use:

Understanding the basis and nature of attitudes toward animal us e:

A psychological approach
Sarah Knight, Aldert Vrij, Kim Bard, Doug Brandon, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK
Abstract
To understand conflict over controversial issues, the basis and nature of attitudes must be determined. Presented here are two studies. The first
identified beliefs that explain attitudes toward different types of animal use. Belief in the existence of alternatives to using animals (“perceptions
of choice”) was found to be the strongest predictor of attitudes toward practices associated with high costs to animals. In Study 2 we
experimentally manipulated “perceptions of choice”, demonstrating that persuading people to believe that there are alternatives to using animals
for medical research led to significantly lower support for this practice. Findings show that attitudes are context dependent and vary according to
combinations of underlying beliefs. We also demonstrate that attitudes toward animal use are not fixed.

Study 1
Aim: To identify the comparative importance of certain beliefs in relation to attitudes toward different types of animal use.
Method: Laypersons (N=163) completed a questionnaire comparing attitudes toward different types of animal use (medical research, dissection,
personal decoration, entertainment) and examining beliefs in relation to these attitudes.
Analyses: Factor analysis conducted on 28 items led to 7 factors representing beliefs about animal use: (i) affection for animals; (ii) beliefs
concerning the benefits of animal use; (iii) belief in existence of alternatives to using animals (“perceptions of choice”); (iv) belief in the
comparative importance of humans versus animals; (v) perceived attractiveness of animals; (vi) belief in animal population control as a
necessary; and (vii) negative interactions with animals.
Key findings: Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that different combinations of beliefs underlie attitudes toward each of the four types of
animal use. “Perceptions of choice” (POC) was clearly the strongest predictor of levels of support for the use of animals in medical research,
alone accounting for 46% of the variance in attitudes toward these practices.

Fig.1. Support for Study 2

medical research Aim: To examine the effect of manipulating ‘perceptions of choice’ on support for animal use.
after manipulating
POC
Method: Persuasive messages were developed that aimed to experimentally manipulate “perceptions of choice” (POC).
5

Student participants (N=72) were provided with information sheets which emphasised that either: (i) alternatives to using
4
animals for medical research exist (high choice); or (ii) alternatives to using animals for medical research do not exist (low
Approval for medical research

3
choice). A questionnaire then measured attitudes toward a number of issues, including the use of animals in medical
2
research. A control group simply completed the questionnaire (i.e., POC was not manipulated).
1
Key findings: We found a strong causal relationship between POC and attitudes toward animal use. Persuading people to
0
Nochoices Highchoices Control
believe that alternatives to using animals for medical research do exist, led to significantly lower levels of support for this
Experimental Groups
type of animal use (see Fig. 1).
With thanks to the ESRC for their financial support of this research (PTA-030-2003-00903 & PTA-026-27-1488)