Content uploaded by Hannu Rita
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hannu Rita
Content may be subject to copyright.
523
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead,
Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 523-536
ISSN 0962-7286
Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the
study of farmers’ attitudes
T Kauppinen*†, A Vainio‡, A Valros§, H Rita‡and KM Vesala#
†Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki, Lönnrotinkatu 7, 50100 Mikkeli, Finland
‡Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, PO Box 62, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
§Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, PO Box 66, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
#Faculty of Social Sciences, PO Box 54, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: tiina.kauppinen@helsinki.fi
Abstract
The welfare of production animals provokes wide social discussion among the public, yet, despite this, farmers’ voices and their repre-
sentations of animal welfare are rarely heard, even though farmers are the ones actually able to improve animal welfare. Farmers’
perceptions of what constitutes animal welfare and how it may be improved can differ from those of consumers and other stake-
holders, and therefore it is crucial to understand what farmers mean when they talk about improving animal welfare. To chart
farmers’ perceptions, we conducted qualitative interviews and a questionnaire study using the theory of planned behaviour as a
conceptual framework. We found that the farmers perceived the improvement of animal welfare as four specific, practical attitude
objects (providing animals with a favourable environment; taking care of animal health; treating the animals humanely; and taking
care of the farmer’s own well-being) and two different but often overlapping general attitudinal dimensions (the instrumental and
intrinsic evaluations of animal welfare). The farmers’ intentions to improve animal welfare were best explained by their attitudes
towards the specific welfare-improving actions. The concept of the improvement of animal welfare examined in this study outlines
measures to improve animal welfare from the farmers’ point of view and discusses their influence. Our study demonstrates that by
adapting a valid conceptual framework and applying relevant qualitative and quantitative methods that support each other, we are
able to elucidate the underlying meanings and values in farmers’ views on improving animal welfare.
Keywords:animal welfare, attitude, farmer, production animal, qualitative attitude approach, theory of planned behaviour
Introduction
Production animal welfare provokes wide social discussion,
particularly when the media are dealing with the current
disadvantages of animal production. Consumer concern
exists as to the welfare of animals on farms. However,
farmers’ voices and their representations of animal welfare
are rarely heard. Whether the farmers, consumers, and other
stakeholders are all talking about the same issue when they
talk about improving animal welfare is open to debate. The
welfare of animals can be defined in many ways (as in
Brambell 1965; Millman 2009); understanding how
different actors perceive it is a precondition for the
successful improvement of animal welfare.
The attitudes of consumers (Frewer et al 2005), veterinarians
(Heleski et al 2005; Sabuncuoglu & Coban 2008), and
students (Heleski & Zanella 2006) concerning animal
welfare have been well studied (Serpell 2004). For produc-
tion animals, however, the most relevant attitudes are those
of the farmers. The farmer, as a caregiver, has a vital
influence on animal welfare (Coleman et al 2003;
Hemsworth 2003). It is acknowledged that the attitude and
behaviour of the caregiver has an effect upon animal
behaviour, welfare, health, and production (Rushen et al
1999; Waiblinger et al 2002; Boivin et al 2003). Yet,
research on farmers’ representations of and traditions of
conceptualising animal welfare was scarce until recent years
(Velde et al 2002; Lund et al 2004; Austin et al 2005; Lassen
et al 2006; Bock & van Huik 2007). In particular, few studies
from the perspective of improving animal welfare as an
action have been published (Waiblinger et al 2002).
Our study aims to contribute to the development of robust
theoretical and methodological approaches in the study of
farmers’ attitudes towards animal welfare. In our paper, we
introduce two approaches to the study of attitudes in connec-
tion with animal welfare: two different ways to collect and
analyse the data associated with two different theoretical
traditions. The first tradition is Icek Ajzen’s theory of
planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen 2002), which represents the
mainstream research tradition with its mainly quantitative
survey methods. In addition, we present a qualitative
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Science in the Service of Animal Welfare
Conceptual framework for the prediction of specific intentions
and behaviours according to the theory of planned behaviour
(modified from Ajzen 1991).
524 Kauppinen et al
approach to attitudes that, complementary to the main-
stream, focuses on the construction of attitudes in argumen-
tative communication (Billig 1996; Rantanen & Vesala
1999; Vesala & Rantanen 1999, 2007). We explore these two
research traditions by comparing them as interpretive frames
for data collected with qualitative and quantitative methods.
The TPB has contributed significantly to the research on
attitudes wherein the connection between attitudes and
behaviours had long been debated (Augoustinous & Walker
1995; Manstead & Parker 1995; Fazio & Olson 2003). In
the TPB, an individual’s intention to behave in a certain way
is assumed to be a precondition for the implementation of
the behaviour in question. This intention, in turn, is deter-
mined by his or her attitude towards the behaviour,
perceived behavioural control, and the supposed opinions of
other people who are important to him or her (Figure 1).
Where the TPB takes a step forward is the discovery that the
attitudes directly connected with the behaviour in question
explain human behaviour better than attitudes directed to
the phenomenon in general. The attitude and the behaviour
must have the same abstraction level to correspond to each
other. If we want to predict human behaviour in the
improvement of animal welfare, for instance, we need to
study the attitudes towards the improvement of animal
welfare in particular, not the general attitudes, eg towards
the animals. Predicting intentions is easier, however, than
predicting the behaviour itself because of several limiting
factors outside the actor’s control (such as money, time, or
one’s own well-being) (Ajzen 2002).
Attitudes can, in principle, be studied qualitatively and
quantitatively. The methods might strengthen and supple-
ment each other by suggesting various views on the topic,
or they might point out each other’s flaws (Sieber 1973;
Brannen 2005). Carrying out a qualitative interview as a
preliminary study is a common practice in drawing up a
questionnaire study in studies following a TPB approach. It
can be used to search for unknown attitudes and to gather
distinct observations into data-compiling meta-observa-
tions. A qualitative approach also contributes to interpreting
the results and finding new meanings (Alasuutari 1995).
Furthermore, some researchers have conducted independent
studies on attitudes using qualitative approaches (Wetherell
et al 1987; Vesala 2004; Nousiainen et al 2009).
Quantitative surveys, in turn, extend the picture of the
occurrence and the division of attitudes among respondents,
and make it possible to estimate the extrapolation of the
results. However, the questionnaire approach has its limita-
tions. For example, the potential qualitative variation in the
attitudes and attitude expression are left uncovered. In this
case, a qualitative preliminary study increases the validity
of a questionnaire study.
In the qualitative attitude approach (Vesala & Rantanen
2007), attitudes are methodologically approached as
constructions that can be identified in argumentation (Billig
1996) and that must be actively interpreted and abstracted
from the data. Variation may exist in attitudes according to,
eg the context of argumentation. For example, a farmer
might have alternative attitudes towards improving animal
welfare depending on who he or she is talking to. In the
qualitative attitude approach, the analysis of the data is
based on the coding of the interviewees’ stand-takings and
justifications. Coherent combinations or patterns of such
comments can be further interpreted as attitudes.
In this study, we explore these qualitative and quantitative
approaches in the study of farmers’ attitudes towards the
improvement of animal welfare and of the benefits of using
these two approaches together in such a context. In the qual-
itative part, we examine how the improvement of animal
welfare is constructed as an object of the attitudes in
farmers’ speech as they comment on a statement concerning
the importance of improving animal welfare. In the quanti-
tative part, we study the attitudes by quantifying the
variation that emerged in a questionnaire study. Following
the TPB, we are also interested in farmers’ perceived social
norms, perceived control, and their behavioural intentions
regarding the improvement of animal welfare.
Methods of data generation and analysis
Qualitative interviews
We informed Finnish farmers of the interview study with
announcements in a national farmers’ newspaper for a brief
time in the spring of 2005. Consequently, five farmers
volunteered for the study. At the same time, we chose
40 Finnish pig and dairy farms following the criteria that the
herd size was over 40 sows or over 30 dairy cows, and that
the farms were located regionally representatively around
southern and central Finland. We sent each farm a letter
asking for their willingness to participate, and from this
recruited 13 farmers. On the whole, we interviewed nine
dairy farmers (from medium-sized farms with 30–60 dairy
cows and large farms with over 60 dairy cows) and nine pig
farmers (from medium-sized farms with 40–100 sows and
large farms with over 100 sows).
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Figure 1
Farmers’ attitudes towards improving animal welfare 525
The interviews, conducted individually, consisted of ten
attitudinal statements about animal welfare associated with
the elements of the TPB. The statements were presented in
written form, one at a time, and the farmers were asked to
freely discuss the statements. In this article we only analyse
the comments stimulated by one single statement, ‘It is very
important to maintain and promote animal welfare’ that
represents the attitude element of the TPB. For the analysis,
we transcribed the tape recordings verbatim. We collabo-
rated in analysing the transcripts and discussed the analysis
during the process. The analysis was conducted with the
Atlas.ti programme (GmbH, Germany) which enabled
comparison of different levels of analytical categories to
each other and to the original transcripts at all analytical
stages and facilitated exploration of their relationships.
The analysis included, firstly, the identification of the
stands that the interviewees presented for or against the
statements and the various related comments that they
presented to justify and account for their stands. For
example, in the following excerpt, a stand that approves
of the statement is expressed with the word ‘certainly’. In
the interviewee’s response to the interviewer’s request for
justification, two arguments can be identified: improving
animal welfare is associated with health (or the absence of
sickness) and with productivity.
I: Well yes. How about this, this is the first attitude
statement, saying that “In my opinion, it is very important
to maintain and improve animal welfare”. Do you agree or
[the interviewer shows the interviewee a paper on which
this statement is written]
A: Certainly.
I: Yes? ... Why is it?
A: Well, sick animals surely don’t produce anything.
Secondly, we analysed how the interviewees’ comments may
be viewed from the perspective of attitudes in the TPB.
Following the principles of the qualitative attitude approach,
the focus was on how these attitudes were constructed in the
interviewees’ comments and argumentation.
Questionnaire study
Material
We sent the questionnaire to all 342 members of a Finnish
pig production recording scheme with ongoing piglet
production and to 500 randomly but regionally representa-
tive dairy farms in summer 2006. Altogether, 298 farmers
(35%) responded (137 pig and 161 dairy farmers).
For the study, we drew up a questionnaire (see Table 1) to
make the TPB operational such that every object of attitude
identified in the interviews received a measurable pattern of
its own. We wanted the interviewees to comment on the
activity of improving animal welfare both generally
speaking and as specific objects of the attitude. With the
exception of questions concerning background information,
a seven-point Likert scale was used.
First, we asked for the respondents’ opinion on the impor-
tance of different measures to improve animal welfare (later
called ‘importance’). Based on the results of the interview
study, we divided the measures into four sections: (i)
providing animals with a favourable environment; (ii)
taking care of the animals’ health; (iii) treating the animals
humanely; and (iv) investing in farmer’s own motivation
and well-being at work. Each section included one collec-
tive conceptual measure (eg in the section concerning
animal health, ‘How important do you perceive taking care
of the animals’ health at your own farm?’ and three more
practical measures, eg ‘How important do you perceive (i)
alleviating pain or euthanising the sick animal; (ii) keeping
the animals and pens/barns clean?; and (iii) keeping an eye
on the behaviour of the animals?). According to the TPB,
the aim of this pattern was to discover the specific attitudes
of the farmers towards the issue.
Second, we used four similar sets of questions to ask for the
respondents’ perceptions of how easy it would be to carry out
these measures at their own farms (later called ‘easiness’; eg
the conceptual measure: ‘How easy do you perceive taking
care of the animals’ health at your own farm?’ with three
practical measures, respectively). This pattern aimed to catch
the effect of the perceived behavioural control.
Third, we enquired about the respondents’ intentions to
improve the welfare of their animals (‘intentions’, with
correspondence to the TPB). Fourth, we asked the respon-
dents to estimate how significant the animal welfare-related
opinions of particular stakeholders, eg slaughterhouses, are
for them (‘subjective norms’, with correspondence to the
TPB). Fifth, the respondents evaluated ten statements on a
Likert scale. The statements concerned animal welfare and
the role of a farmer in general (‘general attitudes’, with
correspondence to the TPB). (see Table 1)
Statistical analysis
The data were analysed with SPSS 15.0. We used the
Wilcoxon test to find if there were differences between the
means of the variables in the initial data. We utilised
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax
rotation to find summary variables that could be used in
subsequent analyses. For the sake of clarity, before
conducting the PCA we translated the statements into
positive ones where needed; for example, the initial
statement, ‘talking to the animals is trivial’ was translated
into ‘talking to the animals is not trivial’. As the question-
naire consisted of several theoretically distinct patterns
(specific and general attitudes, perceived behavioural
control, and subjective norms; the pattern of intentions was
not processed), we treated these patterns as separate units in
the PCA. The variables with communalities below 0.3 were
left out. There were altogether 295 usable observations; the
missing values were replaced with means.
On the basis of the PCA, we formulated the components
(see Table 2) using the criteria that a variable was usually
included in a component if it had a loading exceeding
0.3 and did not load on any other component. In addition, if
the largest loading on a component exceeded 0.5 and there
was a loading less than 0.4 on any other component, then
that variable was also included. The components with
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 523-536
Table 1 The means, standard deviations, and statistically significant differences within each section (indicated with
different letters) between the variables of the original data, n = 296.
526 Kauppinen et al
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
The importance and easiness of improving animal welfare Mean (± SD) Difference
(Each part includes 4 subquestions with 7 answering options: 1= very important/easy – 7 = not
important/easy at all)
How important/easy do you perceive...
Providing the animals with a favourable environment importance 2.50 (± 0.81) a
easiness 3.52 (± 0.95) b
Taking care of the animals’ health importance 1.89 (± 0.58) c
easiness 2.38 (± 0.74) a
Treating the animals humanely importance 2.19 (± 0.81) d
easiness 2.07 (± 0.76) e
Investing in Your own motivation and well-being at work importance 1.81 (± 0.60) f
easiness 3.92 (± 1.03) g
The farmers’ intentions to improve animal welfare on their farms in the near
future
(7 answering options: 1 = very likely – very unlikely)
In the near future, how likely are you to...
Build or restructure facilities that improve animal welfare on the farm 3.84 (± 1.93) a
Take care of the animals’ health and treat diseases more intensively 2.83 (± 1.47) b
Treat the animals more humanely 2.85 (± 1.49) b
Take time off for leisure time and holidays 3.34 (± 1.70) c
The subjective norms
(Each part includes 3 subquestions with 7 answering options: 1 = very much – 7 = not
at all)
How much does the opinion of this stakeholder affect your activities?
How much does this stakeholder emphasise the importance of animal welfare?
How much does this stakeholder understand the issues of animal welfare?
Slaughterhouse/dairy 2.79 (± 1.18) a
Wholesale/retail trade 4.39 (± 1.59) b
Veterinarian 1.93 (± 0.82) c
Consumer 3.73 (± 1.45) d
Agricultural adviser 2.86 (± 1.27) a
Researchers and specialists 3.15 (± 1.19) e
Other farmers 3.18 (± 1.08) e
The general attitudes
(7 answering options: 1 = strongly agree – 7 = strongly disagree)
1) Animal welfare is the most important issue in my work 1.48 (0.84) a
2) I always do my best to improve the welfare of my animals 1.56 (0.78) b
3) Improving animal welfare is economically profitable 1.68 (0.98) b
4) It is mentally rewarding to improve animal welfare 1.94 (0.91) c,d
5) A farmer is obligated to treat her/his animals well 1.31 (0.63) e
6) A high yield is evidence of good animal welfare 2.00 (1.22) c,f
7) Improving animal welfare is a valuable PR activity 2.11 (1.31) d,f
8) Animal welfare should not cost too much money 2.60 (1.52) g
9) A farmer must not become attached to her/his animals 5.06 (1.79) h
10) Talking to the animals is trivial 5.93 (1.33) i
Farmers’ attitudes towards improving animal welfare 527
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 523-536
Table 2 Components of the four attitudinal patterns (importance, easiness, subjective norms, and general attitudes;
in correspondence with the TPB). Response means range between 1 and 7 on the Likert scale (see Table 1).
The importance of improving animal welfare by Communality Humane
treatment
Favourable
environment
Farmer’s
well-being
Animal
health
Giving the animals more space to move around 0.7189 0.814
Improving the quality of bedding 0.660 0.790
Using more litter/rooting material 0.692 0.820
Keeping the animals and pens/barns clean 0.451 0.564
Keeping an eye on the behaviour of the animals 0.393 0.520
Talking to and stroking the animals 0.598 0.752
Treating the animals humanely 0.677 0.803
Avoiding force in handling the animals 0.427 0.649
Treating the animals as individuals 0.638 0.780
The farmer having enough leisure and holidays 0.554 0.718
The farmer not having to hurry when at work 0.550 0.681
Investing in the farmer’s motivation and well-being at work 0.726 0.830
The farmer enjoying his/her work 0.562 0.711
Eigenvalue 5.573 1.740 1.589
Variance explained % (Total 55.6%) 34.83 10.88 9.930
Cronbach’s α0.799 0.807 0.762
Response mean 2.175 2.596 1.811
Response standard deviation 0.746 0.828 0.599
The easiness of improving animal welfare by
Providing the animals with a favourable environment 0.501 0.576
Giving the animals more space to move around 0.551 0.699
Improving the quality of bedding 0.668 0.783
Using more litter/rooting material 0.551 0.676
Alleviating pain or euthanising the sick animal 0.677 0.789
Keeping the animals and pens/barns clean 0.507 0.558
Keeping an eye on the behaviour of the animals 0.557
Taking care of the animals’ health 0.687 0.704
Talking to and stroking the animals 0.647 0.778
Treating the animals humanely 0.663 0.795
Avoiding force in handling animals 0.382 0.534
Treating the animals as individuals 0.552 0.657
The farmer having enough leisure and holidays 0.581 0.753
The farmer not having to hurry when at work 0.660 0.800
Investing in the farmer’s motivation and well-being at work 0.700 0.781
The farmer enjoying his/her work 0.618 0.640
Eigenvalue 5.210 1.401 1.794 1.095
Variance explained % (total 59.4%) 32.56 8.758 11.21 6.843
Cronbach’s α0.729 0.725 0.788 0.684
Response mean 2.062 3.510 3.933 2.423
Response standard deviation 0.759 0.947 1.033 0.781
528 Kauppinen et al
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Table 2 (cont)
The subjective
norms
Communality Wholesale/retail
trade/consumer
Agricultural
adviser
Slaughter-
house/dairy
Other
farmers
Veterinarian Researchers
& specialists
Slaughterhouse/dairy a 0.766 0.705
b 0.811 0.831
c 0.824 0.836
Wholesale/retail trade a 0.732 0.599
b 0.643 0.693
c 0.731 0.774
Veterinarian a 0.814 0.684
b 0.740 0.775
c 0.761 0.802
Consumer a 0.656 0.651
b 0.601 0.597
c 0.733 0.832
Agricultural adviser a 0.867 0.800
b 0.855 0.827
c 0.854 0.814
Researchers & specialists a 0.785 0.633
b 0.756 0.809
c 0.764 0.820
Other farmers a 0.768 0.769
b 0.711 0.741
c 0.776 0.803
Eigenvalue 7.482 1.956 1.608 1.433 1.263 1.120
Variance explained % (total 80.0%) 35.63 9.313 7.656 6.824 6.013 5.333
Cronbach’s α0.869 0.897 0.844 0.784 0.785 0.791
Response mean 4.277 2.964 2.822 3.170 1.928 3.236
Response standard deviation 1.242 1.161 1.187 1.052 0.822 1.112
a = How much does the opinion of this stakeholder affect your activities
b = How much does this stakeholder emphasise the importance of animal welfare
c = How much does this stakeholder understand the issues of animal welfare
The general attitudes Communality A reward-seeking farmer An empathic farmer
Animal welfare is the most important issue
in my work
0.630 0.793
I always do my best to improve the
welfare of my animals
0.736 0.856
Improving animal welfare is economically profitable 0.498 0.704
It is mentally rewarding to improve animal welfare 0.524 0.663
A farmer is obligated to treat his/her
animals well
0.531 0.728
A high yield does not guarantee good
animal welfare
0.488 –0.523 0.463
It is OK that animal welfare costs (too
much) money
0.385 0.610
It is OK that a farmer is attached to
his/her animals
0.588 0.756
It is not trivial to talk to your animals 0.515 0.662
Eigenvalue 3.244 1.651
Variance explained % (total 54.4%) 36.05 18.34
Cronbach’s α0.778 0.509
Response mean 1.655 4.108
Response standard deviation 0.619 0.942
Farmers’ attitudes towards improving animal welfare 529
eigenvalues below 1.0 were ignored. The consistence of
each component was sufficient (Cronbach’s α > 0.6), except
for the one named ‘an empathic farmer’ (α = 0.5), which has
to be considered with caution (see however Knapp &
Brown 1995). These components were then used to
compute scores by averaging the variables that satisfied the
criteria above. Components showing substantial non-
normality were log- or square root-transformed. Each
intention item was treated as a separate variable.
To examine the connections between specific and general
attitudes, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms,
and intentions, we calculated partial correlations with the
gender and the line of production as controlling variables.
Missing values were excluded pairwise. According to Ajzen
and Fishbein (1980), in social sciences, correlations of less
than 0.3 are negligible, although statistically significant.
Because of this, only the correlations equal to or greater
than 0.3 with P< 0.01 are considered relevant in this study.
To further test the theory of planned behaviour, we applied a
structural equation model (SEM) using Amos Graphics 7.0.
First, we specified a measurement model where PCA
components substituted for observed variables, and specific
and general attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behav-
ioural control and intentions served as latent variables. For
example, the four PCA components of ‘easiness’ (‘environ-
ment’, ‘health’, ‘humane treatment’, and ‘the farmer’s own
well-being’) define the latent variable ‘perceived behav-
ioural control’. The sole exception is ‘general attitude’,
which is defined by two separate initial variables drawn from
the data, ‘Improving animal welfare is the most important
issue in my work’ and ‘It is OK that a farmer is attached to
his/her animals’, as we considered these variables to most
unambiguously describe the two general values found in the
PCA. Secondly, we modified and tested a structural equation
path model with a maximum likelihood estimation method
to determine the adequacy of the TPB in explaining the
farmers’ intentions to improve animal welfare. In the SEM,
we imputed missing values with expectation-maximisation
(EM) algorithms and evaluated the applicability of the
model by the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Results
Qualitative interviews
Construction of the attitude objects
All the interviewed farmers agreed with the statement ‘It
is very important to maintain and promote animal
welfare’, although some reservations were made. Yet
there was substantial variation among the justifications,
and this constructs the improvement of animal welfare in
different ways. The analyses of the interviews suggested
that improving animal welfare is organised as two
conceptual levels: a concrete and specific level and a
more general, abstract level (Figure 2).
The concrete level
At a concrete level, improving animal welfare manifested
itself in a wide group of practical welfare measures in
farmers’ speech. These hands-on measures can be divided
into four main ways of improving animal welfare: i)
providing animals with a favourable environment; ii) taking
care of the animals’ health; iii) treating the animals humanely;
and iv) the farmer’s motivation and well-being at work.
At the concrete level, improving welfare typically appeared
as taking care of animals’ health and providing animals with
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 523-536
Figure 2
An outline of the improvement of animal welfare as an object of attitude — from the farmers’ point of view.
530 Kauppinen et al
a favourable external environment. This is well illustrated in
the comments of an organic pig farmer:
I: It is very important to maintain and improve animal
welfare (the interviewer shows the interviewee a paper sheet
on which the statement is written).
A: Yes, of course, when an animal feels well and it has good
living conditions, of course it will stay healthier and grow
well, for example, biting tails is a good example of this
issue…
The owner of a large dairy farm summed up:
A: In my opinion, that those cows feel great, their living
environment and […] and, of course, it is also easier for
you. […] if animals stay healthy and productive.
The farmers mentioned several practical measures of
improving animal welfare. For example, providing animals
with sufficient room, solid floors (compared with slatted
floors), comfortable and soft bedding, a reasonable amount
of litter, and access to a pasture were essential when it
comes to a favourable environment. In relation to health-
care, watching the behaviour of the animals, the good
condition of hooves and hair, adequate feeding, regular
veterinary care, and the treatment of mastitis and other
illnesses were mentioned as essentials.
Some of the farmers justified their positive stance on the
statement by referring to the humane treatment of animals.
Respecting the animals, avoiding violence when handling
them, talking to and stroking the animals, and treating them
as individuals in everyday care were connected with this
view. The owner of a medium-sized pig farm emphasised:
A: They behave just like human beings. Human beings chat
and say hello … pigs are like that, too … animals are shy
only because they do not trust their caretaker and do not
know him … of course in a modern efficient concentration
camp one cannot afford to discuss, and stroke, and chat with
an animal, the most important thing is that a caretaker
knows his animal and the animal knows his caretaker and
there is a mutual trust between them.
On the basis of the interviews, the welfare of farmers
proved to be a crucial precondition for animal welfare.
Several of the farmers considered the animals’ and the care-
takers’ welfare to be equal: the welfare of an animal
increases the well-being of the caretaker which, in turn, is a
precondition for animal welfare. Treating animals individu-
ally and taking the characteristics of each animal into
account were important to these farmers. The owners of a
medium-sized pig farm (A and B) put this nicely:
A: It is important also because two issues have to work well:
maintaining and improving animal welfare and maintaining
and improving animal caretakers’ welfare, because they go
hand-in-hand. Because, in my opinion, if a caretaker is
feeling happy and exuberant, in that case very few care-
takers would treat animals badly. Personally I do not know
anybody who would.
B: And equally, if in a piggery the animals feel great, the
caretaker’s life is probably also going all right.
The abstract level
Beside the four categories of practical measures of
improving animal welfare, we found two more general and
abstract attitudinal dimensions regarding animal welfare.
Farmers seemed to evaluate animal welfare from these
distinct but often overlapping viewpoints: welfare was to be
either an instrument for production and economic output, or
it was an intrinsic value. Based on the interviews, the
farmers were aware of and appealed to both values. The
most often expressed justification in our data was the instru-
mental view. The owner of an organic pig farm paralleled
welfare with health and health with production:
I: It is very important to maintain and improve animal
welfare (the interviewer shows the interviewee a paper sheet
on which the statement is written).
A: Sure.
I: OK… Why is it important?
A: Of course, sick animals do not yield anything.
The owner of an organic dairy farm emphasised the connec-
tion between economic output and animal welfare:
A: It is the most important thing, that is what we are paid
for. If the animals feel great, they are productive and less is
needed…
Fewer farmers perceived improving animal welfare as an
intrinsic value, as a universal duty in human action. In the
speech of the owner of a medium-sized pig farm, animal
welfare is even placed ahead of the welfare of his own
family:
A: It is extremely important. It is as important as my liveli-
hood, or in our case, animal welfare is even more important
than that.
I: Yes, you also said something like that before.
A: We were on the edge of a bankruptcy, we had to gather
our food from waste containers outside supermarkets. I did
not have enough money to provide a livelihood for my
family because I invested all our money in the animals.
The farmers regarded animals as individuals when empha-
sising welfare as an intrinsic value. Most of them stressed
that the welfare of their animals and themselves are
dependent on each other. This ethical viewpoint was often
intertwined with the humane treatment of animals as an
object of the attitude, even though it was possible to support
humane treatment with instrumental grounds as well.
In this context, both the abstract values discussed above
could also be interpreted as general ideologies that provide
two positive but different evaluations of animal welfare.
The instrumental view was most smoothly associated with
providing the animals with a favourable environment and
taking care of the animals’ health. The farmers holding the
instrumental view seemed to think that improving animal
welfare is important because they believed that it increases
the economic output.
We have been discussing farmers’ attitudes here with a
single interview statement as an example, but similar
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Farmers’ attitudes towards improving animal welfare 531
attitude constructs were also identified in the farmers’
comments on the other statements. When commenting on
the rest of the statements, the farmers’ stands and justifica-
tions also revealed different views on the other main
elements of the TPB, subjective norms and perceived
behavioural control. In the course of the interviews, the
farmers cited authorities such as slaughterhouses and dairies
as well as veterinarians and other outside authorities
regularly visiting the farm. Consumers were often ignored
or referred to with a dismissive tone. The interviewees asso-
ciated the intrinsic attitude with fewer norms than the
instrumental attitude. Most farmers stated that the resources
for improving animal welfare are constrained, the limiting
factors being concerns, such as the economic situation,
increased competition, the principles of effectiveness, and
the farmer’s own well-being. In this case, improving animal
welfare was understood as investing heavily in animal
housing, technological and management solutions, the
employing of stockpeople, etc. A few farmers thought
improving animal welfare depended on one’s own attitude:
if you want to, you can improve the welfare of your animals.
Here, improving animal welfare was seen as the humane
treatment of animals, as small everyday choices and
practices which do not necessarily require much money.
Questionnaire study
Description of the original data
Table 1 illustrates the summary statistics of the initial
variables in the study. The farmers considered taking
care of the animals’ health and their own well-being as
the most important means of improving animal welfare.
Treating the animals humanely was the easiest measure
to follow. Likewise, taking care of the animals’ health
and treating them humanely were the most favoured
intentions. In general, the measures to improve animal
welfare were regarded as important but not as easy to
put into practice. Veterinarians were the most influential
of the subjective norms, while traders and consumers
had the least significance. The farmer’s obligation to
treat his/her animals well was the most important issue
at the level of general attitudes.
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 523-536
Figure 3
Standardised regression weights (single-headed
arrows) and correlations (double-headed
arrows) between the elements of the TPB in
two separate models (**P< 0.01). Compare
with Figure 1.
532 Kauppinen et al
Results of the Principal Component Analysis
Table 2 illustrates how specific animal welfare improvement
measures are grouped into four main objects of attitudes in
the PCA when concerning the easiness (‘humane treatment’,
‘farmer’s well-being’, ‘favourable environment’, ‘animal
health’) and into three objects when considering the impor-
tance of improving animal welfare (using all the above-
mentioned objects except ‘animal health’, whose items were
scattered within other components). Abstract, general level
attitudes appeared as two separate value dimensions: the
respondents were profiled as so-called ‘reward-seeking
farmers’, and as ‘empathic farmers’. Subjective norms were
loaded into separate components of their own, except for the
first one, which included both the traders and the
consumers. These components accounted altogether for
54–80% of the variance. The averages of each component
appear in Table 2 as the response mean.
Correlations between the components of the PCA
There were a few connections between the attitude compo-
nents and the four behavioural intentions, although the
correlation coefficients were generally low. The general
attitude of ‘the reward-seeking farmer’ (ρ = 0.31, P < 0.01 ),
the specific attitudes regarding the importance of humane
treatment (ρ = 0.35, P< 0.01) and a favourable environment
(ρ = 0.35, P< 0.01), and perceiving other farmers as
subjective norms (ρ = 0.32, P< 0.01) correlated with the
intention to treat animals humanely. Stressing the impor-
tance of a favourable environment also correlated with the
intention to take care of the animals’ health (ρ = 0.32,
P< 0.01). Perceiving the researchers and other specialists as
subjective norms was connected with the intention to build
or restructure facilities that improve animal welfare on the
farm (ρ = 0.34, P< 0.01). There was no connection between
the perceived behavioural control (ie the perceived easiness
of improving animal welfare) and the intentions.
The Structural Equation Model of Attitudes (SEM)
We specified the measurement model by defining the latent
variables where the four elements of attitudes formulated
with PCA served as latent variables. There were only two
observed variables defining the latent variable ‘general
attitude’; therefore, we combined general and specific
attitude into one single latent variable named ‘attitude’.
This first structural path model (Figure 3 [top]) with a
maximum likelihood estimation did not provide a good fit
to the data (χ2= 548.8, df = 149, P< 0.001,
RMSEA = 0.095, CFI = 0.749) and had to be modified.
First, we omitted the direct connection between the
perceived behavioural control and the intentions, and
second, we allowed the perceived behavioural control, the
attitudes, and the subjective norms to correlate with each
other. The modified model (Figure 3 [bottom]) provided a
fairly reasonable fit to the data (χ2= 370.2, df = 147,
P< 0.001, RMSEA = 0.072, CFI = 0.860). According to the
second model, the attitude (consisting of the general and
the specific attitudes) was the strongest predictor of the
behavioural intentions. The perceived behavioural control
did not directly predict the intentions, but was strongly
connected with the attitudes and the subjective norms that
were related to each other. This modified model with a
slight deviation from the TPB better described our data
than the first model, which strictly followed the theory.
Discussion
Farmers’ perceptions
Improving animal welfare as specific actions and general values
The qualitative study indicates that improving animal
welfare can be constructed in many different ways and at
different conceptual levels. In the interviews, farmers
discussed improving animal welfare as four concrete sets of
specific actions and as two general, abstract values.
Providing the animals with a favourable living environment
and healthcare were the most often mentioned ways to
improve animal welfare. These findings are similar to
previous studies where pork producers defined animal
welfare in terms of high productivity (Borgen & Skarstad
2007; Hubbard et al 2007), as a good health status
(Bruckmeier & Prutzer 2007; Kling-Eveillard et al 2007),
and as the good physical functioning of animals (Menghi
2007; van Huik & Bock 2007). In our study, farmers consid-
ered taking care of their own well-being a particularly
important group of actions: they perceived that animal
welfare and their own welfare were dependent on each other.
Another important group of actions disclosed in this study
was the humane treatment of animals which, however,
resulted in a higher variation in farmers’ opinions. At the
general level, the farmers evaluated improving animal
welfare on the basis of either an instrumental or an intrinsic
value. This has also been found in previous studies (Lund
et al 2004; Porcher et al 2004; Austin et al 2005). Depending
on the context, the same farmer might use both values.
The quantitative study asserted that the division of actions
and values was statistically valid. The same patterns of the
specific actions and general values emerged in the question-
naire study. The variation in the responses reveals that the
farmers took stands in several ways depending on the set of
specific actions in question. For example, improving animal
welfare by treating the animals humanely was more
important to the farmers than improving welfare by
providing the animals with a favourable environment. The
farmers’ comments also differed depending on the phrasing
of the question: whether we asked their opinion on
improving animal welfare in general or improving it with a
certain set of actions. At the general level, the value
dichotomy differed slightly from the one found in the qual-
itative study: the instrumental value was replaced with the
concept of ‘the reward-seeking farmer’, which represented
the majority of farmers. The concept of ‘an empathic
farmer’, representing the minority of the farmers, corre-
sponded with the intrinsic value. The main reason for the
difference between the findings in the qualitative and quan-
titative analyses is presumably the fact that in the qualitative
part, the farmers did not perceive the two values as
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Farmers’ attitudes towards improving animal welfare 533
excluding each other but rather as being connected in many
different ways. The farmers also expressed the difficulty of
prioritising one value over another. For this reason, it is
understandable that the instrumental and intrinsic values did
not divide the farmers into two separate groups in the quan-
titative part.
Intentions predicted by attitudes, subjective norms, and per-
ceived behavioural control
The farmers’ intentions to improve animal welfare were best
explained with their attitudes towards the specific welfare-
improving actions in the questionnaire study. A positive
attitude towards the humane treatment of animals, as well as
providing animals with a favourable environment, was
associated with the intention to treat animals humanely. The
perceived importance of a favourable environment was also
associated with the intention to take care of the animals’
health, which can be interpreted as preventative healthcare.
Staying healthy can be seen as a physical and physiological
feature of an animal promoted by improving the animal’s
living conditions: as is well known, high quality flooring
promotes hoof health, for instance (Mouttotou et al 1998;
Rushen et al 2007).
Being ‘a reward-seeking farmer’ was associated with the
intention to treat the animals humanely. Being ‘an empathic
farmer’ was not associated with any of the intentions; thus
prioritising animal welfare would not necessarily lead to
genuine improvements in animal welfare. According to
previous studies, this is not surprising: for example, people
can be very fond of their pets and, at the same time, ignorant
and even indifferent regarding the care of them (Drews
2002). On the other hand, the empathic farmers may already
have a high standard of animal welfare, but when consid-
ering improving animal welfare as a process there is no
absolute maximum level.
In addition to the specific attitudes, the subjective norms
affected the farmers’ intentions. Appreciating researchers
and other specialists was associated with the intention to
provide the animals with a favourable environment. Thus,
scientific knowledge or the trust in the credibility of that
knowledge can affect the farmers’ intentions to improve
animal welfare by investing in the animals’ living condi-
tions and buildings at the farm. However, based on this data,
we cannot know if it was the scientific information that
inspired the farmer or if the farmer first had the intention
and then sought out the scientific information. The impor-
tance of other farmers as a peer group was associated with
the intention to treat animals humanely. On the basis of
these results, we state that researchers and other farmers can
make a difference: if the farmer considers these authorities
to be important and feels that they expect improvements in
animal welfare, he/she will probably also devote
himself/herself to improving the welfare of his/her animals.
In the qualitative interview data, there were more subjective
norms associated with the instrumental attitude towards
improving animal welfare than with the intrinsic one. This
means that the authorities behind the subjective norms have
the greatest influence on the production-centred farmers
with instrumental attitudes. The way these authorities define
animal welfare may interfere with and affect the farmers’
own perceptions as items such as health, lack of illness,
good growth, and high quality of meat or milk are used as
indicators of animal productivity and welfare.
In our data, the importance and easiness of the welfare-
improving actions were often in conflict: the farmers
perceived the actions as important but relatively difficult to
carry out. In contrast to Ajzen (2002), the easiness of
improving animal welfare as an indicator of perceived
behavioural control was not significantly associated with
any of the intentions. Several factors, such economic
resources or legislation (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975), might
hinder farmers from carrying out their intentions. The
farmers considered taking care of their own well-being as
extremely important but particularly problematic in
practice. This might be a further obstacle to improving
animal welfare: if the farmers are at the edge of their own
well-being and motivation, then carrying out animal
welfare-improving actions is probably challenging.
However, the SEM illustrated the indirect effects of
perceived behavioural control and subjective norms through
attitudes on intentions in our data.
The qualitative interview and survey as support for
each other
The analysis of the qualitative interviews specified the ways
farmers take stands in improving animal welfare and how they
conceptualise animal welfare as a whole. By means of this
qualitative specification, we were able to construct the quanti-
tative part of the study (the questionnaire). Thus, carrying out
the qualitative study as a preliminary research step ensured
that the quantitative questionnaire study focused on the
relevant issues of improving animal welfare from the farmers’
point of view. The qualitative analysis of the interview study
also disclosed themes not explicated in previous studies, such
as the considerable influence of the farmer’s own well-being
on the improvement of animal welfare.
The SEM of the questionnaire data revealed the connection
between the farmers’ attitudes and their intentions as well
as the connection between the subjective norms and inten-
tions. In the quantitative analysis of the questionnaire data,
however, certain unpredictable phenomena emerged, such
as that the perceived behavioural control was not directly
connected with the behavioural intentions. Through the
influence of the farmer’s own well-being, the lack of
connection between the perceived behavioural control and
the intentions can be seen in a new light: if farmers
perceive it hard to keep up their own well-being and moti-
vation, they probably also find it demanding to invest in
improving animal welfare (according to well-established
theories of depression, lowered motivation is related to
impaired performance and decision-making [Abramson
et al 1978; McAllister 1981]). Without the qualitative
analysis, the significance of the farmers’ own well-being,
that is, the gap between the perceived behavioural control
and the intentions, would have remained a statistical oddity
or at least incompletely explained.
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 523-536
534 Kauppinen et al
The polarisation of farmers into two groups, the instru-
mental business-oriented and the intrinsic welfare-
oriented groups, has already been seen in previous studies
(eg Lund et al 2004), but the general attitudes of reward-
seeking and, on the other hand, empathy, are the concepts
related to the evaluation of animal welfare discovered in
our questionnaire study. Through the concept of instru-
mental and intrinsic values, the responsible and animal
welfare-prioritising viewpoints can be put into perspec-
tive and paralleled with the findings of previous studies.
These examples demonstrate how the concepts disclosed
by the qualitative interview study make it possible to
explain and generalise the statistical findings of the quan-
titative questionnaire study theoretically and extensively
to a larger group of farmers.
The TPB as a conceptual framework in structuring
the interaction between the qualitative interviews
and the questionnaire study
The TPB is often applied in quantitative approaches where
the focus is not on the respondents’ justifications for their
comments. It is also typically applied with an assumption
that the respondents’ objects of attitudes are preconceivable
and that the researchers and the respondents share and
identify the idea of the object in the same way. Yet, the
same issue can be perceived and understood in several
ways as several distinct objects of attitudes (Asch 1940;
Vesala & Rantanen 1999). For example, the farmers in our
study were almost unanimous in their perceptions of the
importance of animal welfare but had different motiva-
tions: a farmer with an instrumental view on animal
welfare evaluates the outcomes of animal welfare improve-
ment measures through the economic output, whereas a
farmer with an intrinsic view weighs the outcomes from the
standpoint of the animals’ feelings. Through a mere struc-
tured questionnaire study it would not be as easy to identify
such differences in attitude objects.
The central idea of the TPB is to examine specific attitudes
focusing on a certain behaviour rather than general
attitudes focusing on an abstract phenomenon. When
studying the connections between attitudes and behav-
iours, it is essential to measure the object of the attitude on
a relevant scale, that is to say, the attitude measured and
the consequential behaviour must be on the same scale.
Through the interviews, we aimed at finding out how the
farmers perceive the improvement of animal welfare as an
action, and thereafter in the questionnaire study we asked
the farmers about their intentions to carry out these
actions. In some of the previous studies concerning
farmers’ and caretakers’ attitudes, the object of the attitude
has been the production animal itself (Lensink et al 2000),
production animal welfare in general (Velde et al 2002), or
the human-animal relationship (Bertenshaw & Rowlinson
2009; Hanna et al 2009). Yet, according to the TPB, the
attitude towards certain behaviour gives a better estimate
of future behaviour than a general attitude, which has also
been proven in a previous study concerning caretakers’
behavioural intentions (Waiblinger et al 2002).
Critical aspects in the implementation of the study
According to the TPB, a crucial factor preceding and
predicting human behaviour is the individuals’ perceived
behavioural control over the issue they perceive as
important, irrespective of their actual control. In our study,
we measured the perceived behavioural control by asking
the respondents to estimate how easy it would be to carry out
particular animal welfare-improving measures on their own
farms. We did not enquire about the respondents’ opinions
on their actual control over the desired outcome. This may
partly result in the observed gap between the easiness of
improving animal welfare as a measure of perceived behav-
ioural control and the behavioural intentions.
In addition, we did not ask the respondents if they had
already carried out certain measures to improve animal
welfare at their farms, but only asked for their intentions.
The farmers may think they already have a welfare standard
high enough, or they already have implemented the actions
they consider important. For instance, farmers who have
just built a new barn with welfare-improving technical
solutions are probably not going to rebuild one in the near
future. The lack of relationship between attitudes and inten-
tions may thus be more pronounced than in reality due to the
fact that we do not know the actual welfare standard of the
farms. Yet, according to the TPB (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980),
this is of little significance: when considering the improve-
ment of animal welfare, it is not a question of being satisfied
with the existing welfare standard but of being willing to
improve it even further. A farmer with a high welfare
standard but with no intentions to push it any higher is not,
by definition, interested in the actual process of improving
animal welfare, where the focus of our study lies.
The response rate of the questionnaire study remained 35%.
We sent the questionnaires to the farmers at the beginning
of the summer when most farmers were busy with their
farm work. In a later telephone survey of dairy farmers,
being too busy was the main reason for not responding. The
missing responses on pig farms were analysed by
contrasting the respondents’ piglet production figures with
the correspondent figures of the farmers who failed to
respond. The farmers who had responded reached a number
of weaned piglets slightly above the national average.
Obviously, the welfare-oriented farmers are over-repre-
sented in our data; consequently it is not possible to gener-
alise the results to all Finnish farmers. The positive view on
improving animal welfare was strongly emphasised in the
interview data as well. Thus, we can only indirectly estimate
how the improvement of animal welfare would be
constructed if the data also contained interviewees and
respondents with distinctly negative, opposing attitudes.
Animal welfare implications
The farmers’ way of perceiving the improvement of animal
welfare as two abstract, general values and four categories
of specific, concrete actions is the most important finding of
this study. The perceived conflict between the farmers’
views on the importance of improving animal welfare and
the difficulty of putting it into practice indicates that the
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Farmers’ attitudes towards improving animal welfare 535
improvement of animal welfare requires society to take
more responsibility.
Our study demonstrates that by adapting a valid conceptual
framework and applying relevant qualitative and quantita-
tive methods that support each other, we are able to
elucidate the underlying meanings and values in farmers’
views on improvement of animal welfare. This approach
aids in developing communication between farmers and
other stakeholders.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry in Finland and the Finnish Research School for
Animal Welfare. We warmly thank all the farmers for their
participation.
References
Abramson LY, Seligman MEP and Teasdale JD 1978
Learned helplessness in humans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology
87: 49-74
Ajzen I 1991 The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211
Ajzen I 2002 Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of
control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 32: 665-683
Ajzen I and Fishbein M 1980 Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall Inc: Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, USA
Alasuutari P 1995 Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and
Cultural Studies. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UK
Asch SE 1940 Studies in the principles of judgments and atti-
tudes: II. Determination of judgments by group and by ego-stan-
dards. Journal of Social Psychology 12: 433-465
Augoustinos M and Walker I 1995 Social Cognition. An
Integrated Introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UK
Austin E, Deary I, Edwards-Jones G and Arey D 2005
Attitudes to farm animal welfare. Factor structure and personali-
ty correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal for
Individual Differences 26: 107-120
Bertenshaw C and Rowlinson P 2009 Exploring stock man-
agers’ perceptions of the human-animal relationship on dairy farms
and an association with milk production. Anthrozoös 22: 59-69
Billig M 1996 Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social
Psychology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK
Bock BB and van Huik MM 2007 Animal welfare: the atti-
tudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food
Journal 109: 931-944
Boivin X, Lensink J, Tallet C and Veissier I 2003
Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479-492
Borgen SO and Skarstad GA 2007 Norwegian pig farmers’
motivations for improving animal welfare. British Food Journal
109: 891-905
Brambell FWR 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire
into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry
Systems, Command Report 2836. HMSO: London, UK
Brannen J 2005 Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative and
quantitative approaches into the research process. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 173-184
Bruckmeier K and Prutzer M 2007 Swedish pig producers
and their perspectives on animal welfare: a case study. British Food
Journal 109: 906-918
Coleman GJ, McGregor M, Hemsworth PH, Boyce J and
Dowling S 2003 The relationship between beliefs, attitudes and
observed behaviours of abattoir personnel in the pig industry.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82: 189-200
Drews C 2002 Attitudes, knowledge and wild animals as pets in
Costa Rica. Anthrozoös 15: 119-149
Fazio RH and Olson MA 2003 Attitudes: foundations, func-
tions, and consequences. In: Hogg MA and Cooper J (eds) The
Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd:
London, UK
Fishbein M and Ajzen I 1975 Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company Inc: Reading, Massachusetts, USA
Frewer LJ, Kole A, de Kroon SMAV and de Lauwere C
2005 Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-
friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 18: 345-367
Hanna D, Sneddon IA and Beattie VE 2009 The relationship
between the stockperson’s personality and attitudes and the pro-
ductivity of dairy cows. Animal 3: 737-743
Heleski CR and Zanella AJ 2006 Animal science student atti-
tudes to farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös 19: 3-16
Heleski CR, Mertig AG and Zanella AJ 2005 Results of a
national survey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitudes
toward farm animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 226: 1538-1546
Hemsworth PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock
production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 185-198
Hubbard C, Bourlakis M and Garrod G 2007 Pig in the mid-
dle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards.
British Food Journal 109: 919-930
Kling-Eveillard F, Dockès A and Souquet C 2007 Attitudes
of French pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal
109: 859-869
Knapp TR and Brown JK 1995 Ten measurement command-
ments that often should be broken. Research in Nursing & Health
18: 465-469
Lassen J, Sandøe P and Forkman B 2006 Happy pigs are
dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science
103: 221-230
Lensink J, Boissy A and Veissier I 2000 The relationship
between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and pro-
ductivity of veal units. Annals of Zootechnology 49: 313-327
Lund V, Hemlin S and White J 2004 Natural behavior, animal
rights, or making money. A study of Swedish organic farmers’
view of animal issues. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
17: 157-179
Manstead ASR and Parker D 1995 Evaluating and extending
the theory of planned behaviour. European Review of Social
Psychology 6: 69-95
McAllister TW 1981 Cognitive functions in the affective disor-
ders. Comprehensive Psychiatry 22: 572-586
Menghi A 2007 Italian pig producers’ attitude toward animal
welfare. British Food Journal 109: 870-878
Millman ST 2009 Animal welfare — scientific approaches to the
issues. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12: 88-96
Mouttotou N, Hatchell FM and Green LE 1998 Adventitious
bursitis of the hock in finishing pigs: prevalence, distribution and asso-
ciation with floor type and foot lesions. Veterinary Record 142: 109-114
Nousiainen M, Pylkkänen P, Saunders F, Seppänen L and
Vesala KM 2009 Are alternative food systems socially sustain-
able? A case study from Finland. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
33: 566-594
Animal Welfare 2010, 19: 523-536
536 Kauppinen et al
Porcher J, Cousson-Gélie F and Dantzer R 2004 Affective
components of the human-animal relationship in animal hus-
bandry: development and validation of a questionnaire.
Psychological Reports 95: 275-290
Rantanen T and Vesala KM 1999 Soveltuuko asenteen käsite
myös laadulliseen tutkimukseen? Psykologia. Tiedepoliittinen
Aikakauslehti 34: 343-348. [Title translation: Is the concept of atti-
tude also suited for qualitative research?]
Rushen J, Haley D and de Passille AM 2007 Effect of softer
flooring in tie stalls on resting behavior and leg injuries of lactat-
ing cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3647-3651
Rushen J, Taylor AA and de Passillé AM 1999 Domestic ani-
mals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 65: 285-303
Sabuncuoglu N and Coban O 2008 Attitudes of Turkish vet-
erinarians towards animal welfare. Animal Welfare 17: 27-33
Serpell JA 2004 Factors influencing human attitudes to animals
and their welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 145-151
Sieber SD 1973 The integration of fieldwork and survey meth-
ods. The American Journal of Sociology 78: 1335-1359
van Huik MM and Bock BB 2007 Attitudes of Dutch pig farm-
ers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109: 879-890
Velde HT, Aarts N and van Woerkum C 2002 Dealing with
ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal wel-
fare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 15: 203-219
Vesala KM 2004 Yrittäjyys ja uhkakuvat. EU maanviljelijöiden
asenteissa In: Nirkko J and Vesala KM (eds) Kirjoituksia maan
sydämeltä. Tutkimusnäkökulmia maanviljelijöiden kilpakeruuaineistoon
pp 163-200. Finnish Literature Society: Helsinki, Finland. [Title
translation: Entrepreneurship and the images of threat. EU in the
attitudes of farmers: Writings from the Heart of the Earth.
Research Perspectives to Farmers’ Narratives]
Vesala KM and Rantanen T 1999 Pelkkä puhe ei riitä.
Maanviljelijän yrittäjäidentiteetin rakentumisen sosiaalipsykologisia
ehtoja. Helsinki University Press: Helsinki, Finland. [Title translati-
on: Mere talking is not enough. Socio-psychological preconditions
for the construction of the farmer’s entrepreneur identity]
Vesala KM and Rantanen T 2007 Laadullinen asennetutkimus:
Lähtökohtia, periaatteita, mahdollisuuksia. In: Vesala KM and
Rantanen T (eds) Argumentaatio ja tulkinta. Laadullisen asennetutkimuk-
sen lähestymistapa pp 11-61. Gaudeamus Helsinki University Press:
Helsinki, Finland. [Title translation: Qualitative attitude approach:
starting points, guidelines and prospects. In: Argumentation and
interpretation. The qualitative attitude approach]
Waiblinger S, Menke C and Coleman G 2002 The relation-
ship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of
stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy
cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195-219
Wetherell MS, Stiven H and Potter J 1987 Unequal egalitarian-
ism: a preliminary study of discourses concerning gender and employ-
ment opportunities. British Journal of Social Psychology 26: 59-71
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare