Executive summary: EA-aligned animal advocacy may resonate most with individuals who have a low need for cognitive closure and low disgust sensitivity, as these traits align with incrementalist, pragmatic approaches rather than absolutist, morally rigid strategies.
Key points:
Need for cognitive closure – People with a high need for cognitive closure prefer absolutist advocacy due to its clear moral stance, while those with a low need are more open to incrementalist approaches. Indicators of low need include epistemic humility, willingness to change beliefs, and appreciation of multiple perspectives.
Disgust sensitivity – Absolutist advocates often use disgust-based strategies to condemn animal product consumption, whereas incrementalists, with lower disgust sensitivity, tend to take a more pragmatic and less judgmental approach.
Identifying suitable advocates – EA-aligned advocacy may attract those with lower judgmental tendencies, more lenient attitudes toward outgroups and moral violations, and less visceral disgust toward norm violations.
Potential contradictions – While low disgust sensitivity and cognitive closure align with incrementalism, high pragmatism in surveys correlated with weaker pro-animal attitudes, raising concerns about effectiveness.
Strategic trade-offs – A movement dominated by low-disgust, open-minded individuals may risk alienating mainstream audiences or losing mobilization power driven by strong moral emotions.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: EA-aligned animal advocacy may resonate most with individuals who have a low need for cognitive closure and low disgust sensitivity, as these traits align with incrementalist, pragmatic approaches rather than absolutist, morally rigid strategies.
Key points:
Need for cognitive closure – People with a high need for cognitive closure prefer absolutist advocacy due to its clear moral stance, while those with a low need are more open to incrementalist approaches. Indicators of low need include epistemic humility, willingness to change beliefs, and appreciation of multiple perspectives.
Disgust sensitivity – Absolutist advocates often use disgust-based strategies to condemn animal product consumption, whereas incrementalists, with lower disgust sensitivity, tend to take a more pragmatic and less judgmental approach.
Identifying suitable advocates – EA-aligned advocacy may attract those with lower judgmental tendencies, more lenient attitudes toward outgroups and moral violations, and less visceral disgust toward norm violations.
Potential contradictions – While low disgust sensitivity and cognitive closure align with incrementalism, high pragmatism in surveys correlated with weaker pro-animal attitudes, raising concerns about effectiveness.
Strategic trade-offs – A movement dominated by low-disgust, open-minded individuals may risk alienating mainstream audiences or losing mobilization power driven by strong moral emotions.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.