Adolescents Are More Speciesist Than Adults

The moral judgements of society play a critical role in how food, including food originating from farmed animals, is consumed. These beliefs, such as whether some species have more value than others, shape food choices, policies, and ultimately the lives of billions of animals each year.

Moral views are not fixed. They develop over time under the influence of culture, peers, education, and lived experience. Adolescence, in particular, is a pivotal stage when individuals start balancing the values learned in childhood with the social norms of adulthood. Beliefs formed in this period may contribute to lifelong habits around diet and viewpoints about farmed animals. By studying the moral reasoning of adolescents versus adults, researchers can identify when and how attitudes towards animals shift.

In this study, the researchers compared 89 adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17 to 113 adults in the U.K., based on their:

• Levels of speciesism;
• Views on how well farmed animals should be treated;
• Moral evaluations of meat-eating; and
• Perceptions of how society categorizes farmed animals.

The biggest distinctions between the viewpoints of adolescents and adults were those regarding the moral worth of different species and the treatment of farmed animals, with adults scoring more sympathetically for both. Speciesism refers to the perception that some species have higher moral worth than others (e.g., “it is okay to test new medicines on animals that we wouldn’t test on humans”). Adolescents scored significantly higher than adults in believing the human moral worth is higher than that of other species. When it came to the evaluation of how well pigs (the stand-in for farmed animals) should be treated, the results were similar. Adolescents were less likely than adults to report that pigs ought to be treated well.

However, both groups judged meat-eating similarly, and adolescents were less likely than adults to say that most people categorize farmed animals as food. This may be a holdover from childhood beliefs, as children are more likely to view farmed animals as “pets” rather than “food.”

When asked why eating animals is (or isn’t) acceptable, both adolescents and adults frequently referred to “natural” and “necessary” reasons, such as biology or nutrition. Adults were more likely than adolescents to justify meat-eating with appeals to “humane slaughter” or social norms (“normal”). As other research has also indicated, these reasoning patterns suggest that by adolescence, many young people have already learned common adult justifications for meat consumption.

The authors propose that adolescence may be a key stage when increasing knowledge about food systems collides with moral concern for animals, creating “meat-related conflict.” One way adolescents may resolve this tension is by increasing speciesism and lowering moral concern for farmed animals in order to adapt to a meat-normative culture.

Interestingly, the authors believe that increased food systems knowledge (awareness of concentrated animal feeding operations, for example) may further exacerbate speciesism as a way to cope with this meat-related conflict.

The study had some limitations regarding the study population, which was predominantly a white, British sample and lacked socioeconomic data. However, the study size was specifically selected to ensure statistically significant results.

This research highlights adolescence as a critical period for shaping human-animal moral relationships. Interventions aiming to reduce speciesism and promote farmed animal welfare may need greater focus on this age group.