WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANIMAL USE?- A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH By S. Knight, K. Nunkoosing, A. Vrij and J. Cherryman Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom. INTRODUCTION The British are said to be a nation of animal lovers, and in 1995 at least 50% of households in the UK owned one or more pets (Pet Food Manufacturer’s Association, 1996). Yet there are many different ways in which humans use animals, and this often leads to pain, injury and death to the animals involved. The term ‘animal use’ describes the range of practices that involve humans using non-human animals, and includes a wide spectrum of activities, from using animals to test drugs and develop medical procedures, to breeding animals for their fur, to keeping pets for companionship. Thus it is inevitable that people’s attitudes will differ depending upon the type of animal use in question (Driscoll, 1992; Knight, Vrij, Cherryman, & Nunkoosing, 2004). For example, people have been found to be more supportive of using animals for medical research and less supportive of using animals for entertainment and cosmetics testing (Furnham & Pinder, 1990; Knight, et al., 2004). Yet whilst attitudes toward animal use can be both complex and incongruent, some research has examined and discussed such attitudes in general (i.e. as a uni-dimensional factor), without exploring different views toward different ways in which we use animals (e.g., Armstrong & Hutchins, 1996; Matthews & Herzog, 1997). Previous research also tends to (i) use quantitative methods to test hypotheses relating to people’s attitudes toward animal use, and (ii) focus on personal characteristics (such as gender, age and pet ownership) to understand why different people have different views on this subject. Table 1 shows that people’s attitudes towards animal use are mediated by their attitudes towards animals, their knowledge of what is actually done to animals, weighing up the costs and the benefits of animal use, and whether they perceived there to be a choice but to use animals. For example people were more supportive of using animals for medical research because the benefits (e.g., a cure for a childhood illness) were perceived to outweigh the costs (e.g., pain caused to animals) (= cost-benefit analysis). Whereas people were less supportive of using animals for cosmetics testing because they thought there were alternatives (e.g., cruelty-free make-up, or the choice not to wear make-up) (= perceptions of choice). Figure 1 presents a model that brings the four main themes together with personal factors that might influence attitudes toward different types of animal use. THE PRESENT STUDY This study took a qualitative approach to explore why people have different views towards different ways in which animals are used. Grounded Theory was used, not as an antithesis or alternative to quantitative methods, but to complement such research. In-depth interviews encouraged participants to discuss the issues they perceived to be relevant and important when thinking about their views on animal use, and contemporary Grounded Theory techniques (see Strauss & Corbin, 1991) were then used to analyse interview transcripts. Table 1. Themes that influence attitudes toward animal use DATA COLLECTION Seventeen participants (9 male, 8 women) aged between years were interviewed. This was the number of participants needed to reach theoretical saturation (when new issues and ideas cease to emerge). The first author interviewed all participants, and each interview started with the researcher asking a simple question about whether the participant had different views on different ways in which animals are used by humans, and if so, why they thought this was the case. Open-ended questioning was used to encourage participants to lead the interview by discussing what they believed to be important when considering their attitudes toward animal use. The interview ended when the participant could not be encouraged to discuss their views any further (that is, they felt that they had said all they wanted to say on the matter). Each interview took between minutes. ANALYSIS All interviews were transcribed verbatim, double-spaced and with large margins for notes during coding. Each line of the text was numbered to facilitate location and indexing when necessary (Nunkoosing & Phillips, 1999). In total, there were 274 pages of transcripts. The Grounded Theory method of constant comparative analysis was employed to analyse the data. Interpretation was a two-part process. That is, initially, coding and categorising what participants actually said was guided by the researcher aiming to identify those aspects that best represented the participants theory on the topic of animal use. This process lead into the researcher seeking to best demonstrate the perspective and position of the participants. Thus, this two-part process required both the de-construction and re-construction of the text. THEMES PROPERTIES ATITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS Knowledge and perceptions of animals (perceived mental and physical characteristics) KNOWLEDGE OF ANIMAL USE PROCEDURES Knowing about animal use procedures Knowing about alternatives Not wanting to know COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Animal use for human health benefits Animal use for animal health benefits Animal use as a moral issue PERCEPTIONS OF CHOICE Is animal use necessary? Are there alternatives? How are animals treated? Is animal use natural? RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Four main themes emerged that helped explain different attitudes toward different types of animal use (see table 1). Personal factors, experience and understanding Individual differences Attitudes toward animals Knowledge of animals Knowledge of animal use Cognitive processing Cost-benefit analysisPerceptions of choice Attitudes toward animal use Figure 1. Attitudes toward animal use: A model Figure 1 shows that, when people are thinking about their views on animal use, their views can be affected by personal factors (e.g., their gender, or what they know about animal use procedures), and how they process information (e.g., weighing up the perceived costs versus benefits of animal use). Different personal factors and cognitive processing of information can explain why different people have different views on animal use, and why the same person can have different views toward different types of animal use. For example, if a person (i) believes that an animal is capable of suffering (= knowledge of animals), (ii) believes that there are alternatives to using animals for research (= perceptions of choice), and (iii) has a strong liking for animals (=attitudes toward animals), they will be less likely to support using animals for research. CONCLUSIONS As shown above, attitudes towards animal use can be influenced by a range of factors. However, it is important to note that Figure 1 is fluid, and rather than examining the information then forming an attitude, people can sometimes seem to work backwards, in that they ‘build’ their argument to justify their attitudes or behaviour. This may involve actively seeking some information (e.g., that research on animals aids medical progress) whilst actively avoiding other information (e.g., that results from animal research may be misleading) in order to justify their point-of-view or behaviour. Future research might examine the four themes quantitatively, to see if one or more have more influence on attitudes than others, and also examine people’s motivation to form and maintain certain attitudes. Greater understanding of this topic may indicate how attitudes can be changed and thus may be useful to, for example, scientists seeking support for their work, or animal welfare groups aiming to increase humane treatment of animals. REFERENCES Armstrong, J.B., & Hutchins, M.E. (1996). Development of an attitude scale to measure attitudes toward humans’ use of nonhuman animals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, ……..Driscoll, J.W. (1992). Attitudes Towards Animal Use. Anthrozoos, 5, 32-39……..Furnham, A., & Pinder, A. (1990). Young people’s attitudes to experimentation on animals. The Psychologist, October, ……..Knight, S.E., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., & Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Attitudes Towards Animal Use and Belief in Animal Mind, Anthrozoos, 17, 43-62……..Matthews, S. and Herzog, H.A. (1997). Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society and Animals, 5, ……..Nunkoosing, K., & Phillips, D. (1999). Supporting families in the early education of children with special needs: the perspectives of Portage home visitors. European Journal of Special Needs education, 14, ……..Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1991). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury park: Sage.