IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envval/v28y2019i6p715-739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Atheism in the American Animal Rights Movement: An Invisible Majority

Author

Listed:
  • Corey Lee Wrenn

Abstract

Previous research has alluded to the predominance of atheism in participant pools of the Nonhuman Animal rights movement (Galvin and Herzog 1992; Guither 1998), as well as the correlation between atheism and support for anti-speciesism (Gabriel et al. 2012; The Humane League 2014), but no study to date has independently examined this demographic. This article presents a profile of 210 atheists and agnostics, derived from a larger survey of 287 American vegans conducted in early 2017. Results demonstrate that atheists constitute one of the movement's largest demographics, and that atheist and agnostic vegans are more likely to adopt veganism out of concern for other animals. While these vegans did not register a higher level of social movement participation than religious vegans, they were more intersectionally oriented and more likely to politically identify with the far left. Given the Nonhuman Animal rights movement's overall failure to target atheists, these findings suggest a strategic oversight in overlooking the movement's potentially most receptive demographic.

Suggested Citation

  • Corey Lee Wrenn, 2019. "Atheism in the American Animal Rights Movement: An Invisible Majority," Environmental Values, , vol. 28(6), pages 715-739, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:28:y:2019:i:6:p:715-739
    DOI: 10.3197/096327119X15579936382509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3197/096327119X15579936382509
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3197/096327119X15579936382509?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon Pennycook & Robert M Ross & Derek J Koehler & Jonathan A Fugelsang, 2016. "Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simon Hailwood, 2020. "Science and Justice in an Age of Populism and Denial," Environmental Values, , vol. 29(6), pages 637-645, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina & Panadés, Judith, 2022. "Dispelling misconceptions about economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Souza, Tatiene C. & Cribari–Neto, Francisco, 2018. "Intelligence and religious disbelief in the United States," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-57.
    3. Gordon Pennycook & James Allan Cheyne & Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2020. "On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 476-498, July.
    4. Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar & Niyanta Choudhary & Siow Ann Chong & Fiona Devi Siva Kumar & Edimansyah Abdin & Saleha Shafie & Boon Yiang Chua & Rob M. van Dam & Mythily Subramaniam, 2021. "Religious Affiliation in Relation to Positive Mental Health and Mental Disorders in a Multi-Ethnic Asian Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Clinton Sanchez & Brian Sundermeier & Kenneth Gray & Robert J Calin-Jageman, 2017. "Direct replication of Gervais & Norenzayan (2012): No evidence that analytic thinking decreases religious belief," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-8, February.
    6. Jastrzębski, Jan & Chuderski, Adam, 2022. "Analytic thinking outruns fluid reasoning in explaining rejection of pseudoscience, paranormal, and conspiracist beliefs," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:476-498 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Suzanne Hoogeveen & Julia M. Haaf & Joseph A. Bulbulia & Robert M. Ross & Ryan McKay & Sacha Altay & Theiss Bendixen & Renatas Berniūnas & Arik Cheshin & Claudio Gentili & Raluca Georgescu & Will M. G, 2022. "The Einstein effect provides global evidence for scientific source credibility effects and the influence of religiosity," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 523-535, April.
    9. Ângela Leite & Ana Ramires & Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis & Hélder Fernando Pedrosa e Sousa, 2019. "Who Is Concerned about Terrorist Attacks? A Religious Profile," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Das, Aniruddha, 2022. "Religious attendance and global cognitive function: A fixed-effects cross-lagged panel modeling study of older U.S. adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    11. Dürlinger, Florian & Fries, Jonathan & Yanagida, Takuya & Pietschnig, Jakob, 2023. "Religiosity does not prevent cognitive declines: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:28:y:2019:i:6:p:715-739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.