Some animals are more equal than others: Validation of a new scale to measure how attitudes to animals depend on species and human purpose of use


Autoři: Alexander Bradley aff001;  Neil Mennie aff003;  Peter A. Bibby aff001;  Helen J. Cassaday aff001
Působiště autorů: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom aff001;  Department of Education and Sociology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom aff002;  School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227948

Souhrn

Globally, many millions of animals are used by humans every year and much of this usage causes public concern. A new scale, devised to measure attitudes to animal use in relation to the purpose of use and species, the Animal Purpose Questionnaire (APQ), was completed by in total 483 participants, 415 British nationals and 68 participants from 39 other countries. The APQ was presented in two survey formats, alongside an established Animal Attitudes Scale (AAS). In both surveys, participants also provided demographic details to provide a context to their attitudes to animals. As might be expected, and consistent with the validity of the new scale, overall scores on the AAS and APQ were highly correlated. However, the APQ provided a more differentiated measure of attitudes to animal use across a variety of settings. The results showed that there was overall higher levels of agreement with the use of animals in medical research and basic science, less endorsement for food production and pest control, and the use of animals for other cultural practices was generally disapproved of, irrespective of species. Participants overall disagreed with the use of rabbits, monkeys, badgers, tree shrews (survey 1), chimpanzees, dogs, dolphins and parrots (survey 2), but were neutral about the use of rats, mice, pigs, octopus, chickens, zebrafish (survey 1), carp, chickens, pigs, pigeons, rabbits and rats (survey 2). Interactions between species and purpose were largely driven by the consideration of using diverse species for food production. In general, females and vegetarians expressed less agreement with the use of animals with some differences by purpose of use. Pet keeping consistently predicted reduced willingness to use animals for basic science (only). The APQ provides a new tool to unpack how public attitudes depend on the intersectionality of demographics, species and purpose of use.

Klíčová slova:

Culture – Diet – Meat – Medical humanities – Medicine and health sciences – Pest control – Rabbits – Surveys


Zdroje

1. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Advice and Welfare/Lab animals. n.d. Available from: https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory

2. Davies G.F., Greenhough B.J., Hobson-West P., Kirk R.G.W., Applebee K., Bellinghan L.C., et al. Developing a collaborative agenda for humanities and social scientific research on laboratory animal welfare. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0158791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158791 27428071

3. Driscoll J.W. Attitudes toward animal use. Anthrozoos. 1992;5(1): 32–39. doi: 10.2752/089279392787011575

4. Herzog H.A. Jr., Betchart N.S., & Pittman R.B. Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos. 1991;4(3): 184–191. doi: 10.2752/089279391787057170

5. Furnham A., McManus C., & Scott D. Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoos. 2003;16(2): 135–146. doi: 10.2752/089279303786992260

6. Kendall H.A., Lobao L.M., & Sharp J.S. Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociol. 2006;71(3): 399–428. doi: 10.1526/003601106778070617

7. Ormandy E., & Schuppli C. Public attitudes toward animal research: A review. Animals (Basel). 2014;4(3): 391–408. doi: 10.3390/ani4030391 26480314

8. Clemence M., & Leaman J. Public attitudes to animal research in 2016. Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. 2016. Available from: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/1970-01/sri-public-attitudes-to-animal-research-2016.pdf

9. Mueller M. The relationship between types of human–animal interaction and attitudes about animals: An exploratory study. Anthrozoos. 2014;27(2): 295–308. doi: 10.2752/175303714x13903827487728

10. Mukerjee M. Trends in animal research. Scientific American. 1997;276(2): 86–93. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0297-86 9000767

11. Wilson C.C., & Netting F.E. The status of instrument development in the human-animal interaction field. Anthrozoos. 2012;25(sup1): s11–s55. doi: 10.2752/175303712x13353430376977

12. Home Office National Statistics. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2018. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2018

13. Nicholl C.S., & Russell S.M. Analysis of animal rights literature reveals the underlying motives of the movement: ammunition for counter offensive by scientists. Endocrinology. 1990;127(5): 985–989. doi: 10.1210/endo-127-3-985 2387269

14. Wells D.L., & Hepper P.G. Pet ownership and adults' views on the use of animals. Soc Anim. 1997;5(1): 45–63. doi: 10.1163/156853097x00213

15. Serpell J.A. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Anim Welf. 2004;13(sup1): s145–s151.

16. Ryder R.D. Animal revolution: Changing attitudes towards speciesism. Berg Publishers; 2000.

17. Ryder R.D. Speciesism, painism and happiness: A morality for the twenty-first century. Imprint Academic; 2011.

18. Gunnthorsdottir A. Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoos. 2001;14(4): 204–215. doi: 10.2752/089279301786999355

19. Nakajima S., Arimitsu K., & Lattal K.M. Estimation of animal intelligence by university students in Japan and the United States. Anthrozoos. 2002;15(3): 194–205. doi: 10.2752/089279302786992504

20. Glickman S.E. The Spotted Hyena from Aristotle to the Lion King: reputation is everything. Soc Res. 1995;62(3): 501–537.

21. Kellert S. American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. Int J Study Anim Probl. 1980;1(2): 121–137.

22. Driscoll J.W. Attitudes toward animals: Species ratings. Soc Anim. 1995;3(2): 139–150. doi: 10.1163/156853095x00125

23. Rajecki D.W., Rasmussen J.L., & Craft H.D. Labels and the treatment of animals: Archival and experimental cases. Soc Anim. 1993;1(1): 45–60. doi: 10.1163/156853093x00145

24. Carpenter A., & Song W. Changing attitudes about the weak: Social and legal conditions for animal protection in China. Crit Asian Stud. 2016;48(3): 380–399. doi: 10.1080/14672715.2016.1196891

25. Broida J.P., Tingley L., Kimball R., & Miele J. Personality differences between pro and anti- vivisectionists. Soc Anim. 1993;1(2): 129–144. doi: 10.1163/156853093X00037

26. De Backer C.J.S., & Hudders L. Meat morals: relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Sci. 2015:99: 68–74. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.08.011 25282670

27. Ruby M.B. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite. 2012;58(1): 141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019 22001025

28. Mathews S., & Herzog H.A. Jr., Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Soc Anim. 1997;5(2): 169–175. doi: 10.1163/156853097x00060

29. Herzog H., Grayson S., & McCord D. Brief measures of the animal attitude scale. Anthrozoos. 2015;28(1): 145–152. doi: 10.2752/089279315x14129350721894

30. Knight S., & Barnett L. Justifying attitudes toward animal use: A qualitative study of people's views and beliefs. Anthrozoos. 2008;21(1): 31–42. doi: 10.2752/089279308x274047

31. Knight S., Vrij A., Bard K., & Brandon D. Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. J Soc Issues. 2009;65(3): 463–483. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01609.x

32. Taylor N., & Signal T.D. Pet, pest, profit: Isolating differences in attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Anthrozoos. 2009;22(2): 129–135. doi: 10.2752/175303709x434158

33. Hazel S.J., Signal T.D., & Taylor N. Can teaching veterinary and animal-science students about animal welfare affect their attitude toward animals and human-related empathy? J Vet Med Educ. 2011;38(1): 74–83. doi: 10.3138/jvme.38.1.74 21805938

34. Cohen C. The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 1986;315: 865–870. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198610023151405 3748104

35. Hagelin J., Johansson B., Hau J., & Carlsson H. E. Influence of pet ownership on opinions towards the use of animals in biomedical research. Anthrozoos. 2002;15(3): 251–257. doi: 10.2752/089279302786992540

36. English Oxford Living Dictionaries. n.d. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/

37. Powell K. Eat your veg. Nature. 2003;426: 378–379. doi: 10.1038/426378a 14647352

38. Bem S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1974;42(2): 155–162. 4823550

39. Bem S.L. The BSRI and gender schema theory: A reply to Spence and Helmreich. Psychol Rev. 1981;88(4): 369–371. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.369

40. Vafaei A., Alvarado B., Concepcion T., Muro C., Martinez B., & Zunzunegui M.V. The validity of the 12-item Bem Sex Role Inventory in older Spanish population: An examination of the androgyny model. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014;59(2): 257–263. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2014.05.012 24997501

41. Ahmed T., Vafaei A., Belanger E., Phillips S.P. & Zunzunegui M.V. Bem Sex Role Inventory validation in the International Mobility in Aging Study. Can J Aging. 2016;35(3): 348–360. doi: 10.1017/S0714980816000404 27477107

42. Benjamini Y., & Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1): 289–300.

43. Lund T.B., Mørkbak R.M., Lassen J., & Sandøe P. Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public’s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(4): 428–444. doi: 10.1177/0963662512451402 23825251

44. Fieldhouse P. Food and nutrition: Customs & culture (1st ed., pp. 1–17, 120–147). Crook Helm; 1986.

45. Beilin K.O. Bullfighting and the war on terror: Debates on culture and torture in Spain, 2004–11.IJIS. 2012;25(1): 61–72. doi: 10.1386/ijis.25.1.61_3

46. Ericsson G., & Heberlein T.A. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol Conserv. 2003;111(2): 149–159. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00258-6

47. Davis S.J.M., & Valla F.R. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of Israel. Nature. 1978;276: 608–610. doi: 10.1038/276608a0

48. Pet Food Manufacturers Association. Pet population 2016. Available from: http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population-2016

49. Phillips C.J.C., & McCulloch S. Student attitudes on animal sentience and use of animals in society. J Biol Educ. 2005;40(1): 17–24. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2005.9656004

50. Pifer L., Shimizu K., & Pifer R. Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Soc Anim. 1994;2(2): 95–113. doi: 10.1163/156853094x00126 11654358

51. Lund T.B., McKeegan D.E.F., Cribbin C., & Sandøe P. Animal ethics profiling of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eaters. Anthrozoos. 2016;29(1): 89–106. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1083192

52. Prokop P., & Tunnicliffe S.D. Effects of having pets at home on children's attitudes toward popular and unpopular animals. Anthrozoos. 2010;23(1): 21–35. doi: 10.2752/175303710x12627079939107

53. Paul E.S., & Serpell J.A. Pet ownership in childhood: Its influence on attitudes towards animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1993;35(3): 296–296. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(93)90151-e

54. Henrich J., Heine S.J., & Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33(2–3): 61–135. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X 20550733

55. Caviola L., Everett J.A.C., & Faber N.S. The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2019;116(6): 1011–1029. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000182 29517258

56. Russell W.M.S., & Burch R.L. The principles of humane experimental technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW); 1992.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1