Tree-Huggers Versus Human-Lovers: Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization Predict Valuing Nature Over Outgroups

Area of Science:

• Moral Psychology
• Social Cognition
• Environmental Psychology

Background:

• Previous research on moral concern focused on aggregate moral worth, potentially masking individual differences in valuing diverse entities.
• Trade-offs in valuing different entities suggest that overall moral expansiveness may not capture nuanced individual moral priorities.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate individual differences in moral valuation, specifically comparing those who prioritize nature ('tree-huggers') versus outgroup humans ('human-lovers').
• To test whether prioritizing nature or outgroups correlates with aggregate levels of moral concern.
• To examine how attributions of mental capacities to animals and humans differ between these groups.

Main Methods:

• Conducted three studies with 985 participants to assess moral valuation of animals, ecosystems, and human outgroups.
• Measured aggregate levels of moral concern and specific patterns of mind attribution (anthropomorphism and dehumanization).

Main Results:

• Over one-third of participants demonstrated a preference for valuing nature over human outgroups.
• Prioritizing animals and nature did not correlate with higher overall moral concern; 'tree-huggers' and 'human-lovers' showed similar aggregate moral worth.
• 'Tree-huggers' exhibited increased anthropomorphism (attributing minds to animals) and decreased dehumanization (attributing fewer minds to outgroups).

Conclusions:

• Individual differences in moral valuation exist, with some prioritizing the natural world over marginalized human groups.
• Aggregate moral concern levels do not differentiate between those who extend moral value to nature versus human outgroups.
• Distinct patterns of mind attribution, including anthropomorphism and dehumanization, underlie these differing moral valuation strategies, necessitating a reconceptualization of moral concern.