Multiple studies have found age-related differences in moral attitudes toward animals. Children have been shown to give more priority to animals over humans than adults, and to consider a wider array of characteristics when judging the moral worth of animals. Other studies have found that speciesism increases as children grow into adulthood. Some researchers have speculated that this happens because children who eat meat face meat-related conflict as they grow up and learn more about the food system. To reduce this conflict, they must justify their continued eating of meat.

However, many of these studies were conducted only in the U.K. and used relatively small groups of participants, so it’s difficult to know whether they’ll generalize to other populations. The goal of this study was to replicate this past work on age-related differences in Germany with a much wider age range.

The researchers surveyed 507 German residents between the ages of eight and 74. The breakdown of the sample was as follows:

• 116 children (ages eight to 11)
• 125 adolescents (ages 12 to 18)
• 128 emerging adults (ages 19 to 29)
• 138 adults (ages 30 and older)

Regardless of age, most participants were omnivores: 84% of children, 82% of adolescents, 58% of emerging adults, and 58% of adults.

Adults completed the survey online, while children and adolescents filled it out in person at school. Respondents answered how okay or not okay they thought it was to eat animals on a scale of one to six, and then gave a written justification for their answer.

Depending on their answer to the first question, respondents were grouped into one of three categories: okay with eating meat, not okay with eating meat, or ambivalent about eating meat.

Consistent with past research, the study found age-related differences. Children were more likely to be not okay with eating meat (36%) than okay with it (13%). But for adolescents, the opposite was true: they were more likely to be okay with eating meat (36%) than not okay with it (19%). Ambivalence — not clearly in favor of or opposed to eating meat — was high across the board: 51% of children, 45% of adolescents, 40% of emerging adults, and 32% of adults.

Additionally, children and adults tended to give different types of justifications. For instance, children were more likely than adults to give reasons related to animal rights, with statements such as “You don’t want to be eaten either.” Conversely, adults were more likely than children to refer to the naturalness of eating meat, with arguments like “It is in human nature to eat meat.”

Adolescents were somewhat intermediate in their justifications. Like children, they were more likely than adults to cite animal rights reasons. But similar to adults, they were more likely than children to make arguments about naturalness. Interestingly, emerging adults and adults showed similar reasoning. This suggests that justifications for eating meat might stabilize with age, though further longitudinal research is needed.

Not surprisingly, responses from ambivalent participants revealed their uncertainty. They were less likely than those okay with eating meat to consider it natural or necessary. They were also more likely than participants either in favor of or opposed to eating meat to give dual-sided instead of one-sided arguments — that is, ambivalent participants gave reasons both for and against eating meat.

Overall, this study adds to a growing body of evidence that children’s moral views about animals are notably different from adults. Because children eventually become adults, preventing young people’s views from changing could present a promising opportunity for animal advocates. The findings also highlight that outreach to people of any age with ambivalent attitudes about eating meat could be most effective when it builds on their pre-existing concerns.