The missing link in college student engagement research: What students want from their learning experience

The behavioral model underpinning national surveys of university students’ engagement (e.g., NSSE, AUSSE, UKES) considers students’ experiences but neglects their motivation. We surveyed undergraduates (N=1,772) about what they wanted from their university experience and how that has turned out. Using thematic analyses, the most common codes were explore subject (20% of students), apply learning (16%), nonspecific (12%), grow as person (11.5%), explore and apply (10%), interact with peers (8%) and interact with staff (4%). Findings showed significantly fewer black and minority ethnic (BME) students expressing explore subject and more BME students preferring apply learning experiences than white students. Students with explore subject, explore and apply hopes, or desire for grow as person tended to report their hopes fulfilled. Implications for research and practice are discussed

Animalizing women and feminizing (vegan) men: The psychological intersections of sexism, speciesism, meat, and masculinity

Images of sexualized women depicted as animals or alongside meat are routinely used in advertising in Western culture. Philosophers and feminist scholars have long theorized that such imagery reflects the lower status of both women and animals (vs. men) in society and argued that prejudiced attitudes towards women (i.e., sexism) and animals (i.e., speciesism) are interconnected, with meat‐eating as a core symbol of masculinity. Addressing these key ideas from ecofeminist theory, we review the psychological evidence on the associations between sexism, speciesism, meat, and masculinity. Research on the animalistic dehumanization of women provides evidence that sexism and speciesism are psychologically entangled and rooted in desires for group‐based dominance and inequality. Furthermore, research on the symbolic value of meat corroborates its masculine value expressing dominance and power, and suggests that men who abstain from meat consumption (e.g., vegans) are feminized and devalued, particularly by those higher in sexism. We conclude that a greater recognition of the interconnected nature of patriarchal gender relations and practices of animal exploitation, including meat‐eating, can help in efforts to improve the status of both women and animals

The Moral Divide between High- and Low-Status Animals: The Role of Human Supremacy Beliefs

People endorsing stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals typically show less moral concern for animals. Yet how people think about different types of animals also depends on the role of the animals in society. For instance, people are less concerned about food animals than about companion animals. It is unclear, however, how human supremacy beliefs relate to this perceived moral divide between different types of animals. In two survey studies conducted in samples of British adults (N = 196 and N = 256), we tested whether human supremacy beliefs are associated with a greater perceived moral divide between high-status animals such as companion animals and low-status animals such as food animals. In both studies, participants rated the extent to which they felt obligated to show moral concern to a range of animals and completed the human supremacy beliefs scale. As expected, the results showed that participants felt more moral concern for companion animals (e.g., dogs and cats) and appealing wild animals (e.g., dolphins and chimps) than for food animals (e.g., pigs and turkeys) and unappealing wild animals (e.g., frogs and bats). Critically, confirming our hypotheses, this moral divide between high- and low-status animals was significantly larger for those holding stronger human supremacy beliefs. Furthermore, the effect of human supremacy beliefs held after controlling for gender, age, diet, and social dominance orientation. These findings suggest that beliefs in human supremacy over animals may serve as a legitimizing strategy to preserve not only the existing human-animal hierarchy but also greater hierarchical divides between animals

Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: The Differential Roles of Human Supremacy Beliefs, Women’s Connection to Nature, and the Dehumanization of Women

Scholars have long argued that sexism is partly rooted in dominance motives over animals and nature, with women being perceived as more animal-like and more closely connected to nature than men. Yet systematic research investigating these associations is currently lacking. Five studies (total N=2,409) consistently show that stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals and nature were related to heightened hostile and benevolent sexism. Furthermore, perceiving women as more closely connected to nature than men was particularly associated with higher benevolent sexism, whereas subtle dehumanization of women was uniquely associated with higher hostile sexism. Blatant dehumanization predicted both types of sexism. Studies 3 and 4 highlight the roles of social dominance orientation and benevolent beliefs about nature underpinning these associations, while Study 5 demonstrates the implications for individuals’ acceptance of rape myths and policies restricting pregnant women’s freedom. Taken together, our findings reveal the psychological connections between gender relations and human-animal relations

Animalizing women and feminizing men: The psychological intersections of human supremacism, sexism, and anti-veganism

Ecofeminist scholars have proposed that oppressive attitudes towards women and animals are interrelated. This thesis uses quantitative methods to test predictions derived from ecofeminist theory that have thus far received little empirical attention in psychology. The first empirical chapter of this thesis, Chapter 2, investigates the associations between human supremacy beliefs over animals and nature, dehumanization of women, and ambivalent sexism. Across five studies (total N = 2,409), human supremacy beliefs were associated with hostile and benevolent sexism. Dehumanization of women was primarily associated with hostile sexism, whereas views of women as connected to nature were primarily associated with benevolent sexism. The results further demonstrated that Social Dominance Orientation as an underlying ideological factor partly explained the association between human supremacy beliefs and sexism and between dehumanization and hostile sexism, whereas benevolent beliefs about nature partly explained the association between women's connection to nature and benevolent sexism. The second empirical chapter, Chapter 3, focuses on the role of masculinity perceptions and gender role beliefs in the evaluation of plant-based meat alternatives. Across two experiments (total N = 484), images of identical meat dishes were evaluated more negatively when labelled as plant-based meat as opposed to regular meat, and this was partly explained by the lower perceived masculinity of plant-based meat dishes. The association between perceived masculinity and evaluations was stronger for participants higher (vs. lower) in traditional gender role beliefs. The third empirical chapter, Chapter 4, turns the focus onto the role of masculinity perceptions and gender role beliefs in bias towards vegetarian and vegan men. One correlational study and two experiments (total N = 1258) confirmed that bias towards vegetarian and vegan men is partly explained by their lower perceived masculinity, and that this link is stronger for those higher (vs. lower) in traditional gender role beliefs. Taken together, the findings of this thesis demonstrate that 1) beliefs about nature and animals, and about women in relation to nature and animals, are associated with gender-based prejudice and 2) beliefs about gender roles and perceptions of masculinity are associated with anti-vegan biases towards both plant-based meat alternatives and vegan men. Thus, this thesis adds to the growing body of literature showing that human intergroup and human-animal relations are meaningfully interconnected and can inform and expand each other

Individual differences in effective animal advocacy: Moderating effects of gender identity and speciesism

The present research examined whether personality and individual differences have practical implications for effective animal advocacy (i.e., how effective an animal advocacy message is) by exploring whether individual differences in gender identity, social dominance orientation, and speciesism moderate the effects of advocacy. An online study was conducted employing an experimental design (advocacy vs. control condition). 495 participants (120 men, 375 women) watched either an advocacy video showing chickens suffering on a free range egg farm or a control video (a lifestyle video showing the preparation of plant-based meals). Data were analyzed using MANOVA, ANOVAs, correlations, and moderated regression analyses. Results indicated that participants in the advocacy condition showed more positive attitudes toward chickens and less positive attitudes toward free range eggs, and also showed stronger intentions to reduce egg consumption, compared with participants in the control condition. Importantly, whereas social dominance orientation had no moderating effects, gender identity moderated the effect of advocacy on attitudes toward chickens: Only women, but not men, showed more positive attitudes in the advocacy compared with the control condition. Furthermore, speciesism moderated the effects of advocacy on attitudes toward free range eggs and on intentions to reduce egg consumption: Participants low in speciesism expressed less positive attitudes toward free range eggs and stronger intentions to reduce egg consumption in the advocacy compared with the control condition. These effects were weaker (attitudes) or nonsignificant (intentions) in participants high in speciesism. The findings suggest that some types of animal advocacy may work only for some people, but not others. The present research contributes to the understanding of the role that personality and individual differences play in human–animal relations and has relevance for practical efforts of animal advocacy to improve these relations, increase animal welfare, and reduce the use of animal products