What Makes Us React to the Abuse of Pets, Protected Animals, and Farm Animals: The Role of Attitudes, Norms, and Moral Obligation

TL;DR

This study explores how people react to animal abuse based on their attitudes, social norms, and sense of moral obligation, finding that moral obligation is the strongest predictor of such reactions.

Contribution

The paper introduces a validated model linking moral obligation and social norms to reactions against animal abuse, extending theories from environmental behavior research.

Findings

Moral obligation is the strongest predictor of reactions to animal abuse and activates personal norms.

Personal norms are influenced by attitudes toward animals and injunctive social norms.

The model explains 77% of the variance in reactions to animal abuse and fits well statistically.

Abstract

This study uses structural equation analysis to test a model explaining reactions to animal abuse in terms of attitudes, norms, and moral obligation. This model was based on research concerning pro-environmental and anti-ecological behavior, as offenses against animals are considered environmental crimes in legal terms. The sample consisted of 624 people from the general population, aged 18 to 93, 64.1% of whom were female. Participants were recruited by the snowball technique using Students of Social Work and Psychology degrees, who were asked to contact people of different genders, ages, and areas of residence and spread the link to access the questionnaire in exchange for extra points in some subjects. They were randomly assigned one of three versions of the same scenario, differing in the category of abused animal (protected/pet/farm), to be rated on several items. These items served as indicators of the observed variables (descriptive social norm) and of the latent variables (injunctive social norm, personal norm, moral obligation, attitude toward animals, speciesism, and reaction to animal abuse). The model was tested using SEM, obtaining appropriate fit indices (RMSEA = 0.054; CFI = 0.917) and a high percentage of explained variance of reaction (77%). The results confirmed the expectation that moral obligation is the strongest predictor of reactions to animal abuse and activates the personal norm. Personal norm is predicted by attitudes toward animals and the injunctive social norm, which depends on the descriptive social norm. The results are discussed in terms of how the human–animal relationship is mediated by the role played in animal categorization, not only by their characteristics, but also by the instrumentality attributed to them socially and culturally.

This study tests a theoretical model explaining reactions to animal abuse in terms of attitudes, norms, and moral obligation, based on research concerning pro-environmental and anti-ecological behavior, as offenses against animals have been considered environmental crimes in legal terms. The sample consisted of 624 people from the general population, aged 18 to 93 (64.1% female), randomly assigned one of three versions of the same scenario of abuse, differing in the category of animal (protected/pet/farm). Participants were requested to complete a questionnaire that included items about the observed variables (descriptive social norm) and latent variables (injunctive social norm, personal norm, moral obligation, attitude toward animals, speciesism, and reaction to animal abuse). The resulting model obtained appropriate fit indices (RMSEA = 0.054; CFI = 0.917) and a high percentage of explained variance of reaction (77%) and confirmed the expectation that moral obligation is the strongest predictor of reactions to animal abuse and activates the personal norm. Personal norm is predicted by attitudes toward animals and the injunctive social norm, which depends on the descriptive social norm. Speciesism was excluded from the model due to its negative covariance with attitudes toward animals and to provide a better-fitting model. The results are discussed in terms of how the human–animal relationship is mediated by the role played in animal categorization, not only by their characteristics, but also by the instrumentality attributed to them socially and culturally.

Figures