Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:16:56.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: attitudes and empathy towards goats (Part I)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

K Muri ,
PA Tufte ,
E Skjerve  and
PS Valle
K Muri*
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway
PA Tufte
Affiliation:
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Centre for the Study of Professions (SPS), PO Box 4 St Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway
E Skjerve
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology, PO Box 8146 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway
PS Valle
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, PO Box 8146 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway Molde University College, Head Office, PO Box 2110, 6402 Molde, Norway
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The quality of human-animal relationships in the livestock industries has been increasingly recognised as an important determinant of animal welfare. Attitudes and empathy are multi-dimensional traits that may be associated with the stockpersons’ behaviour. The aim of this study was to determine the dimensionality of the goat-oriented attitudes and empathy of stockpeople in the Norwegian dairy goat industry. We also explored how empathic and attitudinal dimensions are interrelated, and how the demographic background variables may predict empathy and attitudes. A total of 260 dairy goat farmers participated in the study, by the means of either postal or internet-based questionnaire formats. Multi-item rating scales were developed specifically for the assessment of attitudes and empathy towards goats, and Principal Component Factor Analysis was conducted to determine the dimensionality of the farmers’ goat-oriented attitudes and empathy. Subsequently, linear and ordinal regression analyses were performed to explore the interrelationships. The analyses revealed dimensions of empathy that can be recognised from studies of human-oriented empathy, and attitude dimensions that can be interpreted similarly as dimensions described in studies from other livestock industries. Our results show that different dimensions of attitudes and empathy were associated with different demographic variables, and that each empathy dimension was associated with a different attitude factor.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudesdairy goatsdemographicsempathyhuman-animal relationships
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , November 2012 , pp. 535 - 545
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ajzen, I 1991 The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes 50: 179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S and Wheelwright, S 2004 The Empathy Quotient: an investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34: 163–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, X, Lensink, J, Tallet, C and Veissier, I 2003 Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479–492Google Scholar
Brant, R 1990 Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics 46: 1171–1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2532457CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlo, G, Fabes, RA, Laible, D and Kupanoff, K 1999 Early adolesence and prosocial/moral behavior II: the role of social and contextual influences. Journal of Early Adolescence 19: 133–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431699019002001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J 1992 A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112: 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH and Hay, M 1998 Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 63–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01168-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, LJ 1951 Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, MH 1980 A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology 10: 85Google Scholar
Davis, MH 1983 Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 113–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vignemont, F and Singer, T 2006 The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 435–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2009 Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, Second Edition. VER Inc: Prince Edward Island, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Duan, C 2000 Being empathic: the role of motivation to empathize and the nature of target emotions. Motivation and Emotion 24: 29–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005587525609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A and Chaiken, S 2007 The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition 25: 582–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, N and Eggum, ND 2009 Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. In: Decety, J and Ickes, W (eds) The Social Neuroscience of Empathy pp 71–83. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, K, Zanella, AJ, Bjerkås, E and IndrebØ, A 2010 The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös 23: 231–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12750451258931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feshbach, ND and Feshbach, S 2009 Empathy and education. In: Decety, J and Ickes, W (eds) The Social Neuroscience of Empathy pp 85–97. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A, McManus, C and Scott, D 2003 Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös 16: 135–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, E, Rapson, RL and Le, Y-CL 2009 Emotional contagion and empathy. In: Decety, J and Ickes, W (eds) The Social Neuroscience of Empathy pp 19–30. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH 2007 Ethical stockmanship. Australian Veterinary Journal 85: 194–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2007.00112.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2011 Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals, Second Edition. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781845936730.0000Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL and Borg, S 2000 Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2821–2831CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzog, HA 2007 Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös 20: 7–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maio, GR and Haddock, G 2009 The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change, First Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Mathews, S and Herzog, HA 1997 Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society and Animals 5: 169–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853097X00060Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A and Epstein, N 1972 A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality 4: 525–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muri, K and Valle, PS 2012 Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: assessment of pain and provision of veterinary treatment (Part II). Animal Welfare 21: 547–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.4.547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panamá Arias, JL and Špinka, M 2005 Associations of stockpersons’ personalities and attitudes with performance of dairy cattle herds. Czech Journal of Animal Science 50: 226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, ES 2000 Empathy with animals and with humans: are they linked? Anthrozoös 13: 194–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279300786999699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, ES and Podberscek, AL 2000 Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146: 269–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, ES and Serpell, JA 1993 Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood. Animal Welfare 2: 321–337Google Scholar
Sharma, S 1996 Applied Multivariate Techniques, First Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Signal, TD and Taylor, N 2006 Attitudes to animals: demographics within a community sample. Society and Animals 14: 147–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853006776778743Google Scholar
Signal, TD and Taylor, N 2007 Attitude to animals and empathy: comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoös 20: 125–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175 303707X207918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Norway Online 2009 Holdings keeping domestic animals of various kinds as per 1 January. Statistics Norway Online. http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/04/10/jordhus_en/tab-2011-04-19-01-en.htmlGoogle Scholar
Taylor, N and Signal, TD 2005 Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoös 18: 18–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/0892 79305785594342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, HR and Neumann, DL 2008 Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biological Psychology 78: 66–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, R and Gould, W 1998 An approximate likelihood-ratio test for ordinal response models. Stata Technical Bulletin 42: 24–27Google Scholar