Development of an Attitude Scale to Measure Attitudes toward Humans' Use of Nonhuman Animals

1996 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 1003-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
James B. Armstrong ◽  
Melissa E. Hutchins
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Damage Control ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Attitude Scale ◽  
Educational Backgrounds ◽  
Animal Damage ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Education Service ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
Control Association

The objectives of this investigation were to develop a scale to measure attitudes towards animal use, decide upon the number of dimensions or scales needed, and test the reliability and validity of the dimension(s) obtained. Analysis showed the final scale to be unidimensional with evidence of reliability (Cronbach alpha = .99) and criterion validity via measurement of known groups. The known groups were derived from a random sample of members of the Animal Rights Information and Education Service (representing those opposed to humans' use of animals) and members of National Animal Damage Control Association (representing those supporting animal use). The final scale contained 48 items and was readable at Grade 6 which facilitates administration across a broad range of educational backgrounds and has utility for a variety of animal-use issues.

scholarly journals Attitudes to Animals in the Animal Protection Community Compared to a Normative Community Sample

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Taylor ◽  
Tania Signal
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Attitude Scale ◽  
Primary Industry ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
General Community ◽  
Indirect Action

AbstractAttitudes toward the treatment of nonhuman animals in the animal protection community remain largely under researched. In an attempt to begin to rectify this, this study conducted a survey of 407 members of the animal protection community using the Animal Attitude Scale (AAS). The survey also asked participants to indicate whether they identified more with (a) animal rights or animal welfare perspectives and (b) a direct or indirect action approach to securing animal protection. Results of the current study indicate that, regardless of philosophical or practical beliefs, those in the animal protection community were significantly more pro-animal welfare (as measured by the AAS) than members of the general community. This disparity was even greater between the current participants and those of a previous study who identified as being employed in the Primary Industry (PI) sector. This paper discusses implications of this as well as respondents' philosophical and practical views.

scholarly journals Attitudes Toward Animal Rights in Palestine: A Quantitative Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-150
Author(s):  
Erni Gustafsson ◽  
Nabil Alawi ◽  
Per Normann Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
University Students ◽  
Quantitative Study ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Companion Animals ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Attitude Scale ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

Abstract This study investigates and compares attitudes of 205 Palestinian and Norwegian university students toward companion animals (pets) using the Pet Attitude Scale. In order to provide some background for the Palestinian attitudes toward nonhuman animals, we discuss canonical Islamic texts on their treatment, as well as the present situation for animal protection in the Middle East. The findings from the survey suggest differences between Palestinian and Norwegian students; however, both groups showed predominately positive attitudes.

Canine Rescue as a Social Movement: The Politics of Love

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 670-687
Author(s):  
Anna L. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Advocacy ◽  
The Social ◽  
Human Animal Bond ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Political Approach ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
Politics Of Love

Abstract Canine rescue is a growing movement that affects the lives of tens of thousands of nonhuman animals and people every year. Rescue is noteworthy not only for its numbers, but also because it challenges common understandings of animal advocacy. Popular accounts often portray work on behalf of animals as sentimental, individualistic, and apolitical. In fact, work on behalf of animals has always been political, in multiple ways. It is characterized both by internal political tensions, especially between animal rights and welfare positions, and by complex relations to the broader public sphere. I analyze canine rescue, with a focus on pit bull rescue, to show that an important segment of canine rescue movements adopts an explicitly political approach which blurs the divide between rights and welfare, addresses the social context of the human-animal bond, and links animal advocacy to social justice.

scholarly journals Nonhuman Animal Rights, Alternative Food Systems, and the Non-Profit Industrial Complex

PhaenEx ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey Lee Wrenn
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Food Production ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Alternative Food ◽  
Industrial Complex ◽  
Alternative Food Systems ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Alternative Systems ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

Alternative food systems (namely the humane product movement) have arisen to address societal concerns with the treatment of Nonhuman Animals in food production. This paper presents an abolitionist Nonhuman Animal rights approach (Francione, 1996) and critiques these alternative systems as problematic in regards to goals of considering the rights or welfare of Nonhuman Animals. It is proposed that the trend in social movement professionalization within the structure of a non-profit industrial complex will ultimately favor compromises like “humane” products over more radical abolitionist solutions to the detriment of Nonhuman Animals. This paper also discusses potential compromises for alternative food systems that acknowledge equal consideration for Nonhuman Animals, focusing on grassroots veganism as a necessary component for consistency and effectiveness.

scholarly journals Ambivalent Speciesism Scale: Development, Validity and Reliability

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (18) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
The Social ◽  
Orientation Scale ◽  
Animal Use

The aim of this study is to develop a scale compatible with current animal ethics studies to measure the phenomenon of speciesism, that is marginalization of animals and prejudice and discrimination against animals. In order to develop the Ambivalent Speciesism Scale, an item pool was created by examining the animal ethics literature and social psychology studies on human-animal relations, and then the items were edited by taking the opinions of people studying animal rights and experts in measurement and evaluation in psychology. The scale is designed in 7-point Likert type. The trial form was applied to the participants together with the Speciesism Scale, the Social Dominance Orientation Scale and the Basic Empathy Scale. Participants were selected from individuals representing different lifestyles in the context of animal use, using the snowball sampling technique. The study was conducted with 288 participants; 64 men, 217 women and, 7 of whom are not of both genders. While there were 24 items in the trial form of the scale, nine of these items were eliminated as a result of the factor analysis. The final form of the scale with 15 items has a high reliability (.90). The items of the scale are divided into three dimensions: belief in human superiority, protective speciesism, and speciesism in language. It was determined that the scores obtained from the scale were in positive correlation with the scores obtained from the other scale measuring speciesism and the social dominance orientation scale, as expected. The scores obtained from the scale are distributed as expected among the groups that include lifestyles related to animal use. These data were evaluated as findings showing the validity of the scale. Keywords Speciesism, ambivalent speciesism scale, animal rights, discrimination, animal ethics

scholarly journals Reliability and Validity of the Greek Version of the Iowa Infant Feeding Attitude Scale Among Pregnant Women

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 160
Author(s):  
Maria Iliadou ◽  
Katerina Lykeridou ◽  
Panagiotis Prezerakos ◽  
Chara Tzavara ◽  
Styliani Tziaferi
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Infant Feeding ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Attitude Scale ◽  
Greek Version

“Animals Like Us”: Identifying with Nonhuman Animals and Support for Nonhuman Animal Rights

Anthrozoös ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-177
Author(s):  
Courtney N. Plante ◽  
Stephen Reysen ◽  
Sharon E. Roberts ◽  
Kathleen Gerbasi
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

Perambulating Mice and the Confluence of Sympathy and Moral Education

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-40
Author(s):  
Shawna Lichtenwalner
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Moral Education ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Mary Wollstonecraft ◽  
Late Eighteenth Century ◽  
Anna Letitia Barbauld ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Late Eighteenth

The late eighteenth century was the locus of a burgeoning interest in animal rights. This essay examines the critical role that children’s literature had in the evolution of more consideration for animal welfare. The use of animals in the works of writers such as Sarah Trimmer, Mary Wollstonecraft, Anna Letitia Barbauld, and Dorothy Kilner helped create a form of animal subjectivity as a means of teaching children compassion through the creation of sympathy for nonhuman animals. By fostering compassion for the needs of so-called “dumb creatures” children could also be taught, by extension, to have more consideration for other people. In particular, Dorothy Kilner’s animal autobiography The Life and Perambulations of a Mouse offers a new way of viewing animals who are neither physical nor affectional slaves as worthy of both consideration and compassion.

Bestiality

2020 ◽  
pp. 327-350
Author(s):  
Stuart P. Green
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Nonconsensual Sex ◽  
Do So

The focus of this chapter is on bestiality, involving sex between humans and nonhuman animals. Some animal rights and feminist scholars have suggested that bestiality should be thought of as a form of nonconsensual sex. But to do so presupposes that animals can be harmed or wronged within the meaning of the liberal harm and wrong principles, which is far from clear. And even assuming that it does make sense to think of bestiality as involving nonconsensual sex, it needs to be asked if there is a coherent justification for criminalizing such conduct while so many other serious harms and wrongs to animals, including with respect to their sexual functions (such as breeding, neutering, spaying, and castrating) go unrestricted. Central here is the question of whether bestiality fits within the narrow sliver of animal mistreatment that is, under current law, considered sufficiently cruel to merit criminalization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document