Kendall-Lobao-Sharp - Public Concern With Animal Well-Being Place, Social Structural Location and Individual Experience

Rural Sociology 71(3), 2006, pp.
399428 Copyright 2006 by the Rural Sociological Society
Public Concern with Animal Well-Being: Place, Social Structural Location, and Individual Experience*
Holli A. Kendall, Linda M. Lobao, and Jeff S. Sharp
Rural Sociology Program Department of Human and Community Resource Development The Ohio State University
ABSTRACT While sociologists and the public at large are increasingly interested in the life conditions of animals, conceptual and empirical development of the topic is limited. This paper seeks to further develop the sociological research on attitudes toward animal well-being. We build on insights from contemporary stratication theory to explain the nature of animal attitudes and their determinants. We also extend past work by examining a broader range of factors related to attitudes about animal wellbeing, focusing on place, other social structural factors, and individuals unique animal-related experiences. Data are from a survey of over 4,000 Ohio residents conducted in 2002. We nd that childhood experience has the greatest place-based effect on attitudes. Other ndings highlight the importance of social structural factors, suggesting support for the underdog hypothesis. Women, people experiencing economic hardship, those with less education, younger and middle aged people, and blacks tend to be more concerned with animal well-being. Individualized, experiential variables are also important. Our results reect the complexity of attitudes about animals and point to the need for greater sociological attention to factors left largely unexplored in previous studies, including childhood place-based factors, economic hardship, and individuals unique animal-related experiences.
The position of animals in society has increasingly concerned sociologists and the public. Growing sociological interest in animals and society is reected in books (Arluke and Sanders 1996; Benton 1993; Franklin 1999; Nibert 2002; Tester 1991), special issue journal articles (Buller and Morris 2003; Milbourne 2003; Tovey 2003), and the formation of the American Sociological Associations newest speciality section devoted to the topic. Public concern with animal well-being is now common in media accounts discussing treatment of food animals, pet-owner responsibilities, use of animals in medical and product testing, and broader animal rights (Nestle 2002; Pollan 2002a, 2002b; Schlosser 2001; Will 2005). Pressure from consumer and animal welfare and rights groups is reshaping global standards for animal treatment (Coleman 2004). Despite public concern with animal well-being, research and theory on the topic remains limited in sociology. First, most published work is found outside sociology, and centers on ethical-philosophical concerns
* Please direct all correspondence to Holli Kendall: kendall.12@osu.edu.
400
Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006
(Regan 1983, 2004; Rollin 2000; Singer 1990; Wise 2000). Second, empirical studies considering determinants of animal attitudes are largely descriptive (Hills 1993; Kellert 1989, 1996; Nibert 1994) or based on qualitative ndings from small samples (Holloway 2001; Wilkie 2005). Multivariate analyses assessing an array of competing determinants are rare ( Jerolmack 2003). From a theoretical standpoint, the topic is poorly understood. Attitudes about animals are amorphous, evolving, and usually not subject to individuals day-to-day interrogation. The taken-for-granted nature of humans relationship to animals makes determinants of these attitudes difcult to theorize. As a result, extant work is characterized by examining a limited number of determinants in a piecemeal approach. Little has been done to situate the topic within a broader sociological framework. In this paper, we seek to advance sociological research on attitudes toward animal well-being. We develop a conceptual approach to determinants of animal well-being grounded in broader sociological perspectives on stratication and in extant empirical work. These literatures point to the importance of social structural positions, including urban-rural location, in conferring distinct experiences and worldviews related to concern with animal well-being. Empirically, we extend past work by examining a broader range of factors related to attitudes about animal well-being than found in previous studies. We also give more detailed attention to class, gender, and place-based experiences as determinants of views about animals. Attitudes about Animal Well-Being Attitudes about animal well-being reect underlying concern with animals quality of life. Public concern with animal well-being is typically studied as a broad concept encompassing perceptions about animals physical and emotional health, cognition, and general welfare (Coleman 2004; Rollin 2000). While some researchers (Buller and Morris 2003; Ohlendorf, Jenkins, and Tomazic 2002) refer to this concept as animal welfare, we prefer the term animal well-being which distinguishes it from activist movements whose goals are greater comforts and basic freedoms (Singer 1990) to conned animals. The concept of animal well-being should not be confused with animal rights which involves the degree to which citizenship entitlements should be extended to nonhumans (Buller and Morris 2003; Ohlendorf et al. 2002). In addition to the substantive scope of animal well-being attitudes, analysts suggest these attitudes have both evaluative and expressive components (Hills 1993; Kellert 1989, 1996). Evaluative attitudes express the degree to which animals satisfy a need, while expressive
Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.
401
attitudes are symbolic of underlying concerns (Hills 1993). Americans attitudes toward animal well-being reect both evaluative attitudes of general utilityacceptability of animal exploitation under the condition that human benets are gainedand expressive attitudes about general animal treatment, for example, concern for ethical treatment of animals (Kellert 1989, 1996). In keeping with these conceptual distinctions, our concern is with perceptions of animals quality of life, in terms of human utility and intrinsic concern for animals themselves. Measurement of attitudes about animal well-being is limited in consistency and scope across studies. There is no widely accepted or standardized set of items used to measure these attitudes (Kellert 1989, 1996). Most studies on the topic collect few attitudinal variables about animals and focus narrowly on particular issues, such as animal experimentation. One difculty in studying attitudes about animal well-being is that most Americans do not question their customary relationships in the use of animals nor seek out information about animals quality of life (Herzog 1993; Plous 1993). Social consciousness about animals tends to reect an earlier stage of attitude formation than, for example, attitudes often investigated by rural sociologists, such as those about the environment and agrarianism (Kalof et al. 1999). This affects researchers ability to understand and explain determinants of attitudes toward animal well-being. With the exception of certain structural determinants such as gender, empirical ndings are often inconsistent. The idea that attitudes toward animals are, for the most part, not a conscious part of Americans day-to-day thinking, but reect customary relationships and practices, leads us to recent theoretical work on stratication. Social Positions and Attitudes about Animal Well-Being: Building from Contemporary Perspectives on Stratication Despite growing sociological interest in animal well-being, the literature remains fragmented with studies typically attending to specic determinants not linked together in any systematic way. In light of this, we draw from both existing empirical studies as well as theoretical sources to produce a more coherent understanding of these determinants. Both quantitative and qualitative studies typically hypothesize systematic differences in the way social groups, such as along the lines of gender, class, and race/ethnicity, view their relationships with animals (Elder, Wolch, and Emel 1998; Grifth, Wolch, and Lassiter 2002; Nibert 1994, 2002). The reasons behind social group differences are not well-understood and empirical ndings are frequently inconsistent. However, some sociologists see the oppression of humans
402
and of animals as linked systems, suggesting groups with vested interests in prevailing societal arrangements will be less concerned with animal well-being (Nibert 2002; Tester 1991). Taken as a whole, extant studies indicate social structural position should be scrutinized as a important factor in attitudes about animals. They suggest an underdog hypothesis whereby those lower in the stratication hierarchy may have greater concern with animal well-being. With this in mind, the stratication literature provides a starting point for examining factors associated with attitudes about animals.1 A staple argument of contemporary stratication theorists is that structural position provides distinct life experiences that affect individuals worldviews about a variety of social issues (Bourdieu 1984, 1990; Giddens 1986; Tilly 1998). Of particular concern to stratication theorists is the formation and maintenance of ideologies of inequality privileging some social groups above others. Ideologies of inequality involve concern with the conditions of well-being of different social groups, that is, the poor, minority groups, women (Tilly 1998; Wright 1997). While stratication theorists have always viewed class and other structural positions as conferring distinct worldviews and ideologies, more recent theorists explicitly explore the pathways by which this occurs. They not only examine how social structural position inuences worldviews, but explain why worldviews are often unconscious. They recognize a role for individual experiences in mediating group beliefs, values, and behaviors. Finally, these theorists see geographic context as a dimension of structural position, which has particular implications for animal attitude formation among urban-rural populations. To describe the processes by which social position inuences worldviews Bourdieu (1984, 1990) uses the concepts of eld and habitus. Field refers to the set of power relations determined by the structural position of actors, while habitus refers to the conditions of existence and collective representations emerging from these relations. The habitus is a structuring structure that operates on an unconscious level to shape and reinforce social group practices, worldviews, and patterns of social stratication. For example, the habitus denes what
1 We recognize that other approaches toward conceptualizing determinants of animal well-being attitudes may be taken. For example, the post-materialist thesis would argue for non-economic explanations and for different directions of relationships than those outlined here. We prefer to build from the stratication literature for several reasons. Most studies on animal well-being identify social structural positions as key determinants and at least implicitly recognize that these determinants work in a similar manner as outlined here. Second, theorizing the reasons for social structural differences is limited; hence, it is important to more fully investigate how these determinants operate. Third, recent stratication theories link unconscious attitudes to structural position and, thus, have specic implications for attitudes about animals as we discuss below.
403
types of behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes are reasonable and commonsense given the particular social group context. Individuals in similar social group positions share a habitus and therefore tend toward similar behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes. However, even as Bourdieu (1984, 1990) stresses unconscious reproduction of group behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes within the individual, he also recognizes the potential for individual uniqueness arising from the various life course trajectories and distinct experiences. For Tilly (1998), categorical (in-out social group) distinctions arise because they enable those controlling resources to solve fundamental problems; their group experiences give them a vested interest in devaluing out-groups. Tilly denotes two mechanisms, adaptation and emulation that maintain and propagate these established relationships and views of inequality. Adaptation refers to the day-to-day practices and routines that maintain structures of inequality. Emulation is the exporting of social relations of inequality from one setting to another. Once relations of inequality are established in a setting, they carry over to other settings; mechanisms of adaptation such as daily decisionmaking, life-style practices, and information-seeking maintain inequality in these new settings. Much like the interaction between Bourdieus eld and habitus, emulation and adaptation work together to reify views about social group differences, such as those between rich and poor, males and females. Individuals internalize these views about social group differences, which further maintains group boundaries. The result is that worldviews, or ideas about valuing other groups, become ingrained and unconscious. Because any one individual belongs to different groups, he/she comes into contact with both potentially competing and complimentary inuences on worldviews. Other theorists also see structural positions as giving rise to distinct experiences, and in turn, worldviews. For example, Giddens (1986) theory of structuration points out that social structural positions confer day-to-day life experiences and identities. Peoples attitudes and actions often reect unconscious responses to their structural positioning. Further, Giddens argues that individuals life paths reect both structural or social group membership as well as individually-unique experiences. These points suggest, as do Bourdieu (1984, 1990) and Tilly (1998), that members of the same group share similar attitudes reecting their social positions, but variation in these attitudes exists due to individualized experiences. The previous discussion provides the basis of a conceptual framework for studying attitudes about animals. The view that much social action reects unconscious values (Bourdieu 1984, 1990; Giddens 1986; Tilly 1998) helps explain why human cognition of attitudes and
404
behaviors related to animals appears limited. That is, the various ways we treat animals are perceived as natural and necessary because they are reied through processes such as eld and habitus (Bourdieu 1984, 1990) and emulation and adaptation (Tilly 1998). Through these processes, which Bourdieu (1984, 1990) and Tilly (1998) see as applicable to understanding a wide range of taken-for-granted inequalities, animals may be dened as categorically distinct from humans, viewed as the other (Tester 1991), and fall outside the scope of conscious consideration. That much human action in regard to animals is performed by rote and subject to little introspection corresponds to research indicating attitudes about animals are taken-for-granted and likely subconscious (Plous 1993, Tester 1991). Because group attitudes arise from shared structural conditions and collective experiences, we expect to see commonalities in attitudes of individuals occupying similar social positions. Since relationships with animals are a condition of human existence, different groups should reect their distinct historical and present collective relationships, experiences, and worldviews regarding animal well-being. Individual variation also occurs because of distinct life experiences and individuals embeddedness in multiple social positions. For instance, it is well-documented (Einwohner 1999; Jasper and Nelkin 1992; Kellert 1989, 1996; Pifer, Shimizu, and Pifer 1994) that women express more caring attitudes toward animals, but the effect of being female likely is mediated by other structural factors and individual experience (Peek, Bell, and Dunham 1996; Peek, Dunham, and Dietz 1997). In addition to putting forth similar views about the manner by which social structural positions shape worldviews, contemporary stratication theorists recognize place or geographic context as a structural dimension that needs to be scrutinized. Studies examining attitudes about animal well-being also note the importance of place-context, particularly along urban-rural lines (Hills 1993; Ohlendorf et al. 2002; Vander Mey, Mobley, and Hawdon 1998). In Bourdieus (1984) view, proximity to place-based resources affects everyday cultural practices, and place itself provides a structural context for maintaining those practices. This suggests rural and urban places provide not only different opportunities for contact and relationships with animals, but also different cultural experiences that shape and reinforce attitudes about animals. For Tilly (1998), places are sites of social relations, where categorical inequalities, identities, and attitudes about inequality are installed. Attitudes learned in one setting tend to affect individuals outside of the settings in which they were rst learned. With this in mind, we can view urban-rural regions as sites of differing relationships between humans and animals. Rural people have
405
historically utilized animals more directly as economic resources. Past exposure to utilitarian relationships and views of animals may be the basis for future assessment, even if an individual moves to other settings. Giddens (1986) sees place-based social activities, including material appropriation and transformation of local resources, as shaping social group identities, yielding a view similar to Tillys and Bourdieus. In rural and farm settings, where manipulation of resources entails greater use of animals, we can expect attitudes and behaviors reecting that use. Social Structural Position, Experiences, and Animal Well-Being Extending our discussion to the empirical case of attitudes about animal well-being, we see two sets of determinants. First, individuals attitudes should be shaped by social structural positions that confer collective relationships and experiences and thereby worldviews regarding animals. In terms of structural position, we give specic attention to the role of place, focusing on urban-rural areas as sites of animal-human relationships and attitudinal formation. Other structural positions including socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, and other statuses should also affect attitudes toward animals. As noted, existing research suggests an underdog hypothesis for these statuses. Second, Bourdieu (1984, 1990), Giddens (1986), and Tilly (1998) recognize that individuals have their own life trajectory and experiences net of the social groups to which they belong. Thus, we expect distinct individual animal-related experiences to affect attitudes. In the following discussion, we focus on how animal-related experiences emerge from both social structural and individual factors, and in turn, how they may shape attitudes. As reasons behind empirical relationships reported in previous studies are often not clearly delineated, we draw from the above theory and other work to help clarify them. Urban-Rural Places as a Site of Animal Attitude Formation Urban-rural locations should confer distinct collective relationships, experiences, and worldviews regarding animals. Bourdieu (1984, 1990), Giddens (1986), and Tilly (1998) recognize that relationships of inequality, social activities, cultural practices, and worldviews are embedded in place. Others describe how places themselves are socially constructed, with these relationships, activities, practices, and shared worldviews shaping the character of places over time (Gieryn 2000; Tickamyer 2000). Rural regions have a legacy of close ties to animals, while the evolution of urban regions has entailed greater social and
406
spatial distance (Nibert 2002, Tester 1991). Compartmentalization of animals, in terms of where different types of animals are relegated visa-vis humans, affects cognitive perceptions (Jones 2000; Lassiter and Wolch 2000; Wolch 2002; Yarwood and Evans 2000). For instance, dissociation between the way people perceive animals and the way they treat them is maintained through spatial distance (Plous 1993). Urban populations have been spared the sight of food animal slaughter as it moved out of public view. Utilization of animals evolved differently in urban and rural regions ( Jasper and Nelkin 1992; Nibert 2002; Tester 1991). Rural people continue to have more direct reliance on animals for food, family livelihood, and protection. As urbanization expanded, pet keeping in the city replaced the more utilitarian relationships people previously shared with animals (Jasper and Nelkin 1992). Nibert (2002) and Tester (1991) argue less utilitarian dependence allowed for the historical spread of humanitarianism toward animals. From our conceptual viewpoint, using Bourdieus terminology, rural and urban can be seen as elds where human-animal relations are established, as shown above in the historical divide. The habitus of place then reects the historical, cultural, and experiential conditions associated with each eld, which should be manifest in attitudes. Given historic utilitarian relationships with animals, and associated culture and experiences, we expect rural background is related to less concern about animal well-being. We consider urban-rural differences on variables extending beyond simple geography and current residence. To capture the experience of place, we also look at childhood residence, ties to farmers, and rural lifestyle experiences. Urban residence has been found to be related to greater concern with animal well-being in national (Kellert 1996, Ohlendorf et al. 2002), state (Vander Mey et al. 1998), and local (Hills 1993; Nibert 1994) studies. These studies mainly consider current residence and delve little into why this relationship occurs. Are urban-rural differences a function of residential location per se or are they due to other factors associated with place? Since few studies are multivariate, the robustness of relationships and reasons behind them are not systematically explored. Kellert (1996) indicates not only current residence matters, but also where one grew up. He suggests urban-rural differences in concern with animal well-being are likely to be a function of childhood experiences that carryover across the life-course, independent of current residence. In giving weight to the urban-rural context in which people are raised, Kellerts (1996) view corresponds with Bourdieus (1984, 1990) and Tillys (1998) who see lasting effects of social group experiences and worldviews, beyond settings in which they are rst inculcated. Given persistent residential differences found in studies on animal
407
well-being, it is worth going beyond residence itself to tap experiences with rural areas and life. If urban-rural differences are about more than geography, then it is possible that those residing outside rural areas experience rurality through consumption of rural landscapes and culture, with these experiences shaping attitudes about animals. We expect experience with rurality to approximate the experience of growing up or currently residing in a rural area and to, therefore, be related to less concern with animal well-being. Closely aligned with urban-rural differences is farm experience. Raedeke et al.(2003:76) argue that farmers are situated in a habitus of farming involving practices, logic of activities, and perceptions about crop production. Empirical research suggests the habitus of farming also confers a distinct view of animals. A number of researchers report that farmers, farm residents, and those with past farm experience are less concerned about animal well-being, relative to those with little or no farm experience (Hills 1993; Kellert 1989; 1996; Ohlendorf et al. 2002; Vander Mey et al. 1998). These researchers note that people with farm experience tend to have highly utilitarian views of animals and suggest that farmers themselves have a vested interest in current human-animal arrangements. In contrast, Sharp and Tucker (2005) found for a state sample familiar with large-scale farming that those with pro-agricultural views express more animal welfare concern. Finally, researchers report that farmers express less affection for individual animals (Kellert 1989, 1996) and less empathy for animals in general relative to nonfarmers (Hills 1993). Whether farming has only a direct effect on attitudes about animals or if indirect experience with farming affects attitudes has not been explored. Since under two percent of Americans are farmers, most farm experience is gained indirectly, through association with friends or relatives in the past or present. We consider contact with farmers and farming lifestyles, hypothesizing indirect farm experiences are related to less concern with animal well-being. Other Social Structural Sites of Formation of Attitudes about Animals Social structural locations that confer distinct life experiences and, thus, potentially affect attitudes about animals include gender, socioeconomic class, race, age, and family status. While we cannot detail the lived and historical experiences of people occupying each of these positional categories and their relationships with animals, we draw together generalizations about them. Gender, class, race/ ethnicity, and age are major structural locations addressed by stratication theorists, and variables tapping these statuses are typically
408
included in studies on attitudes about animal well-being. Extant research provides some evidence that the experiences of those on the bottom rungs of these statuses promote greater concern with animal well-being (Einwohner 1999; Grifth et al. 2002; Hills 1993; Nibert 2002). As noted however, while researchers often suggest an underdog hypothesis, there is little conceptual interrogation into why these relationships might be expected. A general reason for expecting support for the underdog hypothesis is that many argue the oppression of humans and the oppression of animals are linked systems, reinforced and perpetuated by the same mechanisms (Adams 1990; Berry 2003; Dunayer 1995; Elder et al. 1998; Kappeler 1995; Nibert 2002; Plous 1993). In both systems, relationships between dominants and subordinates are determined and maintained by naturalized assumptions about the social order (Benton 1993). Since vested interest in maintaining the social order is greater among those occupying higher statuses, this relationship may be transferable to the human-animal system. Bourdieu (1984, 1990) and Tilly (1998) outline mechanisms by which prevailing relationships and views of inequality are transferred from one social setting to another. Worldviews reecting concern with the conditions of out-groups (including, potentially, animals) emerge as a consequence of structural position and common experiences and perceptions conferred by that position. Bourdieu (1984) and Tilly (1998) further indicate that groups closer to each other in the social order are more likely to recognize shared conditions of life and interests. These points suggest why there might be an underdog effect, prompting less advantaged groups toward greater empathy for animals. Gender. A number of studies nd women have greater concern with animal well-being than men (Nibert 1994; Peek et al. 1996, 1997; Pifer et al. 1994). Women are more likely to express affection for and to be more ethically motivated in their treatment of animals than men. For example, Kellert (1996) nds women have greater attachment to pets and are less likely to support activities that inict harm on wildlife, while men are more likely to hunt and to support activities related to the domination and exploitation of nature. While gender differences are rather consistent across studies, their experiential bases are not sorted out empirically. General feminist and eco-feminist theory suggests that socialization throughout the life course, household care, and work-related activities confer different worldviews about animals for women (Adams 1990; Sachs 1996; Warren 2000). More specically, we might expect certain experiences associated with womens social positions to lead to greater concern for animal well-being. First, women are primary family caretakers, making them
409
more likely to take on nurturing roles and attitudes that possibly extend outside the immediate family to animals in general. Second, women may be more likely to engage in household tasks that put them in contact with animals. Caring for pets and preparing food may increase sensitivity to the needs of and conditions surrounding animals. Previous studies consider gender largely through simple bivariate comparisons. None examine whether gender differences persist when variables measuring household work, caring for family, and other gender-related experiential factors are considered. Socioeconomic position. Extant research shows support for the underdog hypothesis with regard to socioeconomic position. Individuals in lower income categories (Nibert 1994; Uyeki and Holland 2000) and those with less education have been found to have greater concern with animal well-being (Nibert 1994; Peek et al. 1997). Little to no attention has been given to other socioeconomic factors tied to class positions as determinants of attitudes about animals, such as economic hardship and employment status. Economic hardship reects the experiences associated with daily material conditions of life; because it is most associated with economically marginalized groups, we expect it to have similar effects as other class-related variables, increasing concern with animal well-being. The relationship for paid work is less clear. Insofar as the lack of participation in paid work is a life-style or retirement choice, it may not be associated with greater concern for animals. Race/Ethnicity. Although there is some ambiguity about the relationship between different race/ethnicity and attitudes about animals, studies tend to nd whites are least likely to be concerned with animal well-being relative to other groups (Nibert 1994; Ohlendorf et al. 2002). Blacks are reported to be more concerned than whites about the ethical issues raised by animal agriculture (Vander Mey et al. 1998) and to be more oriented toward animal welfare in general (Uyeki and Holland 2000). Why these racial differences exist is not clear, but they are likely due to social, historical, and cultural dimensions of race/ethnicity. As noted, experiences of socially marginalized groups may make them more empathetic to animals. Further, blacks share a cultural heritage of material and social circumstances that differ from whites, which may translate into different valuations of animals. We expect blacks to express greater concern for animals, relative to whites, but are unsure of the direction of the relationship between other racial groups and attitudes about animals. Age. Younger people tend to be more concerned about animal wellbeing (Kellert 1989, 1996; Nibert 1994; Ohlendorf et al. 2002). Nibert (1994) and Ohlendorf et al. (2002) report that adults in their early thirties or younger are most concerned with animal well-being. This
410
could indicate a cohort effect, where people having shared a history are more likely to share beliefs and attitudes. It may also be related to life-cycle, where attitudes change over time depending on stage of life (Kellert 1996), with age related to marriage, childbearing, and employment. Family status. Marriage and parenthood locate individuals in the social order and provide life course experiences and everyday activities that may affect attitudes toward animals. Empirical studies of animal attitudes rarely include marital status or the presence of children. We expect that net of gender, these factors play a role in perceptions of animals for several reasons. First, being married and having children reect more traditional life course trajectories that inuence attitudes (Cassidy and Warren 1996). Second, a class effect is associated with marriage, as married people tend to have higher incomes (Cassidy and Warren 1996) and greater wealth (Shapiro 2004). Third, there is evidence that both married people and those with children are less supportive of animal rights (Peek et al. 1996, 1997). The view that nurturing children instills a more caring attitude does not seem to extend to animals. People with children tend to have a foremost concern for childrens issues (Schlozman et al. 1995), suggesting that people without dependent children may direct more attention to other issues, such as concern for animals. Due to the constraints posed by the presence of children in the household, the tendency for parents to be more child-focused than nonparents, and their possibly greater adherence to conventional norms and values, we expect people with dependent children to express less concern about animal well-being. Individuals Animal-Related Experiential Factors Stratication theorists also point to the experiential as a source of individual variation within groups. Thus we expect that individualized experiences and concerns related to animals affect attitudes. The range of these personal experiences is vast, and we examine only a handful: hunting, having a pet in the household, being vegetarian, cooking and food shopping, and concerns about the environment and food. A number of studies nd hunters less concerned about the welfare of animals as hunting involves utilitarian use of animals (Cordell, Betz, and Green 2002; Einwohner 1999; Kellert 1996; Nibert 1994). Hunting of course intersects with other variables, such as race, gender, and locale. Because pets play a prominent role in human lives and inuence perceptions of personal well-being (Peek et al. 1996), we examine pet ownership. Although people with pets are likely to express more
411
positive views of companion animals, it is unclear whether these attitudes extend to greater concern with the well-being of other animals. Vegetarianism is considered a behavioral correlate of animal attitudes. Studies nd people who identify as vegetarian are more concerned with animal well-being (Broida et al. 1994; McDonald 2000). This is presumably due to the worldview accompanying vegetarianism, which encompasses greater awareness of the origin of ones food (McDonald 2000). Daily household experiences involving food shopping, cooking, and chores connected to animal utilization may affect attitudes net of gender. While not investigated by previous studies, these activities may operate in a way similar to farm experience: food shopping and cooking entail greater contact with use of animals for instrumental purposes, potentially reducing concern with their well-being. Finally, attitudes towards animals may be affected through spillovers from related concerns held by individuals. A number of studies nd environmental concern is associated with animal well-being attitudes (Brioda et al. 1994; Peek et al. 1996; Pifer et al. 1994; Uyeki and Holland 2000). A related concern is food quality and safety. People who display food conscious attitudes and behaviors are reported to feel positively toward animals (Lockie et al. 2002). Expected Relationships Attitudes about animal well-being should be related to social structural positions that confer collective experiences. We expect place-based experiences regarding rural areas and farming will be associated with less concern about animal well-being. For other social structural positions, we examine the underdog hypothesis, expecting that women, nonwhites, those with less education and income, and those experiencing greater economic hardship are more concerned with animal well-being. Individualized experiences and concerns may mediate these general structural relationships. We expect that nonhunting, vegetarianism, less involvement in daily cooking/food shopping, food conscious behaviors, and concern about the environment are related to greater concern with animal well-being. While we identied other correlates of animal attitudes, the direction of those relationships is not clear from past research. Data and Measures Data for this study are from a statewide mail survey of Ohio households, administered in the summer and autumn of 2002. The purpose of the survey was to assess attitudes and behaviors in regard to food, agricultural, and environmental issues. A sample of 7,976 households
412
was selected and stratied on the basis of ve internal regions within the state and major metropolitan areas. Dillmans (2000) Tailored Design Method was used. The response rate was 56.4 percent, resulting in a nal sample of N 4,030. The sample was weighted to account for any over or under representation, relative to the expected percentages of households from each of the states ve major subregions and metropolitan areas. Results presented reect these weights and, thus, ndings reported are representative of the entire population of Ohio. Dependent Variables Attitudes about animal well-being were assessed using three measures: an animal treatment scale, animal utility scale, and a question regarding pets. Individual items for these measures were selected with the goal of including expressive and evaluative attitudes in accordance with the conceptual typology discussed earlier. Each animal well-being item was Likert scale with response choices: strongly disagree (1); disagree (2); undecided (3); agree (4); and strongly agree (5). All items (seven total) had a fairly normal distribution. One item explicitly focused on pets, and we treated it separately for conceptual reasons. For the other six items, we performed a maximum likelihood factor analysis using varimax rotation. Standard criteria such as eigenvalues greater than one revealed a two-factor solution: that is, the animal items measured two different attitudinal dimensions. Items loading highly (.5 or above) on each factor were then selected as measures for each scale. The animal treatment scale consists of three items that reect general ethical animal treatment issues. This measure corresponds to the expressive concept of animals as generalized others. Wording for these items is as follows: In general, humans have too little respect for the quality of life of animals; Increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed; and Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of animal (Vander Mey et al. 1998). From these three items, we created a summated scale. Possible scores range from 3 to 15, with high scores indicating greater concern with animal well-being. A reliability test for this measure yields a Cronbachs alpha of .757.2 The second scale, animal utility, reects the evaluative concept of general utilitarianism, the extent to which people believe human needs
2 While it is possible that some respondents are answering the latter two questions regarding treatment of farm animals out of concern with large scale agriculture and not animals, the fact that both items scale highly with concern with ethical/moral treatment of animals in general suggest the sample at large is responding to animal treatment. Moreover, regression results are similar for the animal treatment scale as the animal utility scale (see Tables 2 and 3).
413
override the needs of animals. It consists of three questions addressing different uses of animals: As long as animals do not suffer pain, humans should be able to use them for any purpose; It is acceptable to use animals to test consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics, and household cleaners; and Hunting animals for sport is an acceptable form of recreation. We recoded response to these items to be compatible with the animal treatment scale. Possible scores on the utility scale range from 3 to 15, with a high score indicating a less utilitarian orientation. Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .654. Finally, questions about companion animals may elicit different responses, as humans tend to particularize pets, placing them closer to family members. Noncompanionate species may function more as generalized others. Because views about pet animals may vary from those of general animals, we treated a single question reecting expressive attitudes about pets as a separate dependent variable: People who abuse pets should suffer the same consequences as people who abuse children. Scoring on this item ranges from 1 to 5. Independent Variables Place-based factors. We consider place by both residence and farm and rural-related experiences. Respondents were asked in what type of place they currently live and in what type of place they grew up (city, suburb, small town, countryside but not on a farm, or farm). The responses to the items above are coded 1/0 and are based on individuals self-identication. To tap current experience with farming, we asked about frequency of conversations with farmers. Respondents were asked how many days per month, on average, they talked to farmers or to other members of a farm family. Answers ranged from 0 to 31 days per month. A measure tapping rural experiences also was created. Respondents were asked how often (never, seldom, occasionally, or frequently) they engage in six activities involving rural recreation and traveling. A summated scale was created from these six items. Possible scores range from 0 to 18, with high scores indicating greater rural experience. Cronbachs alpha for this scale is .780.3
3 The rural experience scale consists of six survey items: How often do you . . . (1) Visit a small town for recreational shopping or sightseeing? (2) Take a recreational drive through the countryside? (3) Travel to a rural place (other than your home area, if it is rural) to visit friends or relatives? (4) Travel to a rural area to experience or view the natural environment? (5) Hike, canoe, bicycle, or engage in a similar type of outdoor recreation in a rural area? (6) Visit a farm for social or recreational reasons? Factor analysis also was performed on all six of the rural experience variables. This yielded one factor solution, indicating the six items form a single dimension.
414
Other structural factors. Other structural locations that confer grouprelated experiences involve gender, socioeocomic status variables (education, income, economic hardship, and employment status), race/ethncity, age, marital status, and children. Gender was coded 0 male, 1 female. Education was measured in years. The surveys seven original household income categories were collapsed into three dummy variables, using the median-reported income category ($35-49,999) as a guide. The lower group consists of incomes less than $20,000; the middle group consists of incomes ranging from $20,000 to less than $75,000; and the upper group consists of incomes of $75,000 and above. Previous research suggests lower income people are more concerned with animal well-being, but has neglected whether these class effects are mitigated by the experience of economic hardship. Respondents were asked to answer yes or no to four questions addressing nancial hardship in the past year. Possible scores for the scale range from 0 to 4, with a score of 4 indicating the highest level of hardship. Cronbachs alpha for this scale is .658.4 Employment status was combined into two categories, because the majority of the sample is employed outside the home. People working either full-time or part time (a much smaller group) were categorized as employed outside home. Those retired or otherwise reporting no paid work were grouped together as no outside employment. Race/ethnicity is measured by four dummy variables: white, black, Latino, and all other races. These were created from six self-identied racial/ethnic categories. The categories Native American and Asian were combined into the other race category, as less than one percent of the sample identied with either of these two categories. Age is measured in years. Because a curvilinear relationship might exist between age and animal attitudes (Kellert 1996; Nibert 1994), we test for both linear and curvilinear (age2) effects. Marital status is viewed in terms of domestic partnership, determined by ve categories (now married, living together, never married, divorced/ separated, widowed/widower). As most respondents were married or living with a partner, we collapsed the categories into one dummy variable, with domestic partner coded 1 and no domestic partner coded 0. Respondents were asked how many household members were under age ve and age ve to 18. This allows us to examine not only the presence of children, but also whether the age of children matters.
4 Respondents were asked if in the past year, their households had: Used savings to meet expenses? Changed transportation patterns to save money? Eaten at home or changed the types of food eaten to save money? Postponed obtaining prescription drugs in order to save money? Factor analysis was performed on the four items, revealing one factor. The four items have been used previously in a study by Lasely et al. (1995).
415
Individuals animal-related experiential factors. We examine four animal-related experiences and concerns. Respondents were asked whether they owned a pet and whether they identied as vegetarian. Afrmative responses were coded 1, negative responses 0. Respondents were also asked to report the frequency with which they engaged in hunting and/or shing activities, coded from (1) never to (4) frequently. Food-related household activities were measured by a single scale composed of two variables. Respondents were asked if they were responsible for the most of their households (1) food preparation (cooking) and (2) food shopping. Responses to each of these items were coded yes (1) and no (0). The two items are highly correlated and were combined into a single measure of food shopping/cooking activity. A score of 0 indicates the respondent does neither shopping nor cooking, while a score of 2 indicates the respondent does most of the households shopping and cooking. Because the literature shows a link between environmentalism and concern for animal issues, respondents were asked to rate the importance of seven environmental issues using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7, with 1 signifying the least importance and 7 signifying the greatest importance. All items were found to load together on a single factor. We created an environmental concern scale by summing the responses.5 Scores for the scale range from 7 to 49. Cronbachs alpha is .809. Food quality concerns and behaviors were considered. A scale of food quality concern was created using three items which loaded together on a single factor. Item responses were summed and produced a scale with an alpha of .742.6 Additionally, one item (I use food labeling information when making food purchasing decisions) was used to assess food concern behavior. Responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Analysis and Findings Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1. As these are weighted, they reect Ohios general population: largely white and suburban. About 3 percent currently live on a farm and 12 percent grew
5 Respondents were asked how important each of the following reasons are for protecting farmland or other undeveloped land in Ohio: (1) Protect wildlife quality? (2) Protect water quality? (3) Preserve natural spaces? and (4) Slow development? A second set of questions asked how important the following goals were for future research related to food, agriculture, and the environment: (5) Reduce soil erosion (6) Maintain and improve ground and surface water, quality and (7) Minimize the use of agrichemicals. 6 Respondents were asked how important the following goals were for future research related to food, agriculture, and the environment: (1) Create opportunities to buy fresh, locally grown foods; (2) Improve the quality of food (such as taste); and (3) Increase the availability of organically produced foods.
416
Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Variables in the Analysis
Mean Standard Deviation 2.66 2.88 1.27 Percent of Sample
Animal treatment Animal utility Pet attitudes Social Structural Variables Place-related Variables Live in city Live in suburb Live in small town Live in country Live on farm Grew up in city Grew up in suburb Grew up in small town Grew up in country Grew up on farm Rural experience Talk to farmers Other Social Structural Variables Gender Years of age White Black Latino Other Race Years of education Employed outside home Not employed outside home Lower income Middle income Upper income Economic Hardship Domestic partner Small children School age children
9.77 9.98 3.57
0.29 0.35 0.18 0.13 0.03 0.31 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.12 8.74 3.54 0.53 51.20 0.87 0.06 0.01 0.02 13.97 0.63 0.35 0.14 0.53 0.21 1.48 0.65 0.13 0.30
.46 .48 .39 .34 .18 .46 .41 .42 .31 .33 3.66 6.93 .50 16.37 .34 .24 .10 .14 2.72 .48 .48 .035 .50 .41 1.27 .48 .34 .46 .10 .48 .14 .95 5.77 3.41
29.3 35.1 18.3 13.0 3.3 31.4 21.3 22.8 10.9 12.4
51.6 87.1 6.1 1.0 1.9 62.6 34.9 14.4 53.5 21.1 64.5 13.2 29.9
Individual Animal-Related Experiential Variables Read food labels 3.88 Have pet in household 0.64 Hunt 0.89 Vegetarian 0.02 Food shopping/cooking 1.04 Environmental concern 42.76 Food quality concern 14.23
63.1 1.9
up on one. The mean age is 51. The sample has approximately 14 years of education, and nearly two-thirds are married or living with partners. We used ordinary least squares regression to examine variables related to the three measures of animal well-being. Standard indicators
Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al. Table 2. Regression Models for Animal Treatment
Model 1 Place-related Variables Live in suburb Live in small town Live in country Live on farm Grew up in suburb Grew up in small town Grew up in country Grew up on farm Rural experience Talk to farmers Other Social Structural Variables Gender Years of age Age2 Black Latino Other Race Years of education Not employed outside home Lower income Upper income Economic hardship Domestic partner Small children School age children .114 .056 .228 .391 .240* .347** .742*** 1.180*** .002 .029*** .606*** .074*** .001*** .431* .545 .180 .078*** .042 .176 .365** .197*** .081 .301* .437*** (.020) (.008) (.029) (.026) (.037) (.055) (.086) (.141) (.002) (.075) (.124) (.438) (.428) (.037) (.021) (.007) (.078) (.007) (.022) (.058) (.094) (.014) (.037) (.076) Model 2 .020 .055 .186 .311 .318* .313* .687*** 1.045*** .040** .023** .258* .098*** .001*** .333* .563 .104 .053** .022 .101 .250* .116** .151 .204 .404***
417
(.004) (.008) (.024) (.020) (.050) (.050) (.080) (.122) (.055) (.060) (.048) (.573) (.517) (.028) (.020) (.007) (.053) (.004) (.012) (.040) (.055) (.026) (.025) (.070)
Individual Animal-Related Experiential Variables Read food labels Have pet in household Hunt Vegetarian Food shopping/cooking Environmental concern Food quality concern .101 Adjusted R 2 Note: Parentheses indicate standardized coefcients. * .05 level, ** p .01, *** p .001.
.229*** (.084) .734*** (.131) .195*** (.077) 1.104** (.054) .048 (.017) .092*** (.198) .112*** (.144) .215
such as variance ination factors were low, indicating no unacceptable collinearity. We examined the potential for interaction effects, giving particular attention to gender. We found no evidence of systematic interaction effects among independent variables across models. We checked for gender differences by running separate regression analyses for men and women. These revealed substantially similar relationships as the models reported here for the full sample. Tables 2, 3, and 4 present the regression models for each dependent variable. In each
418
Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006 Table 3. Regression Models for Animal Utility
Model 1 Model 2 .205 .155 .126 .354 .275* .266* .230 .385* .024 .017* .979*** .049* .000* .181 .051 .456 .074*** .068 .299* .224* .110** .188 .107 .406*** .054 .795*** .349*** .673* .091 .111*** .044** .170 (.034) (.021) (.015) (.021) (.040) (.039) (.025) (.042) (.030) (.042) (.170) (.268) (.200) (.014) (.002) (.026) (.068) (.011) (.034) (.033) (.048) (.030) (.012) (.065) (.019) (.132) (.128) (.031) (.030) (.220) (.052)
Place-related Variables Live in suburb Live in small town Live in country Live on farm Grew up in suburb Grew up in small town Grew up in country Grew up on farm Rural experience Talk to farmers Other Social Structural Variables Gender Years of age Age2 Black Latino Other Race Years of education Not employed outside home Lower income Upper income Economic hardship Domestic partner Small children School age children
.179 .156 .069 .509 .252* .267* .336* .561** .017 .017* 1.197*** .033 .000 .330 .271 .190 .074*** .181 .174 .331* .187*** .163 .264 .332**
(.030) (.021) (.008) (.031) (.036) (.039) (.036) (.062) (.021) (.040) (.206) (.180) (.144) (.026) (.010) (.011) (.069) (.029) (.020) (.048) (.082) (.026) (.030) (.053)
Individual Animal-Related Experiential Variables Read food labels Have pet in household Hunt Vegetarian Food shopping/cooking Environmental concern Food quality concern .080 Adjusted R 2 Note: Parentheses indicate standardized coefcients. * p .05 level, ** p .01, *** p .001.
table, two models are shown: we rst test the structural variables only, then add the individual experiential variables. Animal Treatment Table 2 presents the regression models for animal treatment. Model 1 shows effects of the structural variables only. In regard to place, all childhood residence variables and talking to farmers are signicantly related to attitudes toward animal treatment. Of the childhood
Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al. Table 4. Regression Models for Pet Attitudes
Model 1 Place-related Variables Live in suburb Live in small town Live in country Live on farm Grew up in suburb Grew up in small town Grew up in country Grew up on farm Rural experience Talk to farmers Other Social Structural Variables Gender Years of age Age2 Black Latino Other Race Years of education Not employed outside home Lower income Upper income Economic hardship Domestic partner Small children School age children .008 .039 .087 .090 .121* .051 .193* .165* .007 .001 .251*** .013 .000 .363*** .183 .060 .060*** .122* .128* .112* .073*** .038 .211** .258*** (.003) (.012) (.023) (.013) (.039) (.017) (.047) (.041) (.019) (.005) (.099) (.164) (.174) (.066) (.015) (.008) (.125) (.045) (.034) (.037) (.073) (.014) (.054) (.094) .038 .012 .110 .100 .151* .067 .190* .095 .006 .002 .259*** .027** .000** .299** .213 .082 .038*** .053 .102 .073 .040* .139* .184* .287*** .040* .387*** .012 .101 .097** .044*** .013* .126 Model 2
419
(.014) (.004) (.029) (.014) (.049) (.022) (.046) (.023) (.017) (.013) (.102) (.332) (.328) (.053) (.016) (.011) (.079) (.019) (.026) (.024) (.040) (.051) (.047) (.104) (.031) (.145) (.010) (.011) (.072) (.198) (.036)
Individual Animal-Related Experiential Variables Read food labels Have pet in household Hunt Vegetarian Food shopping/cooking Environmental concern Food quality concern .062 Adjusted R 2 Note: Parentheses indicate standardized coefcients. * p .05 level, ** p .01, *** p .001.
variables, having grown up on a farm (b .141) has the strongest effect, followed by having grown up in the country, a small town, and the suburbs. People who grew up on a farm are least concerned about animal well-being. Those who grew up in other nonurban settings are less concerned about animal treatment compared to those who grew up in the city. Respondents who talk with farm people more frequently are also less concerned about animal treatment. Neither current residence or having other types of rural experiences are signicant.
420
Since past studies usually expect urban-rural residence to be associated with animal concern, we further explored ndings for current residence. Current and childhood residence variables are not highly correlated. We ran a regression model (not shown) containing only the place-based variables and found that both current and childhood residence were signicant. Since this relationship for current residence disappears in model 1, current residence is more a function of other structural attributes, while past residence is not. This nding corresponds with stratication perspectives that suggest experiences and worldviews from structural positions, including place, are set early in individuals lives. No previous studies have explored current residence in multivariate analyses along with childhood residence. Findings for other structural variables show some support for the underdog hypothesis. Women, those with less education, and blacks are more concerned with animal treatment. Respondents from both the lower and middle income brackets are more concerned with animal treatment than are those in the upper income bracket. The previously unexamined effects of economic hardship also are associated with greater concern for animals. The negative coefcient for age and positive coefcient for age2 show that younger people tend to be more concerned with animal treatment compared to older people, with the gap narrowing as age increases. Those with fewer small or school-aged children have greater concern with animal treatment, as hypothesized. Domestic partnership and employment status are not signicant. In model 2, animal treatment is regressed on all independent variables. With the addition of the individual experiential variables, relationships for the social group characteristics remain similar to those outlined in model 1, showing that group and individual experiences jointly affect attitudes in accordance with our conceptual framework. Relationships between place-based variables and animal treatment remain the same as in model 1, with the exception that rural experience now is signicantly related to less concern with animal treatment. Gender, age, being black, education, income, economic hardship, and having school-aged children remain signicant, and in the same direction as shown in model 1. All experiential variables, except food shopping/cooking, are signicant. These relationships follow hypothesized directions and have the strongest relationship to attitudes. Environmental concern, food quality concerns, having a pet, reading food labels, less engagement in hunting/shing, and being vegetarian are associated with greater concern with animal treatment. Explained variance in the nal model is 22 percent, in similar range as that found in studies using conventional political and environmental attitudinal dependent variables (Jones and Dunlap 1992; Mertig and Dunlap 2001).
Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al. Animal Utility
421
Models for animal utility are shown in Table 3. As with the models for animal treatment, all childhood, but none of the current, residence variables are signicant.7 Having grown up on a farm, again, has the strongest effect on attitudes. People who talk to farmers more often are less concerned with use of animals for utilitarian purposes. Women are more concerned with the use of animals. Less education, experiencing greater economic hardship, belonging to the lower or middle income group, and absence of school-aged children are associated with signicantly more concern for animal well-being as measured by utilitarian attitudes. In model 2, the individual experiential variables are added. Relationships for the place-based variables remain the same as in the previous model, with the exception of having grown up in the country, which is no longer signicant. Likewise, the relationships for other structural variables found in model 1 remain similar in model 2, with the exception of age and income. Age becomes signicant in this model, with younger age groups more concerned with animal utility. Effects for income are in contrast to the underdog hypothesis: both upper and lower income groups are less concerned with use of animals for utilitarian purposes relative to middle income groups. Having a pet in the house, greater food quality and environmental concerns, less participation in hunting/shing, and being a vegetarian are related to greater concern about animal utility. Explained variance for the animal utility model is 17 percent. Pet Attitudes Table 4 presents the models for pet attitudes. As with previous models, childhood residence factors (with the exception of growing up in a small town) are signicant but current residence factors are not.8 Women, individuals in lower income bracket, those with less education, and those experiencing greater economic hardship are more concerned with the well-being of pets. In contrast to previous models,
7 We explored the nding for current residence in a separate regression model (not shown) for the place-based variables only. Here, current residence on a farm is signicantly related to less concern with animal well-being. Other current residence variables remain in expected directions but are not signicant. As shown in Table 3, with the addition of other structural variables, the nding for current farm residence disappears. 8 When place-based factors are examined alone (model not shown), current residence on a farm and in the suburbs have a signicant negative effect on pet attitudes. As shown in Model 1, when the other structural factors are included, these relationships are no longer signicant.
422
blacks are less concerned with pet well-being than are whites. Being in a domestic partnership, presence of children in the house, and not being employed outside of the home are associated with less concern about pets. When experiential variables are added (model 2), only childhood residence in the suburbs and the country are signicant. For other structural variables, excluding income, relationships found in model 1 remain the same in direction and signicance. In addition, age and domestic partnership become signicant in directions hypothesized: younger respondents and those not in domestic partnerships are more concerned with the well-being of pet animals. Experiential variables seem to have less effect on pet attitudes compared to other animal attitudes. Environmental and food quality concerns, less involvement in food shopping/cooking, and having a pet are associated with greater concern about pets. In contrast to ndings for the other dependent variables, hunting and vegetarianism are not signicant, and reading food labels is related to less concern about pet well-being. Conclusions Although sociologists are increasingly interested in animals position in human society, theoretical and empirical development of the topic remains limited. According to stratication theorists, humans perceptions are shaped by both group and individual experiences (Bourdieu 1984, 1990; Giddens 1986; Tilly 1998). Groups of people having distinct, collective experiences based on urban-rural location may be expected to have different attitudes. Groups of people located differently along the lines of gender, socioeconomic status, race/ ethncity, age, and other group characteristics also should have distinct experiences and worldviews regarding animals. Finally, individuals have their own life trajectory and experiences with animals, net of the social groups to which they belong. In extending social stratication perspectives to a quantitative analysis of animal attitudes, we cannot directly examine the complex interaction of social positions and individual and collective experiences. Rather, our study provides the theoretical rationale for delineating factors associated with attitudes about animal well-being. It also suggests how these factors might operate, through conferring distinct collective and individualized experiences. With this theoretical background in mind, we examined three sets of factors potentially affecting attitudes about animal well-being: placebased urban-rural factors, other social structural factors, and individuals unique animal-related experiences. In doing so, we examine a
423
broader range of factors than previous studies. Variables given little or no attention in prior research on animal attitudes include childhood residence, rural experiences, employment status, economic hardship, and food-related factors. Also, because most studies are not multivariate, longstanding relationships assumed for social groups such as women and urban-rural residents have not been evaluated net of other factors. Of the place-based variables, the most consistent nding is the effect of childhood experience. People who grew up in nonrural, nonfarm settings express greater concern with animal well-being than those who grew up in nonurban and farm settings, as hypothesized. This reects the lasting effects of childhood experience. It corresponds with stratication perspectives that suggest inculcating experiences, beliefs, values, and behaviors emanating from structural positions, including place, shape worldviews over the long term. Even when the context of place changes, the historical effect, as pointed out by Bourdieu (1990) and Tilly (1998), tends to have greater inuence on worldviews than does the effect of the present. As shown, current residence on a farm or in the country becomes nonsignicant in the model for animal treatment, once other control variables are added. But the enduring effects of childhood farm residence and having grown up in the country remain in views of animal treatment, animal utility, and to some degree, pet attitudes. No previous study on animal well-being has examined the effects of childhood experience net of current residence. Findings for other social structural positions provide some support for the underdog hypothesis. Gender is consistently associated with all three animal attitudes. While previous studies nd women more concerned with animal well-being, few question whether this relationship is a consequence of household and other gender-related factors. Here we nd persistent effects even when household tasks, presence of children, and experiential factors are controlled, pointing to the overriding importance of gender as a social structural location. People experiencing greater economic hardship, those with less education, younger people, blacks, and to some degree, less afuent income groups, tend to be more concerned with the well-being of animals in general. Many of these relationships persist in attitudes towards pets as well. These ndings challenge the post-materialist view that more afuent individuals should be more concerned with animal well-being. While higher socioeconomic status groups tend to be a more visible component of post-materialist social movements, including animal welfare and rights movements (Jasper and Nelkin 1992), our study indicates these classes as a whole tend be less concerned with animals well-being. Those in the lower socioeconomic rungs may identify more
424
readily with animals due to their particular experience as subordinate groups and their theoretically narrower distance from the animal class in the social eld. Other ndings highlight the importance of social structural factors given little systematic attention by other studies. Economic hardship is consistently associated with concern for animal well-being, demonstrating the experiential, lived effects of economic status. Being married and having children are also associated with less concern about animal wellbeing, as hypothesized. While the negative effect of children may seem antithetical to the notion of extending caring for children to caring for others, it likely reects constraints introduced by children. Perhaps people directing time and energy toward their own offspring have less to devote to nonhuman others. Experiential variables are important to understanding all three animal attitudes. Nonhunters, vegetarians, and those concerned about environmental issues are more concerned with animal well-being. Other experiential factors not considered by past empirical studies, including pet ownership and food-related behaviors and concern, also affect attitudes about animals. There are inherent limitations in quantitative studies on animal wellbeing, and ours is no exception. Although we selected measures based upon theory and previous research, one limitation is measurement of attitudes toward animal well-being. For instance, as noted, we cannot be certain respondents are answering two of the items included in the animal treatment scale out of concern for animals or for large-scale agriculture. However, the two items scale with the third item about general concern for animals overall quality of life and ndings for the animal treatment scale are consistent with those of the animal utility scale. Thus, we are reasonably sure the two items are tapping general animal well-being attitudes. Because there are no widely used and tested measures of attitudes about animal well-being, future work must focus on developing better measures. This will require both qualitative and quantitative approaches that combine depth of understanding with generalizability across populations. Our study has several implications for future work. First, in examining three different dependent variables, we nd evidence of the diversity and complexity of humans relationships with animals. While similar independent variables affect both animal treatment and animal utility, the pattern is somewhat different for pet attitudes. Explained variance is also lowest for pet attitudes and probably reects the special status of pet animals. Pet attitudes reect expressive attitudes, or personal connections to individual animals rather than more general evaluative or utilitarian attitudes. These ndings indicate
425
the need to distinguish not only among evaluative/expressive attitudes but also across animals as general or signicant others. Second, our study has implications for new determinants of animal attitudes. Findings for childhood place and rural experience variables indicate it is not simple geography or current residence that is responsible for rural and urban differences, but rather the socio-cultural aspects of place. Future studies could benet from more in-depth contextual analysis of childhood experiences with animals. Findings in regard to economic position suggest it is a multidimensional concept, whose effects are not adequately examined through the use of income measures alone. It is necessary to also consider the ways in which individuals experiences, such as with economic hardship, affect attitudes about animals. Finally, this study has implications for ongoing animal industry versus public concerns with animal welfare. It is common for those involved in the animal industry and the public alike to consider themselves proponents of animal welfare, yet the two factions seem to speak different languages. Animals agriculturalists and others in the industry tend to position themselves as knowledgeable and rational actors, while dismissing the concerns of the lay person as emotional and uninformed. Conversely, the public often views the industrys interest in animal welfare as strictly economic and their own as ethically motivated. This incongruity is less likely the result of inherent conict between anti and pro animal camps, but rather reective of the difculty in reconciling rapidly changing structural conditions with more slowly changing social values. This conict requires more in-depth analyses of the attitudinal differences between those directly working in the agricultural industry and the general public. Despite their co-inhabitation of human society, animals remain at the outskirts of sociological consideration. Scholarly interest in this topical area is growing, yet little theoretical work exists on the place of animals in society and on attitudes about animals. We have argued for the value of bringing in theories of stratication, with our empirical ndings tending to support the usefulness of this approach. We need to continue to develop sociological theoretical lenses from which to view human-animal relationships and to be attuned to how these relationships might t with other stratication and social justice issues, as some contend that the human-animal divide is the last bastion of social inequality (Nibert 2002).
References
Adams, C.J. 1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
426
Arluke, A. and C. Sanders. 1996. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Benton, T. 1993. Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights, and Social Justice. London: Sage Publications. Berry, B. 2003. International Progress and Regress on Animal Rights. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23:5875. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 1990. The Logic of Practice. English translation by Richard Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Broida, J., L. Tingley, R. Kimball, and J. Miele. 1994. Personality Differences between Pro and Anti Vivisectionists. Society and Animals 1:12944. Buller, H. and C. Morris. 2003. Farm Animal Welfare: A New Repertoire of Nature Society Relations or Modernism Re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43:21637. Cassidy, M.L. and B.O. Warren. 1996. Family Employment Status and Gender Role Attitudes: A Comparison of Women and Men College Graduates. Gender and Society 10:31228. Coleman, G. 2004. Public Attitudes to Animal Research. Pp. 7886 in Lifting the Veil: Finding Common Ground: Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching Conference, edited by P. Cragg, K. Stafford, D. Love, and G. Sutherland. Wellington, New Zealand: Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals. Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz and G.T. Green. 2002. Recreation and the Environment as Cultural Dimensions in Contemporary American Society. Leisure Sciences 24:1341. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: J. Wiley. Dunayer, J. 1995. Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots. Pp. 1131 in Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, edited by C.J. Adams and J. Donovan. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Elder, G., J. Wolch, and J. Emel. 1998. Le Pratique Sauvage: Race, Place, and the HumanAnimal Divide. Pp. 7290 in Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. New York: Verso. Einwohner, R.L. 1999. Gender, Class, and Movement Outcomes: Identity and Effectiveness in Two Animal Rights Campaigns. Gender and Society 13:5676. Franklin, A. 1999. Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Giddens, A. 1986. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gieryn, T.F. 2000. A Space for Place in Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26:46396. Grifth, M., J. Wolch, and U. Lassiter. 2002. Animal Practices and the Racialization of Filipinas in Los Angeles. Society and Animals 10:22148. Herzog, H.A. Jr. 1993. The Movement is My Life: The Psychology of Animal Rights Activism. Journal of Social Issues 49:10319. Hills, A.M. 1993. The Motivational Bases of Attitudes Toward Animals. Society and Animals 1:11128. Holloway, L. 2001. Pets and Protein: Placing Domestic Livestock on Hobby-farms in England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 17:293307. Jasper, J.M. and D. Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights CrusadeThe Growth of a Moral Protest. New York: The Free Press. Jerolmack, C. 2003. Tracing the Prole of Animal Rights Supporters: A Preliminary Investigation. Society and Animals 11:24563. Jones, O. 2000. (Un)ethical Geographies of HumanNon-Human Relations. Pp. 268 290 in Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations, edited by C. Philo and C. Wilbert. London: Routledge. Jones, R.E. and R.E. Dunlap. 1992. The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have They Changed Over Time? Rural Sociology 57:2847. Kalof, L., T. Dietz, P.C. Stern, and G.A. Guagnano. 1999. Social Psychological and Structural Inuences on Vegetarian Beliefs. Rural Sociology 62:50011.
427
Kappeler, S. 1995. Speciesism, Racism, Nationalism. . . or the Power of Scientic Subjectivity. Pp. 320352 in Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, edited by C.J. Adams and J. Donovan. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kellert, S.R. 1989. Perceptions of Animals in America. in Perceptions of Animals in American Culture, edited by R.J. Hoage. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. . 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington, DC: Island Press. Lasely, P.F., L. Leistritz, L. Lobao, and K. Meyer. 1995. Beyond the Amber Waves of Grain. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lassiter, U. and J. Wolch. 2000. From Barnyard to Backyard to Bed: Changing Attitudes Toward Animals Among Chicancas and Latinas in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Department of Geography. Unpublished Manuscript. Lockie, S., K. Lyons, G. Lawrence, and K. Mummery. 2002. Eating Green: Motivations Behind Organic Food Consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis 42:2340. McDonald, B. 2000. Once You Know Something, You Cant Not Know It: An Empirical Look at Becoming Vegan. Society and Animals 8:123. Mertig, A.G. and R.E. Dunlap. 2001. Environmentalism, New Social Movements, and the New Class: A Cross-National Investigation. Rural Sociology 66:11336. Milbourne, P. 2003. Nature-Society-Rurality: Making Critical Connections. Sociologia Ruralis 43:19395. Nestle, M. 2002. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Inuences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Nibert, D. 1994. Animal Rights and Human Social Issues. Society and Animals 2:11524. . 2002. Animal Rights Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. New York: Rowman & Littleeld. Ohlendorf, G.W., Q.A.L. Jenkins, and T.J. Tomazic. 2002. Who Cares About Farm Animal Welfare? Pp. 87101 in The Social Risks of Agriculture: Americans Speak Out On Food Farming, and the Environment, edited by R.C. Wimberley, C.K. Harris, J.J. Molnar, and T.J. Tomazic. Westport, CT: Praeger. Peek, C.W., N.J. Bell, and C.C. Dunham. 1996. Gender, Gender Ideology, and Animal Rights Advocacy. Gender and Society 10:46478. Peek, C.W., C.C. Dunham, and B.E. Dietz. 1997. Gender, Relational Role Orientation, and Afnity for Animal Rights. Sex Roles 37:90520. Pifer, L., K. Shimizu, and R. Pifer. 1994. Public Attitudes Toward Animal Research: Some International Comparisons. Society and Animals 2:95113. Plous, S. 1993. Psychological Mechanisms in the Human Use of Animals. Journal of Social Issues 49:1152. Pollan, M. 2002a. An Animals Place. New York Times Magazine, November 10, 2002: 5864, 100, 110. . 2002b. Power Steer. New York Times Magazine, November 10, 2002:4451, 68, 72, 76. Raedeke, A.H., J.J. Green, S.S. Hodge, and C. Valdiva. 2003. Farmers, the Practice of Farming and the Future of Agroforestry: An Application of Bourdieus Concepts of Field and Habitus. Rural Sociology 68:6486. Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. . 2004. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld. Rollin, B. 2000. Agribusiness and Consumer Ethical Concerns over Animal Use and Foods of Animal Origin: the Emergence of New Ethical Thinking in Society. Pp. 7998 in Livestock, Ethics, and Quality of Life, edited by J. Hodges and I.K. Han. Wallingford, UK; New York: CABI Pub. Sachs, C. 1996. Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Schlosser, E. 2001. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifin.
428
Sharp, J. and M. Tucker. 2005. Awareness and Concern about Large-Scale Livestock and Poultry: Results from a Statewide Survey of Ohioans. Rural Sociology 70:20828. Singer, P. 1990. Animal Liberation, New revised edition. New York: Avon Books, Inc. Schlozman, K.L., N. Burns, S. Verba, and J. Donahue. 1995. Gender and Citizen Participation: Is There a Different Voice? American Journal of Political Science 39: 26793. Shapiro, T. 2004. The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Tester, K. 1991. Animals and Society: The Humanity of Animal Rights. London, New York: Routledge. Tickamyer, A. 2000. Space Matters: Spatial Inequality in Future Sociology. Contemporary Sociology 29:80513. Tilly, C. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Tovey, H. 2003. Theorising Nature and Society in Sociology: The Invisibility of Animals. Sociologia Ruralis 43:196215. Uyeki, E.S. and L.J. Holland. 2000. Diffusion of Pro-Environment Attitudes? American Behavioral Scientist 43:64662. Vander Mey, B.J., C. Mobley, and J.E. Hawdon. 1998. Adult South Carolinians Opinions About Animal Agriculture. Animal Agriculture in South Carolina: A Fact Book, edited by M.L. Warner, H. Harris, B.J. Vander Mey, J. Allen, C.M. Sieverdes, C. Mobley, and P Skewes. Public Service and Agriculture report EER 172. Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Retrieved February 8, 2005 (http://cherokee.agecon.clemson.edu/ eer_172.htm). Warren, K.J. 2000. Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. Lanham, MD: Roman and Littleeld Publishers, Inc. Wilkie, R. 2005. Sentient Commodities and Productive Paradoxes: The Ambiguous Nature of Human-Livestock Relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 21:21330. Will, G. F. 2005. What We Owe What We Eat. Newsweek July 18:66. Wise, S.M. 2000. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Wolch, J. 2002. Anima Urbis. The Progress in Human Geography lecture. Progress in Human Geography 26:72142. Wright, Erik Olin. 1997. Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Yarwood, R. and N. Evans. 2000. Taking Stock of Farm Animals and Rurality. Pp. 98114 in Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human Animal Relations, edited by C. Philo and C. Wilbert. London: Routledge.

Kendall-Lobao-Sharp - Public Concern With Animal Well-Being Place, Social Structural Location and Individual Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kendall-Lobao-Sharp - Public Concern With Animal Well-Being Place, Social Structural Location and Individual Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Sociology 71(3), 2006, pp.

399428 Copyright 2006 by the Rural Sociological Society

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

9.77 9.98 3.57

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al. Animal Utility

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being Kendall et al.

Rural Sociology, Vol. 71, No. 3, September 2006

You might also like