Pet, Pest, Profit: Patient! How Attitudes Toward Animals Among Veterinary Students in the Netherlands Differ According to Animal Categories and Student-Related Variables

Abstract

Veterinarians are not just animal health professionals; they are also considered animal welfare experts. Animal-directed empathy, the ability to understand and match an animal's emotional state, is essential for recognizing animal welfare issues. It is therefore a vital competency for veterinarians. The factors that play a role in shaping this empathy are animal, personal, and cultural influences, as well as the categorization of animals based on their benefit or harm to people: pet, pest or profit (used for economic purposes). We conducted a survey among veterinary students in the Netherlands to assess their levels of animal-directed empathy by scoring their attitude toward animals with the "Pet, Pest, Profit Scale". Analysis of 321 completed surveys revealed that students showed the highest empathy for pets, the second-highest levels for pest animals, and the lowest levels for profit animals. Empathy levels also differed depending on career choice, background, and diet. These findings indicate that categorizing animals influences veterinary students' empathy levels, which can lead to unrecognized welfare issues, especially for pest and profit animals. It is important to enhance empathy for these categories through targeted educational interventions to help prepare veterinary students for their responsibility as veterinarians, ensuring the welfare of all animals, whether pet, pest or profit.

Keywords: animal categories; animal welfare; attitude toward animals; empathy; pet pest profit; veterinary students.

Figure 1

Attitude toward animals scores across categories. The pet score distribution was skewed left due to a ceiling effect also reported in other studies, so we compared the pet, pest, and profit scores with the Friedman test [34,43,44]. The p-value of <0.001 (χ² = 489.571) indicated that there was a significant difference between at least two groups. Post hoc testing with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons between groups revealed statistically significant differences between the pet and pest, pet and profit and pest and profit scores (p < 0.001). This indicates that the attitude toward animals score differed across animal categories in this sample of veterinary students. Their attitude toward animals score is higher for animals they consider pets, followed, respectively, by animals they categorize as pests or profit animals.

Figure 2

Comparison of pet, pest, and profit scores across study years. The boxplot presents the distribution of attitude toward animals scores for the categories pet, pest, and profit across six study years, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The whiskers represent the minimum and maximum scores within the 1.5× interquartile range; the circles denote outliers beyond this range. A one-way ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences in the scores between study years for any category; therefore, no post hoc testing was conducted. These findings suggest that students’ attitudes toward animals remain relatively stable throughout their veterinary education.

Figure 3

Comparison of pet, pest, and profit scores across career choice groups. The boxplot illustrates the distribution of attitude toward animals scores for the pet, pest, and profit categories across different career choice groups, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The whiskers represent the minimum and maximum scores within the 1.5× interquartile range; the circles denote outliers beyond this range. A one-way ANOVA indicated a significant effect of career choice on these scores (p < 0.001). Post hoc testing with Bonferroni correction revealed that students pursuing a career in large animal practice had significantly lower pet and pest scores compared to those choosing small animal, equine, or exotics/wildlife practice. Their profit scores were significantly lower than those of all other career groups. The effect sizes (partial eta-squared) were medium for pet (0.140) and pest (0.160), and high for profit (0.213), suggesting a strong association between career choice and attitudes toward animals categorized as profit animals. These findings indicate that students aiming for a career in large animal practice exhibit a markedly different attitude toward animals, particularly those considered profit animals.

Figure 4

Comparison of the pet, pest, and profit scores across student backgrounds. The boxplot displays the distribution of attitude toward animals scores for the pet, pest, and profit categories across different student background groups, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The whiskers represent the minimum and maximum scores within the 1.5× interquartile range; the circles denote outliers beyond this range. A Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted for the pet scores due to a violation of the ANOVA equal variance assumption, revealing a statistically significant difference (H(4) = 23.900, p < 0.001). Post hoc testing with Bonferroni correction indicated that students from rural backgrounds had significantly lower pet scores than those from urban (p < 0.001) and village/town (p < 0.010) backgrounds. For the pest and profit scores, a one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences across background groups (pest: F(5, 315) = 11.957, p < 0.001; profit: F(5, 315) = 17.012, p < 0.001). Post hoc testing showed that students from rural backgrounds had significantly lower pest and profit scores compared to those from urban and village/town backgrounds (p < 0.001). The effect sizes (eta-squared) were medium for pet (0.078), pest (0.068), and profit (0.074), indicating that student background has a moderate impact on attitudes toward animals, with students from rural backgrounds consistently scoring lower across all three categories.

Figure 5

Comparison of the pet, pest, and profit scores across diet groups. The boxplot illustrates the distribution of attitude toward animals scores for the pet, pest, and profit categories among students following different diets for ethical reasons, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The whiskers represent the minimum and maximum scores within the 1.5× interquartile range; the circles denote outliers beyond this range. The one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in the pet, pest, and profit scores between at least two diet groups (pet: F(2, 318) = 3.625, p = 0.028; pest: F(2, 318) = 12.451, p < 0.001; profit: F(2, 318) = 62.333, p < 0.001). Post hoc testing with Bonferroni correction revealed that students following a plant-based or partly ethical diet had significantly higher pest and profit scores than those in the no-diet group. Additionally, the partly ethical diet group had a significantly higher pet score than the no-diet group. The effect size (partial eta-squared) was low for pet (0.022), medium for pest (0.073), and very high for profit (0.282), indicating a strong association between diet choice and attitudes toward animals, particularly in the profit category. Students adhering to a diet for ethical reasons consistently demonstrated higher pest and profit scores compared to those who did not.

Figure 6

Comparison of the pet, pest, and profit scores across gender groups. The boxplot illustrates the distribution of attitude toward animals scores for the pet, pest, and profit categories among students with different gender identities, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The whiskers represent the minimum and maximum scores within the 1.5× interquartile range; the circles denote outliers beyond this range. A one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in the pet, pest, and profit scores between at least two gender groups. Post hoc testing with Bonferroni correction showed that female students had significantly higher pet, pest, and profit scores than male students.