Students Eat Less Meat After Studying Meat Ethics.

IF 1.8 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Eric Schwitzgebel, Bradford Cokelet, Peter Singer
{"title":"Students Eat Less Meat After Studying Meat Ethics.","authors":"Eric Schwitzgebel,&nbsp;Bradford Cokelet,&nbsp;Peter Singer","doi":"10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the first controlled, non-self-report studies to show an influence of university-level ethical instruction on everyday behavior, Schwitzgebel et al. (2020) and Jalil et al. (2020) found that students purchase less meat after exposure to material on the ethics of eating meat. We sought to extend and conceptually replicate this research. Seven hundred thirty students in three large philosophy classes read James Rachels' (2004) \"Basic Argument for Vegetarianism\", followed by 50-min small-group discussions. Half also viewed a vegetarianism advocacy video containing factory farm footage. A few days after instruction, 54% of students agreed that \"eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical\", compared to 37% before instruction, with no difference between the film and non-film conditions. Also, 39% of students anonymously pledged to avoid eating factory farmed meat for 24 h, again with no statistically detectable difference between conditions. Finally, we obtained 2828 campus food purchase receipts for 113 of the enrolled students who used their Student ID cards for purchases on campus, which we compared with 5033 purchases from a group of 226 students who did not receive the instruction. Meat purchases remained constant in the comparison group and declined among the students exposed to the material, falling from 30% to 23% of purchases overall and from 51% to 42% of purchases of $4.99 or more, with the effect possibly larger in the film condition.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0.</p>","PeriodicalId":47055,"journal":{"name":"Review of Philosophy and Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8571006/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Philosophy and Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In the first controlled, non-self-report studies to show an influence of university-level ethical instruction on everyday behavior, Schwitzgebel et al. (2020) and Jalil et al. (2020) found that students purchase less meat after exposure to material on the ethics of eating meat. We sought to extend and conceptually replicate this research. Seven hundred thirty students in three large philosophy classes read James Rachels' (2004) "Basic Argument for Vegetarianism", followed by 50-min small-group discussions. Half also viewed a vegetarianism advocacy video containing factory farm footage. A few days after instruction, 54% of students agreed that "eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical", compared to 37% before instruction, with no difference between the film and non-film conditions. Also, 39% of students anonymously pledged to avoid eating factory farmed meat for 24 h, again with no statistically detectable difference between conditions. Finally, we obtained 2828 campus food purchase receipts for 113 of the enrolled students who used their Student ID cards for purchases on campus, which we compared with 5033 purchases from a group of 226 students who did not receive the instruction. Meat purchases remained constant in the comparison group and declined among the students exposed to the material, falling from 30% to 23% of purchases overall and from 51% to 42% of purchases of $4.99 or more, with the effect possibly larger in the film condition.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0.

Abstract Image

学习肉类伦理后,学生少吃肉。
Schwitzgebel et al.(2020)和Jalil et al.(2020)在第一个显示大学道德教育对日常行为影响的受控非自我报告研究中发现,学生在接触了有关吃肉道德的材料后,购买的肉类减少了。我们试图扩展并在概念上复制这项研究。730名学生在三个大的哲学课上读了詹姆斯·雷切尔斯的书(2004)“素食主义的基本论点”,之后是50分钟的小组讨论。一半的人还观看了包含工厂化农场镜头的素食主义宣传视频。授课几天后,54%的学生同意“吃工厂化养殖动物的肉是不道德的”,而在授课前,这一比例为37%,在拍摄电影和非拍摄电影的情况下没有区别。此外,39%的学生匿名承诺在24小时内不吃工厂养殖的肉类,同样没有统计上的差异。最后,我们获得了113名使用学生证在校园里购物的学生的2828张校园食品购买收据,与此相比,226名没有收到指示的学生的5033张校园食品购买收据。在对照组中,肉类的购买量保持不变,但在接触材料的学生中购买量有所下降,从30%下降到23%,从51%下降到42%,购买4.99美元或以上的商品,在看电影的情况下,影响可能更大。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,下载地址:10.1007/s13164-021-00583-0。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Review of Philosophy and Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: The Review of Philosophy and Psychology is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on philosophical and foundational issues in cognitive science. The aim of the journal is to provide a forum for discussion on topics of mutual interest to philosophers and psychologists and to foster interdisciplinary research at the crossroads of philosophy and the sciences of the mind, including the neural, behavioural and social sciences. The journal publishes theoretical works grounded in empirical research as well as empirical articles on issues of philosophical relevance. It includes thematic issues featuring invited contributions from leading authors together with articles answering a call for papers. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology is published quarterly and is hosted at the Jean Nicod Institute, a research centre of the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. It was formerly published as the "European Review of Philosophy" by CSLI Publications, Stanford.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信