Attitudes Toward Animals: Species Ratings
Submitted on Nov 14, 2006 (Original item from 1995)
Animal Experimentation | General Animal Protection | Wildlife and Exotics | Hunting or Trapping | Pharmaceutical, Medical or Biomedical Research | Psychology, Social Development, Social Motivations
by
More Information...
More Information...
Short Description:
Attempts to quantify people's opinions about different species of animals by asking them to rate 33 species on the following six dimensions: useful-useless; smart-stupid; responsive-unresponsive; lovable-unlovable; safe-dangerous; and important-unimportant.
Abstract:
Hunting approved by 56.4% of the sample; 92.5% approved of fishing.
Product-testing research using animals was approved by 44% of the sample; 74.4% approved of medical research using animals; and 67.7% approved of scientific research using animals.
Attitudes of the animal shelter workers toward hunting, fishing and the three kinds of research were quite different from those of the larger sample. Only two persons in the animal shelter sample (20%) approved of hunting; seven persons (70%) approved of fishing. Only one person (10%) approved of product-testing research using animals, and two people (20%) approved of medical research and scientific research using animals.
Age did not affect attitudes toward hunting, fishing, or the three kinds of research. Gender significantly affected attitudes toward medical and scientific research, with a smaller percentage of women approving.
Medical research was approved by 62.7% of women but by 81.5% of male respondents ( 2 = 4.8, p = 0.028).
Scientific research with animals was approved by 54.9% of women and 75.3% of men ( 2 = 5.04, p = 0.025). No significant differences were found between men and women in attitudes toward hunting, fishing, or product-testing research using animals. Most popular animals were large mammals, especially primates and companion animals, and the most unpopular animals were biting invertebrates (mosquitoes).
American public's evaluation of animals is based on (1) how a species has historically been regarded, (2) its utility to humans, and (3) our emotional reaction to the species.
Spot Check Number:
52
Sponsor:
University of Colorado at Denver
Animal Type:
Human
Record Type:
Academic Paper
Research Method:
Print Survey
Geographic Region:
Unknown/Not Applicable
Number of Participants:
143
Population Descriptors:
Convenience sample including friends/family of students plus a small number of shelter workers
Year Conducted:
1995
PLEASE SUPPORT NONPROFIT RESEARCH FOR ANIMALS
Did you find this research helpful in your work for animals? If so, please consider a donation to the Humane Research Council to help us with the costs of maintaining, expanding, and improving HumaneSpot.org.



