An exploratory study of British Millennials’ attitudes to the use of live animals in events
Summary (2 min read)
Introduction
- Studies have confirmed this theory, showing that interactions with animals and feeling in harmony with nature offer health and well-being benefits to humans (Penn, 2003).
- This view has been changing and evolving throughout the twentieth century and culminated in animal rights & welfare becoming a pivotal discussion in recent years.
- Allen et al. (2011) state that an event’s impact can be determined by looking at how effectively the needs of different stakeholders are met.
- To observe participant’s perceptions of animal treatment in the events industry 4.
Determinants of attitudes to animals
- Their findings show an individual’s views are highly dependent on their experiences of interacting with animals – people were likely to oppose animal use if they considered the animal aesthetically attractive, more mentally and emotionally capable, or had spent time with an animal of the same species.
- Higher levels of education on the topic and first-hand experiences have been linked to lower levels of support for many forms of animal use (Broida, Tingley, Kimball & Miele, 1993; Pifer, Shimizu & Pifer, 1994 and Knight & Barnett 2008).
- In other words, SCD interviewees demonstrated cognitive dissonance expressed in their avoidance of information that can add to the uncomfortable feelings associated with contributing to captivity (Festinger, 1957).
- Donaldson & Kymlicka (2011) argue that circuses, zoos and marine parks are indeed involved in education but the lessons taught are not love for, and knowledge of the natural world, but rather disrespect to animals’ freedom and promotion of human entitlement and superiority.
Methodology
- As the study is exploratory, drawing on theory from different disciplines, a qualitative approach was selected.
- Two data collection methods were used with nine participants in a focus group and three in-depth interviews.
- The focus group helped determine general attitudes and patterns towards the use of animals in events, which were then further investigated through conducting semi-structured interviews.
- To achieve a heterogeneous sample, socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, country of origin, course studied and lifestyle (vegan/vegetarian/omnivore) were considered.
- Approximately 2% of the UK population are vegetarian or vegan (NHS, 2015), with almost half of those being Millennials (The Vegan Society, 2017).
Findings
- Both the focus group and interviews began by asking participants about their views concerning nature and animals.
- Interestingly, discussing horse racing as an animal-related event came as a surprise to some participants with one interviewee stating that they ‘have never actually thought of horse racing as an animal-related event.’ [P12].
- Adopting an anthropomorphic view of animals can lead to an increased demand for animal-related events, due to people’s limited knowledge of animals’ true nature, consisting of instincts and needs humans cannot always anticipate.
- Animal rights groups and individuals with absolutist moral views advocate for ‘animal liberation’, condemning all animal use across different industries (Haynes, 2008), whereas others adopt a more pragmatic approach, claiming reducing animal suffering is enough to ensure welfare (Jasper & Nelkin, 1992).
- The adoption of an ecocentric perspective, which was found to be popular among Millennials, makes it of no importance whether one has seen a certain species of animal or not, whether one cares about that animal or not, what matters is the responsibility to allow other species to pursue life and survival on their own terms (Bekoff, 2013).
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
[...]
3,658 citations
28 citations
Cites background from "An exploratory study of British Mil..."
...Following this, Marinova and Fox (2019) analyse ethical issues related to animal rights and welfare in planned event environments, and the uncertainty regarding animals’ status as stakeholders during live events....
[...]
10 citations
8 citations
1 citations
References
163 citations
"An exploratory study of British Mil..." refers background in this paper
...Studies have confirmed this theory, showing that interactions with animals and feeling in harmony with nature offer health and well-being benefits to humans (Penn, 2003)....
[...]
147 citations
133 citations
"An exploratory study of British Mil..." refers background in this paper
...This view is one of the components of anthropocentrism, which has filtered through history and is still adopted by many today (Steiner, 2005)....
[...]
118 citations
"An exploratory study of British Mil..." refers background or methods in this paper
...Comparing animal rights activists to college students, Galvin and Herzog (1992) found ethical ideology also plays a significant part in how one relates to the natural world. Overall, animal rights activists demonstrate an ‘absolutist’ moral view of the world, which is characterised by high idealism and the belief ethical principles can be universally applied. The opposite view is relativism, the philosophy that whether an action is ethical or not, is to be judged on a case-by-case basis (O’Grady, 2002). As found by Galvin and Herzog (1992), college students not involved in animal rights campaigning expressed a more relativist philosophy in relation to animal welfare. Knight and Barnett (2008) explored how people’s views change depending on the animal’s species as well as the purpose of use. Their findings show an individual’s views are highly dependent on their experiences of interacting with animals – people were likely to oppose animal use if they considered the animal aesthetically attractive, more mentally and emotionally capable, or had spent time with an animal of the same species. This could be an explanation of people’s admiration for some domesticated species in particular, such as dogs or cats, as they are more likely to have experience of them. Similarly, Daly and Morton (2009) found a correlation between spending time with animals and having anthropomorphic beliefs – a pet owner or someone who grew up with animals is more likely to perceive them as human-like....
[...]
...[P12] Consistent with previous research (Galvin & Herzog, 1992; Curtin, 2006 and Knight & Barnett, 2009), one’s personal background and experiences with animals is found to significantly affect their views....
[...]
...Comparing animal rights activists to college students, Galvin and Herzog (1992) found ethical ideology also plays a significant part in how one relates to the natural world. Overall, animal rights activists demonstrate an ‘absolutist’ moral view of the world, which is characterised by high idealism and the belief ethical principles can be universally applied. The opposite view is relativism, the philosophy that whether an action is ethical or not, is to be judged on a case-by-case basis (O’Grady, 2002). As found by Galvin and Herzog (1992), college students not involved in animal rights campaigning expressed a more relativist philosophy in relation to animal welfare. Knight and Barnett (2008) explored how people’s views change depending on the animal’s species as well as the purpose of use. Their findings show an individual’s views are highly dependent on their experiences of interacting with animals – people were likely to oppose animal use if they considered the animal aesthetically attractive, more mentally and emotionally capable, or had spent time with an animal of the same species. This could be an explanation of people’s admiration for some domesticated species in particular, such as dogs or cats, as they are more likely to have experience of them. Similarly, Daly and Morton (2009) found a correlation between spending time with animals and having anthropomorphic beliefs – a pet owner or someone who grew up with animals is more likely to perceive them as human-like. Participants in Knight and Barnett (2008) study gave the least approval to the use of animals for fashion, cosmetics, entertainment and sport....
[...]
...Comparing animal rights activists to college students, Galvin and Herzog (1992) found ethical ideology also plays a significant part in how one relates to the natural world. Overall, animal rights activists demonstrate an ‘absolutist’ moral view of the world, which is characterised by high idealism and the belief ethical principles can be universally applied. The opposite view is relativism, the philosophy that whether an action is ethical or not, is to be judged on a case-by-case basis (O’Grady, 2002). As found by Galvin and Herzog (1992), college students not involved in animal rights campaigning expressed a more relativist philosophy in relation to animal welfare. Knight and Barnett (2008) explored how people’s views change depending on the animal’s species as well as the purpose of use....
[...]
...As found by Galvin and Herzog (1992), college students not involved in animal rights campaigning expressed a more relativist philosophy in relation to animal welfare....
[...]
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (15)
Q2. What was the main source of information for participants?
The Internet, particularly videos shared on social media, was identified by participants as their main source of information when it comes to animal welfare.
Q3. What can affect the opinions of the participants?
culture and tradition can significantly affect one’s views and most participants had a British background and therefore, the cultural environment might be a factor influencing the opinions expressed.
Q4. What was the aim of the research?
The aim of the research was met through the exploration of a wide range of topics relating to the use of animals in events, by British Millennials.
Q5. Why was the focus group method chosen?
The focus group method was selected due to the relative novelty of the topic and by encouraging a group discussion it would offer the opportunity for different opinions and arguments to emerge and develop in a dynamic conversation, closely mimicking a natural discussion (Krueger & Casey, 2000).
Q6. Why are circuses loved and attended by many?
According to Jaynes (2008) circuses with performing animals are loved and attended by many due to their nostalgic value originating from the attendees’ childhood memories.
Q7. What were the main reasons for using animals in planned events?
When discussing the reasons for animal use in planned events, novelty, ‘mass entertainment’ [P11] and the ‘pure enjoyment of watching the animals do tricks’ [P10] were stated.
Q8. What was the attitude towards animals until the early 1900s?
Up until the early 1900s the attitude towards animals was largely characterised by anthropocentrism, or the perceived superiority and exceptionalism of humans compared to the rest of the natural world (Garner, 1993).
Q9. What are some of the reasons to use animals in ways that are not critical to one’s?
People’s innate fascination with, and curiosity about nature are some of the reasons to use animals in ways, not critical to one’s survival, such as planned events.
Q10. What causes people to avoid upsetting information on the issue?
previous research reveals cognitive dissonance associated with the use of animals in entertainment causes people to avoid upsetting information on the issue.
Q11. What is the question for further research?
A question for further research is how to bridge the gap between the ideology people express and consumer behaviour – the most prevalent views demonstrated were those related to ecocentrism and the claim that animals need to be recognised as deserving fair treatment.
Q12. How does Allen et al. (2011) determine an event’s impact?
Allen et al. (2011) state that an event’s impact can be determined by looking at how effectively the needs of different stakeholders are met.
Q13. What is the definition of moral agency?
Fennell (2012, p. 41) also explores the capacity for suffering as one of the variables that should be considered when debating animals’ moral status whilst also discussing moral agency.
Q14. What is the main question that emerged from participants’ responses?
A question that emerged from participants’ responses is whether people are entitled to use animals for entertainment purposes, whilst being unsure of how well their needs are met.
Q15. What are some of the reasons why people are more open to using animals?
Some people develop greater empathy to animals and consider their use unfair, only after witnessing firsthand what is involved in having an animal at an event.