“Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others”: The Role of Animal Category in Judgments of Sadistic Harm

StatusPost-Print
Simple item page
cris.lastimport.scopus2026-02-04T04:10:16Z
dc.abstract.enAnimal harm often results in lenient legal responses, with prosecutions primarily targeting offenses against companion animals, while cases involving farm animals remain significantly underreported. This study examined pet‐favoritism bias in moral judgments, highlighting how animal category can shape perceptions of cruelty. Participants (N = 569) evaluated sadistic harm toward either pet or farm animals by rating proposed prison sentences and moral condemnation. They also reported pet ownership, dietary habits, political orientation, religiosity, and beliefs about human superiority. The results confirmed petfavoritism, with harm to pets prompting greater moral condemnation and harsher punishment. Moderation analyses showed this bias was more pronounced among meat‐eaters, non–pet owners, and those who believed in human superiority. We discuss the mechanisms underlying more lenient judgments of animal harm.
dc.affiliationInstytut Psychologii
dc.affiliationWydział Psychologii w Sopocie
dc.contributor.authorRabinovitch, Aleksandra
dc.contributor.authorTołopiło, Aleksandra
dc.date.access2027-01-14
dc.date.accessioned2026-02-03T08:54:09Z
dc.date.available2026-02-03T08:54:09Z
dc.date.created2026-01-08
dc.date.issued2026-01-14
dc.description.abstract<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title> <jats:p> Animal harm often results in lenient legal responses, with prosecutions primarily targeting offenses against companion animals, while cases involving farm animals remain significantly underreported. This study examined pet‐favoritism bias in moral judgments, highlighting how animal category can shape perceptions of cruelty. Participants ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic>  = 569) evaluated sadistic harm toward either pet or farm animals by rating proposed prison sentences and moral condemnation. They also reported pet ownership, dietary habits, political orientation, religiosity, and beliefs about human superiority. The results confirmed pet‐favoritism, with harm to pets prompting greater moral condemnation and harsher punishment. Moderation analyses showed this bias was more pronounced among meat‐eaters, non–pet owners, and those who believed in human superiority. We discuss the mechanisms underlying more lenient judgments of animal harm. </jats:p>
dc.description.accesstimeafter_publication
dc.description.grantnumber2019/33/B/HS6/02830
dc.description.granttitleIndywidualizacja zwierząt i jej związek z instrumentalnym traktowaniem zwierząt przez dorosłych i dzieci
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.physical1-7
dc.description.sdgReducedInequalities
dc.description.sdgLifeOnLand
dc.description.versionfinal_author
dc.description.volume52
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ab.70058
dc.identifier.eissn1098-2337
dc.identifier.issn0096-140X
dc.identifier.urihttps://share.swps.edu.pl/handle/swps/2169
dc.identifier.weblinkhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.70058
dc.languageen
dc.pbn.affiliationpsychologia
dc.rightsEmbargo
dc.rights.questionYes_rights
dc.share.articleOPEN_REPOSITORY
dc.subject.endiet
dc.subject.enecological dominance orientation
dc.subject.enfarm animals
dc.subject.enfood animals
dc.subject.enmoral judgements
dc.subject.enpet animals
dc.subject.enpet‐owners
dc.subject.ensadistic harm
dc.swps.sciencecloudsend
dc.title“Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others”: The Role of Animal Category in Judgments of Sadistic Harm
dc.title.journalAggressive Behavior
dc.typeJournalArticle
dspace.entity.typeArticle