Psychological factors that discriminate between

laypersons, supporters of medical research and

opponents of animal use
Sarah Knight, Aldert Vrij, Kim Bard & Doug Brandon
Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK

Abstract
The use of animals for medical research presents a dilemma, to those who care for animals on one hand, but
recognise the benefits of medical research on the other. Since many laypersons express affection for
animals, it might be presumed that their views are more similar to those concerned with animal welfare
issues than those who support the use of animals in science. The present research tests this premise, by
comparing scientists involved with animal use, members of animal welfare organisations (“welfarists”) , and
laypersons, on a number of psychological factors. Attitudes and beliefs concerning animal use, empathy
with humans and with animals, and organisation of ethical values were assessed. Findings were unexpected:
scientists and laypersons differed on very few of the measures whilst animal welfarists were a distinct group
that differed on many of the factors examined.

Method Findings were unexpected: Scientists and laypersons were

To identify how animal issues and human similar on most measures, whereas animal welfarists were
interests are weighted when considering distinct (see Fig. 1). Factors that best predicted group
animal research, participants were required to
rank in order of importance beliefs about: the
membership were the weightings attributed to animal rights and
existence of alternatives to using animals, the the benefits of medical research. Also, compared to scientists and
relative importance of humans versus animals, lay people, animal welfarists differed in the values they ranked as
the benefits of medical research, the concept most and least important, and on measures of empathy toward
of animal rights, the capacity of animals to humans and toward animals. Our findings demonstrate how, by
suffer, concern for animal welfare, and
suffering caused to animals involved. These
placing different emphasis on either human or animal interests,
were factors previously identified as rival parties can understand their opponents’ arguments, but
important in relation to attitudes toward continue to hold opposing points-of-view.
animal use (Knight, Nunkoosing, Vrij &
Cherryman, 2003; Knight, Vrij, Bard & Fig. 1. Psychological factors distinguishing between groups
Brandon, in press).
Levels of support for the use of animals in Laypersons and scientists Animal welfarists
medical research were assessed via six
statements on a 7-point Likert scale.
The degree that participants empathised
with humans and with animals was measured Beliefs Beliefs
via the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), Benefits of medical research Animal rights
assessing four inter-related but discriminable Humans as superior Concern for animals
constructs: Empathic Concern, Personal Perceptions of choice
Distress, Perspective Taking, and Fantasy
(Davis, 1980). Empathy Empathy
To examine value systems, participants Empathy toward humans Empathy toward animals
were required to rank order first, 18 terminal
values, and second, 18 instrumental values: Values Values
The former referring to end states (e.g., Social recognition Equality
freedom), the latter to modes of behaviour Ambition World at peace
(e.g., obedient). These 36 values are said to be
universal and inclusive (Rokeach, 1973).
Online survey responses were obtained from
Support the use of animals in Oppose the use of animals in
177 participants. medical research
medical research
With thanks to the ESRC for their financial support of this research (PTA-030-2003-00903 & PTA-026-27-1488)