The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Attitude to Animals and Empathy: Comparing Animal Protection and General Community Samples
Abstract
Although a number of studies have examined a range of demographic and personality variables that may impact upon attitudes towards the treatment of non-human species, little consensus has been reached within the literature. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and assess levels of human-directed empathy and attitudes towards the treatment of animals in two diverse populations, namely the general community (n = 543) and those within the animal protection field (n = 389). Both groups of participants completed the Attitude Towards the Treatment of Animals Scale (AAS) and the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), a measure of human-directed empathy. Comparisons between the two samples indicated that those within the animal protection community scored more highly on both the animal attitude and human-directed empathy measures. Correlational analyses revealed a positive relation between AAS and IRI scores for both samples, whilst the strength of the correlation was greater for those within the animal protection sample. These findings are discussed.
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
“Gender differences are well documented in the literature, with women consistently showing higher levels of empathy and concern regarding animal suffering, holding more positive attitudes towards animals and being more engaged in animal protection and less prone to animal exploitation, animal abuse and cruelty [13,29,31,32,33,34].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
Citations
Cites
Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02000018 · Cited by 4,126
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- 10.1023/A:1025936213110 · DOI
- Ascione F.R. and Arkow P. eds. 1999. Child Abuse Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention. West Lafayette IN: Purdue University Press.
- 10.2752/089279390787057784 · DOI
- 10.1163/156853093X00037 · DOI
- 10.1027//1015-5759.17.1.36 · DOI
- 10.2752/089279303786992026 · DOI
- Davis, M.H. 1980. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology 10: 85.
- Eisenberg, N. and Strayer, J. 1987. Critical issues in the study of empathy. Empathy and its Development, 3–13, ed. N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 10.2752/089279303786992260 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/s15327019eb0203_1 · DOI
- 10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.531 · DOI
- 10.2752/089279391787057170 · DOI
- Kellert, S.R. 1988. Human-animal interactions: A review of American attitudes toward wild and domestic animals in the 20th century. Animals and People Sharing the World, 137–175, ed. A.N. Rowan. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
- Kimball, R. 1989. Liberal/Conservative voting records compared to interest in animal protection bills. PsyETA Bulletin 9: 7–9.
- Mathews, S. and Herzog, H. 1997. Personality and attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Society & Animals 5(2): 57–63.
- 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324 · DOI
- 10.2752/089279300786999699 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0962728600016109 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00131.x · DOI
- 10.1163/156853006776778743 · DOI
- 10.1163/156853006778149181 · DOI
- Taylor, N. and Signal, T. 2004. Attitudes to animals: An indicator of interpersonal violence? Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia 11(3): 9–12.
- 10.2752/089279305785594342 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1023575212526 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Signal, T. D., & Taylor, N.
- Affiliations
- School of Psychology & Sociology, Central Queensland University, Australia
- Venue
- Anthrozoös
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 125-130
- ISSN
- 0892-7936
- 1753-0377
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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
