The researcher however, used a random sample of 6 interview transcripts for analysis due to a restricted time limit. These included participant numbers 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15. The researcher used the Grounded Theory method to analyse the data through coding and categorising the text using different coloured highlighter pens to make it easier to spot themes which consequently results in a proposed theory. Notes were recorded in a manuscript which was later referred to in the results and discussion.
Results and Discussion:
The Grounded Theory method has been used to construct an analytic process which involved the reading and rereading of six interview transcripts, a constant comparison between the transcripts, the breaking down of data into chunks, and drawing upon similarities and differences, which has led to the identification of categories and themes and their properties and relationships which has led to a reconstruction of the data and a theory formation based upon attitudes towards animal use.
Through this analytic process, seven distinctive categories emerged which included;
- The specific type of animal use.
- Previous knowledge of animal use.
- Belief in animal mind.
- Attachment to animals.
- Experience with animals.
- Political stance towards animal use.
- Species/types of animal
Within these themes/categories emerge other properties which all closely link together and merge to form an overall theory. Thus, discussion of these theories is fundamental.
The specific type of animal use is a reoccurring theme amongst all six of the transcripts which could therefore be considered to be an influencing factor on people’s attitudes towards animal use. The majority of participants put forward either a negative or a positive view towards animal use in general with some feeling ambivalent between the two. Some felt that animal use in relation to medical research is a beneficial and necessary process. However, some feel negatively towards other aspects of animal testing such as the research of cosmetics. For example; participant 13 stated “I do believe they should be tested, especially for things, for cancer, AIDS, some of the major big epidemics which are a worry” (P13, 17-19). Another participant stated “I think animal research is a necessary evil. For medical research, not for cosmetics, not for decorative purposes” (P12, 13-14). This shows how people form positive attitudes and views of animal use when it benefits the wider society in certain ways i.e. through expanding knowledge concerning life threatening diseases.
However, when animals are tested for less serious issues such as that of cosmetic testing and minor illness cures, people’s attitudes change; “Researching on animals for a cure for the common cold and minor illness – its pointless” (P12, 36-39) and “If they’re just using animals to make a bar of soap, or what ever they do, or entertainment values – there’s no purpose to that, there’s no goal to achieve” (P12, 29-31) are prime examples of this attitude reflection and show how the ‘purpose’ of research is a significant aspect of people’s formation of attitudes towards animal testing.
Participants all seem to have the same view that there must be an alternative to testing on animals; “On the whole, things like cosmetics, soaps, detergents, things like that – I don’t see that there’s a place for testing those on animals, at all. Because I think if you pay someone enough money you’re bound to find enough volunteers to do it voluntarily” (P15, 143-147) and “If it’s a major life threatening disease like cancer, or AIDS, I think probably they wouldn’t have a problem finding enough human volunteers, because if you’re dying of something then you think ‘oh well, I’ll give it a go’” (P15, 150-153) are both examples of participants who have placed emphasises on using humans for research as an alternative to animals. One participant even highlights the idea of advanced technology in replacement of animals and suggests “If they are so advanced in technology in that way, the DNA and cells and all that – surely they’ve got the technology that they don’t have to do research on animals” (P11, 72-74).
Animal testing is not the only form of animal use discussed throughout the interviews as various other forms such as animal use for entertainment, student research, sport, and zoos and circuses are conversed. For example one participant states how they “can’t understand why some people wear fur – I’d never support animals being bred just for that” (P11, 22-24) and how they also feel that “If animals die and they are then passed on to universities for research, I mean vets have got to learn what animal parts are so they can go out and save live animals” (P11, 86-88) and “You wouldn’t want vets going into a horse if they hadn’t gone into one in his training” (P4, 332-333). This therefore reflects the idea that some see animal use as necessary for learning and developing technology for the benefit of society and saving of lives. This idea is demonstrated in a study on 888 undergraduate students’ views on the use of animals in biomedical research as it was found that most students found animal use morally acceptable and believed it plays a significant role in the treatment of human diseases, and is a vital part of teaching and student research (Hagelin, Hau, & Carlsson, 1999).
When looking at participants views on zoos and circuses one participant seems ambivalent with their views “I don’t like circuses, I don’t agree with circuses, nor zoos really”. (P12, 107-108) which shows a strong negative opinion however, they then state the pros of zoos suggesting that it depends on the treatment of the animal, “If they are endangered species, like elephants from ivory hunters, and people who shoot rhinos, pandas if they’re at risk of extinction – if zoos help towards that then that’s a good thing” (P12, 109-112) which demonstrates their ambivalence towards zoos and circuses as it seems that the only part they dislike is the way the animals are presented as nothing more than a “showpiece” (P12, 113).
Fox hunting is something that occurs as a discussion point amongst all participants, with the majority feeling negatively towards it. They all seem to argue against the ‘enjoyment factor’ that people obtain from it “Fox hunting is just people getting enjoyment out of watching something get ripped to pieces, I don’t see how they can call that enjoyment” (P11, 138-140) and “It’s the fact that its done for sport, its done for entertainment, its done for pleasure” (P15, 34-35). However, one participant although does not condone fox hunting, does agree with a fox being destroyed by a farmer who’s crops are being ruined and sees this as a humane action (P15, 28-30) which could emphasise the idea that the circumstance that the animal is in and the motivation behind the animal being destroyed are very much influencing factors on peoples attitudes towards fox hunting, and thus animal use.
Therefore, the type of animal use is very much an influencing factor when people consider their views on animal use and is the basis for all the other categories as they all link in some way. The participant’s background knowledge of animal use is a category that has emerged from the data set and seems to be an influencing factor on people’s views toward animal use. It seems apparent that there is a theme relating to the concept ‘out of sight out of mind’. This refers to the participant either having a vast amount of knowledge on animal use or the participant avoiding issues concerning animal use because they know that they are not going to do anything about it therefore if all the negative images per se, are out of sight then they are therefore out of mind. One participant states that in relation to animal use they believe that it is “Important that the information is available so you can make this decision, and I think the problem is that people don’t have enough information. A lot of the questions I answered were neutral, because I don’t have enough information to be able to say whether those things are correct or incorrect” (P4, 13-18). Therefore if people do not know a great deal about animal use then they dislike discussing it.
Further into the interview, the same participant comments on the notion that if people are more supportive of animal use, whether that represents a lack of knowledge or that they just do not know what is going on behind the scenes of research and simply trust the researcher (P4, 227-229) which reflects upon the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ concept. Society sees only what they choose to see and often views things as an outsider for example “Its like watching war on television – we are not there, we are not involved, we are watching a programme. Similar situation with all these things here (in the interview), we go to Tescos to buy our meat, you never actually have to kill the animals and all the rest of it, we could not do that” (P10, 26-30). This suggests that although many people choose to eat meat, they do not see the process it takes to get it on the shelves of their local supermarket, people choose not to think about it as it is ‘out of sight’ to them; “I don’t look in the butchers shop and see beyond the packaging. I don’t step back and take it further and see the animals running about in fields. And if I had to do it myself - kill the animal, I couldn’t physically do it” (P12, 295, 299) and “You don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors” (P11, 63-34). This could be due to socialisation and its influence on the formation of attitudes as often ‘meat’ in western societies is seen as a part of a healthy balanced diet which is demonstrated by one participant “As a kid you’re told to eat your greens and the meat tastes nicer than the vegetables, when you’re a kid, it becomes something else on your plate – you don’t associate a pork chop with a pig on a farm…. Most people are brought up like that, aren’t they?” (P12, 302-308).
Therefore, socialisation could have an impact on the way people view animal use as it partly determines background knowledge alongside media attention and education. Some participants felt that the media plays a role in the knowledge of animal use available with some suggesting that it only highlights what it wants to or simply does not highlight enough; “I suppose a lot of publicity about it has died away now – the posters of vivisection don’t exist anymore – they were quite big when I was a teenager at school – seeing the rats pinned to boards and that sort of thing – it was quite everywhere you couldn’t go anywhere without seeing that kind of thing” (P13, 32-26) which could suggest that people who have negative attitudes towards animal use have witnessed these awful images many years ago giving them a negative impression of animal use whereas nowadays the media does not place as much emphasis on animal use as it has done in the past which could explain peoples ambivalence. This part of the observational learning process of attitude formation as people acquire attitudes from exposure to mass media through magazines, films, television, and so on (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2006).
However on the other hand, one participant states how he/she never watches television, or occasionally watches the news because of all the terribly violent and depressing things shown (P10, 40-42) which may mean that there is in fact plenty of information on animal use in the media but that they only emphasise the negative images and thus society may choose to simply ‘switch off the television’ or ‘turn over the page’ when face to face with images of suffering animals and thus the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ theme is certainly a contributing factor towards peoples formation of attitudes. In reference to animal use one participant sums up this theme; “I don’t think people really want to know, people don’t want to know anything – they don’t want to know what life’s like in prison, its just one of those things”(P12, 89-91). Therefore the knowledge a person has about animal use, the media portrayal and the person’s reluctance to find out information are all factors that influence views on animal use.
Another category/theme that has emerged from the transcripts is that of ‘experiences with animals” and “attachment to animals” of which are closely linked. Firstly the idea that the amount of experience an individual has or has had with animals may reflect their views on animal use. ‘Experience’ has been divided into smaller sub-categories such as childhood experiences with animals, career links, contact with animals and the environment an individual lives in i.e. rural/urban. ‘Attachment to animals’ can be divided into smaller areas such as companionship, bonds, and relationships with animals and pet ownership all seem to influence people’s views on animal use. For most participants growing up with a pet was the norm; “I was brought up, I can’t remember life without cats, so part of it was that I’ve always been around cats, so they seemed to be part of my life” (P11, 93-95) and “We’ve always had pets whilst I was a child, we always had a dog in the house” (P15, 192-193). This shows that if people are brought up around animals, they may form attachments and thus could be why some feel negatively towards animal use. When asked whether or not participant 12 has had any attachments with his/her cats, he/she responded with “Oh yes! Well, all the cats I’ve had have lasted a long time - I had Kim, the first cat, they all seem to have their own personalities” (P12, 165-167) which shows that the longer one has a pet, the more attached they get to it and thus the more likely they are to feel negatively towards animal use. It also shows that maybe some people form attachments to animals through believing in ‘animal mind’ i.e. that animal’s have personalities and are similar to human beings. This idea is discussed later.
Therefore, pet ownership may be an influence on how people deicide whether or not they feel positively towards animal use. It has been found that a lower proportion of pet owners (39%) found it acceptable to use pet species in biomedical research than did non-pet owners (52%) (Hagelin, Johansson, Hau, & Carlsson, 2002). It has also been found that strong attitudes towards animal use are formed early during development and that early education may be important in shaping these attitudes; 90% of the participants were pet owners (Wells & Hepper, 1995). This therefore indicates that prior experiences with animals and attachment to animals through having a pet can influence people to have negative attitudes towards animal use. This is a form of instrumental conditioning as children may be rewarded through approval, hugs etc. for stating the ‘right’ views about animal use by their parents who they themselves favour. Thus, parents and adults play an active role in shaping youngsters attitudes and this is why children express views about animal use that are highly similar to those of their family members (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2006). However, one participant stated that “There are some people who are over the top, absolutely adore their pets, feel very emotionally attached, treat them like children, and I’ve never been like that” (P15, 193-195) which shows that some people may have pets but not necessarily become attached to them and therefore they may feel positively towards animal use. Also the idea of classical conditioning could play a part in forming negative attitudes towards animal use as if someone has had a bad experience with animals e.g. they had been bitten by a dog as a child, they may then go on to associate negative views on dogs and then may generalise this dislike to all animals which may be reflected in their views on animal use (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2006).
When looking at experiences with animals the environment that an individual is brought up in also seems relevant to forming attitudes towards animal use as it determines your experiences. For example one participant highlights their urban upbringing “I was brought up in London” (P4, 294). They describe their little experience with animals as a child but go on to describe that they did “zoology” at university so their experiences developed (P4, 298). This shows that people in careers revolving around animals may have different views about animal use than say someone in a non animal related job. Living area also seems to be a contributing factor in forming views on animal use. Living in an urban area an appose to a rural area, may decrease ones experiences with animals and therefore may make them less inclined to have strong opinions towards animal use than those living in rural areas who frequently have contact with animals. Cultural factors also seem to be of some significance. For example, people often only see animal use from their own cultural perspective. A prime example of this is seen through eating meat as in some cultures it is the norm to eat animals such as cats and dogs which in western cultures in seen as a taboo; Participant 12 states that he/she would not eat a dog as it is a domestic pet in this country (P12, 310-312) but sees that other cultures would find it acceptable as it is a part of their culture and upbringing “They have had a dog on their plate like we have a pork chop, a pig, what is the difference?” (P12, 342-344). This therefore could emphasise cultural differences in attitudes and views towards animal use. It also highlights ‘religion’ and how many religions see all life as sacred and would therefore be against animal use altogether especially those that involve the killing of the animal e.g. fox hunting and animal testing.
The next category of discussion is that of ‘belief in animal mind’. This refers to people connecting in some way to an animal whether it be through attachment (as discussed previously), belief that animals have individual personalities, intelligence and have the ability to express emotions. These all influence people when forming views on animal use as if someone believes strongly in animal mind, then they are less likely to feel positively about animal use. It has been found that participants held different views for different types of animal use, and that belief in animal mind was a powerful and consistent predictor of these attitudes and that this may be due to the increasing interest in animal mind over the past decade (Knight, Vrij, Cherryman, & Nunkoosing, 2004). This has also been found in participants for this piece of research; one participant talks about cats having intellect, “They’re as intelligent as us, if not more. They are therapeutically calming. Very good at manipulating humans.” (P10, 119-120) and “They’ve all got their own personalities” (P12, 169) which shows that some see animals as having intelligence and a persona. One participant states how he/she feels that “Most animals are capable of experiencing feelings and emotions” (P12, 213-214 but that they feel larger animals are most likely to have a personality such as chimpanzees, gorillas and lions (P12, 281-283). This could therefore indicate that some people only believe in animal mind amongst larger animals thus ‘size’ of the animal could be an important factor when looking at how people form views on animal use as if they associate belief in animal mind only to larger animals then they may feel strongly about large animals being used for animal use as they anthropomorphise those animals. Therefore the species/type of animal and thus its size and appearance could be a factor taken into consideration when people form views on animal use. The idea of anthropomorphism is another factor as if people see animals as having similar characteristics and persona traits as human beings then they are likely to feel negatively towards animal use for example one participant sums up this idea; “People that are totally besotted with their animals, live for them, but then they tend to anthropomorphise, they tend to project human feelings and emotions onto their animals behaviour, perceiving it to be more like a human, like a child usually.” (P15, 201-205).
The species/type of animal seems to be a reoccurring theme amongst the transcripts. It seems that smaller sub categories such as size, colour, general appearance and attractiveness of the animal all seem to influence people’s attitudes towards the animal and therefore maybe animal use. For example one participant says “I think it’s a matter of how far up the evolutionary chain you are. People are more emotional about things with two eyes, a nose, a mouth on the front of the face, because, and they’re more emotional about younger than older animals, because there’s, I think a maternal compassionate instinct amongst human beings. But the further you go down, the uglier the animal is, the smaller it is, the less like a mammal it is – the less they seem to be compassionate about it” (P4, 135-142). This shows that some people may feel more positively about animal use when it involves small, less attractive and less-mammal like animals compared to larger more attractive animals; “I suppose it must be a size thing. Once something’s a certain size it becomes relevant and important and part of the world in general” (P13, 388-390) and “Using ants, there’s billions and billions, so to think one’s dead is nothing compared to say, one puppy, you know? So I suppose it must be a size thing” (P13, 391-395). Therefore the size of the animal seems very significant in how people perceive animals with smaller animals being seen as more acceptable for animals use than larger animals which thus reflects upon the species and type of animal. One participant emphasises this well through the idea that the majority of people if asked would they eat whale?, would most certainly say no, and yet a whale has extremely more meat on it that one fish, but people view this very differently because of the size of the whale, when in actual fact many more fish would need to be sacrificed in order to make up one whale. (P4, 182-186). Previous research also highlights this idea that the appearance of the animal may influence people’s views towards animal use; it has been found that using domestic pets or attractive mammals were less acceptable than the same activities using unattractive mammals (rats) (Driscoll, 1992).
Another factor that could be taken into consideration is participant’s political stance towards animal use. For example one participant emphasises their negative view for using animals for financial gain “It’s just for lining peoples pockets” (P13, 447). They do not agree with animals being made to suffer for the benefit of human beings in relation to financial gain. This therefore could emphasise that the motivation behind animal use is very significant when considering attitudes towards it.
Therefore the Grounded Theory has been the basis for answering the question; what factors influence people when they consider their views on animal use? It has allowed for factors to emerge out of the data and thus result in a theory based on how people form attitudes and views towards animal use. The theory consists of main factors and issues that influence people’s views whether they be negative, positive or somewhere in between. Type of animal use, knowledge of animal use, belief in animal mind, attachment to animals, experiences with animals, political stance towards animal use and species/type of animal involved are all contributing factors that influence people’s views towards animal use, with many other sub-categories emerging out of these factors such as whether an individual is a pet owner, their culture, their religion, their childhood experiences, their environment (rural/urban), the motivation behind the animal use and even their own personality traits all seem to influence people in whether they view animal use as a positive aspect of human culture. Figure 1 shows a model to emphasise the theory.
Figure 1: Model diagram showing how the use of the Grounded Theory to distinguish factors that influence peoples views on animal use:
Factors that influence people when they consider their views on animal use
Type of Animal use:
Scientific research, Medical research, Cosmetic/other research, Entertainment and sport; fox hunting, zoos, circuses, fishing, etc., Decoration; animal fur, clothing etc
Knowledge of animal use:
Out of sight, out of mind, Media attention; television, news, articles, animal rights groups
Background knowledge of types of animal use and the treatment of animals
Experiences of Animals:
Career links; animal related/unrelated jobs, Childhood experiences, Contact with animals
Environment; rural/urban living area, Religion, Culture, Vegetarianism
Attachment to animals:
Companionship, Bonds, Pet ownership, Maternal instincts
Belief in animal mind:
Intelligence, Personality, Ability to experience emotions
Political stance towards animal use:
Type of research, Financial gain
Species/type of animal:
Appearance, Colour, Size, Attractiveness
Domestic pets, Wildlife, Farm animals, Fish, Insects, Pests
A reflection on the use of the Grounded Theory on distinguishing what factors influence people when they consider their views on animal use:
The Grounded Theory method has been extremely useful for this piece of research in that it has met the aim as particular factors have surfaced as influencing factors in how people form attitudes towards animal use and thus a theory has emerged as a result of this analysis. The benefits of using this qualitative method is that it has allowed for exploration and development of new ideas, it is highly reliable in that it can be replicated easily by other researchers, and the findings are valid as interpretation of the data has been thoroughly explained however, one could also argue that the researcher has made interpretations that are incorrect as it is from his/her own perspective.
A limitation of this research is that the interviews were not conducted by the researcher themselves. This therefore needs to be taken into consideration as the interviewer may not have asked relevant questions and seeing as the grounded theory makes use of the data in order to find a theory, one could argue that if the questions were not of relevance then the theory therefore may lack validity. Although the same interviewer was used throughout the course of the interviews in order to counterbalance experimenter effects however interviewer bias may have occurred. Although this study has had some minor weaknesses it has allowed for a progression of understanding of qualitative psychology and has given the researcher much experience in the use of Grounded Theory methods.
It has developed the researcher’s knowledge and understanding on people’s attitudes toward the use of animals, and has allowed for a critical review. A rich and detailed analysis has occurred and has given participants the chance to really express their views and feelings freely on animal use. Therefore as a result, ideas for further research have emerged. An interesting idea would be do look at attitudes towards animal use in relation to age and gender as males and females may differ significantly in their views; it has been found that compared to females, males are consistently more supportive of animal use (Furnham & Pinder, 1990) and to see whether age effects peoples attitudes and views toward animal use.
References:
Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (2006). Social Psychology, 11th Edition. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Driscoll, J.W. (1992). Attitudes toward animal use. Anthrozoos, 51: 32-39.
Furnham, A., & Pinder, A. (1990). Young people’s attitudes to experimentation on animals. The Psychologist, October: 444-448
Galvin, S.L. & Herzog, H.A. (1992). Ethical ideology, animal rights activism, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Ethics and Behaviour, 2: 141-149.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hagelin, J., Hau, J. & Carlsson, H.E. (1999). Undergraduate university students’ views on the use of animals in biomedical research. Academic-Medicine, 74: 1135-1137.
Hagelin, J., Johansson, B., Hau, J., & Carlsson, H.E. (2002). Influence of pet ownership on opinions towards the use of animals in biomedical research. Anthrozoos, 15: 251-257.
Knight, S., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoos, 17: 43-62.
Richardson, J.T.E. (1996). Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. London: Sage.
Wells, D.L., & Hepper, P.G. (1995). Attitudes to animal use in children. Anthrozoos, 8: 159-170.