Man's best friends: attitudes towards the use of different kinds of animal depend on belief in different species' mental capacities and purpose of use

Abstract

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.

Keywords: animal ethics; animal purpose questionnaire; animal use; belief in animal mind; mind denial.

Figure 1.

Mean scores and standard errors of responses from 317 participants from the different scales within the questionnaire. (a) displays the mean APQ scores when selecting for purpose (averaging across species), (b) displays the mean APQ scores when selecting for species (averaging across purpose) and (c) displays the mean BAM rating for each species. (b) and (c) are arranged in ascending order of animal welfare/concern. For the purposes of illustration, the APQ is shown re-scored from −2 to +2 (+2 = strongly agree with the animal use; hence lower scores indicate greater concern for animals). BAM ratings are re-scored from −3 to +3 (+3 = strongly agree with the animal's mental capacity). For both scales, zero represents a neutral position.

Figure 2.

Mean APQ scores for each of the 12 species plotted against the specific BAM rating for that species. The mean ratings for Medical Research are displayed in the top left panel, Basic Science Research in the top right, Food Production in the middle left panel, Pest Control in the middle right panel, Other in the bottom left panel and the relationship between the APQ-Total score and BAM rating is present in the bottom right panel. Each plot contains a simple regression line highlighting the linear relationship present across all the different purposes. The mean APQ and BAM ratings were calculated from responses from 317 participants. For the purposes of illustration, the APQ is shown re-scored from −2 to +2 (+2 = strongly agree with the animal use; hence lower scores indicate greater concern for animals) and BAM ratings are re-scored from −3 to +3 (+3 = strongly agree with the animal's mental capacity). For both scales, zero represents a neutral position.