"Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others": The Role of Animal Category in Judgments of Sadistic Harm

Animal harm often results in lenient legal responses, with prosecutions primarily targeting offenses against companion animals, while cases involving farm animals remain significantly underreported. This study examined pet-favoritism bias in moral judgments, highlighting how animal category can shape perceptions of cruelty. Participants (N = 569) evaluated sadistic harm toward either pet or farm animals by rating proposed prison sentences and moral condemnation. They also reported pet ownership, dietary habits, political orientation, religiosity, and beliefs about human superiority. The results confirmed pet-favoritism, with harm to pets prompting greater moral condemnation and harsher punishment. Moderation analyses showed this bias was more pronounced among meat-eaters, non-pet owners, and those who believed in human superiority. We discuss the mechanisms underlying more lenient judgments of animal harm.