Taylor, N., & Signal, T. D. (2005) - Empathy and Attitudes To Animals. Anthrozoös, 18 (1), 18-27.
Taylor, N., & Signal, T. D. (2005) - Empathy and Attitudes To Animals. Anthrozoös, 18 (1), 18-27.
To cite this article: N. Taylor & T.D. Signal (2005) Empathy and attitudes to animals,
Anthrozoös, 18:1, 18-27
Article views: 48
Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 29 September 2015, At: 10:53
Empathy and attitudes to animals
N.Taylor and T. D. Signal
School of Psychology and Sociology, Central Queensland University,
Rockhampton,Australia
Abstract
There is increasing support for the idea that human attitudes to animals
may be indicative of human–human empathy. This has implications for
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:53 29 September 2015
A nimals play an important part in the cultural, political and social arena
of modern societies. Membership of animal protection organizations
continues to grow (Garner 1998; Munro 2001) and books and arti-
cles concerning the philosophical place of animals continue to be pub-
lished (e.g., Regan 2004). Governments are lobbied to change or create
laws to protect animal welfare; perceived infringements of animal welfare
remain news (e.g., live animal exports) and more and more people the
world over indicate that companion animals play an important role in their
lives and families (e.g., Arluke and Sanders 1996). The health benefits of
companion animals are slowly being recognized (e.g., Beck and Katcher
1996; Herrald, Tomaka and Medina 2002), as are the therapeutic qualities
of both wild and domestic animals (e.g., Anderson 1995; Beck and Katcher
2003). In short, animals are a part of the social fabric. Despite this, social
scientists have been reticent at best, and oppositional at worst, to studying
human–animal relationships (Arluke 2003). This is slowly changing with
a dedicated cohort of multi-disciplinary scholars beginning to look at
Address for correspondence: Dr. Nicola Taylor, School of Psychology and Sociology, Central
Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland 4702, Australia. Ph: +61 07 4930 9433: e-mail:
[email protected].
ical populations (e.g., Hastings et al. 2000; Warden and Mackinnon 2003).
Furthermore, it has been suggested that animal-directed empathy may gen-
eralize to human-directed empathy (Ascione 2001). Hence, humane edu-
cation is being posited as one particularly effective mechanism whereby a
lack of human-directed empathy may be remedied by teaching animal-
welfare appropriate attitudes (Ascione 1992; Ascione and Weber 1996;
Barker et al. 2000).
Factors known to affect attitudes towards animals include personality
(Broida et al. 1993; Mathews and Herzog 1997), gender and sex role ori-
entation (Herzog, Betchart and Pittman 1991; Hills 1993), religious and/or
political stance (Bowd and Bowd 1989; Kimball 1989), ethical ideology
(Galvin and Herzog 1992), companion animal ownership (Paul and Serpell
1993), and other demographic variables such as age and race (Kellert
1988). For example, previous research has suggested that the presence of
a companion animal during childhood may lead to an increased sensitivi-
ty to the feelings and attitudes of others (Serpell 1996). Paul and Serpell
(1993) found an association between childhood companion animal keep-
ing and increased concern about animal and human welfare, as did Paul
(2000). In contrast to this, Daly and Morton (2003) in a survey of 137 chil-
dren, failed to find any differences in empathy levels between pet owners
and non-owners. Their results also showed no correlation between empa-
thy and attachment to pets as measured by the Companion Animal
Bonding Scale.
Therefore the links between companion animal ownership and meas-
ures of empathy and attitudes to animals deserve further attention. Given
the potential importance of attitudes towards animals and humane educa-
tion in designing strategies for remedying deficits in empathy and therefore
anti-social behavior, it is important that specific links between empathy
and attitudes to animals be quantified along with potential variables that
may impact this relationship.
Taylor & Signal Anthrozoös, 18 (1) . 2005 19
Mathews and Herzog (1997) go some way to achieving this in their
report on a questionnaire-based investigation of links between a general
personality measure (The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, 16PF)
and the Animal Attitude Scale. According to their analyses, the correlations
found between personality and attitudes to animals were generally low and
non-significant, with the exception of two sub-scales which measured sen-
sitivity and imagination. While this study (and others using the AAS, e.g.,
Herzog, Betchart and Pittman 1991) provide a starting place for this kind
of investigation, empathy is treated within them as a by-product of other
personality traits rather than as an attribute in its own right.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:53 29 September 2015
generally was anticipated, and it was also expected that gender differences
would be observed within these measures. It was further anticipated that
companion animal ownership (both now and in childhood) would affect
both empathy and attitudes to animals, as measured by the IRI and AAS.
Methods
Participants
One hundred and ninety-four (161 female, 33 male) undergraduate
Sociology and Psychology students from Central Queensland University,
Australia, participated in this project. Students were informed of this proj-
ect during class time and via an online notice-board. Participation was vol-
untary and students were given the opportunity to complete the
questionnaire in their own time, thus creating a convenience sample. Age
of participants ranged from 18 to 56 years; the average age was 28 years.
Approximately 87% of respondents identified themselves as living in a
regional area of Australia, 10% as living in an urban area and 3% were cur-
rently residing outside of Australia.
Materials
Animal Attitude Scale (AAS)
The AAS is a 20-item, 5-point Likert scale-based questionnaire with respon-
dents giving responses ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree to
statements regarding attitudes to animals. Sample items include “Wild ani-
mals should not be trapped and their skins made into fur coats,” “Basically
humans have the right to use animals as they see fit,” and “The use of ani-
mals in rodeos and circuses is cruel.” The scale has high internal consisten-
cy (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91; Mathews and Herzog 1997) and has previously
been used successfully (e.g., Herzog, Betchart and Pittman 1991). However,
validity has not been specifically assessed. A high score on this scale indi-
cates pro-welfare attitudes (H. Herzog, personal communication 2004).
Taylor & Signal Anthrozoös, 18 (1) . 2005 21
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)
The Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis 1980), one of the
most commonly used and, according to Alterman et al. (2003), the most
comprehensive measure of empathy, is a 28-item self-report measure con-
sisting of four sub-scales. Items within the IRI are answered using a five-
point scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Examples
of these items include “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people
less fortunate than me,” “I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the
‘other guy’s’ point of view,” and “Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry for
other people when they are having problems.”
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:53 29 September 2015
AAS. This may reflect the general finding that females score higher on
measures of empathy than males (Alterman et al. 2003), and may go some
way to explaining the higher participation of women in animal protection
movements (Groves 1997). However, it is important to point out that aver-
age AAS scores of both male and female participants fell well into the pro-
animal welfare side of the scale (possible scores on the AAS range from
20 to 100, female M = 72, male M = 65). It should also be noted that there
were appreciably fewer male than female participants in our study; future
research should address this imbalance.
Mathews and Herzog (1997) found that gender was the most signifi-
cant predictor of AAS scores. Interestingly, the EC sub-scale explained the
most variability in AAS scores in the current study, suggesting again that
empathy levels (as measured by the EC sub-scale) are intrinsically linked
to AAS scores.
As expected, our analysis of companion animal ownership indicated
that those currently living with a companion animal had significantly high-
er AAS scores than those living without. What was not expected was the
finding that whether an individual had a companion animal throughout
their childhood did not result in any significant differences, which contra-
dicts earlier research (e.g., Paul 2000). However, as noted for gender, it
must be acknowledged that the numbers of individuals who did not either
currently have a companion animal or did not have one while growing up
were relatively small. Again this indicates an area in need of future
research. For example, Paul and Serpell (1993) suggest that awareness of
the experiences that underlie attitudes to animal welfare may aid in the
development of effective humane education interventions and programs.
A limitation of the current study is that all respondents were universi-
ty students, who may not be representative of the wider community or spe-
cific interest groups such as those within animal protection communities.
However, this is one of the few large-scale studies to specifically investi-
24 Anthrozoös, 18 (1) . 2005 Taylor & Signal
gate animal attitudes within Australia, and particularly regional Australia
(for exceptions see Bowd and Bowd 1989).
In conclusion, the results from this study indicate that there is a sig-
nificant link between human–human empathy and attitudes to animals,
which may outweigh previously found gender differences. This, combined
with the findings regarding the effect of companion animal ownership on
both empathy and attitudes to animals, is a worthy area for further study.
References
Alterman, A. I., McDermott, P. A., Cacciola, J. S. and Rutherford, M. J. 2003. Latent
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:53 29 September 2015
Garner, R. 1998. Political Animals: Animal Protection Politics in Britain and the United
States. London: Macmillan.
Groves, J. M. 1997. Hearts and Minds: The Controversy over Laboratory Animals.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gurtman, M. B. 1992. Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: The inter-
personal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 63(1): 105–118.
Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., Usher, B. and Bridges, D. 2000. The
development of concern for others in children with behavior problems.
Developmental Psychology 36(5): 531–546.
Hatcher, S. L., Nadeau, M. S., Walsh, L. K., Reynolds, M., Galea, J. and Marz, K. 1994.
The teaching of empathy for high school and college students: testing Rogerian
methods with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Adolescence 29(116): 961–974.
Herrald, M. M., Tomaka, J. and Medina, A.Y. 2002. Pet ownership predicts adherence to
cardiovascular rehabilitation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(6): 1107–1123.
Herzog, H., Betchart, N. and Pittman, R. 1991. Sex role identity and attitudes toward ani-
mals. Anthrozoös 4(3): 184–192.
Hills, A. M. 1993. The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Society & Animals
1: 111–128.
Hogan, R. 1969. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 33: 307–316.
Kellert, S. R. 1988. Human–animal interactions: A review of American attitudes toward
wild and domestic animals in the 20th century. In Animals and People Sharing the
World, 137–175, ed. A. N. Rowan. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Kimball, R. 1989. Liberal/Conservative voting records compared to interest in animal
protection bills. PsyETA Bulletin 9: 7–9.
Lee, M. and Prentice, N. 1988. Interrelations of empathy, cognition, and moral reasoning
with dimensions of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 16:
127–139.
Mathews, S. and Herzog, H. 1997. Personality and attitudes towards the treatment of ani-
mals. Society & Animals 5(2): 57–63.
Miller, P. A. and Eisenberg, N. 1988. The relation of empathy to aggressive and external-
izing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 324–344.
Warden, D. and Mackinnon, S. 2003. Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investi-
gation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology 21: 367–385.