No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Science versus Human Welfare? Understanding Attitudes toward Animal Use
Journal of Social Issues
Abstract
Scientists have been portrayed as having an uncaring attitude toward the use of animals and being inclined to reject the possibility of animal mind (Baldwin, 1993; Blumberg & Wasserman, 1995), yet there is little empirical research to support these claims. We examined why disparate attitudes toward animal use are held. Scientists, animal welfarists, and laypersons (N = 372) were compared on questionnaire responses that measured attitudes toward four types of animal use, and factors that might underlie these views (including belief in animal mind). As expected, scientists and animal welfarists held polarized views on all measures, whereas laypersons fell between the two. Animal welfarists were consistently opposed to all types of animal use, whereas scientists expressed support for the use of animals for medical research, but not for dissection, personal decoration, and entertainment. Animal welfarists showed high levels of belief in animal mind for 13 animal types, and scientists believed some of the 13 animals to have at least a moderate capacity for cognition and most to have at least a moderate capacity for sentience. Hence, the negative image of the science community that is often portrayed was not supported by our data. Findings were discussed in relation to external (group membership) and internal (belief systems) factors, and it is concluded that some people hold fixed attitudes toward animal use, whereas others are more influenced by context.
... It has become clear that a number of people are very passionate with regard to the ethics and suitability of using animals in experiments [1]. Some might expect that those involved in animal experimentation would have different opinions on the appropriateness of such research than those outside the lab [1]. ...
... It has become clear that a number of people are very passionate with regard to the ethics and suitability of using animals in experiments [1]. Some might expect that those involved in animal experimentation would have different opinions on the appropriateness of such research than those outside the lab [1]. In truth, it was found that those in support of animal rights were more opposed to the use of animals in research in comparison to scientists or laypersons [1]. ...
... Some might expect that those involved in animal experimentation would have different opinions on the appropriateness of such research than those outside the lab [1]. In truth, it was found that those in support of animal rights were more opposed to the use of animals in research in comparison to scientists or laypersons [1]. However, deeper investigation revealed that scientists were only supportive of the use of animals in the laboratory for research and disinterested in their use for entertainment or decoration purposes [1]. ...
Introduction
Attitudes toward animal experimentation are rapidly evolving with time. This cross-sectional study intends to assess the attitudes of university students at Eastern Mediterranean University toward animal research based on different factors and lifestyle choices.
Materials and methods
Stratified random sampling was used. A total of 215 participants were chosen from the Faculties of Medicine, Pharmacy, Law, and the Department of Psychology (Faculty of Arts and Sciences). An open-access, self-administered, 14-question questionnaire was used. Mann-Whitney U tests were used for score comparisons.
Results
The response rate was 213 (99.07%). Eighty-eight (41.31%) of the participants were male. The mean age was 21.72 ± 2.23. Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences for Q4, Q10, and Q14 (p = 0.012, 0.020, and 0.016, respectively) with respect to gender. Being a pet owner significantly affected the mean scores of Q7 and Q10 (p = 0.046 and p = 0.000, respectively).
Conclusion
The present study reveals nuanced student attitudes toward animal experimentation, balancing concern for animal welfare with the necessity of research. Gender and pet ownership significantly influence these views. The findings underscore the need for continued education on humane and ethical research practices. Future studies should broaden the demographic scope to better understand and track these attitudes over time.
... Therefore, this section examined primary research studies that addressed the public's attitudes towards animal use. The following research illustrates that the public is more likely to support animal use for research, classroom use, or food than for entertainment or personal decoration (Knight et al., 2015;Knight, Bard, Vrij, & Brandon, 2010;Knight & Barnett, 2008;Knight, Nunkoosing, Vrij, & Cherryman, 2003;Knight, Vrij, Bard, & Brandon, 2009). ...
... In this study, Knight et al. (2009) found that the attitudes of laypersons and scientists were more similar than one may expect: both groups were more likely to support animal use for medical research than for other means. In this quantitative study, a convenience sample of 372 scientists, animal welfarists, and laypersons completed questionnaires in order to compare their attitudes towards animal use and their beliefs supporting those attitudes. ...
... Knight et al. (2010) then used Cronbach's alpha to measure the reliability of the questionnaires, and Pearson correlations and MANOVAS were used to determine relationships between the attitudes and beliefs and evaluate covariates. After analyzing the data, Knight et al. (2009) found that the belief that "humans are superior to animals was positively correlated with support for animal use" (p. 470). ...
On May 28, 2016, a child fell into the Gorilla World exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo, where he encountered a seventeen-year-old 450-lb gorilla named Harambe. When Harambe failed to exit the enclosure, the Cincinnati Zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response Team shot and killed the gorilla to prevent further interaction between him and the child. As a result, the public responded with outcry and condemnation, which continued for months after the incident’s occurrence. Through a conventional qualitative content analysis, this thesis analyzes how national U.S. media organizations’ online articles framed the incident and how those frames propelled the controversy among the public. More specifically, this thesis identifies the sentiments and frames used to portray the gorilla and his actions, the child and his actions, and the options of whether to tranquilize or kill the gorilla. One of the most significant findings of this study reveals that the media’s frames exposed several contradictory messages sent by the Cincinnati Zoo to the public, which most likely fed the on-going controversy. From a theoretical perspective, this illustrates how media frames can influence the public’s opinion on a given case, while from a practical standpoint, such findings allowed for the development of recommendations on how to prevent such controversies. More specifically, this thesis recommends that communication practitioners assert the organization’s mission statement in messages, ensure that messages align with the mission statement, clarify desirability of the organization’s action over other possibilities, and address all aspects of the situation. Overall, this thesis provides one instance of how the media can use framing to influence the public agenda
... Regarding animal characteristics, people generally do not see all animals as equal, as their physical and behavioral traits play a role in how they are perceived, considered and treated [12,17,51]. Humans tend to prefer animals that are phylogenetically close to them and perceived as physically, behaviorally or cognitively similar; these aspects trigger more positive affect and attachment and caregiving behaviors, as well as greater empathy and a higher concern in terms of welfare and conservation [52][53][54][55][56][57]. ...
... Knight et al. [51] suggested that the variability in people's attitudes to the use and exploitation of animals depends on a combination of different factors including beliefs about the mental capacities of animals, perceived superiority of humans, availability of alternatives to the use of animals for various purposes (e.g., medical research and food) and whether the problem of animal exploitation has any direct personal relevance. Belief in the animal mind appears to be a good predictor of attitudes towards animals and their use and abuse for the benefit of humans (e.g., entertainment, experimentation and financial gain [60,61]). ...
... Belief in the animal mind appears to be a good predictor of attitudes towards animals and their use and abuse for the benefit of humans (e.g., entertainment, experimentation and financial gain [60,61]). The propensity to use animals is greater when people believe there is no alternative, when their knowledge of how animals are used is poor, when the affinity with animals is low and when the perceived benefits of using animals outweigh the costs [51]. ...
Simple Summary
The relationship between humans and animals may have positive effects for both parties, but there are situations in which it has poor or even negative effects for animals or for both humans and animals. Several studies reported the positive effects of this relationship in which both humans and animals obtain physical and psychological benefits from living together in a reciprocated interaction. There is also clear evidence that human–animal relationships may be characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals and, in some cases, also for people. This work depicts the complex and multifaceted nature of the human–animal relationship; describes the role of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in the human–animal bond; shows how these psychological processes are involved in a dysfunctional way in animal hoarding, with highly detrimental effects on animal well-being.
Abstract
The human–animal relationship is ancient, complex and multifaceted. It may have either positive effects on humans and animals or poor or even negative and detrimental effects on animals or both humans and animals. A large body of literature has investigated the beneficial effects of this relationship in which both human and animals appear to gain physical and psychological benefits from living together in a reciprocated interaction. However, analyzing the literature with a different perspective it clearly emerges that not rarely are human–animal relationships characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals and, in some cases, also for people. The negative physical and psychological consequences on animals’ well-being may be very nuanced and concealed, but there are situations in which the negative consequences are clear and striking, as in the case of animal violence, abuse or neglect. Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are human psychological mechanisms that are considered relevant for positive and healthy relationships with animals, but when dysfunctional or pathological determine physical or psychological suffering, or both, in animals as occurs in animal hoarding. The current work reviews some of the literature on the multifaceted nature of the human–animal relationship; describes the key role of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in human–animal relationships; seeks to depict how these psychological processes are distorted and dysfunctional in animal hoarding, with highly detrimental effects on both animal and human well-being.
... Previous research has identified multiple factors which influence our attitudes to animal use, including the type of species and purpose of use (Bradley et al., 2020;Higgs et al., 2020), species likeability (perceptions of species' attractiveness, 'cuteness' and familiarity; Tisdell et al., 2005;Sevillano and Fiske, 2016;Possidónio et al., 2019Possidónio et al., , 2021, and participant characteristics such as gender (Caviola et al., 2019;Possidónio et al., 2019Possidónio et al., , 2021Bradley et al., 2020;Higgs et al., 2020) and age (Driscoll, 1992;Ormandy and Schuppli, 2014;Clemence and Leaman, 2016). Non-meat eaters attribute higher mental capacities to animals (Knight et al., 2009;Higgs et al., 2020), suggesting they show reduced tendency to dementalize certain species (Knight et al., 2004;Bilewicz et al., 2011;Morris et al., 2012;Hawkins and Williams, 2016;Higgs et al., 2020). ...
... In contrast, attitudes towards the use of pest and profit categories of species were more neutral and not significantly different from each other (though with some individual exceptions at the species level). Animal use for medical research was most widely accepted, potentially due to the perception of limited alternatives (Knight et al., 2009), whereas participants disagreed most with animal use for fashion/ornamentation. Given the timing of the data collection, the Covid pandemic might be expected to impact the perceived acceptability of medical testing. ...
... This may be the result of our relatively young sample which predominantly consisted of individuals aged 18-25 years. Finally, as might be expected, individuals with scientific training were more accepting towards animal use, which may relate to differing perceptions around animal sentience, necessity of use and recognition of beneficial outcomes (Knight et al., 2009). ...
Attitudes to animals and their use are becoming increasingly important for the success of conservation and environmental initiatives. Beliefs about animals, their perceived emotional appeal, as well as individuals’ moral capacities are all likely drivers of attitudes to animal use. In the present study, 320 participants completed an online survey containing the animal purpose questionnaire (APQ), the likeability and the speciesism scales, along with subscales of the moral foundations questionnaire and some demographic items. The results suggest that participants were least agreeable towards the use of pet species, but more neutral towards the use of profit and pest species. Individuals with a stronger liking for animals, greater individualising moral values and fewer speciesist attitudes were more likely to challenge animal use. In addition, individuals who identified as young female and non-meat-eating displayed heightened concern about animal use. Individualising morality and speciesism, along with personal factors such as eating orientation were significant predictors of attitudes to animal use as measured by the APQ. Speciesism was the strongest individual predictor of APQ totals, accounting for the highest proportion of the variance in the hierarchical regression. Overall the findings suggest that human versus non-human animal and pet versus non-pet are the key speciesism prejudices at work. Moreover, a general measure of human respect for the rights of other humans also predicted respect for the rights of animals. Thus the findings also suggest some similarity in the psychological mechanisms underpinning human–human and human–animal relations.
... British, Dutch and Danish surveys have shown that researchers involved in animal experiments, animal care staff and animal welfare officers have an overall good knowledge and a positive attitude towards the 3Rs (NC3Rs, 2008;Leenars et al., 2009;van Luijk et al., 2011;Nøhr et al., 2016). In contrast, the overall attitude was found to be less favorable in a Canadian survey of researchers (Fenwick et al., 2011), andKnight et al. (2009) suggested that researchers working with animals might be more prone to accept the use of animals in experiments than other societal groups. ...
... Purchase and Nedeva (2002) reported that a larger proportion of animal-using researchers than named veterinarians strongly believed that information from alternatives was not as valuable as from animal experiments. Knight et al. (2009) found that researchers did not believe in the existence of alternatives to animals in medical research and showed the largest support for animal use in general compared to animal welfarists and laypersons, especially for medical research. Students and potential future researchers in the Swedish toxicology MSc program at Karolinska Institutet have a strong focus on all three Rs in all courses throughout their education. ...
... Although several Canadian researchers said that they are using the 3Rs as much as possible, they found replacement difficult to implement, and less applicable than reduction and refinement (Fenwick et al., 2011). Researchers may often see animal-free methods as complementary to animal research models, rather than as complete replacement (Knight et al., 2009). Thus, traditional replacement strategies, i.e., in vitro and in silico methods, result in reduction as well as replacement (Törnqvist et al., 2014). ...
The implementation of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) is emphasized in EU Directive 2010/63. The task of the animal welfare bodies (AWB) is to strengthen animal welfare and develop the 3Rs at research animal facilities. In 2016, we surveyed the knowledge, attitudes towards and implementation of the 3Rs within AWBs at eight major Swedish universities. Based on responses of 34 closed-ended questions from 44 of 90 AWB members, the overall attitude towards the 3Rs was positive. Animal Welfare Body members did not believe that the 3Rs slow down innovation or result in increased costs, and refinement is considered beneficial for research quality. Animal Welfare Body members were particularly positive towards refinement questions in the survey. A majority of the AWB members answered that alternative methods will never replace animal use. Researchers as a group represented in the AWBs were significantly less positive towards the 3Rs, compared to the group of veterinarians. The tasks of the AWBs, e.g., giving advice on the 3Rs and following up on animal use in projects, was often not carried out in the AWB or "not known" by the respondents. Our results indicate a need for more practical and regulatory guidance and support to the AWBs. To reach the goal of the EU Directive to phase out animal use in research and education, we suggest that technical expertise in replacement techniques is included in the AWBs. We emphasize the need to strengthen the 3R awareness among researchers at Swedish universities.
... British, Dutch and Danish surveys have shown that researchers involved in animal experiments, animal care staff and animal welfare officers have an overall good knowledge and a positive attitude towards the 3Rs (NC3Rs, 2008;Leenars et al., 2009;van Luijk et al., 2011;Nøhr et al., 2016). In contrast, the overall attitude was found to be less favorable in a Canadian survey of researchers (Fenwick et al., 2011), andKnight et al. (2009) suggested that researchers working with animals might be more prone to accept the use of animals in experiments than other societal groups. ...
... Purchase and Nedeva (2002) reported that a larger proportion of animal-using researchers than named veterinarians strongly believed that information from alternatives was not as valuable as from animal experiments. Knight et al. (2009) found that researchers did not believe in the existence of alternatives to animals in medical research and showed the largest support for animal use in general compared to animal welfarists and laypersons, especially for medical research. Students and potential future researchers in the Swedish toxicology MSc program at Karolinska Institutet have a strong focus on all three Rs in all courses throughout their education. ...
... Although several Canadian researchers said that they are using the 3Rs as much as possible, they found replacement difficult to implement, and less applicable than reduction and refinement (Fenwick et al., 2011). Researchers may often see animal-free methods as complementary to animal research models, rather than as complete replacement (Knight et al., 2009). Thus, traditional replacement strategies, i.e., in vitro and in silico methods, result in reduction as well as replacement (Törnqvist et al., 2014). ...
... For example, "belief in animal mind" and vegetarianism are related to attitudes toward animal welfare and correlation coefficients range, respectively, from 0.46 to 0.53 and from 0.22 to 0.39 (Knight et al., 2004). Belief in animal mind is higher in animal welfarists than in scientists, while laypersons occupy an intermediate position (Knight et al., 2009). Ellingsen et al. (2010) reported a strong, positive correlation (0.58) between animal-directed empathy and positive attitudes toward pets. ...
... Another individual difference trait was "perception of choice." This is when respondents judge that there are alternatives to animal use (Knight et al., 2009). This construct also showed a strong correlation with pro-animal attitudes and accounted for 40% of the variance in attitudes (Knight et al., 2009). ...
... This is when respondents judge that there are alternatives to animal use (Knight et al., 2009). This construct also showed a strong correlation with pro-animal attitudes and accounted for 40% of the variance in attitudes (Knight et al., 2009). Meat consumption is negatively correlated with attitudes toward animal welfare (Binngiesser et al., 2013;Randler et al., 2019) and vegetarians generally express greater concerns for animal welfare (Cooper et al., 1985;Furnham et al., 2003;Herzog & Golden, 2009;Martens et al., 2019;Santos & Booth, 1996). ...
Concerns about animal welfare are becoming increasingly important. Recent research suggests that age and gender are associated with attitudes toward animal welfare in adolescents. In this study, we analyzed attitudes toward animal welfare in adolescents from five geographic regions: Colombia, France, Germany, and two regions in India (Raipur and Kalyani). Individuals responded to the Composite Respect for Animals Scale (CRAS-S). The CRAS-S score integrates 10 facets of attitudes toward animal welfare: the use of animals in research, for food, as pets, for recreation, for clothing, farm animal husbandry, and the conservation of animals, as well as emotional aspects such as feeling superior to animals or emotional affection. A total of 627 males and 506 females (n = 1,133) participated in this study (France, 134; Colombia, 193; Germany, 377; Raipur, 210; Kalyani, 219). Females scored significantly higher than males (2.9% of variance explained). There was no consistent relationship with age. No relationship was found in Colombia, France, and Raipur, and a negative relationship in attitudes toward animal welfare was found in Germany and Kalyani.
... Comparison of facial expression and self-reported measures of emotional response indicates a positive relationship between these two methods of assessment. Our finding agrees with earlier work showing a relationship between self-reported measures and facial expression of negative emotions when shown human stimuli [46]. A relationship has also been shown between self-reports and physiological measures (e.g. ...
... A relationship has also been shown between self-reports and physiological measures (e.g. skin conductance response, heart rate) in response to both human and animal in victimizing scenarios [3,44,46,47]. ...
... There is no consensus in the literature regarding human attitudes towards cows versus pigs. One study [46] found that people rated pigs higher in cognition and sentience compared to cows, but another found that people believed cows were capable of more complex emotions compared to pigs [44]. The difference in attitudes towards pigs and cows, both common food animals, may be less substantial than that towards animals that are very close to use socially (e.g. as pets) or very similar to us phylogenetically (e.g. ...
People often express concern for the welfare of farm animals, but research on this topic has relied upon self-report. Facial expressions provide a quantifiable measure of emotional response that may be less susceptible to social desirability bias and other issues associated with self-report. Viewing other humans in pain elicits facial expressions indicative of empathy. Here we provide the first evidence that this measure can also be used to assess human empathetic responses towards farm animals, showing that facial expressions respond reliably when participants view videos of farm animals undergoing painful procedures. Participants (n = 30) were asked to watch publicly sourced video clips of cows and pigs undergoing common management procedures (e.g. disbudding, castration, tail docking) and control videos (e.g. being lightly restrained, standing). Participants provided their subjective rating of the intensity of 5 negative emotions (pain, sadness, anger, fear, disgust) on an 11-point Likert scale. Videos of the participants (watching the animals) were scored for intensity of unpleasantness of the participants’ facial expression (also on an 11-point Likert scale) by a trained observer who was blind to treatment. Participants showed more intense facial expressions while viewing painful procedures versus control procedures (mean ± SE Likert; 2.4 ± 0.08 versus 0.6 ± 0.17). Participants who reported more intense negative responses also showed stronger facial expressions (slope ± SE = 0.4 ± 0.04). Both the self-reported and facial measures varied with species and procedure witnessed. These results indicate that facial expressions can be used to assess human-animal empathy.
... For example, Knight et al. [9] examined attitudes to different types of animal use (experimentation, teaching, personal decoration, entertainment, management/pest control and financial gain/food production) using a scale compiled from Armstrong & Hutchins [10] and Mathews & Herzog [11], as well as some additional questions. Knight et al. [12] advanced this line of work, examining attitudes towards the use of different kinds of animals for different kinds of purpose. However, rather than comparing individual participants' attitudes across species, each participant was asked about the use of only one type of animal across the selected purposes. ...
... If one believes that certain animals are mentally complex, then subjecting them to discomfort and death seems unacceptable [12] and hence a lack of mental complexity is often used to justify which species can be used and which uses are acceptable for that species. This link has been established in the literature [25,26], but the relationship is not clear-cut. ...
... This link has been established in the literature [25,26], but the relationship is not clear-cut. For example, Knight et al. [12] found that scientists would willingly assign at least a 'moderate' level of sentience to typical research animals and yet remain heavily in favour of using animals for research. Thus, BAM alone does not necessarily predict what an individual will advocate for animals. ...
The animal purpose questionnaire (APQ) is a new instrument to measure human attitudes to animal use systematically across both species and purpose of use. This offers a more fine-grained approach to our understanding of how the belief in a specific animal's mental capacities relates to (dis-)agreement with their use for different human purposes. In the present study, 317 participants completed an online survey containing the APQ and the belief in animal mind (BAM) scale in a species-specific format, to test the prediction that levels of (dis-)agreement with animal use should mirror participants' judgements of animal sentience. The results obtained with the APQ confirmed that attitudes to animal use differed significantly across both purpose and species. Key findings included a relatively greater concern for dolphins and dogs over chimpanzees (suggesting that phylogenetic position is not the only determinant of attitudes to animal use). Across the purposes examined, respondents were largely negative about animal usage, with the exception that there was less disagreement if this was for medical research. Participants were also asked to provide demographic details such as gender and dietary preference. Regression analyses revealed high predictive power for species-specific BAM across five different kinds of animal use. General BAM scores, non-meat-eating and being female accounted for 31.5% of the total variability in APQ scores. The results indicate that BAM is a strong predictor of self-reported attitudes for using particular animals. However, the results showed some exceptions in the case of culturally typical ‘produce’ animals.
... For example, thematic analysis of interview data identified the importance of 'types of animal used', 'purpose of animal use' and 'knowledge of animal use' were important moderators of attitudes to animal use [30]. Using a quantitative approach, attitudes to different purposes of use (medical research, dissection, personal decoration and entertainment) have been examined in different populations (scientists, animal welfarists and laypersons) using 4 questionnaire variants to measure attitudes to (1) monkeys, (2) dogs and cats, (3) rabbits and guinea pigs or (4) rats and mice [31]. However, in this earlier study each participant was asked about their attitudes to the use of only one of the 4 sets of species. ...
... Secondly, amongst the purposes examined by the APQ, it was to be expected that, for all species, participants would show the highest agreement with the use of animals in medical research because of the potential benefits to the quality and duration of human lives [8,34,35]. Finally with reference to speciesism [16,17], participants were predicted to be relatively more accepting of the use of animal species which are seen to be less intelligent, less emotional and less cognitively capable, especially in medical research [30,31]. For example, participants would be expected to show the lowest acceptance of use of animals with high intelligence (e.g., dolphins), those which relate to humans socially as pets (e.g., dogs) and those which are genetically similar to humans (e.g., chimpanzees). ...
... Variation in attitudes towards purpose of animal use has been a particular focus in relation to medical research [8,31,43]. In the present study, medical research was also the purpose of use attracting least disagreement. ...
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.
... Some pre-existing work already suggests that at least some of the 4Ns might have a broader application beyond meat. A study by Knight, Vrij, Bard, and Brandon (2009) identified "perceptions of choice" as a category of beliefs that relate to the perceived Necessity of using animals for various uses. Knight et al. probed medical scientists, animal welfare advocates, and laypersons' beliefs concerning the existence of viable alternatives to using animals for medical research, dissection, personal decoration, and entertainment, with items such as, "We have to use animals for medical research because there isn't anything else we could use for this purpose." ...
... Likewise, other research by Knight, Bard, Vrij, and Brandon (2010) has examined beliefs related to affection for animals (e.g., "Animals give me a lot of pleasure"), perceived benefits of using animals (e.g., "You have to consider what happens to the animals and what end result is; then you can decide whether animal use is right or wrong"), perceptions of choice (e.g., "There is no substitute to using animals"), need for control (e.g., "We need to control the numbers of animals, or things would get out of hand"), and human superiority (e.g., "I think that humans are more worthy than animals"), as factors predicting acceptability of four animal uses (same four uses as in Knight et al., 2009). Arguably, the factors of "affection for animals" and "perceived benefits" relate to the category of Nice within the 4N scheme, and "perceptions of choice" and "need for control" relate to Necessary. ...
... Finally, research into human supremacy beliefs (e.g., Dhont & Hodson, 2014;Rothgerber, 2012) suggests that the prioritization of human lives over animals might be another category of justification that emerges with some frequency. Indeed, the previously mentioned study by Knight et al. (2009) directly probed participants' beliefs about human superiority and found that these beliefs were endorsed more strongly by scientists and laypeople than by animal welfare advocates. Furthermore, the study by Knight et al. (2010) found human superiority beliefs to contribute to endorsement levels for all four animal uses they examined. ...
Past research has uncovered four common justifications for using animals as food-the 4Ns-that eating meat is Natural, Normal, Necessary, and Nice. The current research investigated the extent to which the 4Ns might apply more generally to other animal uses. Two studies examined the moral justifications people spontaneously offered for various animal uses, including household products, clothing, culling, and horse racing (Study1), and in zoos, TV/film, as pets, and for medical testing (Study 2). Participants offered reasons for why it is okay to use animals and the responses were coded by independent raters. The 4N categories accounted for the majority of justifications across most uses. There was great variability in justification categories offered for each use, and some uses generated justification categories not covered within the 4N scheme, including humane treatment, prioritization of human lives, and sustainability arguments. This research provides a large-scope investigation of animal use justifications that moves beyond meat consumption.
... The belief that non-animal alternatives exist has been shown to reduce participant support for animal use [3,34]. Conversely, support is known to increase if participants perceive there is no alternatives to animal use [3,35]. Describing the methods used to evaluate alternatives could help the public in deciding whether to support or reject the proposed research. ...
... Women were less likely to support the research proposals. A number of earlier studies have shown that women are less likely to support the use of animals in research [34,37], consistent with a variety of studies that report gender differences in attitudes towards animals [35,[38][39][40]. The gender by research proposal interaction detected in the current study also suggests that women consider certain types of harm especially egregious, or are more cautious in their assessment of the benefits; additional studies are encouraged to determine the basis for these gender differences. ...
One response to calls for increased openness in animal research is to make protocols publicly accessible, but it is unclear what type of input the public would provide if given this opportunity. In this study we invited public responses to five different research projects, using non-technical summaries intended for lay audiences. Our aim was to assess the potential for this type of public consultation in protocol review, and a secondary aim was to better understand what types of animal research people are willing to accept and why. US participants (n = 1521) were asked (via an online survey) “Do you support the use of these (insert species) for this research”, and responded using a seven-point scale (1 = “No”, 4 = “Neutral”, and 7 = “Yes”). Participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choice; open-ended text responses were subjected to thematic analysis. Most participants (89.7%) provided clear comments, showing the potential of an online forum to elicit feedback. Four themes were prevalent in participant reasoning regarding their support for the proposed research: 1) impact on animals, 2) impact on humans, 3) scientific merit, and 4) availability of alternatives. Participant support for the proposed research varied but on average was close to neutral (mean ± SD: 4.5 ± 2.19) suggesting some ambivalence to this animal use. The protocol describing Parkinson’s research (on monkeys) was least supported (3.9 ± 2.17) and the transplant research (on pigs) was most supported (4.9 ± 2.02). These results indicate that public participants are sensitive to specifics of a protocol. We conclude that an online forum can provide meaningful public input on proposed animal research, offering research institutions the opportunity for improved transparency and the chance to reduce the risk that they engage in studies that are out of step with community values.
... Knight et al. (2004) [7] determined that when animals were perceived as more similar physically to humans (e.g., apes); this led to beliefs that they were more similar mentally to humans. Furthermore, people have more positive attitudes toward pets (Plous, 1993) [9] and toward animals that are believed to have "higher" mental abilities, and less positive attitudes toward animals with lower mental abilities (Knight et al., 2009) [8] . Amphibians are among the least appreciated vertebrates and are often negatively perceived by the public worldwide. ...
... Knight et al. (2004) [7] determined that when animals were perceived as more similar physically to humans (e.g., apes); this led to beliefs that they were more similar mentally to humans. Furthermore, people have more positive attitudes toward pets (Plous, 1993) [9] and toward animals that are believed to have "higher" mental abilities, and less positive attitudes toward animals with lower mental abilities (Knight et al., 2009) [8] . Amphibians are among the least appreciated vertebrates and are often negatively perceived by the public worldwide. ...
The current study was aimed to document public attitude, beliefs and perceptions towards amphibians in Oromo zone, Amhara regional state, Northeast Ethiopia. A total of 150 respondents, from four different kebeles (lowest administrative villages in Ethiopia) were interviewed. The majority (81.33%) of respondents were farmers. Gender had no significant association with the knowledge of traditional belief towards amphibians. However, the education level of respondent was significantly different in the study area and influenced people's attitudes towards amphibians (n = 150; χ2 =16.429; df = 6; p < 0.05). There were an association between occupational status and the traditional beliefs about the amphibians (n = 150; χ2 =11.305; df = 6; p < 0.05). The number of amphibians changed over time and 74 % of the respondents said that amphibians are declined due to drought, decrease rainfall, and the loss of habitat. Different superstitions are also linked with amphibians and this mindset leads to the unnecessary killing of species and unwillingness to conserve amphibians. Conservation education and awareness campaigns are recommended to avoid the unnecessary killing of the amphibians and negative attitudes of the people towards them in the study area.
... Nevertheless, veterinarians are not responsible for animal husbandry and their exposure to sow hunger will therefore differ from farmers'. Scientists express widespread belief in the emotional lives of animals, including those that they use in their research (Knight, Vrij, Bard, & Brandon, 2009). Along with the results of the current study, this demonstrates that animal husbandry and the experimental use of animals can still be supported even when animals are perceived to be capable of suffering. ...
... For example, animal science students are known to hold strong values and interests regarding animal welfare and learn about animal suffering during their course. Capacity to suffer is emphasized as the basis of moral concern for animals and belief in animal sentience is a strong predictor of attitudes towards animals and their use (Knight et al., 2009;Knight, Vrij, Cherryman, & Nunkoosing, 2004). Therefore, the widespread belief in animals' capacity to suffer expressed by our comparison groups is positive, particularly as the student populations are likely to work with animals in either agricultural or scientific contexts in the future, whilst farmers and veterinarians are currently responsible for the welfare of animals under their care. ...
Intensive animal production practices lead to animal suffering worldwide. This study examined whether farmers cope with the negative impact of farming practices on their animals by ascribing them less capacity to suffer compared with other species. Most people like eating meat but find animal suffering emotionally disturbing. Human omnivores employ a variety of strategies to navigate this “meat paradox,” and one of these is to reduce their perception of animals’ capacity to suffer. Psychological defenses associated with meat-eating have been widely researched, but this study provides the first investigation into how these are employed amongst those involved in meat production and focusses on intensive pig producers as an example. Seventy-six pig farmers reported their belief in pigs’ capacity to experience pain, hunger, fear, and boredom in a paper-based survey employing visual analogue scales. Their responses were compared with their perceptions of livestock that they did not farm (cows) and two companion animal species (dogs and cats). These results were compared with people who had similar experience of working with pigs (15 specialized pig veterinarians) and those who had no experience of pigs (23 agricultural students, 22 animal science students, and 58 citizens unrelated to agriculture). The results of the 194 responses provide evidence to suggest that the pig farmers did not ascribe their animals a diminished capacity to suffer. Rather, pig farmers expressed an enhanced belief in pigs’ capacity to experience hunger. All comparison groups expressed widespread belief in each species’ capacity to suffer. Nevertheless, dogs were the species judged to be most capable of suffering, and animal science students gave the highest suffering scores overall. Farmers are directly responsible for the welfare of their animals, and further investigation into the psychological and behavioral strategies of farmers may provide insight into non-financial reasons behind the generally slow progress in improving animal welfare.
... Future research can further verify the generalizability of the findings by using a more representative sample. As a prior study found, scientists and animal welfarists hold polarized views on attitudes toward animals, whereas laypersons fall between the two (Knight et al., 2009). And future research should be done to see whether the reported associations differ across different group memberships. ...
... In human-animal relationships, the similarity principle fully applies (Amiot, Sukhanova, Greenaway, & Bastian, 2017;Bastian, Costello, Loughnan, & Hodson, 2012;Borgi & Cirulli, 2015;Hills, 1995) in that the higher the similarity between an animal species and humans, the higher the expected empathy toward the animals in question. Among vertebrates, fish are considered dissimilar to humans (Knight, Vrij, Bard, & Brandon, 2009). Phylogenetic similarity has even been found to be related to physiologic reactivity among participants who watch videos of animals experiencing harm (Plous, 1993; see also Batt, 2009;Hobbins et al., 2002). ...
... In addition, almost three-fifths of the farmers replied that they washed feed and water troughs regularly. (Knight et al., 2009) reported that providing good care to animals including good management, housing, and feeding is a vital concern that influences both animal and human welfare and productivity. An unhygienic farm always promotes the growth of different microorganisms like fungi, food-borne bacteria, etc. that may infect the farm animals (Delahoy et al., 2018;Dhama et al., 2015). ...
The knowledge gap of livestock farmers on proper farm hygiene practices is one of the major concerns in Bangladesh. Therefore, the study was performed to assess the awareness and practicing status regarding personal and animal hygiene among livestock farmers in selected semi-urban areas of Barisal district, Bangladesh. A total of 202 farmers were interviewed to collect data randomly from four distinct suburban villages of Barishal district. SPSS software (version 25) was used to code and analyze the raw data. The research revealed that 68.3% of the farmers used tube well for supplying water to the animals. On the other hand, all the farmers were found to use tube-well for family use. 58.4% of farmers never used disinfectants regularly on their farms. Additionally, 40.1% of participants never practiced a routine deworming schedule. Attending seminars was found to have effects on washing and feeding troughs (p<0.05) and the application of disinfectants on a regular basis (p<0.01) Since a large percentage of livestock keepers are not still aware of animal and personal hygiene, the government and other non-government organizations should adopt necessary steps to disseminate knowledge among livestock owners for their animal and personal hygiene in order to prevent various zoonotic and anthroponotic diseases.
... In our study, older participants had higher odds of agreeing that tail lesion and ear lesion are likely to cause suffering and to affect meat quality. This finding agrees with a previous survey reporting that older participants have greater belief in the mental capacities of animals [43], but contrasts with another, showing that younger people seem to be more concerned about animal welfare [3]. Regarding the effect of welfare outcomes on meat quality, lay citizens positively associated animal welfare outcomes with meat quality, which corroborates the findings of Teixeira et al. [44]. ...
The aim of this study was to gain insight into the perceptions of pig farm and abattoir workers as well as lay citizens regarding (1) sentience and (2) positive (intelligent and friendly) and negative (gluttonous, stubborn and dirty) attributes of pigs. We also aimed to investigate the (3) knowledge and perceptions of pig farm and abattoir workers on tail lesion, ear lesion and lameness in pigs and (4) the opinion of lay citizens regarding the likelihood of tail lesions, ear lesions, and lameness causing suffering in pigs and affecting meat quality. Chilean pig farm workers (n = 116), pig abattoir workers (n = 95), and lay citizens (n = 708) were invited on farm, at the abattoir and in public places, respectively, to participate in a survey. Answers were indicated using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = totally disagree; 4 = totally agree). Data were analysed using generalized linear models, including recruitment place and socio-demographic data as predictor variables. Female and lay citizens attributed pigs a higher capacity to experience feelings than male participants and pig farm and abattoir workers (p < 0.05). Lay citizens and workers recruited on farm described pigs as being more intelligent and friendly than those workers recruited at the abattoir (p < 0.001); recruitment place and sex were not associated with participants’ perception regarding negative attributes of pigs (p > 0.05). Most lay citizens considered that tail lesions, ear lesions and lameness are likely to cause suffering in pigs and older participants had higher odds of agreeing that tail and ear lesions are likely to affect meat quality (p < 0.05). Finally, the risk factors for tail lesion, ear lesions and lameness pointed out by pig farm and abattoir workers is in line with what has been suggested by experts. Our findings contribute to understand the perception and values of all stakeholders regarding animal welfare, as it is crucial to improve the sustainability of animal production systems.
... In human-animal relationships, the similarity principle fully applies Borgi & Cirulli, 2015;, in that the higher the similarity between an animal species and humans, the higher the expected empathy towards the animals in question. Among vertebrates, fish are considered dissimilar to humans (Knight, Vrij, Bard, & Brandon, 2009). Phylogenetic similarity has even been found to be related to physiologic reactivity among participants who watch videos of animals experiencing harm ; see also Hobbins et al., 2002). ...
As a general rule, we care about animal welfare, and we consider animal suffering to be morally unjustified. However, in certain circumstances animal exploitation and suffering appear to us as necessary to meet certain goals, and this could represent a real moral dilemma. This is particularly the case for medical and pharmaceutical animal experimentation, which involves the use of animals to assess the toxicity and ensure the safety of drugs intended for human consumption. Animal experimentation perfectly contrasts the considerations we have for an in-group (i.e., humans) to the ones we have for an out-group (i.e., animals) and although the inter-individual differences in opinion about this practice are not yet truly understood, they may simply reflect broader attitudinal and behavioral tendencies in intergroup relations. In addition, the health benefits of this practice come at the expense of animals that we would normally be motivated to protect from suffering, and therefore strategies should exist to streamline and facilitate the conduct of experiments. The aim of this work is to examine what are the individual and contextual determinants of attitudes and behaviors toward animal experimentation and laboratory animals. We hypothesize that individual dispositions (i.e., personality) effectively predicting interpersonal and intergroup relations may also guide attitudes and behaviors toward animal experimentation and laboratory animals. We also hypothesize that mechanisms that facilitate the conduct of harmful behaviors toward others may also appear in the context of animal experimentation and legitimize the use of laboratory animals. Thirteen studies using a wide and diverse range of data collection methods have been conducted and are displayed within six manuscripts. Results confirm that individuals’ characteristics and dispositions, such as gender, social dominance orientation, speciesist and empathic dispositions, predict not only the attitudes toward animal experimentation and laboratory-animals, but also the behavioral commitment to use them in the context of a harmful pharmaceutical research. Furthermore, our results also highlight the use of a motivated moral disengagement strategy such the denial of mind of laboratory animals to cope and rationalize with the paradox that represent the use of animals for research inquiries. Finally, in line with Milgram’s work, our results also demonstrate that scientific mindset, whether as a trait or experimentally induced, leads to a greater support for animal-experimentation in both in self-reported and behavioral measures. This thesis argues that the attitudes toward animal experimentation and laboratory animals merely reflect the way people perceive the social world in which they live and the way they perceive others. The study of animal experimentation thus seems heuristic for the analysis of humananimal relations and the intergroup dynamics that run through them.
... We note that these two WVO types remain significantly overrepresented in zoo visitors in both of our studies, a result demonstrated by region as well (although which type is overrepresented varies by region in our data from study 3). However, these data and the data from Study 1 indicate that zoo visitors are more likely to believe in animal sentience or belief in animal mind (BAM), an area of research that describes how these beliefs are implicated in expectations for the care of animals under the control of people (Higgs et al., 2020;Knight et al., 2004Knight et al., , 2009Morris et al., 2012) and how anthropomorphic assignment of animal cognition can be useful or misconstrued (Mitchell et al., 1997). The implication of these data is that zoo professionals can leverage these concerns as distinct values held by their visitors that can support concerns for the protection of endangered species on empathetic grounds but should also take care with how they report their own care for the physical and emotional needs of the animals at the zoo or aquarium. ...
Zoos and aquariums seek to be a trusted community resource for promoting wildlife and environmental conservation behaviors. While demographic data suggest that attendance at zoos and aquariums is demographically representative of the communities where they reside, the series of studies presented here suggest that zoo and aquarium visitors are psychographically different than non-zoo and aquarium goers in their communities. The three studies employed two pre-validated studies to compare zoo and aquarium visitors’ environmental and wildlife values and ethics with non-visitors. The results demonstrated that zoo and aquarium visitors are psychographically different from non-visitors, being more likely to view wildlife as part of an extended family and as deserving of rights for protection rather than having purely utilitarian value to human society. These findings demonstrate that zoo and aquarium goers are even more likely than either their neighbors or the broader US population to support the conservation of wildlife for their own value as well as their intrinsic value to the environment. These data offer zoo and aquarium professionals new information for fine-tuning visitor programs and communications to more effectively link visitors’ values to desired social outcomes.KeywordsWildlife value orientationsEnvironmental ethicsZoo-visitor psychographicsConcern for natureZoosMuseumsAquariumsAnthropomorphismHuman dimensions of wildlifeConservation psychologyEthical beliefs
... Women were less confident in the oversight of scientists, less trusting of scientists and expected a higher degree of oversight for the use of animals in scientific research. This finding is in line with other research that has found gender influences attitudes towards animals (Herzog, 2007;Knight et al., 2009;Walker et al., 2014), including that women are less likely to support animal research (Brunt and Weary, 2021;Hagelin et al., 2003;Pifer, 1996). The results of the current study reinforce the importance of gender when consulting publics. ...
Ethical and regulatory oversight of research animals is focused on vertebrates and rarely includes invertebrates. Our aim was to undertake the first study to describe differences in public confidence, trust, and expectations for the oversight of scientists using animals in research. Participants were presented with one of four treatments using a 2 by 2 design; terrestrial (T; mice and grasshoppers) vs. aquatic (A; zebrafish and sea stars) and vertebrates (V; mice and zebrafish) vs. invertebrates (I; grasshoppers and sea stars). A representative sample of census-matched Canadian participants (n = 959) stated their confidence in oversight, trust in scientists and expectation of oversight for invertebrates on a 7-point Likert scale. Participants’ open-ended text reasoning for confidence and expectations of oversight were subjected to thematic analysis. Participants believed invertebrates should receive some level of oversight but at two-thirds of that currently afforded to vertebrates. Four primary themes emerged to explain participant expectation: (1) value of life, (2) animal experience, (3) participant reflection, and (4) oversight system centered. Confidence in oversight was highest for TV (mean ± SE; 4.5 ± 0.08) and AV (4.4 ± 0.08), less for TI (3.8 ± 0.10), and least for AI (3.5 ± 0.08), indicating the absence of oversight decreased public confidence. Four themes emerged to explain participant confidence, centered on: (1) animals, (2) participant reflection, (3) oversight system, and (4) science. Trust in scientists was similar for TV (4.3 ± 0.07) and AV (4.2 ± 0.07), but higher for TV compared to TI (4.1 ± 0.07) and TV and AV compared to AI (4.0 ± 0.06); absence of oversight decreased public trust in scientists. These results, provide the first evidence that the public believe invertebrates should receive some level of oversight if used for scientific experiments. The gap that exists between current and public expectations for the oversight of invertebrates may threaten the social licence to conduct scientific research on these animals.
... For example, younger researchers could feel the obligation to follow the methodological tradition of the laboratory they start to work in, with no real chance (or enough power) to propose alternative species. The initial choice could then influence the use of particular animals in the future (Knight et al., 2009). Mature researchers who are successful in obtaining funds by using a particular species to provide animal models for their particular field of interest could be reluctant to the idea of changing model species. ...
Methodological choices in animal experimentation are influenced by a variety of factors. The analysis of the relative weight of such factors on the practice of animal experimentation can offer a better idea of the influences characterizing the work of researchers today. To this aim, we conducted structured interviews and sent out questionnaires to researchers using animal models. The results showed that the main factor influencing the researchers’ work with animals was the appropriateness of the chosen animal model to respond to the question addressed. Ethical issues came as the next important factor, mostly based on considerations regarding animal suffering. The general public opinion appeared to be of little significance, indicating that a gap still exists between animal researchers and society. This paper shows animal experimentation is influenced by both external (e.g., adherence to scientific objectivity) and internal factors (e.g., ethical concerns), providing a varied profile of the contemporary animal researcher.
... A shift towards recognising sentience may tip this balance. Indeed, belief in animal sentience has been found to be negatively correlated with general support for the use of animals in research (Knight et al. 2009) and thus would increase the requirement for justification. This is possibly the greatest change that we will see as a consequence of recognition of sentience -the higher bar set for justification of research, and thus a resulting overall reduction in the number of studies and animals used. ...
One of the primary concerns in animal research is to ensure the welfare of laboratory animals. Modern views on animal welfare emphasise the role of animal sentience, i.e. the capacity of animals to experience subjective states such as pleasure or suffering, as a central component of welfare. The increasing official recognition of animal sentience has had large effects on laboratory animal research. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (Low et al. 2012) marked an official scientific recognition of the presence of sentience in mammals, birds, and cephalopods. Animal sentience has furthermore been recognised in legislation in the European Union, New Zealand and parts of Australia, with discussions underway in other parts of the world to follow suit, such as the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 in the UK. In this paper, we analyze this shift towards recognition of sentience in the regulation and practice in the treatment of laboratory animals and its effects on animal welfare and use.
... People's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors toward nonhuman animals offer a unique opportunity for examining the evolution of human-animal interactions. Numerous publications have examined the various factors facilitating the rise of these attitudes (e.g., Hines, 2003;Knight et al., 2009;Signal & Taylor, 2007). For instance, Wilson described the notion of Biophilia as "the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes" (Wilson, 1984, p.1). Building on this, Kellert and colleagues (as described in Kellert & Wilson, 1993) proposed an evolutionary framework for classifying and understanding human attitudes toward nonhuman organisms, including animals, with their respective functions and presumed fitness consequences for humans. ...
The purpose of this study was to examine how attitudes toward different nonhuman animal species (including emotional empathy, cognitive empathy, and harm avoidance) are shaped by the coevolutionary histories between the ancestors of contemporary humans and these different nonhuman animal species. We compared the explanatory power of alternative categorization frameworks for classifying attitudes toward animals across several cross-cultural samples (Arizona, California, Costa Rica, Spain, and Mexico). Analytical Approach 1 directly compared two alternative frameworks. Adapa categories were generated as purely functional ones based upon the ecological niches occupied by each species within the biotic community generated by human–nonhuman animal relations, and Tuxtla categories were generated as cognitive ones based upon the degrees of consciousness commonly ascribed to the constituent species. Analytical Approach 2 tested the alternative hypothesis that both categories were part of a general scheme organized into three superordinate categories reflecting concentric circles around our own, consistent with fitness interdependence theory. Results supported this alternative hypothesis. The concentric circles model (Kith & Kin Animals, Domesticated Animals, and Wild Animals) better explained empathy and harm avoidance scores, suggesting that attitudes toward specific animal species are partly shaped by which circles they fall into, the product of the coevolutionary relationship shared between them and humans.
... Humans relate to animals in many different ways: for companionship, to produce and test products, to satisfy our appetites, and to entertain us (Herzog, 2010;Knight, Vrij, Bard, & Brandon, 2009). But which animals do we have moral obligations toward, and which traits should guide our decisions about how different animals should be treated? ...
The current study modeled the attributions underlying moral concern for animals during childhood and adulthood with the aim of better understanding how concern for animals develops. In total, 241 children aged 6–10 years and 152 adults appraised a range of animals on seven appraisal dimensions and, subsequently rank-ordered which animals they would save in a medicine allocation task. Structural equation modeling revealed several developmental continuities and discontinuities in the dimensions children and adults used to evaluate animal lives. Whereas participants of all ages valued animals based on their aesthetic qualities, intelligence, and perceived similarity to humans, younger children valued animal aesthetics most of all. They also valued benevolence in animals more than older children and adults. Only older children and adults comprehended and valued animals on the basis of their utility as food for humans. Furthermore, neither younger nor older children grasped the role of sentience in the valuation of animals. Only adults factored sentience into their view of what makes animals similar to humans and worthy of moral concern. The results highlight the ways in which moral concern for animals changes across development in several important respects, reflecting an increasingly human-centric orientation.
... Os processos evolutivos pelos quais os ancestrais do homem moderno passaram, culminaram em um complexo aparato mental que permite que suas atitudes sejam extremamente plásticas. Os animais, por exemplo, podem ser categorizados de acordo com a sua utilidade, sensibilidade, adorabilidade, periculosidade, importância, inteligência, palatabilidade, cognição e categoria taxonômica (KNIGHT et al., 2003(KNIGHT et al., , 2004(KNIGHT et al., , 2009) baseadas em características individuais do preceptor tais como gênero e idade (KNIGTH et al., 2004;HERZOG, GOLDEN, 2009;NICKELL, HERZOG, 1996) ou sociais, como a nacionalidade, envolvimento em atividades pró-animais, ideologia ética e área de formação (SIGNAL, TAYLOR, 2007). A percepção das condições de bem-estar-animal (BEA) é influenciada por níveis subjetivos de atenção, ansiedade, sugestão, experiência, hábito alimentar, local de moradia e área de atuação, estando o aumento de conhecimento e de poder econômico atrelado à diminuição da aceitação da proximidade entre homens e animais, resultando, inclusive em uma discrepância entre emoções, moral e ativismo (SIGNAL, TAYLOR, 2007). ...
... To be concrete, all employees with function A and B eligibility could be required to demonstrate their competence and skills every third year so as to ensure good animal welfare, high quality research, and compliance with the Directive's strive to continuously improve and streamline animal research procedures in line with the 3Rs. Additionally, research organizations and the scientific community as a whole could benefit greatly from adopting new approaches to increase and inspire 3R awareness and application among researchers, for example through revised organization and management strategies [77,93,94]. As it has been reported that researchers may prefer to consult other colleagues to increase their 3R knowledge rather than literature or databases [72], focusing on increasing the competence within the research community is highly recommendable. ...
Simple Summary
The use of research animals is regulated within the EU through Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, as well as through national legislations and guidelines. However, the ethical review process, which all animal research must undergo, has been heavily criticized. This pilot study has analyzed the ethical review process in Sweden, focusing on how well legislative demands are fulfilled by researchers and animal ethics committees. After developing a score sheet, 18 documents (including both applications and decisions) were thoroughly reviewed, and the requests in the application form were compared to legal demands. The results revealed a number of issues concerning how HBA (harm–benefit analysis) was conducted by the committees, application, and review of the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine), as well as how humane end-points, severity assessment, and the “upper limit” of suffering were implemented and assessed. The study further indicates disconcerting discrepancies between the Swedish application forms for project evaluation, national legislation, and the directive as well as a lack of transparency throughout the review process. These findings risk compliance with the directive, animal welfare, research validity, and public trust. Therefore, a number of suggestions for improvements are provided, and the need for further research is emphasized.
Abstract
The use of animals in research entails a range of societal and ethical issues, and there is widespread consensus that animals are to be kept safe from unnecessary suffering. Therefore, harm done to animals in the name of research has to be carefully regulated and undergo ethical review for approval. Since 2013, this has been enforced within the European Union through Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. However, critics argue that the directive and its implementation by member states do not properly consider all aspects of animal welfare, which risks causing unnecessary animal suffering and decreased public trust in the system. In this pilot study, the ethical review process in Sweden was investigated to determine whether or not the system is in fact flawed, and if so, what may be the underlying cause of this. Through in-depth analysis of 18 applications and decisions of ethical reviews, we found that there are recurring problems within the ethical review process in Sweden. Discrepancies between demands set by legislation and the structure of the application form lead to submitted information being incomplete by design. In turn, this prevents the Animal Ethics Committees from being able to fulfill their task of performing a harm–benefit analysis and ensuring Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (the 3Rs). Results further showed that a significant number of applications failed to meet legal requirements regarding content. Similarly, no Animal Ethics Committee decision contained any account of evaluation of the 3Rs and a majority failed to include harm–benefit analysis as required by law. Hence, the welfare may be at risk, as well as the fulfilling of the legal requirement of only approving “necessary suffering”. We argue that the results show an unacceptably low level of compliance in the investigated applications with the legal requirement of performing both a harm–benefit analysis and applying the 3Rs within the decision-making process, and that by implication, public insight through transparency is not achieved in these cases. In order to improve the ethical review, the process needs to be restructured, and the legal demands put on both the applicants and the Animal Ethics Committees as such need to be made clear. We further propose a number of improvements, including a revision of the application form. We also encourage future research to further investigate and address issues unearthed by this pilot study.
... Just as Knight et al's., (2009) research provided insight into the thinking underlying people's views about animal research, the New Zealand research carried out by Author and Author (2011) also demonstrated the complexity of these students' attitudes to RTT. What was very evident was their lack of information about legislation and regulations governing such research in New Zealand. ...
... This chapter analyses the perceptions and acceptance of these changes at the level of scientists. There are few studies on AE scientists in the literature: some scholars have investigated their attitudes toward animals (Paul 1995) or toward animal use (Knight et al. 2009), others have examined how they are affected by animal-rights activism (Cressey 2011). Each constraint has given rise to a small number of studies on AE scientists, which can be grouped into studies on the acceptance of the mandatory LAS course (Carlsson et al. 2001;Franco and Olsson 2014) or on the acceptance of the 3Rs principles (Pollo et al. 2004;Fenwick et al. 2011;van Luijk et al. 2011;NC3Rs 2008;Franco and Olsson 2014;Franco et al. 2018). ...
Laboratory animal science is a very relevant domain in which to study the co-evolution between science and society, by reference to Nowotny et al.’s (Re-thinking science. Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity, 2001) concept. Cross-fertilizations between science and society also combine university, industry, and government. A socio-historic analysis of this co-evolution in Switzerland highlights three new constraints for scientists doing animal experimentation: in their training, in their scientific practice, and in their relationship with society. A few studies have documented these changes separately, but they have not previously been analysed simultaneously. We propose to remedy this deficiency by studying scientists doing animal experimentation in Switzerland. The results of this study indicate a heterogeneous level of acceptance of each constraint, and few links between the level of acceptance of one constraint and the level of acceptance of another constraint. A multivariate analysis allows us to visualize the number of constraints accepted according to socio-demographic and professional groups of scientists.
... Within any given society there will be a range of viewpoints regarding how animals are used and worked with based on personal beliefs and professional roles. For example, in one study examining the attitudes of biomedical researchers, laypersons, and welfarists, scientists demonstrated a reduced strength of belief in animal sentience and cognition than laypersons or proanimal welfare advocates, whereas all 3 groups demonstrate a belief that sentience varies by species [26]. This "phylogenetic reductionism," that is, considering a dog or primate to be more sentient than a pig or a mouse, is inconsistent with contemporary understanding of animal evolution and more likely to represent sociozoological bias of preferred species [16,27,28]. ...
For many years, researchers, veterinarians, animal ethics committees, and regulators have focused on minimizing pain and distress as a primary goal of refinement when working with animals in science. More recent publications as well as a shift in animal ethics and public opinion have emphasized promotion of positive affective states, culminating in the concept of positive animal welfare. Robust measures are required to know when positive animal welfare states are occurring, and a number of measures are proposed and discussed. Regardless of whether there are newer methods available that focus exclusively on measuring positive affective states, consistent consideration of research animal behavioral programs, refinement, and adopting periodic stand-alone animal welfare assessments for all species involved will help to push the care and practices of research animals towards an increased focus on positive animal welfare.
... In particular, it asked about the participants' doubts or concerns related to AE: "How often, if any, do you have ethical doubts or concerns regarding animal use in your own work" (four possibilities: never, occasionally, frequently, and I haven't performed animal experiments, so far), and about their general attitudes toward AE: "The benefits to humans are so great that we have no choice but to use animals in medical research," measured on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree"). The first item is a slight modification of an item used in Olsson (2015), and the second is an item used in Knight, Vrij, Bard, and Brandon (2009). ...
Scientists’ public outreach and engagement have been analyzed in many disciplines, but not in animal experimentation science, even though its relationship with society is complex. Research shows that scientists are active: they participate in public outreach and engagement activities. Scientists profile themselves mostly via the deficit model perspective, either in their attitudes or in the types of activities chosen. With regard to attitudes and behaviors, scientists are not a homogenous group but vary according to demographic and academic factors. This means that the relationship between science and society is predominantly determined by a group of scientists, which may reduce its richness. The study reveals tension between recognition of the importance of engagement and fears of being misquoted and of negative reactions from peers or the hierarchy.
... In contrast, initiatives to take into account the sufferance of animals used in food industries have been stifled by business priorities, limiting progress and eventually enabling the worldwide legal proliferation of inhumane battery farming with tragic environmental consequences (Tsiafouli et al. 2015). On the other hand, guidance for ethical 1 3 experimentations of laboratory mammals has been developing for more than 70 years (Russell and Burch 1959) and is continuously ameliorating scientific procedures (Knight et al. 2009;Franco 2013). However, its generalization to non-mammalian lineages is still in its infancy (Lindsjö et al. 2016;Zemanova 2017;Sneddon et al. 2018). ...
The prerogative of animal welfare science includes wild species and ecological studies. Yet, guidance enshrined in legislation is narrowly derived from studies involving laboratory rodents; legitimacy for non-mammalian free-ranging species is thus debatable. The European directive 2010/63/EU illustrates this problem. It includes this key statement: “Practices not likely to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to, or higher than, that caused by the introduction of a needle…” which determines if the directive shall apply. Protocols involving surgery clearly fall within the scope of the directive: procedures are scrutinized, investigators and technicians must be qualified and various agreements are required (e.g. issued by an ethical committee). By contrast, non-invasive procedures, like mark-recapture population studies, merely need a permit from wildlife authorities (at least in most countries). Yet, blood sampling that implies the introduction of a needle—one of the most common practices in animals—could shift any study on the constraining-side of the directive, on the grounds that puncture impacts individuals more severely than capture. We examined the validity of the needle-threshold using the stress response of free-ranging snakes. Our results based on physiological markers show that blood sampling does not add any stress to that triggered by capture, and thus questions the usefulness of the needle-threshold to gauge welfare in wild animals. The specificities of studying wild species should be considered to redress captivity biased animal welfare policy.
... While, there is much literature on how these factors influence the public attitudes of people towards animal research in the west, the [11] same literature is almost non-existent in India. Hence, in order to understand the attitude of psychology students in India towards animal research, the following study was undertaken. ...
Background: Psychology courses and psychology students have very poor understanding of animal research and the ethical issues involved in animal research. This is despite the fact that animal research plays a vital role in behavioural
research. The study was aimed to survey the attitudes of psychology students towards animal research.
Methodology: A total of 202 undergraduate students in the final year of their undergraduate studies from various colleges of Mumbai were administered a semi-structured questionnaire on attitudes towards animal research. The questionnaire was validated by three senior researchers and was specially designed for the study. The data was collected and analysed using descriptive statistics and percentages.
Results: Only 50 students (24.75%) had ever visited animal house/ animal laboratory in the past and only 29 (14.36%) of them had actual experience of handling animals mainly in form of dissection studies on rats and cockroaches. Majority of them believed that animal research had no bearing on problems concerning humans (43.6%, n = 88) and 27.7% (n=56) of them were of neutral opinion. Almost 84% (n=168) of them were concerned of pain and suffering animals would have undergoing research. 90% students voted in favour of stringent ethical guidelines for animal research.
Conclusion: Animal research awareness is poor in undergraduate psychology students and there is a need to incorporate the same in their curriculum to help foster better understanding of animal research and its long term implications.
... Fundamental moral values are deeply rooted beliefs that are founded on knowledge, and multiple social, cultural, and religious aspects, and are shared in society . In individuals or in a group of individuals, such as farmers, these fundamental moral values are influenced by knowledge, personal experiences with animals, and belief in mental capacity of animals Knight et al., 2009), and become personal moral convictions regarding animals and animal husbandry. In a society or in a specific group, people may share moral convictions concerning humans and animals. ...
... Fundamental moral values are deeply rooted beliefs that are founded on knowledge, and multiple social, cultural, and religious aspects, and are shared in society (Beauchamp and Childress 2009;Cohen et al. 2009). In individuals or in a group of individuals, such as farmers, these fundamental moral values are influenced by knowledge, personal experiences with animals, and belief in mental capacity of animals (Knight and Barnett 2008;Knight et al. 2009), and become personal moral convictions regarding animals and animal husbandry. In a society or in a specific group, people may share moral convictions concerning humans and animals. ...
Welfare-friendly outdoor poultry husbandry systems are associated with potentially higher public health risks for certain hazards, which results in a dilemma: whether to choose a system that improves chicken welfare or a system that reduces these public health risks. We studied the views of citizens and poultry farmers on judging the dilemma, relevant moral convictions and moral arguments in a practical context. By means of an online questionnaire, citizens (n = 2259) and poultry farmers (n = 100) judged three practical cases, which illustrate the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza and dioxin. Furthermore, they scored the importance of moral arguments and to what extend they agreed with moral convictions related to humans and chickens. Citizens were more likely than farmers to choose a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health. These different judgments could be explained by differing moral convictions and valuations of moral arguments. Judgments of citizens and farmers were associated with moral arguments and convictions, predominantly with those regarding the value of chickens and naturalness. Citizens agreed stronger with moral convictions regarding the intrinsic value of chickens and regarding naturalness than farmers did, while farmers agreed stronger with conviction regarding fairness. We argue that opinions of citizens and farmers are context-dependent, which may explain the differences between these groups. It implies that opinions of different stakeholder groups should be considered in order to achieve successful innovations in poultry husbandry, which are supported by society.
... While the focus has been to determine how results in rats can be applied to humans, the process has generated huge amounts of information on these animals [65]. Pain is included in our knowledge of rats' capacity to experience emotions, and this helps us gather data that aids in responding to concerns about improving their welfare [66,67]. It was long believed that rodents lack facial expressions, but recent studies suggest that the opposite is true. ...
In many animal species, facial expressions are key elements for recognising emotions and numerous types of social interaction. Emotions are complex reactions that allow individuals to cope with full events that have either positive or negative meaning and involve certain neurophysiological responses proper to each emotion and species. Regulating emotional states requires integrating a whole series of responses –peripheral, autonomous, endocrine and muscular– that entail activating various sub-cortical structures, including the amygdale, hypothalamus and brainstem. In recent decades, interest in the emotions expressed by animals has grown, and researchers have come to understand that some problems of animal welfare can be detected by examining and comprehending the emotional experiences that animals may suffer, and identifying how they demonstrate their reactions through facial expressions and corporal postures. The objective of this review is to examine recent literature on aspects related to the function of the emotions and facial expressions in certain domestic species:–cats, dogs, rats, sheep, horses and pigs– and propose that understanding facial expressions can be useful as a complement to existing tools in assessing welfare and working with, or doing research on, these species.
... This finding implies that young people could accept animal suffering in medical experiments when they believe the experiments are necessary. As found by Knight, Vrij, Bard, and Brandon (2009), people will accept animal experiments because they believe that animal use in medical research can improve their understanding and their estimation of the risk to humans. Based on the above discussion, it is very likely that knowledge of the availability of non-animal alternatives is critical for young people to make humane choices in their lives. ...
This is the first study to investigate humane attitudes toward animals and empathic tendencies toward humans among Chinese adolescents and young adults. The present study administered two scales, the Animal Attitude Scale (AAS) and Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), to 471 Hong Kong secondary school and university students who were between the ages of 14 and 25. The findings of the present study suggest that Chinese secondary school and university students tend to consider the instrumental value of animals used for the benefit of humans. Animal use for luxury purposes was most unacceptable, while animal use for survival purposes was most acceptable to these students. The many undecided responses on animal welfare issues might reflect students’ lack of knowledge regarding the availability of non-animal alternatives in our lives. The results also show that there is a strong link between humane attitudes and human empathy in the young people in Hong Kong. Gender and education level were found to be significant factors of a humane attitude as well as human-directed empathy. The current study implies that a humane education (HE) program could be particularly beneficial to the empathy development of male adolescents.
... Vegans can be sorted into subgroups based on their motivations, the most common are ethical vegans. Ethical vegans support animal rights and criticise the hierarchy ( Knight et al., 2009) in which animals are dominated and controlled by humans. ...
In order to better understand veganism in the UK from an anthropological perspective, this study aims to:
-Explore the experiences of Oxford based vegan groups and their attitudes towards activism. -Evaluate the role of trans-biopolitics in constructing vegan ideologies.
... If we assume that the biological, physiological and psychological ability to grieve it is not significantly different between dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, and other mammals (Panksepp, 2011), we must hypothesise that the public perception by the personal experience, familiarity with animals, the cultural context and even the species concerned (Wells & Hepper 1995;Fidler et al., 1996;Knight et al., 2004;Daly & Morton, 2009;Knight et al., 2009;Morris et al., 2012;Walker et al., 2014a;Walker et al., 2014b;Martens et al., 2016). The level and intensity of human-animal attachment seems to play a significant role in the way people believe animals are or are not capable of expressing complex emotions like grief (Martens et al., 2016). ...
La thésaurisation d’animaux (syndrome de Noé) est un trouble où les individus accumulent un grand nombre d’animaux. Les personnes atteintes de ce syndrome développent un attachement émotionnel excessif envers leurs animaux, confondant leur bien-être avec celui des animaux. Les conséquences incluent des conditions de vie insalubres pour les animaux et les individus, des problèmes de santé mentale et physique, ainsi que des répercussions sociales. Le traitement nécessite une approche multidisciplinaire incluant la thérapie cognitivo-comportementale ainsi que du soutien social. Les interventions visent à sensibiliser, à réduire l’accumulation d’animaux et à améliorer le bien-être tant des individus que des animaux concernés.
İnsan dışı varlıklara zihin atfetmek onlara çeşitli haklar tanınması ve insanların onlara karşı ahlaki sorumluluk hissetmesi açısından kritiktir. Bununla birlikte insan türünün çıkarlarını insan dışı türlerinkinden üstün tutmaya karşılık gelen türcülük insanın ahlaki sorumluluk alanını türe üyeliğe göre sınırlandırır. Bu çalışmada türcülük ve hayvanlara zihin atfının hayvan hakları için kolektif eylem yönelimiyle olan ilişkisinde hayvanlarla empatinin dolaylı rolü incelenmiştir. Çalışma örneklemini yaşları ranjı 18 ile 61 arasında değişen (Myaş = 25,56, SD = 7,80), 196 kadın ve 103 erkek oluşturmaktadır. Katılımcılara demografik bilgi formu ile türcülük, hayvanlara zihin (duyum ve akıl kapasitesi) atfı, hayvanlarla empati ve hayvan hakları için kolektif eylemlere katılım yönelimini değerlendirmeye yönelik ölçekler uygulanmıştır. Bulgulara göre hayvanlarla duygusal ve bilişsel empati kurma, türcülük ile kolektif eylem yönelimi arasındaki ilişkiyi dolaylı olarak açıklamaktadır. Hayvanlarla duygusal empati kurma ayrıca hayvanların duyum kapasitesine ilişkin atıflar ile kolektif eylem yönelimi arasındaki ilişkiyi dolaylı olarak açıklamıştır. Bulgular hayvan hakları için kolektif eylem yöneliminde hayvanlara yönelik empatiyle bağlantılı mekanizmaların önemine işaret etmektedir.
The human perception of nonhuman animals is a burgeoning area of anthrozoology, with the past decade seeing an increase in work within the field. This study attempted to assess people’s social perceptions about various nonhuman animals. Food animals, for example, have often been classified as being less sentient and have been historically devoid of rights and moral concern due to their nature as a consumable commodity. Advancements in social psychology have allowed the general hypothesis that some key theories might be transferrable toward understanding how people perceive animals. This study borrows from work on the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and attempts to replicate the social perceptions of animals along the warmth-competence dimensions among a Singaporean sample (N = 325) of vegetarians, animal activists, and those who regarded themselves as neither. Ratings on the scales of warmth and competence for 16 animals were subjected to multidimensional scaling analysis. Results indicate people hold different social perceptions congruent to the various animal species. Four main clusters were identified, and these were named, ‘Love’, ‘Save’, ‘Indifferent’, and ‘Dislike’ based on the expectancy of how participants might feel toward the animals. The ethical ideology of participants was also measured, with vegetarians and animal activists holding more ‘absolutist’ beliefs. When factored into the scaling process, ethical ideology had little impact on participants’ social perceptions of nonhuman animals.
Animal experiments in biomedical research are debated in public, within the scientific community and among students. Despite increased efforts to reduce, refine and replace animal experiments, they remain integral components of the job of a biomedical scientist. In Germany, persons must have a university degree and adequate education and training to perform and direct animal experiments. Therefore, training courses such as FELASA (Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations) courses are provided. However, in our experience, students become aware of this very late in their studies when decisions about their future careers have already been made. We initiated this study to have a better understanding of when and how animal experiments should be discussed during university education. We evaluated the knowledge, self-evaluation and attitudes of biology and medical students of different semesters regarding animal experiments at the RWTH Aachen University, Germany. An online survey was conducted to assess demographic information, knowledge about animal experiments, self-evaluation and attitudes towards animal experiments. Students of both fields showed limited knowledge of animal experiments. Biology students showed significantly better knowledge and self-evaluated their knowledge higher than medical students. The field of the study correlated with their knowledge and self-evaluation but did not predict participants’ attitudes towards animal experiments. In conclusion, the current study showed that there is still room for improvement to raise awareness about laboratory animal science in the biomedical research field.
The use of animals in medical research raises ethical challenges. In light of this moral issue, this study sought to investigate and compare people’s attitudes toward the use of ten animal species in medical research based on data collected from China (n = 504; men = 294, women = 210), Japan (n = 900; men = 446, women = 454), and the Netherlands (n = 506; men = 259, women = 247) using online questionnaires. We also aimed to explore the relationship between people’s ethical ideology (idealism and relativism) and their attitudes toward animal use in medical research. Data were analyzed using both chi-square tests and binary logistic regression analysis. We found that the Chinese group showed a higher level of acceptability for using all ten animal species in medical research, as compared with the Dutch and Japanese respondents. Regarding people’s attitudes toward animal-based medical research, ethical idealism was found to be a predictor for Dutch people, and ethical relativism for the Japanese group. Neither ethical idealism nor relativism showed predictive correlations with Chinese people’s attitudes toward using any animal species in medical research. Significant negative correlations were found between people’s acceptability for using animals in medical research and their attitudes toward animals in general, across the three countries. Our findings indicate that ethical ideologies behave differently in predicting people’s attitudes toward animal-based medical research in China, Japan, and the Netherlands, which might be due to different levels of animal welfare and differing cultures between countries. In conclusion, the integration of ethical variables and social value preferences of a given society is of crucial importance in broadening people’s understanding of balancing animal welfare concerns with the facilitation of scientific research.
Animals play a large role in society, yet attitudes about animals vary widely depending on individual differences in age, gender, experience with animals, and culture. The purpose of this study was to examine which factors, particularly geographic location, may influence college students’ overall attitudes toward animal use. College students (n = 297), age ranged from 18–54 years (M = 19.88, SD = 2.89), from urban and rural schools in the US completed a survey that included demographics questions, the Animal Attitudes Scale (AAS), and the Belief in Animal Mind (BAM) scale. We predicted differences between urban and rural students’ scores on the AAS and BAM scales and anticipated other factors, such as prior experience with animals, would positively influence students’ responses. We also predicted that pro-animal welfare attitudes would be associated with the BAM. Scores on the AAS (M = 3.41, SD = 0.59) and BAM (M = 5.08, SD = 1.01) scales were positively related and suggested support for animal welfare and thinking. Our findings revealed that currently living in and growing up in rural areas significantly lowered AAS scores, while growing up in rural areas lowered BAM scores. Exploration of several demographic variables showed female students and those reporting experience with pets and service animals had higher AAS scores; BAM scores were higher for females and students with only service animal experience. However, experience with animals for hunting resulted in lower AAS scores. In addition, students using newspapers/magazines to learn about animals had higher AAS scores, and those visiting natural history museums had higher BAM scores. These results suggest several underlying cultural factors that shape college students’ attitudes and beliefs about animals and the human–animal connection. Future studies should continue to investigate the influence of these and other factors on attitudes toward animal use and perceptions of animal thinking.
Public attitudes toward the mind and status of animals are interrelated with the
ways in which they are treated in society. Therefore, it is important to understand
these attitudes, how they vary in society and what factors influence their
development. Additionally, how people make connections between meat and
animals influences their moral stance regarding the eating of animals. Thus, it is
useful to examine how cultural meanings of meat and its connection to animals are
constructed in everyday contexts. This thesis examines attitudes, perceptions and
meanings regarding farmed animals in Finnish society from the perspectives of
sociological animal studies. With this analysis, the thesis makes a contribution to
three key areas of discussion in sociological animal studies and in animal studies
generally: first, discussion on social determinants of attitudes toward animals;
second, people’s perceptions of animal mind and the ways in which these
perceptions vary in society and according to the categorisation of animals; and
finally, the cultural meanings associated with meat and with the meat–animal link.
The thesis is based on a mail survey with Finns (n = 1,824/1,890) and on five focus
groups with different consumer groups, comprising gastronomes, hunters, organic
consumers, rural women and supermarket customers (n = 39).
The first and second articles of the thesis examine the factors that associate with
Finnish attitudes to farmed animals and perceptions of their mental capacities
based on the survey of Finns. The first article suggests that there are important
social group differences in attitudes to farmed animals. Of social groups, gender
has the most robust link with these attitudes; on average, women express
consistently higher concern for farm animal wellbeing than men do. Additionally,
the article suggests that younger people and urban residents are more likely to
express greater concern for farmed animals than older people and rural residents.
The articles also show linkages between animal-related experiences and attitudes. Those who live or grew up on a farm with agricultural animals tend to express less
concern for farm animal wellbeing than those without a farming background.
Additionally, people who share their households with companion animals tend to
express greater concern for farmed animals and greater belief in their mental
capacities. The articles also provide evidence for positive association between
valuing social equality, concern for farmed animals and belief in their mental
capacities. In this way, the thesis provides empirical support for the suggestion that
attitudes to animal wellbeing and to human equality are linked.
The second article examines how Finns perceive the mind of different species. It
shows that phylogenetic and cultural categorisation of animals are linked to
people’s perceptions of their mind. Of mammals, people ascribe most mental
capacities to companion animals (dogs), followed by farmed animals (cows and
pigs) and wild animals categorised as threats or pests (wolves) and game (elk).
Apart from basic sentience, belief in the mental capacities of chickens is relatively
low. Additionally, Finns tend to ascribe minimal mind to salmons and shrimps.
Based on the focus groups, the third article examines the meanings Finnish
consumers associate with the use of animals for food. The article suggests that
consumers negotiate the meat–animal link in varying ways: some prefer to
dissociate meat from animals, while others appreciate products that visibly reflect
their animal origin. The article also highlights the ambiguities involved in placing
animals in the categories of companion and food. Earlier literature has suggested
that disconnecting meat from its animal origin is an important cultural process that
helps to maintain the meat-eating practice. However, this thesis demonstrates that
omnivores’ relationship to the meat–animal link is more complex as they may make
various kinds of connections between meat and animals. In the meat-eating logic
where the animal-origin of meat is less concealed, objectification of animals as
potential food is a central process that helps to uphold the meat-eating practice.
Overall, the thesis has contributed to developing a sociological approach to
studying animal-related attitudes and human–animal relations. It has generated
new insights into the social variation in attitudes to farmed animals and the
multifaceted ways in which consumers negotiate connections between meat and
animals. As a further development of the research field, the thesis highlights the
importance of incorporating into attitudinal research multispecies perspectives that
facilitate including animals more visibly as actors in research processes. There are
various avenues available to make attitudinal research less human-centric and take
it in more animal-inclusive directions.
Keywords: Animal Categorization, Animal Mind, Animal Welfare, Consumers, Cultural
Meanings, Farm Animals, Human–Animal Relationships, Meat, Public Attitudes,
Sociological Animal Studies
Veterinary practitioners are thought of as guardians of animal health and wellbeing, and are considered important in the development of policies on animals. Measuring veterinary students’ attitudes toward animals and animal use is needed when assessing the effectiveness of education programs focused on animal welfare and ethics. The present study examined Spanish veterinary students’ attitudes toward different types of animal use, their human-directed empathy, and the relationship between these and various personal variables. The sample comprised 200 students who completed an online questionnaire. Attitudes toward animal use varied significantly, depending on the type of use in question. There was also a relationship between attitudes toward animal use, one component of human-directed empathy, “Empathic Concern,” and a number of personal variables such as gender, career choice, and contact with animal welfare organizations. Concern about the use of animals for research and animal management was lower in students who were in the later years of their studies. Reasons for this and the role of veterinary education are discussed.
Çalışmada ilk olarak liderlik teorileri sıralanmış ve kısaca özetlenmiştir. Çalışmanın ampirik kısmının teorik altyapısını oluşturan Stogdill (1948)’e ait çalışma ise bu teorilerden özellikler teorisi içerisinde değerlendirilmiş ve lider özellikleri “kapasite” (zekâ, tepki hızı, sözel yetenek, özgünlük ve yargı yeteneği), “başarı” (eğitim geçmişi, bilgi birikimi ve sportif başarı), “sorumluluk bilinci” (güvenilirlik, inisiyatif kullanma, olumsuzluklara karşı direnç, atılganlık, özgüven ve önde olma arzusu), “sosyal katılım” (Faal olma, sosyallik, işbirliğine yatkınlık, uyum yeteneği ve espri yeteneği) ve “konum” (sosyoekonomik durum ve popülarite) şeklinde beş temel başlıkta incelenmiştir.
Çalışmanın ampirik kısmında bu başlıklardan elde edilen maddeler kriter olarak alınarak Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) ile değerlendirilmek amacıyla 400 deneğe anket için ulaşılmış 187 kişiden tam ve kullanılabilir veriler elde edilmiştir. Bulgular sonucunda her bir kriter AHP ile ağırlıklandırılarak, bu ağırlıkların liderlik yarışına çıkmış kişiler arasında bir sıralama yapılmasına imkan tanıması amaçlanmıştır.
Welfare is the state of an animal on a continuum, from poor to good, so many decisions about it are decisions of degree, such as how much feed, space or environmental enrichment should be provided. Other decisions are more discrete, such as whether animals should be kept in cages. However, in practice, many such decisions also involve a range of possibilities — such as whether laying hens should be kept in conventional cages, furnished cages, other housed systems or free range — so that decisions within the range are also of degree. Furthermore, in broader contexts, such as husbandry standards for farm animals, decisions are needed as to how many criteria are to be addressed, which are also decisions of degree. Similarly, decisions about which species to protect and from how early in individual development they need protection are to some extent categorical. This is sometimes referred to as ‘line drawing.’ However, this mainly refers to whether or not animals are sentient, and sentience is not clearly distinguished from other aspects of animals’ cognition and responses, so there is no conclusive boundary between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ So, these decisions are also of degree: is there sufficient evidence to ‘move the line’ further? When there are pressures against change, such as financial cost, should welfare advocates ask for small or large changes? The answer to this question will depend upon circumstances. But discussion of different circumstances suggests that compromise, realism, gradualism and pragmatism are all important in achieving improvements in animal welfare, while noting that other tactics also contribute in particular contexts. © 2019 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK.
Facts documented by references are presented to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the value of behavioral research on animals. Attempts by radical animal activists to mislead humane people by repeatedly asserting such research is completely without any value and by other false statements are a disservice to animal welfare by deflecting funds from worthy activities. Some of the significant contributions of animal research covered are those to welfare of animals; treatment of human urinary and fecal incontinence; psychotherapy and especially behavior therapy and behavioral medicine; rehabilitation of neuromuscular disorders; understanding and alleviating effects of stress and pain; discovery and testing of drugs for treatment of anxiety, psychosis, and Parkinson’s disease; new knowledge about mechanisms of drug addiction, relapse, and damage to the fetus; treatment enabling extremely premature infants to gain 47% more weight and save $6,000 per child in hospital care; and understanding the mechanisms and probable future alleviation of some deficits of memory that occur with aging.
It was hypothesized that the extent to which individuals' attitudes guide their subsequent perceptions of and behavior toward the attitude object is a function of the accessibility of those attitudes from memory. A field investigation concerning the 1984 presidential election was conducted as a test of these hypotheses. Attitudes toward each of the two candidates, Reagan and Mondale, and the accessibility of those attitudes, as indicated by the latency of response to the attitudinal inquiry, were measured for a large sample of townspeople months before the election. Judgments of the performance of the candidates during the televised debates served as the measure of subsequent perceptions, and voting served as the measure of subsequent behavior. As predicted, both the attitude-perception and the attitude-behavior relations were moderated by attitude accessibility. The implications of these findings for theoretical models of the processes by which attitudes guide behavior, along with their practical implications for survey research, are discussed.
Research dealing with various aspects of* the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985,
1987) is reviewed, and some unresolved issues are discussed. In broad terms, the theory is
found to be well supported by empirical evidence. Intentions to perform behaviors of different
kinds can be predicted with high accuracy from attitudes toward the behavior, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control; and these intentions, together with perceptions of
behavioral control, account for considerable variance in actual behavior. Attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control are shown to be related to appropriate sets of salient
behavioral, normative, and control beliefs about the behavior, but the exact nature of these
relations is still uncertain. Expectancy value formulations are found to be only partly
successful in dealing with these relations. Optimal rescaling of expectancy and value
measures is offered as a means of dealing with measurement limitations. Finally, inclusion of
past behavior in the prediction equation is shown to provide a means of testing the theory*s
sufficiency, another issue that remains unresolved. The limited available evidence concerning
this question shows that the theory is predicting behavior quite well in comparison to the
ceiling imposed by behavioral reliability.
Based on ethnographic research in biomedical laboratories, this paper argues that sacrifice is an ambivalent notion in the culture of animal experimentation, requiring both objectification of and identification with the animal. Because of this ambivalence, laboratory animals are not accorded a single, uniform, and unchanging status but seen simultaneously as objects and pets. Animals are objectified by incorporation into the protocol, by deindividualization, by commodification, by isolation, and by situational definition. At the same time, laboratory workers develop pet-like relationships with the animals, which may be treated as enshrined pets, liberated pets, saved pets, or martyred pets.
This article presents the scientific argument that learning methods that replace traditional nonhuman animal-consumptive methods in life science education-so-called alternatives to dissection-are pedagogically sound and probably superior to dissection. This article focuses on the pedagogy, a learning method's effectiveness for conveying knowledge.
Tested the view that the number of arguments in a message could affect agreement with a communication by serving as a simple acceptance cue when personal involvement was low but could affect agreement by enhancing issue-relevant thinking when personal involvement was high. In addition to manipulating the personal relevance of the communication topic, both the number and the quality of the arguments in the message were varied. In a pilot study with 46 undergraduates, when the issue was of low relevance, Ss showed more agreement in response to a message containing 6 arguments (3 strong and 3 weak) than to messages containing either 3 strong or 3 weak arguments. Under high involvement, however, the 6-argument message did not increase agreement over the message containing only 3 strong arguments. In the full experiment, 168 undergraduates received either 3 or 9 arguments that were either all cogent or all specious under conditions of either high or low involvement. The manipulation of argument number had a greater impact under low than under high involvement, but the manipulation of argument quality had a greater impact under high than low involvement. Results indicate that increasing the number of arguments in a message could affect persuasion whether or not the actual content of the arguments was scrutinized. (53 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Made comparisons of opinion and judgment ratings of experimental Ss in individual and collective situations. 140 male secondary school students comprised the sample. Group discussions to consensus resulted in statistically significant shifts toward the extremes of the scales. This polarization effect also characterized Ss' postconsensus individual ratings. These results challenged 2 widely held assumptions: (1) that group judgments are less extreme than individual judgments, and (2) that the "risky shift" phenomenon is a content-bound exception to the averaging tendency of the group. A reinterpretation of available data suggests that a normative commitment may be the underlying variable responsible for polarization effects. (34 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
In two studies we investigated the effects of personal relevance on attitude change as a function of one's uncertainty orientation. We predicted that, unlike uncertainty-oriented persons, high personal relevance would make certainty-oriented persons less careful or systematic in their processing of message arguments and more dependent on heuristics, or persuasion cues, than would low personal relevance. Results from both studies, within and across 2-week time periods, supported predictions. In Study 1, high personal relevance led to higher persuasiveness of two-sided communications and lower persuasiveness of one-sided communications than low personal relevance for uncertainty-oriented persons, but the reverse occurred for certainty-oriented persons. In Study 2, high personal relevance led to higher persuasive impact of strong arguments and lower impact for source expertise than did low personal relevance for uncertainty-oriented persons, but, again, the reverse occurred for certainty-oriented persons. We discuss implications for current theories. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Animal research has played a central role in psychology, yet its clinical value and ethical propriety have recently come under attack. In an effort to assess current thinking on this controversial subject, a mail survey was sent to 5,000 randomly selected members of the American Psychological Association. Responses were received from 3,982 individuals, and the results showed (a) majority support for animal studies involving observation or confinement, but disapproval of studies involving pain or death; (b) majority support for mandatory pain assessments and the federal protection of rats, mice, pigeons, and reptiles; and (c) majority support for the use of animals in teaching, but opposition to an animal laboratory requirement for the psychology major. Additional findings and policy implications are discussed.
Subjects were asked to indicate the likelihood that each of 30 animals (chosen as exemplars of the major phylogenetic classes) could engage in three complex cognitive tasks. Subjects were also asked to rate the extent to which they felt each animal was similar to themselves and whether they felt the animal experienced the world in a manner similar to the way they experienced it. The results showed that in all cases the perceived similarity and inferred cognitive abilities of animals proceeded from lesser to greater in the following order: invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals (excluding dogs, cats, and primates). For pets (dogs and cats) and primates, there was a marked increase in perceived similarity and in the tendency to make attributions about complex cognitive characteristics. The data are discussed in the context of viewing anthropomorphism as a derivative of our ability to infer the mental states of conspecifics—an ability that evolved as a consequence of the need to take into account the experience and intentions of other humans. Although we routinely generalize this capacity to species other than our own, the evidence that the effects are reciprocal is extremely limited.
887 respondents completed ipsative and normative versions of the PAL-TOPAS personality questionnaire. Data were analysed to test for (1) systematic bias in scores associated with the two response formats and (2) predictors of the magnitude of the discrepancy in the individual's ipsative and normative scores. Discrepancy was assessed for both item responses and scale scores. Sources of biases investigated included ipsative scaling artifact, extremeness of scores on the normative scales and response variability. Results showed that systematic bias in scale scores and magnitude of discrepancy were predicted by different factors. One source of systematic bias was associated with ipsative scaling artifact: the ipsative scales measure both the scale itself and rejection of other alternatives. A second source of systematic bias was acquiescence in response to normative items. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that a good but imperfect fit to the data may be obtained by constructing a structural model of the inter-relationship between normative and ipsative scores which accommodates both sources of bias. The strongest influence on discrepancy in scale scores was extremeness of normative scoring, associated with a bias towards either general acceptance or rejection of trait adjectives. It is concluded that both normative and ipsative response formats have limitations, and it may often be desirable to assess both.
In Exp I, 183 undergraduates read a persuasive message from a likable or unlikable communicator who presented 6 or 2 arguments on 1 of 2 topics. High involvement (HI) Ss anticipated discussing the message topic at a future experimental session, whereas low-involvement (LI) Ss anticipated discussing a different topic. For HI Ss, opinion change was significantly greater given 6 arguments but was unaffected by communicator likability. For LI Ss, opinion change was significantly greater given a likable communicator but was unaffected by the argument's manipulation. In Exp II with 80 similar Ss, HI Ss showed slightly greater opinion change when exposed to 5 arguments from an unlikable (vs 1 argument from a likable) communicator, whereas LI Ss exhibited significantly greater persuasion in response to 1 argument from a likable (vs 5 arguments from an unlikable) communicator. Findings support the idea that HI leads message recipients to employ a systematic information processing strategy in which message-based cognitions mediate persuasion, whereas LI leads recipients to use a heuristic processing strategy in which simple decision rules mediate persuasion. Support was also obtained for the hypothesis that content- vs source-mediated opinion change would result in greater persistence. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)
Animals are used by humans in many ways, yet science has paid little attention to the study of human-animal relationships (Melson 2002). In the present study participants (n= 96) completed a questionnaire on attitudes towards animal use and individual differences were examined to determine which characteristics might underlie these attitudes ('belief in animal mind', age, gender, experience of animals, vegetarianism, political stance, and living area). It emerged that participants held different views for different types of animal use, and that belief in animal mind (BAM) was a powerful and consistent predictor of these attitudes, with BAM together with gender and vegetarianism predicting up to 37% of the variance in attitudes towards animal use. Thus future research should acknowledge the importance of BAM as a major underlying factor of attitudes towards animal use, and should also distinguish between different types of animal use when measuring attitudes. We proposed that the large effect of BAM might be due to increasing interest in animal mind over the past decade.
Science teachers, school administrators, educators, and the scientific community are faced with ethical controversies over animal dissection in classrooms. Simulation has been proposed as a way of dealing with this issue. One intriguing previous finding was that use of an interactive videodisc dissection facilitated performance on a subsequent actual dissection. This study examined the prior use of simulation of frog dissection in improving students' actual dissection performance and learning of frog anatomy and morphology. There were three experimental conditions: simulation before dissection (SBD); dissection before simulation (DBS); or dissection-only (DO). Results of the study indicated that students receiving SBD performed significantly better than students receiving DBS or DO on both actual dissection and knowledge of the anatomy and morphology. Students' attitudes toward the use of animals for dissection did not change significantly from pretest to posttest and did not interact with treatment. The genders did not differ in achievement, but males were more favorable towards dissection and computers than were females.
Repr Bibliogr. s. 287 - 299
The current conflict between animal psychologists and animal rights activists often is presented as a recent and unique phenomenon. Although its scope may be unprecedented, the fundamental issues are longstanding. Early criticisms of animal psychologists are viewed in the context of the broader Victorian antivivisectionist movement and are seen as similar to those of the present time. Various attitudes toward animals and research were expressed by individuals such as Charles Darwin, George John Romanes, William James, and John Dewey. Media attacks on animal research were directed at psychologists such as G. Stanley Hall, John B. Watson, Ivan P. Pavlov, and Edward L. Thorndike. The American Psychological Association Committee on Precautions in Animal Experimentation was founded in 1925 at the instigation of Walter B. Cannon, with Robert M. Yerkes as the first chair.
It was hypothesized that the extent to which individuals' attitudes guide their subsequent perceptions of and behavior toward the attitude object is a function of the accessibility of those attitudes from memory. A field investigation concerning the 1984 presidential election was conducted as a test of these hypotheses. Attitudes toward each of the two candidates, Reagan and Mondale, and the accessibility of those attitudes, as indicated by the latency of response to the attitudinal inquiry, were measured for a large sample of townspeople months before the election. Judgments of the performance of the candidates during the televised debates served as the measure of subsequent perceptions, and voting served as the measure of subsequent behavior. As predicted, both the attitude-perception and the attitude-behavior relations were moderated by attitude accessibility. The implications of these findings for theoretical models of the processes by which attitudes guide behavior, along with their practical implications for survey research, are discussed.
A common tactic among animal welfare and animal rights activists is to assert that scientists have been remiss in not developing alternatives to the use of animals in research. This article reviews the rationale, extent, and use of animals in psychological research and provides a detailed assessment of the various alternatives that have been proposed to date. Problems associated with the validation of alternatives are also examined. At the present time, there are no viable alternatives to the use of live organisms in behavioral research.
The argument from design has played an important role in the history of philosophy and biology. Paley, the 19th-century theologian, was struck by the bodily complexity and adaptive fit of animals to their environments; he used the argument from design to prove the existence of God. Darwin, however, provided the natural evolutionary mechanisms that eliminated the need for positing a divine creator to explain the structure of animals; he was thus able to treat the historical problem of organic evolution by providing a historical solution. Today, some students of behavior are similarly struck by the complexity of animals' actions and their adaptive fit to the environment. Like Paley, they use the argument from design, but to prove the existence of a conscious designer inside the head of the animal--the mind. This mentalistic approach suffers from many of the philosophical and empirical problems that plagued similar efforts in the past.
The objectives of this investigation were to develop a scale to measure attitudes towards animal use, decide upon the number of dimensions or scales needed, and test the reliability and validity of the dimension(s) obtained. Analysis showed the final scale to be unidimensional with evidence of reliability (Cronbach alpha = .99) and criterion validity via measurement of known groups. The known groups were derived from a random sample of members of the Animal Rights Information and Education Service (representing those opposed to humans' use of animals) and members of National Animal Damage Control Association (representing those supporting animal use). The final scale contained 48 items and was readable at Grade 6 which facilitates administration across a broad range of educational backgrounds and has utility for a variety of animal-use issues.
It is correctly asserted that the intensity of the current debate over the use of animals in biomedical research is unprecedented. The extent of expressed animosity and distrust has stunned many researchers. In response, researchers have tended to take a strategic defensive posture, which involves the assertation of several abstract positions that serve to obstruct resolution of the debate. Those abstractions include the notions that the animal protection movement is trivial and purely anti-intellectual in scope, that all science is good (and some especially so), and the belief that an ethical consensus can never really be reached between the parties.
There is growing controversy over the ethics of using animals in biomedical and behavioral research. This article reviews two prominent philosophical justifications for animal liberation and describes an exercise that facilitates class discussion of animal research issues. Students simulate participation on an institutional animal care committee and decide whether a series of hypothetical experiments will be allowed. Students reported that the exercise sharpened their awareness of this issue and of the complexity of making ethical decisions.
Animal research has played a central role in psychology, yet its clinical value and ethical propriety have recently come under attack. In an effort to assess current thinking on this controversial subject, a mail survey was sent to 5,000 randomly selected members of the American Psychological Association. Responses were received from 3,982 individuals, and the results showed (a) majority support for animal studies involving observation or confinement, but disapproval of studies involving pain or death; (b) majority support for mandatory pain assessments and the federal protection of rats, mice, pigeons, and reptiles; and (c) majority support for the use of animals in teaching, but opposition to an animal laboratory requirement for the psychology major. Additional findings and policy implications are discussed.
"(Tuan) does a masterful job exploring the condescending human treatment of animals as 'playthings' that exist only for our entertainment. He charts the malevolent history of male domination over women and children and the sad chronicle of slaves, dwarfs and other 'freaks' treated as human appliances or toys. This provocative study of power in the world of pleasure, play and art is a tour de force." -Cultural Information Service "A brilliant book that will appeal to a wide audience. The volume provides excellent material for school and college seminar debates on humankind's place in nature and attitudes toward other living things. . . . (A) penetrating analysis. . . . Readable at all levels."-Choice.
In two studies we investigated the effects of personal relevance on attitude change as a function of one's uncertainty orientation. We predicted that, unlike uncertainty-oriented persons, high personal relevance would make certainty-oriented persons less careful or systematic in their processing of message arguments and more dependent on heuristics, or persuasion cues, than would low personal relevance. Results from both studies, within and across 2-week time periods, supported predictions. In Study 1, high personal relevance led to higher persuasiveness of two-sided communications and lower persuasiveness of one-sided communications than low personal relevance for uncertainty-oriented persons, but the reverse occurred for certainty-oriented persons. In Study 2, high personal relevance led to higher persuasive impact of strong arguments and lower impact for source expertise than did low personal relevance for uncertainty-oriented persons, but, again, the reverse occurred for certainty-oriented persons. We discuss implications for current theories.
This article reports the results of a national survey in which psychology majors were asked about the use of animals in psychological research and teaching. In general, the attitudes of psychology majors closely resembled the attitudes of practicing psychologists. Students tended to (a) support animal experiments involving observation or confinement, but disapprove of studies involving pain or death; (b) support mandatory pain assessments and the federal protection of rats, mice, pigeons, and reptiles: and (c) support the use of animals in teaching, but oppose an animal laboratory requirement for the psychology major. Opposition to the use of animals was greatest among women, among students at selective schools, and among students living in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region of the country.
The personal relevance of several academic and public policy proposals was manipulated, in the absence of any persuasive message, in two studies using a survey methodology and in two laboratory studies. Results generally showed that high personal relevance attitudes differed from low personal relevance attitudes. These results seem to indicate that a high-relevance version of a policy proposal is not the same attitude object as the low-relevance version of the same proposal. In expectancy-value terms, relevance manipulations may affect the valued consequences of a policy that come to mind. Framing a question in high-versus low-relevance terms can increase the accessibility of different object attributes. Implications for interpreting personal relevance findings in persuasion research are also discussed.
The objective of this research was to determine whether currently
available multimedia technology can resolve existing problems in the
K--12 science curriculum. There are several practical and ethical
problems relating to the classroom use of animal dissection and this led
to the selection of hands-on frog dissection as the curriculum activity
where the use of multimedia was investigated. The major finding was that
multimedia-based virtual dissection was more effective than hands-on
dissection in helping students learn about frog anatomy. Moreover, this
result was achieved when the time available for the virtual dissection
was approximately 44% less than that available for hands-on dissection.
Examination of possible relationships between student characteristics
and achievement revealed that students' attitudes to educational uses of
animal dissection and their computer experience were positively
correlated with their achievement scores. No relationships were found
between either student gender or dissection experience and achievement
test outcomes. Students rated virtual dissection as the easier of the
two types of dissection, though they gave equivalent ratings for their
enjoyment of virtual and hands-on dissection. Despite favorable feedback
on the virtual dissection, a significant majority of students stated
that they felt they would be "missing-out" on a valuable experience if
they were not given the opportunity to perform a hands-on frog
dissection. Comparing how students spent their time during each type of
dissection showed that students spent a significantly larger proportion
of their time On-Task when using the multimedia-based virtual
dissection. In particular, the average increase in the proportion of
time spent on activities directly related to the subject matter was over
36%. Time spent On-Task had a significant positive relationship with
achievement for hands-on dissection. It may play a similar role for
achievement with virtual dissection, but the small deviation in time
On-Task data for virtual dissection prevented confirming this intuition.
The teacher who participated in the research found that the use of a
multimedia, inquiry-based computer application did limit his insight
into students' classroom progress. However, he did not feel this to be a
problem, nor did it in any way reduce his control over class activities.
Aspects of empathy are examined, including the relationship between empathy and perceived similarity or identification. Cognitive judgments of similarity appear to predispose us to the experience of empathy. An important aspect of similarity where animals are concerned is their perceived mental endowment (Fenton & Hills 1988). Therefore, a positive relationship was hypothesized between empathy for animals and “belief in animal mind” (i.e., beliefs about the extent to which animals have awareness, thoughts, and feelings). In a sample comprising three groups (animal rights supporters, farmers, and urban public) the expected relationship was found, r(153) = .47, p < .001; however, it was not consistent across the subject groups. Analysis suggested that the relationship between perceived similarity and empathy is mediated by conflicting instrumental motivations. Implications of the results for humane and environmental education are discussed.
Four hundred and twenty-two adults completed a postal questionnaire in which they provided information regarding pet ownership and their attitudes toward 13 issues involving the use of animals. Over 63% of the sample owned a household pet, with the dog being the most common. Household pets were more commonly owned by respondents who were married, younger than 65 years of age, living in detached houses, or with a child/children present in the home. Most concern was expressed toward those types of animal uses which lead to death or injury, especially dog fighting. Females expressed more disagreement than males with most of the uses o f animals examined. Dog owners expressed more approval offox-hunting and hare-coursing than non-dog owners, and horse owners expressed more approval offox-hunting than non-horse owners. This study reveals that some of the ways in which people use animals are considered more acceptable than others, and suggests that it is incorrect to group different kinds of animal use into one broad category. The authors argue that future years may see a shift in the way society uses animals, from manipulation toward care for their well-being.
The authors examined the relationship between personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals by administering the Sixteen Personality Factor Inventory and the Animal Attitudes Scale to 99 college students. The personality scales were only weakly related to attitudes about animal welfare issues. Two personality factors, sensitivity and imaginativeness, were significantly correlated with attitudes towards animals. Gender and sensitivity explained 25% of the variance in attitudes, with most of the variance accounted for by gender.
Although at first glance it may seem an unlikely alliance, frogs and cyberfrogs certainly benefit from an unusual friendship that connects the virtual world of dissection simulation and the physical realm of nonhuman animal advocacy.This paper focuses on the symbiotic relationship of dissection simulation designers and animal advocates. Dissection simulation manufacturers benefit from this relationship through the purchasing and promotion of their products by animal advocacy organizations, and also they benefit from policy changes that encourage the use of dissection simulations as alternatives to dissection. Reciprocally,animal advocacy organizations benefit by saving animal lives, gaining a new tool for convincing teachers to stop dissecting, and demonstrating that they are a pro-technology movement. The knowledges and values embedded in cyberfrogs make them both boundary objects and cyborgs.
Four hundred and ninety-five people completed a questionnaire in which they rated 35 specific examples of uses of different species of animals on a 5-point scale of acceptabilityunacceptability. Ratings depended on both the particular example used (medical research, behavioral research, product-testing research, use for educational purposes, use for luxury garments, or animals as pests) and the species involved. Examples using dogs, cats, or monkeys were rated less acceptable than those using rats or mice, nonmammalian vertebrates, or invertebrates. Examples in which animals were used to make luxury garments were rated the most unacceptable and educational uses of animals and behavioral research were the most acceptable. Ratings of examples were very consistent within individuals, leading to the conclusion that a person's attitude toward animals may represent a unitary characteristic. Gender, age, pet ownership, and religious affiliation were all significantly related to attitude toward animals, as determined by averaging responses to the 35 examples together for each respondent, but all of these variables combined accounted for less than 5% of the variability in ratings.
discuss several issues that are of importance in any analysis of the evolution of behavior / the first issue concerns the model of species evolution that will be used as the framework for the reconstruction of behavioral evolution
the second issue concerns the strategies that the experimenter might employ in selecting the animals to be studied in a comparative or evolutionary context
the third issue involves the interpretation of the data after the animals have been selected and studied
approaches to comparative psychology / scales and trees / adaptation / clades and grades / anagenesis as a biological concept / grades and behavior
anagenesis and complexity / anagenesis and progress / anagenesis and levels of organization (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
In the past several decades, changes in industrial societies have presented a host of issues, worldwide in scope, around which individual attitudes may form: technological growth, population expansion, environmental quality, global resources, differing societal goals, etc. This study (N= 325) was conducted to identify and assess the major attitude/belief constellations surrounding these issues and to examine their psychological basis and implications for risk perception and societal decision-making procedures. Results supported the hypotheses that assessed contemporary worldviews are related in predictable ways to (a) the pexceived risk associated with selected technologies, (b) preferences for the manner in which societal decisions should be made, and (c) a coherent set of psychological variables. Discussion focuses on policy implications of differing contemporary worldviews and on future directions and applications of this line of research.
American society uses millions of animals each day for food, recreation, and a variety of other purposes, yet psychologists—in contrast to other social scientists—have devoted very little attention to studying how people think about their use of animals. In this article, I propose that many factors supporting the use of animals are psychological in nature and are therefore legitimate topics for psychological research. After a brief review of research on attitudes toward the use of animals, I discuss several psychological factors that enable people to harm animals for human benefit: (1) structural variables that dissociate consumptive practices from the infliction of harm, (2) mechanisms that reduce personal conflict when dissociation is threatened, (3) ingroup-outgroup biases, and (4) factors relating to the perceived similarity of animals and humans. Throughout, the emphasis is on opportunities for empirical research rather than ideological or philosophical arguments concerning animal rights.
Argues for the right of incurably ill or disabled persons to hope for cures or relief from suffering through research using animals. The author, a disabled person himself, is offended that disabled and intractably ill persons and their families, who stand to gain the most by such research, have been ignored in the antivivisection debate. The author notes that disabled persons must speak out for work that affects potential cures or alleviation of suffering; he looks for a compromise that emphasizes human rights while including animal welfare. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)
Presents facts documented by references to provide evidence regarding the value of behavioral research on animals. It is argued that attempts by radical animal activists to mislead humane people by repeatedly asserting such research is completely without any value and by other false statements are a disservice to animal welfare by deflecting funds from worthy activities. Some of the contributions of animal research have led to improvements in the welfare of animals. Animal research has also led to advances in psychotherapy, especially behavior therapy and behavioral medicine; rehabilitation of neuromuscular disorders; understanding and alleviating effects of stress and pain; discovery and testing of drugs for treatment of anxiety, psychosis, and Parkinson's disease; knowledge about mechanisms of drug addiction, relapse, and damage to the fetus; and understanding the mechanisms of some deficits of memory that occur with aging. (3 p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Animal rights campaigners and scientists working with animals completed anonymous questionnaires in which they were asked to report, not only on their own beliefs and ideas about the animal experimentation debate, but also on those they perceived the opposing group to hold. Both groups of participants tended to have a negative and somewhat extreme view of the other. But they did have an accurate grasp of the arguments and defenses commonly offered on both sides of the debate, and showed some agreement concerning the relative capacity of different animals to suffer. Differences appeared in the level of the phylogenetic hierarchy at which participants thought animals might be capable of suffering, and in their decision-making processes regarding the admissibility of animal experiments.