Mind your meat: Religious differences in the social perception of animals

While previous work demonstrated that animals are categorised based on their edibility, little research has systematically evaluated the role of religion in the perception of animal edibility, particularly when specific animals are deemed sacred in a religion. In two studies, we explored a key psychological mechanism through which sacred animals are deemed inedible by members of a faith: mind attribution. In Study 1, non-vegetarian Hindus in Singapore (N = 70) evaluated 19 animals that differed in terms of their sacredness and edibility. Results showed that participants categorised animals into three groups: holy animals (high sacredness but low edibility), food animals (low sacredness but high edibility) and neutral animals (low sacredness and low edibility). Holy animals were deemed to possess greater mental life compared to other animal categories. In Study 2, we replicated this key finding with Hindus in India (N = 100), and further demonstrated that the observed pattern of results was specific to Hindus but not Muslims (N = 90). In both studies, mind attribution mediated the negative association between sacredness and edibility. Our findings illustrate how religious groups diverge in animal perception, thereby highlighting the role of mind attribution as a crucial link between sacredness and edibility.     

Fans and Identity

ABSTRACT

This paper develops an understanding of the nature of sport fans that helps rebut the charge of nihilism leveled against identity anti-essentialism as represented in the work of Butler, Appiah, and Rorty. Through focusing on what Russell calls the ‘arbitrary’ yet committed nature of being a fan of sport (i.e. a fan’s fandom has a causal explanation not a reasoned justification but nonetheless deep meaning for the fan), I argue that we can see the anti-essentialist accounts of gender, race, and selfhood offered by Butler, Appiah, and Rorty respectively as claiming that this arbitrary, but at the same time meaningful, nature is consistent across all identities. Passionate commitment in the face of often self-consciously recognized arbitrary fandom exemplifies identity anti-essentialism, and it is in terms of it that the charge of nihilism against identity anti-essentialism (i.e. identity anti-essentialism makes identity insubstantial and politically ineffective) leveled by those such as Nussbaum, Habermas, and Rawls, is undercut. With that case made, I conclude on a political note. I observe that the rise and role of identity in contemporary politics, especially nativist, nationalist, and populist politics, can be both explained (at least in part) as well as defended against by seeing the growing acceptance among elites of identity anti-essentialism and its fan-like quality. Galvanizing many on the ‘right’ to fight elites by fighting against the identity anti-essentialism binding them together, it is by ‘doubling down’ on identity anti-essentialism and its embrace of the fan-like play of identity that hope lies in fighting against nativism, nationalism, and populism.     

A tool for investigating the differential functions of aggressive behavior in the face-to-face and cyber context: Extending the Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire

Aggressive behavior in the face-to-face and cyber contexts is driven by underlying aggression (i.e., functions of aggressive behavior). Common theories of aggression distinguish between reactive (e.g., rage) and proactive (e.g., seeking to achieve power and affiliation) aggression. However, according to the quadripartite violence typology, this distinction conflates aspects of motivational valence with self-regulatory processes. The Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire (CATQ; Runions et al., 2017, Aggress Behav, 43(1), pp. 74–84) overcomes this weakness by identifying four types of cyber-aggression (impulsive-aversive/rage, controlled-aversive/revenge, controlled-appetitive/reward, and impulsive-appetitive/recreation cyber-aggression). However, the CATQ only considers aggression in cyberspace. We extended the CATQ to the face-to-face context by developing a corresponding Face-to-Face Aggression Typology Questionnaire (FATQ). The aim of this study was to investigate factorial and convergent validity and metric measurement invariance between four-factorial cyber and face-to-face aggression. In total, 587 students from six Austrian universities filled out the CATQ, the FATQ, and additional scales during regular university lectures to examine convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the four-factor structure of both questionnaires, after excluding inconclusive items from the impulsive-aversive/rage subscale of the FATQ. These items were also removed from the CATQ to obtain two symmetric questionnaires. Metric measurement invariance between the CATQ and the FATQ was confirmed. Convergent validity was largely observed. Our results support an extended four-factor model of aggression. Having two parallel questionnaires, the FATQ and CATQ, enables future studies to investigate commonalities and differences in underlying drivers of aggressive behavior in the cyber and face-to-face contexts.