ArticlePloS one2020
Some animals are more equal than others: Validation of a new scale to measure how attitudes to animals depend on species and human purpose of use.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring the Attitudes of Animal Hospital Staff Toward Animals in Türkiye.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Attitudes Towards Animals and Calf Disbudding Techniques: A Mixed Methods Study Using the Animal Attitude Scale (AAS-10).Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Pet, Pest, Profit: Patient! How Attitudes Toward Animals Among Veterinary Students in the Netherlands Differ According to Animal Categories and Student-Related Variables.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- It Matters Who You Ask: Validity and Reliability of Animal Empathy Scoring Scales in Canadian Public and Participants in Beef Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Animal Welfare on Livestock: Evidence from College Agronomy Students in Costa Rica.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Exploring Compassion towards Laboratory Animals in UK- and China-Based Undergraduate Biomedical Sciences Students.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Undergraduate student attitudes to current poultry industry issues over four semesters: surveying an introductory poultry science course.Journal of animal science · 2023Article
- Increased perception of the experience dimension of the animal mind reduces instrumental violence against animals.PloS one · 2023Article
- Attitudes to the use of animals in biomedical research: Effects of stigma and selected research project summaries.PloS one · 2023Article
- Attitudes of clients of Dutch pest controllers towards animal welfare in the management of liminal rodents.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2023Article
- A Nationwide Survey of Animal Science Students' Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Animal Categories at Institutions in the United States.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Effects of Occult Hypoperfusion on Local Circulation and Inflammation - An Analysis in a Standardized Polytrauma Model.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, many millions of animals are used by humans every year and much of this usage causes public concern. A new scale, devised to measure attitudes to animal use in relation to the purpose of use and species, the Animal Purpose Questionnaire (APQ), was completed by in total 483 participants, 415 British nationals and 68 participants from 39 other countries. The APQ was presented in two survey formats, alongside an established Animal Attitudes Scale (AAS). In both surveys, participants also provided demographic details to provide a context to their attitudes to animals. As might be expected, and consistent with the validity of the new scale, overall scores on the AAS and APQ were highly correlated. However, the APQ provided a more differentiated measure of attitudes to animal use across a variety of settings. The results showed that there was overall higher levels of agreement with the use of animals in medical research and basic science, less endorsement for food production and pest control, and the use of animals for other cultural practices was generally disapproved of, irrespective of species. Participants overall disagreed with the use of rabbits, monkeys, badgers, tree shrews (survey 1), chimpanzees, dogs, dolphins and parrots (survey 2), but were neutral about the use of rats, mice, pigs, octopus, chickens, zebrafish (survey 1), carp, chickens, pigs, pigeons, rabbits and rats (survey 2). Interactions between species and purpose were largely driven by the consideration of using diverse species for food production. In general, females and vegetarians expressed less agreement with the use of animals with some differences by purpose of use. Pet keeping consistently predicted reduced willingness to use animals for basic science (only). The APQ provides a new tool to unpack how public attitudes depend on the intersectionality of demographics, species and purpose of use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.