Recent research reveals that people show differential levels of moral concern between the natural world and human outgroups. Yet, this evidence that some individuals morally value non-humans to a greater extent than humans stems from limited U.S. samples, warranting broader investigation. Here, we present evidence from a pre-registered secondary analysis of multinational surveys, including college student samples (k = 42, N = 7,443) and nationally representative data from the World Values Survey and European Social Survey (k = 86, N = 640,178). Our findings indicate that at least 25% of individuals report valuing nature over humans, while roughly 35% state they prioritize humans over nature. National characteristics explain 5%-7% of variance in moral worth attributions, with preferential valuation of nature being partly attributable to greater country-level environmental performance and human development. Valuing nature over humans predicts pro-environmental attitudes and, to a lesser extent, outgroup bias. However, we did not find clear indications of inherent trade-offs between valuing nature and valuing humans. These findings stress the need to refine conceptual frameworks of moral concern, which could in turn provide insights for addressing a diverse array of urgent humanitarian and environmental challenges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Syropoulos et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: