Attitudes towards eating animals vary widely, and previous research shows that people’s choices may differ based on both individual and broader societal factors. Some think humans have a natural right to use other animals as resources, while others believe non-human animals have the same right to life as humans. These perspectives represent a spectrum of speciesism — the idea that some species of animals, like humans, have more moral worth than others.

Research has shown that reasons why people justify eating animals fall into four general categories: the “4 Ns.” People who eat animals may believe doing so is natural, normal (common), necessary for their health, and/or nice (in terms of taste). In this study, the researchers wanted to look deeper into how attitudes towards animals differ on both cultural and individual levels.

23 Countries, Three Topics, One Survey

The authors surveyed 20,996 people across 23 countries, with just under 1,000 participants per country. Drawing on cultural distinctions made in a previous study, they categorized eight countries as Eastern and 14 as Western, leaving Russia unclassified due to its mixed status as similarly East and West.

The survey covered three topics: speciesism, the 4 Ns, and belief in animal sentience. On a scale of one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree), participants ranked how much they agreed with statements like “Humans should be allowed to use farm animals as we want,” “It is natural to eat meat/seafood,” and “Farm animals are able to feel pain.” Before analyzing the responses, the researchers checked that the statements represented mostly the same meanings across cultures. In addition to comparing the broad cultural groups of East versus West, they evaluated individual countries to see if any differed from overall trends.

East/West Contrast Clearest On Speciesism

The researchers found that people in both the East and West mostly understood concepts of animal sentience and speciesism the same way. Respondents from Eastern countries agreed more strongly with statements prioritizing human needs and supporting the use of animals as resources. In comparison, people from Western countries were more likely to see animals as worthy by nature and deserving of greater concern. People from Western countries were also more likely to believe animals feel pain and emotions.

National And Individual Identities Play A Role, Too

Reasons for eating animals didn’t split as neatly along East versus West lines. Within both the East and West groups, levels of agreement with statements related to the 4 Ns varied widely. Why people eat animals might be better explained by specific cultural differences between countries: for example, people from India found it harder to rationalize eating animals, likely due to the prevalence of vegetarianism stemming from religious beliefs.

The researchers were surprised that the relationship between political orientation and speciesism was just as strong in the East as the West: People with more liberal views tended to have less speciesist views — that is, they believed more in animals’ ability to feel pain and emotions. Women also had less speciesist views, with the relationship between gender and speciesism being slightly stronger in the West. They didn’t find any meaningful relationship between age and speciesism for both the East and West.

Believing In Sentience May Cause Internal Conflict

As predicted, stronger understandings of animals’ ability to feel pain and emotions were associated with lower levels of speciesism. However, this awareness of sentience was also tied to beliefs that eating animals is more normal, natural, and nice in the West and even more so in the East. People may feel a stronger need to rationalize their decisions to eat animals to lessen the discomfort they feel in doing so — a phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance.

What Does This Mean For Animal Advocacy?

The regional generalizations in this study should be taken with caution. The survey didn’t include voices from regions with very different cultural traditions and values such as Africa or the Middle East. Even within the 23 countries studied, responses from each country reflected only a subset of views because they weren’t fully representative.

The authors acknowledge there may also be other unstudied factors that could explain people’s responses: for example, education or civil liberties like freedom of speech. While there’s certainly more to explore on why humans hold different attitudes about animals, this study offers insights into known factors that impact people’s beliefs, which can help frame more targeted advocacy.

People may eat animals for a variety of reasons, and the findings from this research emphasize how important it is to consider why people choose meat or other animal products when engaging in veg*n advocacy. As the study found, both cultural and individual factors shape their choices: Some people may find an affordability-oriented approach more compelling than one that appeals to their emotions. Making the effort to understand cultural norms that shape animal consumption can help ensure calls for change are attuned and respectful. Overall, embracing a tailored approach that goes beyond animal sentience and speaks to the audience’s 4 Ns could make a more resounding impact.