The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empathy towards animals and belief in animal-human-continuity in Italian veterinary students
Abstract
Empathy towards animals and beliefs in animal-human continuity appear to play an important role in shaping the human-animal relationship and in determining the way animals are treated and cared for. Veterinary medicine plays a central role in animal welfare and has been recognised as a highly caring profession, especially in companion animal practice: however, a number of studies have indicated that veterinary students show a decline in empathy towards animals and an increasing tendency to see them in Cartesian terms as they progress through veterinary education. In the present study we used the Animal Empathy Scale and the Human-Animal Continuity Scale to investigate empathy towards animals and beliefs in animal-human continuity in a sample of first-year (n = 131) and final-year (n = 158) veterinary students of the University of Milan, Italy. Results revealed a difference in empathy towards animals, with first-year students scoring significantly higher than those at the end of their academic training. This variation in empathy over time emerged in both male and female students, however females always had higher empathy scores than males. Moreover, veterinary students at the end of their course reported a more instrumental attitude toward animals, more pronounced in males than in females. Similarly, there was a difference in the perception of continuity between humans and animals which was more evident in males, with first-year students scoring higher than fifth-year students in some items. Results are discussed in relation to previous studies carried out in other countries and, given the importance of empathy in the veterinary profession, potential reasons underlying its apparent decrease are considered.
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 [33]
Citations
Cites
Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625 · Cited by 2,483
Harrison, M. A., & Hall, A. E. (2010) · Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0099303 · Cited by 102
Research works printed but not linked: 68
- 10.1136/vr.145.4.95 · DOI
- 10.3138/jvme.32.4.491 · DOI
- Hellyer, 1999, Attitudes of veterinary medical students house officers clinical faculty and staff toward pain management in animals, Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 214, 238, 10.2460/javma.1999.214.02.238 · DOI
- 10.3138/jvme.32.4.481 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10803-007-0486-x · DOI · Paper page
- Shurtleff, 1983, A nationwide study of veterinary students’ atti-tudes on ethical issues, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 9, 93
- 10.2752/175303710X12750451258931 · DOI · Paper page
- O’Farrell, 1990, Students’ stereotypes of owners and veteri-nary practitioners, Veterinary Record, 127, 625
- 10.3138/jvme.38.1.74 · DOI
- 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b17e55 · DOI
- 10.7213/estud.biol.7846 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.019 · DOI
- 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.7.769 · DOI
- Hart, 1989, The gender shift in the veterinary profession and attitudes toward animals: A survey and overview, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 16, 27
- 10.7120/09627286.23.4.459 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pain.2011.01.024 · DOI
- 10.1136/vr.146.10.269 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.012 · DOI
- 10.2752/089279395787156347 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jpepsy/jsl049 · DOI
- 10.2752/175303714X13837396326576 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2752/175303707X207918 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3138/jvme.37.1.30 · DOI · Paper page
- Davis, 1980, A multidimensional approach to individual differ-ences in empathy, Journal of the Siena Academy of Science: Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85
- 10.1136/bmj.325.7366.707 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jfms.2011.03.012 · DOI · Paper page
- Daly, 2008, Empathic correlates of witnessing the inhumane killing of an animal: an investigation of single and multiple exposures, Society and Animals, 16, 243, 10.1163/156853008X323394 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13783.x · DOI
- 10.2752/089279304785643230 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.180 · DOI · Paper page
- Apostol, 2013, Psychological and socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward animals, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 521
- 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.005 · DOI
- 10.1177/1098612X12445002 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04159.x · DOI
- Decety, 2011, The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, 199
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02795.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pain.2010.12.005 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.002 · DOI
- Jöreskog, 1984, LISREL VI Users Guide, Third Edition
- 10.1007/s10806-010-9232-z · DOI
- Signal, 2006, Attitudes to animals: Demographics within a community sample, Society and Animals, 14, 147, 10.1163/156853006776778743 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0140525X02000018 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.10.009 · DOI
- 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318221e615 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0010847 · DOI
- 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1563 · DOI
- 10.2752/089279300786999699 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/089124196025002002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009 · DOI
- 10.7120/096272812799129466 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.soctra.2006.02.001 · DOI
- 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1996.tb13778.x · DOI
- 10.1163/156853003321618819 · DOI
- 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182224f1f · DOI
- Birke, 2007, The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People
- 10.3138/jvme.31.1.67 · DOI
- 10.3138/jvme.35.4.496 · DOI
- 10.1163/156853093X00028 · DOI
- 10.5116/ijme.4d47.ddb0 · DOI
- 10.1163/156853003321618864 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2752/089279305785594342 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0014179 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15327604jaws0703_6 · DOI
- 10.2752/089279304786991945 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5326/0380307 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.04.007 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Colombo, E., Pelosi, A., & Prato-Previde, E.
- Venue
- Animal Welfare
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 275-286
- ISSN
- 0962-7286
- 2054-1538
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 2
- 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