The role of pets and animal views in a person's environmental
Transcript of The role of pets and animal views in a person's environmental
OUR UNCONSCIOUS BRIDGE TO NATURE: THE ROLE OF PETS AND ANIMAL VIEWS
IN A PERSON’S ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, CONSERVATION HABITS, AND
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
Florida Gulf Coast University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirement of the Degree of
Master of Science
By
Ariel Chomey
2014
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
____________________________
Ariel Chomey
Approved: April 2014
____________________________
Charles W. Gunnels, Ph.D.
Committee Co-Chair / Advisor
____________________________
Edwin Everham, Ph.D.
Committee Co-Chair
____________________________
David Green, M.S.
____________________________
Kristine De Welde, Ph.D.
The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form
meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Charles Gunnels for his invaluable guidance in developing my
thoughts, my writing, and my character. I would like to thank Dr. Edwin Everham and Professor
David Green for their help in formulating my survey and advancing my thinking about this
research. Thank you to Dr. Kristine De Welde, without whom the analysis and interpretation of
my qualitative data would not have occurred. I would also like to thank the Office of Research
and Graduate Studies for financial support that made this research possible. Also, thank you to
the Department of Biological Sciences and the Department of Marine and Ecological Sciences
for financial support in making it possible to attend graduate school as well as the intellectual
support to guide me through this process. I would also like to thank the many anonymous
Mechanical Turk survey respondents who made this research possible. Additionally, thanks to
the Mechanical Turk platform, which allowed me to conduct this survey nationwide and across a
broad spectrum of individuals. I would like to thank Barry and Cynthia Chomey for their support
and encouragement. In addition, thank you to Kyle Martins for his emotional support and
reassurance. Finally, I want to thank pets. I was driven to conduct this research because of my
experiences and interactions with pets, and for that, I am grateful.
iv
ABSTRACT
Humans and domestic animals have co-evolved for thousands of years, developing a close
relationship. These animals were used as workers, but shifted to companions as the concept of
the “pet” became commonplace. By interacting with pets, humans may gain social information
about the environment because pets retain wild characteristics. A nationwide survey was
conducted to determine if association with pets related to a person’s environmental attitudes,
conservation habits, and knowledge. Pet owners favored better animal treatment, were more
concerned about animal welfare issues, and showed higher conservation habits compared to non-
pet owners. In addition, individuals that owned mixed breed animals were more concerned about
human impacts on the environment, ecological issues, and showed greater knowledge about their
pets compared to owners of purebred animals. It appears that mixed breed pets may act as a
bridge between humans and the natural environment.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS …………………………………………………………………….. iii
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………….. v
CHAPTER 1 …………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 13
CHAPTER 2
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 16
Methods ………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Results ………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………… 33
Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 37
Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………………... 40
CHAPTER 3
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 48
Methods ………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Results ………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………… 63
Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 68
Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………………... 70
CHAPTER 4
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 78
Methods ………………………………………………………………………………… 82
vi
Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………… 85
Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………….. 96
Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 98
Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………………. 100
CHAPTER 5 ………………………………………………………………………………….. 102
APPENDIX A
Copy of Survey ……………………………………………………………………….. 107
1
CHAPTER 1
THE EFFECT OF HUMAN-PET INTERACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES,
CONSERVATION HABITS, AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Social learning, where one animal gains and retains information from another individual,
can occur within or between species (Nicol 1995). Social learning differs from other types of
learning because it involves one organism acquiring information that is already known from
another organism. Because the information acquired is already known, it allows the learner to
gain information more efficiently than through individual trial and error. For example, brown
bats were trained to catch mealworms on a string. Many bats that observed the demonstrator bats
attacking the mealworm subsequently showed the same behavior, while bats that did not observe
the demonstrator did not attack the mealworms (Wright et al.,, 2011). The efficiency of
information transfer through social learning is evident because non-observer bats (individual
learning) did not show the behavior compared to observer bats (social learning). In addition,
social learning increases the likelihood that an individual will gain the information. By
interacting with others, individuals have more opportunities to come into contact with
information that they might not experience on their own. Also, individuals can new gain
information through social learning that may only be relevant for a specific population rather
than the species as a whole.
Despite the efficient acquisition of information, using social information includes both
benefits and costs. Social information can benefit the organism by providing information about
food sources or predators without the need for individual discovery (Kaminski et al.,, 2005). The
learner saves time looking for food and predators that can then be spent acquiring more resources
2
for survival. However, using social information can also be costly as the information gained can
be incorrect, inefficient, or outdated (Rieucau and Giraldeau 2011). The information may not
necessarily provide the best means of accomplishing a task; rather, it is only a method that has
been proven effective and successful by other individuals. For example, guppies were trained to
take either a short or long route to a feeding station. Guppies that interacted with conspecifics
trained for the long route continued to use that route even after the original guppies were
removed, although this decreased with time. Those guppies that interacted with conspecifics
trained for the long route also learned to take the short route slower than guppies that had not
interacted with trained conspecifics from either group (Laland and Williams 1998). This study
shows that incorrect and costly information can be transmitted socially. Gaining poor quality
information can cause the learner additional cost as they must then re-learn the information
through individual trial and error. Trial and error learning takes time away from other important
activities, such as looking for food, predators, or mates. Therefore, individuals that engage in
social learning cannot be living under highly sub-optimal conditions due to the high risk of
gaining poor quality information and then spending additional resources to correct the
information. Finally, engaging in lots of social learning can distract from trial and error learning.
Because social learning can occur between species, it increases the likelihood that humans will
gain new information from their pets.
In mammals, social learning occurs in a variety of situations and among many different
types of organisms. Mammalian social learning, through vision, olfaction, or audition, is applied
in many contexts, such as foraging, predator interactions, and group relations, and has been
observed in members of the same species (Nicol 1995). For example, adults in a population of
wild mongoose utilized one of two (or both) foraging techniques (biting or smashing) to open
3
food items in the natural environment. Young mongoose observed an adult demonstrator
performing one of the behaviors on an artificial food item. Young were later presented with the
artificial food item and tested to determine their preferred foraging technique. Those that had
observed the biting technique showed the same behavior while those that had observed the
smashing technique showed the smashing behavior (Muller and Cant 2010). This study shows
that young can learn foraging techniques from adults and that more than one technique to
accomplish the same goal can exist within a population. Social learning can also be induced in
mammals through training. For example, female golden hamsters were trained to retrieve food
hanging on a chain by pulling up the chain. The females were subsequently bred and then
interacted with untrained pups. Pups that interacted with a trained mother showed the food
retrieval behavior more than pups that did not interact with a trained mother (Previde and Poli
1996). By utilizing the information about obtaining food previously acquired by the mother, the
hamster pups benefit from social learning. Social learning also occurs among wild mammals. For
example, marmosets observed demonstrators that opened a canister holding food using either
their mouth or their hands. Marmosets that watched the demonstrator open the canister with their
mouth were more likely to use their mouth to open the canisters. Marmosets that had not seen a
mouth opening demonstration rarely used their mouth to open a canister. The increased use of
mouth opening by marmosets that had observed this behavior indicates that observation was
important in the subsequent use of the behavior (Voelkl and Huber 2000). Because marmosets
that had observed mouth opening used this method, they learned socially by utilizing information
known by the demonstrator.
Social learning in mammals can also occur between members of different species. For
example, two species of tamarins, the Avila-Pires saddle-back tamarin and the red-cap
4
moustached tamarin, form mixed-species groups to aid in preventing predation. One species
generally watches for terrestrial predators while the other watches for aerial predators (Peres
1993). This example shows that social learning occurs between species because information
about a predator gained by one individual can then be learned by other members of the group to
reduce predation. Additionally, woodchucks can recognize alarm calls of the eastern chipmunk
and use this information to increase their vigilance for predators (Aschemeier and Maher 2011).
Because the woodchucks are using information that is already known by the chipmunks
(presence of a predator), this example illustrates social learning between different species of
mammals.
Social learning can also occur between mammals and humans. For example, African fur
seals were tested for use of human cues using an object choice task, which has been used to test a
wide variety of animals. In an object choice task, two or more objects are presented to the subject
(the objects may be containers hiding food or not). A human then gives some communicative
signal to indicate the correct object, such as pointing at, gazing at, tapping on, touching, or
placing a marker on the object. African fur seals used some human cues correctly to choose the
object such as pointing or gazing, but not other cues such as pointing with the hand and not the
arm (Scheumann and Call 2004). In a similar experiment, bottlenose dolphins used human
pointing and gazing to perform a predetermined action on the specified object (Pack and Herman
2004). Evidence of social learning between members of different species and especially between
humans and other species raises the question of social learning between humans and companion
animals.
An animal’s ability to engage in social learning is critical to the success of its
domestication (e.g. Call et al.,, 2003, Topal et al.,, 2009, Hauser et al.,, 2011). Social learning is
5
critical to domestication because animals must be able to respond to the human environment.
Social learning within a species has been shown in a variety of situations in many domestic
animals. For example, the likelihood that calves suckle successfully from a teat connected to a
mechanical apparatus increases when they observe another calf also suckling (Broom 1999).
This example illustrates social learning in that a calf that sees another suckling utilizes the
information provided by the demonstrating calf (that the teat is a food source) and begins to
suckle. In addition, domestic goats will follow the orientation and gaze of another goat that is
looking at a person with food (Kaminski et al.,, 2005). The ability of the observing goat to orient
in the same direction as the demonstrating goat is social learning because the observing goat
gains information about the person and food. Social learning allows domestic animals to navigate
an ever-changing human environment associated with new technologies and cultural norms.
Domestic animals can also gain from social learning with humans. Social learning from
humans to domestic animals can be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional learning
occurs when humans train animals in different ways for a variety of outcomes (e.g., McCall
1990, Hiby et al.,, 2004). For example, domestic pigs can be trained to respond to an individually
specific call produced by an electronic feeder signaling access to food. Each sow has a specific
call that indicates it can access the electronic feeder, while other pigs will not receive food upon
another’s call. Sows are allowed an initial period of unrestricted access to food where their sound
is played prior to the release of food. Later, the sow must respond to its call to receive food
(Manteuffel et al.,, 2011). This training method can be used to reduce aggression between
animals trying to access the feeder at the same time. Training is also found in domestic animals
other than livestock. For example, dogs can be trained to detect whether or not a cow is in
estrous by smelling a sample of vaginal fluid. Dogs can also detect estrous in samples of cow
6
urine or milk (Fischer-Tenhagen et al.,, 2011). The ability of dogs to detect estrous can aid in the
breeding of livestock. While training dominates how we view social learning in pets,
unintentional social learning appears to be very important.
Recent evidence indicates that unintentional social learning is critical for domestic
animals to navigate human environments (Call et al.,, 2003, Topal et al.,, 2009, Hauser et al.,,
2011). For example, domestic goats used touching and pointing cues (Kaminski et al.,, 2005) and
horses used marker placement cues and pointing (Proops et al., 2010) given by humans in object
choice tests to choose correct objects. These examples illustrate unintentional social learning
because goats and horses used information already known and demonstrated by humans to select
correct containers, without being trained. In addition, goats and horses used different cues from
humans; these examples show that different domestic animals have different abilities for social
learning, which may have led to their relative levels of domestication by humans. For example,
both domestic cats and dogs use human pointing to select the correct object during an object
choice task (Miklosi et al., 2005), illustrating their ability to learn unintentionally from humans.
In addition, domestic dogs have also been shown to learn unintentionally from humans in a
variety of different situations. For example, dogs observed two experimenters with food – one
that was willing to share food (generous) and one that was not (selfish). A human beggar
approached each experimenter seeking food and was either turned away or given food.
Following the observations, dogs approached the generous experimenter more than the selfish
experimenter (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2011). This study shows that dogs are able to gain
information from humans unintentionally in a variety of situations. Because information can be
exchanged through social learning from humans to domestic animals, information may also
travel in the opposite direction, from domestic animals to humans through social learning.
7
Humans also gain information through social learning on a daily basis. Notions about
social learning in humans have been greatly influenced by the idea of the “meme.” The concept
of a meme was first introduce by Richard Dawkins in 1976 and was then defined as a unit of
cultural transmission passed on through imitation (Blackmore 1998). Although alternate
definitions have been proposed, Dawkin’s definition is useful in helping to classify all the ways
humans learn socially. For example, learning a language or acquiring skills in mathematics are
both ways in which humans learn socially (Herrmann et al., 2007). These acts can also be
considered as memes, because learning new words or mathematic symbols requires imitation of
information that is already known by another. Much knowledge that humans gain is acquired
through social learning. Learning material in a classroom or learning to play a musical
instrument are examples of human social learning as humans are acquiring previously known
knowledge from other individuals. The vast ability of humans to learn from other humans opens
up the possibility that we can also learn from other species.
We clearly gain information from members of our own species, but we may also gain
information from other species, specifically our pets. Humans and domestic animals have a
unique co-evolutionary history, which may have created the conditions for social learning from
domestic animals to humans. Early in the domestication process, interactions between humans
and early cats or dogs likely resulted from attraction to and sharing of food resources (Miklosi et
al., 2005). Eventually, domestic animals were utilized by humans as workers for a variety of
tasks, such as controlling pests, hunting, and herding (Moody et al., 2006, Faure and Kitchener
2009). During this same period, the interaction between humans and working domestic animals
allowed for the development of a close relationship. For example, a fossil of a human buried with
a dog (12,000 BCE) suggests the initial development of human-animal bonds (Davis 1978).
8
Additional archaeological evidence of a human buried in association with a cat has been dated to
about 9,500 years ago (Vigne et al., 2004) and depictions of cats in Ancient Egyptian art also
suggest the development of a close relationship between humans and cats (Faure and Kitchener
2009). These examples illustrate the development of a human-animal bond beyond dogs. The
unique history and interactions between humans and dogs and cats may have created an
environment that allows for the unintentional exchange of social information.
The Industrial Revolution in the west created conditions that changed the relationship
between humans and domestic animals. Domestic animals shifted to companion animals and
moved from outside into our homes. Humans were also able to breed dogs and cats to achieve a
certain appearance, regardless of its utility for working tasks. The Victorian fascination with
breed purity led to the development of many new breeds during this period through artificial
selection (Sampson and Binns 2006). The change in the role of domestic animals allowed for
new and different interactions to occur between humans and companion animals.
Despite physical and behavioral alteration by humans, pets still retain many
characteristics of their wild ancestors. Early domestic animals were likely selected by humans for
their tameness. However, other characteristics along with tameness have carried over to the
present day. For example, domestic cats, like their ancestors, still have the ability to hunt prey.
Domestic dogs, on the other hand, mainly scavenge for food and do not show the same hunting
abilities as their ancestors (Bradshaw 2006). The hunting abilities of cats and dogs may be a
result of their relative levels of domestication, because dogs have been domesticated for a longer
period of time than cats and therefore, may have lost more characteristics of their wild ancestors.
However, other behaviors continue to be retained by domestic dogs. For example, wolves can
point with their muzzles to communicate with other wolves about a specific object or area
9
(Kubinyi et al., 2007). Some domestic dogs still retain this behavior, especially “pointers.” In
addition, both domestic cats and other wild cats rub objects for various reasons, such as marking
them with a scent (Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont 2000). Domestic dogs, along with other
wild canids, scratch the ground after elimination to leave a territorial mark (Fox 1971). Because
domesticated dogs and cats retain many of the characteristics of their wild ancestors, observing
them may allow humans to gain insight into natural processes.
Similar to the way that pets gain information from humans, humans may also gain
information from pets through social learning. There is no evidence that pets intentionally teach
humans (Kaminski et al., 2011), but pets may unintentionally give information to people. For
example, people may learn about biological processes just by observing their pets. Pets, because
of their retention of wild characteristics, have information about natural processes that humans
stand to gain. The close interactions between humans and pets may allow people to gather this
information through unintentional social learning. People can then apply the knowledge gained
from interactions with pets to larger ecological concepts (i.e. transfer) (Beach 1999). This
increased awareness of ecological concepts would affect a person’s environmental attitudes: their
knowledge and concern about environmental issues.
To determine whether humans acquire information and can learn from their pets, we will
use a survey that collects quantitative and qualitative data to compare pet and non-pet owners’
science knowledge and ethical positions. We will first determine how pet ownership affects a
person’s understanding and appreciation of nature (i.e. environmental attitudes). We will then
measure the effects of pet ownership on a person’s scientific literacy (e.g. ecological,
evolutionary, and behavioral understanding). We expect pet ownership to influence what a
person learns based on the interaction between three factors (1 = exposure to animals, 2 = degree
10
to which the pet has been modified from its ancestral form, and 3 = empathy with animals). For
example, pet ownership increases opportunities to observe and interact with animals. We expect
that this increased exposure to animals will positively influence a person’s knowledge about the
biology of companion animals (Table 1). Pet ownership should also affect a person’s ecological
and behavioral knowledge. People with pets are expected to know more about these biological
disciplines because they have the chance to observe their animals extensively. However, we also
expect that the type of pet that a person owns will also affect their overall knowledge. The degree
that a pet has been modified from its ancestral form has varied greatly. Some pets have been
tamed, such as snakes, or bred minimally, such as cats or mixed breed dogs, from their ancestor,
while other animals, such as purebred dogs, have been greatly altered from their ancestors
through intense breeding and selection. We expect people who own pets that retain wild
characteristics to show more biological literacy than owners of purebred animals. In addition,
owning a pet allows people to develop empathy towards animals. We expect that pet owners will
show increased empathy towards animals and therefore different ethical positions than non-pet
owners. We expect pet owners to be more conservation minded (e.g. in favor of species and land
protection) because they empathize with the needs of animals when considering questions about
environmental issues and habits. Non-pet owners likely have less opportunity to develop
empathy towards animals and are expected to be less conservation minded (e.g. in favor of
development, control of nature, etc.) when considering questions about environmental issues and
habits. We also expect that modification from ancestral form will influence a person’s feelings
about their pets. Pet owners are expected to show higher levels of anthropomorphism, the
application of human emotions or terms to describe non-human animals (Serpell 2002), than
non-pet owners. We expect non-pet owners to show higher levels of human exceptionalism, the
11
belief that animals do not possess any thoughts or feelings similar to humans (Shannon 2009),
because of their limited exposure to and empathy with animals. Those who own pets that have
been less modified are expected to show a more balanced view between anthropomorphism and
human exceptionalism because the animal they are observing still retains many characteristics of
its wild ancestor. This will give these pet owners a more objective view of the animal than
owners of highly modified animals or non-pet owners. The influence of these factors on a
person’s knowledge and opinions is expected to affect their responses to questions about various
topics, including their knowledge and overall perspective.
12
Category Purebred Owner Mixed Breed Owner Non-pet Owner
General science knowledge Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate
Ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge Intermediate Higher Lower
Environmental attitudes Conservation Conservation Development
Conservation habits Higher Higher Lower
Anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism Anthropomorphic Balanced Human Exceptionalist
Table 1: Predicted responses in each survey category for purebred owners, mixed breed owners, and those who do not own a pet.
13
LITERATURE CITED
Aschemeier, L. M. and C. R. Maher. 2011. Eavesdropping of woodchucks (Marmota monax) and
eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) on heterospecific alarm calls. Journal of
Mammalogy 92, 493-499.
Beach, K. 1999. Consequential transition: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in
education. Review of Research in Education 24, 101-139.
Blackmore, S. 1998. Imitation and the definition of a meme. Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary
Models of Information Transmission 2, 159-170.
Bradshaw, J. and C. Cameron-Beaumont. 2000. The signalling repertoire of the domestic cat and
its undomesticated relatives. Pages 67-93 in D. C. Turner and P. Bateson, editors. The
domestic cat: The biology of its behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bradshaw, J. W. S. 2006. The evolutionary basis for the feeding behavior of domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus). Journal of Nutrition 136, 1927S-1931S.
Broom, D. M. 1999. Social transfer of information in domestic animals. Pages158-168 in H. O.
Box and K. R. Gibson, editors. Mammalian social learning: Comparative and ecological
perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Call, J., J. Brauer, J. Kaminski, and M. Tomasello. 2003. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are
sensitive to the attentional state of humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 117, 257-
263.
Davis, S. J. M. 1978. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of
Israel. Nature 276, 608-610.
Faure, E. and A. C. Kitchener. 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships
between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.
Fischer-Tenhagen, C., L. Wetterholm, B. A. Tenhagen, and W. Heuwieser. 2011. Training dogs
on a scent platform for oestrus detection in cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
131, 63-70.
Fox, M. W. 1971. Behavior of wolves, dogs and related canids. Harper and Row, New York,
New York, USA.
Hauser, M. D., J. A. Comins, L. M. Pytka, D. P. Cahill, and S. Velez-Calderon. 2011. What
experimental experience affects dogs' comprehension of human communicative actions?
Behavioural Processes 86, 7-20.
Herrmann, E., J. Call, M. V. Hernandez-Lloreda, B. Hare, and M. Tomasello. 2007. Humans
have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis.
Science 317, 1360-1366.
Hiby, E. F., N. J. Rooney, and J. W. S. Bradshaw. 2004. Dog training methods: their use,
effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare 13, 63-69.
Kaminski, J., M. Neumann, J. Bräuer, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2011. Dogs, Canis familiaris,
communicate with humans to request but not to inform. Animal Behaviour 82, 651-658.
Kaminski, J., J. Riedel, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2005. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow
gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69, 11-18.
Kubinyi, E., Z. Virányi, and Á. Miklósi. 2007. Comparative social cognition: From wolf and dog
to humans. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews 2, 26-46.
Laland, K. N. and K. Williams. 1998. Social transmission of maladaptive information in the
guppy. Behavioral Ecology 9, 493-499.
14
Manteuffel, C., P. C. Schon, and G. Manteuffel. 2011. Beyond electronic feeding: The
implementation of call feeding for pregnant sows. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 79, 36-41.
Marshall-Pescini, S., C. Passalacqua, A. Ferrario, P. Valsecchi, and E. Prato-Previde. 2011.
Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour 81, 1177-1183.
McCall, C. A. 1990. A review of learning behavior in horses and its application in horse training.
Journal of Animal Science 68, 75-81.
Miklosi, A., N. Pongracz, G. Lakatos, J. Topal, and V. Csanyi. 2005. A comparative study of the
use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and
humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119, 179-
186.
Moody, J. A., L. A. Clark, and K. E. Murphy. 2006. Working dogs: History and applications.
Pages 1-18 in E. A. Ostrander, U. Giger, and K. Lindblad-Toh, editors. The dog and its
genome. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, USA.
Muller, C. A. and M. A. Cant. 2010. Imitation and traditions in wild banded mongooses. Current
Biology 20, 1171-1175.
Nicol, C. 1995. The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 44, 79-98.
Pack, A. A. and L. M. Herman. 2004. Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) comprehend the
referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task.
Journal of Comparative Psychology 118, 160-171.
Peres, C. A. 1993. Anti-predation benefits in a mixed-species group of Amazonian tamarins.
Folia Primatologica 61, 61-76.
Previde, E. P. and M. D. Poli. 1996. Social learning in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus
auratus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 110, 203-208.
Proops, L., M. Walton, and K. McComb. 2010. The use of human-given cues by domestic
horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 79, 1205-1209.
Rieucau, G. and L. A. Giraldeau. 2011. Exploring the costs and benefits of social information
use: An appraisal of current experimental evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366, 949-957.
Sampson, J. and M. M. Binns. 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and
breed clubs. Pages 19-30 in E. A. Ostrander, U. Giger, and K. Lindblad-Toh, editors. The
dog and its genome. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New
York, USA.
Scheumann, M. and J. Call. 2004. The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals
(Arctocephalus pusillus). Animal Cognition 7, 224-230.
Serpell, J. A. 2002. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection--beyond the "cute
response". Society and Animals 10, 437-454.
Shannon, L. 2009. Invisible parts: Animals and the renaissance anatomies of human
exceptionalism. Pages 137-158 in T. Tyler and M. Rossini, editors. Animal Encounters.
BRILL, Leiden, Netherlands.
Topal, J., G. Gergely, A. Erdohegyi, G. Csibra, and A. Miklosi. 2009. Differential sensitivity to
human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325, 1269-1272.
Vigne, J. D., J. Guilaine, K. Debue, L. Haye, and P. Gérard. 2004. Early taming of the cat in
Cyprus. Science 304, 259.
Voelkl, B. and L. Huber. 2000. True imitation in marmosets. Animal Behaviour 60, 195-202.
15
Wright, G. S., G. S. Wilkinson, and C. F. Moss. 2011. Social learning of a novel foraging task by
big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Animal Behaviour 82, 1075-1083.
16
CHAPTER 2
“MUTTS” ENCOURAGE HIGHER ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, CONSERVATION
HABITS, AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
INTRODUCTION
Social learning, where one animal gains and retains information from another individual,
can occur within or between species (Nicol 1995) and differs from other types of learning
because it involves acquiring information that is already known. Social learning can benefit both
signaling and/ or receiving individuals because it allows for efficient transfer of information (e.g.
Wright et al., 2011), increased likelihood of encountering information, and the ability to gain
information that is relevant to a specific population (e.g. Boesch et al., 1994). For example,
social information can provide knowledge about food sources or predators without the need for
individual discovery (Kaminski et al., 2005). Exchange of information among individuals of the
same species via social information is so critical that it is potentially ubiquitous for social
animals (e.g. stingrays, Thonhauser et al., 2013; whooping cranes, Mueller et al., 2013; ants,
Möglich et al., 1974; common octopus, Fiorito and Scotto 1992).
Social learning can occur within species in wild mammals (e.g. marmosets, Voelkl and
Huber 2000) or through teaching, where one individual changes their behavior in the presence of
another individual (e.g. meerkats, Thornton and McAuliffe 2006). Social learning in mammals
can also occur between members of different species (e.g. Avila-Pires saddle-back tamarins learn
from red-cap moustached tamarins, Peres 1993, woodchucks learn from eastern chipmunks,
Aschemeier and Maher 2011). For example, mule deer can recognize alarm calls from yellow-
17
bellied marmots and use this information to increase their vigilance for predators (Carrasco and
Blumstein 2012).
The ability of an animal to engage in social learning is critical to the successful
domestication of horses, cats, and dogs among others because animals must be able to respond to
a human environment. Domestic animals can gain information from humans through social
learning, regardless of whether the communication is intentional (e.g. training) or unintentional.
While training dominates our view of interspecies social learning between humans and
companion animals, unintentional social learning also appears important. Recent evidence
indicates that unintentional social learning is critical for domestic animals to navigate human
environments and gain disproportionate access to resources (e.g. domestic goats - Kaminski et
al., 2005; horses - Proops et al., 2010; and dogs and cats - Miklosi et al., 2005). For example,
dogs more often approached a person that they had previously observed sharing food with
another human rather than approaching a person they had observed not sharing food with another
human (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2011).
If information can pass from humans to domestic animals, information may also travel in
the opposite direction. For example, humans may be able to gain information from their pets,
because of our unique co-evolutionary history. Early interactions between humans and cats or
dogs likely resulted from sharing of food resources (Miklosi et al., 2005). Humans also used
domestic animals as workers for various tasks (e.g. pest control, hunting, herding) (Moody et al.,
2006; Faure and Kitchener 2009). These interactions between humans and working domestic
animals also allowed for the development of a close relationship, as evidenced by the fossil and
historical record (e.g. Davis 1978; Vigne et al., 2004; Faure and Kitchener 2009). The unique
18
history between humans and dogs and cats may have created an environment that allowed for the
unintentional exchange of social information.
The Industrial Revolution in the west created conditions that changed the relationship
between humans and domestic animals. Some domestic animals, like dogs and cats, shifted from
work to companion animals and moved from the outside into our homes. Humans also bred dogs
and cats to achieve a certain appearance, regardless of its utility for working tasks, leading to the
development of many new breeds during this period (Sampson and Binns 2006). Many of these
newly created breeds included animals that were highly modified from their wild, ancestral
forms, such as English bulldogs, toy poodles, Scottish folds, and Peterbalds. The change in the
role of domestic animals allowed for new and different interactions to occur between humans
and companion animals.
As our interactions with domestic animals changed, so too did our interactions with the
environment. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, people relied upon the natural environment for
living space, food production, and other resources. At the same time that people started to
develop the modern domestic breeds, people also began to move from rural locations to cities
with the advent of factories (Hirschman and Mogford 2009). This relocation may have
disconnected people from their reliance on the natural world, which meant that many humans no
longer had the opportunity to develop an intimate relationship with the environment.
Pets retain many characteristics of their wild ancestors despite physical and behavioral
alteration by humans. For example, domestic cats, like their ancestors, still have the ability to
hunt prey (Bradshaw 2006). In addition, domesticated dogs, similar to wolves, point to identify a
specific object or area (Kubinyi et al., 2007). Domestic cats and other wild cats also rub objects
for various reasons, such as scent marking (Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont 2000) and both
19
domestic dogs and gray wolves scratch the ground after elimination to leave a territorial mark
(Fox 1971). Because domesticated dogs and cats retain many of the characteristics of their wild
ancestors, observing them may allow humans to gain insight about the behavior, ecology, and
evolution of wild animals.
Pets may serve as a bridge for people in developed and/ or urbanized societies to the
natural world if people can use companion animals as a source of social information. People may
learn about biological processes unintentionally by observing their pets. People could then apply
the knowledge gained from interactions with pets to larger ecological concepts (Beach 1999).
Interaction with pets could affect a person’s scientific literacy and ecological attitudes (opinions
and feelings about the environment). If companion animals could serve as a bridge to the natural
world, then pet owners would be expected to show increased scientific literacy and heightened
environmental attitudes compared to non-pet owners.
This research will examine the effects of human-pet interactions on a person’s
environmental attitudes, conservation habits, and scientific knowledge. I expect pet owners to
show more conservation-oriented environmental attitudes than non-pet owners if pets can serve
as a bridge to the natural world. I also expect pet owners to show improved conservation habits if
their pets influence their behaviors toward the natural world. In addition, I expect pet owners to
show increased ecological and behavioral scientific knowledge if they can learn from their pets.
If pets do not serve as a bridge to the natural world, I expect to see no differences between pet
owners and non-pet owners.
The degree of modification of the pet (i.e. mixed breed pets versus purebred pets) is also
expected to influence pet owners’ environmental attitudes, conservation habits and scientific
knowledge. Differences in pet modification may be expected to invoke differing levels of
20
empathy in the person and therefore influence their thoughts and feelings about the environment.
I expect participants with less modified pets (i.e. mixed breed) to show improved environmental
attitudes compared to participants with more modified pets (i.e. purebred) if improved empathy
towards animals can extend to larger environmental issues. Participants with less modified pets
are also expected to show greater conservation habits compared to participants with more
modified pets if their environmental attitudes can influence their behaviors toward the
environment. Finally, participants with less modified pets are expected to demonstrate greater
scientific knowledge of ecology and behavior (compared to participants with more modified
pets) if their pets can provide greater information about these topics.
21
METHODS
1. Sample
A nationwide survey was conducted in the United States to determine how pet ownership
affects their environmental attitudes, conservation habits, and knowledge (Table 1). Responses
were checked for quality and attentiveness in several ways. We eliminated participants who did
not complete the survey, failed to indicate their location, or failed to answer the open-ended
question. Participants were also eliminated if they skipped a section of the survey. In addition,
surveys were eliminated if there was a logical inconsistency in responses (e.g. stated they had a
pet, but then listed 0 pets for any category). A total of 2899 responses were analyzed in this
study.
All survey participants were from the United States. Table 2 shows the demographic
information for survey participants that were used in analysis. I received slightly more responses
from white participants than I expected. I also received a large number of responses from
younger individuals, although this was not surprising since the survey was distributed online.
Overall, the sample population was proportional to the demographics of the United States as a
whole (United States Census Bureau 2014; United States Census Bureau 2011), with slight
exceptions described above.
2. Distribution
Participants of the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk)
crowdsourcing website. On mTurk, requestors put up small tasks to be completed (e.g. surveys,
audio transcription) and people could then complete the tasks for a small amount of pay (i.e.
incentive). mTurk has been determined to be a viable platform for delivering surveys in several
22
studies (e.g. Mason and Suri 2011; Rand 2012; Buhrmester et al., 2011). In this study,
participants were paid $0.70 to complete the survey. All survey responses were collected
between October 25, 2012 and January 31, 2013. Survey results were collected in two “batches”
to ensure that the mTurk platform would provide reliable results; the first batch took place
between October 25 – 26, 2012, and the second batch took place between January 28 – January
30, 2013. The survey listing on mTurk was tagged with several keywords, i.e. “survey”, “pets”,
“ecology”, “science”, “environment”, and “animals”.
Participants accessed the survey through a link on Amazon’s mTurk site that took them to
the survey, which was created in Checkbox Survey Software version 6. Participants could take
the survey only once: one response was collected per IP address. On the first page of the survey,
respondents consented to taking the survey in order to access questions, which was approved by
the Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University (IRB Protocol #S2012-32).
3. Measures
The survey consisted of multiple sections: pet information, environmental attitudes,
conservation habits, ecological and scientific knowledge, an open-ended question, and
demographic information. Participants were allowed to move backwards and forwards in the
survey to view and make changes to previously answered questions. Participants were not
allowed to save their survey to return to it later; the survey had to be completed in one session.
3.1 – Pet information
The pet information questions made up the first four questions of the survey and were created by
the researcher to gather information about pet ownership. The first question asked participants if
they owned pets. If the participant answered yes, they were taken to the next three questions.
23
These asked participants to describe what types of pets (dogs, cats, or other) and how many of
each type. The participants then described breed information for each dog and cat (pure bred,
mixed, or unknown). Participants answered these questions using radio buttons to select their
answer or category. Non-pet owning participants moved directly to the next section of the
survey.
3.2 – Environmental attitudes
The environmental attitudes questions were modified from the New Ecological Paradigm
Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) to ask participants about their environmental attitudes. These
questions were further separated into three categories: treatment of animals, environmental
perspective, and environmental assessment. The treatment of animals question asked participants
how they thought animals should be treated relative to human rights. Environmental perspective
questions were philosophical in nature, addressing how participants felt humans should treat the
environment. Environmental assessment questions asked participants how they felt people
currently treated the environment, describing how the participant viewed the generalized actions
of humans in the environment. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each
statement on a scale from 1-100, using a slider bar to place their response along the scale.
The final question in the environmental attitude category gave participants a list of
current ecological issues and asked them to choose which issues had a direct impact on their life
(see Table 1). Each current issue had an environmental connection, with some addressing global
issues, animal/ wildlife concerns, human health concerns, etc. The researcher created this
question.
24
3.3 – Conservation habits
The conservation habit questions were adapted from the Ecological Footprint Quiz
(Center for Sustainable Economy) and asked participants about their behaviors related to the
environment. Questions included water and energy conserving behaviors and overall recycling
habits. Participants indicated the number of water and energy conserving behaviors they engaged
in using checkboxes. Participants also indicated the percentage of items recycled using a slider
scale from 1-100.
3.4 – Ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge
The ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge questions assessed participants’
knowledge about these topics as it relates to their pets. These questions were created by the
researcher because no similar vetted questions were available. Several questions asked about
behaviors shown by dogs and cats, but in the context of wild animals, while others asked about
general animal and ecological knowledge. Participants were expected to have increased
knowledge of these topics if they learned from their pets. The first question in this category was
true/ false and all others were multiple choice. Participants used radio buttons to select their
answer to each question.
3.5 – General science knowledge
The general science knowledge questions were taken from a 2009 nationwide survey
conducted by the Pew Research Center, which addressed participant’s knowledge about general
science topics (Kohut et al., 2009). These questions measured participants’ knowledge about a
variety of non-animal related science topics, including basic chemistry, physics, geology, and
medicine. These questions were used as a control for knowledge, as a participant’s knowledge
about these topics would not be expected to be influenced by their pet ownership. Three of these
25
questions were multiple choice and three were true/ false. Participants used radio buttons to
select their answer to each question.
3.6 – Open-ended question
The open-ended question was designed by the researcher to give participants the
opportunity to describe their interaction with the natural world. This question was not analyzed
in this study, but used to confirm the quality of the survey, which is a common procedure to
ensure quality survey responses (e.g. Kittur et al., 2008). These data were evaluated in Chapter 4
of the thesis.
3.7 – Demographic information
The demographic information questions were voluntary and were created by the
researcher to gather general demographic data on participants. Questions included age and race/
ethnicity. Participants answered these questions by selecting from the options provided.
4. Survey vetting
Survey questions were vetted with students and faculty members in several classes at
Florida Gulf Coast University. Twenty-one students in a Conservation Strategies course and
twenty-one students in Latin American Environments and Natural Selection in Ecuador and the
Galapagos Islands took the survey in 2012. Feedback from the vetting process was incorporated
into the final survey and used to improve questions. Survey questions were also selected and
modified with the help of Florida Gulf Coast University faculty members.
5. Data analysis
A participant’s environmental perspective was calculated as:
26
, equation 1
A high score for environmental perspective indicated that the participant believed humans should
try to minimize their impacts on the environment (Table 1). A participant’s view on animal
treatment was the participant’s response to AR (Table 1). A participant’s environmental
assessment score was calculated as:
, equation 2
A high score for environmental assessment indicated that the participant believed humans were
currently harming the environment (Table 1).
A participant’s concern about ecological issues was calculated by taking the average
number of concerns a participant selected out of the 22 EC options (Table 1). This average was
then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of issues that
concerned the participant. A higher percentage for ecological concerns indicated that the
participant showed concern about a greater number of ecological issues.
A participant’s concern about animal-related ecological issues was calculated by taking
the average number of concerns a participant selected out of the five animal-related concerns
(see table 1). The five animal related concerns were (1) habitat loss, (2) loss of biological
processes, such as pollination and migration, (3) loss of species to extinction, (4) spread of exotic
species, (5) use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/ religious uses. This average was
then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of animal
related issues that concerned a participant. A higher score for animal-related concerns indicated
that a participant was highly concerned about animal-related ecological issues.
A participant’s response to energy and water conservation habits was counted as either
engaged or not engaged (Table 1). I then took the average number of energy and water
27
conservation habits a participant engaged in, respectively. A participant’s water and energy
conservation habits scores were rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score for water and
energy conservation habits indicated that a participant reported engaging in more conservation
habits.
A participant’s overall recycling score was calculated by taking the average of a
participant’s response to all five recycling categories: (1) paper, (2) aluminum, (3) glass, (4)
plastic, and (5) electronic waste. A higher overall recycling score indicated that the participant
recycled more materials.
A participant’s response to each ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge question
was counted as either correct or incorrect (Table 1). I then took the average number of questions
a participant answered correctly. This score was rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score on
ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge indicated that a participant answered more
questions correctly.
A participant’s response to each general science knowledge question was counted as
either correct or incorrect (Table 1). I then took the average of all questions a participant
answered correctly. This score was rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score on general
science knowledge indicated that a participant answered more questions correctly.
All data showed a slight skew, and normalcy was not improved through transformations:
Characterization of environmental attitudes was slightly biased towards higher environmental
attitudes; characterization of conservation habits was slightly biased towards greater participation
in conservation activities; characterization of knowledge was slightly biased toward higher levels
of overall knowledge. As a result, all variables were compared to participants’ pet ownership and
breed category using non-parametric one-way permutation tests with Monte Carlo resampling.
28
Tests were completed using the coin package in R (Hothorn et al., 2006), and graphs were
created using the g-plots package in R. Significance was described for α-values < 0.05.
29
RESULTS
Overall, 80.4% of respondents (n = 2331) were pet owners and 19.6%
(n = 568) were non-pet owners. 1269 respondents owned a cat and 1560 respondents owned a
dog. The number of pets owned ranged from 0 to 18, with a mean of 1.99 pets. In terms of breed
categories among pet owners, 22.5% of participants owned only purebred animals, 18% of
participants owned both pure and mixed breed animals, and 54% owned only mixed breed
animals.
Environmental attitudes
Pet owners showed 3% higher environmental perspective scores than non-pet owners. Pet
owners were more likely to think that people should minimize their impact on the environment
and less likely to think that humans should rule over nature when compared to non-pet owners
(Figure 1a; Z = 3.60, p < 0.001). In addition, participants that owned all mixed breed animals
showed the highest environmental perspective scores (Figure 1b; maxT = 4.91, p < 0.001).
Participants that owned only purebred animals or no animals showed the lowest scores (4%
lower), while participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals showed intermediate
scores.
Pet owners and non-pet owners showed similar environmental assessment scores (Figure
1c; Z = 0.42, p = 0.686). However, when separated by breed category, participants that owned at
least one mixed breed animal showed the highest environmental assessment score (Figure 1d;
maxT = 4.81, p < 0.001). These participants were more likely to think that humans were severely
abusing the environment and less likely to think that Americans used a responsible amount of
natural resources. Participants that owned only purebred animals showed the lowest
30
environmental assessment scores (4% lower), while those that did not own pets showed
intermediate scores.
Pet owners and non-pet owners also showed a similar amount of concern about
ecological issues (Figure 1e; Z = 1.71, p = 0.090). Similar to environmental assessment,
participants that owned at least one mixed breed animal were more likely to be concerned about
a variety of ecological issues, such as acid rain and global climate change (Figure 1f; maxT =
3.09, p = 0.008). Participants that owned only purebred animals showed the least concern about
these issues (4% lower), while those that did not own pets showed intermediate scores.
Animal related issues
Pet owners favored better treatment for non-human animals (8% higher) when compared
to non-pet owners (Figure 2a; Z = 8.15, p < 0.001). In addition, participants that owned any type
of pet favored better treatment for animals when compared to participants that did not own pets
(Figure 2b; maxT = 8.20, p < 0.001).
Pet owners also showed greater concern (5% higher) about ecological issues that directly
affected animals, such as habitat loss and extinction (Figure 2c; Z = 3.15, p = 0.002). Participants
that owned at least one mixed breed animal showed the greatest level of concern about these
issues (Figure 2d; maxT = 4.06, p < 0.001). Participants that owned only purebred animals or did
not own any animals showed the lowest levels of concern (7% lower).
Conservation habits
Pet owners showed 6% more water conservation habits when compared to non-pet
owners (Figure 3a; Z = 4.96, p < 0.001). Pet owners were more likely to participate in water
31
saving activities such as minimizing shower time and toilet flushing. In addition, participants that
owned at least one mixed breed animal were more likely to engage in water saving activities,
while participants that owned purebred animals or no animals were less likely to do so (Figure
3b; maxT = 5.04, p < 0.001).
Pet owners also showed 3% higher rates of energy conservation habits when compared to
non-pet owners (Figure 3c; Z = 3.31, p < 0.001). Pet owners were more likely to participate in
energy saving activities such as turning off lights when leaving rooms and drying clothes outside
when possible. Participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals showed the highest
rates of energy saving habits, while those that did not own pets showed the lowest. Participants
that owned only purebred or only mixed breed animals showed intermediate levels of energy
saving habits (Figure 3d; maxT = 3.45, p = 0.002).
Pet owners showed slightly more recycling than non-pet owners (Figure 3e; Z = 1.99, p =
0.049). When separated by breed category, pet owners of all types and non-pet owners showed
no differences in their rates of recycling (Figure 3f; maxT = 2.06, p = 0.134).
Knowledge
Pet owners and non-pet owners showed similar understanding of ecology, evolution, and
behavior knowledge (Figure 4a; Z = 1.33, p = 0.184). However, when separated by breed
category, participants that owned at least one mixed breed animal showed significantly greater
understanding of ecology, evolution, and behavior than non-pet owners, who showed
intermediate scores, and purebred owners who showed the lowest levels of understanding (8%
lower) (Figure 4b; maxT = 6.55, p < 0.001).
32
Pet owners and non-pet owners showed no differences in their general science
knowledge (Figure 4c; Z = 0.92, p = 0.349). When separated by breed category, owners of only
mixed breed animals showed 2.5% higher scores than owners of only purebred animals (Figure
4d; maxT = 2.93, p = 0.015). Participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals or no
animals showed intermediate scores. Owners of only mixed breed animals were slightly more
likely to know information about science topics such as geology, chemistry, and physics.
33
DISCUSSION
Pet owners favored better treatment of animals and were more concerned about issues
that directly impacted animals. This is not surprising, as one would expect anyone that lives and
interacts with a pet on a daily basis to develop a relationship with that animal that may lead them
to become more empathetic towards the treatment of all animals. In addition, a person’s empathy
towards animals may promote empathy towards the environment in general. Pet owners did seem
to be more empathetic toward the environment, viewing it as important and worthy of protection.
One would expect these results if a person’s pet does indeed serve as a bridge to the natural
environment. Finally, pet owners are more likely to engage in activities that promote protection
of the environment, such as water and energy conservation. These actions may also be related to
animal empathy, as conserving water and energy resources lessens a person’s individual impacts
on the environment (e.g. fewer greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels) and saves limited
natural resources (e.g. water, fossil fuels for energy, etc.), which may indirectly benefit animals.
If pets served as a bridge, one would expect to see a difference in environmental
assessment; concern about ecological issues; as well as knowledge about ecology, evolution, and
behavior between pet and non-pet owners. One would expect pet owners to believe humans
negatively impacted the environment; to be more concerned about ecological issues; and to show
greater knowledge of ecology, evolution and behavior. These differences were not apparent
when comparing pet owners and non-pet owners, but did become clear when comparing breed
categories. However, these differences appeared to be related to the pet’s breed type rather than a
simple issue of whether the participant lived with an animal or not. The breed status of an animal
appeared to be very important in influencing a person’s feelings about these issues. Individuals
that interacted with mixed breed (less modified) animals did show differences in their
34
environmental attitudes and knowledge when compared to individuals that interacted with
purebred animals (more modified). Participants that interacted with at least one mixed breed
animal believed humans were having a negative impact on the environment, were more
concerned about a variety of ecological issues, and showed much greater understanding of
ecology, evolution, and behavioral knowledge.
We might expect individuals that live with pets to know more about animals in general
(i.e. their ecology, evolution, and behavior) because they are animal lovers. However, this is not
what I found. Greater biological knowledge among people living with mixed breed animals
supports the idea that the type of animal provides the person with different opportunities to
benefit from social information. Mixed breed animals differ from purebred animals because they
have been less modified through the process of artificial selection. Purebred dogs are known to
have a variety of physical problems as a result of the breeding process, such as respiratory
problems, deformation of the skull, hip dysplasia, skin conditions, deafness, and cardiovascular
problems (Asher et al., 2009). Purebred animals also show different behavioral patterns and
personality traits (e.g. Starling et al., 2013, boldness; Svartberg 2006). These differences may be
related to the degree to which the person’s pet has been modified, with lesser degrees of
modification providing the person a better connection to environment. Pets that have been highly
modified (i.e. purebred animals) may retain fewer characteristics of their wild ancestors. People
who live with these highly modified animals may be less able to gain information from their
pets, especially in terms of animal behavior and ecology. Pets that have been less modified (i.e.
mixed breed animals) may retain more characteristics from their wild ancestors and participants
that live with these animals may be better able to gain information about animal behavior and
ecology through their interactions with their pets. Purebred animals appear to be a poorer bridge
35
between people and the natural environment. Conversely, mixed breed animals appear to be a
better bridge between people and the natural environment.
The concept of animal modification relates closely to concepts about environmental
modification. Individuals that own purebred animals may support the modification of an animal
for many reasons, such as size, fur color, or other preferred morphological or behavioral
characteristics, regardless of possible negative physical and behavioral impacts to the animal.
Individuals with purebred animals showed lower environmental perspective scores, indicating
that they believed humans were meant to rule over nature and that humans did not need to
minimize their impacts on the environment. The idea that humans can modify the environment in
any way to suit their needs and desires mirrors the idea that humans may also modify animals for
their own needs and desires.
In contrast, participants with different breeds of pets showed minimal difference in their
recycling habits. This result is somewhat surprising, as one would expect a participant’s
environmental attitudes to influence their recycling behaviors similar to the differences seen in
water and energy conservation among different participants. However, minimal differences
among participants may be related to the availability of recycling programs in their local
community. Some participants may not have access to any recycling while others may only have
access to certain types of recycling (e.g. paper only), which would have affected their ability to
recycle regardless of pet ownership.
Participants that owned only mixed breed animals also showed the greatest general
science knowledge, while participants that owned only purebred animals showed the lowest
scores. This result was unexpected and it is unclear how a person’s pets may contribute to their
knowledge about these non-animal related science topics. Perhaps participants with less modified
36
animals, who appear to show greater interest in the environment, have a greater interest in
science in general, leading them to be better informed about a variety of science disciplines.
Results of this study encourage a reconsideration of what may influence how a person
feels about and interacts with the environment, as well as what they know about the
environment. Current beliefs often suggest that a person’s education and outdoor experiences
form their environmental attitudes, both of which are clearly important factors (e.g. Tikka et al.,
2000; Palmberg and Kuru 2000). We may be overlooking other important contributing factors,
failing to recognize the significant role of pets. Something as simple as the type of pets a person
lives and interacts with could influence how they feel about and act toward the environment.
People who own less modified pets appear to be more inclined towards viewing the environment
as worthy of protection and engaging in activities that promote environmental protection. These
people also appear to be better informed about their pets, ecology, and science in general. It is
important that we consider other factors, such as pet ownership, that may influence a person’s
environmental attitudes and behaviors, so that we may explore how to encourage positive
attitudes and behaviors towards the environment among a greater number of people.
37
LITERATURE CITED
Aschemeier, L.M., Maher, C.R., 2011. Eavesdropping of woodchucks (Marmota monax) and
eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) on heterospecific alarm calls. Journal of
Mammalogy 92, 493-499.
Asher, L., Diesel, G., Summers, J.F., McGreevy, P.D., Collins, L.M., 2009. Inherited defects in
pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182,
402-411.
Beach, K., 1999. Consequential transition: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in
education. Review of Research in Education 24, 101-139.
Boesch, C., Marchesi, P., Marchesi, N., Fruth, B., Joulian, F., 1994. Is nut cracking in wild
chimpanzees a cultural behaviour? Journal of Human Evolution 26, 325-338.
Bradshaw, J., Cameron-Beaumont, C., 2000. The signalling repertoire of the domestic cat and its
undomesticated relatives, in: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The domestic cat: The
biology of its behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 67-93.
Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2006. The evolutionary basis for the feeding behavior of domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus). Journal of Nutrition 136, 1927S-1931S.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of
inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 3-5.
Carrasco, M.F., Blumstein, D.T., 2012. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) respond to yellow-
bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris) alarm calls. Ethology 118, 243-250.
Center for Sustainable Economy. n.d. Ecological Footprint Quiz. Center for Sustainable
Economy, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. http://myfootprint.org/en/.
Davis, S.J.M., 1978. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of
Israel. Nature 276, 608-610.
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of
the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425-442.
Faure, E., Kitchener, A.C., 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships
between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.
Fiorito, G., Scotto, P., 1992. Observational learning in Octopus vulgaris. Science 256, 545-547.
Fox, M.W., 1971. Behavior of wolves, dogs and related canids. Harper and Row, New York.
Hirschman, C., Mogford, E., 2009. Immigration and the American industrial revolution from
1880 to 1920. Social Science Research 38, 897-920.
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M.A., Zeileis, A., 2006. A Lego System for Conditional
Inference. The American Statistician 60, 257-263.
Kaminski, J., Riedel, J., Call, J., Tomasello, M., 2005. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow
gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69, 11-18.
Kittur, A., Chi, E.H., Suh, B., 2008. Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk,
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM,
pp. 453-456.
Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., 2009. Scientific achievements less prominent
than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Washington, DC:
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Kubinyi, E., Virányi, Z., Miklósi, Á., 2007. Comparative Social Cognition: From wolf and dog
to humans. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews 2, 26-46.
38
Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Ferrario, A., Valsecchi, P., Prato-Previde, E., 2011. Social
eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour 81, 1177-1183.
Mason, W., Suri, S., 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
Behavior Research Methods 44, 1-23.
Miklosi, A., Pongracz, N., Lakatos, G., Topal, J., Csanyi, V., 2005. A comparative study of the
use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and
humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119, 179-
186.
Möglich, M., Maschwitz, U., Hölldobler, B., 1974. Tandem calling: a new kind of signal in ant
communication. Science 186, 1046-1047.
Moody, J.A., Clark, L.A., Murphy, K.E., 2006. Working dogs: History and applications, in:
Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome, Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 1-18.
Mueller, T., O'Hara, R.B., Converse, S.J., Urbanek, R.P., Fagan, W.F., 2013. Social Learning of
Migratory Performance. Science 341, 999-1002.
Nicol, C., 1995. The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 44, 79-98.
Palmberg, I.E., Kuru, J., 2000. Outdoor Activities as a Basis for Environmental Responsibility.
Journal of Environmental Education 31, 32-36.
Peres, C.A., 1993. Anti-Predation Benefits in a Mixed-Species Group of Amazonian Tamarins.
Folia Primatologica 61, 61-76.
Proops, L., Walton, M., McComb, K., 2010. The use of human-given cues by domestic horses,
Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 79, 1205-1209.
Rand, D.G., 2012. The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists
run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299, 172-179.
Sampson, J., Binns, M.M., 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and breed
clubs, in: Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome,
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 19-30.
Starling, M.J., Branson, N., Thomson, P.C., McGreevy, P.D., 2013. "Boldness" in the domestic
dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behavioural Processes 97, 53-62.
Svartberg, K., 2006. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs?
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 293-313.
Thonhauser, K.E., Gutnick, T., Byrne, R.A., Kral, K., Burghardt, G.M., Kuba, M.J., 2013. Social
learning in Cartilaginous fish (stingrays Potamotrygon falkneri). Animal Cognition 16,
927-932.
Thornton, A., McAuliffe, K., 2006. Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313, 227-229.
Tikka, P.M., Kuitunen, M.T., Tynys, S.M., 2000. Effects of educational background on students'
attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of
Environmental Education 31, 12-19.
United States Census Bureau. 2014. USA QuickFacts. U.S. Department of Commerce.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.
United States Census Bureau. 2011. Age and Sex Composition: 2010. U.S. Department of
Commerce. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf.
Vigne, J.D., Guilaine, J., Debue, K., Haye, L., Gérard, P., 2004. Early taming of the cat in
Cyprus. Science 304, 259.
Voelkl, B., Huber, L., 2000. True imitation in marmosets. Animal Behaviour 60, 195-202.
39
Wright, G.S., Wilkinson, G.S., Moss, C.F., 2011. Social learning of a novel foraging task by big
brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Animal Behaviour 82, 1075-1083.
40
TABLES AND FIGURES
Environmental Attitudes
Question
Number
Prompt Score Indicator
EP1 Humans should pursue choices and decisions that minimize any
negative impact on the natural environment.
High score =
higher
environmental
perspective
EP2 Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature. Low score =
higher
environmental
perspective
AR How should animals be treated relative to basic human rights? High score =
higher animal
concern
EA1 The average American uses a responsible amount of natural
resources to meet their daily needs.
Low score =
higher
environmental
assessment
EA2 Humans are severely abusing the environment. High score =
higher
environmental
assessment
Ecological Concerns
EC Acid rain More concerns
selected = greater
concern about
ecological issues
Air pollution
Destructive removal of natural resources
Disease resistance to antibiotics and other medicines
Emergence of new diseases, such as HIV, H1N1, and
SARS
Free trade/ globalization
Genetically modified foods
Global climate change
Habitat loss*
Human population growth
Industrialization
Limited resources, such as oil and gasoline
Loss of biological processes, such as pollination and
migration*
Loss of ecological services, such as water purification and
the removal of CO2 from the air by plants
Loss of species to extinction*
Off-shore oil drilling
41
Soil erosion
Spread of exotic species*
Urban sprawl and suburban development
Use of pesticides and herbicides
Use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/
religious uses*
Water pollution
Energy Conservation Habits
EC1 Turn off lights when leaving rooms More activities
selected = greater
energy conservation
habits
EC2 Use power strips to turn off stand-by lights
EC3 Turn off computers and monitors when not in use
EC4 Dry clothes outside whenever possible
EC5 Keep thermostat relatively high in summer
EC6 Unplug small appliances when not in use
EC7 Minimal use of power equipment when landscaping
EC8 Compost rather than use garbage disposal
Water Conservation Habits
WC1 Minimize shower time More activities
selected = greater
energy conservation
habits
WC2 Minimize toilet flushing
WC3 Run clothes and dish washers only when full
WC4 Wash cars rarely
WC5 Look for and fix leaks regularly
WC6 Avoid hosing down decks, walkways, driveways
Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Knowledge
EEB1 Animals can digest anything that they eat in their
environment
More questions
correctly answered
= greater
understanding of
ecology, evolution,
and behavior
EEB2 Based on your knowledge of dogs, how does a wolf
demonstrate submission within a pack?
EEB3 Catfish barbels, which are similar to cat and dog whiskers
in both shape and location, serve which of the following
purposes:
EEB4 What caused the variety of farm animal breeds seen today?
EEB5 Besides urination, how does a tiger indicate that an object,
such as a tree, is part of its territory based on your
knowledge of cat behavior?
EEB6 What effect does spaying and neutering have on the rate of
population growth in domestic animals?
General Science Knowledge
S1 Which over-the-counter drug do doctors recommend that
people take to help prevent heart attacks?
More questions
correctly answered
42
S2 Which of the following may cause a tsunami? = greater
understanding of
general science
topics
S3 The continents on which we live have been moving their
location for millions of years and will continue to move in
the future:
S4 Lasers work by focusing sound waves:
S5 What have scientists recently discovered on Mars?
S6 Electrons are smaller than atoms:
Table 1: Description of survey questions used in analysis. Note: Asterisks (*) indicate that
animal-related ecological concerns.
43
Variable N %
Age (N = 2898)
18-25 1028 35.5
26-35 1127 38.9
36-45 374 12.9
46-55 213 7.3
56-65 130 4.5
66-75 26 0.9
Race (N = 2855)
African American 171 6.0
Asian American 192 6.7
Hispanic 119 4.2
Multiethnic 117 4.1
Native American 17 0.6
Pacific Islander 5 0.2
White 2234 78.2
Table 2: Demographic information for survey respondents. Some
participants did not respond to questions about age or race.
44
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Figure 1: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on environmental attitudes: a) difference in
environmental perspective between pet and non-pet owners; b) difference in environmental
perspective between breed categories; c) difference in environmental assessment between pet
and non-pet owners; d) difference in environmental assessment between breed categories; e)
difference in concern about ecological issues between pet and non-pet owners; f) difference in
concern about ecological issues between breed categories.
45
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 2: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on animal-related issues: a) difference in
views about animal treatment between pet owners and non-pet owners; b) differences in views
about animal treatment between breed categories; c) differences in concern about animal related
ecological issues between pet owners and non-pet owners; d) differences in concern about
animal related ecological issues between breed categories.
46
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Figure 3: Effect of pet ownership and breed categories on conservation habits: a) differences in
water conservation habits between pet owners and non-pet owners; b) differences in water
conservation habit between breed categories; c) differences in energy conservation habits
between pet and non-pet owners; d) differences in energy conservation habits between breed
categories; e) differences in recycling between pet and non-pet owners; f) differences in
recycling between breed categories.
47
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 4: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on scientific knowledge: a) difference in
ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge between pet owners and non-pet owners; b)
difference in ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge between breed categories; c)
differences in general science knowledge between pet owners and non-pet owners; d) differences
in general science knowledge between breed categories.
48
CHAPTER 3
ANTHROPOMORPHISM PROMOTES STRONGER ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND
CONSERVATION HABITS RELATIVE TO HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM
INTRODUCTION
The history of ethology has been intertwined with issues regarding anthropomorphism,
the application of human characteristics to animals, and human exceptionalism, the belief that
humans possess distinct characteristics that are not found in other animals (Cezilly 2008). Early
in the exploration of animal behavior, Darwin’s writings proposed an evolutionary continuity
between humans and animals and argued that some form of intelligence was present in both
(Wasserman 1997). This argument was used to support pervasive uses of anthropomorphism in
Victorian popular and scientific communities. Development of such anthropomorphic arguments
was eventually criticized and rejected by behaviorists, such as Morgan and Skinner, because of a
lack of scientific rigor and evidence. Behaviorists adopted a human exceptionalist animal view
based on the Cartesian model of thinking, which described animals as machine like and distinct
from humans (Kennedy 1992). In the 1930’s, the first generation of modern ethologists, such as
Tinbergen and Lorenz, embraced this Cartesian human exceptionalist animal view, using
technical language and theoretical descriptions that removed any connection to a human
experience in an effort to improve their objective and detached examination of animal behavior
(Crist 1999).
The way that people view and feel about the environment (i.e. environmental attitude)
has evolved in a manner that was similar to the development of ethology. Early
environmentalists divided into two camps that paralleled the division between
49
anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism. Some, such as Pinchot, advocated for an
environment that integrated human interests within a managed landscape (Pak 2011). This
environmental perspective mirrored anthropomorphic views because both recognized shared
experiences between humans and animals. Others, such as John Muir, argued for an environment
where humans were separate from the natural landscape in order to preserve pristine
wildernesses (Pak 2011). This environmental perspective mirrored human exceptionalist views
because both believed that the human and animal experiences were and should be separated.
Modern environmentalism is challenged by this dichotomy between integrating and separating
humans from nature. Environmental campaigns often appeal to a connection between people and
the environment, such as a cute animal (Huddy and Gunnthorsdottir 2000.), while environmental
stewardship often advocates separation (e.g. Senda-Cook 2013). For example, environmental
stewards encourage people to stay on trails while “taking nothing but pictures and leaving
nothing but footprints”.
A person’s views about animals as well as the environment appear to be related to how
they think about the natural environment as a whole. For example, Berenguer (2007) assigned
participants to either high or low empathy conditions and then showed them a picture of either a
bird or tree being harmed. Participants in the high-empathy condition showed stronger
empathetic attitudes towards nature as a whole and were more likely to allocate money to a
hypothetical environmental organization. A person’s environmental attitudes can also be
influenced by their feelings toward nature. In Tam et al., (2013), participants that created or
viewed anthropomorphic content about nature showed a greater connection to nature, increased
willingness to use green products, and increased willingness to adopt a national indicator of
50
environmental impact. In both cases, people that were first encouraged to empathize and/ or
anthropomorphize nature showed higher environmental attitudes.
The current study will determine if an individual’s underlying animal views (i.e.
anthropomorphic to human exceptionalist views about animals) influence their environmental
attitudes and conservation habits. A person’s animal views may relate to their level of empathy,
where anthropomorphic individuals would be expected to show more empathy than human
exceptionalists. As a result, animal views should relate to a person’s concern about
environmental issues and their behavior toward nature. Examination of this issue will be
determined using a nation-wide survey of participants from the United States. Previous studies
were experimental in nature, where a participant’s feelings were first manipulated in order to
measure the effects on environmental feelings and behaviors. In this study, I will compare a
participant’s animal views (based on a person’s existing, unmanipulated opinion about animals)
to their environmental attitudes and conservation habits. I expect that individuals with more
anthropomorphic animal views will have greater concerns about animal issues, higher
environmental attitudes, and increased conservation habits.
51
METHODS
1. Sample
To determine how a person’s animal views relate to their environmental attitudes and
conservation habits, a nationwide survey was conducted in the United States (Table 1).
Responses were checked for quality and attentiveness in several ways. I eliminated participants
who did not complete the survey, failed to indicate their location, or failed to answer the open-
ended question. Participants were also eliminated if they skipped a section of the survey. In
addition, surveys were eliminated if there was a logical inconsistency in responses (e.g. stated
they had a pet, but then listed 0 pets for any category). A total of 2898 responses were analyzed
in this study.
All survey participants were from the United States. Table 2 shows the demographic
information for survey participants that were used in analysis. I received slightly more responses
from white participants than was expected. I also received a large number of responses from
younger individuals, although this is not surprising due to the online survey distribution. Overall,
the sample population was proportional to the demographics of the United States as a whole.
2. Distribution
Participants of the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk)
crowdsourcing website. On mTurk, requestors put up small tasks to be completed (e.g. surveys,
audio transcription) and workers can then complete the tasks for a small amount of pay (i.e.
incentive). mTurk has been determined to be a viable platform for delivering surveys in several
studies (e.g. Mason and Suri 2012; Rand 2011; Buhrmester et al., 2011). In this study,
participants were paid $0.70 to complete the survey. All survey responses were collected
52
between October 25, 2012 and January 31, 2013. Survey results were collected in two “batches”
to ensure that the mTurk platform would provide reliable results; the first batch took place
between October 25 – 26, 2012, and the second batch took place between January 28 – January
30, 2013. The survey listing on mTurk was tagged with several keywords, i.e. “survey”, “pets”,
“ecology”, “science”, “environment”, and “animals”.
Participants accessed the survey through a link on Amazon’s mTurk site. The survey was
created in Checkbox Survey Software version 6. Participants could take the survey only once:
one response was collected per IP address. On the first page of the survey, respondents consented
to taking the survey in order to access the questions. The survey was approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University.
3. Measures
The survey consisted of multiple sections: environmental attitudes, conservation habits,
animal views, an open-ended question, and demographic information. Participants were allowed
to move backwards and forwards in the survey to view and make changes to previously
answered questions. Participants were not allowed to save their survey to return to it later; the
survey had to be completed in one session.
3.1 – Environmental attitudes
The first five questions of the survey were modified from the New Ecological Paradigm
Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) to ask participants about their environmental attitudes. These
questions were further separated into three categories: treatment of non-human animals,
environmental perspective, and environmental assessment. The treatment of non-human animals
question asked participants to state the degree of rights that non-human animals should receive
53
relative to human rights. Environmental perspective questions were philosophical in nature,
addressing how participants felt humans should treat the environment in general. Environmental
assessment questions asked participants how they felt people currently treated the environment
and described how the participant viewed the generalized actions of humans in the environment.
Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1-100, using a
slider bar to place the marker along the scale.
The final question in the environmental attitude category gave participants a list of
current ecological issues and asked them to choose which issues had a direct impact on their life
(Table 1). Each current issue had an environmental connection, with some addressing global
issues, animal/ wildlife concerns, human health concerns, etc. The researcher created this
question.
3.2 – Conservation habits
These questions were adapted from the Ecological Footprint Quiz (Center for Sustainable
Economy) and asked participants about a wide range of their behaviors related to the
environment. Questions included water and energy conserving behaviors, overall recycling
habits, and dietary choices. Participants indicated the number of water and energy conserving
behaviors they engaged in using checkboxes. Participants also indicated the percentage of items
recycled or included in their diet using a slider scale from 1-100.
3.3 – Animal views
The researcher designed these questions because no vetted questions on
anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism were available. Questions in this category
assessed the participant’s beliefs about animals. Participants were given three anthropomorphic
statements (e.g. a mother dog loves her pups) and three human exceptionalist statements (e.g.
54
humans are the only animals that use language). Participants were then asked to indicate their
level of agreement with each of the six statements. Participants with anthropomorphic views
were more likely to agree with statements that described humans and animals as having similar
experiences. Human exceptionalist participants were more likely to agree with statements that
described humans and animals as having distinct and different experiences. Participants indicated
their level of agreement with each statement on a slider scale from 0-100, using the marker to
indicate their response on the scale.
3.4 – Open-ended questions
This question was designed by the researcher because of its specificity to the study. This
question was used to gather qualitative information from participants about how they interacted
with the natural world and how these interactions impacted their quality of life. Participants were
provided with a text box to type in their response. There was no limit to the participant’s
response; they could enter as much text as desired. This question required an answer from the
participant to ensure thoughtful and active participation in the survey; participants were not
considered to have completed the survey until this question was answered. This question was
used to confirm that participants completed the survey in a thoughtful and attentive manner and
was not analyzed here.
3.5 – Demographic information
These voluntary questions were created by the researcher and were used to gather general
demographic data on participants. Questions included age, race/ ethnicity, and education level.
Participants answered these questions by selecting from the options provided, which were based
off of race, age, and education categories used by the United States Census.
55
4. Survey vetting
Survey questions were vetted with students and faculty members in several classes at
Florida Gulf Coast University. Twenty-one students in a Conservation Strategies course and
twenty-one students in Latin American Environments and Natural Selection in Ecuador and the
Galapagos Islands took the survey. Feedback and student comments from the vetting process
were incorporated into the final survey and used to improve questions. Survey questions were
also selected and modified with the help of Florida Gulf Coast University faculty members.
5. Data analysis
I used a factor analysis to determine the relationship among the six animal views
questions. Three different techniques (principal component analysis, unweighted least square,
and maximum likelihood) produced similar results. I describe the results of the maximum
likelihood analysis. Individual factors and associated loadings were described for each case
where the initial eigenvalue exceeded one. I then regressed the loading of the first factor
extraction for each participant to give each participant an “animal views” value along a gradient
between anthropomorphic and human exceptionalist. In this process, anthropomorphic
participants received a negative score while human exceptionalist participants received a positive
score. I then compared participants’ animal views relative to their environmental attitudes and
conservation habits.
A participant’s environmental perspective was calculated as:
, equation 1
A high score for environmental perspective indicated that the participant believes humans should
try to minimize their impacts on the environment (Table 1). A participant’s view on non-human
56
animal treatment was the participant’s response to AR (Table 1). A participant’s environmental
assessment score was calculated as:
, equation 2
A high score for environmental assessment indicated that the participant believes humans are
currently harming the environment (Table 1).
A participant’s concern about ecological issues was calculated by taking the average
number of concerns a participant selected out of the 22 EC options (Table 1). This average was
then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of issues a
participant selected as concerning. A higher percentage for ecological concerns indicated that the
participant showed concern about a greater number of ecological issues.
A participant’s concern about animal-related ecological issues was calculated by taking
the average number of concerns a participant selected out of the five animal-related concerns
(Table 1). The five animal related concerns were (1) habitat loss, (2) loss of biological processes,
such as pollination and migration, (3) loss of species to extinction, (4) spread of exotic species,
(5) use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/ religious uses. This average was then
multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of animal related
issues a participant selected as concerning. A higher score for animal-related concerns indicated
that a participant was more concerned about animal-related ecological issues.
A participant’s responses to energy and water conservation habits were counted as either
engaged in or not engaged in (Table 1). I then calculated the average number of water or energy
habits that a participant engaged in, respectively. These averages were rounded to 2 decimal
places. A higher score for water and energy conservation habits indicated that a participant
reported engaging in more conservation habits.
57
A participant’s overall recycling score was calculated by taking the average of a
participant’s response to all five recycling categories: (1) paper, (2) aluminum, (3) glass, (4)
plastic, and (5) electronic waste. A higher overall recycling score indicated that the participant
recycled more materials.
A participant’s diet type was calculated by determining the percentage of their overall
diet that was made up of five different types of food: (1) seafood, (2) other meats, (3) dairy, (4)
fruits and vegetables, and (5) grain and nuts. Because a participant could answer between 0 – 100
percent for each food category, their total response generally did not add up to 100 percent. I,
therefore, standardized each participant’s response by taking the response for each category
divided by the total response for all categories. This provided the proportion of the diet made up
by each individual category. The vegan percentage of diet was calculated by totaling the
percentage of (1) fruits and vegetables and (2) grain and nuts a participant ate relative to the
percentage of each food item in his or her diet.
A participant’s education level was determined by categorizing a participant’s response
to their level of education. Participants that responded (1) some high school, (2) high school
degree, or (3) some college were categorized as Non-Graduates. Participants that responded (1)
undergraduate degree or (2) graduate degree were categorized as College Graduates. In addition,
I selected participants with an animal view that was at least one standard deviation below or
above the mean (i.e. extreme anthropomorphism or extreme human exceptionalism,
respectively).
Treatment of non-human animals, environmental perspective, environmental assessment,
recycling, and non-animal product percentage of diet were all compared to animal views using
linear regression models All data showed a slight right skew, and normalcy was not improved
58
through transformations. I conducted a non-parametric robust linear model for these tests and
found results to be nearly identical to parametric linear models. I, therefore, report results of the
parametric linear models so that I could describe properties of the model equation in each case.
Ecological issues, animal-related ecological issues, water conservation habits, and energy
conservation habits resulted in ordinal data (e.g. participants either selected an option or did not
select an option). I ,therefore, compared animal views to these variables using an ordinal logistic
regression. Education levels were compared to animal views using a one-way permutation test as
these data were categorical.
The maximum likelihood factor analysis to determine animal views was completed in
SPSS. Linear regression models were completed using the R base package. Ordinal logistic
regressions were completed in R using the MASS package (MASS, Venables and Ripley 2002).
One-way permutations were completed in R using the coin package (Hothorn et al., 2006). The
g-plots package in R was used to create figures for one-way permutation results. Other figures
were created with the base package in R. Significance was described for α-values < 0.05.
59
RESULTS
Two factors explained 55.24% of the total variation among the six statements about
anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism (Table 3). Participant’s response to the animal
views questions tended to follow a dichotomy between anthropomorphism and human
exceptionalism, which is observed in Factor 1. Factor one, which I called “Animal View”,
explained 34.6% of the variation among the six animal views questions, receiving positive
loadings for the three human exceptionalist questions and negative loadings for the three
anthropomorphic questions. Within the framework of this analysis, anthropomorphic individuals
received a negative score on Factor 1, while human exceptionalists received a positive score on
Factor 1. Factor 2 explained an additional 20.62 % of the variation, describing a weak positive
association between all 6 statements anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism. Factor 2 was
not considered further because of my desire to evaluate a participant’s overall animal view
relative to their environmental attitudes and conservation habits. Overall, the study population
showed a slight bias in animal views towards anthropomorphism, as noted by the right-skewed
distribution of animal views.
Animal issues
Anthropomorphic participants favored increased rights for non-human animals when
compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 1a; F = 634.2, df = 1, 2897,
r2 = 0.179, p < 0.001). This opinion decreased by 10.68% for every one-unit change in her or his
animal view. Concern about animal-related ecological issues was also negatively associated with
a participant’s animal view. For each unit increase in animal view towards human
60
exceptionalism, individuals were approximately 60% more likely to decrease the number of
animal concerns by one (Figure 1b; p < 0.001, odd ratio = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.38]).
Environmental attitudes
Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to think that people should minimize
their impact on the environment and were less likely to think humans should rule over nature
compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 1c; F = 421,
df = 1, 2897, r2 = 0.127, p < 0.001). A participant’s feelings about these environmental
statements decreased by 8.87% for every one-unit change in his or her animal view. A
participant’s animal views also influenced their beliefs about how humans affect the environment
currently. Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to think that humans were severely
abusing the environment and less likely to think that Americans were using a responsible amount
of resources to meet their needs, when compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 1d;
F = 169.8, df = 1, 2897, r2 = 0.055, p < 0.001). A participant’s feelings about our impacts on the
environment decreased by 4.92% for every one-unit change in his or her animal view.
Anthropomorphic participants also showed greater concern about a range of ecological issues,
such as acid rain, global climate change, and soil erosion, when compared to human
exceptionalist participants. For each unit increase in animal views, individuals were 66% more
likely to decrease the number of ecological concerns by one (Figure 2; p < 0.001, odds ratio =
0.60, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.44]).
61
Conservation habits
Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to engage in energy saving behaviors
such as turning off lights when leaving rooms, keeping thermostats high in the summer, and
drying clothes outside than human exceptionalist participants. The likelihood that an individual
would decrease the number of energy conserving habits by one for each unit increase in animal
view toward human exceptionalism was 43% (Figure 3a; p < 0.001, odds ratio = 0.70, 95% CI [-
0.43, -0.28]). Anthropomorphic participants also engaged in more water saving behaviors;
including minimizing shower time, minimizing toilet flushing, and washing cars rarely; when
compared to human exceptionalist participants. Individuals were approximately 52% more likely
to decrease the number of water conserving habits by one for each unit increase in animal view
towards human exceptionalism (Figure 3b; p < 0.001, odds ratio = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.34]).
In addition, anthropomorphic participants showed slightly more recycling in all categories, such
as paper, plastic, and glass, compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 3c; F = 18.9,
df = 1, 2897, r2 = 0.006, p < 0.001). A participant’s recycling habits decreased by 2.64% for
every one-unit change in animal view towards human exceptionalism. Finally, anthropomorphic
participants were slightly more likely to avoid eating meat and other animal-based food products
(e.g. cheese, eggs) than were human exceptionalist participants (Figure 3d; F = 29.81, df = 1,
2897, r2 = 0.010, p < 0.001). The percentage of a participant’s diet consisting of vegan foods
decreased by 1.74% for every one-unit change in a participant’s animal view towards human
exceptionalism.
62
Education
Participants with lower levels of education shower higher levels of anthropomorphism,
while participants with higher levels of education showed higher levels of human exceptionalism
(Figure 4a; Z = 3.90, p < 0.001). Non-graduates and college graduates showed a difference of
approximately 0.1 along the gradient of anthropomorphism to human exceptionalism. This
pattern was more striking when comparing participants with extreme animal views (i.e.
participants that were more than one standard deviation below or above the mean). With a
difference of greater than 0.3 along the gradient of animal views, non-graduates of college
showed greater levels of anthropomorphism than graduates (Figure 4b; Z = 3.24, p < 0.001).
63
DISCUSSION
Animal issues
Anthropomorphism appears to be related to increased concerns about animal welfare;
anthropomorphic participants favored increased animal rights and showed greater levels of
concern about environmental issues that were directly related to animals, such as mass extinction
and habitat lose. Anthropomorphic participants may feel more connected and empathetic towards
animals because they believe that these organisms have experiences similar to humans. In
contrast, human exceptionalist participants showed less concerns about animal welfare, which
could be explained if human exceptionalists felt more disconnected and separated from animals
because of their views about human-animal differences.
Environmental attitudes
Although one would expect a participant’s animal views to affect their feelings about
animal rights relative to human rights, a participant’s animal view also influenced their feelings
about broader environmental topics. Anthropomorphic participants showed more concern for
how humans should interact with the environment as well as how humans are impacting the
environment. Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to believe that humans should
minimize their impacts on the natural environment and more likely to believe that humans are
having negative impact on the environment currently. In addition to influencing their concern for
animals, a participant’s animal view appears to extend to their feelings about the environment in
general. Anthropomorphic participants may understand that the environment is important for
animal well-being, even if it is indirectly affecting animals. For example, human population
growth does not directly impact animals, but it does result in habitat losses, which can lead to
64
declines in animal populations and even extinctions (e.g. Brooks et al., 2002). In addition,
anthropomorphic participants may understand that the environment is crucial for sustaining both
their personal well-being as well as the well-being of non-human animals, as anthropomorphic
participants believe that humans and animals are very similar. In contrast, human exceptionalist
participants appear to feel a sense of disconnect between the environment and themselves.
Human exceptionalist participants may not make a connection to the environment and its
relationship to the survival and well-being of humans and animals, because these participants
feel that humans and animals have very different experiences.
Conservation habits
A participant’s animal view also influenced their behaviors towards the environment.
Participants with more anthropomorphic views showed better conservation habits, such as
increased water and energy conservation, while participants with human exceptionalist views
showed fewer conservation habits. Anthropomorphic participants also showed slightly higher
rates of recycling and avoiding animal food products. Increased empathy toward animals may
lead a person to view the environment as more important and worthy of protection and
conservation.
Berenguer (2007) showed that inducing empathy towards a bird or tree increased
participants’ attitudes toward nature as a whole. In this study, we found consistent responses
based on a person’s underlying animal views. I have therefore shown that the existing animal
views a person has can promote improved environmental attitudes and conservation habits. This
is critical because these results suggest that we do not need to push people towards a certain
animal view, as many pro-environmental ads try to do. On the contrary, the animal views a
65
person already holds appear to be sufficient to relate to their feelings about the environment. In
addition, a person’s animal views appear to relate to their behaviors toward the environment (e.g.
conservation habits). In addition, participants that saw the environment as important tended to
show better conservation habits that limited their impacts on the environment. This suggests a
close relationship between how a person feels about animals, how they view the environment,
and, in turn, how they treat the environment.
Education
Animal views appear to be associated with educational level. Participants with lower
levels of education tended to be more anthropomorphic, while participants with higher levels of
education tended to be more human exceptionalist, which became even clearer when examining
participants with extreme animal views. This pattern is somewhat surprising in that participants
could have come from many different educational backgrounds and fields. Although one might
expect anthropomorphism to be discouraged in science related classes, based on the history of
comparative psychology and ethology (Cezilly 2008), anthropomorphism was negatively related
to education level, even though participant’s educational experience included both scientific and
non-scientific backgrounds. The increase in human exceptionalism with higher education
appears to be pervasive regardless of the person’s field. Students in higher education are often
told that anthropomorphic hypotheses are inappropriate as a scientific description, because these
hypotheses lack “objectivity” (Kennedy 1992). In addition, higher education programs focus
primarily on the human experience. Programs, such as Language and Literature, Business,
Education, and Arts, all illustrate the height of human achievements, efforts, and interests. This
focus on humans, coupled with any discouragement of anthropomorphism, appears to influence
66
all people who have had higher education, regardless of whether they are science or non-science
students.
Intentional or unintentional efforts to minimize anthropomorphism in higher education
may be inappropriate given our present understanding of human and non-human animal
behavior. Many scientific studies have shown that the anthropomorphic hypothesis can be the
most likely hypothesis. For example, chimpanzees and orangutans showed the ability to recall
events that had happened three years prior in a manner that was similar to the way that humans
recall information (Martin-Ordas et al., 2013). In addition, rats appear to show empathetic
behavior towards conspecifics that is similar to human empathy. Rats will free unrelated
conspecifics from containers and even share food with trapped individuals after release (Bartal et
al., 2011). In each of these situations, non-human animals show behavioral patterns that are
similar in form and function to humans. This is not to say that human and non-humans animals
share the same experience in all cases. Many cases are best explained by human exceptionalist
hypotheses. For example, humans show concealed ovulation (Benshoof and Thornhill 1979)
while most other non-human primates show prominent sexual signals related to ovulation (e.g.
Domb and Pagel 2001).In addition, humans demonstrate the ability to compose and comprehend
written language. Although there is some evidence for language in bees (e.g. Rosin 1978),
written language remains a uniquely human characteristic. Understanding non-human animal
behavior requires rigorous examination of all hypotheses, including both anthropomorphic and
human exceptionalist predictions. It is only by a complete evaluation of alternative hypotheses
that we can expect to fully understand why and how animals perform observed behavioral
patterns.
67
Animal views appear to be far more important than a simple intellectual exercise.
Because anthropomorphism is associated with increased environmental attitudes and better
conservation habits, we may be doing a disservice to conservation when we discourage people
from anthropomorphic views. For example, Chan (2012) argued that anthropomorphism could be
used responsibly to increase public empathy with animals and promote their conservation. This
can be accomplished by highlighting scientific studies where the anthropomorphic hypothesis is
the most accurate and likely hypothesis (e.g. grandmother hypothesis in whales, Foster et al.,
2012; grandmother hypothesis in humans, Lahdenperä et al., 2004; reward inequality in dogs,
Range et al., 2009; reward inequity in humans, Blake and McAuliffe 2011). A more thoughtful
presentation of animals that includes those cases of uniqueness, where the differences between
humans and non-human animals expands the breadth of life, coupled with those instances of
similarity, which highlight the commonality between humans and non-human animals, provides
both a more accurate representation of the natural world while promoting empathy. Fostering
high environmental attitudes and conservation habits via empathy can occur by highlighting
cases of scientifically justifiable anthropomorphism. The blind rejection of anthropomorphisms
appears to not only limit our understanding of nature but also limit our appreciation and
interaction with nature.
68
LITERATURE CITED
Bartal, I.B.A., Decety, J., Mason, P., 2011. Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science
334, 1427-1430.
Benshoof, L., Thornhill, R., 1979. The evolution of monogamy and concealed ovulation in
humans. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 2, 95-106.
Berenguer, J., 2007. The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behaviors.
Environment and Behavior 39, 269-283.
Blake, P.R., McAuliffe, K., 2011. "I had so much it didn't seem fair": Eight-year-olds reject two
forms of inequity. Cognition 120, 215-224.
Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Rylands, A.B.,
Konstant, W.R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, S., Magin, G., Hilton-Taylor, C., 2002.
Habitat Loss and Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16,
909-923.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of
inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3-5.
Center for Sustainable Economy. n.d. Ecological Footprint Quiz. Center for Sustainable
Economy, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. http://myfootprint.org/en/.
Cezilly, F., 2008. A History of Behavioural Ecology, in: Danchin, E., Giraldeau, L.A., Cezilly, F.
(Eds.), Behavioural Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chan, A., 2012. Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool. Biodiversity and Conservation 21,
1889-1892.
Crist, E., 1999. Images of Animals: Anthropomorphism and Animal Mind. Temple University
Press, Philadelphia.
Domb, L.G., Pagel, M., 2001. Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature
410, 204-206.
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of
the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425-442.
Foster, E.A., Franks, D.W., Mazzi, S., Darden, S.K., Balcomb, K.C., Ford, J.K., Croft, D.P.,
2012. Adaptive prolonged postreproductive life span in killer whales. Science 337, 1313-
1313.
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M.A., Zeileis, A., 2006. A Lego System for Conditional
Inference. The American Statistician 60, 257-263.
Huddy, L., Gunnthorsdottir, A.H., 2000. The Persuasive Effects of Emotive Visual Imagery:
Superficial Manipulation or the Product of Passionate Reason? Political Psychology 21,
745-778.
Kennedy, J.S., 1992. The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lahdenperä, M., Lummaa, V., Russell, A., 2004. Menopause: why does fertility end before life?
Climacteric 7, 327-331.
Martin-Ordas, G., Berntsen, D., Call, J., 2013. Memory for distant past events in chimpanzees
and orangutans. Current Biology 23, 1438-1441.
Mason, W., Suri, S., 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
Behavior Research Methods 44, 1-23.
Pak, M.S., 2011. Environmentalism Then and Now: From Fears to Opportunities, 1970-2010.
Environmental Science & Technology 45, 5-9.
69
Rand, D.G., 2012. The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists
run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299, 172-179.
Range, F., Horn, L., Viranyi, Z., Huber, L., 2009. The absence of reward induces inequity
aversion in dogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 340-345.
Rosin, R., 1978. The honey bee “language” controversy. Journal of Theoretical Biology 72, 589-
602.
Senda-Cook, S., 2013. Materializing Tensions: How Maps and Trails Mediate Nature.
Environmental Communication- A Journal of Nature and Culture 7, 355-371.
Tam, K.P., Lee, S.L., Chao, M.M., 2013. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances
connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 49, 514-521.
Venables, W. N., Ripley, B. D., 2002 Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth Edition.
Springer, New York.
Wasserman, E.A., 1997. The science of animal cognition: Past, present, and future. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 23, 123-135.
70
TABLES AND FIGURES
Environmental Attitudes
Question
Number
Prompt Score Indicator
EP1 Humans should pursue choices and decisions that minimize
any negative impact on the natural environment.
High score = higher
environmental
perspective
EP2 Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature. Low score = higher
environmental
perspective
AR How should animals be treated relative to basic human
rights?
High score = higher
animal concern
EA1 The average American uses a responsible amount of
natural resources to meet their daily needs.
Low score = higher
environmental
assessment
EA2 Humans are severely abusing the environment. High score = higher
environmental
assessment
Ecological Concerns
EC Acid rain More concerns
selected = greater
concern about
ecological issues
Air pollution
Destructive removal of natural resources
Disease resistance to antibiotics and other medicines
Emergence of new diseases, such as HIV, H1N1, and
SARS
Free trade/ globalization
Genetically modified foods
Global climate change
Habitat loss*
Human population growth
Industrialization
Limited resources, such as oil and gasoline
Loss of biological processes, such as pollination and
migration*
Loss of ecological services, such as water purification and
the removal of CO2 from the air by plants
Loss of species to extinction*
Off-shore oil drilling
Soil erosion
Spread of exotic species*
Urban sprawl and suburban development
Use of pesticides and herbicides
Use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/
71
religious uses*
Water pollution
Energy Conservation Habits
EC1 Turn off lights when leaving rooms More activities
selected = greater
energy conservation
habits
EC2 Use power strips to turn off stand-by lights
EC3 Turn off computers and monitors when not in use
EC4 Dry clothes outside whenever possible
EC5 Keep thermostat relatively high in summer
EC6 Unplug small appliances when not in use
EC7 Minimal use of power equipment when landscaping
EC8 Compost rather than use garbage disposal
Water Conservation Habits
WC1 Minimize shower time More activities
selected = greater
energy conservation
habits
WC2 Minimize toilet flushing
WC3 Run clothes and dish washers only when full
WC4 Wash cars rarely
WC5 Look for and fix leaks regularly
WC6 Avoid hosing down decks, walkways, driveways
Table 1: Description of survey questions used in analysis. Note: Asterisks (*) indicate that
animal-related ecological concerns.
72
Variable N %
Age (N = 2898)
18-25 1028 35.5
26-35 1127 38.9
36-45 374 12.9
46-55 213 7.3
56-65 130 4.5
66-75 26 0.9
Race (N = 2855)
African American 171 6.0
Asian American 192 6.7
Hispanic 119 4.2
Multiethnic 117 4.1
Native American 17 0.6
Pacific Islander 5 0.2
White 2234 78.2
Table 2: Demographic information for survey respondents. Some participants
did not respond to questions about age or race.
73
Anthropomorphic and Human Exceptionalist Factors
1 2
View About Animals
Anthropomorphism 1 -.547 .583
Anthropomorphism 2 -.666 .212
Anthropomorphism 3 -.480 .541
Human Exceptionalism 1 .425 .506
Human Exceptionalism 2 .616 .462
Human Exceptionalism 3 .738 .299
Eigenvalue 2.08 1.24
Percent of Variance 34.62 20.62
Table 3: Factor analysis of six animal views statements. I did not evaluate Factor 2 further
because I only wanted to describe a participant’s animal view relative to their environmental
attitudes, conservation habits, and educational level.
74
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 1: Relationship between a participant’s animal view and her or his environmental attitude:
a) anthropomorphic participants favored increased rights for non-human animals compared to
human exceptionalist participants (y = 69.35 + x *-10.68); b) anthropomorphic participants were
more concerned about ecological issues that directly impacted animals compared to human
exceptionalist participants; a) anthropomorphic participants showed higher environmental
perspective scores than human exceptionalist participants, indicating differences in beliefs about
how humans should interact with the environment (y= 66.86 + x*-8.87), and b) anthropomorphic
participants showed higher environmental assessment scores than human exceptionalist
participants, indicating differences in beliefs about how humans are interacting with the
environment (y = 70.07 + x * -4.92).
75
Figure 2: Anthropomorphic participants were more concerned about a range of ecological issues
when compared to human exceptionalist participants.
76
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 3: Relationship between a participant’s animal and conservation habits: a)
anthropomorphic participants engaged in more energy saving habits, such as turning off lights
and drying clothes outside, when compared to human exceptionalist participants; b)
anthropomorphic participants engaged in more water conserving habits, such as washing cars
rarely and minimizing shower time, when compared to human exceptionalist participants; c)
anthropomorphic showed slightly more recycling in all categories, such as paper, plastic, and
glass, when compared to human exceptionalist participants (y = 60.11 + x*-2.64); d)
anthropomorphic participants were more likely to avoid eating meat and other animal-based food
products (e.g. cheese, eggs) compared to human exceptionalist participants (y = 48.18 + x*-
1.74).
77
a)
b)
Figure 4: Relationship between a participant’s education level and animal view: a) participants
with lower levels of education showed higher rates of anthropomorphism, while participants with
higher levels of education showed higher rates of human exceptionalism, and b) participants with
extreme animal views (more than one standard deviation above or below the mean) showed even
greater levels of anthropomorphism for non-graduates and greater levels of human
exceptionalism for college graduates.
78
CHAPTER 4
HUMAN-NATURE INTERACTIONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO A PERSON”S
QUALITY OF LIFE
INTRODUCTION
Many people are less connected to the natural environment today than they were in the
past (Miller 2005). This diminished connection may be in part a result of our society shifting
from dependence on the natural environment to greater levels of industrialization and
urbanization. Prior to the industrial revolution, many humans interacted directly with nature,
harvesting food and other natural resources for survival (Fuller and Irvine 2010). Around the
time of the Industrial Revolution, many people began to move into cities and urban areas,
especially with the advent of factories (Hirschman and Mogford 2009). Our direct connection to
nature was lost in many cases as people no longer depended on nature for their day-to-day
existence and became more concentrated in urban areas. As of 2010, more than 83% of the
United States population was living in metropolitan areas (defined as areas with a core urban
population of 50,000 or more) (Mackun and Wilson 2011). In addition, people spend the
majority of their time inside, perhaps even 90% or more (Evans and McCoy 1998). This increase
in urbanization may in part contribute to our continued disconnection from nature.
The term “Nature Deficit Disorder” has been used to describe disconnect from the natural
environment, especially in children (Louv 2008). Louv argued that children are spending more
time indoors, especially with electronic devices, and less unstructured time outside. He also
argued that this lack of interaction with nature may be connected to a host of other problems,
such as attention-deficit disorders. While Louv wrote about children, this disconnect from nature
79
is present in many adults as well. Urban areas often lack a diversity of wildlife, especially
species that are native to the area (Turner et al., 2004). This geographic separation between
people and biodiversity may contribute to the disconnect between adults and nature. In addition,
the exceedingly busy lives of many adults may further contribute to their lack of connection with
nature (Miller 2005). Adults spend large portions of their lives commuting, working, and taking
care of other responsibilities. Only minimal amounts of leisure time remain for adults to spend as
they choose. Although some adults might choose to spend this time interacting with nature, the
overall lack of leisure time may mean that other activities take priority over interactions with the
environment.
Our diminished connection with the natural environment could have serious
consequences, as contact with nature seems to benefit us in a variety of ways. Physiologically,
contact with nature may improve concentration, lower blood pressure, reduce childhood obesity,
and improve impulse control for children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
(see Kuo 2013 for a review). Increased connection to the environment may also be related to
improved environmental behaviors, such as recycling and conserving energy (Davis et al., 2009).
Most importantly, our connection to nature is important psychologically. For example,
interaction with nature may increase self-esteem (Maller 2009), reduce mental fatigue and
aggression (Kuo and Sullivan 2001), decrease anxiety (Chang and Chen 2005), and reduce stress
levels (Catanzaro and Ekanem 2002). In addition, our connection to nature appears to relate to
our level of happiness. Zelenski and Nisbet (2014) assessed participants’ connection of nature,
their connections with other entities (e.g., friends, family, country), and their level of happiness.
Greater connections with nature appear to relate to a participant’s overall level of happiness,
independent of a person’s connection with other factors such as friends and family, suggesting
80
that our connection to nature relates to our overall well-being. In addition, the availability of
green spaces in urban areas may improve community relations and social skills (see Lee and
Maheswaran 2011 for a review). Unfortunately, people tend to underestimate the benefits of
contact with nature (Nisbet and Zelenski 2011). Because people underestimate the benefits they
may experience from interacting with nature, they may not always recognize a lack of interaction
as potentially problematic.
We need to increase our connection with nature in order to alleviate negative disorders
while also promoting the many physiological and psychological benefits to individuals. One way
to cultivate a closer connection to the environment may be through interactions between people
and nature. Human-nature interactions include instances where there is an impact on both parties
(e.g. the person and the environment) (Fuller and Irvine 2010). These interactions can take many
forms, from those that are more passive to those that are more active (Irvine and Warber 2002).
Passive interactions can include simply knowing that a nearby green space exists to having
pictures of nature in one’s home, while active interactions can include gardening, feeding
wildlife, or walking outside (Fuller and Irvine 2010). Other interactions that could serve to
connect individuals to nature include active recreational outdoor activities, such as camping,
hiking, fishing, watching wildlife, or hunting. For example, Teisl and O’Brien (2003) found that
participation in recreational activities in nature was associated with increased concern about and
behaviors towards the environment; people that participated in recreational activities were more
likely to belong to or donate money to an environmental group and purchase an environmentally
friendly product.
Another human-nature interaction that may help connect people to the environment is the
bond between humans and pets. Historically, humans depended on animals for working tasks,
81
such as controlling pests or herding livestock (Moody et al., 2006; Faure and Kitchener 2009).
However, some domesticated animals, such as dogs and cats, shifted from workers to
companions as our association with “pets” became more commonplace. Accelerating with the
advent of the Victorian era, new breeds of animals were created (Sampson and Binns 2006);
animals were selected for certain morphological appearances that were desired for
companionship and not for working related traits. Our association with pets may help us connect
to the natural environment because they retain ancestral characteristics found in wildlife (despite
generations of selection) and their intimate role as companions. For example, people who
interact with pets, especially mixed breed animals, show greater concern about the environment
and improved behaviors towards the environment (see Chapter 2).
In this chapter, I will explore in depth how respondents interact with the natural world
and how these interactions impact their quality of life through an analysis of qualitative data.
This qualititaive analysis will examine the relationship between people and the natural
environment in addition to the relationship between pet ownership and the environment
addressed in earlier chapters.
82
METHODS
The qualitative data analyzed in this chapter were collected as part of a larger quantitative
online survey. Participants for the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(mTurk), an online crowdsourcing website where workers are paid a small monetary reward for
completing tasks. Participants were paid $0.70 if they completed the entire survey. Participants
took the survey in Checkbox Survey Software (Version 6); a link to the survey was provided
through mTurk. The survey was tagged with six keywords: “survey”, “pets”, “ecology”,
“science”, “environment”, and “animals”. Only one response was collected per IP address to help
ensure that participants could only take the survey once.
All participants for this survey were self-selected, which may have resulted in some
biases in the data (e.g., participants that were already interested in animals, pets, and the
environment). I did receive more white participants than I expected, although the proportion was
still comparable to overall United States demographics on race/ethnicity (see Chapters 2 and 3).
Additionally, I received more young participants than would be expected. However, one might
have expected more young and “tech savvy” individuals to participate, since the survey was
distributed online.
Participants consented to participate in the study on the first page of the survey; the
survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University (IRB
Protocol #S2012-32). Survey data were collected in two “batches” to ensure that the mTurk
program would provide reliable results. The first batch of data was collected between October 25
– 26, 2012 and the second batch was collected between January 28 – 30, 2013. In both cases,
respondents completed a 41 - 45 question quantitative survey (some questions were only
displayed if the participant answered “yes” to a previous question) before answering an open-
83
ended question near the end of the survey. After answering the qualitative question, participants
were asked demographic questions (e.g., gender, age, race/ ethnicity). All qualitative data
analyzed from the open-ended question were collected from the first batch, which included 1004
total open-ended responses. Results from the first batch of data were selected for qualitative data
analysis because respondents were not required to answer the open-ended question in this batch.
Therefore, these responses were assumed to be of higher quality and more likely to reflect the
participants true feelings on the topic. Participants in the second batch were required to provide a
response to the prompt if they wanted to be rewarded with the $0.70 payment. A comparison
between the two batches was not conducted in this study.
The open-ended question consisted of a single prompt that had two parts: “1) Describe
your interactions with the natural world and 2) If you interact with the natural world, how do
these interactions impact your quality of life?” This question was designed by the researcher
because of its specificity to the study. Overall, the survey sought to assess if interacting with pets
could be a way for participants to connect with nature. The open-ended question was designed to
gather data on other types of interactions that might help participants connect to nature and how
these interactions might affect the individual. These interactions may or may not have included
interactions with pets. Participants were provided with a text box to type in their response. There
was no limit to the participant’s response; they could enter as much or as little text as desired.
Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including the techniques of
grounded theory as originally described by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Throughout the analysis, I
allowed patterns and themes to emerge from the data itself rather than beginning with set
hypotheses. The overall patterns were grouped into several larger themes that were then analyzed
against the study research questions.
84
The two study questions were used to sort the data initially (i.e. interactions and impacts).
I first read all responses and open-coded by noting any patterns which I saw in the data. At this
stage, I was not actively looking for any specific items, but rather trying to see what information
was present in the responses. During this phase, I identified approximately 200 unique codes in
the data. After thoroughly reading and coding all responses, 14 larger themes emerged as
common and important. These themes then became the focused codes I used to categorize the
responses (Table 1). Within some of the focused codes, there were subthemes that I explore in
the following results section. If a response fit into more than one major theme, it was included in
each appropriate category. Each level of coding was more inclusive than the level below (i.e.
open codes > major themes/focused codes > subthemes).
First, I describe the variation in responses from this study. Then, I address the many ways
participants interacted (or did not interact) with nature, including lack of interactions, desires to
increase interactions, interactions in urban areas, and the types of activities in which participants
engaged. . I describe interactions that build in intensity, from individuals that had no interactions
to individuals that engaged in high-level activities. I then discuss the ways these interactions
impacted the lives of participants, including a lack of impacts, negative impact, positive impacts,
increased appreciation for the environment, and the undertaking of conservation behaviors. Then,
I address how participants described pets as a way to connect to nature as it relates to previous
chapters of the thesis. Finally, I discuss the overall conclusions from this study and relate these
conclusions to broader topics addressed within my thesis.
85
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Variation among responses
Many respondents described the interactions they had with nature and/ or positive
impacts resulting from these interactions. However, I also tested for negative cases throughout
the analysis, where a participant described an experience that did not match the overall patterns. I
did find examples of negative cases for both interactions and impacts. Approximately 17% of
participants (N = 173) described a lack of interaction with the natural world. In addition,
approximately 5% of respondents (N = 48) stated that their interactions had no impact or a
negative impact on their lives. These negative cases show that the data included a variety of
responses, some of which were unexpected and did not conform to the overall findings of this
study. In contrast, a majority of participants (~57%, n = 569) described the various types of
interactions they had with the natural world and about 47% of participants (n = 476) described a
range of positive impacts they felt from these interactions.
Interactions
Lack of interactions and desire for more interaction
About 12% of participants (n = 125) described a lack of interaction with nature and for
selected individuals, avoiding the natural world seemed to be an intentional choice. One
respondent stated, “I don't like to interact with the natural world. I try to stay inside temperature
controlled buildings and vehicles as much as possible.” Another added, “I don't spend much time
in the natural world. I prefer to stay inside.” However, others expressed a desire to increase their
interactions with nature from their current levels. In one instance, a participant described how
time constraints limited their interactions: “I rarely have time to interact with the natural world
86
these days but I always look forward to whatever time I get [the chance].” Another participant
added: “I don’t have much interaction with the natural world. I spend most of my time in the
man-made world and interact mostly with things that are man-made… I wish I could have more
interaction with the natural world, but it is just not practical in my daily life these days.” The
desire of these participants to enhance their interaction and connection to the natural world may
be related to the concept of “biophilia.” E.O. Wilson (1984) first described this concept as
humans’ inherent attraction to other forms of life and the natural world. Our desire to connect
with nature may have deeply rooted origins in our evolutionary history that carry over to the
present day, which could explain these participants’ desire to interact with the natural world.
Perhaps these participants also desire a connection to the natural world for the benefits it can
provide (e.g., stress relief, happiness). I address these potential benefits below.
Urban disconnect and intentional interactions
Another common theme was disconnection from the natural world related to living in
urban areas. Approximately 5% of respondents (n = 48) noted that they did not get to interact
much with the natural world because they lived in a city or suburban area. Despite this apparent
disconnect, some participants intentionally sought out experiences to help connect them to the
natural world: “I live in a dense urban area so I must seek out natural settings intentionally. I
don't get the opportunity to interact with nature as often as I'd like.” Another participant noted:
“[I] live in a very urban area. My natural world interactions are more of a vacation feel; I have to
go out of my way to go to parks, see non-pet animals[,] to feel like I'm ‘in nature’.” Although
many participants described a lack of opportunity for interaction with nature in urban areas, this
may not always be the case. Urban areas often include parks and green spaces where people can
connect with nature. In addition, research suggests that people may still experience many of the
87
benefits of interacting with nature from “doses” that are not necessarily in pristine areas, such as
in soccer fields or even having a view of trees and grass from one’s home (Kuo 2013). For
example, one participant noted his use of urban parks: “I live in an urban area and I walk my
dogs in a local park that has a small lake. These are the times I relax and get some exercise, both
are crucial to my well-being.”
In addition, many individuals exclude themselves from being a part of nature as well as
urban environments. For example, some people describe nature as a place “out there”, away from
home, and only in areas that are undisturbed by human activity (Haluza-Delay 2001). This was
apparent in the comments by respondents who stated that they live in urban areas and therefore
had minimal interactions with nature. However, large numbers of plants and animals do exist in
urban areas, although in many cases they may not be species we favor (e.g., pigeons, rats,
cockroaches). In addition, prior research has shown that even minimal interactions with nature,
such as a view from a window or a plant in one’s home, can provide important benefits (e.g.
Chang Chen 2005). We seem to recognize certain species and locations as nature and seem to
disregard other species and locations as “not” nature.
Types of interactions
Most respondents described some type of interaction with the natural world (~57%, n =
569). These interactions fell along a continuum of activity levels (ranging from minimal-,
moderate-, to high-level activities) that reflect the amount of energy exerted during the activity. I
explore each of these types of interactions in the following sections. It is important to note that
the different levels of activity do not necessarily reflect the engagement of a person in nature.
For example, some individuals could be engaged highly in and connected to nature through an
interaction that only requires minimal levels of energy expenditure. Other individuals may be
88
engaged minimally in and connected to nature through interactions that require high levels of
energy expenditure.
Minimal-level activities
Minimal-level activities were described by about 19% of participants (n = 188) and
included those activities that did not require lots of physical energy expenditure. Additionally,
these activities were typically observational in nature. Minimal-level activities ranged from one
participant who had “small plants in [his] apartment” to another who would “sit out on [her] deck
and get some sun, observe nature.” Other respondents described observing nature while using
transportation: “When driving I do enjoy looking at the crops in the fields, the trees, and other
scenery.” Many of the respondents described observations that involved wildlife, animals, and
plants. For example, “I love to hear the birds singing and I spend time observing them. I also
enjoy seeing other wildlife like squirrels, opossum, raccoons, snakes and we even have wild
turkeys. I also take a lot of pictures of the scenery and wildlife.” Finally, many of these
interactions were observational but not manipulative as illustrated by one response: “I interact
mostly by sitting outside and observing nature. I try not to bother the animals just sit and watch
them.” Such minimal-level activities can be important to a person’s happiness and psychological
self-perception. For example, in Kaplan (2001) people that had a view of nature from their
apartment window reported high levels of well-being and satisfaction with their neighborhoods.
Moderate-level activities
About 26% of participant (n = 265) described moderate-level activities, which included
interactions where the participant was engaged in an intermediate level of physical energy
expenditure. These types of interactions included leisurely activities, such as taking walks, doing
yard work, visiting parks, and feeding wildlife. For example, one participant said: “I sometimes
89
go walking in the park where I see ducks and assorted squirrels, and fish in the pond. I also
interact with a local guinea hen that wants to be constantly fed bread as well as a squirrel who
has developed a taste for bread.” Another participant added: “I like to take my kids for walks on
nature trails at the park and walks on the beach. It is nice to be away from technology and out in
the fresh air.” Finally, one participant said, “I also take my dog for a walk outside and clean up
leaves around the yard.”
High-level activities
Finally, high-level activities were described by 29% of participants (n = 288) and
included those interactions where the participant was engaged in a high level of physical energy
expenditure, which often included specific recreational outdoor activities. For instance, one
participant stated: “I regularly try to get out into nature for hiking, camping or biking
expeditions. In the past I've also enjoyed the pastimes of white-water rafting and rock climbing.”
Another noted: “I'm a pretty avid outdoorswoman; I love hiking, camping, swimming,
fishing...really, I just enjoy spending time in nature.” Although these interactions differ
significantly from both the minimal and moderate activity level interactions, all three appear to
be very important in benefitting the individual. For example, Kuo (2013) noted that all types of
encounters with nature can benefit the individual, even those that lasted only a few minutes or
were in “less pristine” areas, such as around one’s home or in a neighborhood park. In short,
some participants intentionally avoided interacting with nature, although many of these
individuals expressed a desire to increase their interactions with nature. Most participants
described the myriad of ways they interacted with nature and many intentionally sought out these
experiences.
90
Impacts
None or negative impact
In addition to a variety of interactions with nature, participants described many types of
impacts that their encounters with nature had on them. Some participants said that their
interactions with nature did not impact them or their quality of life. For example, on person
wrote: “I don't think the interactions impact my quality of life one way or another.” Others
described negative impacts resulting from the type of interactions or lack of interactions. For
example, “I think the greatest way my life is impacted by the natural world is through air quality
- the more pollution and contaminates I breathe in the more my health is in danger.” Others
described how a lack of interaction has impacted them negatively. One participant gave a very
nice description: “I live in NYC [New York City] so there isn't much nature. I grew up in NJ
[New Jersey] where we would spend hours walking through the woods, go to farms and buy
fresh produce, swim in the ocean. Being without nature has really taken a toll on my physical
and mental health.” The lack of impact and/or negative impacts were described by a minority of
participants, approximately 5% (n = 48).
Positive impacts
In contrast, about 47% of participants (n = 476) described a range of positive impacts
they felt from interacting with nature. These positive impacts included happiness, relaxation,
peacefulness, stress relief, tranquility, reduced anxiety and depression, and improved quality of
life. One participant offered this description:
I take walks from time to time on the trails in the mountains. It really clears my head and
gives me some peace of mind when times are bad. The fresh air, the beauty of the trees,
plants and other things I come across make me feel free. I love the sky and stars,
rainbows, rivers and wild life. I cannot imagine not having the opportunity to see them. I
am also very fortunate to live close to the ocean[;] just to look at the endless water on the
horizon is a gift like no other.
91
Another participant noted: “I like to ride my bicycle regularly. I also go hiking near a local lake
and nature reserve at times. I think that these interactions help me to relax and enjoy life more.
They are also a good way to relieve stress.” These findings are illustrative of the many benefits
that interacting with nature can provide (see also e.g., Keniger et al.,, 2013; Lee and Maheswaran
2011).
In addition, about 21% of participants (n = 215) also discussed how their interactions
with nature made them more appreciative of the environment in general. One participant said: “I
frequently sit outside at night and just look at the stars and listen to the sounds of nature… it
gives me a better appreciation of the natural world.”
Environmental behaviors
Some participants described how their increased appreciation related to their concern
about protecting the environment. For example, one participant stated:
The interactions impact the quality of my life because hiking and admir[ing] the natural
world makes me realize how precious it is and how we, as humans, must do everything to
attempt to retain what we have as well as repair the damage we have done. It makes me
feel like humans have a purpose.
In fact, researchers have had similar observations noting that increased concern about the
environment relates to improved environmental behaviors, such as reducing water usage,
purchasing environmentally friendly products, and reducing energy usage (Mobley et al.,, 2010).
About 20% of participants in this study (n = 202) described their behaviors towards the
environment and their interest in preserving nature. Some of these behaviors were more
generalized and passive, such as, “I try to help as much as I can to preserve the Earth's beauty” or
“When I interact with the natural world, I try not to disturb it or pollute it.” Other respondents
described specific actions they took to help protect the environment, such as recycling,
92
conserving water and electricity, composting, or picking up litter. For example, one participant
wrote:
I try very hard to recycle when I can, to use resources intelligently and to leave as small
of a mark on the natural world as I can. I drive a car that gets 40 mpg, but try very hard
to limit my driving anyway. I grow a small amount of the food I eat.
Another added:
also turning down the heat, turning up the thermostat when possible, running fans also
to preserve resources. Also allowing the sun in during the day in the cold months and
keeping as much of the sun out during the hot months. While this might not be
camping or living on the land and composting I continue to look for ways to preserve,
reuse, recycle…
These examples clearly illustrate the wide variety of behaviors that individuals engaged in to
minimize their impacts on the environment. And, although many participants detailed the
behaviors they undertook, some lamented their inability to do more:
I try to be a greener person than most, but can't really afford to be as green as I'd like to
be. Organic food is expensive. I don't have room to compost. My recycling capabilities
are limited by my apartment complex's recycle bins. I'd like to be able to do more.
The monetary cost of improved conservation habits was echoed by another participant who
stated: “I try to recycle and be green, though money is a big issue with why I can't do as much as
I would like to [do] to be green.” The willingness of so many participants to engage in behaviors
related to environmental protection is encouraging, despite the limitations some respondents
have. The collective effort of so many individuals is important in conserving natural resources
and may contribute to the reduction of some environmental problems, such as fossil fuel
emissions and global climate change.
93
Pets as a bridge to the environment
In addition to the many interactions already discussed, surprisingly few (~10%, n = 99)
participants described their relationships with their pets as a way to connect to nature. Out of the
individuals who did, many described walking a dog in parks or interacting with cats, dogs,
horses, or other pets. For example, one participant said: “I don't interact much with my natural
world. Most of it would be through my dog which is a great increase to my quality of life.”
Another participant noted: “I play with, feed and exercise my dog daily, usually on long walks
around my neighborhood. On these walks I pay special attention to the natural world. I find it
interesting to be able to identify native plants.” These interactions with a pet could help a person
relate to the environment. One participant in particular described how her pets enhanced her
connection to nature: “I feel connected to the natural world not separate from it and not superior
to it. Living with my dogs and cats acts as a kind of bridge in my awareness to that which is still
wild.” These examples illustrate how, for some participants, their interactions with pets helped
them relate to nature.
An unrecognized bridge
Although some individuals did describe pets as an interaction with nature, we might have
expected a larger number of individuals to express this connection. In the 45-question survey
leading up to the open-ended response, participants were asked about pets they lived with, pet
behavior, how they felt about the environment, and their behaviors relating to conservation. It
would seem that the preceding questions would have “baited” participants to talk about their pets
in terms of connection to the environment. The fact that so few respondents explicitly related
their pets to their environmental connection was intriguing. Even though some participants
recognized that their pet could help get them out in nature (e.g. through dog walking). Most
94
participants did not recognize their pets as part of nature or how their pets might relate to their
overall feeling and perception about nature
Further, there is clear evidence that our association with pets relates to the level of value
we place on the environment and how we interact with the environment in terms of conservation
habits (see Chapter 2). Although some participants described how their pets helped them
physically interact with nature (e.g., while walking dogs), a more psychological bridge between a
person’s pets and their valuation of and feelings about nature seems to be unrecognized by a vast
majority of people. Some researchers have discussed the possibility that our relationship with
pets may be related to our connection with nature (e.g., Vining 2003). The findings presented in
Chapter 2 seem to support the idea that pets can serve as a bridge to nature, although it may be
an unrecognized bridge as this data suggests.
There are several reasons why we might be ignoring pets as an important link between
humans and nature. First, modern pets have been created by humans through many generations
of artificial selection. Because pets are a human product, we may not recognize them as “nature”.
We tend to consider nature to include only those items or places that are not disturbed by humans
and are not human-made (e.g., Haluza-Delay 2001). Second, pets live with humans, and we may
not consider ourselves part of nature. We often describe places where humans live as “not
nature.” This was clearly illustrated by the participants in this study of who described living in
urban areas (i.e., with lots of people) and therefore not having the opportunity to interact with
nature where they lived. Third, intense artificial selection over the past ~200 years created many
new “breeds” that resulted in many new characteristics (including deleterious traits) in modern
pets that differ from their wild ancestors as well as the ancient breeds. For example, many
purebred animals have serious physiological deformities and problems as a result of the breeding
95
process (Asher 2009). These animals may show certain behavioral and personality traits based on
their breed (Svartberg 2006). Despite the many reasons we may overlook pets as nature,
association with pets is related to how we think about, value, and interact with the environment.
Pets are an underappreciated, unrecognized, and unconscious bridge connecting people to nature.
Further exploration of how our association with pets relates to our connection with nature could
be useful in helping to foster a connection to nature in more individuals.
96
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this qualitative analysis have revealed that people interact with nature in a
variety of ways. Some interactions involve merely observing nature while others are more
intense immersions in recreational activities. Despite this variation, all types of interactions
appear to provide many benefits to the person. Many participants reported feelings of relaxation,
improved mood, reduction in stress levels, and increased appreciation for nature.
In addition, a person’s connection to nature may relate to their behaviors toward the
environment. Wide ranges of environmental behaviors were described, including recycling,
reduced water usage, use of alternative transportation, and using environmentally friendly
products. Encouraging a greater connection between people and the environment (as a means of
combating Nature Deficit Disorder, for example) may also help with environmental preservation.
Human activity contributes to many environmental problems, such as global climate change and
species extinctions. We can help combat these issues by promoting environmentally responsible
behaviors by individuals.
Finally, one way to help people connect to environment may be through their pets. Many
people interact with pets on a daily basis, yet we have limited knowledge about how these
interactions influence our attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge. Although more research is needed
on this issue, the results discussed earlier (Chapter 2) suggest that our relationship with certain
types of pets may enhance our connection to the environment. Clearly, promoting a connection
between people and nature is important. Further exploration of how individuals may interact with
and understand nature can help determine how to enhance that connection.
97
Broader implications
The results of this study suggest that there are many ways in which people connect and
engage with nature. This engagement is important in terms of how a person responds and relates
to the environment. Enhanced connections to nature may relate to our well-being, our
conservation habits, and overall valuation and appreciation of the environment. Although people
clearly respond to a wide range of connections to nature, some of these connections appear to be
largely unrecognized. Chapter 2 provides evidence that our association with certain types of pets
relates to our feelings about and interactions with the environment. Although this qualitative
chapter provided some further evidence of this connection, most respondents did not address this
issue in their responses. In addition, Chapter 3 provides evidence that our empathy towards
animals relates to our feelings about the environment. This connection was not addressed by
participants in their qualitative responses. Participants did not speak about shared experiences
with animals or the environment and how this might help them connect to nature. It seems that
people are very aware of some types of connections to nature. Many participants talked about
their interactions (e.g., observing nature, taking walks, camping) and how these interactions
enhanced a connection to nature. However, interactions with pets and feelings about animals are
connections that were only recognized by a very limited few or were not recognized at all. The
results of the current chapter (along with Chapters 2 and 3) suggest that a broad range of factors
can help individuals connect to nature. Some of these factors may not be obvious, but they are
clearly important. Broadening our horizons on how people connect to nature will help paint a
fuller and more complete picture of the relationship humans have to the natural environment.
98
LITERATURE CITED
Asher, L., Diesel, G., Summers, J.F., McGreevy, P.D., Collins, L.M., 2009. Inherited defects in
pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182,
402-411.
Catanzaro, C., Ekanem, E., 2002. Home gardeners value stress reduction and interaction with
nature, XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Expanding Roles for Horticulture in
Improving Human Well-Being and Life Quality 639, pp. 269-275.
Chang, C.-Y., Chen, P.-K., 2005. Human response to window views and indoor plants in the
workplace. HortScience 40, 1354-1359.
Davis, J.L., Green, J.D., Reed, A., 2009. Interdependence with the environment: Commitment,
interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology
29, 173-180.
Dunlap, R.E., Heffernan, R.B., 1975. Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Concern: An
Empirical Examination. Rural Sociology 40, 18-30.
Evans, G.W., McCoy, J.M., 1998. When buildings don't work: The role of architecture in human
health. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 85-94.
Faure, E., Kitchener, A.C., 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships
between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.
Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., 2010. Interactions between people and nature in urban environments,
in: Gaston, K.J. (Ed.), Urban Ecology, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 134-
171.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldin, New York.
Haluza-Delay, R., 2001. Nothing here to care about: Participant constructions of nature
following a 12-day wilderness program. The Journal of Environmental Education 32, 43-
48.
Hirschman, C., Mogford, E., 2009. Immigration and the American industrial revolution from
1880 to 1920. Social Science Research 38, 897-920.
Irvine, K.N., Warber, S.L., 2002. Greening healthcare: practicing as if the natural environment
really mattered. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 8, 76-83.
Kaplan, R., 2001. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environment and
Behavior 33, 507-542.
Keniger, L.E., Gaston, K.J., Irvine, K.N., Fuller, R.A., 2013. What are the Benefits of Interacting
with Nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10, 913-
935.
Kuo, F.E.M., 2013. Nature-deficit disorder: evidence, dosage, and treatment. Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 5, 172-186.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Aggression and violence in the inner city effects of
environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33, 543-571.
Lee, A.C.K., Maheswaran, R., 2011. The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the
evidence. Journal of Public Health 33, 212-222.
Louv, R., 2008. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.
Algonquin Books.
Mackun, P., Wilson, S., 2011. Population Distribution and Change: 2000-2010. United States
Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/
briefs/c2010br-01.pdf
99
Maller, C.J., 2009. Promoting children's mental, emotional and social health through contact
with nature: a model. Health Education 109, 522-543.
Miller, J.R., 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution 20, 430-434.
Mobley, C., Vagias, W.M., Deward, S.L., 2010. Exploring Additional Determinants of
Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Influence of Environmental Literature and
Environmental Attitudes. Environment and Behavior 42, 420-447.
Moody, J.A., Clark, L.A., Murphy, K.E., 2006. Working dogs: History and applications, in:
Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome, Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 1-18.
Sampson, J., Binns, M.M., 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and breed
clubs, in: Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome,
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 19-30.
Svartberg, K., 2006. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs?
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 293-313.
Teisl, M.F., O' Brien, K., 2003. Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationists exhibit different
levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior 35, 506-522.
Turner, W.R., Nakamura, T., Dinetti, M., 2004. Global urbanization and the separation of
humans from nature. Bioscience 54, 585.
Vining, J., 2003. The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review
10, 87-99.
Zelenski, J.M., Nisbet, E.K., 2014. Happiness and Feeling Connected: The Distinct Role of
Nature Relatedness. Environment and Behavior 46, 3-23.
100
TABLES AND FIGURES
Code/Category Description Approximate
Percentage
N
Relaxing Participant described relaxing effect (e.g., tranquil,
peaceful, stress relief, peace of mind, good for
emotional health)
33% 330
Appreciation
for nature
Participant described an appreciation for nature or the
outdoors (e.g., beauty of nature, enjoy being outdoors,
appreciate God’s creation, inspiring, humbling)
21% 215
Conservation
habits
Participant described desire to protect environment,
specific behaviors they engaged in, minimizing
impacts on nature (e.g., pick up trash, don’t abuse
resources, do best to protect, recycling, don’t litter,
conserve water)
20% 202
Pets Participant talked about their pets (e.g., have cats,
walking dog, interact with pets)
10% 99
Constant
interaction/part
of nature
Participant stated that they were part of nature, could
not be separated (e.g., part of natural world, interact
daily, interactions necessary for survival, every minute
is contact with nature)
9% 95
Minimal-level
activity
Participant described activities with minimal energy
expenditure (e.g., observe nature, watch animals, see
wildlife in yard, see plants)
19% 188
Moderate-level
activity
Participant described activities with moderate energy
expenditure (e.g., taking walks, visit parks, feed
wildlife, play outside)
26% 265
High-level
activity
Participant described activities with high energy
expenditure, many are recreational (e.g., camping,
hiking, fishing, gardening, rock climbing, rafting,
biking, running)
29% 288
Minimal
interaction
Participant said they did not interact with nature or
had very minimal interactions (e.g., don’t interact,
don’t interact much)
12% 125
Minimal
interaction –
City
Participant described minimal interactions with nature
specifically because they lived in a city/urban area
5% 48
Respect Participant described respect and/or compassion
towards nature and the environment (e.g., respect
nature, respect plants and animals, live in harmony
with nature)
5% 54
Improved
quality of life
Participant described a positive impact on quality of
life (e.g., increased quality of life, better mood, good
for mental health, feel happy)
22% 224
No/ negative
impact on
Participant described no impact or a negative impact
on quality of life (e.g., no impact on life, air pollution
5% 48
101
quality of life impacts health, pollution in water, upset when seeing
destruction)
Other Participants response was not able to be categorized or
was unclear
12% 124
Table 1: Larger themes which emerged from the open coding process and a description of
what was included in each theme. These themes were used as focused codes to categorize
responses. Smaller, subthemes existed within some of these larger themes.
102
CHAPTER 5
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
In this study, people who lived with pets showed a preference for better treatment of non-
human animals and were also more concerned about animal related issues. Additionally, pet
owners placed higher value on the environment and showed more habits to protect it (i.e. water
and energy conservation) (see Chapter 2). These patterns may relate to the level of empathy a
person feels towards their own pets and other animals, which could extend to the environment at
large. Other issues became more apparent when I compared the different types of pets that an
individual owned. For example, those individuals that owned mixed breed animals thought that
humans were damaging the environment, were more concerned about a range of ecological
issues, and knew more about ecology, evolution, and behavior as it related to their pets. These
differences may be related to the amount of modification a pet shows: less modified (i.e. mixed
breed) animals appear to be a better bridge between individuals and the environment, while more
modified (i.e. purebred animals) appear to be a poorer bridge. Individuals that owned highly
modified animals also supported the notion that humans could modify the environment to
support their own needs. Overall, our interactions with pets (and certain types of pets in
particular) appear to relate to our views about and behaviors towards the environment in general.
In terms of a person’s view about animals, findings demonstrate clear distinctions
between individuals that were more anthropomorphic and those that were more human
exceptionalist (see Chapter 3). Higher levels of anthropomorphism seem to relate to increased
concern about animal treatment and animal issues, which is expected as these individuals see
humans and non-human animals as having shared experiences. In addition, anthropomorphic
103
individuals placed more value on the environment and showed better conservation habits when
compared to human exceptionalist individuals. Because anthropomorphic individuals recognize
common experiences between humans and non-human animals, they may understand that a
functioning, healthy environment is necessary for the survival of themselves and other animals.
Human exceptionalist individuals tend to perceive a separation between themselves and other
animals, and therefore may not see a functioning environment as valuable for humans and other
animals. Related to education, human exceptionalist individuals showed higher levels of
education while anthropomorphic individuals showed lower levels of education. One might
expect this result of individuals with exposure to science, as science courses often discourage
anthropomorphism that is considered “not objective”. However, participants in this study could
have come from any educational background (i.e. they were not all scientists). In many other
disciplines, human achievements are emphasized and celebrated, which may help contribute to
the distinction educated individuals make between themselves and other animals.
A person’s animal views clearly relate to their feelings about the environment, their
behaviors related to conservation, and their education levels. It is important to note that
individuals in this study reported their existing animal views; there was no experimental
manipulation to direct individuals towards anthropomorphism or human exceptionalism. If the
goal is to promote improved respect for and treatment of the environment, we should take care in
discouraging anthropomorphic views in education and elsewhere, as we may actually be pushing
individuals towards lesser levels of respect and care for the environment. Anthropomorphic
hypotheses may sometimes be inaccurate, but this is clearly not always the case. In some
instances, anthropomorphic hypotheses provide the best and most clear explanation for an
observed behavior, as explained in Chapter 3. In other cases, a human exceptionalist hypothesis
104
may be the best explanation. Carefully highlighting both the similarities and the differences
between humans and non-human animals in scientific studies may help to encourage more
balanced and realistic animal views while also promoting increased respect and care for our
environment.
Participants in this study also described their interactions with nature and how these
interactions impacted their lives in the open-ended question. Some participants described a lack
of interaction with nature, especially individuals that lived in cities. Some of these individuals
also described a desire to interact more with nature, but that access was limited due to their
locations. This may relate to the idea that people tend to consider urban areas to be “not nature”
and that nature is only in places that are untouched by humans. In addition, participants
described interactions with nature that ranged from low-activity levels to high-activity levels
with moderate activity levels in between. Some of the common interactions described were
observing plants and animals, going for walks, feeding animals, and pursuing specific
recreational activities (e.g. camping, hiking, fishing). Although these interactions differed
dramatically, all can be important in helping a person connect with the natural environment.
Participants also described the impacts these interactions had on their lives. A few individuals
described negative impacts (e.g. allergies, poor air quality), but most described a range of
positive impacts (e.g. relaxation, tranquility, reduced stress, exercise). Some also described their
habits related to the environment, such as recycling, composting, and conserving water. It was
surprising that few individuals described their pet as a way to connect with the environment
given the nature of the preceding survey questions. It appears that, although our pets do relate to
our connection with nature, they are not often recognized as serving this purpose. All of the data
presented in this study show that interacting with pets relates to improved valuation of the
105
environment, better conservation habits, and greater knowledge about animals. This disconnect
may relate to the assumption that humans and human created products (e.g. domestic animals)
are not a part of nature. How we think about animals also relates to our valuation of the
environment and interactions with nature. Although we may not always recognize the value of
pets and animals in this pursuit, the preceding study has shown that these interactions deserve to
be taken into serious consideration and examined more closely to further explore how pets may
act as a bridge between humans and the environment.
Reflection on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Instrument
The use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a means for delivering surveys clearly includes
both benefits and costs. First, the use of mTurk is beneficial because it allows the researcher to
gather large amounts of data very quickly and at relatively low cost. Second, the range of data
gathered can be very broad, including data that is nationwide or even international if the
researcher chooses to accept responses from individuals outside the United States. Third, by
collecting data in this way, the researcher automatically receives other useful information about
the participants. For instance, the researcher can record the IP address for each participant and
use this information to get an idea of the general location of participants.
However, the use of mTurk also includes costs. First, mTurk is difficult to scale down to
a local level. Researchers really cannot collect data for specific states or counties, which might
be problematic if the study is looking to address a local issue. Second, it is necessary to have a
way to ensure the quality of the data being collected. In this study, data was checked in several
ways to ensure that participants were providing thoughtful responses to questions. Researchers
must be very conscious of how they will ensure data quality.
106
Future research
The results of this study raise many additional questions for future research. First,
addressing a person’s lifelong experiences with pets may be important. Early experiences
interacting with pets may help shape a person’s views about the environment, in addition to a
person’s current interactions with pets. Second, further demographic information about the
participant may be related to their environmental attitudes. For example, collecting data on
whether the participant lives in an urban or rural area as well as their socioeconomic status may
further explain their views. Third, collecting additional information about the pet appears to be
important. Exploring how the pet was acquired (e.g. pet store, purchased, adopted from a shelter)
and the lifestyle of the pet (e.g. is the pet strictly kept indoors, indoor/outdoor, or is the pet a
working animal?) are good areas for further exploration. Fourth, comparing pet ownership and
animal views across participants from different counties would be an intriguing direction to
explore. Finally, to better determine causality, a before and after study is needed. Future
researchers could survey/interview people both before and after acquiring a pet to determine if
the person’s views about the environment change because of pet ownership, if people who have
certain beliefs are more attracted to certain types of pets, or if a combination of both factors is at
work.
107
APPENDIX A
COPY OF SURVEY
Online Survey Consent Form
Study Title: The effect of pet ownership on ecological perspective and scientific knowledge
Principal Researchers: Ariel Chomey, Dr. Charles Gunnels
Introduction
You are being asked to participate in an online survey for a research project conducted through
Florida Gulf Coast University. This study is being conducted in partial completion of Ariel
Chomeys Masters of Sciences in Environmental Sciences. The University requires that you give
your approval to participate in this project. You must also be at least 18 years old to take this
survey.
Your participation in the study is completely voluntary. If you decide to participate now you may
change your mind and stop at any time, for any reason, without penalty or loss of any future
services you may be eligible to receive from the University. You can choose to not answer an
individual question or you may skip any section of the survey by clicking Next at the bottom of
the survey page to move to the next question.
Nature and Purpose of Study
We are conducting the study to determine the effects of pet ownership on a person’s ecological
perspective and scientific knowledge.
We are asking you to take part in the study because you volunteered to complete this Human
Intelligence Task (HIT) on Amazons Mechanical Turk (mTurk). If you agree to be part of the
research study, you will be asked to complete an online survey about the effect of pet ownership
on a persons ecological perspective and scientific knowledge. We expect the survey will take
between 10 to 20 minutes to complete. The survey cannot be completed in more than one session.
In addition, we will accept only one survey from each respondent.
Risk of Participating
Your participation will be kept anonymous. However, working with email or the internet has the
risk of compromising privacy, confidentiality, and/or anonymity. Despite this possibility, the
risks to your physical, emotional, social, professional, or financial well-being are considered to
be 'less than minimal by completing the survey.
Benefit of Participating
Test participants will be paid a $0.70 reward. Results of your survey will be verified to ensure
that you are both attentive and thoughtful in your responses. Payment will be paid on your
answer to an open-ended question at the end of the survey. We will tell you the question when
you reach that point of the survey. We will then reward verified surveys with the monetary award
for your participation. Participants will also contribute to the information known about the
effects of pet ownership on ecological perspective and scientific knowledge.
108
Payment/Cost to Participate
Test participants will be paid a $0.70 reward for verified completed surveys (see above).
Respondents will only be paid for one completed survey.
Confidentiality of Information
If you join the study, we will make every effort keep your information confidential and secure by
stripping all data of identifiable information. Despite these safeguards, there is the possibility of
hacking or other security breaches that could compromise the confidentiality of the information
you provide. Thus, it is important to remember that you are free to decline to answer any
question that makes you uncomfortable for any reason.
We will not release information about you unless you authorize us to do so or unless we are
required to do so by law. If results of this study are published or presented at a professional
meeting, no information will be included that would make it possible to identify you as a study
participant. Any reports or publications based on this research will use only group data and will
not include any information that would identify you or any individual as being affiliated with this
project.
Contact Information
If you have any questions about this study, you may contact Dr. Charles Gunnels at 239-590-
7210.
If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you
feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects' Institutional
Review Board through Sandra Terranova, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, at 239-
590-7522.
Statement
I have read the preceding information describing this study. All of my questions have been
answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to participate in
the study. My decision to participate or to decline participating in this study is completely
voluntary. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time. I am aware of my
option to not answer to any questions I choose.
I understand that it is not possible to identify all potential risks I believe that reasonable steps
have been taken to minimize both the known and potential but unknown risks. The submission of
the completed survey is my informed consent to participate in the study.
Print a copy before continuing if you would like a copy of the consent form.
By answering "yes" below you are consenting to participate in this research survey.
Thank you for your time.
Ariel Chomey, Dr. Charles Gunnels
Yes, I consent to participate in this study.
No, I do not wish to participate in this study.
109
Section 1
The following questions will ask about any pets you currently have.
1. *Do you have a pet currently?
Yes
No
110
Section 2
The following questions will ask about any pets you currently have.
1. What types of pets do you have and how many of each type do you have?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
Cat(s)
Dog(s)
Other(s)
2. If you own a dog, please specify if the pet is a pure-bred, mix-bred, or unknown-bred animal.
Describe one pet per line. Skip additional dogs that do not apply to your situation.
Pure Bred Mix Bred Unknown Bred
Dog 1
Dog 2
Dog 3
Dog 4
Dog 5
Remaining Dogs
111
Section 2 (cont.)
3. If you own a cat, please specify if the pet is a pure-bred, mix-bred, or unknown-bred animal.
Describe one pet per line. Skip additional cats that do not apply to your situation.
Pure Bred Mix Bred Unknown Bred
Cat 1
Cat 2
Cat 3
Cat 4
Cat 5
Remaining Cats
4. If you have cats and dogs, are they spayed and/ or neutered?
Select:
No, my pets are not spayed and/ or neutered.
Some of my pets are spayed and/ or neutered.
Yes, all of my pets are spayed and/ or neutered.
Not Applicable
112
Section 3
The following questions will ask about your environmental perspective. Please indicate
your level of agreement with each statement.
1. Humans should pursue choices and decisions that minimize any negative impact on the natural
environment.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
2. The average American uses a responsible amount of natural resources to meet their daily
needs.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
3. How should animals be treated relative to basic human rights?
No Rights
Some Rights
Same Rights
0 100
4. Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
5. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
113
Section 3 (cont.)
The following questions will ask about your environmental perspective.
6. The following lists topics that have been described as ecological catastrophes resulting from
human activity. Please check any of the following that you believe are real catastrophes that have
a negative impact on your life.
There are no ecological catastrophes that have a negative impact on my life.
Acid rain
Air pollution
Destructive removal of natural resources
Disease resistance to antibiotics and other medicines
Emergence of new diseases, such as HIV, H1N1, and SARS
Free trade/ globalization
Genetically modified foods
Global climate change
Habitat loss
Human population growth
Industrialization
Limited resources, such as oil and gasoline
Loss of biological processes, such as pollination and migration
Loss of ecological services, such as water purification and the removal of CO2 from
the air by plants
Loss of species to extinction
Off-shore oil drilling
114
Soil erosion
Spread of exotic species
Urban sprawl and suburban development
Use of pesticides and herbicides
Use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/ religious uses
Water pollution
115
Section 4
The following questions will ask about your habits related to the environment.
1. Please select all of the following that best describe your usual mode of transportation.
A hybrid
A small or compact car (2 door)
A mid size car (4 door sedan)
A large car (including vans and minivans)
A pickup truck or Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV)
Bicycling
Walking
Mass transportation
2. Below is a list of energy saving habits. Please check all that apply to your usage.
Energy saving habits I USE/UTILIZE:
Turn off lights when leaving rooms
Use power strips to turn off stand-by lights
Turn off computers and monitors when not in use
Dry clothes outside whenever possible
Keep thermostat relatively high in summer
Unplug small appliances when not in use
Minimal use of power equipment when landscaping
Compost rather than use garbage disposal
116
Section 4 (cont.)
3. Below is a list of water saving habits. Please check all that apply to your usage.
Water saving habits I USE/UTILIZE:
Minimize shower time
Minimize toilet flushing
Run clothes and dish washers only when full
Wash cars rarely
Look for and fix leaks regularly
Avoid hosing down decks, walkways, driveways
117
Section 5
The following questions will ask about your habits related to the environment.
What percentage of your diet is made up of the following?
1. Seafood
0 100
2. Other Meats
0 100
3. Dairy
0 100
4. Fruits and Vegetables
0 100
5. Grain and Nuts
0 100
118
Section 6
The following questions will ask about your habits related to the environment.
1. What percentage of your food is organic, locally grown, or sustainably produced?
0 100
What percentage of the following wastes do you recycle?
2. Paper
0 100
3. Aluminum
0 100
4. Glass
0 100
5. Plastic
0 100
6. Electronic waste, such as cell phones, computers, etc.
0 100
119
Section 7
The following questions will ask about ecology, evolution, and animal behavior. Please
select the best answer for each question.
1. Animals can digest anything that they eat in their environment.
True
False
2. Based on your knowledge of dogs, how does a wolf demonstrate submission within a pack?
Lays on back and exposes belly
Bares teeth
Flattens ears and barks
Lowers front legs and raises hind legs and tail in air
Sticks tongue out of mouth and pants
3. Catfish barbels, which are similar to cat and dog whiskers in both shape and location, serve
which of the following purposes:
None, they are decorative
They aid the sense of taste
They aid the sense of smell
They aid the sense of touch
120
Section 7 (cont.)
4. What caused the variety of farm animal breeds seen today?
Hormones
Disease
Diet
Artificial selection
Mutation
5. Besides urination, how does a tiger indicate that an object, such as a tree, is part of its territory
based on your knowledge of cat behavior?
Pounce on the object
Sleep by the object
Rub on the object
Chew the object
6. What effect does spaying and neutering have on the rate of population growth in domestic
animals?
Decreases the rate of population growth
Increases the rate of population growth
Keeps the rate of population growth the same
Spaying and neutering has no effect on the rate of population growth
121
Section 8
The following questions will ask about scientific concepts. Please select the best answer for
each question.
1. Which over-the-counter drug do doctors recommend that people take to help prevent heart
attacks?
Antacids
Cortisone
Aspirin
2. Which of the following may cause a tsunami?
A very warm ocean current
A large school of fish
A melting glacier
An earthquake under the ocean
3. The continents on which we live have been moving their location for millions of years and
will continue to move in the future:
True
False
4. Lasers work by focusing sound waves:
True
False
122
Section 8 (cont.)
5. What have scientists recently discovered on Mars?
Platinum
Plants
Mold
Water
6. Electrons are smaller than atoms:
True
False
123
Section 9
The following questions will ask your opinions about animals and humans. Please indicate
your level of agreement with each statement.
1. A female dog loves her pups in the same way that a mother loves her child.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
2. Cats and dogs can feel anxious and depressed when a person leaves the house.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
3. Cats can feel guilty when they do the wrong thing.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
4. Pets are controlled exclusively by their genes and instinct.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
5. Humans are the only animals that use language.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
6. Only humans are self-aware, unlike animals.
Completely
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Completely
Agree
0 100
124
Section 10
1. *Describe your interactions with the natural world. If you interact with the natural world, how
do these interactions impact your quality of life?
You must respond to this question in a thoughtful manner to receive payment for a
completed survey.
125
Section 11
The following questions will ask about your basic demographic information.
1. Gender:
Man
Woman
Other:
2. Age:
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66-75
76+
3. What is your race/ ethnicity? (optional)
White
Black or African American
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
American Indian or Alaska First American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
126
Asian or Asian American
Section 11 (cont.)
4. What is your level of education?
Some high school
High school degree
Some college
Undergraduate degree
Graduate degree
5. How many people live in your place of residence?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 or more
127
6. *What country were you in when you completed this survey?
Select:
India
United States of America
Section 12
1. Please type the code into the box below. In addition, write this code into Mturk. We will
match these codes if you have any questions about the survey, including issues with payment.
Captcha Code
Select:
128
Thank you for your time.