Comparison of Vegetarians and Non-Vegetarians on Pet Attitude and Empathy

387

Ant

hroz

ooumls

DO

I 10

275

217

5303

708X

3716

54

ANTHROZOOumlS VOLUME 21 ISSUE 4 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING copy ISAZ 2008PP 387ndash395 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK

THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY

Address for correspondenceHiroko Arikawa

2885 W Battlefield RdSpringfield MO 65807

USA E-mailhirokoargmailcom

Comparison of Vegetariansand Non-Vegetarians on Pet Attitude and Empathy Brooke Dixon Preylo and Hiroko ArikawaForest Institute of Professional Psychology Springfield Missouri USA

ABSTRACT Past research found that positive attitudes toward animalsare positively correlated with human-directed empathy One of the mostcommon reasons for becoming a vegetarian is to avoid cruelty towardanimals Based on the above literature we hypothesized that vege tariansespecially moral vegetarians would show higher human-directed empa-thy and more positive attitudes toward pets and other animals than non-vegetarians Seventy-two vegetarians and 67 non-vegetariansparticipated in the study Pet attitudes were measured using the modifiedPet Attitude Scale (PAS-M) and human-directed empathy was measuredwith the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) which has four subscalesVegetarian males had significantly higher empathy and significantly morepositive attitudes toward pets compared with non-vegetarian males how-ever there was no differences among females There were no differencesbetween moral vegetarians and non-moral vegetarians on human- directed empathy and attitude toward pets Empathy toward humans andattitudes toward pets were positively correlated for both vegetarians andnon-vegetarians We conceptualized the dietary choice of a vegetarian asa lifestyle that can be explained by their political thinking personality andpersonal value systems

Keywords animal cruelty diet empathy pet attitude vegetarians

ldquoVegetarianrdquo is a term that has many meanings and has beenused to describe a wide variety of eating styles Vegetarianismhas been defined as a dietary style that is ldquocharacterized by the

consumption of plant foods and the avoidance of some or all animal prod-uctsrdquo (Perry et al 2001) According to a Harris Poll about 23 of Amer-icans (3 women 2 men) never consume meat poultry and sea foodand consider themselves practicing vegetarians (Stahler 2006) Individu-als choose a vegetarian lifestyle for a variety of reasons and the scientific

AZ VOL 21(4)qxpLayout 1 10108 100 PM Page 387

literature offers diverse explanations Cooper Wise and Mann (1985) list ldquoreligious prohibitionscultural beliefs health benefits and counterculture attitudehelliprdquo as reasons for following a vegetarian diet In their study examining the psychological and cognitive characteristics ofvegetarians 60 of the participants cited the ldquodesire to avoid animal crueltyrdquo as one reasonfor their vegetarianism Beardsworth and Keil (1993) suggested that ldquothe rearing transportingand slaughter of food animals is challenged on moral grounds in that it is regarded as entailingunacceptable suffering or violation of animalsrsquo rightsrdquo Health implications and the morality ofeating meat are two of the most commonly cited reasons for choosing a vegetarian diet Manyvegetarians are equally concerned about both topics In fact Amato and Partridge (1989) re-ported ldquoconcerns with health and morality are commonly presented as the two most influentialfactors in assuming a vegetarian food positionrdquo Rozin Markwith and Stones (1997) foundthat 437 of their participants indicated that the healthiness of a meatless diet was a primaryreason for becoming vegetarian followed by the wastefulness of meat as food (382) andmoral reasons of killing (35) and causing suffering to animals (35)

It is important to understand empathy when examining prosocial behavior Prosocial behav-ior is behavior that is positive in nature such as sharing volunteering and helping Counselingis a prosocial act (Carey Fox and Spraggins1988) and empathy is considered one of the mostfundamental elements of counseling according to Carl Rogers (1951) Empathy has also beenlinked with altruistic behavior (Davis 1983 Litvak-Miller and McDougall 1997 Unger and Thumuluri 1997) Daly and Morton (2003) pointed out that empathy has been used interchange-ably with words like compassion kindness sympathy and sentimentality It has been referred toas sharing in anotherrsquos perceived emotions or an affective reaction to anotherrsquos distress Davis(1983) suggested that there is more to empathy than feelings He contended that it has both cog-nitive and affective components in that it is a construct that has roots in emotion as in sympa-thetic involvement as well as a cognitive awareness and the ability to recognize anotherrsquos feelings

Recent literature suggests that empathy toward animals is positively related to human- directed empathy (Paul 2000) Ascione and Weber (1996) reported that children who had par-ticipated in a year-long educational program on humane attitudes had higher humane attitudesat one- and two-year follow-up than children in a control group Furthermore empathic atti-tudes toward animals of those children in the program showed evidence of generalizing tohumans The Antivivisection League which protests the use of animals for scientific researchheld a conference in 1998 to explore the relationship between violence towards animals andviolence towards people There it was pointed out that there is a close relationship betweenviolence against animals violence against children and violence against women (Lockwoodand Ascione 1998 Ascione and Arkow 1999) In one study of adolescent boys who were fire-setters it was found that they had higher levels of cruelty to animals than non-firesetters andlower levels of empathy (Walsh Lambie and Stewart 2004) In another study examining crueltyto animals in children Dadds Whiting and Hawes (2006) found that cruelty to animals andcompromised levels of empathy were linked to conduct disorder which is a childhood disor-der characterized by aggressive behavior toward people or animals destruction of propertydeceitfulness theft and serious violation of social rules and the basic rights of others (Ameri-can Psychiatric Association 2000)

The purpose of the current study was to make a direct comparison between vegetariansand non-vegetarians on their human-directed empathy and attitude to pets Based on the lit-erature two hypotheses were generated The first was that vegetarians regardless of the rea-sons for their dietary choice would have more positive attitudes toward pets and other animals38

8A

nthr

ozoouml

s

Comparison of Vegetarians and Non-Vegetarians on Pet Attitude and Empathy


and higher levels of empathy toward humans compared with non-vegetarians The secondhypothesis was that among vegetarians those who chose their diet for reasons of animal welfare would have more positive attitudes toward pets and higher levels of human empathythan vegetarians who did not choose their diet for reasons of animal welfare

MethodsParticipants Participants were 139 adults (88 women and 51 men mean age = 324 SD = 1172) fromSpringfield Missouri in the USA All participants were solicited from local supermarkets thatwere either vegetarian-friendly or vegetarian-neutral Vegetarian-friendly markets were thosethat marketed specifically but not exclusively to vegetarian consumers Vegetarian-neutralsupermarkets were those that marketed to the general public with no specific emphasis onvegetarian food although such stores generally carry limited amounts of meat-free alternativesAdult shoppers were asked if they would like to participate in the study They were also toldthat if they took part they could sign up for a prize draw to win a $2500 gift certificate fromthe supermarket After agreeing to participate volunteers were then asked to take a seat at asmall table where they gave informed consent After consenting participants were given apacket of questionnaires to complete and were asked to deposit the completed packet formsinto a box labeled ldquoCompleted Surveysrdquo Upon completion participants were asked if theywould like to sign up for the gift certificate prize draw as previously mentioned Only those whowanted to sign up for the gift certificate were given a paper on which to provide their nametelephone number and e-mail address Participants placed completed prize-draw papers ina box separate from the one used for the questionnaires in order to maintain anonymity of theresponses Upon completion of the prize draw all papers containing personal informationwere shredded and discarded All participants were treated in accordance with the approvedprotocol of the Institutional Review Board of Forest Institute of Professional Psychology

InstrumentsTwo scales were used in addition to a demographic questionnaire The Pet Attitude Scale-Modified (PAS-M) (Munsell et al 2004) which is a modified version of the Pet Attitude Scale(PAS) (Templer 1981) was used to measure participantsrsquo attitudes toward pets The PAS-Mwas chosen as an instrument for the current study because it is the most frequently usedscale to measure attitudes toward pet animals therefore has good construct validity In addi-tion the PAS-M measures not only attitudes toward pets but also contain a few items to ex-amine attitudes to animals in general The PAS-M has 18 items and utilizes a Likert-type format(1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = unsure 5 = slightlyagree 6 = moderately agree 7 = strongly agree) to assess attitudes toward pets The totalscore ranges from 18 to 126mdashthe higher the score the more positive the attitude towardpets Examples of the items include ldquoHouse pets add happiness to my liferdquo ldquo I hate animalsrdquoand ldquoYou should treat house pets with as much respect as you would a human member ofyour familyrdquo Test-retest reliability is 092 and Cronbachrsquos alpha is 093 Meaningful correla-tions have been obtained between the PAS-M and the Allport-Vernon Lindsey Study of Val-ues in addition to the Personality Research Form There are three factors in the PAS-M Loveand Interaction Pets in the Home and Joy of Pet Ownership

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) was used (Davis 1983) as a measure of em-pathy because its assesses both cognitive and emotional domains The IRI has 28 items 389

Ant

hroz

ooumls

Dixon Preylo amp Arikawa


with responses given on five-point Likert-type scales (1 = does not describe me verywell 5 = describes me very well) and total scores range from 28 to140 It assesses fourfactorssubscalesmdashtwo cognitive and two emotionalmdasheach of which consists of sevenitems Subscales include Perspective Taking (PT) (eg ldquoI try to look at everybodyrsquos sideof a disagreement before I make a decisionrdquo) Fantasy (FS) (eg ldquoI daydream and fanta-size with some regularity about things that might happen to merdquo) Empathic Concern(EC) (eg ldquoSometimes I donrsquot feel sorry for other people when they are having prob-lemsrdquo) and Personal Distress (PD) (eg ldquoWhen I see someone who badly needs help inan emergency I go to piecesrdquo) Davis suggests that PT measures spontaneous tenden-cies of the test-taker to adopt the psychological perspective of another person or to en-tertain anotherrsquos point of view Of the four subscales this one most clearly measurescognitive aspects of empathy FS assesses the test-takerrsquos ability to imagine himself orherself in place of fictional characters such as those found in movies and books The FSscale is a measure of emotional empathy EC examines the respondentrsquos tendency toexperience warmth compassion and concern for others EC is the second measure ofemotional empathy And lastly PD examines feelings of anxiety and distress in crisis situations This is the second cognitive measure of empathy Internal reliability of the IRIhas been measured to be between 071 and 077 and test-retest reliability ranges from061 to 071 (Davis 1983)

The demographic questionnaire asked all participants for their age and gender and whetheror not they were vegetarian and pet owners Individuals who were vegetarian were askedwhich type they were lacto-ovo lacto ovo vegan fruitarian or other In addition vegetarianswere asked to indicate the reasons why they chose a vegetarian dietary style (health reasonsreligious beliefs political beliefs animal rightswelfare other) in order to differentiate betweenthose who did so for animal welfare reasons and those who did not

Construction of Groups For the current study a vegetarian was defined as a person who never ate meat poultryfish or other seafood Seventy-two participants (15 male 57 female 44 pet owners 28 non-pet owners) identified themselves as vegetarian and 67 (36 male 31 female 32 pet ownersand 35 non-pet owners) identified themselves as non-vegetarian Of the vegetarians 31 werelacto-ovo 23 were lacto five were ovo 12 were vegans and one was fruitarian

The vegetarian group was further divided into two groups (animal welfare vs other) basedon the reasons given for choosing their dietary style Regardless of the number of reasonsgiven vegetarians were classified as ldquoanimal welfare vegetariansrdquo as long as animal welfare wasone of the reasons given Forty-nine (681) of the vegetarians were categorized as animalwelfare vegetarians

ResultsTable 1 presents the Pearsonrsquos correlation of the four subscales of the IRI and the PAS-MPositive correlations (p lt 0001) were found within each of the four subscales of the IRI andbetween the PAS-M and each subscale of the IRI Table 2 shows the correlations of the fourIRI subscales and the PAS-M for vegetarians (n = 72) and non-vegetarians (n = 67) separatelyTable 3 shows the MANOVA F value indicating that vegetarians scored significantly higher thannon-vegetarians on the EC FS and PT subscales and PAS-M (p lt 0001) and the PD sub-scale (p lt 001) 39

0A

nthr

ozoouml

s



Table 1 Intercorrelations between IRI subscale scores and PAS-M total scores

1 2 3 4 5

1 Empathic Concern mdash 074 083 034 064

2 Fantasy mdash 067 058 068

3 Perspective Taking mdash 038 050

4 Personal Distress mdash 044

5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001

391

Ant

hroz

ooumls


Table 2 Intercorrelations between IRI subscale scores and PAS-M total scores by di-etary style (vegetarians and non-vegetarians)

1 2 3 4 5

Vegetarians (n = 72)





5 PAS-M Total mdash

Non-Vegetarians (n = 67)





5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001

Table 3 Comparison of vegetarians versus non-vegetarians on empathy (IRI sub-scales) and pet attitude (PAS-M total scores)

Vegetarians (n = 72) Non-Vegetarians (n = 67) F

Mean SD Mean SD

Empathic Concern 2061 487 1616 582 2396

Fantasy 1753 524 1275 731 1985

Perspective Taking 1915 470 1536 492 2162

Personal Distress 1294 730 97 550 880

PAS-M Total 9932 1764 8139 2653 2230

p lt 001 p lt 0001

Since women tend to report higher empathy toward humans than men as found in pre-vious research (Lennon and Eisenberg 19897) and pet owners tend to report more empathytoward animals than non-pet owners (Paul 2000) the variables of gender and pet ownershipmay be confounding the current findings In order to examine the possible confounds of gen-der on empathy scores and pet ownership on PAS-M score further analyses compared vegetarians and non-vegetarians within each gender on the IRI and pet ownership status on


392

Ant

hroz

ooumls


PAS-M With regards gender female participants scored significantly higher than males onthe EC (F = 3592 p lt 0001) FS (F = 2487 p lt 0001) PT (F = 2221 p lt 0001) and PD(F = 1741 p lt 0001) subscales of the IRI and on the PAS-M (F = 2328 p lt 0001) Withineach gender vegetarian males scored significantly higher than non-vegetarian males on thePAS-M EC FS PT (p lt 001) and PD (p lt 005) However there was no difference betweenvegetarians and non-vegetarians on the IRI subscales and the PAS-M among females (Table4) There was no significant difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians on the PAS-M among pet owners (t = 0295) However vegetarians scored significantly higher (t = 6757p lt 0001) on the PAS-M than non-vegetarians among non-pet owners

Tale 4 Comparison of vegetarians versus non-vegetarians on empathy (IRI subscalescores) and pet attitude (PAS-M total scores) by gender

Males (n =51)

Vegetarians (n = 15) Non-Vegetarians (n = 36)

Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1620 472 992 721 961



PAS-M Total 9520 1867 7181 2331 1188

Females (n = 88)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1788 535 1603 602 219



PAS-M Total 10040 1737 9252 2601 289

p lt 005 p lt 001

The 76 pet owners in our sample showed significantly higher scores (empathy) on the EC(F = 71 p lt 0001) FS (F = 2089 p lt 0001) PT (F = 465 p lt 005) and PD (F = 88 p lt001) subscales of the IRI and significantly higher scores on the PAS-M (more positive attitudestoward pets) (F = 6761 p lt 0001) than the 63 non-pet owners The same comparisons weremade within vegetarians and non-vegetarians in order to examine the possible confound ofvegetarian status It was found that non-vegetarian pet owners scored significantly higher (p lt0001) on the EC (F = 2421) FS (F = 3174) PT (F = 1437) and PD (F =1427) subscales ofthe IRI and significantly more positive attitudes toward pets (F = 9397 p lt 0001) than non-pet owning non-vegetarians Among vegetarians there was no significant difference betweenpet owners and non-pet owners on the empathy scales However pet owners showed sig -nificantly more positive attitudes toward pets than non pet-owners (F = 702 p lt 005)

Animal welfare vegetarians (n = 49) and non-animal welfare vegetarians (n = 23) were com-pared on their levels of empathy and pet attitude There was no difference on any the subscalesof the IRI EC (F = 053) FS (F = 002) PT (F = 004) PD (F = 001) or on PAS-M scores (F = 002)


A discriminant function analysis was conducted to determine whether the four subscalesof the IRI and the PAS-M could predict dietary choice The function significantly ( = 0811sup2 = 2819 df = 5 n = 139 p lt 0001) predicted differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians Function coefficients indicate that EC PAS-M and PT were the strongest pre-dictors of vegetarian diet Overall 683 of the sample was correctly classified Vegetarianshad a function mean of 046 while non-vegetarians had a mean of ndash05 The results suggestthat people with higher levels of empathic concern more ability to take the perspective of others and more positive attitudes toward pets are more likely to be vegetarian than not

DiscussionCompared with the non-vegetarian participants the vegetarians in our study had more em-pathic concerns and were more likely to be able to consider another personrsquos perspective Ad-ditionally they were more likely to be able to visualize themselves in the position of others andwere more likely to experience distress when another person was in a difficult situation Theyalso had a more positive attitude toward pets However theses differences were only foundamongst menmdashthere was no difference in empathy and pet attitude between female vege-tarians and female non-vegetarians This may be due to the influence on men of media- portrayed characteristics of masculinity in which men are preoccupied with red meat and areless likely to seek healthier meals (Gough 2007) Also males are more likely to hunt game an-imals and to fish and then barbeque them at gatherings of family and friends It is possiblethough that malesmdashdespite their tough imagemdashwho choose a vegetarian diet are more sensitive and empathic toward others than meat-eating males

Contrary to expectation animal welfare reasons for being a vegetarian did not differentiatelevels of empathy among vegetarians In fact scores were almost identical The same was trueeven for attitudes toward pets This may possibly be attributed to participants who endorseanimal rightsextremist views For example some individuals who belong to animal rights or-ganizations do not believe in owning pets In fact in extreme cases pet ownership may beviewed as a form of mistreatment of animals Therefore when endorsing items on the PAS-M they might disagree with an item such as 3 ldquoI would like to have a pet in my homerdquo whilestrongly disagreeing with an item such as 17 ldquoI hate animalsrdquo While these individuals mayhave a great deal of concern for animal welfare their PAS-M scores would not reflect that sinceit is primarily a measure of pet attitude and only a few items focus on animal attitudes in general resulting in inconsistent endorsement of items and possibly low total scores

In general we found that individuals with more positive pet attitudes were more empathic to-ward people This result was even stronger among non-vegetarians than vegetarians These re-sults were unexpected and again may be the result of individuals who do not support havinganimals as pets Alternatively vegetarians in general may have more heterogeneity among themand so do not show strong patterns of personality when examined as a group Nevertheless inour current sample our general hypothesis that people who have more positive attitudes towardanimals are more empathic toward people was sustained regardless of dietary choice

There are some exceptions in which empathy toward animals does not extend to empathytoward humans Probably the most notorious example of a historical figure who was concernedwith animal rights and was also a vegetarian was Adolf Hitler Despite his beliefs and dietary stylehe also exhibited extreme cruelty to innocent people including children (Arluke and Sax 1992)Certainly then it is possible that some individuals feel more empathic toward animals than humans A further example of this is individuals who shame or humiliate people in public in 393

Ant

hroz

ooumls



order to protest about various aspects of animal treatmentmdashin more extreme cases people arephysically harmed in order to protect animals In the Edo period of Japan Tsunayoshi Tokugawathe fifth shogun and vegetarian Buddhist earned an insulting nickname of Dog Shogun afterissuing the notorious Laws of Compassion an extreme protection of all animals especiallydogs The roaming dogs cluttered streets and those animals that were sick or injured werehoused and fed while those who harmed animals were executed (Bodart-Bailey 2007) This be-havior may be partially explained by past research which compared moral and health vegetarians (Rozin Markwith and Stoess 1997) They found that moral vegetarians havestronger tendencies to believe that meat-eaters have less desirable personalities are more ag-gressive and are more animal-like Hitler also considered Jews to be a group of people wholacked morality and compassion especially in their treatments of animals in scientific researchand considered them as less desirable than most animals (Arluke and Sax 1992)

Seven participants in our study gave reasons for their responses to items on either thePAS-M or the IRI or both even though neither of the questionnaires invited participants to writecomments on them For example one individual explained his low score on item 2 of the PAS-M (ldquoMy pet means more to me than any of my friends [or would if I had one]rdquo) stating that ldquoitis unfair to treat one group better than the otherrdquo There were several participants who gavelow scores such as the previous example but then gave explanations for their choice indi-cating that perhaps the question itself was stated in a way that they disliked rather than themsimply disliking people or animals Interestingly all the individuals who wrote comments werevegetarians It is likely that they felt a strong need to express their opinions on the issues raisedbecause their unique lifestyle as a vegetarian is by conscious choice supported by often verystrong personal belief systems This is in contrast to the huge proportion (97) of people whoeat meat in the US people who are probably rarely asked why they consume meat

It is reasonable to state that for many vegetarian individuals especially for moral vege -tarians being a vegetarian is not merely a dietary preference but it is their personal statementHamilton (2006) conducted in-depth interviews of vegetarians and meat-eaters and found thatmoral vegetariansrsquo refusal to consume meat ldquosymbolizes complicity in what is immoralrdquo although they are aware that their protest does not affect the meat market

Future investigations should include closer scrutiny of heterogeneity among vegetariansgender differences and psychological variables The members of animal rights organizationswould appear to be appropriate participants for such research Measuring masculinityfemi-ninity would be useful as it may very well be related to empathy toward humans and attitudestoward animals

AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge the support extended by Dr Adrian J Whitmire Dr Frances ParksMs Shelly Vaugine and Dr Partick C Gariety We wish to thank two anonymous reviewers andDr Anthony Podberscek for their helpful comments and recommendations for revision

ReferencesAmato P R and Partridge S A 1989 The New Vegetarians Promoting Health and Protecting Life New York

Plenum PressAmerican Psychiatric Association 2000 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders 4th edn Text

Revision Washington DC AuthorArluke A and Sax B 1992 Understanding Nazi animal protection and the Holocaust Anthrozooumls 5 6ndash31

394

Ant

hroz

ooumls



Ascione F R and Arkow P 1999 Child Abuse Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse West Lafayette IN Purdue University Press

Ascione F R and Weber C V 1996 Childrenrsquos attitudes about the humane treatment of animals and empa-thy One-year follow up of a school-based intervention Anthrozooumls 9 188ndash195

Beardsworth A D and Keil E T 1993 Contemporary vegetarianism in the UK Challenge and incorporationAppetite 20 229ndash234

Bodart-Bailey B M 2007 The Dog Shogun The Personality And Policies of Tokugawa Tsunayoshi Hawaii University of Hawaii Press

Carey J C Fox E A and Spraggins E F 1988 Replication of structure findings regarding the InterpersonalReactivity Index Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 21 102ndash105

Cooper C K Wise T N and Mann L S 1985 Psychological and cognitive characteristics of vegetariansPsychosomatics Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry 26 521ndash527

Dadds M R Whiting C and Hawes D J 2006 Associations among cruelty to animals family conflict andpsychopathic traits in childhood Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21 411ndash429

Daly B and Morton L L 2003 Children with pets do not show higher empathy A challenge to current viewsAnthrozooumls 16 298ndash314

Davis M H 1983 The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping A multidimensionalapproach Journal of Personality 51 167ndash184

Gough B 2007 Real men donrsquot diet An analysis of contemporary newspaper representations of men foodand health Social Science amp Medicine 64 326ndash337

Hamilton M 2006 Eating death Food Culture and Society 9 157ndash177Lennon R and Eisenberg N 1987 Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy In Empathy and

Its Development 195ndash217 ed N Eisenberg and J Strayer New York Cambridge University PressLitvak-Miller W and McDougall D 1997 The structure of empathy during middle childhood and its relation-

ship to prosocial behavior Genetic Social amp General Psychology Monographs 123 303ndash321Lockwood R and Ascione F R 1998 Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence West Lafayette IN

Purdue University PressMunsell K L Canfield M Templer D I Tangen K and Arikawa H 2004 Modified pet attitude scale Society

amp Animals 12 137ndash142Paul E S 2000 Empathy with animals and with humans are they linked Anthrozooumls 13 194ndash202Perry C L McGuire M T Neumark-Sztainer D and Story M 2001 Characteristics of vegetarian adolescents

in a multiethnic urban population Journal of Adolescent Health 29 406ndash416 Rogers C R 1951 Client-Centered Counselling Boston Houghton-MifflinRozin P Markwith M and Stoess C 1997 Moralization and becoming a vegetarian the transformation of pref-

erences into values and the recruitment of disgust Psychological Science 8 67ndash73Stahler C 2006 How many adults are vegetarians ltwwwwrgorgjournalvj2006issue4vj2006issue4pollhtmgt

Accessed September 6 2007Templer D I Salter C A Dickey S Baldwin R and Veleber D M 1981 The construction of a Pet Attitude

Scale The Psychological Record 31 343ndash348Unger L S and Thumuluri L K 1997 Trait empathy and continuous helping The case of voluntarism Journal

of Social Behavior and Personality 12 785ndash800 Walsh D Lambie I and Stewart M 2004 Sparking up Family behavioral and empathy factors in adolescent

firesetters American Journal of Forensic Psychology 22 5ndash32

395

Ant

hroz

ooumls



literature offers diverse explanations Cooper Wise and Mann (1985) list ldquoreligious prohibitionscultural beliefs health benefits and counterculture attitudehelliprdquo as reasons for following a vegetarian diet In their study examining the psychological and cognitive characteristics ofvegetarians 60 of the participants cited the ldquodesire to avoid animal crueltyrdquo as one reasonfor their vegetarianism Beardsworth and Keil (1993) suggested that ldquothe rearing transportingand slaughter of food animals is challenged on moral grounds in that it is regarded as entailingunacceptable suffering or violation of animalsrsquo rightsrdquo Health implications and the morality ofeating meat are two of the most commonly cited reasons for choosing a vegetarian diet Manyvegetarians are equally concerned about both topics In fact Amato and Partridge (1989) re-ported ldquoconcerns with health and morality are commonly presented as the two most influentialfactors in assuming a vegetarian food positionrdquo Rozin Markwith and Stones (1997) foundthat 437 of their participants indicated that the healthiness of a meatless diet was a primaryreason for becoming vegetarian followed by the wastefulness of meat as food (382) andmoral reasons of killing (35) and causing suffering to animals (35)

It is important to understand empathy when examining prosocial behavior Prosocial behav-ior is behavior that is positive in nature such as sharing volunteering and helping Counselingis a prosocial act (Carey Fox and Spraggins1988) and empathy is considered one of the mostfundamental elements of counseling according to Carl Rogers (1951) Empathy has also beenlinked with altruistic behavior (Davis 1983 Litvak-Miller and McDougall 1997 Unger and Thumuluri 1997) Daly and Morton (2003) pointed out that empathy has been used interchange-ably with words like compassion kindness sympathy and sentimentality It has been referred toas sharing in anotherrsquos perceived emotions or an affective reaction to anotherrsquos distress Davis(1983) suggested that there is more to empathy than feelings He contended that it has both cog-nitive and affective components in that it is a construct that has roots in emotion as in sympa-thetic involvement as well as a cognitive awareness and the ability to recognize anotherrsquos feelings

Recent literature suggests that empathy toward animals is positively related to human- directed empathy (Paul 2000) Ascione and Weber (1996) reported that children who had par-ticipated in a year-long educational program on humane attitudes had higher humane attitudesat one- and two-year follow-up than children in a control group Furthermore empathic atti-tudes toward animals of those children in the program showed evidence of generalizing tohumans The Antivivisection League which protests the use of animals for scientific researchheld a conference in 1998 to explore the relationship between violence towards animals andviolence towards people There it was pointed out that there is a close relationship betweenviolence against animals violence against children and violence against women (Lockwoodand Ascione 1998 Ascione and Arkow 1999) In one study of adolescent boys who were fire-setters it was found that they had higher levels of cruelty to animals than non-firesetters andlower levels of empathy (Walsh Lambie and Stewart 2004) In another study examining crueltyto animals in children Dadds Whiting and Hawes (2006) found that cruelty to animals andcompromised levels of empathy were linked to conduct disorder which is a childhood disor-der characterized by aggressive behavior toward people or animals destruction of propertydeceitfulness theft and serious violation of social rules and the basic rights of others (Ameri-can Psychiatric Association 2000)

The purpose of the current study was to make a direct comparison between vegetariansand non-vegetarians on their human-directed empathy and attitude to pets Based on the lit-erature two hypotheses were generated The first was that vegetarians regardless of the rea-sons for their dietary choice would have more positive attitudes toward pets and other animals38

8A

nthr

ozoouml

s







Ant

hroz

ooumls








0A

nthr

ozoouml

s




1 2 3 4 5





5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001

391

Ant

hroz

ooumls



1 2 3 4 5






5 PAS-M Total mdash






5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001



Mean SD Mean SD


Fantasy 1753 524 1275 731 1985



PAS-M Total 9932 1764 8139 2653 2230

p lt 001 p lt 0001



392

Ant

hroz

ooumls




Males (n =51)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1620 472 992 721 961



PAS-M Total 9520 1867 7181 2331 1188

Females (n = 88)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1788 535 1603 602 219



PAS-M Total 10040 1737 9252 2601 289

p lt 005 p lt 001









Ant

hroz

ooumls











394

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls







Ant

hroz

ooumls








0A

nthr

ozoouml

s




1 2 3 4 5





5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001

391

Ant

hroz

ooumls



1 2 3 4 5






5 PAS-M Total mdash






5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001



Mean SD Mean SD


Fantasy 1753 524 1275 731 1985



PAS-M Total 9932 1764 8139 2653 2230

p lt 001 p lt 0001



392

Ant

hroz

ooumls




Males (n =51)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1620 472 992 721 961



PAS-M Total 9520 1867 7181 2331 1188

Females (n = 88)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1788 535 1603 602 219



PAS-M Total 10040 1737 9252 2601 289

p lt 005 p lt 001









Ant

hroz

ooumls











394

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls








0A

nthr

ozoouml

s




1 2 3 4 5





5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001

391

Ant

hroz

ooumls



1 2 3 4 5






5 PAS-M Total mdash






5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001



Mean SD Mean SD


Fantasy 1753 524 1275 731 1985



PAS-M Total 9932 1764 8139 2653 2230

p lt 001 p lt 0001



392

Ant

hroz

ooumls




Males (n =51)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1620 472 992 721 961



PAS-M Total 9520 1867 7181 2331 1188

Females (n = 88)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1788 535 1603 602 219



PAS-M Total 10040 1737 9252 2601 289

p lt 005 p lt 001









Ant

hroz

ooumls











394

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls




1 2 3 4 5





5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001

391

Ant

hroz

ooumls



1 2 3 4 5






5 PAS-M Total mdash






5 PAS-M Total mdash

p lt 0001



Mean SD Mean SD


Fantasy 1753 524 1275 731 1985



PAS-M Total 9932 1764 8139 2653 2230

p lt 001 p lt 0001



392

Ant

hroz

ooumls




Males (n =51)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1620 472 992 721 961



PAS-M Total 9520 1867 7181 2331 1188

Females (n = 88)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1788 535 1603 602 219



PAS-M Total 10040 1737 9252 2601 289

p lt 005 p lt 001









Ant

hroz

ooumls











394

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls



392

Ant

hroz

ooumls




Males (n =51)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1620 472 992 721 961



PAS-M Total 9520 1867 7181 2331 1188

Females (n = 88)


Mean SD Mean SD F


Fantasy 1788 535 1603 602 219



PAS-M Total 10040 1737 9252 2601 289

p lt 005 p lt 001









Ant

hroz

ooumls











394

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls








Ant

hroz

ooumls











394

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls











394

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls
























395

Ant

hroz

ooumls



Documents

Comparison of Vegetarians and Non-Vegetarians on Pet Attitude and Empathy