Paper Summary
This paper advances a deontological critique against the exploitation of nonhuman animals. Rooted in an Industrial-Organizational (I-O) psychology perspective, it argues that animals in workplace settings (e.g., agriculture, law enforcement, entertainment, or research) are entitled to the same consideration extended to all workers by the field.
The paper denounces the use of animals as mere means for human gain, but rather as co-equal members of society whose mental experiences are subject to the same thematic questions I-O psychology has historically asked.
The paper offers a framework that can be used by I-O psychologists to know when their expertise is relevant to a given domain, and allows them to remain consistent in their emphasis on considering the mental experiences of a broad population of indviduals who engage in work.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the take home message of this paper?
"The expertise and lens of Industrial-Organizational psychology (e.g., job satisfaction, vocational interests, organization justice) is applicable to any individual who performs tasks that satisfy the basic definitions of work--that includes animals"
2. Why does it matter that animals are considered workers? This is just label
Mapping animal work onto a common language (I-O psychology) means we can more accurately and specifically discuss consistencies and inconsistencies in rights and treatment that we feel all workers should have.
3. There are already fields that are specifically to considering and studying animal labor. Why is this I-O psychology's responsibility?
There are many fields dedicated to study human labor (e.g., economics, sociology, labor and employment relations, management, OB/HR etc.). I-O psychologists still feel they have a place in the conversation because of their unique perspective relative to those other approaches. The unique perspective being emphasizing the psychology of the worker. Similarly, I-O psychologists have unique tools and language to think about the workplace in a systematic and comparative way (e.g., job analysis). In addition to being methodologically suited for conceptualizing the work they do, there are also more thematic reasons why I-O is suited for entering this conversation. Just as you might not want to task an organization whose business model relies on employing children to investigate the potential harms and dangers of child labor, you probably wouldn't want to task invidividuals who business model depends on the exploitation of animals. While I-O psychology does not primarily deal with animals that work, that means that it's main source of funding is not tied to the pertuation of animal labor, and therefore I-O psychology unburdened by conflicts of interest, and can characterize work more independently. I-O already have a set of formalized procedures and ethos for what workers in these formalized deserve..
4. Is the paper only about animals?
It is also applicable to a wide variety of other workers at the margins of society (e.g., volunteers, child laborers, undocumented immigrants, prisoners) for the same reason---they all perform tasks that satisfy some of those culturally universal definitions of work, and the different topic areas of I-O psychology have relevance to those different aspects of work.
5. What does the paper want I-O psychologists to do?
To remember that workers can look and act quite different from the prototypical 'worker', but are no less deserving of having their mental experiences considered as they would for anyone performing those tasks. In practice, this means being consistent with the principles we expouse for all workers in our field such as workers having rights (e.g., consent, pay, safety, turnover freedom etc.), preferences (e.g., motivation, vocational interests), equality (e.g., cross-cultural sensitivity, inclusivity, fairness), and standards of well-being (e.g., job satisfaction, mental health, family life). If I-O psychologists say that those are the outcomes they fight for, they should uphold those values by (1) Being open to research discussing those experiences in their outlets and conversations, (2) Teaching about work in an inclusive, non-heirarchical, way that represents those experiences within their curriculum, and (3) advocating for those values professionally and personally by arguing for those standards where they don't currently exist and not treating some workers as more important than others in their daily life.