Moral decision‐making in pettism: The influence of animal type, pet ownership status, and social distance

AbstractSpeciesism prioritizes humans over animals and pets. Nevertheless, pet owners have a strong attachment bond with their pets, which makes their hierarchical view of pets less clear. Aiming to examine this issue, we present a dilemma involving animals and humans that allowed us to investigate whether animal type, social distance, and pet ownership status can affect moral decision‐making related to pets. Save‐willingness results showed that in the moral dilemmas of pets versus livestock versus wild animals (Studies 1a and 2a) and their own pets versus strangers (Studies 1b and 2b), pet owners prioritize pets whereas non‐owners prioritize pets (Studies 1a and 2a) and strangers (Studies 1b and 2b). Pet owners prefer to save pets more than do non‐owners (Study 1a), and this effect was only observed in females (Study 2a). Save‐decision results showed that in the moral dilemmas of pets versus livestock versus wild animals (Study 2a), pet owners prioritize pets whereas in the dilemmas of pets versus strangers (Study 2b), pet owners prioritize strangers. The same result was found in non‐owners. Pet owners prefer more than do non‐owners to save pets (Study 2). Overall, the separation of save‐willingness and save‐decision results revealed that pet owners show special speciesism (i.e., pettism).

Moral decision‐making in pettism: The influence of animal type, pet ownership status, and social distance Journal Articles