Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Family Violence
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Journal of Family Violence (2024) 39:1539–1543
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00556-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Animal Consumption Associated withHigher Intimate Partner
Aggression
CaseyT.Taft1,2,3 · EvelynG.Hamilton1,2· XeniaLeviyah1,2· KatherineE.Gnall4· CrystalL.Park4
Accepted: 12 April 2023 / Published online: 29 April 2023
This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2023
Abstract
Purpose This brief report examined associations between animal consumption and intimate partner aggression in a sample
of undergraduates. Two possible explanatory variables for these associations, depressive symptoms and speciesism, were
also examined.
Methods Participants included 245 undergraduate students who provided electronic consent and completed a one-time
anonymous survey.
Results Results indicated that animal consumption was associated with higher use of physical and psychological intimate
partner aggression, even after accounting for other correlates. Animal consumption was also associated with higher specie-
sism, and speciesism was associated with higher use of physical and psychological intimate partner aggression.
Conclusions Results extend findings from prior studies documenting links between animal consumption and negative out-
comes and further suggest that speciesism may play a role in understanding links between animal consumption and intimate
partner aggression.
Keywords Diet· Speciesism· Intimate partner aggression· Depression· Animal consumption
Considerable research suggests that diets high in animal
flesh may be associated with poorer physical health (Cross
etal., 2007; Larsson & Wolk, 2006; Vang etal., 2008). Other
evidence suggests the possibility that animal consumption
may be associated with mental health issues such as depres-
sion, perhaps due to metabolic stress, obesity, and inflam-
mation linked to its high fat content (Nucci etal., 2020;
Zhang etal., 2017). We are not aware of any published
research, however, on the association between animal con-
sumption and psychosocial outcomes such as aggression,
despite long interest in links between diet and antisociality
(Schauss, 1981; Schoenthaler & Bier, 1985). In the current
brief report, we examined the association between degree of
animal consumption and the use of aggression in intimate
relationships in an undergraduate sample. We also examined
the potential roles of depressive symptoms, which have been
linked with aggression in prior work (Johnson etal., 2020;
Nguyen & Parkhill, 2014), as well as speciesism (Singer,
1975), which refers to one’s sense of superiority over non-
human animals, to determine if these variables may help
explain any associations between animal consumption and
aggressive behavior.
It is possible that animal consumption may be associ-
ated with increased risk for aggressive behavior because of
its link with mental health issues. As mental health issues,
perhaps especially depressive symptoms, have consistently
been linked to aggression in prior work (Shorey etal., 2012;
Swogger etal., 2010), it is reasonable to expect that greater
consumption of animal flesh may be related to intimate part-
ner aggression partly as a function of its relationship with
poorer mental health more broadly.
Another potential explanation for a link between animal
consumption and aggressive behavior is speciesism. The
concept of speciesism was first introduced in the animal
advocacy literature by philosopher Peter Singer (1975) to
* Casey T. Taft
Casey.Taft@va.gov
1 Behavioral Science Division, National Center forPTSD, VA
Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington, Boston,
MA02130, USA
2 VA Boston Healthcare System, Healthcare System (116 B-4),
Boston, MA, USA
3 Boston University School ofMedicine, Boston, MA, USA
4 University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1540 Journal of Family Violence (2024) 39:1539–1543
1 3
describe the belief that non-human animals have lower
inherent moral status due to their species membership.
More recently, this construct has been operationalized
and measured by researchers, with evidence supporting
the psychometric properties of a speciesism measure
(Caviola etal., 2019). This validation work indicates that
speciesism is associated with other prejudicial attitudes
including sexism, racism, and homophobia, suggesting
that these attitudes together reflect a view of others as
lesser, which can serve to justify mistreatment of these
“out” groups. Other evidence similarly suggests that spe-
ciesism is connected with views of social dominance such
that those higher in speciesism view lower status groups
less favorably (Jackson, 2019). Considering that specie-
sism may be associated with negative views of women and
power and control attitudes that are often found to underlie
abusive behavior (Juarros Basterretxea etal., 2019; Lynch
& Renzetti, 2020), animal consumption may be associated
with increased risk for intimate partner aggression in part
because it is associated with speciesism.
There are other possible unexamined reasons why
increased animal consumption may be associated with
greater use of aggression in relationships beyond mental
health issues and attitudes towards nonhuman animals.
For example, it is possible that more hypermasculine atti-
tudes may drive more animal consumption (Timeo & Suit-
ner, 2018) as well as relationship aggression (Schrock &
Padavic, 2007), and may help explain this association. It
has also been argued that children become habituated and
desensitized to violence growing up, and learning that it is
acceptable to kill and eat animals may represent an early
stage in that process (Joy, 2009). In its most extreme form,
those who directly harm nonhuman animals as children are
more likely to engage in severe violence as adults (Arluke
etal., 2018; Macdonald, 1963). Thus, it is possible that
greater consumption of animals reflects greater levels of
general desensitization to violence. From a more biologi-
cal perspective, stress hormones in animals flesh, such as
adrenaline, cortisol, and other steroids, which have been
shown to be elevated with increased fear experienced by
the animal during slaughter (Bozzo etal., 2018), may con-
tribute to aggressive behavior (Armstrong etal., 2021),
though we are not aware of prior work examining such
links with respect to animal consumption.
Our hypotheses were as follows: (a) Greater animal
consumption would be associated with higher depressive
symptoms, greater speciesism, and higher physical and
psychological intimate partner aggression at the bivari-
ate level; and (b) Animal consumption would be uniquely
associated with intimate partner aggression when control-
ling for the effects of depressive symptoms and speciesism
in multiple regression analyses.
Methods
Participants andProcedures
Participants included 245 undergraduate students (M
age = 19.26) recruited via the Psychology Department par-
ticipant pool at the University of Connecticut. The majority
of participants identified as White (n = 129, 52.7%), non-His-
panic/Latino (n = 186, 75.9%) and female (n = 139, 56.7%)
(see Table1). Participants provided electronic consent and
completed a one-time anonymous survey in exchange for
participation credit for an introductory psychology course.
The survey was made available to all undergraduate stu-
dents enrolled in a psychology course during the Spring of
2020. Students could choose which studies they wanted to
participate in by reading a written description of what the
study involved. The present study was described as follows:
“This study will ask you to participate in a one-time anony-
mous survey lasting about 30 minutes of individuals’ health
behaviors and beliefs.” This study did not actively recruit
individuals based on any pre-screening information; students
enrolled on a first come, first serve basis. All study proce-
dures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the
University of Connecticut. One participant was excluded due
to taking the survey twice and providing inconsistent data.
Measures
Participants reported on degree of animal consumption using
an item assessing what percent of their diet included meat,
“____% of my meals include meat”.
Table 1 Demographic characteristics
Due to missing data (< 15% across variables), n’s range from 211 to
245. Participants were on average 19.26years old (SD =1.39)
Baseline characteristic n %
Gender
Female 139 56.7
Male 78 31.8
Other 1 0.40
Race
White/European American 129 52.7
Black/African American 16 6.50
Asian/Asian American 58 23.7
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 1 0.40
Native American/Alaskan Native 1 0.40
More than one race 6 2.40
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 31 12.7
Not Hispanic/Latino 186 75.9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1541Journal of Family Violence (2024) 39:1539–1543
1 3
Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Depres-
sion, Anxiety, and Stress Scales, shortened 21-item version
(DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Each item is rated
on a scale of 0 (Did not apply to me at all) to 3 (Applied
to me very much, or most of the time), and a total score
was computed by taking the sum of the seven items on the
depression subscale and multiplying by 2. The DASS-21 has
demonstrated strong psychometric properties including high
internal consistency, concurrent validity, factorial validity,
and reliability (Antony etal., 1998; Lovibond & Lovibond,
1995). Sample items are “I couldn’t seem to experience any
positive feeling at all” and “I felt down-hearted and blue”.
The internal consistency reliability estimate (Cronbach’s
alpha) for the depression subscale in this study was .80.
Speciesism was assessed using the 6-item Speciesism
Scale (Caviola etal., 2019). Each item was rated on a scale
of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) and a mean
score was computed. The Speciesism Scale has demon-
strated strong psychometric properties including good
internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent
validity with other prejudicial attitude variables such as rac-
ism, sexism, and homophobia (Caviola etal., 2019). Sample
items are “Humans have the right to use animals however
they want to” and “It is morally acceptable to keep animals
in circuses for human entertainment”. The internal consist-
ency reliability estimate (Cronbach’s alpha) for this measure
in this study was .85.
Lifetime use of intimate partner aggression was assessed
using the Physical Assault and Psychological Aggression
subscales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-2;
Straus etal., 1996). Responses reflected estimated frequency
of behavior for each item, such that the mid-points of the
response categories for each item (e.g., 3–5 = 4) was used,
and these scores were summed for each subscale. The CTS2
has demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability
and good construct and factorial validity (Newton etal.,
2001; Straus etal., 1996). Sample items are “I insulted or
swore at someone” and “I pushed or shoved someone”. The
internal consistency reliability estimate (Cronbach’s alpha)
for this measure was .80 for the Psychological Aggression
subscale and .92 for the Physical Assault subscale in the
present study.
Results
Bivariate Correlations
Table2 shows bivariate correlations among all primary
constructs of interest. As hypothesized, participants eat-
ing a diet with a higher degree of animal consumption
were more likely to report greater rates of both physical
and psychological intimate partner aggression use during
their lifetime (rs = .20 and .17, respectively). Additionally,
greater animal consumption was associated with greater
speciesism (r = .26). Participants with greater rates of spe-
ciesism were more likely to report use of both physical and
psychological intimate partner aggression (rs = .25 and
.15, respectively). Contrary to expectations, greater animal
consumption was not associated with higher depressive
symptoms. Higher depressive symptoms were associated
with higher use of psychological intimate partner aggres-
sion (r = .18), but not physical intimate partner aggres-
sion. Finally, physical and psychological intimate partner
aggression were highly intercorrelated (r = .69).
Multiple Regression Analyses
Separate multiple regression analyses examined associa-
tions between the correlates of interest and the two inti-
mate partner aggression outcomes (see Table3). Results
show that 7.4% of the variance in physical intimate part-
ner aggression and 6.3% of the variance in psychologi-
cal intimate partner aggression were accounted for by the
three predictors. Greater animal consumption (B = 0.02,
SE = 0.01, p < .05) and higher speciesism (B = 0.04,
SE =0.22, p < .05) were uniquely associated with greater
physical intimate partner aggression. Depressive symp-
toms did not have a significant unique association with
physical intimate partner aggression after accounting for
animal consumption and speciesism. Greater animal con-
sumption (B = 0.01, SE =0.01, p < .05) and higher rates
of depression (B = 0.07, SE = 0.03, p < .01) were uniquely
associated with greater psychological intimate partner
aggression, while speciesism did not have a significant
Table 2 Summary of
correlations
Due to missing data (< 1% across variables), n’s range from 223 to 224
* p < .01, ** p < .001
Variables Mean (SD) or % 1 2 3 4 5
1. Percentage of meals including meat 62.29 (24.35) –––
2. Depressive Symptoms 3.72 (5.60) 0.04 – –
3. Speciesism 2.82 (1.07) 0.26** 0.00 –
4. Physical Aggression 3.24 (3.70) 0.20** 0.08 0.25** –
5. Psychological Aggression 4.94 (2.23) 0.17* 0.18** 0.15* 0.69** –
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1542 Journal of Family Violence (2024) 39:1539–1543
1 3
unique association with intimate partner psychological
aggression.
Discussion
The present brief report aimed to examine the link between
animal consumption and use of intimate partner aggres-
sion. Results from this study were generally consistent with
hypotheses; greater consumption of animal flesh was associ-
ated with both physical and psychological intimate partner
aggression both at the bivariate level and when controlling
for other associated correlates including depressive symp-
toms and speciesism. Animal consumption was consistently
associated with use of intimate partner aggression and these
associations were not solely due to its relationship with other
assessed risk factors. These findings extend prior work that
suggests that higher animal consumption is associated with
negative physical and mental health outcomes (Cross etal.,
2007; Jacka etal., 2012; Larsson & Wolk, 2006; Vang etal.,
2008; Zhang etal., 2017) to other psychosocial behavioral
outcomes, namely use of physical and psychological inti-
mate partner aggression. Results suggest that eating nonhu-
man animals may not only be associated with greater risk for
negative physical and mental health issues, but also engag-
ing in harmful behaviors towards others including intimate
relationship partners.
The mechanisms explaining links between animal con-
sumption and intimate partner aggression require further
exploration in future studies given the unique associations
found in our analyses. Associations between animal con-
sumption and speciesism, and between speciesism and
aggression outcomes, suggest the possibility that those who
consume higher amounts of animal flesh may be more likely
to hold speciesist attitudes that may confer risk for intimate
partner aggression. Other researchers have found that higher
speciesism is associated with other oppressive attitudes such
as sexism, racism, and homophobia (Caviola etal., 2019),
and negative social dominance views (Jackson, 2019), and
thus it should not be surprising that speciesism may also be
associated with aggressive behavior in relationships.
The finding that animal consumption was not significantly
associated with depressive symptoms contrasts with some
prior work documenting this link, though inconsistent find-
ings on this association have been obtained across investi-
gations, which has been attributed to possible differences in
varieties of animal meat consumed and other eating habits
(Zhang etal., 2017). Results showing depressive symptoms
to be associated with intimate partner psychological aggres-
sion and not physical aggression was unexpected and should
be interpreted with caution and replicated in future work.
This study is not without its limitations. Future inves-
tigations are needed with larger, more diverse community
samples to attempt to replicate current findings and examine
other relevant social, attitudinal, biological, and nutritional
variables and models attempting to explain obtained asso-
ciations in this study. It would also be important to exam-
ine differences in findings for intimate partner aggression
outcomes and associated risk factors versus other forms
of aggression as this study only examined the former. It is
hoped that this study may represent an early stage in under-
standing how certain behaviors and attitudes regarding non-
human animals may relate to other attitudes and behaviors
towards other humans.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
Table 3 Linear regression
analyses examining predictors
of aggression
Unstandardized estimates. n = 222. Significant effects are bolded
Psychological Aggression Physical Aggression
Variable B SE t p B SE t p
Percentage of meals including
meat
.013 .006 2.082 .038 .022 .010 2.282 .023
Depressive Symptoms .067 .026 2.617 .009 .043 .041 −1.059 .291
Speciesism .166 .140 1.182 .238 .581 .224 2.597 .010
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1543Journal of Family Violence (2024) 39:1539–1543
1 3
References
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R.
P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item ver-
sions of the depression anxiety stress scales in clinical groups and
a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 176–181.
Arluke, A., Lankford, A., & Madfis, E. (2018). Harming animals and
massacring humans: Characteristics of public mass and active
shooters who abused animals. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
36(6), 739–751.
Armstrong, T., Wells, J., Boisvert, D. L., Lewis, R. H., Cooke, E. M.,
Woeckener, M., & Kavish, N. (2021). An exploratory analysis of
testosterone, cortisol, and aggressive behavior type in men and
women. Biological Psychology, 161, 108073.
Bozzo, G., Barrasso, R., Marchetti, P., Roma, R., Samoilis, G., Tantillo,
G., & Ceci, E. (2018). Analysis of stress indicators for evalua-
tion of animal welfare and meat quality in traditional and Jewish
slaughtering. Animals, 8(4), 43.
Caviola, L., Everett, J. A., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing
of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 116(6), 1011–1029.
Cross, A. J., Leitzmann, M. F., Gail, M. H., Hollenbeck, A. R., Schatzkin,
A., & Sinha, R. (2007). A prospective study of red and processed
meat intake in relation to cancer risk. PLoS Medicine, 4(12), e325.
Jacka, F. N., Pasco, J. A., Williams, L. J., Mann, N., Hodge, A.,
Brazionis, L., & Berk, M. (2012). Red meat consumption and
mood and anxiety disorders. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,
81(3), 196–198.
Jackson, L. M. (2019). Speciesism predicts prejudice against low-status
and hierarchy-attenuating human groups. Anthrozoös, 32(4), 445–458.
Johnson, W. L., Taylor, B. G., Mumford, E. A., & Liu, W. (2020).
Dyadic correlates of the perpetration of psychological aggres-
sion among intimate partners. Psychology of Violence, 10(4), 422.
Joy, M. (2009). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An intro-
duction to carnism. Red Wheel.
Juarros Basterretxea, J., Overall, N., Herrero Olaizola, J. B., & Rod-
ríguez Díaz, F. J. (2019). Considering the effect of sexism on
psychological intimate partner violence: A study with imprisoned
men. European journal of psychology applied to legal. Context.
Larsson, S. C., & Wolk, A. (2006). Meat consumption and risk of
colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Inter-
national Journal of Cancer, 119(11), 2657–2664.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative
emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress
scales (DASS) with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343.
Lynch, K. R., & Renzetti, C. M. (2020). Alcohol use, hostile sexism,
and religious self-regulation: Investigating risk and protective
factors of IPV perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
35(17–18), 3237–3263.
Macdonald, J. (1963). The threat to kill. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 120, 125–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1176/ ajp. 120.2. 125
Newton, R. R., Connelly, C. D., & Landsverk, J. A. (2001). An exami-
nation of measurement characteristics and factorial valdity of
the revised conflict tactics scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61(2), 317–335.
Nguyen, D., & Parkhill, M. R. (2014). Integrating attachment and
depression in the confluence model of sexual assault perpetra-
tion. Violence Against Women, 20(8), 994–1011.
Nucci, D., Fatigoni, C., Amerio, A., Odone, A., & Gianfredi, V. (2020).
Red and processed meat consumption and risk of depression: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6686.
Schauss, A. G. (1981). Diet, crime and delinquency (pp. 1–108). Parker
House.
Schoenthaler, S. J., & Bier, I. D. (1985). Diet and delinquency: Empiri-
cal testing of seven theories. International Journal of Biosocial
Research, 7(2), 108–131.
Schrock, D. P., & Padavic, I. (2007). Negotiating hegemonic masculin-
ity in a batterer intervention program. Gender & Society, 21(5),
625–649.
Shorey, R. C., Febres, J., Brasfield, H., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). The
prevalence of mental health problems in men arrested for domestic
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 27(8), 741–748.
Singer, P. (1975). Down on the factory farm. Animal liberation. A new
ethics for our treatment of animals (pp. 159–168). Avon Books.
The Hearst Corporation.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development
and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17,
283–316.
Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., Houston, R. J., Cashman-Brown, S., &
Conner, K. R. (2010). Psychopathy and axis I psychiatric disor-
ders among criminal offenders: Relationships to impulsive and
proactive aggression. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the
International Society for Research on Aggression, 36(1), 45–53.
Timeo, S., & Suitner, C. (2018). Eating meat makes you sexy: Con-
formity to dietary gender norms and attractiveness. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 19(3), 418.
Vang, A., Singh, P. N., Lee, J. W., Haddad, E. H., & Brinegar, C. H.
(2008). Meats, processed meats, obesity, weight gain and occur-
rence of diabetes among adults: Findings from Adventist health
studies. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 52(2), 96–104.
Zhang, Y., Yang, Y., Xie, M. S., Ding, X., Li, H., Liu, Z. C., & Peng,
S. F. (2017). Is meat consumption associated with depression? A
meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1),
1–7.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com