Transcript Why do people have different attitudes towards different types of

WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANIMAL
USE?- A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH
By S. Knight, K. Nunkoosing, A. Vrij and J. Cherryman
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
INTRODUCTION
The British are said to be a nation of animal lovers, and in 1995 at least 50% of households in the UK owned
one or more pets (Pet Food Manufacturer’s Association, 1996). Yet there are many different ways in which
humans use animals, and this often leads to pain, injury and death to the animals involved. The term ‘animal
use’ describes the range of practices that involve humans using non-human animals, and includes a wide
spectrum of activities, from using animals to test drugs and develop medical procedures, to breeding animals
for their fur, to keeping pets for companionship. Thus it is inevitable that people’s attitudes will differ
depending upon the type of animal use in question (Driscoll, 1992; Knight, Vrij, Cherryman, & Nunkoosing,
2004). For example, people have been found to be more supportive of using animals for medical research and
less supportive of using animals for entertainment and cosmetics testing (Furnham & Pinder, 1990; Knight, et
al., 2004). Yet whilst attitudes toward animal use can be both complex and incongruent, some research has
examined and discussed such attitudes in general (i.e. as a uni-dimensional factor), without exploring
different views toward different ways in which we use animals (e.g., Armstrong & Hutchins, 1996; Matthews
& Herzog, 1997). Previous research also tends to (i) use quantitative methods to test hypotheses relating to
people’s attitudes toward animal use, and (ii) focus on personal characteristics (such as gender, age and pet
ownership) to understand why different people have different views on this subject.
THE PRESENT STUDY
This study took a qualitative approach to explore why people have different views towards different ways
in which animals are used. Grounded Theory was used, not as an antithesis or alternative to quantitative
methods, but to complement such research. In-depth interviews encouraged participants to discuss the
issues they perceived to be relevant and important when thinking about their views on animal use, and
contemporary Grounded Theory techniques (see Strauss & Corbin, 1991) were then used to analyse
interview transcripts.
DATA COLLECTION
Seventeen participants (9 male, 8 women) aged between 22-65 years were interviewed. This was the
number of participants needed to reach theoretical saturation (when new issues and ideas cease to
emerge). The first author interviewed all participants, and each interview started with the researcher
asking a simple question about whether the participant had different views on different ways in which
animals are used by humans, and if so, why they thought this was the case. Open-ended questioning was
used to encourage participants to lead the interview by discussing what they believed to be important
when considering their attitudes toward animal use. The interview ended when the participant could not
be encouraged to discuss their views any further (that is, they felt that they had said all they wanted to say
on the matter). Each interview took between 45-90 minutes.
ANALYSIS
All interviews were transcribed verbatim, double-spaced and with large margins for notes during coding.
Each line of the text was numbered to facilitate location and indexing when necessary (Nunkoosing &
Phillips, 1999). In total, there were 274 pages of transcripts.
The Grounded Theory method of constant comparative analysis was employed to analyse the data.
Interpretation was a two-part process. That is, initially, coding and categorising what participants actually
said was guided by the researcher aiming to identify those aspects that best represented the participants
theory on the topic of animal use. This process lead into the researcher seeking to best demonstrate the
perspective and position of the participants. Thus, this two-part process required both the de-construction
and re-construction of the text.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Four main themes emerged that helped explain different attitudes toward different types of animal use (see table 1).
Table 1. Themes that influence attitudes toward animal use
THEMES
PROPERTIES
ATITUDES TOWARD Knowledge and perceptions of animals
ANIMALS
(perceived mental and physical
characteristics)
KNOWLEDGE OF
ANIMAL USE
PROCEDURES
Knowing about animal use procedures
Knowing about alternatives
Not wanting to know
COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
Animal use for human health benefits
Animal use for animal health benefits
Animal use as a moral issue
PERCEPTIONS OF
CHOICE
Is animal use necessary?
Are there alternatives?
How are animals treated?
Is animal use natural?
Figure 1 shows that, when people are thinking about their
views on animal use, their views can be affected by personal
factors (e.g., their gender, or what they know about animal use
procedures), and how they process information (e.g., weighing
up the perceived costs versus benefits of animal use). Different
personal factors and cognitive processing of information can
explain why different people have different views on animal
use, and why the same person can have different views toward
different types of animal use. For example, if a person (i)
believes that an animal is capable of suffering (= knowledge of
animals), (ii) believes that there are alternatives to using
animals for research (= perceptions of choice), and (iii) has a
strong liking for animals (=attitudes toward animals), they will
be less likely to support using animals for research.
Table 1 shows that people’s attitudes towards animal use are
mediated by their attitudes towards animals, their knowledge of
what is actually done to animals, weighing up the costs and the
benefits of animal use, and whether they perceived there to be a
choice but to use animals. For example people were more
supportive of using animals for medical research because the
benefits (e.g., a cure for a childhood illness) were perceived to
outweigh the costs (e.g., pain caused to animals) (= cost-benefit
analysis). Whereas people were less supportive of using animals
for cosmetics testing because they thought there were
alternatives (e.g., cruelty-free make-up, or the choice not to wear
make-up) (= perceptions of choice). Figure 1 presents a model
that brings the four main themes together with personal factors
that might influence attitudes toward different types of animal
use.
Figure 1. Attitudes toward animal use: A model
Personal factors, experience and understanding
Individual
differences
Attitudes
Knowledge of
toward animals
animals
Knowledge of
animal use
Cognitive processing
Cost-benefit analysis
Perceptions of choice
Attitudes toward animal use
CONCLUSIONS
As shown above, attitudes towards animal use can be influenced by a range of factors. However, it is important to note that
Figure 1 is fluid, and rather than examining the information then forming an attitude, people can sometimes seem to work
backwards, in that they ‘build’ their argument to justify their attitudes or behaviour. This may involve actively seeking some
information (e.g., that research on animals aids medical progress) whilst actively avoiding other information (e.g., that results
from animal research may be misleading) in order to justify their point-of-view or behaviour. Future research might examine the
four themes quantitatively, to see if one or more have more influence on attitudes than others, and also examine people’s
motivation to form and maintain certain attitudes. Greater understanding of this topic may indicate how attitudes can be changed
and thus may be useful to, for example, scientists seeking support for their work, or animal welfare groups aiming to increase
humane treatment of animals.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, J.B., & Hutchins, M.E. (1996). Development of an attitude scale to measure attitudes toward humans’ use of nonhuman animals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1003-1010……..Driscoll, J.W. (1992). Attitudes Towards Animal Use. Anthrozoos, 5, 32-39……..Furnham, A., & Pinder, A. (1990). Young people’s attitudes to experimentation on animals. The
Psychologist, October, 444-448……..Knight, S.E., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., & Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Attitudes Towards Animal Use and Belief in Animal Mind, Anthrozoos, 17, 43-62……..Matthews, S. and Herzog, H.A. (1997). Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society and Animals, 5 , 169-175……..Nunkoosing, K., & Phillips, D. (1999).
Supporting families in the early education of children with special needs: the perspectives of Portage home visitors. European Journal of Special Needs education, 14, 198-211……..Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1991). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury park: Sage.