PSY1HAE Topic 10: Psychology of Perceiving Animals as Resources PDF

Topic 10: The Psychology of Perceiving Animals as Resources that using animals in this way is a choice that When you have completed this topic, you will: we make, rather than something that is as Understand tha...

Topic 10: The Psychology of Perceiving Animals as Resources that using animals in this way is a choice that When you have completed this topic, you will: we make, rather than something that is as Understand that it is possible to inevitable as the sun coming up each morning. conceptualise human relationships with animals that we use as resources in various different ways Have thought about the psychology of food choices and how theories such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour can be applied to our consumption of animals and their products In the last topic we discussed the fact that, increasingly, some animals are perceived to be an integral part of our community, with social status almost equivalent to human members. Conceptualising consumer‐animal relationships This is in contrast with the way animals have First of all, think back to an earlier topic, when traditionally been perceived, and it also we discussed the various forms that biological contrasts with the way many other animals are relationships can take. You might recall that any currently perceived, which is more as a kind of relationship can have a positive effect, a negative object or consumable resource. Most people effect or no effect at all on each species involved. accept it as perfectly normal for us to use This is a useful framework within which to think animals in all sorts of ways. We eat them, wear about animals as resources. Many people them, perform experiments on them, use them automatically think that when we use animals it to produce a diverse range of products, engage clearly benefits us, but just as clearly must have with them for entertainment and sport, and a negative consequence for the animals involved. more recently, employ them as a source of Do you agree with this? spare parts for humans with various disorders. It is true to say that one of our most common In this topic we will consider the practice of relationships with animals is best described as a using animals as objects, focusing on eating form of predation - they end up dead and we animal products as an example. We will look at get enormous benefits from this, including food, the types of relationships we have with animals clothes and medicinal products. As was we use for food, whether these relationships are previously discussed, however, it is not always inevitable, and some of the psychological the case that the prey species in a predator-prey factors that drive consumer choices. relationship gets no benefits. If we think in terms Importantly, the aim in this topic is not to tell of species rather than individual animals, then, you that using animals as resources is either from an evolutionary perspective, those animals right or wrong. You can decide that for yourself. we eat and wear and use appear to be doing What we will try to do, however, is shift your rather well. Whereas other species are heading thinking just a little bit so that you understand towards extinction this is not the case for our favourite food animals. Also, although many of recent changes in how premarin is produced the animals we consume live in terrible and prescribed, but it's still worth thinking conditions, so do many wild animals. Obviously, about this as a form of horse exploitation of we cannot actually tell what an animal would which most people are completely unaware. prefer, although this is something we will discuss further in a later topic. If they were able to make a choice, however, some animals might choose to live in our farms, with air conditioners, a constant supply of food and water, someone to clean up after them and no predators – at least until the day comes that they are slaughtered, usually far more humanely than they would be in the wild. Another form of biological relationship that describes the relationship we have with some animals we use is parasitism – where one organism benefits from being hosted by another Horses are not the only animals used to produce over a long term. Can you think of any examples therapeutic products for humans. Cows, sheep in which humans might be described as and goats, for example, have been engineered parasites in a consumer context? to produce milk or blood which contains chemicals, such as antibodies, that are used to maintain human health. Animals are also producing products that might potentially stave off a chemical weapons attack. For instance, some cows are milked for their blood every month or so. This could be categorised as a form of parasitism and makes some people feel very uncomfortable, although the animals are worth thousands of dollars and appear to be looked after very well. Other types of biological relationships also exist when we use animals as resources. For example, Maybe you could argue that humans commensalism is where one species benefits parasitically benefit from the milk produced by and the other does not, but is not harmed in any cows or the eggs produced by hens? Generally way. What about research or film making where speaking, a parasite lives either on the surface animals are observed in the wild, or even some or within the host organism, so it may not be forms of eco-tourism or large-scale wild animal entirely appropriate to refer to the human-dairy parks. We might gain important knowledge or cow or human-hen relationship as parasitic, but just be entertained by watching these animals it is an interesting prospect and, actually, this or the films that are made, but may not affect type of human-animal relationship is becoming the animals in any way. Of course, this is not more common. Horses, for example, have been always the case. Our very presence might cause used for some time now to produce pregnant the animals to change their behaviour or might mare urine, an extract of which is used as alter the process of natural selection. For hormone replacement therapy. This practice has example, researchers need to be careful when been taking place since the 1940’s but is very placing tiny tracking devices on birds, rodents controversial because of the way thousands of or even marine mammals. These are supposed horses are treated. There have been some to have no impact but studies have found that they increase the chances of the animals dying, Another issue we should keep in mind is that, perhaps simply by making them easier for when we characterise human-animal predators to spot. Even eco-tourism can have relationships as being either positive or subtle effects on animals’ lives. Can we interact negative for the species involved, our with animals and not have any effect on them? perspective of time is sometimes limited. Possibly not! Perhaps, over a much longer time scale than we can imagine, the benefits we think we are getting from using animals will turn out not to be so good. For example, anyone who eats nothing but animal products might think they are doing very well, but they might gradually be killing themselves with an overload of fat and cholesterol. Also, we may not be doing ourselves any favours by keeping animals in intensive farming situations, where the damage done to the local environment can be catastrophic (Ruhl, 2000). In these cases, the relationships might be examples of synnecrosis, Another type of relationship is mutualism – where both species are harmed over the long where both species benefit. If we try to think of term, even if there appear to be short term an example in which animals are used by benefits. Perhaps the only thing we can be sure humans but the relationship is mutually of is that our relationships with animals we use beneficial, most people think of pets. Even are constantly changing and should always be though some pets suffer terribly from being thought about critically! pets, and some pet owners can be badly hurt or even killed by their pets, in overall terms it is true that both pet owners and their animals benefit from the relationship at a species level (Olmert, 2010). Is this true of other domesticated animals? As was discussed in an earlier topic, it seems fairly clear that the whole domestication process would not have worked if it had not been mutually rewarding for all species involved. Accordingly, many farmers would argue that they have mutualistic relationships with their animals, rather than them being parasitic or predatory. Other people Humans as predators might not agree, particularly when confronted Despite these issues, it is worth spending some by huge modern agribusinesses where time thinking about our role as predators, top thousands of animals live in cramped conditions of the food chain and apparent rulers of all living that do not appear conducive to good health things with which we share the planet. You do and welfare. not have to look very far to see evidence of us Whether some of our relationships with engaging in predatory behaviour. Most of us are domesticated animals are rewarding for them or happy to eat animals and their products and we not is hard to decide, but many people believe are also happy to wear them or engage in other that we should not have animals on farms or in activities that require animals to be killed. In our homes or scientific labs AT ALL because we fact, most of us do not think twice about it. In cannot do so without causing them great harm. our culture, eating animals is a perfectly normal This issue is discussed further in later topics. thing to do and few of us question it. To show you how strong this belief system is, would have been tempted by the aged-human imagine for a moment that you are a typical option, or is the taboo against eating humans Australian meat-eater who travels to another much stronger than the taboo against eating country, or another planet if you prefer, to dogs? attend a dinner party with five aliens you’ve never met before but want to impress. When the The psychology of food consumption waiter brings out the menu you quickly scan it The point being made here is not that pig eating and notice that almost all the entries are is right or wrong, but simply that we do not even vegetarian. On the back page is a small section think, as a community, that we need to justify that says ‘Special dishes for animal eaters’. this behaviour. We think of eating pigs, cows, There are six dishes under this heading: pork chickens and sheep as ‘normal’ behaviours that chops, fried crocodile, poached dog, raw beef, require no explanation. Instead, it is when aged human, and live goldfish. people choose not to conform with this dominant view that we expect them to provide a reason for their choice. If you are vegetarian or vegan you will know exactly what is being referred to here. In our culture vegetarianism is seen as an expression of a value system that has emerged after careful thinking and weighing up of all kinds of evidence – and we expect those who are vegetarian to be able to easily explain their choice. People might be vegetarian because of concerns about animal welfare, because of allergies to animal products, because of health concerns or for a dozen other reasons – but it is assumed that there must be a What would you do in this situation? Would you reasonable explanation for the behaviour. Meat try to avoid ordering first, so that you could eating, by contrast, is not seen as resulting from check what the other guests were ordering a carefully considered choice. It just happens and before making your selection? Would you select requires no justification. a dish from the vegetarian section, either because you are vegetarian or because you do not want to have to explain your choice to other members of the group? If you did this, how would you explain it if everyone else ordered the pork chops? Would you ever choose the aged human option, or the dog option or the raw beef option or the live fish option or even the fried crocodile option? If you went with the familiar and chose the pork chops, how would you explain this choice to your fellow diners, all of whom turn out to be vegetarian and to keep pigs as much-loved family pets? What if they all chose According to Melanie Joy, author of a book the aged human option or even the dog option? called Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs And Wear How would you explain your choice to eat pig, Cows, this demonstrates what she calls carnism but not a member of your own species or dog? or our collective meat bias. That is, while we I have friends who have travelled to countries might think about vegetarianism as where they’ve been tempted to try dog meat just representing a belief system, we only do so once, to see what it is like. Do you think they because such beliefs run counter to the dominant culture. A core part of carnism, 3% 1% 1… 12% Necessary according to Joy, is the 3 Ns- deeply embedded beliefs that eating animals is Normal, Natural, Nice 36% and Necessary. Although Joy did not provide Natural much hard data to support these initial claims, 12% Normal subsequent works has supported the idea of the Misc 3Ns, along with a fourth 4- the idea that eating Humane Slaughter animals is Nice (tasting). Drawing on samples Religion 17% from the US, UK, and Australia, Piazza et al. Sustainable 18% (2015) demonstrated that when people were asked to explain why they ate meat, the vast Justifications of meat consumption among majority of their justifications (~80-90%) fell students at the University of Pennsylvania. under one of the 4Ns. This also had implications Adapted from Piazza et al. (2015) for behaviour—people who more strongly endorsed the 4Ns were more likely to downplay There are certainly some people who think that the mental ability of animals and to consider meat eating for humans is ‘natural’ and them unworthy of moral concern. People with inevitable; that it is something we have always high scores on this measure ate considerably done and always will do. This is quite a good more meat, and were more strongly committed argument except that available evidence to eating meat in future. Similarly, endorsement suggests it is not true. You only have to look at of the 4Ns was lower among vegetarians than how humans are built to see that. There are omnivores, and even lower still among vegans. some animal species in the world that we call obligate carnivores. These are species like cats and crocodiles. They may eat some plant food, but they absolutely need some of the nutrients in animal products to survive. There are also some animals that are obligate herbivores. These are the animals that can only survive on a diet of vegetation. Between these two extremes are animals that are more or less carnivorous or herbivorous and it turns out that humans are somewhere in the middle. We are naturally omnivorous, which means we can get adequate nutrition from consuming either animal or plant products. Animals with different nutritional needs tend to be perfectly adapted for their specific diet. Obligate carnivores tend to be big, strong and deadly relative to their prey. They come equipped with the weapons needed to hunt and kill. Obligate herbivores tend to be sleek and agile to facilitate escape from predators. They have teeth designed to browse shrubs or grass and longer digestive systems than carnivores, with special equipment to help them digest very tough plant materials. Because omnivores are opportunistic feeders, surviving by eating whatever is available, they tend to have more generalised anatomical and physiological traits, very fussy about the species of animals we eat especially their teeth and jaws. and even what parts of them we eat. How weird is that? Humans fit into this category. We are not particularly well equipped for grazing or The important point to grasp is that modern browsing but we also are not that good at humans do not have to eat animal products to chasing down and tearing apart our next meal. survive, but make a choice to do so. Once we No modern humans kill their prey with natural realise this, we can start to explore why we weapons like fangs and claws, nor do they eat choose to eat animals and their products. their animal prey raw. What we are good at is Imagine being the very first human to eat a hunk seeing into the future, taking advantage of of dead animal, or an insect, or an egg – whatever situation we find ourselves in, possibly because the choice was between doing manipulating objects and using our well- that and dying of starvation. How clever, to developed theory of mind to control other realise that copying other meat-eating animals animals. We are built to be clever omnivores, might be one way to stay alive during hard with fingers and thumbs that are perfectly times. And how brave! designed for picking fruit and dissecting dead animals that something else has killed, teeth that are good at ripping and chewing, but not so good at killing and tearing things apart, and huge brains that allow us to outsmart everything else on the planet. If we were not smart enough to make tools and plans it would be extremely difficult for us to catch living animals. Other omnivores are smart too. Species like other primates, pigs, rats and some birds, like ourselves, get to make choices about what to eat and have developed to be smart enough to do this well. Why did the meat-eating habit persist and spread once it began? It can only be because Even if we accept that we do naturally eat some eating meat gave some humans a survival animal products, and have done so for advantage at some point in our evolutionary thousands of years, this does not mean that we past. This is not difficult to imagine, since we have to continue to do so now. There are many now know that animal products supply masses contemporary cultures where eating animal of important nutrients that it can be difficult to products is not the dominant ideology. In these obtain in other ways, especially if the cultures, the idea that you might use animals for environment is impoverished, with few natural food would be seen as weird and, if you wanted resources. These days vegetarians have it to do it, you would have to justify your thinking, relatively easy, especially if they are well off and just like vegetarians do in most Western live near a whole foods shop, but this was not countries. Do you think you could? always the case. In some places that early Can you imagine standing in a Buddhist temple, humans inhabited the ground was frozen and full of people who live with lots of animals but there was nothing to eat except what could be never eat them, trying to convince them that caught, so meat eating, often involving fish and they should kill one for dinner? They would sea mammals, or even other humans, was probably think you were insane, just like you essential to survive. might think if someone came to your house and demanded that you kill your pet cat for dinner. Even though we are meat eaters, we are actually  high in meat rather than because of concerns about the welfare of the animals. As the middle classes in China and India expand and adopt Western practices, however, the overall consumption of animal products is increasing rapidly. This has implications for us all, since there are valid concerns about the sustainability of current farming practices. It takes many kilograms of grain and many litres of water to grow one kilogram of beef or pork and, with continuing In other places the fruits and grains available human population growth, this might be a may have been sufficient to meet human luxury we can no longer afford. Animal farming nutritional needs. These may be the places also contributes to greenhouse gases and other where meat eating remains less common or forms of pollution. Hence, we might well ask does not exist at all. Even in places where fruits whether our commitment to eating animal and grains were available, however, eating some products can be justified. Additionally, as many animal products was probably a smart move, people are quick to point out, eating animals providing humans with the rich nutrients actually does involve killing living things that required to power our enormous brains. Those experience thoughts and feelings much like our who were able to catch animals and who risked own. If we are reluctant to eat humans or dogs doing so because they liked the taste of meat or cats, the argument goes, how can we justify probably enjoyed a survival advantage, being eating pigs and cows and chickens? more likely to pass down their meat-eating genes. Hence, our widespread meat-eating behaviour is likely a direct result of our nutritional needs under various environmental conditions, overlaid with our tastes and subsequent cultural programming about which animals are appropriate to eat and what parts of them. For at least some of our ancestors, meat eating was a smart move with profound evolutionary consequences (Stanford 2001). The theory of planned behaviour Maybe meat eating is just a bad habit, like While it is important to understand why some smoking, reinforced by animal-based industries humans originally chose to consume animal with good marketing executives. Or maybe the products, this does not account for why many situation is more complex than that. After all, we humans still choose to do so. Obviously, we can evolved to have lots of other bad habits, like now meet our nutritional needs in other ways; cannibalism and slavery and infanticide, that we the fact that thousands of healthy vegans exist have now stopped. Why is it that we still proves this beyond doubt. We know, however, unthinkingly consume animals and their that, worldwide, consumption of animal products, even though we like to think of products is growing at a great rate. Individually ourselves as being far more civilised than our there was a slight reduction in meat ancestors? consumption in Western countries between the late 80s and early 90s, mostly due to concerns To understand our food choices, we are going regarding the health risks associated with a diet to delve briefly into a psychological theory called the Theory of Planned Behaviour. What to eat whatever you want and whatever tastes this theory says is that all human behaviour is best. All of these beliefs and values feed into caused most directly by our intentions. Hence, your attitudes and you can easily see how they we are more likely to eat animal products if it is are all connected. our intention to do so. This is hardly surprising, But where do our beliefs, our knowledge and but it is important because it means that we can our values come from? Why is it that you may examine what causes intentions, and use this have completely different beliefs compared to knowledge to understand and predict others? Of course, you already know the answer behaviour. Decades of research has shown that to these questions. Previous topics have our intentions in any context reflect three main explored the idea that much, and perhaps all, of determinants - attitudes, subjective norms and our knowledge is socially constructed, reflecting perceived behavioural control. Attitudes, in turn, the views of our parents, our peers, our teachers are determined by our values, knowledge and and the social system in which we live. beliefs. All of the various components of the According to the theory of planned behaviour, model are interconnected, but we can begin to two factors in addition to attitudes influence our understand food choices by examining some of intentions and, therefore, our behaviour. these components. The first of these, subjective norms, reflect what you believe other people who are important to you think about a given topic. You might believe, due to your upbringing, that eating meat is perfectly OK, but if you move to a new environment and find yourself surrounded by vegans you might choose not to eat animal products rather than have to explain yourself all the time and risk being ostracised by the social group. Subjective norms can be really important in terms of determining behaviour – which is why advertising agencies use movie stars and other influential people to advertise their products. Attitudes towards consumption of animal products To begin with, think about your general attitude towards eating animal products. Is your overall attitude positive or negative? If your attitude is negative, it might be because you believe that animal products are bad for your health, because you know that they taste terrible or make you fat, or because you value justice or freedom or good welfare for animals and do not believe that eating animal products is consistent with these values. Those who have a positive attitude towards eating animal products are likely to have different The second factor likely to influence your beliefs, to know different things, or to have intentions and, hence, your behaviour, is different values. You may believe that humans perceived behavioural control. This refers to how are supposed to eat animals and that it is healthy much control you think you have over your to do so. You may know that most farm animals behaviour. You might decide that you do not want to eat animal products, but if you live at are well cared for and you may value your right home and your mother cooks all your meals, or you live somewhere else where your meals are or fewer animal products? This is something you provided, then you may not really have much need to decide for yourself. perceived control over what you eat. Similarly, even dedicated meat eaters might find it hard to Summary obtain animal products in some countries. They may have a positive attitude towards eating In this topic we examined what it means to use animal products and they may be with a group animals as consumable resources, using of friends who all think similarly, but if the local consumption of animal products as an example. cooks do not share their views, they may not be The main objective was to convince you that this able to control their food choices. Of course, in topic is far more complicated than you might this situation some people would value eating previously have imagined. Most people in meat to such a degree that they might be Western cultures believe that it is perfectly prepared to spend a great deal to obtain the desired product, but for others it would be easier acceptable to use animals for our own purposes, to form an intention not to eat meat in this although it is becoming increasingly common circumstance. for consumers to seek reassurances that the animals concerned are being cared for in an It seems, then, that psychological variables play appropriate way. This is something we will an important role in determining our food consider in a later topic. Others believe either choices, which inevitably reflect who we are, that we should not use animals at all or, what we have been taught and what we believe. conversely, that we can do whatever we want. This is exactly why animal rights groups target our beliefs and values with their campaigns and It seems likely that an initial decision by some why animal industries do the same thing. On the humans to consume animal products was a one hand we have animal industry groups trying good one, resulting in a clear survival to convince us that different animal products are advantage that led to genes associated with good for us, that animals on farms are basically meat-eating spreading throughout much of the happy and well cared for and that people who human population. Nonetheless, the fact that we respect, like doctors and movie stars, eat individuals and entire cultures currently survive meat. On the other we have animal welfare without relying on consumption of animal organisations telling us that animal products are products indicates that meat-eating is a choice, bad for us, that animals on farms are very not an inevitable outcome of our evolutionary unhappy and that people who we respect process. According to the theory of planned choose not to eat meat. This can result in behaviour, how we act is largely a product of general confusion, although it is well known that our upbringing and psychological variables like most of us are more likely to be influenced by our beliefs, our attitudes, our values and our information that is consistent with what we perceptions of what other people think. This already believe. Someone who believes really explains why most of us currently choose to strongly that eating meat is terrible is most consume animal products, and it also explains likely to focus on campaigns that confirm this why our current practices are resistant to belief and may not even see the others, while change. The exact same logic applies to our use someone who believes that meat eating is just of animals as resources in other context, such fine will focus on the opposite campaign. as sport, science and even as pets. This is Producing any kind of sustained change in our something you might like to reflect on as you behaviour generally takes decades, and it continue through this subject. requires a strong commitment from government, as well as individuals. Should we be spending more time critically analysing our food choices and making changes that will enhance the capacity of the planet to sustain us? Of course! And would this involve eating more  References and/or supplementary resources Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. Conari Press. Olmert, M. D. (2010). Made For Each Other: The Biology of The Human-Animal Bond. Da Capo Press. Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114-128. Ruhl, J. B. (2000). Farms, their environmental harms, and environmental law. Ecology Law Quarterly, 27, 263. Stanford, C. (2001). Meat-eating and human evolution. Cambridge University Press.