Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:19:24.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is pet ownership associated with values and attitudes towards animals?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

G Busch ,
A Schütz ,
S Hölker  and
A Spiller
G Busch*
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
A Schütz
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
S Hölker
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
A Spiller
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence: [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.

In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the number of pets and pet owners has been increasing in recent years. The experiences people have with pets might impact their relationships with animals in general and especially attitudes towards animal protection and use. However, research on the impact of pet ownership on values and attitudes towards animals is relatively scarce. We analyse associations of pet ownership with different values and attitudes towards animals. We derived seven attitude constructs towards animals from three different datasets using Principal Component Analyses. Data were collected using standardised online surveys with German residents (dataset 1 = 1,049 respondents; dataset 2 = 414 respondents; dataset 3 = 1,048 respondents). All three samples are non-probability quota samples. The seven attitudinal constructs represent values and attitudes towards animals ranging from general values and attitudes towards, eg animal protection, to more specific attitudes towards, eg eating animals. We analysed the relationship of pet ownership, sex, and age with these constructs using ANOVA. Our results show that effect sizes are small to medium. Pet ownership has the strongest association with more general values and attitudes towards animals, with pet owners being, eg more involved in animal protection and more in favour of awarding fundamental rights to animals. In contrast, we found that more specific attitudes, such as the evaluation of current pig farming systems or attitudes towards eating meat, were more related to sex than pet ownership. Our findings indicate that having pets relates to their owners’ attitudes towards animals, but that this association varies depending on the specificity of attitudes.

Keywords

animal husbandryanimal protectionanimal welfarecompanion animalsfarmed animalshuman-animal relationship
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , November 2022 , pp. 447 - 454
Copyright
© 2022 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ajzen, I 2005 Laws of human behavior: Symmetry, compatibility, and attitude-behavior correspondence. In: Beauducel, B, Biehl, B, Bosniak, M, Conrad W. Schönberger, G and Wagener, D (eds) Multivariate Research Strategies pp 3–19. Shaker Verlag: Aachen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Bir, C, Davis, M, Widmar, N, Zuelly, S and Erasmus, M 2019 Perceptions of animal welfare with a special focus on turkeys. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6: 413. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00413CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boogaard, BK, Oosting, S and Bock, BB 2006 Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livestock Science 104: 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, H, Rushton, K, Lovell, K, Bee, P, Walker, L, Grant, L and Rogers, A 2018 The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry 18(1): 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1613-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, B, Stewart, GB, Panzone, LA, Kyriazakis, I and Frewer, LJ 2016 A systematic review of public attitudes perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29: 455–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, SAS, Cave, NJ, Adolphe, JL, Shoveller, AK and Verbrugghe, A 2019 Plant-based (vegan) diets for pets: A survey of pet owner attitudes and feeding practices. PLoS ONE 14: e0210806. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210806CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Driscoll, JW 1992 Attitudes toward animal use. Anthrozoös 5: 32–39. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011575CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12750451258931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiss, S and Hormes, JM 2018 Ethical concerns regarding animal use mediate the relationship between variety of pets owned in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood. Appetite 123: 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.12.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hölker, S, Steinfath, H, von Meyer-Höfer, M and Spiller, A 2019a Tierethische Intuitionen in Deutschland: Entwicklung eines Messinstrumentes zur Erfassung bereichsspezifischer Werte im Kontext der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(49): 299–315. [Title translation: Animal-ethical intuitions in Germany: Developing a measuring instrument to capture domain-specific values in the context of the human-animal relationship]Google Scholar
Hölker, S, von Meyer-Höfer, M and Spiller, A 2019b Animal ethics and eating animals: Consumer segmentation based on domain-specific values. Sustainability 11: 3907. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölker, S, von Meyer-Höfer, M and Spiller, A 2019c Inclusion of animal ethics into the consumer value-attitude system using the example of game meat consumption. Food Ethics 3(1): 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00036-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IVH - Industrieverband Heimtierbedarf eV 2009 Der deutsche Heimtiermarkt. Struktur & Umsatzdaten 2009. https://www.ivh-online.de/fileadmin/ivh/user_upload/Daten_und_Fakten/Heimtiermarkt_A4_2009_01.pdf. [Title translation: The German pet market. Structure and sales data 2009]Google Scholar
Jorgenson, J 1997 Therapeutic use of companion animals in healthcare. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 29(3): 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb00993.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupsala, S, Vinnari, M, Jokinen, P and Räsänen, P 2016 Public perceptions of mental capacities of non-human animals: Finnish population survey. Society & Animals 24: 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, JA, Sneddon, JN, Daly, TM, Schwartz, SH, Soutar, GN and Louviere, JJ 2019 Testing and extending Schwartz refined value theory using a best-worst scaling approach. Journal of Personality Assessment 26(2): 166–180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
María, GA 2006 Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103: 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, P, Hansart, C and Su, B 2019 Attitudes of young adults toward animals—The case of high school students in Belgium and The Netherlands. Animals 9: 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030088CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKendree, MGS, Croney, CC and Widmar, NJO 2014 Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 92: 3161–3173. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-6874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, P, Knight, S and Lesley, S 2012 Belief in animal mind: Does familiarity with animals influence beliefs about animal emotions? Society & Animals 20: 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiler, TM and Egloff, B 2018 Examining the “veggie” personality: results from a representative German sample. Appetite 120(1): 246–255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pirsich, W, von Hardenberg, LM and Theuvsen, L 2017 The pet food industry: An innovative distribution channel for marketing feed products from welfare friendly production to consumers? International Journal on Food System Dynamics 8: 250–261. https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v8i3.836Google Scholar
Purewal, R, Christley, R, Kordas, K, Joinson, C, Meints, K, Gee, N and Westgarth, C 2017 Companion animals and child/adolescent development: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030234CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramirez, M 2006 “My dog's just like me”: dog ownership as a gender display. Symbolic Interaction 29: 373–291. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2006.29.3.373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothgerber, H and Mican, F 2014 Childhood pet ownership attachment to pets and subsequent meat avoidance. The mediating role of empathy toward animals. Appetite 79: 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandøe, P, Corr, S and Palmer, C 2016 Companion Animal Ethics. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Schulz, C, König, HH and Hajek, A 2020 Differences in self-esteem between cat-owners, dog-owners, and individuals without pets. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 552. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schütz, A, Busch, G and Sonntag, WI 2020 Environmental enrichment in pig husbandry - Citizens’ ratings of pictures showing housing elements using an online-survey. Livestock Science 240: 104218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpell, JA and Paul, E 1994 Pets and the development of positive attitudes to animals. In: Manning, A and Serpell, J (eds) Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives pp 127–144. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, J, Lee, J, Ballantyne, R and Packer, J 2016 Animal welfare values and tourist behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research 57: 234–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statista 2021a Anteil der Haushalte in Deutschland mit Haustieren in den Jahren 2012 bis 2020. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/859229/umfrage/anteil-der-haushalte-in-deutschland-mit-haustieren/. [Title translation: Share of households in Germany with pets from 2012 to 2020]Google Scholar
Statista 2021b Anzahl der Haustiere in Europa nach Ländern in den Jahren 2008 bis 2017. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/30217/umfrage/haustiere-heimtiere-in-europa-seit-2008/. [Title translation: Number of pets in Europe by country from 2008 to 2017]Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt Germany 2019a Bevölkerung nach Nationalität und Geschlecht. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/zensus-geschlecht-staatsangehoerigkeit-2019.html. [Title translation: Population by nationality and gender]Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt Germany 2019b Bevölkerung: Deutschland Stichtag Altersjahre. https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis//online?operation=table&code=12411-0005&bypass=true&lev-elindex=0&levelid=1621597799093#abreadcrumb. [Title translation: Population: Germany reporting date age in years]Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt Germany 2019c Bevölkerung: Bundesländer Stichtag zum Quartalsende Geschlecht: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?operation=abruftabelleBearbeiten&levelindex=1&levelid=1621598333438&auswahloperation=abruftabelleAuspraegungAuswaehlen&auswahlverzeichnis=ordnungsstruktur&auswahlziel=werteabruf&code=12411-0021&auswahltext=&werteabruf=Werteabruf#abreadcrumb. [Title translation: Population: Federal states Reporting date at end of quarter gender]Google Scholar
Su, B and Martens, P 2018 How ethical ideologies relate to public attitudes toward animals: The Dutch Case. Anthrozoös 31: 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1434056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, van Poucke, E and Verbeke, W 2010 Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science 131: 108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2007 Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 84–100Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, JK, McGrath, N, Handel, IG, Waran, NK and Phillips, CJC 2014 Does owning a companion animal influence the belief that animals experience emotions such as grief? Animal Welfare 23: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weible, D, Christoph-Schulz, I, Salamon, P and Zander, K 2016 Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: a mixed-method research approach. British Food Journal 118: 2014–2032. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL 2009 The effects of animals on human health and well-being. Journal of Social Issues 65:523–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01612.XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 1995 Attitudes to animal use in children. Anthrozoös 8: 159–170. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279395787156338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 1997 Pet ownership and adults’ views on the use of animals. Society and Animals 5: 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853097X00213Google Scholar
Winkel, C, von Meyer-Höfer, M, Lucke, A, Purwins, N, Schütz, A and Heise, H 2019 Wie beurteilen Verbraucher Zielkonflikte von Stallbau- und Managementelementen in der Schweinehaltung? Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus eV. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.292283. [Title translation: How do consumers assess conflicting goals of barn construction and management elements in pig farming?]Google Scholar
Zentralverband Zoologischer Fachbetriebe Deutschland eV (ZZF) 2021 Wertvolle Mitbewohner: Mehr Fürsorge für Heimtiere in Corona-Zeiten. https://www.zzf.de/presse/meldungen/meldungen/article/wertvolle-mitbewohner-mehr-fuersorge-fuer-heimtiere-in-corona-zeiten.html. [Title translation: Valuable roommates: more care for pets in Corona times]Google Scholar
ZZF and IVH - Zentralverband Zoologischer Fachbetriebe Deutschland eV and Industrieverband Heimtierbedarf eV 2019 Der deutsche Heimtiermarkt. Strukturen und Umsatzdaten 2019. https://www.zzf.de/fileadmin/files/ZZF/Intranet/Dokumente/ZZF_IVH_Folder_2019_Deutscher_Heimtiermarkt_und_Heimtierpopulation.pdf. [Title translation: The German pet market. Structures and sales data 2019]Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Busch et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 171 KB