Classification of animals as pets, livestock, or neither as perceived and self-reported by survey respondents. See online version for figure in color. 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... Specifically, to address the research questions out - lined, relationships between animal ownership and care (for example, whether a respondent reportedly crated or caged their own animals) and concern for the welfare of livestock animals were investigated. Furthermore, cross-tabulations were used to investigate whether those respondents reportedly owning dogs and/or cats were significantly different from those without dogs or cats in terms of the sources they used to inform themselves about animal welfare, perceptions of livestock animal welfare, and opposition to eating various animal species. Table 1 presents participants’ demographic informa- tion for the entire sample as well as comparisons of demo- graphic information across subsets of dog and/or cat own- ers and not dog or cat owners. Income, when converted to a continuous variable, resulted in a mean household income of US$49,223, which is comparable to the median reported household income in 2011 of $50,054 (DeNavas- Walt et al., 2012). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012), in 2010, 87% of Americans over the age of 25 were at least high school graduates and 30% had complet- ed at least 4 yr of college. Our sample was slightly more educated with 97% graduating from high school and 33% receiving a bachelor’s degree or higher. Ownership of animals, especially companions, may potentially affect perceived obligations to other ani- mals, such as livestock and poultry. A total of 530 (66%) households in the survey owned at least 1 animal. Out of the total sample of respondents, 386 (48%) households owned dogs, 324 (41%) owned cats, 20 (3%) owned hors- es, and 80 (10%) owned other animals. Additionally, all those who owned a horse also owned a cat and/or a dog. Other animals reported to be kept included fish, chickens, turtles, lizards, birds, ferrets, rabbits, goats, cows, deer, guinea pigs, snakes, hamsters, and mice. When analyzing demographic characteristics across the 2 subsets in Table 1, those who reported being dog and/or cat owners more frequently reported being female and younger in age and had larger households (more adults and children in the house), higher weekly food expenditures, and higher in- come levels than those who did not own a dog or cat. It has been previously documented that people’s classifications of animals and their perceptions of ani - mal intelligence may influence the way they believe animals should be treated. Figure 1 details participants’ classification of 13 different animals as pet, livestock, or neither. Not surprisingly, dogs and cats were classified as pets by over 90% of respondents. Rabbits (58%) and horses (55%) were classified as pets by the majority of respondents. Additionally, 27% of respondents classified horses as livestock animals and 18% classified horses as neither pet nor livestock animals. Over 80% of respon- dents classified beef cows, dairy cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys as livestock animals. Sheep (78%), goats (72%), ducks (51%), and geese (55%) were predomi- nantly classified as livestock animals although there was less consensus on these species than on others. For example, over 30% of respondents classified ducks and geese as neither pet nor livestock. Understanding respondents’ characterizations of the respective animal species may shed light on the level of concern shown for their welfare. For instance, Davis and Cheeke (1998) polled university researchers, gradu- ate and undergraduate students, and others about their views on whether animals have minds and an ability to think and about the relative intelligence of different spe- cies. The majority agreed that animals have minds and the ability to think; of these, a large percentage believed that management practices should be changed to better suit the needs and intelligence levels of the species in ques- tion (Davis and Cheeke, 1998). Davis and Cheeke (1998) also explored the idea of different species of animals hav- ing differing levels of intelligence; the order of perceived intelligence from the greatest to the least intelligence of the animals surveyed was dog, cat, pig, horse, cow, sheep, chicken, and turkey. In this grouping, with the exception of pigs, the animals with which most Americans interact were perceived to be most intelligent. Additionally, those categorized as the “most intelligent” animals tended to be those typically classified in developed western nations as companion animals (Davis and Cheeke, 1998). Therefore, it is conceivable that how people classify an animal, as a pet, livestock animal, or neither, could potentially impact their perceptions of the animal’s intelligence and their feelings towards the animal, specifically with regard to their treatment, use, and human obligations to animals. Cross-tabulations revealed statistical differences be- tween how dogs and cats were classified by dog and/or cat owners versus non-dog or -cat owners as a pet, live- stock, or neither (Table 2). Dog and/or cat owners more often classified both cats and dogs as pets compared with non-cat or -dog owners. However, it is still worth noting that 7% of cat and/or dog owners did not classify dogs as pets and 8% did not classify cats as pets. These partici- pants may view these dogs and cats as family members or conversely as working animals, such as livestock herders or pest controllers (e.g., cats that help control mice and rat populations). Non-cat or -dog owners more frequently classified dogs and cats as neither a pet nor livestock ani - mal. It is hypothesized that those indicating that animals were neither pet nor livestock may have perceived them to be wildlife, or it is possible that they simply did not categorize animals at the species level. For example, it is possible that an individual might classify their own dog as a pet but might not classify all dogs as such. Taylor and Signal (2009) discuss classifying animals as pet, pest, or profit animals, arguing that an animal can have intrinsic value, an inherent morally absolute value, or extrinsic value that they derive from their worth to humans (Taylor and Signal, 2009). Potentially, pets and livestock animals have different values in the minds of consumers. Therefore, classification of animals as pets, livestock, or neither could provide insight into the value an animal holds in the mind of a consumer. Respondents were asked if they were opposed to eating 16 different animals or animal products. However, one’s views on whether it is acceptable to eat certain animals may differ depending on whether the question pertains to their own or others’ choices. For example, does an individual extend their personal ethical or spiri- tual obligations towards animals to other members of society? Much of the debate in popular press surrounds the idea of altering regulations or norms to change con- sumption patterns for a society overall. Therefore, in addition to answering for themselves, respondents were asked about their opposition to other people eating those same animals and animal products. As shown in Fig. 2, participants could indicate if they were opposed to eating an animal or animal product due to ethical or spiritual reasons or nonethical and/or non- spiritual reasons or not opposed to eating the animal or animal product. The majority of survey respondents were opposed to eating cats and dogs followed closely by hors- es, with more participants opposed due to ethical and/or spiritual reasons than nonethical or nonspiritual reasons. For beef cow, dairy cow, pig, chicken, turkey, rab- bit, sheep, goat, duck, geese, shellfish, finned fish, and milk and dairy products, the majority of participants were not opposed to eating the animal or animal product. Of those that were opposed, except for turkey and milk or dairy products, more respondents were opposed due to nonethical or nonspiritual reasons. Aside from cats, dogs, and horses, most participants were opposed to eat- ing rabbits and goats, potentially due to these animals being kept as pets by many people in the United States. Ninety more people were opposed to eating a dairy cow than the dairy cow’s milk or dairy products; furthermore, 70 more people were opposed to eating a dairy cow than a beef cow. It is hypothesized that more respondents may perceive dairy cows as animals that provide ...