Selective Moral Leniency Toward Culturally Embedded Animal Exploitation: The Role of Identity and Ideology

Moral concern for animals is widely endorsed, yet people appear to make exceptions for practices of animal exploitation rooted in their own cultural traditions. In two studies (total N = 1,318), we tested whether support for culturally embedded practices of animal exploitation varies with cultural ingroup-outgroup origin as well as with ideological and identity-based factors. Across the United States (Study 1), Norway, Spain, and Australia (Study 2), participants consistently supported their own country’s (ingroup) practice more than the foreign (outgroup) practices; for example, Norwegian participants supported whaling more than kangaroo hunting or bullfighting, suggesting culturally selective moral leniency. Furthermore, right-wing authoritarianism and national identification showed specific associations with support for ingroup practices, whereas social dominance orientation was associated with broader support for animal exploitation (including higher speciesism). These findings offer insight into why contested animal practices persist, revealing that evaluations of animal exploitation vary systematically with cultural group membership and ideological orientations.