| Autor: |
Burke, Kelly C., Peter-Hagene, Liana C., Jones, Tayler M., Bottoms, Bette L., Amaravadi, Sankhya, Garcia, Brandon, Richardson, Kaitlynn, Sachdev, Kajal |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Humanistic Psychologist; Jun2023, Vol. 51 Issue 2, p207-217, 12p |
| Abstrakt: |
Little is known about the psychological factors that influence and explain public perceptions of animal abuse cases. We experimentally examined jury-eligible participants' reactions to scenarios involving animal (cat, dog) and, for comparison, human (baby, woman) victims. Our theoretical goal was understanding the potentially different role of moral outrage in punishment decisions for animal versus human victims. Results revealed that participants were morally outraged at the abuse of both humans and animals--equally for woman, cat, and dog victims, and especially so for a baby--yet the psychological antecedents differed. In human abuse cases, moral outrage was driven by participants' perception of the immorality of the abuse; in animal cases, moral outrage was driven by perceptions of victims' suffering. As predicted, the more morally outraged, the more participants favored a prison sentence for the perpetrator, but the relation differed somewhat by victim type. Of note, although participants were morally outraged by all instances of abuse, they were less likely to favor prison sentences for perpetrators of animal rather than human abuse. Legal and theoretical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
