Classification of Animals as Pet, Pest, or Profit
Consistency and Associated Variables Among Spanish University Students
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7654526 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Javier López-Cepero (0000-0002-8521-7860, Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, University of Sevilla, Seville, Spain), Rafael Martos-Montes (0000-0002-3130-7799, Universidad de Jaén), David Ordóñez-Pérez (0000-0001-6531-1772, Department of Animal-Assisted Interventions, Perruneando, Jaén, Spain) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 877-888 |
| Publication date | 2021-11-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Anthrozoös (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0892-7936 • E-ISSN: 1753-0377 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/08927936.2021.1938408 |
| OpenAlex | W3166552734 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 31 |
The present study analyzes the effectiveness (exhaustivity and mutual exclusivity) of a taxonomy for classifying animals into the categories of pet, pest, and profit (PPP), as well as variables that affect the classification assigned to the different species. A total of 463 university students (Mean age = 21.07 years; SD = 4.15), mainly female (87%), classified 14 animal species into the PPP categories and answered questionnaire assessments of personality, anthropomorphism, and attitudes toward the wellbeing of animals. On average, the different species were classified into a single PPP category in 71% of the cases (maximum 95% for dogs, and minimum 27% for chimpanzees), with 8% having multiple classifications (15% for horses and pigs, 21% for rabbits), and 21% being unclassified. Women used the profit category less than men (p < 0.05; g = 0.33). Attitudes toward animals, anthropomorphism, and conscientiousness presented significant correlations (p < 0.05) with the use of PPP categories. Finally, logistic regression analyses showed that these variables had a limited yet significative effect in predicting the classification of horses as either pet or profit (explained variance = 8%) and the classification of snakes as pet or pest (explained variance = 9%), but no effect on the classification of bees as pest or profit. The fact that 29% of the cases received multiple or null classifications indicates the need for caution when considering conclusions drawn from studies based on the PPP taxonomy. Personality, anthropomorphism, sex, and attitudes toward animals' wellbeing had only a small effect on the classification of animals, but they revealed possible mechanisms for developing interventions to raise awareness about the treatment of animals
Biology · Economics · Logistic regression · Microeconomics · Personality · PEST analysis · Profit (economics · Statistics · Animal and Plant Science Education · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Insect Utilization and Effects · Mathematics · Psychology · Demography · Social Psychology
Folk biology and the anthropology of science
On seeing human
Null
Ethnobiological Classification
A comparison between human-carnivore conflicts and local community attitudes toward carnivores in Westgate Community Conservancy, Samburu, Kenya
Gender Differences in Human–Animal Interactions
Animal Welfare, National Identity and Social Change
Belief in Animal Mind
Attribution of Cognitive States to Animals
Does Personality, Delinquency, or Mating Effort Necessarily Dictate a Preference for an Aggressive Dog
Exotic Animal Companions and the Personality of Their Owners
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat
Human-Pet Dynamics in Cross-Cultural Perspective
Personalities of Self-Identified "Dog People" and "Cat People
Dogs Look Like Their Owners
Pet, Pest, Profit
Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes toward Animals
Dog People and Cat People Differ on Dominance-Related Traits
Factors affecting the Human Attribution of Emotions toward Animals
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |