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

7/28/2019 Kendall-Lobao-Sharp - Public Concern With Animal Well-Being Place, Social Structural Location and Individual Exper…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kendall-lobao-sharp-public-concern-with-animal-well-being-place-social-structural 1/31

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being: Place, SocialStructural 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

A BSTRACT While sociologists and the public at large are increasingly interested in the life conditions of animals, conceptual and empiricaldevelopment of the topic is limited. This paper seeks to further develop thesociological research on attitudes toward animal well-being. We build on

insights from contemporary stratification 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 well-being, focusing on place, other social structural factors, and individuals’unique animal-related experiences. Data are from a survey of over 4,000Ohio residents conducted in 2002. We find that childhood experience hasthe greatest place-based effect on attitudes. Other findings highlight theimportance of social structural factors, suggesting support for the ‘‘underdoghypothesis.’’ Women, people experiencing economic hardship, those withless education, younger and middle aged people, and blacks tend to be moreconcerned with animal well-being. Individualized, experiential variables are

also important. Our results reflect the complexity of attitudes about animalsand 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 concernedsociologists and the public. Growing sociological interest in ‘‘animalsand society’’ is reflected in books (Arluke and Sanders 1996; Benton1993; Franklin 1999; Nibert 2002; Tester 1991), special issue journalarticles (Buller and Morris 2003; Milbourne 2003; Tovey 2003), and the

formation of the American Sociological Association’s newest speciality section devoted to the topic. Public concern with animal well-being isnow 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 welfareand 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 isfound outside sociology, and centers on ethical-philosophical concerns

Rural Sociology 71(3), 2006, pp. 399–428Copyright Ó 2006 by the Rural Sociological Society



(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 basedon qualitative findings from small samples (Holloway 2001; Wilkie2005). Multivariate analyses assessing an array of competing determi-nants are rare (Jerolmack 2003). From a theoretical standpoint, thetopic is poorly understood. Attitudes about animals are amorphous,evolving, and usually not subject to individuals’ day-to-day interroga-tion. The taken-for-granted nature of humans’ relationship to animalsmakes determinants of these attitudes difficult to theorize. As a result,extant work is characterized by examining a limited number of de-

terminants in a piecemeal approach. Little has been done to situatethe 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 todeterminants of animal well-being grounded in broader sociologicalperspectives on stratification and in extant empirical work. Theseliteratures 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 toattitudes about animal well-being than found in previous studies. Wealso give more detailed attention to class, gender, and place-basedexperiences as determinants of views about animals.

Attitudes about Animal Well-Being

Attitudes about animal well-being reflect underlying concern withanimals’ 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 (Coleman2004; 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 ‘‘basicfreedoms’’ (Singer 1990) to confined animals. The concept of animal well-being should not be confused with animal rights which involves thedegree to which citizenship entitlements should be extended to non-

humans (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

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



attitudes are symbolic of underlying concerns (Hills 1993). Americans’attitudes toward animal well-being reflect both evaluative attitudes of

general utility—acceptability of animal exploitation under the condi-tion that human benefits are gained—and expressive attitudes about general animal treatment, for example, concern for ethical treatment of animals (Kellert 1989, 1996). In keeping with these conceptualdistinctions, 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 inconsistency and scope across studies. There is no widely accepted orstandardized set of items used to measure these attitudes (Kellert

1989, 1996). Most studies on the topic collect few attitudinal variablesabout animals and focus narrowly on particular issues, such as animalexperimentation.

One difficulty in studying attitudes about animal well-being is that most Americans do not question their customary relationships in the useof animals nor seek out information about animals’ quality of life(Herzog 1993; Plous 1993). Social consciousness about animals tendsto reflect 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 research-ers’ ability to understand and explain determinants of attitudes towardanimal well-being. With the exception of certain structural determinantssuch as gender, empirical findings 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 reflect customary relationships andpractices, leads us to recent theoretical work on stratification.

Social Positions and Attitudes about Animal Well-Being:

Building from Contemporary Perspectives on Stratification

Despite growing sociological interest in animal well-being, the litera-ture remains fragmented with studies typically attending to specificdeterminants not linked together in any systematic way. In light of this, we draw from both existing empirical studies as well as theoreticalsources to produce a more coherent understanding of these determi-nants. Both quantitative and qualitative studies typically hypothesizesystematic differences in the way social groups, such as along the lines

of gender, class, and race/ethnicity, view their relationships withanimals (Elder, Wolch, and Emel 1998; Griffith, Wolch, and Lassiter2002; Nibert 1994 2002) The reasons behind social group differ

Public Concern with Animal Well-Being — Kendall et al. 401



and of animals as linked systems, suggesting groups with vested interestsin prevailing societal arrangements will be less concerned with animal

well-being (Nibert 2002; Tester 1991). Taken as a whole, extant studiesindicate social structural position should be scrutinized as a important factor in attitudes about animals. They suggest an ‘‘underdog hy-pothesis’’ whereby those lower in the stratification hierarchy may havegreater concern with animal well-being. With this in mind, thestratification literature provides a starting point for examining factorsassociated with attitudes about animals.1

A staple argument of contemporary stratification theorists is that structural position provides distinct life experiences that affect indi-

viduals’ worldviews about a variety of social issues (Bourdieu 1984, 1990;Giddens 1986; Tilly 1998). Of particular concern to stratificationtheorists 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 socialgroups, that is, the poor, minority groups, women (Tilly 1998; Wright 1997). While stratification theorists have always viewed class and otherstructural 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 influences 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 asa dimension of structural position, which has particular implicationsfor animal attitude formation among urban-rural populations.

To describe the processes by which social position influences worldviews Bourdieu (1984, 1990) uses the concepts of field and habitus.Field refers to the set of power relations determined by the structural

position of actors, while habitus refers to the conditions of existenceand collective representations emerging from these relations. Thehabitus is a ‘‘structuring structure’’ that operates on an unconsciouslevel to shape and reinforce social group practices, worldviews, andpatterns of social stratification. For example, the habitus defines 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 fornon-economic explanations and for different directions of relationships than thoseoutlined here. We prefer to build from the stratification literature for several reasons.

Most studies on animal well-being identify social structural positions as key determinantsand at least implicitly recognize that these determinants work in a similar manner asoutlined here. Second, theorizing the reasons for social structural differences is limited;




types of behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes are reasonable and common-sense given the particular social group context. Individuals in similar

social group positions share a habitus and therefore tend toward similarbehaviors, 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 forindividual uniqueness arising from the various life course trajectoriesand distinct experiences.

For Tilly (1998), ‘‘categorical’’ (in-out social group) distinctions arisebecause they enable those controlling resources to solve fundamentalproblems; their group experiences give them a vested interest in

devaluing out-groups. Tilly denotes two mechanisms, adaptation andemulation that maintain and propagate these established relationshipsand views of inequality. Adaptation refers to the day-to-day practicesand routines that maintain structures of inequality. Emulation is theexporting of social relations of inequality from one setting to another.Once relations of inequality are established in a setting, they carry overto other settings; mechanisms of adaptation such as daily decision-making, life-style practices, and information-seeking maintain inequal-ity in these new settings. Much like the interaction between Bourdieu’s

field and habitus, emulation and adaptation work together to reify viewsabout social group differences, such as those between rich and poor,males and females. Individuals internalize these views about socialgroup differences, which further maintains group boundaries. Theresult is that worldviews, or ideas about valuing other groups, becomeingrained and unconscious. Because any one individual belongs todifferent groups, he/she comes into contact with both potentially competing and complimentary influences 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 conferday-to-day life experiences and identities. People’s attitudes and actionsoften reflect unconscious responses to their structural positioning.Further, Giddens argues that individuals’ ‘‘life paths’’ reflect bothstructural or social group membership as well as individually-uniqueexperiences. These points suggest, as do Bourdieu (1984, 1990) andTilly (1998), that members of the same group share similar attitudesreflecting their social positions, but variation in these attitudes exists

due to individualized experiences.The previous discussion provides the basis of a conceptual frame-work for studying attitudes about animals The view that much social




behaviors related to animals appears limited. That is, the various ways we treat animals are perceived as natural and necessary because they

are reified through processes such as field and habitus (Bourdieu 1984,1990) and emulation and adaptation (Tilly 1998). Through theseprocesses, which Bourdieu (1984, 1990) and Tilly (1998) see asapplicable to understanding a wide range of taken-for-granted inequal-ities, animals may be defined 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 animalsis performed by rote and subject to little introspection corresponds toresearch indicating attitudes about animals are taken-for-granted and

likely subconscious (Plous 1993, Tester 1991).Because group attitudes arise from shared structural conditionsand collective experiences, we expect to see commonalities in attitudesof individuals occupying similar social positions. Since relationships with animals are a condition of human existence, different groupsshould reflect their distinct historical and present collective relation-ships, experiences, and worldviews regarding animal well-being. Indi- vidual variation also occurs because of distinct life experiences andindividuals’ 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 expressmore caring attitudes toward animals, but the effect of being femalelikely is mediated by other structural factors and individual experi-ence (Peek, Bell, and Dunham 1996; Peek, Dunham, and Dietz 1997).

In addition to putting forth similar views about the manner by whichsocial structural positions shape worldviews, contemporary stratifica-tion theorists recognize ‘‘place’’ or geographic context as a structuraldimension 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 Bourdieu’s (1984) view, proximity to place-based resources affectseveryday cultural practices, and place itself provides a structural context for maintaining those practices. This suggests rural and urban placesprovide not only different opportunities for contact and relationships with animals, but also different cultural experiences that shape andreinforce attitudes about animals. For Tilly (1998), places are sites of

social relations, where categorical inequalities, identities, and attitudesabout inequality are installed. Attitudes learned in one setting tend toaffect individuals outside of the settings in which they were first learned




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 othersettings. Giddens (1986) sees place-based social activities, includingmaterial appropriation and transformation of local resources, asshaping social group identities, yielding a view similar to Tilly’s andBourdieu’s. In rural and farm settings, where manipulation of resourcesentails greater use of animals, we can expect attitudes and behaviorsreflecting 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 confercollective relationships and experiences and thereby worldviews re-garding animals. In terms of structural position, we give specificattention to the role of place, focusing on urban-rural areas as sites of animal-human relationships and attitudinal formation. Other structuralpositions including socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, andother 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 experiencesnet 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-relatedexperiences emerge from both social structural and individual factors,and in turn, how they may shape attitudes. As reasons behind empiricalrelationships reported in previous studies are often not clearly

delineated, we draw from the above theory and other work to helpclarify 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 sharedworldviews shaping the character of places over time (Gieryn 2000;




spatial distance (Nibert 2002, Tester 1991). Compartmentalization of animals, in terms of where different types of animals are relegated vis-

a-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). Urbanpopulations have been spared the sight of food animal slaughter as it moved out of public view. Utilization of animals evolved differently inurban and rural regions (Jasper and Nelkin 1992; Nibert 2002; Tester1991). Rural people continue to have more direct reliance on animalsfor food, family livelihood, and protection. As urbanization expanded,

pet keeping in the city replaced the more utilitarian relationshipspeople previously shared with animals (Jasper and Nelkin 1992). Nibert (2002) and Tester (1991) argue less utilitarian dependence allowedfor the historical spread of humanitarianism toward animals.

From our conceptual viewpoint, using Bourdieu’s terminology, ruraland urban can be seen as fields where human-animal relations areestablished, as shown above in the historical divide. The ‘‘habitus of place’’ then reflects the historical, cultural, and experiential conditionsassociated with each field, which should be manifest in attitudes. Given

historic utilitarian relationships with animals, and associated cultureand experiences, we expect rural background is related to less con-cern 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 resi-dence, 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 littleinto why this relationship occurs. Are urban-rural differences a functionof residential location per se or are they due to other factors associated with place? Since few studies are multivariate, the robustness of rela-tionships 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 withanimal well-being are likely to be a function of childhood experiencesthat carryover across the life-course, independent of current residence.

In giving weight to the urban-rural context in which people are raised,Kellert’s (1996) view corresponds with Bourdieu’s (1984, 1990) andTilly’s (1998) who see lasting effects of social group experiences and




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 areasexperience rurality through consumption of rural landscapes andculture, with these experiences shaping attitudes about animals. Weexpect experience with rurality to approximate the experience of growing up or currently residing in a rural area and to, therefore, berelated 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 farmingalso confers a distinct view of animals. A number of researchers report that farmers, farm residents, and those with past farm experience areless concerned about animal well-being, relative to those with little orno farm experience (Hills 1993; Kellert 1989; 1996; Ohlendorf et al.2002; Vander Mey et al. 1998). These researchers note that people withfarm experience tend to have highly utilitarian views of animals andsuggest 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 forindividual animals (Kellert 1989, 1996) and less empathy for animalsin general relative to nonfarmers (Hills 1993).

Whether farming has only a direct effect on attitudes about animalsor if indirect experience with farming affects attitudes has not beenexplored. Since under two percent of Americans are farmers, most farmexperience is gained indirectly, through association with friends or

relatives in the past or present. We consider contact with farmers andfarming lifestyles, hypothesizing indirect farm experiences are relatedto 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, wedraw together generalizations about them Gender class race/




included in studies on attitudes about animal well-being. Extant re-search provides some evidence that the experiences of those on the

bottom rungs of these statuses promote greater concern with animal well-being (Einwohner 1999; Griffith et al. 2002; Hills 1993; Nibert 2002). As noted however, while researchers often suggest an underdoghypothesis, there is little conceptual interrogation into why these rela-tionships might be expected.

A general reason for expecting support for the underdog hypothesisis that many argue the oppression of humans and the oppression of animals are linked systems, reinforced and perpetuated by the samemechanisms (Adams 1990; Berry 2003; Dunayer 1995; Elder et al. 1998;

Kappeler 1995; Nibert 2002; Plous 1993). In both systems, relationshipsbetween dominants and subordinates are determined and maintainedby naturalized assumptions about the social order (Benton 1993). Since vested interest in maintaining the social order is greater among thoseoccupying higher statuses, this relationship may be transferable to thehuman-animal system. Bourdieu (1984, 1990) and Tilly (1998) outlinemechanisms by which prevailing relationships and views of inequality are transferred from one social setting to another. Worldviews reflectingconcern with the conditions of out-groups (including, potentially,

animals) emerge as a consequence of structural position and commonexperiences and perceptions conferred by that position. Bourdieu(1984) and Tilly (1998) further indicate that groups closer to eachother in the social order are more likely to recognize shared conditionsof life and interests. These points suggest why there might be anunderdog effect, prompting less advantaged groups toward greaterempathy for animals.

Gender. A number of studies find women have greater concern withanimal 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 bemore ethically motivated in their treatment of animals than men. Forexample, Kellert (1996) finds women have greater attachment to petsand are less likely to support activities that inflict harm on wildlife, while men are more likely to hunt and to support activities related tothe domination and exploitation of nature.

While gender differences are rather consistent across studies, theirexperiential 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; Warren2000) More specifically we might expect certain experiences associated




more likely to take on nurturing roles and attitudes that possibly extendoutside the immediate family to animals in general. Second, women

may be more likely to engage in household tasks that put them incontact with animals. Caring for pets and preparing food may increasesensitivity to the needs of and conditions surrounding animals. Previousstudies consider gender largely through simple bivariate comparisons.None examine whether gender differences persist when variables mea-suring household work, caring for family, and other gender-relatedexperiential factors are considered.

Socioeconomic position. Extant research shows support for the un-derdog hypothesis with regard to socioeconomic position. Individuals

in lower income categories (Nibert 1994; Uyeki and Holland 2000) andthose with less education have been found to have greater concern withanimal well-being (Nibert 1994; Peek et al. 1997). Little to no attentionhas been given to other socioeconomic factors tied to class positionsas determinants of attitudes about animals, such as economic hardshipand employment status. Economic hardship reflects the experiencesassociated with daily material conditions of life; because it is most associated with economically marginalized groups, we expect it to havesimilar effects as other class-related variables, increasing concern with

animal well-being. The relationship for paid work is less clear. Insofar asthe 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 relation-ship between different race/ethnicity and attitudes about animals,studies tend to find 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 ethicalissues raised by animal agriculture (Vander Mey et al. 1998) and to be

more oriented toward animal welfare in general (Uyeki and Holland2000). Why these racial differences exist is not clear, but they are likely due to social, historical, and cultural dimensions of race/ethnicity. Asnoted, experiences of socially marginalized groups may make themmore 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 toexpress greater concern for animals, relative to whites, but are unsureof the direction of the relationship between other racial groups and

attitudes about animals.Age. Younger people tend to be more concerned about animal well-being (Kellert 1989 1996; Nibert 1994; Ohlendorf et al 2002) Nibert




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, andemployment.

Family status. Marriage and parenthood locate individuals in thesocial order and provide life course experiences and everyday activitiesthat may affect attitudes toward animals. Empirical studies of animalattitudes rarely include marital status or the presence of children. Weexpect that net of gender, these factors play a role in perceptions of animals for several reasons. First, being married and having children

reflect more traditional life course trajectories that influence attitudes(Cassidy and Warren 1996). Second, a class effect is associated withmarriage, as married people tend to have higher incomes (Cassidy and Warren 1996) and greater wealth (Shapiro 2004). Third, there isevidence that both married people and those with children are lesssupportive of animal rights (Peek et al. 1996, 1997). The view that nurturing children instills a more caring attitude does not seem toextend to animals. People with children tend to have a foremost concern for children’s issues (Schlozman et al. 1995), suggesting that

people without dependent children may direct more attention to otherissues, such as concern for animals. Due to the constraints posed by thepresence of children in the household, the tendency for parents tobe more child-focused than nonparents, and their possibly greateradherence to conventional norms and values, we expect people withdependent children to express less concern about animal well-being.

Individuals’ Animal-Related Experiential Factors

Stratification theorists also point to the experiential as a source of individual variation within groups. Thus we expect that individualizedexperiences and concerns related to animals affect attitudes. The rangeof these personal experiences is vast, and we examine only a handful:hunting, having a pet in the household, being vegetarian, cooking andfood shopping, and concerns about the environment and food.

A number of studies find 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, andlocale.Because pets play a prominent role in human lives and influence




positive views of companion animals, it is unclear whether these atti-tudes extend to greater concern with the well-being of other animals.

Vegetarianism is considered a behavioral correlate of animal attitudes.Studies find people who identify as vegetarian are more concerned withanimal well-being (Broida et al. 1994; McDonald 2000). This is presum-ably due to the worldview accompanying vegetarianism, which encom-passes greater awareness of the origin of one’s food (McDonald 2000).

Daily household experiences involving food shopping, cooking, andchores 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 findenvironmental concern is associated with animal well-being attitudes(Brioda et al. 1994; Peek et al. 1996; Pifer et al. 1994; Uyeki andHolland 2000). A related concern is food quality and safety. People who display food conscious attitudes and behaviors are reported to feelpositively toward animals (Lockie et al. 2002).

Expected Relationships

Attitudes about animal well-being should be related to social structuralpositions that confer collective experiences. We expect place-basedexperiences regarding rural areas and farming will be associated withless concern about animal well-being. For other social structural posi-tions, we examine the ‘‘underdog’’ hypothesis, expecting that women,nonwhites, those with less education and income, and those experi-encing greater economic hardship are more concerned with animal

well-being. Individualized experiences and concerns may mediate thesegeneral structural relationships. We expect that nonhunting, vegetar-ianism, less involvement in daily cooking/food shopping, food con-scious behaviors, and concern about the environment are related togreater concern with animal well-being. While we identified othercorrelates of animal attitudes, the direction of those relationships isnot 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




was selected and stratified on the basis of five internal regions withinthe state and major metropolitan areas. Dillman’s (2000) Tailored

Design Method was used. The response rate was 56.4 percent, resultingin a final sample of N ¼ 4,030. The sample was weighted to account forany over or under representation, relative to the expected percentagesof households from each of the state’s five major subregions andmetropolitan areas. Results presented reflect these weights and, thus,findings 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 regardingpets. Individual items for these measures were selected with the goal of including expressive and evaluative attitudes in accordance with theconceptual typology discussed earlier. Each animal well-being item wasLikert 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 sixitems, we performed a maximum likelihood factor analysis using

varimax rotation. Standard criteria such as eigenvalues greater than onerevealed a two-factor solution: that is, the animal items measured twodifferent attitudinal dimensions. Items loading highly (.5 or above) oneach factor were then selected as measures for each scale.

The animal treatment scale consists of three items that reflect generalethical animal treatment issues. This measure corresponds to theexpressive concept of animals as generalized others. Wording for theseitems is as follows: ‘‘In general, humans have too little respect for thequality of life of animals;’’ ‘‘Increased regulation of the treatment of

animals in farming is needed;’’ and ‘‘Animal agriculture raises seriousethical questions about the treatment of animal’’ (Vander Mey et al.1998). From these three items, we created a summated scale. Possiblescores range from 3 to 15, with high scores indicating greater concern with animal well-being. A reliability test for this measure yieldsa Cronbach’s alpha of .757.2

The second scale, animal utility , reflects 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 questionsregarding 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




override the needs of animals. It consists of three questions addressingdifferent uses of animals: ‘‘As long as animals do not suffer pain,

humans should be able to use them for any purpose;’’ ‘‘It is acceptableto use animals to test consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics, andhousehold cleaners;’’ and ‘‘Hunting animals for sport is an acceptableform of recreation.’’ We recoded response to these items to becompatible with the animal treatment scale. Possible scores on theutility scale range from 3 to 15, with a high score indicating a less utilitarian orientation. Cronbach’s 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 fromthose of general animals, we treated a single question reflectingexpressive 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 farmand 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). Theresponses to the items above are coded 1/0 and are based onindividuals’ self-identification. To tap current experience with farming, we asked about frequency of conversations with farmers. Respon-dents were asked how many days per month, on average, they talked tofarmers or to other members of a farm family. Answers ranged from 0

to 31 days per month. A measure tapping rural experiences also wascreated. Respondents were asked how often (never, seldom, occasion-ally, or frequently) they engage in six activities involving ruralrecreation and traveling. A summated scale was created from thesesix items. Possible scores range from 0 to 18, with high scoresindicating greater rural experience. Cronbach’s alpha for this scaleis .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 isrural) to visit friends or relatives? (4) Travel to a rural area to experience or view thenatural environment? (5) Hike, canoe, bicycle, or engage in a similar type of outdoor




Other structural factors. Other structural locations that confer group-related experiences involve gender, socioeocomic status variables

(education, income, economic hardship, and employment status),race/ethncity, age, marital status, and children. Gender was coded0 ¼male, 1 ¼ female. Education was measured in years.

The survey’s seven original household income categories werecollapsed into three dummy variables, using the median-reportedincome category ($35-49,999) as a guide. The ‘‘lower’’ group consists of incomes less than $20,000; the ‘‘middle’’ group consists of incomesranging from $20,000 to less than $75,000; and the ‘‘upper’’ groupconsists 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 experi-ence of economic hardship. Respondents were asked to answer ‘‘yes’’ or‘‘no’’ to four questions addressing financial hardship in the past year.Possible scores for the scale range from 0 to 4, with a score of 4 indicatingthe highest level of hardship. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .658.4

Employment status was combined into two categories, because themajority of the sample is employed outside the home. People workingeither full-time or part time (a much smaller group) were categorized

as ‘‘employed outside home.’’ Those retired or otherwise reportingno 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-identifiedracial/ethnic categories. The categories ‘‘Native American’’ and ‘‘Asian’’ were combined into the ‘‘other’’ race category, as less than one percent of the sample identified with either of these two categories. Age ismeasured 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, determinedby five categories (now married, living together, never married, divorced/separated, widowed/widower). As most respondents were married orliving 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 wereunder age five and age five 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 savingsto meet expenses? Changed transportation patterns to save money? Eaten at home or




Individuals’ animal-related experiential factors. We examine fouranimal-related experiences and concerns. Respondents were asked

whether they owned a pet and whether they identified as ‘‘vegetarian.’’ Affirmative responses were coded 1, negative responses 0. Respondents were also asked to report the frequency with which they engaged inhunting and/or fishing activities, coded from (1) never to (4) fre-quently. Food-related household activities were measured by a singlescale composed of two variables. Respondents were asked if they wereresponsible 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/cookingactivity. A score of 0 indicates the respondent does neither shoppingnor 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 andconcern for animal issues, respondents were asked to rate theimportance of seven environmental issues using a Likert scale rangingfrom 1 to 7, with 1 signifying the least importance and 7 signifying thegreatest importance. All items were found to load together on a single

factor. We created an environmental concern scale by summing theresponses.5 Scores for the scale range from 7 to 49. Cronbach’s alphais .809. Food quality concerns and behaviors were considered. A scaleof food quality concern was created using three items which loadedtogether on a single factor. Item responses were summed and produceda scale with an alpha of .742.6 Additionally, one item (‘‘I use foodlabeling information when making food purchasing decisions’’) wasused 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 theseare weighted, they reflect Ohio’s general population: largely white andsuburban. About 3 percent currently live on a farm and 12 percent grew

5 Respondents were asked how important each of the following reasons are forprotecting farmland or other undeveloped land in Ohio: (1) Protect wildlife quality? (2)Protect water quality? (3) Preserve natural spaces? and (4) Slow development? A secondset of questions asked how important the following goals were for future research re-

lated to food, agriculture, and the environment: (5) Reduce soil erosion (6) Maintainand 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



http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kendall-lobao-sharp-public-concern-with-animal-well-being-place-social-structural 18/31up on one. The mean age is 51. The sample has approximately 14 yearsof education and nearly two thirds are married or living with partners

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Variables in the Analysis

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Percent

of Sample

Animal treatment 9.77 2.66 Animal utility 9.98 2.88Pet attitudes 3.57 1.27

Social Structural Variables

Place-related Variables

Live in city 0.29 .46 29.3Live in suburb 0.35 .48 35.1Live in small town 0.18 .39 18.3Live in country 0.13 .34 13.0

Live on farm 0.03 .18 3.3Grew up in city 0.31 .46 31.4Grew up in suburb 0.21 .41 21.3Grew up in small town 0.23 .42 22.8Grew up in country 0.11 .31 10.9Grew up on farm 0.12 .33 12.4Rural experience 8.74 3.66Talk to farmers 3.54 6.93

Other Social Structural Variables

Gender 0.53 .50 51.6 Years of age 51.20 16.37 White 0.87 .34 87.1

Black 0.06 .24 6.1Latino 0.01 .10 1.0Other Race 0.02 .14 1.9

Years of education 13.97 2.72Employed outside home 0.63 .48 62.6Not employed outside home 0.35 .48 34.9Lower income 0.14 .035 14.4Middle income 0.53 .50 53.5Upper income 0.21 .41 21.1Economic Hardship 1.48 1.27Domestic partner 0.65 .48 64.5Small children 0.13 .34 13.2

School age children 0.30 .46 29.9

Individual Animal-Related Experiential Variables

Read food labels 3.88 .10Have pet in household 0.64 .48 63.1Hunt 0.89

Vegetarian 0.02 .14 1.9Food shopping/cooking 1.04 .95Environmental concern 42.76 5.77Food quality concern 14.23 3.41




such as variance inflation factors were low, indicating no unacceptablecollinearity. We examined the potential for interaction effects, givingparticular attention to gender. We found no evidence of systematic

interaction effects among independent variables across models. Wechecked for gender differences by running separate regression analysesfor men and women These revealed substantially similar relationships

Table 2. Regression Models for Animal Treatment

Model 1 Model 2


Live in suburb À.114 (À.020) .020 (.004)Live in small town À.056 (À.008) .055 (.008)Live in country À.228 (À.029) À.186 (À.024)Live on farm À.391 (À.026) À.311 (À.020)Grew up in suburb À.240* (À.037) À.318* (À.050)Grew up in small town À.347** (À.055) À.313* (À.050)Grew up in country À.742*** (À.086) À.687*** (À.080)Grew up on farm À1.180*** (À.141) À1.045*** (À.122)Rural experience À.002 (À.002) À.040** (À.055)Talk to farmers À.029*** (À.075) À.023** (À.060)


Gender .606*** (.124) .258* (.048) Years of age À.074*** (À.438) À.098*** (À.573) Age2 .001*** (.428) .001*** (.517)Black .431* (.037) .333* (.028)Latino .545 (.021) .563 (.020)Other Race .180 (.007) À.104 (À.007)

Years of education À.078*** (.078) À.053** (À.053)Not employed outside home À.042 (À.007) .022 (.004)Lower income .176 (.022) .101 (.012)Upper income À.365** (À.058) À.250* (À.040)

Economic hardship .197*** (.094) .116** (.055)Domestic partner À.081 (À.014) À.151 (À.026)Small children À.301* (À.037) À.204 (À.025)School age children À.437*** (À.076) À.404*** (À.070)


Read food labels .229*** (.084)Have pet in household .734*** (.131)Hunt À.195*** (À.077)

Vegetarian 1.104** (.054)Food shopping/cooking À.048 (À.017)Environmental concern .092*** (.198)Food quality concern .112*** (.144)

Adjusted R 2 .101 .215

Note: Parentheses indicate standardized coefficients.* .05 level, ** p .01, *** p .001.




table, two models are shown: we first test the structural variables only,then add the individual experiential variables.

Animal Treatment

Table 2 presents the regression models for animal treatment. Model 1shows effects of the structural variables only In regard to place all

Table 3. Regression Models for Animal Utility

Model 1 Model 2


Live in suburb .179 (.030) .205 (.034)Live in small town .156 (.021) .155 (.021)Live in country À.069 (À.008) À.126 (À.015)Live on farm À.509 (À.031) À.354 (À.021)Grew up in suburb À.252* (À.036) À.275* (À.040)Grew up in small town À.267* (À.039) À.266* (À.039)Grew up in country À.336* (À.036) À.230 (À.025)Grew up on farm À.561** (À.062) À.385* (À.042)Rural experience À.017 (À.021) À.024 (À.030)Talk to farmers À.017* (À.040) À.017* (À.042)


Gender 1.197*** (.206) .979*** (.170) Years of age À.033 (À.180) À.049* (À.268) Age2 .000 (.144) .000* (.200)Black À.330 (À.026) À.181 (À.014)Latino .271 (.010) .051 (.002)Other Race À.190 (À.011) À.456 (À.026)

Years of education À.074*** (À.069) À.074*** (À.068)Not employed outside home À.181 (À.029) À.068 (À.011)Lower income À.174 (À.020) À.299* (À.034)Upper income À.331* (À.048) À.224* (À.033)

Economic hardship .187*** (.082) .110** (.048)Domestic partner À.163 (À.026) À.188 (À.030)Small children À.264 (À.030) À.107 (À.012)School age children À.332** (À.053) À.406*** (À.065)


Read food labels .054 (.019)Have pet in household .795*** (.132)Hunt À.349*** (À.128)

Vegetarian .673* (.031)Food shopping/cooking À.091 (À.030)Environmental concern .111*** (.220)Food quality concern .044** (.052)


Note: Parentheses indicate standardized coefficients.* p .05 level, ** p .01, *** p .001.




variables, having grown up on a farm (b ¼ À.141) has the strongest effect, followed by having grown up in the country, a small town, andthe suburbs. People who grew up on a farm are least concernedabout 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 morefrequently are also less concerned about animal treatment Neither

Table 4. Regression Models for Pet Attitudes

Model 1 Model 2


Live in suburb .008 (.003) .038 (.014)Live in small town À.039 (À.012) À.012 (À.004)Live in country À.087 (À.023) À.110 (À.029)Live on farm .090 (.013) .100 (.014)Grew up in suburb À.121* (À.039) À.151* (À.049)Grew up in small town À.051 (À.017) À.067 (À.022)Grew up in country À.193* (À.047) À.190* (À.046)Grew up on farm À.165* (À.041) À.095 (À.023)Rural experience .007 (.019) À.006 (À.017)Talk to farmers À.001 (À.005) À.002 (À.013)


Gender .251*** (.099) .259*** (.102) Years of age À.013 (À.164) À.027** (À.332) Age2 .000 (.174) .000** (.328)Black À.363*** (À.066) À.299** (À.053)Latino À.183 (À.015) À.213 (À.016)Other Race À.060 (À.008) À.082 (À.011)

Years of education À.060*** (À.125) À.038*** (À.079)Not employed outside home À.122* (À.045) À.053 (À.019)Lower income .128* (.034) .102 (.026)Upper income À.112* (À.037) À.073 (À.024)

Economic hardship .073*** (.073) .040* (.040)Domestic partner À.038 (À.014) À.139* (À.051)Small children À.211** (À.054) À.184* (À.047)School age children À.258*** (À.094) À.287*** (À.104)


Read food labels À.040* (À.031)Have pet in household .387*** (.145)Hunt À.012 (À.010)

Vegetarian .101 (.011)Food shopping/cooking À.097** (À.072)Environmental concern .044*** (.198)Food quality concern .013* (.036)


Note: Parentheses indicate standardized coefficients.* p .05 level, ** p .01, *** p .001.




Since past studies usually expect urban-rural residence to beassociated with animal concern, we further explored findings for

current residence. Current and childhood residence variables are not highly correlated. We ran a regression model (not shown) containingonly the place-based variables and found that both current andchildhood residence were significant. Since this relationship for current residence disappears in model 1, current residence is more a functionof other structural attributes, while past residence is not. This findingcorresponds with stratification perspectives that suggest experiencesand 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 theunderdog hypothesis. Women, those with less education, and blacks aremore concerned with animal treatment. Respondents from both thelower and middle income brackets are more concerned with animaltreatment than are those in the upper income bracket. The previously unexamined effects of economic hardship also are associated withgreater concern for animals. The negative coefficient for age andpositive coefficient for age2 show that younger people tend to be more

concerned with animal treatment compared to older people, with thegap narrowing as age increases. Those with fewer small or school-agedchildren have greater concern with animal treatment, as hypothesized.Domestic partnership and employment status are not significant.

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 thoseoutlined 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 experiencenow is significantly related to less concern with animal treatment.Gender, age, being black, education, income, economic hardship, andhaving school-aged children remain significant, and in the same di-rection as shown in model 1. All experiential variables, except foodshopping/cooking, are significant. These relationships follow hypoth-esized directions and have the strongest relationship to attitudes. Envi-ronmental concern, food quality concerns, having a pet, reading food

labels, less engagement in hunting/fishing, and being vegetarian areassociated with greater concern with animal treatment. Explained vari-ance in the final model is 22 percent in similar range as that found in




Animal Utility

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 significant.7 Having grown up on a farm, again, has thestrongest effect on attitudes. People who talk to farmers more often areless concerned with use of animals for utilitarian purposes. Women aremore concerned with the use of animals. Less education, experiencinggreater economic hardship, belonging to the lower or middle incomegroup, and absence of school-aged children are associated with signifi-cantly more concern for animal well-being as measured by utilitarianattitudes.

In model 2, the individual experiential variables are added.Relationships for the place-based variables remain the same as in theprevious model, with the exception of having grown up in the country, which is no longer significant. Likewise, the relationships for otherstructural variables found in model 1 remain similar in model 2, withthe exception of age and income. Age becomes significant in thismodel, with younger age groups more concerned with animal utility.Effects for income are in contrast to the underdog hypothesis: bothupper 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, lessparticipation in hunting/fishing, and being a vegetarian are related togreater concern about animal utility. Explained variance for the animalutility 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 ina small town) are significant 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 con-cerned with the well-being of pets. In contrast to previous models,

7 We explored the finding for current residence in a separate regression model (not shown) for the place-based variables only. Here, current residence on a farm issignificantly related to less concern with animal well-being. Other current residence

variables remain in expected directions but are not significant. As shown in Table 3,

with the addition of other structural variables, the finding for current farm residencedisappears.

8 When place-based factors are examined alone (model not shown), current resi-




blacks are less concerned with pet well-being than are whites. Being ina domestic partnership, presence of children in the house, and not

being employed outside of the home are associated with less concernabout pets. When experiential variables are added (model 2), only childhood

residence in the suburbs and the country are significant. For otherstructural variables, excluding income, relationships found in model 1remain the same in direction and significance. In addition, age anddomestic partnership become significant in directions hypothesized: younger respondents and those not in domestic partnerships are moreconcerned with the well-being of pet animals. Experiential variables

seem to have less effect on pet attitudes compared to other animalattitudes. Environmental and food quality concerns, less involvement infood shopping/cooking, and having a pet are associated with greaterconcern about pets. In contrast to findings for the other dependent variables, hunting and vegetarianism are not significant, and readingfood labels is related to less concern about pet well-being.

Conclusions

Although sociologists are increasingly interested in animals’ positionin human society, theoretical and empirical development of thetopic remains limited. According to stratification theorists, humans’perceptions are shaped by both group and individual experiences(Bourdieu 1984, 1990; Giddens 1986; Tilly 1998). Groups of peoplehaving distinct, collective experiences based on urban-rural locationmay be expected to have different attitudes. Groups of people locateddifferently along the lines of gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethncity, age, and other group characteristics also should have

distinct experiences and worldviews regarding animals. Finally, individ-uals have their own life trajectory and experiences with animals, net of the social groups to which they belong. In extending social stratificationperspectives to a quantitative analysis of animal attitudes, we cannot directly examine the complex interaction of social positions andindividual and collective experiences. Rather, our study provides thetheoretical rationale for delineating factors associated with attitudesabout 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: place




broader range of factors than previous studies. Variables given little orno 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 multivar-iate, longstanding relationships assumed for social groups such as women and urban-rural residents have not been evaluated net of otherfactors.

Of the place-based variables, the most consistent finding is the effect of childhood experience. People who grew up in nonrural, nonfarmsettings express greater concern with animal well-being than those who grew up in nonurban and farm settings, as hypothesized. This re-

flects the lasting effects of childhood experience. It corresponds withstratification perspectives that suggest inculcating experiences, beliefs, values, and behaviors emanating from structural positions, includingplace, 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 influence on worldviews thandoes the effect of the present. As shown, current residence on a farm orin the country becomes nonsignificant in the model for animaltreatment, 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 examinedthe 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 withall three animal attitudes. While previous studies find women moreconcerned with animal well-being, few question whether this relation-ship is a consequence of household and other gender-related factors.

Here we find persistent effects even when household tasks, presence of children, and experiential factors are controlled, pointing to theoverriding importance of gender as a social structural location. Peopleexperiencing greater economic hardship, those with less education, younger people, blacks, and to some degree, less affluent incomegroups, tend to be more concerned with the well-being of animals ingeneral. Many of these relationships persist in attitudes towards petsas well. These findings challenge the post-materialist view that moreaffluent individuals should be more concerned with animal well-being.

While higher socioeconomic status groups tend to be a more visiblecomponent of post-materialist social movements, including animalwelfare and rights movements (Jasper and Nelkin 1992) our study




readily with animals due to their particular experience as subordinategroups and their theoretically narrower distance from the animal class

in the social field.Other findings highlight the importance of social structural factorsgiven little systematic attention by other studies. Economic hardship isconsistently associated with concern for animal well-being, demonstrat-ing the experiential, lived effects of economic status. Being married andhaving children are also associated with less concern about animal well-being, as hypothesized. While the negative effect of children may seemantithetical to the notion of extending caring for children to caring forothers, it likely reflects constraints introduced by children. Perhaps

people directing time and energy toward their own offspring have lessto 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, alsoaffect attitudes about animals.

There are inherent limitations in quantitative studies on animal well-

being, and ours is no exception. Although we selected measures basedupon theory and previous research, one limitation is measurement of attitudes toward animal well-being. For instance, as noted, we cannot becertain respondents are answering two of the items included in theanimal treatment scale out of concern for animals or for large-scaleagriculture. However, the two items scale with the third item about general concern for animals’ overall quality of life and findings for theanimal 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 testedmeasures of attitudes about animal well-being, future work must focuson developing better measures. This will require both qualitative andquantitative approaches that combine depth of understanding withgeneralizability across populations.

Our study has several implications for future work. First, inexamining three different dependent variables, we find 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 reflectsthe special status of pet animals Pet attitudes reflect expressive




the need to distinguish not only among evaluative/expressive attitudesbut also across animals as ‘‘general’’ or ‘‘significant’’ others.

Second, our study has implications for new determinants of animalattitudes. Findings for childhood place and rural experience variablesindicate it is not simple geography or current residence that is responsiblefor rural and urban differences, but rather the socio-cultural aspects of place. Future studies could benefit from more in-depth contextual analysis of childhood experiences with animals. Findings in regard to eco-nomic position suggest it is a multidimensional concept, whose effectsare not adequately examined through the use of income measures alone.It is necessary to also consider the ways in which individuals’ expe-

riences, such as with economic hardship, affect attitudes about animals.Finally, this study has implications for ongoing animal industry versuspublic concerns with animal welfare. It is common for those involvedin the animal industry and the public alike to consider themselvesproponents of animal welfare, yet the two factions seem to speak dif-ferent languages. Animals agriculturalists and others in the industry tend to position themselves as knowledgeable and rational actors, whiledismissing the concerns of the lay person as emotional and un-informed. Conversely, the public often views the industry’s interest in

animal welfare as strictly economic and their own as ethically motivated.This incongruity is less likely the result of inherent conflict between‘‘anti’’ and ‘‘pro’’ animal camps, but rather reflective of the difficulty inreconciling rapidly changing structural conditions with more slowly changing social values. This conflict requires more in-depth analysesof the attitudinal differences between those directly working in theagricultural industry and the general public.

Despite their co-inhabitation of human society, animals remain at theoutskirts of sociological consideration. Scholarly interest in this topical

area is growing, yet little theoretical work exists on the place of animalsin society and on attitudes about animals. We have argued for the valueof bringing in theories of stratification, with our empirical findingstending to support the usefulness of this approach. We need tocontinue to develop sociological theoretical lenses from which to view human-animal relationships and to be attuned to how these relation-ships might fit with other stratification and social justice issues, as somecontend that the human-animal divide is the last bastion of socialinequality (Nibert 2002).

References




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 23:58–75.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 1:129–44.Buller, H. and C. Morris. 2003. ‘‘Farm Animal Welfare: A New Repertoire of Nature Society

Relations or Modernism Re-embedded?’’ Sociologia Ruralis 43:216–37.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 10:312–28.

Coleman, G. 2004. ‘‘Public Attitudes to Animal Research.’’ Pp. 78–86 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 Councilfor the Care of Animals.

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz and G.T. Green. 2002. ‘‘Recreation and the Environment asCultural Dimensions in Contemporary American Society.’’ Leisure Sciences 24:13–41.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: J. Wiley.Dunayer, J. 1995. ‘‘Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots.’’ Pp. 11–31 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 Human-

Animal Divide.’’ Pp. 72–90 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 andEffectiveness in Two Animal Rights Campaigns.’’ Gender and Society 13:56–76.

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 26:463–96.Griffith, M., J. Wolch, and U. Lassiter. 2002. ‘‘Animal Practices and the Racialization of

Filipinas in Los Angeles.’’ Society and Animals 10:221–48.Herzog, H.A. Jr. 1993. ‘‘‘The Movement is My Life’: The Psychology of Animal Rights

Activism.’’ Journal of Social Issues 49:103–19.Hills, A.M. 1993. ‘‘The Motivational Bases of Attitudes Toward Animals.’’ Society and

Animals 1:111–28.Holloway, L. 2001. ‘‘Pets and Protein: Placing Domestic Livestock on Hobby-farms in

England and Wales.’’ Journal of Rural Studies 17:293–307. Jasper, J.M. and D. Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade—The Growth of a Moral Protest.

New York: The Free Press. Jerolmack, C. 2003. ‘‘Tracing the Profile of Animal Rights Supporters: A Preliminary

Investigation.’’ Society and Animals 11:245–63. Jones, O. 2000. ‘‘(Un)ethical Geographies of Human–Non-Human Relations.’’ Pp. 268–

290 in Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations , editedby C. Philo and C. Wilbert. London: Routledge.

Jones, R.E. and R.E. Dunlap. 1992. ‘‘The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have




Kappeler, S. 1995. ‘‘Speciesism, Racism, Nationalism. . . or the Power of Scientific Sub- jectivity.’’ Pp. 320–352 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 InstitutionPress.

———. 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. UnpublishedManuscript.

Lockie, S., K. Lyons, G. Lawrence, and K. Mummery. 2002. ‘‘Eating ‘Green’: Motivations

Behind Organic Food Consumption in Australia.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 42:23–40.McDonald, B. 2000. ‘‘Once You Know Something, You Can’t Not Know It: An Empirical

Look at Becoming Vegan.’’ Society and Animals 8:1–23.Mertig, A.G. and R.E. Dunlap. 2001. ‘‘Environmentalism, New Social Movements, and

the New Class: A Cross-National Investigation.’’ Rural Sociology 66:113–36.Milbourne, P. 2003. ‘‘Nature-Society-Rurality: Making Critical Connections.’’ Sociologia

Ruralis 43:193–95.Nestle, M. 2002. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.Nibert, D. 1994. ‘‘Animal Rights and Human Social Issues.’’ Society and Animals 2:115–24.———. 2002. Animal Rights Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation.

New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ohlendorf, G.W., Q.A.L. Jenkins, and T.J. Tomazic. 2002. ‘‘Who Cares About Farm Animal Welfare?’’ Pp. 87–101 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, andT.J. Tomazic. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Peek, C.W., N.J. Bell, and C.C. Dunham. 1996. ‘‘Gender, Gender Ideology, and AnimalRights Advocacy.’’ Gender and Society 10:464–78.

Peek, C.W., C.C. Dunham, and B.E. Dietz. 1997. ‘‘Gender, Relational Role Orientation,and Affinity for Animal Rights.’’ Sex Roles 37:905–20.

Pifer, L., K. Shimizu, and R. Pifer. 1994. ‘‘Public Attitudes Toward Animal Research: SomeInternational Comparisons.’’ Society and Animals 2:95–113.

Plous, S. 1993. ‘‘Psychological Mechanisms in the Human Use of Animals.’’ Journal of Social Issues 49:11–52.

Pollan, M. 2002a. ‘‘An Animal’s Place.’’ New York Times Magazine, November 10, 2002:58–64, 100, 110.

———. 2002b. ‘‘Power Steer.’’ New York Times Magazine, November 10, 2002:44–51,68, 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 Bourdieu’s Concepts of Field and Habitus.’’ Rural Sociology 68:64–86.

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 &

Littlefield.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.

79–98 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:




Sharp, J. and M. Tucker. 2005. ‘‘Awareness and Concern about Large-Scale Livestockand Poultry: Results from a Statewide Survey of Ohioans.’’ Rural Sociology 70:208–28.

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 CitizenParticipation: Is There a Different Voice?’’ American Journal of Political Science 39:267–93.

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 29:805–13.

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 43:196–215.

Uyeki, E.S. and L.J. Holland. 2000. ‘‘Diffusion of Pro-Environment Attitudes?’’ American Behavioral Scientist 43:646–62.

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 , editedby M.L. Warner, H. Harris, B.J. Vander Mey, J. Allen, C.M. Sieverdes, C. Mobley, andP 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 Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Wilkie, R. 2005. ‘‘Sentient Commodities and Productive Paradoxes: The AmbiguousNature of Human-Livestock Relations in Northeast Scotland.’’ Journal of Rural Studies

21:213–30. 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 26:721–42. 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. 98–114

in Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human Animal Relations , edited by C. Philo and C. Wilbert. London: Routledge.




Documents

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