variables. Here we focus on correlations

based on latent variables because we used these in

the mediation models. Consistent with previous

research, political conservatism—whether meas-

ured in terms of ideological self-placement or

SECS scores—was strongly and positively associ-

ated with GSJ and ESJ, with rs ranging from .58 to

.71 (p < .001; see Table 5). All measures of con-

servatism and system justification were negatively

correlated with support for animal welfare (with rs

ranging from −.22 to −.30, p < .001) and posi-

tively correlated with speciesism (with rs ranging

from .24 to .34, p < .001) and self-reported meat

consumption (with rs ranging from .15 to .22,

p < .01).

Outline of analytic strategy for mediation models. Next,

we tested mediation models using 10,000 boot-

strap replications in Mplus Version 7 (Muthén &

Muthén, 1998–2012) to investigate Hypothesis 4.

We report standardized effect sizes. Because we

were interested in the robustness of these effects,

we ran parallel models with ideological self-place-

ment and SECS scores as single predictors rather

than combining these two variables. We also con-

sidered both GSJ and ESJ as potential mediators

and modeled them simultaneously and as single

mediators in separate models. Thus, we tested six

different mediational models in total. For three

models, self-reported conservatism was a predic-

tor with (a) GSJ and ESJ as simultaneous media-

tors, (b) ESJ as a single mediator, and (c) GSJ as a

single mediator. For three other models, SECS

was a predictor with (d) GSJ and ESJ as simulta-

neous mediators, (e) ESJ as a single mediator, and

(f) GSJ as a single mediator. We first ran the

mediational models without any covariates and

then (as robustness checks) with three covari-

ates—sex, religious importance, and religious

denomination5—that were found to be signifi-

cantly related to at least one of the outcome

variables.

Although the results were somewhat weaker

for models with covariates, they were neverthe-

less consistent. Specifically, the significant indi-

rect effects without covariates remained

statistically significant or were marginally signifi-

cant after including covariates in all six media-

tional models. Therefore, we report the models

with covariates included. The results were com-

parable whether we used self-reported conserva-

tism or SECS scores as predictor variables.6 First

we report the results from the mediation model

with self-reported conservatism as a predictor

and GSJ and ESJ as simultaneous mediators.

Then we describe the results of two other models

Hoffarth et al.

Table 5. Bivariate correlations (Study 2).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. M SD

1. Self-reported conservatism – .76*** .49*** −.06 .51*** .61*** .23*** −.25*** .17** 2.70 1.04

2. SECS .82*** – .56*** −.01 .55*** .64*** .24*** −.21*** .21*** 59.25 17.34

3. Religious importance .50*** .61*** – .09 .25*** .27*** .21*** −.16** .05 2.52 1.34

4. Sex (female = 1, male = 0) −.06 .01 .09 – −.14** −.12* −.24*** .21*** −.20*** 0.58 0.49

5. GSJ .58*** .65*** .28*** −.15** – .62*** .26*** −.23*** .15** 3.48 1.03

6. ESJ .66*** .71*** .30*** −.13* .74*** – .30*** −.28*** .15** 3.45 0.92

7. Speciesism .24*** .27*** .24*** −.26*** .30*** .34*** – −.76*** .35*** 2.90 1.19

8. Animal welfare support −.25*** −.22*** −.17** .21*** −.26*** −.30*** −.85*** -−.41*** 5.23 1.01

9. Meat consumption .17** .22*** .05 −.20*** .17** .15** .38*** −.41*** - 6.36 2.78

Note. SECS = scores on the Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (higher values indicate greater conservatism); GSJ = scores on the General System Justification Scale; ESJ

= scores on the Economic System Justification Scale. Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics in the upper right triangle are based on manifest variables, whereas those in

the lower left triangle are based on latent variables comprised of parcels for self-reported conservatism, SECS, GSJ, ESJ, speciesism, and animal welfare support. With respect to

self-reported conservatism, one participant did not complete the scale. Thus, although the latent variable of self-reported conservatism can be estimated for this participant by full

information maximum likelihood in Mplus, the bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics found in the right upper triangle with this scale are based on a sample of 394 partici-

pants. Total N = 395.

* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

(self-reported conservatism and SECS as predic-

tors) with ESJ as a single mediator (see Table 6).

For the other three models, see the supplemental

material.

Mediation model with GSJ and ESJ as simultaneous

mediators. In this model, we entered self-reported

conservatism as a predictor; GSJ and ESJ as

simultaneous mediators; and support for animal

welfare, speciesism, and meat consumption as

outcome variables (see Figure 2). The path model

was fully saturated and the measurement model

had adequate fit, χ2(246) = 575.26, p < .001, CFI

= .946, RMSEA = .058, 90% CI [0.052, 0.064].

The indirect effects in the model were decom-

posed into (a) an indirect effect through GSJ and

(b) an indirect effect through ESJ.

Comparing the indirect effects through GSJ versus

ESJ. Table 7 summarizes the direct and indirect

effects of this mediation model. All constructs

in the model except for meat consumption and

covariates were latent variables comprised of

parcels. For support for animal welfare, the

indirect effect through ESJ was marginally sig-

nificant (IE = −.11, p = .086, 95% CI [−0.23,

0.02]), whereas the indirect effect through GSJ

Table 6. Effects of self-reported political conservatism (left column) and scores on the Social and Economic

Conservatism Scale (SECS; right column) on animal welfare support, speciesism, and self-reported meat

consumption through economic system justification, accounting for covariates (Study 2).

Self-reported conservatism SECS

β95% CI β95% CI

Animal welfare support

Total effect −.18** [ −0.31, −0.05] −.15* [−0.30, −0.01]

Direct effect −.05 [−0.20, 0.09] .06 [−0.14, 0.26]

Indirect effect −.13** [−0.21, −0.04] −.21** [−0.35, −0.08]

Speciesism

Total effect .11 [−0.03, 0.25] .14† [−0.01, 0.28]

Direct effect −.06 [−0.22, 0.10] −.10 [−0.31, 0.11]

Indirect effect .17*** [0.08, 0.27] .24** [0.09, 0.39]

Meat consumption

Total effect .13* [0.01, 0.25] .23*** [0.11, 0.35]

Direct effect .12 [−0.03, 0.27] .31** [0.10, 0.52]

Indirect effect .01 [−0.08, 0.10] −.08 [−0.23, 0.06]

Note. Standardized effect sizes are reported. All the constructs except for meat consumption were latent variables composed

of parcels. Covariates include religious importance, religious denomination, and sex that were significantly correlated with at

least one outcome.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Mediation model predicting support for

animal welfare, speciesism, and meat consumption

with self-reported conservatism as a predictor, and

ESJ and GSJ as simultaneous mediators.

Note. Standardized effect sizes are reported. The model was

adjusted for covariates (sex, religious importance, and reli-

gious denomination) that were significantly correlated with

at least one outcome variable. All constructs except for meat

consumption were latent variables composed of parcels.

The outcome variables were allowed to correlate with one

another. One participant’s conservatism was estimated by

full information maximum likelihood. Nonsignificant paths

are shown in dashed lines.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hoffarth et al.

was not significant (IE = −.02, p = .639, 95% CI

[−0.12, 0.08]). For speciesism, the indirect effect

through ESJ was significant (IE = .15, p = .028,

95% CI [0.02, 0.28]), whereas the indirect effect

through GSJ was not significant (IE = .04, p =

.506, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.14]). With respect to meat

consumption, neither indirect effects through

ESJ (IE = −.02, p = .802, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.11])

nor through GSJ (IE = .03, p = .486, 95% CI

[−0.06, 0.12]) were significant. Thus, ESJ helped

to explain the relationship between conservatism

and support for (vs. opposition to) animal protec-

tion, whereas GSJ did not.7 We therefore focused

on simpler models in which ESJ was entered as a

single mediator.

Simple mediation model with ESJ as a mediator. In

this model, we entered self-reported conserva-

tism as a predictor; ESJ as a single mediator; and

support for animal welfare, speciesism, and meat

consumption as outcome variables (see Figure 3

and Table 7).8 The path model was fully satu-

rated and the measurement model had adequate

fit, χ2(167) = 411.68, p < .001, CFI = .952,

RMSEA = .061, 90% CI [0.054, 0.068]. We only

interpret this model in depth, but Table 7 also

reports the mediation model with SECS as a pre-

dictor and ESJ as a single mediator.

Predicting support for animal welfare. Overall, self-

reported conservatism, the covariates, and ESJ

accounted for 12% of the variance in support for

animal welfare (see Figure 3). Self-reported con-

servatism was not a significant unique predictor

of animal welfare support after adjusting for the

mediator (β = −.05, p = .479). ESJ was, however,

uniquely negatively associated with support for

animal welfare (β = −.20, p = .003). We computed

a standardized indirect effect predicting support

Table 7. Effects of self-reported political

conservatism on animal welfare support, speciesism,

and self-reported meat consumption through general

and economic system justification (simultaneous

mediation), accounting for covariates (Study 2).

Self-reported

conservatism

β95% CI

Animal welfare support

Total effect −.18** [−0.31, −0.05]

Direct effect −.05 [−0.20, 0.10]

Indirect effect −.13** [−0.22, −0.05]

Via GSJ −.02 [−0.12, 0.08]

Via ESJ −.11† [−0.23, 0.02]

Speciesism

Total effect .11 [−0.03, 0.25]

Direct effect −.07 [−0.23, 0.09]

Indirect effect .18*** [0.08, 0.28]

Via GSJ .04 [−0.07, 0.14]

Via ESJ .15* [0.02, 0.28]

Meat consumption

Total effect .13* [0.01, 0.25]

Direct effect .11 [−0.04, 0.27]

Indirect effect .02 [−0.07, 0.11]

Via GSJ .03 [−0.06, 0.12]

Via ESJ −.02 [−0.14, 0.11]

Note. Standardized effect sizes are reported. All the con-

structs in the model except for meat consumption were

latent variables comprised of parcels. GSJ = general system

justification; ESJ = economic system justification. Covari-

ates include religious importance, religious denomination,

and sex that were significantly correlated with at least one

outcome.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 3. Mediation model predicting animal welfare

support, speciesism, and meat consumption with

self-reported conservatism as a predictor and ESJ as

a mediator.

Note. Standardized effect sizes are reported. The model was

adjusted for covariates (sex, religious importance, and reli-

gious denomination) that were significantly correlated with

at least one outcome variable. All constructs except for meat

consumption were latent variables composed of parcels. One

participant’s conservatism was estimated by full information

maximum likelihood. The outcome variables were allowed to

correlate with one another. Nonsignificant paths are shown

in dashed lines.

for animal welfare (see Table 7). Conservatism was

associated with lesser support for animal welfare

through ESJ (IE = −.13, p = .004, 95% CI [−0.21,

−0.04]). This finding is consistent with the hypoth-

esis that conservatism is positively associated with

ESJ, which is negatively associated with support

for animal welfare (H4a).

Predicting speciesism. Overall, self-reported con-

servatism, the covariates, and ESJ accounted for

20% of the variance in speciesism (see Figure 3).

Self-reported conservatism did not uniquely pre-

dict speciesism after adjusting for the mediator (β

= −.06, p = .441), but ESJ was uniquely and pos-

itively associated with speciesism (β = .28, p <

.001). We computed a standardized indirect effect

predicting speciesism (see Table 6). Conservatism

was associated with greater endorsement of spe-

ciesism through ESJ (IE = .17, p < .001, 95% CI

[0.08, 0.27]). This finding, too, is consistent with

our hypothesis (H4b).

Predicting meat consumption. Overall, self-

reported conservatism, the covariates, and ESJ

accounted for 8% of variance in self-reported

meat consumption (see Figure 3). Adjusting for

all other paths in the model, neither self-reported

conservatism (β = .12, p = .131) nor ESJ (β =

.02, p = .802) uniquely predicted meat consump-

tion. We computed a standardized indirect effect

predicting meat consumption (see Table 6). Con-

servatism was not uniquely associated with meat

consumption through ESJ (IE = .01, p = .804,

95% CI [−0.08, 0.10]). Thus, we failed to obtain

support for Hypothesis 4c.

In general, then, the results of Study 2 sup-

ported our theoretical framework, especially the

notion that system justification would mediate

the effect of political conservatism on lack of

support for animal welfare. Specifically, we found

that economic (but not general) system justifica-

tion accounted for much of the association

between conservatism and (a) lesser support for

animal welfare and (b) greater speciesism.

However, economic system justification did not

mediate the relation between conservatism and

meat consumption.

General Discussion

To illuminate the ideological basis of attitudes

about animal welfare—and the social and psy-

chological mechanisms that maintain the status

quo of exploitation of nonhuman animals—we

conducted three studies involving more than

4,000 research participants in the US. We

hypothesized that liberals would express more

concern about animal welfare than conserva-

tives and that this ideological difference would

be partially explained in terms of individual dif-

ferences in system justification motivation. As

predicted, we observed that political conserva-

tism (vs. liberalism) was indeed positively asso-

ciated with both general and economic forms

of system justification (H1), and that it was

negatively associated with concern for animal

welfare—measured in terms of support for ani-

mal rights, endorsement of speciesism, and

meat consumption (H2a–c). Furthermore, we

observed that general and economic system jus-

tification were negatively associated with sup-

port for animal rights in Studies 1a and 1b

(H3a) and with respect to all three measures in

Study 2 (H3a-c).

Putting all of this together, we obtained strong

support for the hypothesized mediation model

specified in Figure 3. Political conservatism was

associated with stronger economic system justifi-

cation, which in turn was associated with

decreased support for animal welfare and greater

endorsement of speciesism (H4a–b). System jus-

tification significantly mediated the negative

effect of conservatism on support for animal

rights even after adjusting for social dominance

orientation. However, we obtained no support

for Hypothesis 4c; although both general and

economic system justification were correlated

with greater meat consumption, the effect of

conservatism on meat consumption was not

mediated by either form of system justification.

Whereas speciesism (as a worldview) and support

for animal welfare (which includes attitudes and

behavioral intentions pertaining to social change)

are fairly straightforward ideological outcomes,

meat consumption may be more indirectly

Hoffarth et al.

connected to ideological justification of social

and economic systems, with more variance

accounted for by nonideological variables such as

family habits.

We obtained quite similar results regardless of

whether we operationalized political ideology in

symbolic (ideological self-placement) or opera-

tional terms (agreement with policy items on the

SECS; Everett, 2013), and whether we adminis-

tered general or economic system justification

scales (see supplemental material for full details).

Although general and economic system justifica-

tion were both associated with a lack of support

for animal welfare and the endorsement of spe-

ciesism, the effects were stronger for economic

than general system justification. This may reflect

the central role that business corporations play in

the exploitation of animals (e.g., industrial farm-

ing companies in the meat and dairy industries,

the vast majority of restaurants), and the extent

to which the American capitalist system depends

upon the perpetuation of exploitative practices

for profit. These findings are also consistent with

prior evidence that economic system justification

is strongly associated with the rejection of proen-

vironmental initiatives in general (e.g., Feygina

et al., 2010; Hennes et al., 2016).

Because previous studies suggested that social

dominance orientation plays a key role in the

exploitation of nonhuman animals (e.g., Dhont

& Hodson, 2014; Dhont et al., 2014; Dhont et al.,

2016), we investigated the role of this variable in

our research program. One strength of our analy-

ses is that we were able to measure the two sepa-

rate components of SDO. Interestingly, the

antiegalitarianism component of SDO was asso-

ciated with opposition to animal rights (rs = .31,

.29), whereas the dominance component of SDO

had little association with animal rights (rs =

−.02, −.06) and was only statistically significant (p

= .049) for one dataset. These correlational

results are also reflected in the negative indirect

effect of SDO-antiegalitarianism and a suppres-

sion effect of SDO-dominance, such that the

indirect effect of SDO-dominance was in the

opposite direction of the correlation. Opposition

to animal rights may be more strongly motivated

by opposition to humans and nonhuman animals

being equal to each other (vs. dominating or con-

trolling nonhuman animals), although this dis-

tinction would need to be explored with additional

measures of support for animal rights.

There are other limitations of the present

research program that should be addressed in

subsequent work as well. We have not yet had the

opportunity to administer the scale we developed

in Study 2 to a nationally representative sample.

Another significant limitation is that we cannot

draw causal inferences on the basis of these stud-

ies. It would be useful in future research to expand

upon the present set of findings by exacerbating

or attenuating system justification motivation in

the laboratory. Experimental evidence reveals, for

instance, that system justification tendencies are

sometimes exacerbated in response to manipula-

tions of system dependence (Hennes et al., 2016;

Kay et al., 2009). Presumably, increased feelings

of dependence upon the economic system would

further undermine support for animal rights, at

least for some respondents. Conversely, moti-

vated system defensiveness may be attenuated by

providing individuals with the opportunity to

affirm the value of the overarching social system

(Liviatan & Jost, 2014), and this should maintain

or even increase existing levels of support for

animal rights.

Finally, all of our studies—and, indeed, the

overwhelming majority of studies conducted on

attitudes about the treatment of animals—have

been conducted in either North America or

Western Europe (e.g., Caviola et al., 2019; Dhont

& Hodson, 2014; Monteiro et al., 2017). It would

be instructive to consider variability in the social,

economic, and political systems in countries

around the world and how it may relate to ideo-

logical justifications for or against the exploita-

tion of nonhuman animals. Across cultures, there

is considerable diversity in the extent to which it

is considered acceptable to exploit and harm cer-

tain animal species (Joy, 2010). It would therefore

be of great value to understand the specific con-

nections between ideology and the justification

of animal exploitation (vs. protection) in non-

Western contexts, where the societal status quo

may be quite different than in North America and

Europe.

It is well worth considering how the applica-

tion of system justification theory to the study of

attitudes concerning animal welfare would inform

practical interventions designed to improve ani-

mal welfare in society. One promising route

would be to take system justification motivation

into account explicitly, by developing ways of

bypassing defensive reactions on behalf of the

system or by harnessing system justification moti-

vation in a more constructive manner. Animal

rights activists—as well as vegetarians and

vegans—are often viewed as deviant, radical,

and/or threatening to the societal status quo

(Dhont & Hodson, 2014; MacInnis & Hodson,

2017). Political activism that challenges the sys-

tem forcefully is likely to provoke system defen-

siveness, denial and minimization of the problem,

and backlash—especially among people who are

chronically or temporarily motivated to defend

the system. Defensive reactions and resistance to

change have been widely recognized as barriers to

promoting animal rights and welfare, although

the connection to system justification motivation

has not necessarily been recognized (Amiot &

Bastian, 2015; Bastian et al., 2011; Dhont &

Hodson, 2014; Joy, 2010).

How might motivated system defensiveness

be avoided or overcome? We believe that the con-

cept of “system-sanctioned change,” which has

been found to effectively increase support for

proenvironmental initiatives among high system

justifiers (Feygina et al., 2010), could be applied to

the design of communication strategies in the

context of animal rights. The basic idea is to

frame social changes as preserving, rather than

supplanting, the ideals of the social system as well

as traditional cultural and institutional forms. For

instance, the protection of animal welfare could

be framed as “patriotic” in the sense that it pre-

serves traditional cultural values and practices,

highlighting the ways in which relatively recent

industrial practices—such as factory farming—

are less humane than American (and European)

farming practices used in previous centuries.

Such a reframing of the issue could help to

harness system justification motives in the direc-

tion of increased support for animal rights.

Conclusion

Human appreciation and sympathy for nonhu-

man animals is controverted by the pervasive,

institutionalized mistreatment of other species,

which is upheld by social norms and legal codes

that legitimize animal exploitation and suffering.

In this research program, we sought to under-

stand the ways in which conservative ideology is

linked to justification of the societal status quo

of animal exploitation. We obtained clear evi-

dence that system justification—especially eco-

nomic system justification—mediates the

negative effect of conservatism on support for

animal rights. This was the case even after adjust-

ing for social dominance orientation, which is the

most commonly studied ideological variable in

the research literature pertaining to attitudes

about animal welfare. Our approach should prove

useful when it comes to designing effective inter-

ventions for the promotion of animal rights in

society—by maintaining continuity with long-

standing cultural practices or by communicating

information on the topic in ways that avoid trig-

gering system defensiveness. These prospects

represent some level of hope, perhaps, that non-

human animals will receive substantially better

forms of treatment in the social and economic

systems of the future.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge Kristof Dhont and three

anonymous reviewers for providing very helpful com-

ments on earlier versions of this article. We also want

to thank Becca Franks, Jennifer Jacquet, Dale Jamieson,

Jeff Sebo, and other members of the Animal Welfare

Reading Group in the Environmental Studies Program

at New York University for providing insightful feed-

back on this work.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial

support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-

tion of this article: This research was funded in part by

Hoffarth et al.

the UCLA Law School, Animal Law and Policy Small

Grants Program and the Technische Universität

Darmstadt in Germany.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

1. The GSS item used to assess attitudes towards

animal rights was worded as follows: “Animals

should have the same moral rights that human

beings do.” Responses were provided on a 5-point

scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree), but we

reverse-scored the variable so that higher num-

bers indicated stronger support for animal rights.

2. In Studies 2 and 3 we observed that responses

to the second item from the Economic System

Justification Scale loaded negatively (rather than

positively, as intended) onto the latent variable, so we

excluded this item from all analyses for both studies.

3. When participants were asked to indicate their gen-

der, 225 identified as women (57%), 166 (42%) as

men, and 4 (1%) as another gender (e.g., gender

queer). We used sex as a covariate rather than gen-

der because we wanted to retain data for four partic-

ipants who identified themselves as another gender,

but a dummy code with four participants would be

inadequate to test for statistical differences.

4. We initially generated 24 items, including 10

items (four of which were reverse-scored) about

governmental interventions and 14 items (three

reverse-scored) about personal importance

placed on animal welfare. Although we expected

these two types of items to load onto different

factors and the two-factor solution exhibited

better model fit than the one-factor solution,

the two latent factors were highly correlated at

.87, indicating that they may not be distinctive

enough to analyze separately. Therefore, we used

the 19 items retained to create a single latent

variable (animal welfare support) in all mediation

analyses reported in the text. For interested read-

ers, information about item exclusion and model

fit indices for the two-factor solution is included

in the supplemental material.

5. Respondents indicated their religious denomina-

tion, if any, in terms of four categories: Catholic,

Protestant, “Christian other,” and “other.” In

three linear regressions we examined the asso-

ciations between religious denomination (treating

atheist/agnostic as a reference group) and out-

come variables. Protestants were less supportive

of animal welfare (β = −.19, p = .004), more

likely to endorse speciesism (β = .26, p < .001),

and more likely to report meat consumption (β

= .12, p = .036) in comparison with atheists and

agnostics. No other religious groups differed sig-

nificantly from atheists and agnostics, except that

religious non-Christians reported significantly less

meat consumption (β = −.14, p = .014).

6. The only notable difference between the findings

pertaining to self-reported conservatism versus

SECS scores was that there was a direct effect of

SECS on meat consumption after adjusting for all

other paths in the model, whereas there was no

direct effect of self-reported conservatism on meat

consumption after adjusting for the other variables.

7. We compared indirect effects via GSJ versus ESJ

for all three outcomes (support for animal wel-

fare, speciesism, and meat consumption) when

both ESJ and GSJ were modeled as simultane-

ous mediators with self-reported conservatism

as the predictor, using the methods developed by

Zou (2007). We found the following difference

of indirect effect for animal welfare support: .08,

95% CI [−0.08, 0.24], for speciesism: −.11, 95%

CI [−0.28, 0.06], and for meat consumption: .05,

95% CI [−0.10, 0.20]. Because all confidence

intervals included zero, indirect effects through

GSJ versus ESJ were not statistically differ-

ent from each other. However, this comparison

method is a stringent one and the 95% CI for dif-

ference of indirect effects for animal welfare sup-

port and speciesism is wide.

8. Although we base our conclusions on the model

with self-reported conservatism as the predictor

and ESJ as a single mediator, other single media-

tor models produced similar findings, although

some of the indirect effects were marginally sig-

nificant rather than significant, as in Table 4. In

particular, the indirect effect through GSJ for ani-

mal welfare support with self-reported conserva-

tism as a predictor was marginally significant, and

an indirect effect through GSJ for animal welfare

support with SECS as a predictor was marginally

significant (see supplemental material).

References

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Mani-

toba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.

Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychol-

ogy of human–animal relations. Psychological Bul-

letin, 141, 6–47. doi:10.1037/a0038147

Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., & Rothmund, T. (2017). “Mak-

ing America great again”: System justification

in the US presidential election of 2016. Trans-

lational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 231–240.

doi:10.1037/tps0000122

Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the

meat-paradox: A motivational account of mor-

ally troublesome behavior and its maintenance.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 278–299.

doi:10.1177/1088868316647562

Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H.

R. M. (2011). Don’t mind meat? The denial of

mind to animals used for human consumption.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256.

doi:10.1177/0146167211424291

Biesanz, J. C., Falk, C. F., & Savalei, V. (2010). Assess-

ing mediational models: Testing and interval esti-

mation for indirect effects. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 45, 661–701. doi:10.1080/00273171.201

0.498292

Blasi, G., & Jost, J. T. (2006). System justification the-

ory and research: Implications for law, legal advo-

cacy, and social justice. California Law Review, 94,

1119–1168. doi:10.2307/20439060

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter,

J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and con-

servatives: Personality profiles, interaction

styles, and the things they leave behind. Politi-

cal Psychology, 29, 807–840. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

9221.2008.00668.x

Caviola, L., Everett, J. A. C., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The

moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology

of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 116, 1011–1029. doi:10.1037/pspp0000182

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).

Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing

adherents engage in more animal exploitation and

meat consumption? Personality and Individual Dif-

ferences, 64, 12–17. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002

Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Costello, K., & MacInnis, C.

C. (2014). Social dominance orientation connects

prejudicial human–human and human–animal

relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 61,

105–108. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.020

Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Common

ideological roots of speciesism and generalized

ethnic prejudice: The social dominance human–

animal relations model (SD-HARM). European

Journal of Personality, 30, 507–522. doi:10.1002

/per.2069

Everett, J. A. (2013). The 12 item Social and Eco-

nomic Conservatism Scale (SECS). PLoS One, 8.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082131

Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010).

System justification, the denial of global warm-

ing, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned

change.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,

326–338. doi:10.1177/0146167209351435

Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C.

A., & Jost, J. T. (2016). Motivated recall in the ser-

vice of the economic system: The case of anthro-

pogenic climate change. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 145, 755–771. doi:10.1037/

xge0000148

Herzog, H. A., Jr., Betchart, N. S., & Pittman, R. B.

(1991). Gender, sex role orientation, and atti-

tudes toward animals. Anthrozoös, 4, 184–191.

doi:10.2752/089279391787057170

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington,

J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., . . .Stewart, A. L.

(2015). The nature of social dominance orienta-

tion: Theorizing and measuring preferences for

intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–

1028. doi:10.1037/pspi0000033

Hodson, G., & Costello, K. (2018). Psychological

implications of undervaluing animals: Domi-

nance-based ideologies and systems of oppres-

sion. In A. Matsuoka & J. Sorenson (Eds.), Critical

animal studies: Towards trans-species social justice (pp.

184–206). London, UK: Rowman and Littlefield

International.

Hodson, G., & Earle, M. (2018). Conservatism pre-

dicts lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets to meat

consumption (through lower social justice con-

cerns and social support). Appetite, 120, 75–81.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.027

Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the

outside, red on the inside: Perceived environ-

mentalism threat as a factor explaining political

polarization of climate change. Journal of Envi-

ronmental Psychology, 45, 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvp.2015.11.002

Hoffarth et al.

Jewish Vegetarian Society. (2018, January 3). Vegan

options set to increase even more in 2018, says

GlobalData [Web log message]. Retrieved from

https://www.jvs.org.uk/2018/01/03/vegan-

options-set-increase-even-2018-says-globaldata/

Jost, J. T. (2015). Resistance to change: A social psy-

chological perspective. Social Research: An Inter-

national Quarterly, 82, 607–636. Retrieved from

http://muse.jhu.edu/article/603152

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A dec-

ade of system justification theory: Accumulated

evidence of conscious and unconscious bolster-

ing of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–

919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

Jost, J. T., Gaucher, D., & Stern, C. (2015). “The

world isn’t fair”: A system justification perspec-

tive on social stratification and inequality. In J. F.

Dovidio & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of

personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 317–340).

Washington, DC: APA.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway,

F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated

social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–

375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and

consequences of system-justifying ideologies.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–

265. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent

sexism and complementary gender stereotypes:

Consequences for specific and diffuse forms

of system justification. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 88, 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.88.3.498

Jost, J. T., Kivetz, Y., Rubini, M., Guermandi, G., &

Mosso, C. (2005). System-justifying functions of

complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes:

Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, 18,

305–333. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-6827-z

Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based

dominance and opposition to equality as inde-

pendent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism,

and social policy attitudes among African Ameri-

cans and European Americans. Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232. doi:10.1006/

jesp.1999.1403

Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An

introduction to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari

Press.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K.,

Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J. (2009).

Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the

status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to

see the way things are as the way they should be.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–

434. doi:10.1037/a0015997

Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary jus-

tice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but

honest” stereotype exemplars on system justifica-

tion and implicit activation of the justice motive.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–

837. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823

Kugler, M. B., Cooper, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2010).

Group-based dominance and opposition to equal-

ity correspond to different psychological motives.

Social Justice Research, 23, 117–155. doi:10.1007/

s11211-010-0112-5

Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016).

The demographic and political composition

of Mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open, 6.

doi:10.1177/2158244016636433

Liviatan, I., & Jost, J. T. (2014). A social-cognitive

analysis of system justification goal striv-

ing. Social Cognition, 32, 95–129. doi:10.1521/

soco.2014.32.2.95

Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014).

The psychology of eating animals. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 104–108.

doi:10.1177/0963721414525781

Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2016).

Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public aware-

ness of the environmental impact of food and

reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustain-

able diet. Appetite, 96, 487–493. doi:10.1016/j.

appet.2015.10.011

MacInnis, C. C., & Hodson, G. (2017). It ain’t easy

eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetar-

ians and vegans from both source and target.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 721–744.

doi:10.1177/1368430215618253

Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., &

Milburn, M. A. (2017). The Carnism Inventory:

Measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appe-

tite, 113, 51–62. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus

user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Orwell, G. (1993). Animal farm. New York, NY: Knopf.

(Original work published 1945)

Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk:

Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant

pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23,

184–188. doi:10.1177/0963721414531598

Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M.,

Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015).

Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appe-

tite, 91, 114–128. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011

Prusaczyk, E., & Hodson, G. (2018). Left–right dif-

ferences in abortion policy support in America:

Clarifying the role of sex and sexism in a nation-

ally representative 2016 sample. Personality and

Individual Differences, 127, 22–25. doi:10.1016/j.

paid.2018.01.030

Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J.

(2003). One hundred years of social psychology

quantitatively described. Review of General Psychol-

ogy, 7, 331–363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331

Rudman, L. A., Feinberg, J., & Fairchild, K. (2002). Minor-

ity members’ implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup

bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition, 20,

294–320. doi:10.1521/soco.20.4.294.19908

Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., &

Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash

effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates

prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179. doi:10.1016/j.

jesp.2011.10.008

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An

intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our

treatment of animals. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Smith, T. W., Marsden, P., Hou, M., & Kim, J. (2017).

General social surveys, 1972–2016 [Data files].

Retrieved from http://gss.norc.org/get-the-

data/spss

Swim, J. K., & Bloodhart, B. (2018). The intergroup

foundations of climate change justice. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 472–496.

doi:10.1177/1368430217745366

U.S. Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 43

(2006). Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.

gov/content/pkg/BILLS-109s3880enr/pdf/

BILLS-109s3880enr.pdf

Vainio, A., Mäkiniemi, J. P., & Paloniemi, R. (2014).

System justification and the perception of food

risks. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17,

509–523. doi:10.1177/1368430213503502

Van der Toorn, J., Jost, J. T., Packer, D. J., Noorba-

loochi, S., & van Bavel, J. J. (2017). In defense of

tradition: Religiosity, conservatism, and opposi-

tion to same-sex marriage in North America. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1455–1468.

doi:10.1177/0146167217718523

Wheeler, L. (2018, March 12). USDA withdraws animal

welfare rule. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill

.com/regulation/administration/377947-usda

-withdraws-animal-welfare-rule

Womick, J., Rothmund, T., Azevedo, F., King, L.

A., & Jost, J. T. (2018). Group-based domi-

nance and authoritarian aggression predict

support for Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S.

presidential election. Social Psychological and Per-

sonality Science. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1177/1948550618778290

Wuensch, K. L., Jenkins, K. W., & Poteat, G. M.

(2002). Misanthropy, idealism and attitudes

towards animals. Anthrozoös, 15, 139–149.

doi:10.2752/089279302786992621

Yeung, A. W. Y., Kay, A. C., & Peach, J. M. (2014).

Anti-feminist backlash: The role of system jus-

tification in the rejection of feminism. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 474–484.

doi:10.1177/1368430213514121

Zou, G. Y. (2007). Toward using confidence intervals

to compare correlations. Psychological Methods, 12,

399–413. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.399

The impact of speciesism on customers' acceptance of service automation

Article

Jan 2025

Purpose The marketplace is becoming increasingly automated, with consumers frequently expected to interact with machines. Not all consumers are receptive to this trend. We examine how the individual difference of speciesism impacts consumer reactions to automation in the marketplace. Design/methodology/approach We conducted three studies, including an exploratory correlational survey and two two-factor studies. Findings Study 1 provides survey evidence of a positive relationship between one’s level of speciesism and their belief that customer service automation is justified. Study 2 finds that speciesists have more favorable attitudes toward brands using automated (vs human) customer service. Study 3 finds that the more speciesists perceive that tasks they are required to perform at their own work are illegitimate (i.e. unreasonable), the more favorable their reactions to automation, which provides support for our theorizing that speciesists appreciate automation’s ability to relieve humans of such work tasks. Practical implications We recommend that marketers target speciesists as early adopters of chatbots. Further, brands targeting customers likely to be high on speciesism can benefit from adopting chatbots for routine tasks, as this can improve this segment’s brand attitudes. Originality/value This research identifies that speciesists, people who strongly ascribe to the belief that humans are superior to other species, are particularly receptive to automation in customer service (in the form of chatbots). We provide evidence suggesting that speciesists appreciate that automation relieves their fellow humans of automatable tasks.

Reactions against Farm Animal Abuse: The Role of Animal Attitude and Speciesism

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

The defense of animal rights has contributed to questioning the relationship between humans and animals focusing on animal abuse by humans. Current Spanish law has been reformed to safeguard animals that are either protected fauna or that live under human control, no longer considering them as things but as sentient beings. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship of speciesism and animal attitudes with people’s perceptions of farm animal abuse, considering the role of gender and place of residence and controlling social desirability. A sample of 457 people, aged between 18 and 73 years old, 73% women, participated in this study. There were 63.7% of participants who lived in urban areas and the rest in rural areas of a territory highly protected by environmental law. They answered an online questionnaire including scenarios of farm animal abuse, the Animal Attitude Scale, Speciesism Scale and Social Desirability Scale. The results showed that negative perceptions of farm animal abuse and the willingness to intervene to stop it were more related to animal attitude than to speciesism. Furthermore, although participants living in rural areas leaned more towards speciesism, they did not have more negative attitudes than those living in urban areas. The results are discussed in terms of whether the law should consider all animals alike, irrespective of people’s perceptions, as with different human ethnicities and genders or whether distinctions should be made redefining animal instrumentality in terms of biodiversity and sustainability

Psychological Bases of Economic System Justification: a latent class analysis

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

La teoría de la justificación del sistema (ESJ) indica que los individuos poseen una motivación para justificar los sistemas sociales a los que pertenecen. La aproximación a este fenómeno permite investigar características de personalidad asociadas a la ESJ. Diferencias individuales como la orientación a la dominación social (SDO) y el autoritarismo de derechas (RWA) pueden constituir la base de la justificación. Aunque se han producido numerosos avances en el estudio del ESJ, la investigación sobre este tipo de relación no tiene precedentes en el contexto Argentino. El objetivo fue analizar si el SDO y el RWA se relacionan con el ESJ. El estudio contó con una muestra de 843 participantes (51,8 % mujeres; 48,2 % hombres), con un rango de edad de 18 a 88 años (M = 46,03; DE = 15,88). Los resultados indican que RWA y SDO se asocian positivamente con ESJ a través del Análisis de Clases Latentes. Por lo tanto, el RWA y el SDO pueden presentarse como la base psicológica sobre la que se sustenta el ESJ.

Mental Models Matter: Conceptualizations of the Human–Nature Relationship Predict Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

Article

Full-text available

May 2025

Mental models—internal, dynamic, incomplete representations of the external world that people use to guide cognitive processes such as reasoning, decision making, and language comprehension—have practical implications for predicting attitudes and behaviors across various domains. This study examines how mental models of the human–nature relationship predict pro-environmental behavioral intentions directly and indirectly as mediated through anthropocentric and biocentric environmental attitudes. To address these aims, participants were asked about mental model components of the human–nature relationship (human exceptionalism, beliefs about human impact on nature, and beliefs about nature’s impact on humans), pro-environmental attitudes (biocentric and anthropocentric), and their pro-environmental behavioral intentions (protection and investment). We found that protection intentions were (1) directly predicted by human exceptionalism beliefs (negatively) and perceived human impact on nature (positively) and (2) indirectly predicted by mental model components via biocentric attitudes. Investment intentions were directly predicted by nature’s perceived impact on humans, and were similarly indirectly predicted by mental model components via biocentric attitudes. The results suggest that mental models of the human–nature relationship provide a cognitive foundation for environmental behavioral intentions both directly and through their association with environmental attitudes. These findings have implications for pro-environmental interventions that deal with conceptual and attitudinal change.

Revisiting constructive disruption: Protest tactics, resistant bystanders, and the limits of support in issue-based social movements

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025
GROUP PROCESS INTERG

The constructive disruption hypothesis proposes that nonnormative-nonviolent protest tactics can persuade resistant advantaged groups to grant concessions by balancing disruption with constructive intentions. We extended this hypothesis from asymmetrical intergroup contexts to two issue-based domains ( N = 457), animal welfare activism (Study 1) and religious blasphemy protests (Study 2). Although protest tactics did not directly affect support among resistant participants, we revealed significant indirect pathways through constructive disruption. Constructive intentions consistently predicted increased support, while disruption enhanced support among resistant bystanders (Study 1) or all participants (Study 2), even for violent protests, but decreased support among those open to change (Study 1). Response surface analyses revealed that in animal rights protests, optimal support emerged from combining high constructive intentions with moderate disruption among resistant bystanders, while religious blasphemy protests showed predominantly additive effects. These findings suggest that constructive disruption’s effectiveness varies by context and audience characteristics.

Red dog, blue dog: the influence of political identity on owner–pet relationships and owners’ purchases of pet-related products and services

Article

Oct 2024
EUR J MARKETING

Purpose Pets reflect the identity and moral values of their owners. The purpose of this study is to examine how pet owners’ political identity (liberal–conservative) influences the relationship they forge with their pets as well as their purchase behaviors of pet-related products and services. Design/methodology/approach This study conducted two surveys of pet owners with different political identities and measured both their relationship with their pets and their purchase intentions of medical-related products and services as well as luxury accessories. Two secondary data sources were used to provide additional support. Findings This study shows that, on one hand, pet owners anthropomorphize their pets as if they were human equals. On the other hand, they consider themselves masters and emphasize control. The former aligns with the individualizing values endorsed by liberals, while the latter aligns with conservatives’ binding values. Reflecting their different values and owner-pet relationship characteristics, liberals and conservatives exhibit different purchase patterns. Liberals are more likely to buy medical-related products and services, while conservatives are more likely to buy branded luxury accessories for their pets. Research limitations/implications Both primary studies are survey-based and data are correlational in nature. In addition, the samples are limited to the USA. While research suggests that the liberal-conservative continuum is universal, additional research is needed to generalize the findings to other countries. Practical implications Understanding the owner-dog relationship in the context of political identity and the effect of these relationships on dog owners' purchases offer interesting managerial implications in terms of product offerings, retail assortment decisions of related products and pet product branding. Originality/value While dog ownership and related purchases are on the rise, research on owner-pet relationships is scant. This study provides theoretical contributions and implications by going beyond general relationship closeness and bringing in the role of owners’ (political) identity.

Working Like a Dog: A Mixed-Method Study of Public Support for Police Dogs and Their Utilities

Article

Jun 2024

Working dogs play integral roles across many human workplaces. This is no exception in the criminal justice system, and policing more specifically, where police dogs are used in various capacities. Many questions remain, however, regarding the public’s perceptions of dogs in different working contexts. Drawing upon data from a sample of Canadian and American adults (n = 201) obtained via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, the present research explores public perceptions of working dogs’ utilities, with an emphasis on police dogs. The findings reveal that while participants overwhelmingly supported working dogs in health and wellbeing contexts, they expressed more mixed perceptions regarding police dogs. The findings also reveal that police dogs’ utilities are related to participants’ overall support for police dogs, but that the specific relationship varies as a function of the utility. Amidst growing concerns regarding the use of police dogs, these findings may help police organizations incorporate evidence-based decision-making related to the deployment of police dogs moving forward.

Non-significant results as for the association between heart rate variability, personality, and the objectification of lab-animals into the conduct of animal testing

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025
SOC NEUROSCI-UK

To develop pharmaceutical drugs, people experiment on lab-animals. While this practice disturbs the general population, various factors in laboratory settings may contribute to enabling experiments that harm animals. Using an ultra-realistic protocol mimicking animal research and collecting behavioral and physiological data, we invited laypersons from the general population to administrate a toxic drug on a (fake) laboratory animal. This preregistered study (n = 145) aimed to examine individual determinants and contextual frameworks that may influence willingness to engage in such experimentation. Because low self-regulatory abilities are associated with less discomfort seeing others suffer, and that objectification of lab-animals allows disengagement from them, we also examined whether they both would predict involvement in an animal-research. We also examined whether some personality markers known to predict human-animal relations (i.e. social dominance orientation, speciesist attitudes, and empathic dispositions) could be related to the willingness to experiment on a lab animal. Overall, the results of this research were mixed, as neither self-regulation abilities, animal objectification, social dominance orientation, nor empathy significantly predicted participation in animal testing. However, low speciesist attitudes significantly reduced the willingness to kill animals for science. ARTICLE HISTORY

Untangling the Dairy Paradox: How Vegetarians Experience and Navigate the Cognitive Dissonance Aroused by Their Dairy Consumption

Article

Sep 2024
APPETITE

Breaking Climate Change Polarization

Article

May 2024

Aylin Cakanlar

Climate change has become an increasingly polarizing issue in the United States and across the globe, a divide reflected in the sustainable behaviors of liberals and conservatives. Previous studies have investigated the psychological underpinnings of this polarization in the sustainability domain; however, findings have been fragmented across disciplines. The current work aims to integrate and synthesize academic research at the intersection of political ideology and sustainable behavior to propose a framework that explains polarized responses to climate change. This framework, represented by the acronym BREAK, suggests that several key factors can shed light on the underlying causes of the division regarding climate change. These factors include Balance, Reactance, Essence of the problem, Adherence to ingroup norms, and Knowledge. The author also employs this framework to propose strategies for reducing climate change polarization and outline potential avenues for future research. Overall, this review can help policy makers, practitioners, and academics in their endeavors to increase sustainable behavior across the political spectrum.

Group-Based Dominance and Authoritarian Aggression Predict Support for Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2018

In three convenience samples (combined N = 3,755) and one nationally representative survey (N = 1,500), we investigated whether and how right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) were associated with support for Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In all samples, facets of RWA and SDO predicted support for Trump (compared to other Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian candidates), even after adjusting for demographic factors and religious affiliation. In comparison with supporters of other Republican candidates, Trump supporters were consistently higher in group-based dominance and authoritarian aggression (but not submission or conventionalism). These results highlight the real-world significance of psychological theories and constructs and establish that Trump voters were uniquely driven by the desire to dominate out-group members in an aggressive manner.

The intergroup foundations of climate change justice

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2018

Climate change is a global problem that is caused by humans and must be solved by humans, and while differences exist, many theories and research on prejudice and discrimination have direct connections to the psychological processes involved in climate change. Climate change is not only a geophysical issue, but an intergroup issue with justice implications. It impacts people who are most vulnerable to environmental degradation as well as social injustices. Arguably it not only violates human rights but also the rights of animals and nature. Thus, the study of group processes and intergroup relations is critical to understanding the myriad of barriers to addressing this large-scale problem. We explore influences on cognitive steps in perceiving climate change as a justice issue, using social psychology to understand minimization of harms and responsibilities for addressing climate change, and draw from the prejudice and discrimination literature to find ways of moving forward.

The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2018

We introduce and investigate the philosophical concept of ‘speciesism’ —the assignment of different moral worth based on species membership —as a psychological construct. In five studies, using both general population samples online and student samples, we show that speciesism is a measurable, stable construct with high interpersonal differences, that goes along with a cluster of other forms of prejudice, and is able to predict real-world decision-making and behavior. In Study 1 we present the development and empirical validation of a theoretically driven Speciesism Scale, which captures individual differences in speciesist attitudes. In Study 2, we show high test-retest reliability of the scale over a period of four weeks, suggesting that speciesism is stable over time. In Study 3, we present positive correlations between speciesism and prejudicial attitudes such as racism, sexism, homophobia, along with ideological constructs associated with prejudice such as social dominance orientation, system justification, and right-wing authoritarianism. These results suggest that similar mechanisms might underlie both speciesism and other well-researched forms of prejudice. Finally, in Studies 4 and 5, we demonstrate that speciesism is able to predict prosociality towards animals (both in the context of charitable donations and time investment) and behavioral food choices above and beyond existing related constructs. Importantly, our studies show that people morally value individuals of certain species less than others even when beliefs about intelligence and sentience are accounted for. We conclude by discussing the implications of a psychological study of speciesism for the psychology of human-animal relationships.

“Making America Great Again”: System Justification in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2017

The U.S. presidential election of Donald Trump in 2016 was interpreted by many as a repudiation of the social and economic status quo. Others suggested that support for Trump reflected opposition to social change, as exemplified by the nostalgic slogan “Make America Great Again.” We consider the possibility that many American voters were indeed frustrated by the consequences of global competition under capitalism but were unwilling or unable to criticize the capitalist system and the existing social order. Consistent with this notion, we observed—in a nationally representative sample of 1,500 American respondents who were surveyed shortly before the election—that economic and gender-specific system justification were positively associated with support for Trump, but after adjusting for these variables general system justification was negatively associated with support for Trump (and positively associated with support for Hillary Clinton). Trump supporters clearly rejected liberal governance under President Obama, which they may have perceived as threatening to the traditional social order, but they strongly justified economic and gender-based disparities in American society.

The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the Ideology of Eating Animals

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2017

Beliefs surrounding the practice of eating animals are widely held, and have been argued to constitute an ideology named carnism (Joy, 2009). We developed and validated the novel Carnism Inventory to measure two positively related components of carnistic beliefs: carnistic defense and carnistic domination. We anticipated that carnistic defense would legitimate the practice of eating animals, while carnistic domination would support the killing of animals for their meat. The Carnism Inventory showed the hypothesized two-dimensional structure as well as good internal consistencies and stability (N = 302, Study 1). We also demonstrated the convergent and discriminant validity of the Carnism Inventory (N = 781, Study 2a). As expected, carnistic defense predicted meat consumption, while carnistic domination was a significant predictor of having slaughtered an animal (N = 478, Study 2b). Both scales were significantly related to sociopolitical beliefs, including right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, but only carnistic domination was related to symbolic racism and sexism (N = 373, Study 3). Taken together, our findings highlight the utility of the two-dimensional conceptualization and measurement of carnistic beliefs and offer new insights into one of the most common human behaviors: Eating animals is not only a gustatory behavior, as widely believed, but also an ideological one.

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human-Animal Relations Model (SD-HARM)

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2016
EUR J PERSONALITY

Recent research and theorizing suggest that desires for group-based dominance underpin biases towards both human outgroups and (non-human) animals. A systematic study of the common ideological roots of human-human and human-animal biases is, however, lacking. Three studies (in Belgium, UK, and USA) tested the Social Dominance Human-Animal Relations Model (SD-HARM) proposing that Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a key factor responsible for the significant positive association between ethnic outgroup attitudes and speciesist attitudes towards animals, even after accounting for other ideological variables (that possibly confound previous findings). Confirming our hypotheses, the results consistently demonstrated that SDO, more than right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), is a key factor connecting ethnic prejudice and speciesist attitudes. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 showed that both SDO and RWA are significantly related to perceived threat posed by vegetarianism (i.e., ideologies and diets minimizing harm to animals), but with SDO playing a focal role in explaining the positive association between threat perceptions and ethnic prejudice. Study 3 replicated this pattern, additionally including political conservatism in the model, itself a significant correlate of speciesism. Finally, a meta-analytic integration across studies provided robust support for SD-HARM and offers important insights into the psychological parallels between human intergroup and human-animal relations.

Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of Morally Troublesome Behavior and Its Maintenance

Article

Full-text available

May 2016

A majority of people the world over eat meat, yet many of these same people experience discomfort when the meat on their plate is linked to the death of animals. We draw on this common form of moral conflict—the meat-paradox—to develop insights into the ways in which morally troublesome behaviors vanish into the commonplace and every day. Drawing on a motivational analysis, we show how societies may be shaped by attempts to resolve dissonance, in turn protecting their citizens from discomfort associated with their own moral conflicts. To achieve this, we build links between dissonance reduction, habit formation, social influence, and the emergence of social norms and detail how our analysis has implications for understanding immoral behavior and motivations underpinning dehumanization and objectification. Finally, we draw from our motivational analysis to advance new insights into the origins of prejudice and pathways through which prejudice can be maintained and resolved.

Left-right differences in abortion policy support in America: Clarifying the role of sex and sexism in a nationally representative 2016 sample

Article

Jun 2018
PERS INDIV DIFFER

Abortion is a contentious political issue in the U.S, with those on the political right (vs. left) more opposed to pro-abortion policies. Past research has demonstrated that the left-right divide in abortion support is in part explained by endorsement of sexist beliefs. Although informative, the generalizability of past findings is limited due to (unknown) sample representativeness and sampling procedure. Using the 2016 ANES U.S. nationally representative dataset (N = 3264), we tested the sexism-as-mediator of the left-right divide in abortion support hypothesis. We replicated previous findings, but the indirect effect of sexism was smaller than previously observed. Employing a multiple-groups analysis, we then examined whether the strength and direction of paths differed systematically by sex. Consistent with System Justification Theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), no sex differences emerged: Conservatism predicted lower support for abortion, in part through sexism, equally for men and women. Consistent with the highly polarized state of American politics, ideology emerged as a very relevant predictor of abortion support, trumping even group membership and self-interest.

Conservatism predicts lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets to meat consumption (through lower social justice concerns and social support)

Article

Aug 2017

Lapses from vegetarian and vegan (i.e., veg*n) food choices to meat consumption are very common, suggesting that sustaining veg*nism is challenging. But little is known about why people return to eating animals after initially deciding to avoid meat consumption. Several potential explanatory factors include personal inconvenience, meat cravings, awkwardness in social settings, or health/nutrition concerns. Here we test the degree to which political ideology predicts lapsing to meat consumption. Past research demonstrates that political ideology predicts present levels of meat consumption, whereby those higher in right-wing ideologies eat more animals, even after controlling for their hedonistic liking of meat (e.g., Dhont & Hodson, 2014). To what extent might political ideology predict whether one has lapsed from veg*n foods back to meat consumption? In a largely representative US community sample (N = 1313) of current and former veg*ns, those higher (vs. lower) in conservatism exhibited significantly greater odds of being a former than current veg*n, even after controlling for age, education, and gender. This ideology-lapsing relation was mediated (i.e., explained) by those higher (vs. lower) in conservatism: (a) adopting a veg*n diet for reasons less centered in justice concerns (animal rights, environment, feeding the poor); and (b) feeling socially unsupported in their endeavor. In contrast, factors such as differential meat craving or lifestyle inconvenience played little mediational role. These findings demonstrate that ideology and justice concerns are particularly relevant to understanding resilience in maintaining veg*n food choices. Implications for understanding why people eat meat, and how to develop intervention strategies, are discussed.

In Defense of Tradition: Religiosity, Conservatism, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in North America

Article

Jul 2017

Arguments opposing same-sex marriage are often made on religious grounds. In five studies conducted in the United States and Canada (combined N = 1,673), we observed that religious opposition to same-sex marriage was explained, at least in part, by conservative ideology and linked to sexual prejudice. In Studies 1 and 2, we discovered that the relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage was mediated by explicit sexual prejudice. In Study 3, we saw that the mediating effect of sexual prejudice was linked to political conservatism. Finally, in Studies 4a and 4b we examined the ideological underpinnings of religious opposition to same-sex marriage in more detail by taking into account two distinct aspects of conservative ideology. Results revealed that resistance to change was more important than opposition to equality in explaining religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: An application of system justification theory

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Difficult Relations: Sex Work, Love and Intimacy

Psychosocial empowerment and social support factors associated with the employment status of immigra...

A Cooperative Communication Intervention for Nursing Home Staff and Family Members of Residents

Development process of text messaging interventions for the prevention and management of cardiovascu...