Children Prioritize Humans Over Animals Less Than Adults Do

Abstract

Is the tendency to morally prioritize humans over animals weaker in children than adults? In two preregistered studies (total N = 622), 5- to 9-year-old children and adults were presented with moral dilemmas pitting varying numbers of humans against varying numbers of either dogs or pigs and were asked who should be saved. In both studies, children had a weaker tendency than adults to prioritize humans over animals. They often chose to save multiple dogs over one human, and many valued the life of a dog as much as the life of a human. Although they valued pigs less, the majority still prioritized 10 pigs over one human. By contrast, almost all adults chose to save one human over even 100 dogs or pigs. Our findings suggest that the common view that humans are far more morally important than animals appears late in development and is likely socially acquired.

Tree‐Huggers Versus Human‐Lovers: Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization Predict Valuing Nature Over Outgroups

“…During the course of childhood, the moral circle does not expand to increasingly include more dissimilar entities. In forced-choice tasks where participants are made to choose between saving humans and saving animals, relative value for animals gradually decreases between childhood and adulthood (Wilks, Caviola, Kahane, & Bloom, 2021). In non-forcedchoice tasks, overall moral expansiveness does not vary across child development.…”

Speciesism in everyday language

“…The data largely supported both hypotheses, providing evidence of anthropocentric and companion animal speciesism in everyday language. In doing so, they echo the greater moral concern people express for humans over animals (Caviola et al, 2018;Crimston et al, 2016;Gray et al, 2007;Wilks et al, 2020) and the unique status we afford companion animals (Leite et al, 2019;Krings et al, in press;Possidónio et al, 2019). They also align with qualitative work highlighting how companion animals can be considered 'like a person' (Voith et al, 1992).…”

“…Collective linguistic representations of the sort we identified reflect an ecological manifestation of human psychology (Caliskan et al, 2017) that, in turn, is likely to have the power to shape how people think (Caliskan & Lewis, 2020;Sutton, 2010). This helps explain why speciesism is so commonplace (Caviola et al, 2018;Dhont et al, 2020) and why children show signs of becoming more speciesist with age (Wilks et al, 2020). This also suggests that efforts to tackle speciesism on environmental or ethical grounds need to consider the ways in which we speak and write about animals.…”

“…Hypothesis 1 derives from the idea that humans are valued more than animals (anthropocentric speciesism). This perspective entails that humans hold a privileged moral status over companion animals, appealing wild animals, food animals, and unappealing wild animals (Caviola et al, 2018;Crimston et al, 2016;Gray et al, 2007;Wilks et al, 2020); and predicts that words denoting humans will be more strongly associated with words denoting concern (vs. indifference) and value (vs. valuelessness) than they are with words denoting companion animals, appealing wild animals, food animals, and unappealing wild animals. Hypothesis 2 derives from the idea that companion animals are valued more than other animals (companion animal speciesism).…”

How Effective Altruism Can Help Psychologists Maximize Their Impact

“…First, EA and the field of psychology share many values and practices: both are committed to improving the world and rely on evidence-based decisions for best practices. Second, psychological research can help us understand why people are ineffective as altruists (for a review, see Caviola et al, 2021).…”