ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Understanding public engagement in animal welfare in South Korea: a theory of planned behavior approach.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiencing Violence from Animal Owners in Veterinary Medicine: Results of a Nationwide Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Research on gamified personality test design for wildlife conservation: integrating the theory of planned behavior and empathy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Human-animal relationships have changed significantly in recent decades, becoming increasingly diverse and ethically complex, thereby prompting increased societal concern for animal welfare. This study investigates public perceptions of animal welfare levels and related policies in South Korea, as well as the psychological and contextual determinants of pro-animal behavior as animal welfare engagement, employing the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as its theoretical framework. Methods: A nationally representative online survey was conducted with 2,000 South Korean adults. Measures included attitudes toward animals, subjective norms, internal and external efficacy, behavioral intentions, and self-reported pro-animal behaviors. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test hypothesized relationships among TPB constructs and behavioral outcomes. Results: The findings indicate strong public demand for appropriate and effective political action on animal welfare issues. SEM results show that both pro-animal attitudes and internal efficacy significantly predict behavioral intentions, whereas subjective norms and external efficacy do not exhibit significant effects. Internal efficacy demonstrates both direct and indirect positive influences on pro-animal behavior. In contrast, external efficacy shows no statistically significant direct impact. Discussion: Public concern for animal welfare in South Korea is increasing, and internal efficacy and pro-animal attitudes play crucial roles in promoting behavioral engagement in animal welfare. Although external efficacy and subjective norms show limited influence, this does not imply that legislative efforts lack value. Rather, institutional support may enhance pro-animal behavior indirectly by strengthening individual confidence, underlining a potential mediating role of internal efficacy between external efficacy and behavioral outcomes. Findings emphasize the need for policies and educational initiatives that enhance individual confidence and motivation while complementing broader institutional frameworks. Future research should incorporate policy feedback theory to better understand the interaction between institutional context and public behavior.
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.