Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37816763›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Exploring the role of our contacts with pets in broadening concerns for animals, nature, and fellow humans: a representative study.

Catherine E Amiot, Christophe Gagné, Brock Bastian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Catherine E AmiotDépartement de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, Succ. Centre-Ville, C.P. 8888, Montreal, PQ, H3C 3P8, Canada. amiot.catherine@uqam.ca.
Christophe GagnéDépartement de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, Succ. Centre-Ville, C.P. 8888, Montreal, PQ, H3C 3P8, Canada.
Brock BastianMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, 06, 05, Redmond Barry Building, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While pet ownership is normative in many occidental countries, whether humans' proximal contacts with pets have implications for attitudes and behaviors toward other (non pet) animals, nature, and fellow humans, has received limited empirical attention. In a large representative sample, we investigate whether pet ownership and positive contact with pets are associated with more positive attitudes and heightened concerns for non-pet animals, nature, and human outgroups. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among Canadian adults (619 pet owners, 450 non-pet owners). Pet owners reported more positive attitudes toward non-pet animals (e.g., wild, farm animals), higher identification with animals, more positive attitudes toward human outgroups, higher biospheric environmental concerns, higher human-environment interdependence beliefs, and lower usual meat consumption. Positive contact with pets was also associated with most of these outcomes. Solidarity with animals, a dimension of identification with animals, emerged as a particularly clear predictor of these outcomes and mediated the associations between positive contact with pets and positive attitudes toward non-pet animals, biospheric, egoistic, and altruistic environmental concerns, human-environment interdependence beliefs, and diet. Our results provide support for the capacity of pets to shape human consideration for a broad range of social issues, beyond the specific context of human-pet relations.

Indexed as

AttitudePetsAdultAnimalsCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansOwnershipSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37816763
PMCPMC10564771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.