The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Grounded Theory to Examine People's Attitudes Toward How Animals are Used
Abstract
This study uses qualitative methodology to examine why people have different attitudes toward different types of nonhuman animal use. Seventeen participants took part in a semi-structured interview. The study used Grounded Theory to analyze the interviews and developed a model that consists of 4 major themes: (a) "attitudes toward animals," (b) "knowledge of animal use procedures," (c) "perceptions of choice," and (d) "cost-benefit analysis. "The findings illustrate that cognitive processing, characteristics of the species of animal being used, and the type of animal use can all influence attitudes toward animal use. Because previous research has focused on participant variables such as age and gender to explain variance in attitudes toward animal use (Furnham & Pinder, 1990; Kellert & Berry, 1981) and measured attitudes toward animal use in general (rather than distinguishing between different types of use) (Armstrong & Hutchins, 1996), these findings can add to knowledge of people's views on animal use. This paper discusses how such views may be justified and maintained.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Finally, there is evidence that people, when facing situations of conflict regarding animal well-being and suffering, tend to “build arguments” that justify and corroborate their existing attitudes or behavior to avoid dissonance [62].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
LaPiere, R. T. (1934) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2570339 · Cited by 1,720
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Animal ethics and tourism: deepening a stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) framework
Fakfare, P., Lee, J.-S., Kim, J. J., Ryu, H. B., & Han, H. (2024) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875231175079 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Vrij, A., Nunkoosing, K., Knight, S., & Cherryman, J.
- Venue
- Society & Animals
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 307-327
- ISSN
- 1063-1119
- 1568-5306
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 2
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review