Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia

Abstract

A survey of attitudes towards the welfare and rights of animals was conducted in universities in 11 European and Asian countries, to improve understanding of cultural differences that might impact on trade and international relations. Collaborators' universities were recruited in each country to assist in the design, translation and administration of the survey via the internet in a convenient selection of the country's universities, providing 3,433 student responses from at least 103 universities. Respondents rated the acceptability of 43 major concerns about animals (focused on type of use, animal integrity, killing animals, animal welfare, experimentation on animals, changes in animal genotypes, the environment for animals and societal attitudes towards animals). Students from European countries had more concern for animal welfare than students from Asian countries, which may be partly explained by increased affluence of European students as there was a positive correlation between student expenditure and concern for animal welfare and rights. Southern and central European countries had most concern for animal rights and unnatural practices. Those in communist or former communist countries in Asia and Europe had most concern about killing animals and those in northern European countries the least. Regional similarities between neighbouring countries were evident in responses to animal issues and there were no differences between ethnic groups within a country. Thus, there were national and continental differences in European and Asian students' attitudes to animals' welfare and rights, which appear to arise as a result of the socio-political situation in regions rather than religious or other differences.

How Ethical Ideologies Relate to Public Attitudes toward Animals: The Dutch Case

“…In contrast to some recent studies, which reported that religion was not a significant predictor of public attitudes toward animals (and animal products) (Izmirli & Phillips, 2011;Phillips et al, 2012), our results demonstrate a significant negative correlation between Christianity as a source of inspiration and attitudes toward animals. Specifically, respondents who reported that inspiration source was Christianity showed less concern for animals than those who reported otherwise.…”

“…Respondents were asked to respond to each question on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (extremely acceptable) to 5 (extremely unacceptable). A higher score on the AIS indicates greater concern for the welfare of animals (Phillips et al, 2012). Examples of items include: "Using animals for work"; "Marking animals by branding or ear notching"; "Depriving animals of their needs for food and water"; "Controlling wildlife populations by killing."…”

“…Shimizu, & Pifer, 1994), age (Ascione, 1992;Kavanagh, Signal, & Taylor, 2013;Kellert, 1985), household income (Signal & Taylor, 2006), humane education (Ascione & Weber, 1996;Furnham, McManus, & Scott, 2003;Nicoll, Trifone, & Samuels, 2008), pet ownership (Driscoll, 1992;Martens, Enders-Slegers, & Walker, 2016;Serpell, 1996), religion (Bowd & Bowd, 1989;Driscoll, 1992;Gilhus, 2006), as well as geographic region (Phillips et al, 2012;Pifer et al, 1994). However, research into the correlation between public attitudes toward animals and ethical ideologies is still in its infancy and needs further investigation (Bègue & Laine, 2017).…”

Public Understanding and Attitudes towards Meat Chicken Production and Relations to Consumption

“…Greater tolerance to not stunning the chicken for religious reasons was evident in higher income respondents, confirming previous findings in Chinese respondents [43]. A greater willingness to recognise poor welfare on farm and during transport in high income respondents may reflect a greater ability to pay for high welfare products.…”

“…They were also much more likely to buy processed products, which may reflect their role in managing the nutrition of children. They reported buying less chicken than males, confirming a Eurasian survey which found that female students reported that they ate poultry less commonly than male students [43]. Males' greater interest in seeing information regarding the welfare of chicken at the point of sale than females and even being more prepared to pay for this conflicts with other studies [44,45] which found that females were willing to pay extra for certified food products.…”