Nicola Taylor

Empathy and attitudes to animals

Abstract There is increasing support for the idea that human attitudes to animals may be indicative of human–human empathy. This has implications for the treatment of empathy deficits and related anti-social behaviors. The purpose of the present study was to explicitly investigate links between human–human empathy and attitudes to animals. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and Animal Attitude Scale (AAS) were administered to 194 undergraduate Sociology and Psychology students. A significant correlation between empathy levels, gender, companion animal ownership and attitudes to animals was found. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Attitudes to Animals: Demographics Within a Community Sample

The results of various studies have suggested a range of demographic and personality variables that may affect attitudes toward the treatment of nonhuman species; however, the literature has reached little consensus. Various limited populations have used The Attitude to Animals Scale (AAS), developed initially by Herzog, Betchart, and Pittman (1991), as a quantitative measure of attitudes toward the treatment of nonhuman species. The current study administered the AAS to a large community sample within Australia, resulting in approximately 600 respondents. The study found demographic variables such as age, educational level, presence of children in the current dwelling, current, and past companion animal ownership to have no statistically significant effect on AAS scores. The study found both occupation and income to have an effect on AAS scores. This paper examines and discusses all of these variables and their effects (or lack thereof).

Attitude to Animals and Empathy: Comparing Animal Protection and General Community Samples

ABSTRACT Although a number of studies have examined a range of demographic and personality variables that may impact upon attitudes towards the treatment of non-human species, little consensus has been reached within the literature. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and assess levels of human-directed empathy and attitudes towards the treatment of animals in two diverse populations, namely the general community (n = 543) and those within the animal protection field (n = 389). Both groups of participants completed the Attitude Towards the Treatment of Animals Scale (AAS) and the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), a measure of human-directed empathy. Comparisons between the two samples indicated that those within the animal protection community scored more highly on both the animal attitude and human-directed empathy measures. Correlational analyses revealed a positive relation between AAS and IRI scores for both samples, whilst the strength of the correlation was greater for those within the animal protection sample. These findings are discussed.

Teaching kindness: The promise of humane education

Although the popularity of Humane Education Programs (HEP) as a method of teaching compassion and caring for all living beings is increasing, there is a need for rigorous, methodologically sound research evaluating the efficacy of HEP. Recent calls for the inclusion of HEP within broader humanistic, environmental, and social justice frameworks underline the importance of HEP beyond a simple “treatment of animals” model. Lack of methodological rigor in the majority of published HEP studies (e.g., absence of a control group) and dispersal across disparate fields (with differing indices of efficacy), however, means that there is a potential for the popular use of HEP to outstrip our understanding of the variables that impact efficacy. The current study discusses some of these issues and presents a pilot study of a literature-only HEP intervention. Comparisons with an age-matched control group indicated that the four-week HEP resulted in an increase in measures of empathy and treatment of animals, although only the increase in empathy levels was significant. This paper discusses the implications of the current results and areas in need of future consideration.

Pet, Pest, Profit: Isolating Differences in Attitudes towards the Treatment of Animals

ABSTRACT Despite the increasing interest in, and scope of, human–animal studies, few statistically robust measures of attitudes towards animals exist beyond the Animal Attitude Scale (AAS—Herzog, Betchart and Pittman 1991). While extensively utilized, the AAS does not discriminate between categories of animals, that is, pet, pest, and commercially valued species. The current study was therefore conducted to develop a scale aimed at isolating differences in attitudes towards animals across three different categories: (1) pet (companion animal), (2) pest, and (3) profit/utility animals (PPP). Despite limitations due to a low return rate (n = 210), the PPP scale proved to have strong internal reliability, and related well to the AAS. The development of this scale and initial validation are described. Scores on the “pet” subscale were found to be the highest, followed by those on the “profit” then “pest” scales. Other noteworthy results including interactions between gender, occupation, and scores on the PPP subscales are discussed.

Community demographics and the propensity to report animal cruelty

The last decade has seen an increased awareness concerning links between violence to nonhuman animals and violence to humans. This has resulted in a number of cross-reporting initiatives between family service providers and animal welfare organizations. The success of these initiatives rests on individuals being willing to report such violence. Thus, there is a need to determine which variables influence an individuals willingness to report deliberate animal cruelty and abuse. The aim of this study was to examine demographic and attitudinal variables to ascertain their impact on propensity to report deliberate animal harm. A telephone questionnaire resulted in 1,208 valid responses from members of the general community. Results showed a number of variables that affected the propensity to report: gender, occupation, and acknowledgment of the link between family violence and deliberate animal harm. This article discusses these variables and their implications.

Mandated Reporting of Suspected Animal Harm by Australian Veterinarians: Community Attitudes

ABSTRACT Research demonstrates that animal abuse is linked with various forms of interpersonal violence and that veterinarians themselves are concerned about this link. However, Australian veterinarians are not currently mandated to report cases of suspected animal abuse (AA), a position outlined by the Australian Veterinary Association under their “Animal Welfare principles and philosophy–Animal Abuse” section. A range of barriers to reporting suspected abuse cases have been identified. Barriers specifically mentioned in the AVA statement regarding the non-mandatory reporting stance were presented to a community sample of 209 participants. While 161 (77%) indicated they were aware that certain professionals were mandated to report animal abuse, notably 76% of these (n=123) indicated (incorrectly) that veterinary professionals in Australia were so mandated. Over half of the participants (n=117, 58%) indicated that “Concerns about the continued welfare of the animal victim” was, in their opinion, the most significant barrier to introducing mandatory reporting for the veterinary profession in Australia. The implications of community opinion regarding veterinarians and mandated reporting, along with acknowledgement of barriers and potential consequences of mandated reporting, are discussed.