ArticleInternational review of social psychology2024
Revisiting the Motivated Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Food: Replication Registered Report of Bastian et al. ().
Article in International review of social psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disentangling the meat paradox: A comparative review of meat-related conflicts across dietary behaviours.The British journal of social psychology · 2026Review
- The Impact of Advertising Image Types on Consumer Purchasing Behavior of Fresh Agricultural Products.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Revisiting partition priming in judgement under uncertainty: replication and extension Registered Report of Fox and Rottenstreich (2003).Royal Society open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bastian et al. (2012) argued that the meat paradox-caring for animals yet eating them-creates a tension between people's moral standards (caring for animals) and their behavior (eating them) that can be resolved via mechanisms of motivated moral disengagement. One disengagement mechanism that is thought to play a central role is the denial of food-animal minds and therefore their status as moral patients. This idea has garnered substantial interest and has framed much of the psychological approach to meat consumption. We subjected Studies 1 and 2 of Bastian et al. (2012) to high-powered direct replications and found support for the target article's hypotheses, concluding a successful replication. Perceptions of animals' minds were negatively related to their perceived edibility (original:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.