Tag Archives: Activism

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Bystander Effect

Paradoxically, the more people present when there is need for help, the less likely anyone is to help. Social psychologists refer to this as the bystander effect. It happens for at least two reasons. First, people pay less attention to their surroundings in a group setting. Second, people look to others on how to act.

There are conditions under which this effect is lessened. First, if there are no other bystanders, a single person is more likely to notice the situation, not get hung up on the reaction of others, take responsibility, and help. Secondly, in group situations, if one person acts, others are likely to follow suit.

Disrupting the bystander effect is essentially at the root of veganism. Modern society is bound by social norms of speciesism, and the propensity to follow group behavior renders vegan deviance unlikely. People look to friends, family, medical professionals, celebrities, and others to determine appropriate behavior. When that normalized behavior is encouraging society to ignore, hesitate, or refuse to help those nonhumans who suffer and die at human hands, it is then that vegans step in as bystanders to refuse their support and demand justice. If social norms can be fostered that make helping normal, the bystander effect can be thwarted.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Break the spell of bystander effect by acting first
  • Outreach that solicits action should target individuals not in group settings
  • Encourage prosocial group behavior to temper bystander effect

References

Bryan, J. and M. Test.  1967.  “Models and Helping:  Naturalistic Studies in Aiding Behavior.”   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6:  400-407.

Canter, D. J. Breaux, and J. Sime.  1980.  “Domestic, Multiple Occupancy, and Hospital Fires.”  In D. Canter (Ed.), Fires and Human Behavior.  Hoboken, NJ:  Wiley.

Latané, B. and J. Darley.  1968.  “Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10:  215-221.

Latané, B. and J. Darley.  1970.  The Unresponsive Bystander.  Why Doesn’t He Help?  New York, NY:  Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Schnall, S., J. Roper, and D. Fessler.  2010.  “Elevation Leads to Altruistic Behavior.”  Psychological Science 21:  315-320.

Rushton, J. and A. Campbell.  1977.  “Modeling, Vicarious Reinforcement and Extraversion on Blood Donating in Adults:  Immediate and Long-Term Effects.”  European Journal of Social Psychology 7:  267-306.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Bystander Effect

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Distraction

As any good magician knows, distraction is key to landing a trick successfully. Activists can benefit from distraction as well. Research finds that audience members who are distracted are more likely to accept a message and are less likely to counterargue (Keating and Brock 1974, Osterhouse and Brock 1970).

Alternatively, advertisements steeped in violence and/or sex run the risk of being too distracting.  People who view commercials featuring either or both of these elements are less likely to remember what the advertised brand was (Bushman 2007). This is damning information for a great deal of vegan outreach efforts. For instance, PETA’s “I’d Rather Go Naked Than” campaign distracts from an anti-speciesist message with rampant nudity. Social psychologists in Australia have measured that PETA’s audience members are less likely to absorb the message due to the distraction caused by sexualization. It’s not just the naked bodies that distract, it’s also the misogyny.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Ensure that tactics do not distract from the message
  • Avoid too much music, light, acting, sexualization, and violence which can distract
  • Avoid sexist campaigning

References

Bongiorno, R., Bain, P., Haslam, N. 2013. “When Sex Doesn’t Sell: Using Sexualized Images of Women Reduces Support for Ethical Campaigns.”PLOS One. 

Bushman, B.  2007.  “That Was a Great Commercial, But What Were They Selling?  Effects of Violence and Sex on Memory for Products in Television Commercials.”  Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37:  1784-1796.

Keating, J. and T. Brock.  1974.  “Acceptance of Persuasion and the Inhibition of Counterargumentation Under Various Distraction Tasks.”  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10:  301-309.

Osterhouse, R. and T. Brock.  1970.  “Distraction Increases Yielding to Propaganda by Inhibiting Counterarguing.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 15:  344-358.

Regan, D. and J. Cheng.  1973.  “Distraction and Attitude Change:  A Resolution.”  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9:  138-147.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Distraction

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Forewarning

Forewarning creates resistance (Freedman and Sears 1965). If an audience is warned ahead of time that they are about to be exposed to a persuasion attempt, it is less likely that they will be persuaded. In the courtroom, for instance, if a defense attorney warns the jury of the prosecution’s upcoming evidence, potential attitude change can be mitigated (Dolnik et al. 2003).

What this means for vegan activism is that a “surprise attack” should be more effective. Vegan Outreach successfully employs this tactic by hiring unassuming college-aged advocates to quietly hand out booklets to students during the rush between classes. Students usually accept the booklets without any interaction with the Vegan Outreach employee. It is only as they flip through the material en route to class that they are presented with the case for vegetarianism. Other groups prevent forewarning by offering free vegan cookies or cupcakes to passerby. It is only after the treat is tasted that activists divulge that it was actually vegan and offer them animal liberation literature.

Sneaky advocacy is sometimes the more effective approach. If people know that a persuasion attempt is imminent, they will fortify their mental defenses so as not to budge. While there is something to be said for being straightforward (recall that the mere-exposure effect illustrates that familiarity with a message increases positive association), forewarning may not be helpful when giving a one-time presentation

In general, avoiding forewarning is advised when activists know they will be dealing with a stubborn audience. In the Freedman and Sears (1965) study, the title of the presentation was all it took to dissuade the audience. Thus, activists might avoid titles such as, “Why You Should Be Vegan.”

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Do not forewarn audience that a persuasion attempt is imminent
  • For outreach events, do not use titles that suggest a persuasion attempt

References

Dolnik, L., T. Case, and K. Williams.  2003.  “Stealing Thunder as a Courtroom Tactic Revisted:  Processes and Boundaries.”  Law and Human Behavior 27:  265-285.

Freedman, J. and D. Sears.  1965.  “Warning, Distraction, and Resistance to Influence.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1:  262-266.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Forewarning

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Age

Diversity in the activist’s audience means that there will be no one-size-fits-all tactic. This essay examines how changes in an individual’s lifespan can shape their receptiveness to a vegan message.

For the most part, attitudes are generational (Sears 1976). Belief systems formed in youth tend to hold constant throughout an individual’s life. Research supports that attitudes are most malleable in one’s teens and early twenties (Krosnick, J. and D. Alwin 1989). Older individuals are certainly not immune to cultural shifts and can experience liberal attitude change as well (Danigelis and Cutler 1991), but it will be a trickier task.

This explains why many vegan outreach organizations target college students. Given that resources are so limited, it makes sense to focus efforts on a younger audience. This is not to say that efforts would be lost on other audiences, but if the choice must be made between leafleting on a college campus and a community center, the college campus would probably extract a greater return.

The fact that cultural shifts can influence those who are more resistant to attitude change is also promising. For instance, research finds that those who were already past their twenties during the civil rights era were still measurably less conservative. In other words, older people may have missed the wave, but the societal changes that resulted had at least some impact on most everyone. Focusing on the younger population will therefore have a direct impact on that younger audience, but it should have an indirect impact on older individuals as well.

Finally, to completely exclude older persons would be problematic given that such a strategy relies on inaccurate stereotypes of older persons as set in their ways and close-minded. Because veganism entails a healthful plant-based diet, older persons could benefit greatly from vegan outreach. The mental health gains associated with a more just relationship with other animals would also be a positive asset. Outreach strategies that are too exclusive risk replicating inequality. Veganism should be made available to everyone.

 

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Target teens and young adults
  • Be mindful of ageism and do not stereotype or exclude older audiences

References

Danigelis, N. and S. Cutler.  1991.  “An Inter-Cohort Comparison of Changes in Racial Attitudes.”  Research on Aging 13 (3):  383-404.

Krosnick, J. and D. Alwin.  1989.  “Aging and Susceptibility to Attitude Change.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57:  416-425.

Sears, D.  Life Stage Effects Upon Attitude Change, Especially Among the Elderly.  Manuscript prepared for Workshop on the Elderly of the Future, Committee on Aging, National Research Council, Annapolis, MD, May 3-5.

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.


Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights. Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Age

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Decision Paralysis


Decision paralysis occurs when there is simply too much choice. People become overloaded, and, thus, make no decision at all (Heath and Heath 2010). Less choice is actually better than more choice (Swartz 2004). Consider one experiment in which one in-store display provided samples of a few jams, while another displayed many jams. When customers had too many jams to pick from, they were less likely to purchase. It was too hard to come to a decision.

What is more, the availability of alternatives means that those decisions that are made tend to be less satisfying due to the tendency to look back on “what could have been.” It’s hard to fully appreciate that strawberry jam when the blueberry, huckleberry, and blackberry jams are still hanging over one’s shoulder.

This information is particularly damning for how Nonhuman Animal rights is typically framed.  In an article I published in Food, Culture & Society, I argue that professionalized Nonhuman Animal rights groups offer way too much choice. At any given time, for example, PETA, Mercy for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, and Farm Sanctuary are offering ten or more campaigns for audiences to support. The reason they do this is probably to increase their fundraising, but it likely overloads their audiences to the point of inaction. Could the movement be more successful if it focused on veganism, the choice with the biggest impact?

Even on a smaller scale, vegan activists can prevent decision paralysis by practicing minimalism in tabling. Rather than loading up the display area with a litany of books, pamphlets, and fliers, keep it simple.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Condense available campaign choices
  • Condense available outreach material
  • Minimalize vegan recipe and product recommendations

References

C. Heath and D. Heath.  2010.  Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard.  New York, NY:  Broadway Books.

Shwartz.  2004.  The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less.  Harper Perennial.

Wrenn, C. 2013. “A Critique of Single-Issue Campaigning and the Importance of Comprehensive Abolitionist Vegan Advocacy.”  Food, Culture & Society 16 (4): 251-668.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Decision Paralysis

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Gendered Helping

Social psychology finds that social norms will determine helping behaviors, but social norms certainly vary across genders in Western society. Dangerous situations or those involving strangers are more likely to elicit help from men than women, for instance (Eagly and Crowley 1986). This is not only a result of men and women’s different socialization experiences, but also due to the reality that women are disproportionately victimized by violence, which necessitates that they be wary in many situations.

In less dangerous situations, however, women are slightly more likely to help and to act selflessly (Becker and Eagly 2004). Women tend to respond with greater empathy and to devote more time to helping (George et al. 1998). These tendencies relate to longheld social expectations that women be care-takers and highly relational.

Gendered helping is clearly evident in activism for other animals. Activism that is seen as dangerous, risky, and heroic–namely illegal direct action–is disproportionately undertaken by men. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF), for instance, is dominated by men and engages in activity that risks severe legal sanctions (Hall 2006). The necessary and practical groundwork of Nonhuman Animal advocacy, however, that which requires prolonged helping, is largely undertaken by women.

As much as 80% of the animal rights movement today is female (Gaarder 2011), and this feminization is rooted in a conscious effort by earlier activists to embed gender into social norms about helping. Traditionally confined to the domestic sphere, Victorian women were actually able to exploit the “natural nurturer” stereotypes attached to them as justification for their involvement in animal rights advocacy. This concession was necessary in a time when social activism was deemed unladylike.

Unfortunately, prevailing gender inequality has ensured that masculine helping tends to garner more prestige than feminine helping. ALF enjoys a certain celebrity in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement, and if not outright condoned, their actions are at least tolerated. Meanwhile, the everyday drudgery work undertaken by the female majority goes largely unappreciated despite women’s more enduring contributions. Masculine gender norms, while favorable to an activist’s status in a patriarchal world, can be particularly detrimental to men as well. Not only does engaging in illegal activity leave men susceptible to enormous restitution fees or prison sentences, but the violence celebrated within the militant movement is also toxic for men’s mental and physical well-being.

 

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Acknowledge that women’s ability to help can be inhibited by sexism and misogyny
  • Celebrate and acknowledge women’s contributions
  • Challenge hypermasculine tactics


References

Becker, S. and A. Eagly.  2004.  “The Heroism of Women and Men.”  American Psychologist 59:  163-178.

Eagly, A. and M. Crowley.  1986.  “Gender and Helping Behavior:  A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature.”  Psychological Bulletin 100:  283-308.

Gaarder, E.  2011.  Women and the Animal Rights Movement.  New Brunswick, NJ:  Rutgers University Press.

George, D., P. Carroll, R. Kersnick, K. Calderon.  1998.  “Gender-Related Patterns of Helping Among Friends.”  Psychology of Women Quarterly 22:  685-704.

Hall, L.  2006.  Capers in the Churchyard:  Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror.  Nectar Bat Press.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Gendered Helping

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Haste

Whether or not an individual is in a hurry will determine their likelihood of helping. In one study, Darley and Batson (1973) presented an experimental group with a lecture on the importance of being a Good Samaritan, while the control group was given no talk on helping. Participants were then told to attend another meeting in a building nearby. In doing so, they would pass a research confederate in a situation of need. Interestingly, whether or not the participant had received a Good Samaritan lecture prior to passing the confederate did not predict if they would stop to help. Neither did personal religiosity. What actually predicted if the person would stop to help was if they were in a hurry or not. Some participants were told they had plenty of time to reach the next meeting; some were told they were already late. Those who thought they were late were too focused on reaching their destination to notice much else, unlike those participants with time to spare.

These findings have several implications for advocacy on behalf of other animals.  First, it highlights an innate tendency for humans to want to help, a tendency that is independent of priming (although priming does usually help) (Beaman et al. 1978) and religious affiliation. This tendency is reflected in the norm of social responsibility. People often help because it is expected of them, even when no one is watching or if that help is anonymous.

Secondly, research on haste suggests that activists should tailor their vegan outreach to account for levels of audience busyness. While the popular tactic of leafletting on college campuses has its usefulness in hitting large, receptive crowds, many of those crowds are composed of hurried students rushing to their next class. Activists should be strategic in targetting zones where people are more likely to be milling around with free time, such as bus stops, fairs, and lines.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Avoid targeting busy people
  • Seek out audiences with the time to pay attention

References

Beaman, A., P. Barnes, B. Klentz, B. McQuirk.  1978.  “Increasing Helping Rates Through Information Dissemination:  Teaching Pays.”  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4:  406-411.

Darley, J. and C. Batson.  1973.  “From Jerusalem to Jericho:  A Study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27:  100-108.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Haste

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – In-group Bias

In-group bias refers to “us” versus “them” group mentality that predominates in human societies. Occupying an in-group is important for self esteem, identity, community, and safety. Just as individuals favor themselves, they tend to favor their in-group as an extension of themselves. Out-groups, the natural result of in-group construction, emerge so that there will be a “them” to help define the “us.” Social psychologists have confirmed that in-group bias (the favoring of “us”) leads individuals to be more empathetic and helpful to those in their in-group.

The in-group bias usually entails a puffing up of the in-group and a systematic belittling of the out-group. The problem is that creating differences usually leads to the creation of a hierarchy of worth. “Separate but equal,” as history has repeatedly demonstrated, is a fallacy. If an in-group is particularly powerful and the out-group is particularly vulnerable, outsiders can become seriously disadvantaged.

While some literature recognizes that culture and class easily elicit in-group bias, the literature on racial in-group bias is mixed (race is not always consequential). How might it apply to human/nonhuman relationships? Activists can certainly point to a long cultural history of otherizing Nonhuman Animals. Human beings have carved for themselves one large species-based in-group, whereby all others who occupy the out-group of “nonhuman” are viewed as lesser-than. Humanity’s in-group bias has supported unimaginable structural violence on all manner of nonhuman species. This bias discourages humans from considering the interests of other animals deemed “outsiders.”

For this reason, many vegan theorists and activists struggle to expand in-group boundaries to include other animals by reframing the group as one based in sentience rather than cognitive abilities or physical similarities. If humans are able to acknowledge human/nonhuman similarities (which easily outnumber the dissimilarities), the in-group bias should kick in to encourage humans to offer greater assistance to their fellow sentients. This may seem far-fetched, but research has demonstrated that race can sometimes resist the in-group bias. There is every reason to believe that species barriers can be overcome as well.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Challenge notions that Nonhuman Animals are especially different from humans
  • Highlight similarities in sentience

References

Emswiller, T., K. Deaux, and J. Willits.  1971.  “Similarity, Sex, and Requests for Small Favors.”  Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1:  284-291.

Miller, P. J. Kozu, and A. Davis.  2001.  “Social Influence, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Cross-Cultural  Perspective.”  In W. Wosinka, R. Cialdini, D. Barrett, and J. Reykowski (Eds.), The Practice of Social Influence in Multiple Cultures.  Mahwah, NJ:  Erlbaum.

Myers, D. 2013. Social Psychology, 11th ed. McGraw Hill.

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – In-group Bias

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Social Responsibility Norm

The norm of social responsibility finds that people will help even when there is no expectation of reciprocation and even when that help remains anonymous. There are two stipulations, however. First, the person or group needing help must be perceived as unable to control their circumstances, and, second, the situation must be one that garners sympathy.

That social responsibility is a shared norm is good news for social movements everywhere, but particularly so for vegan activists, as the heavy work invested into advancing the interests of other animals often has limited returns. However, vegans can increase participation by engaging the social responsibility norm. This can by highlighting how other animals are truly victims with very little control over their circumstances. Recall a previous article on the just-world phenomenon, humans tend to blame victims, meaning that Nonhuman Animals are often framed as “stupid,” ugly, hateful, or otherwise deserving of their exploitation and death. Countering these stereotypes by restoring personhood to these animals should thus be prioritized.

Secondly, arousing sympathy is necessary to evoke the social responsibility norm. Restoring Nonhuman Animal personhood is a major step in accomplishing this, but activists should also not shy completely from describing conditions (even “humane” conditions) experienced by Nonhuman Animals hurt by human supremacy. The utilization of emotion is immensely useful in mobilizing activists, and surely this is related to how narratives, photographs, and images can elicit sympathy. Keep in mind, however, that a message too heavily reliant on emotion might only be useful in creating superficial, short-lived change. For this reason, mindfully partnering emotional appeals with rational appeals should be most successful.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Create a feeling of social responsibility
  • Emphasize that Nonhuman Animals are unable to help themselves
  • Use descriptions of suffering to garner sympathy
  • Counter negative stereotypes about other animals

References

Berkowitz, L.  1972.  “Social Norms, Feelings, and Other Factors Affecting Helping and Altruism.”  In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 6).  New York:  Academic Press.

Rudolph, U., S. Roesch, T. Greitenmeyer, B. Weiner.  2004.  “A Meta-Analytic Review of Help-Giving and Aggression From an Attributional Perspective:  Contributions to a General Theory of Motivation.”  Cognition and Emotion 18:  815-848.

Schwartz, S.  1975.  “The Justice of Need and the Activation of Humanitarian Norms.”  Journal of Social Issues 31 (3):  111-136.

Shotland, R. and C. Stebbins.  1983.  “Emergency and Cost as Determinants of Helping Behavior and the Slow Accumulation of Social Psychological Knowledge.” Social Psychology Quarterly 46:  36-46.

Weiner, B.  1980.  “A Cognitive (Attribution)-Emotion-Action Model of Motivated Behavior:  An Analysis of Judgements of Help-Giving.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:  186-200.

 

 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.


This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Social Responsibility Norm

Filed under Essays

The Social Psychology of Veganism – Reciprocity Norm

The reciprocity norm suggests that people are likely to help those who have helped them in the past.  The feeling of reciprocity can be increased if the relationship is a sustained one, and, it can still occur even when the help is given anonymously.

The vegan activist special offering cupcakes for conversations is an excellent example of how to engage the reciprocity norm. If someone is given a cupcake, they will feel obligated to return the favor by lending an ear. Nonprofits that send out stationary or calendars in hopes of soliciting donations in return also improve the help they receive by offering these freebies first.

Reciprocity has its limits. Not everyone has the ability to reciprocate adequately or at all. Activists should be careful to utilize this technique only in ways that will not threaten the self-esteem of the recipients. Research finds that older persons can become resentful if they believe they are being patronized, for instance. Offers and subsequent expectations should be relatively modest.

For the Vegan Toolkit

  • Give a little, get a little
  • Don’t apply this norm to those who can’t reciprocate, it may backfire

References

Burger, J., J. Sanchez, J. Imberi, and L. Grande. 2009.  “The Norm of Reciprocity as an Internalized Social Norm:  Returning Favors Even When No One Finds Out.”  Social Influence 4:  11-17.

Gouldner, A.  1960.  “The Norm of Reciprocity:  A Preliminary Statement.”  American Sociological Review 25:  161-178.

Myers, D. 2013. Social Psychology, 11th ed. McGraw Hill.

Nadler, A. and J. Fisher. 1986.  “The Role of Threat to Self-Esteem and Perceived Control in Recipient Reaction to Help:  Theory Development and Empirical Validation.”  In I. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19).  Orlando, FL:  Academic Press.

Newsom, J.  1999.  “Another Side to Caregiving:  Negative Reactions to Being Helped.”  Institute on Aging.  Portland State University.

 


 

Cover for "A Rational Approach to Animal Rights." Shows a smiling piglet being held up by human hands.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

This essay was originally published with The Examiner in 2012.

Comments Off on The Social Psychology of Veganism – Reciprocity Norm

Filed under Essays