Saltar al contenido principal

ETHNOS_APP

Inicio • Búsqueda • Revistas • Lista 0

Belief in Pigs' Capacity to Suffer

An Assessment of Pig Farmers, Veterinarians, Students, and Citizens

Datos Bibliográficos

ID2162191
AutoresRachel S E Peden (0000-0003-0647-9908, Animal Behaviour & Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, UK), Irene Camerlink (0000-0002-3427-2210, Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria), Laura A Boyle (Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority), Laura Boyle (0000-0001-7080-1776), Steve Loughnan (0000-0002-4737-5120, University of Edinburgh), Faical Akaichi (0000-0003-0395-2368, Department of Rural Economy, Environment and Society, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, UK), Simon P Turner (0000-0001-9198-9448, Animal Behaviour & Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, UK)
Año2020
Volumen33
Número1
Páginas21-36
Fecha de publicación2020-01-02
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAnthrozoös (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0892-7936 • E-ISSN: 1753-0377
EditorialInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/08927936.2020.1694304
OpenAlexW2998934790
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas5
Referencias citadas50

Intensive animal production practices lead to animal suffering worldwide. This study examined whether farmers cope with the negative impact of farming practices on their animals by ascribing them less capacity to suffer compared with other species. Most people like eating meat but find animal suffering emotionally disturbing. Human omnivores employ a variety of strategies to navigate this "meat paradox," and one of these is to reduce their perception of animals' capacity to suffer. Psychological defenses associated with meat-eating have been widely researched, but this study provides the first investigation into how these are employed amongst those involved in meat production and focusses on intensive pig producers as an example. Seventy-six pig farmers reported their belief in pigs' capacity to experience pain, hunger, fear, and boredom in a paper-based survey employing visual analogue scales. Their responses were compared with their perceptions of livestock that they did not farm (cows) and two companion animal species (dogs and cats). These results were compared with people who had similar experience of working with pigs (15 specialized pig veterinarians) and those who had no experience of pigs (23 agricultural students, 22 animal science students, and 58 citizens unrelated to agriculture). The results of the 194 responses provide evidence to suggest that the pig farmers did not ascribe their animals a diminished capacity to suffer. Rather, pig farmers expressed an enhanced belief in pigs' capacity to experience hunger. All comparison groups expressed widespread belief in each species' capacity to suffer. Nevertheless, dogs were the species judged to be most capable of suffering, and animal science students gave the highest suffering scores overall. Farmers are directly responsible for the welfare of their animals, and further investigation into the psychological and behavioral strategies of farmers may provide insight into non-financial reasons behind the generally slow progress in improving animal welfare

Agriculture · Animal production · Animal science · Animal welfare · Animal-assisted therapy · Biology · Boredom · Livestock · Perception · Pet therapy · Pig farming · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology

  • Meat-related cognitive dissonance

    Open Access•Hank Rothgerber•Appetite•2020

  • Happy Hens or Healthy Eggs – A Summative Content Analysis Of How Hens Are Represented In Supermarket Egg Boxes Narratives

    Open Access•Kristine Hill•TRACE ∴ Journal for Human-Animal…•2021

  • How conflicted are farmers about meat? livestock farmers’ attachment to their animals and attitudes about meat

    Open Access•Chloe Crawshaw, Jared Piazza•Psychology of Human-Animal…•2022

  • Measuring Human Beliefs About Nonhuman Animal Emotions

    Michael A Kisley•Anthrozoös•2025

  • Livestock and Pets

    Aleksandra Rabinovitch, Aleksandra Niemyjska et al.•Anthrozoös•2024

  • A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

    Leon Festinger•A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance•1957

  • Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption

    Open Access•Brock Bastian, Steve Loughnan et al.•Personality and Social Psychology…•2012

  • Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk

    Open Access•Michal Carrington, Michal J Carrington et al.•Journal of Business Ethics•2010

  • Can Pets Function as Family Members?

    Open Access•Susan Phillips Cohen•Western Journal of Nursing Research•2002

  • Rising Consumption of Meat and Milk in Developing Countries Has Created a New Food Revolution

    Open Access•Christopher L Delgado•The Journal of Nutrition•2003

  • Human‐Animal Bonds I

    Open Access•Froma Walsh•Family Process•2009

  • Food Security

    Open Access•H Charles J Godfray, John R Beddington et al.•Science•2010

  • Gender Differences in Human–Animal Interactions

    Harold A Herzog•Anthrozoös•2007

  • Children Who Choose Not to Eat Meat

    Open Access•Karen M Hussar, Paul L Harris•Social Development•2009

  • Dealing with Ambivalence

    Open Access•Hein Te Velde, Noelle Aarts et al.•Journal of Agricultural and…•2002

  • Belief in Animal Mind

    P Morris, P H Morris et al.•Society and Animals•2012

  • The Motivational Bases of Attitudes Toward Animals

    Adelma M Hills•Society and Animals•1993

  • Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, vegetarians, and adherence to diet

    Open Access•Hank Rothgerber•Appetite•2015

  • Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals

    Open Access•Hank Rothgerber•Appetite•2015

  • Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns

    Open Access•Jared Piazza, Matthew B Ruby et al.•Appetite•2015

  • Health, ethics and environment

    Open Access•N J Fox, Nick Fox et al.•Appetite•2008

  • Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters

    Open Access•Hank Rothgerber•Appetite•2014

  • The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals

    Open Access•Boyka Bratanova, Steve Loughnan et al.•Appetite•2011

  • Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history

    Open Access•Carolien T Hoogland, John De Boer et al.•Appetite•2005

  • Meat eaters by dissociation

    Open Access•Jonas R Kunst, Sigrid Møyner Hohle•Appetite•2016

  • The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals

    Open Access•Steve Loughnan, Nick Haslam et al.•Appetite•2010

  • The humanity of what we eat

    Open Access•M Bilewicz, Roland Imhoff et al.•European Journal of Social…•2011

  • How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators

    Open Access•T F Pettigrew, Linda R Tropp•European Journal of Social…•2008

  • Science versus Human Welfare? Understanding Attitudes toward Animal Use

    Open Access•Sarah Knight, Aldert Vrij et al.•Journal of Social Issues•2009

  • Attribution of Cognitive States to Animals

    Open Access•Timothy J Eddy, Gordon G Gallup et al.•Journal of Social Issues•1993

  • Resolving the Meat-Paradox

    Open Access•Brock Bastian, Steve Loughnan•Personality and Social Psychology…•2016

  • Intergroup Contact

    Open Access•John F Dovidio, Samuel L Gaertner et al.•Group Processes & Intergroup…•2003

  • Animal science student attitudes to farm animal welfare

    Camie R Heleski, Camie Heleski et al.•Anthrozoös•2006

  • Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare

    Camie R Heleski, Camie Heleski et al.•Anthrozoös•2006

  • Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind

    Sarah Knight, Aldert Vrij et al.•Anthrozoös•2004

  • Factors affecting the Human Attribution of Emotions toward Animals

    Abbie M Wilkins, Lucy S Mccrae et al.•Anthrozoös•2015

Obras citantes distintas5
Citas por año0,83
Intervalo de citas2020 - 2025 (6)
Velocidad de citaciónrecent
Altamente citadoNo
Tipos de citaNeutras: 4
Ethnos_APP • Proyecto Open Source • Licencia MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidad y Cookies • Documentación de la API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código de la API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código del Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae