Abstract

We present a questionnaire-based measure of four animal ethics orientations. The orientations, which were developed in light of existing empirical studies of attitudes to animal use and ethical theory, are: animal rights, anthropocentrism, lay utilitarianism, and animal protection. The two latter orientations can be viewed as variants of animal welfarism. Three studies were conducted in Denmark in order to identify the hypothesised orientations, evaluate their concurrent validity, and report their prevalence and relevance in animal-related opinion formation and behaviour. Explorative factor analysis (Study 1) and confirmative factor analysis (Study 2) successfully identified the four orientations. Study 2 revealed good measurement invariance, as there was none or very modest differential item functioning across age, gender, living area, and contrasting population segments. Evaluation of concurrent validity in Study 2 found that the orientations are associated with different kinds of behaviour and opinion when the human use of animals is involved in the hypothesised directions. In Study 3, a representative population study, the animal protection orientation proved to be most prevalent in the Danish population, and as in study 2 the four orientations were associated with different behaviours and opinions. Remarkably, the animal protection orientation does not lead to increased animal welfare-friendly meat consumption, the main reason for this being non-concern about the current welfare status of farm animals. We argue that the developed measure covers a wide range of diversity in animal ethics orientations that is likely to exist in a modern society such as Denmark and can be used in future studies to track changes in the orientations and to understand and test hypotheses about the sources and justifications of people’s animal-related opinions and behaviours.

Highlights

  • Model fit results suggest that a two-factor model provides an unsatisfactory fit to the data (CFI 0.624/Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.447/RMSEA 0.202 (90%CI: 0.184–0.221)/SRMR 0.092/ Chi2 395.1 (53df); p

  • Three-factor modelling improved model fit considerably, but in it neither Comparative Fit Index (CFI), TLI nor RMSEA was at an acceptable level (CFI 0.865/TLI 0.750/RMSEA 0.136 (90%CI: 0.115– 0.158)/SRMR 0.059/ Chi2 164.8 (42df); p

  • Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the four-factor model provides an acceptable fit to the data (CFI .971/TLI .962/RMSEA 0.054(90%CI 0.043–0.066)/SRMR 0.039/Chi2 138.1 (59df); p

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Human use of animals is becoming increasingly controversial This can be seen in our food preferences, and the consumption of meat and its alternatives, where ethically motivated vegans at one extreme avoid animal-derived food products altogether as a result of concerns about animal use [1, 2] while, at the other extreme, a significant number of people choose meat-intensive diets [3], apparently with few concerns about farm animal welfare. Between such opposing practices, consumer demand for “welfare friendly” meat has encouraged alternative animal production systems in many countries [4,5,6]. Cognitive dissonance emerges only when individuals, or the cultures they participate in, recognise that their ethical assumptions about how animals should be treated have been violated

Aims of this paper
The Four ethical orientations
An overview of procedures and data sets
Sample
Materials and analysis
Results
Study 2
Study 2 conclusion
Study 3
Study 3 conclusion
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call