Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental values and Americans’ beliefs about farm animal well-being

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social scientists are increasingly interested in beliefs about farm animal well-being and the factors that predict these beliefs. Yet little attention has been given to the role of values, which social psychologists consider to be the building blocks of human cognition. This study draws from research on values in the environmental social sciences to examine the relationship between environmental values and Americans’ beliefs about farm animal well-being. It also makes a methodological contribution by demonstrating the importance of measuring beliefs about farm animal well-being on large industrial and small family farms separately. A series of paired sample t-tests finds Americans believe the well-being of farm animals on large industrial farms is significantly worse than on small family farms. Multiple regression results reveal the importance of environmental values, as well as various demographic factors, in understanding beliefs about farm animal well-being. They also suggest the presence of direct and indirect effects of values on beliefs. Implications and avenues for further research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All study participants were asked about Christian fundamentalist beliefs. This was an oversight in the survey design as this question should only be presented to those identifying as Christian. The fact most respondents do report following a Christian faith, however, minimizes this problem.

  2. It should be noted the sample size in these models had two less individuals (N = 519) than those in Table 5. This is because gender was controlled for and in doing so, the category of “transgender/gender non-conforming” was not included due to a low sample size (N = 2). It is acknowledged the perspective of these individuals is important, but to ensure sufficient cases, a larger sample or stratified sampling technique is warranted.

References

  • Alonso, M.E., J.R. González-Montaña, and J.M. Lomillos. 2020. Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10 (3): 385–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardi, A., and R. Goodwin. 2011. The dual route to value change: Individual processes and cultural moderators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42 (2): 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerke, T., T.S. Ødegårdstuen, and B.P. Kaltenborn. 1998. Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozoös 11 (2): 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B.K., S.J. Oosting, and B.B. Bock. 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in the Netherlands. Livestock Science 104: 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H., H. Blokhuis, P. Jensen, and L. Keeling. 2018. Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals 8 (6): 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. 2010. Can fairy tales come true? The surprising story of neoliberalism and world agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 50 (4): 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J.B. 1980. Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Environmental Ethics 2: 311–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, I.J. 2018. Animal welfare and environmental ethics: It’s complicated. Ethics & the Environment 23 (1): 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, A., D. Raubenheimer, and P. McGreevy. 2016. What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals 6: 74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deemer, D.R., and L.M. Lobao. 2011. Public concern with farm-animal welfare: Religion, politics, and human disadvantage in the food sector. Rural Sociology 76 (2): 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLeeuw, J.L., L.W. Galen, C. Aebersold, and V. Stanton. 2007. Support for animal rights as a function of belief in evolution, religious fundamentalism, and religious domination. Society and Animals 15: 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T. 2015. Environmental value. In Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology, ed. T. Brosch and D. Sander, 329–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., S. Allen, and A.M. McCright. 2017. Integrating concern for animals into personal values. Anthrozoös 30 (1): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, S., and W. Kymlicka. 2011. Zoopolois: A political theory of animal rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R.E., C. Xiao, and A.M. McCright. 2001. Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics 10 (4): 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2005. Special eurobarometer 229: Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2020.

  • European Commission. 2007. Special eurobarometer: Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2020.

  • Feather, N.T. 1995. Values, valences, and choice: The influences of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Personality and Social Psychology 68 (6): 1135–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50 (S1): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. 2010. Toward a synthesis of conservation and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 19 (2): 121–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., D.M. Weary, E.A. Pajor, and B.N. Milligan. 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddock, V. 2007. Pet causes: Pampered more than ever and largely defenseless, critters subject to cruelty at hands of humans draw more sympathy than, well, people. SFGate, July 27. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/PET-CAUSES-Pampered-more-than-ever-and-largely-2550719.php. Accessed 1 Aug 2019.

  • Heberlein, T.A. 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heen, M.S. J., J.D. Lieberman, and T.D. Miethe. 2014. A comparison of different online sampling approaches for generating national samples. Las Vegas, NV: Center for Crime and Justice Policy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. https://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page_files/27/ComparisonDifferentOnlineSampling.pdf. Accessed 20 Jul 2019.

  • Heleski, C.R., A.G. Mertig, and A.J. Zanella. 2006. Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös 19 (4): 290–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hötzel, M.J., C.S. Cardoso, A. Roslindo, and M.A.G. von Keyserlingk. 2017. Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability? Dairy Science 100 (5): 4150–4160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. 1998. Animal liberation is an environmental ethic. Environmental Values 7: 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., C. Busch, M. Rödiger, and U. Hamm. 2016. Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite 105 (1): 643–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasper, J.M., and D. Nelkin. 1992. The animal rights crusade. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, H.A., L.M. Lobao, and J.S. Sharp. 2006. Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social, and structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 71 (3): 399–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, E. 2020. Farmers and animal rights activist are coming together to fight big factory farms. Vox, July 8. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/7/8/21311327/farmers-factory-farms-cafos-animal-rights-booker-warren-khanna. Accessed 23 Sept 2020.

  • Knight, S., and L. Barnett. 2008. Justifying attitudes toward animal use: A qualitative study of people’s views and beliefs. Anthrozoös 21 (1): 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, N. 2016. Animal cruelty or the price of dinner? The New York Times, April 16. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/animal-cruelty-or-the-price-of-dinner.html. Accessed 25 July 2019.

  • Lassen, J., P. Sandøe, and B. Forkman. 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103 (3): 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J.L., F.B. Norwood, and R.W. Prickett. 2007. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: Results of a nationwide telephone survey. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.514.9416&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 1 July 2019.

  • McKendree, M.G.S., C.C. Croney, and N.J.O. Widmar. 2014. Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Animal Science 92: 3161–3173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, D.J. 2019. Welfare-aligned sentience: Enhanced capacities to experience, interact, anticipate, choose and survive. Animals 9 (7): 440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nibert, D.A. 1994. Animal rights and human social issues. Society and Animals 2 (2): 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlendorf, G.W., Q.A.L. Jenkins, and T.J. Tomazic. 1999. Who cares about farm animal welfare? In The social risks of agriculture: Americans speak out on farming, food, and the environment, ed. C. Harris, J. Molar, and T. Tomazic, 87–102. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y.S., and B. Valentino. 2019. Animals are people too: Explaining variation in respect for animal rights. Human Rights Quarterly 41: 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E.S., and J.A. Serpell. 1993. Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood. Animal Welfare 2: 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qualtrics. 2014. ESOMAR 28: 28 questions to help research buys of online samples. Qualtrics: Provo, UT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, J.A., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, D. Fraser, and D.M. Weary. 2016. Invited review: Farm size and animal welfare. Animal Science 94 (12): 5439–5455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, J.A., C. Roberts, D.M. Weary, B. Franks, and M.A.G. von Keyserlignk. 2019. Factors influencing public support for dairy stall housing in the U.S. PLoS ONE 14 (5): e0216544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, B. 2019. Plant based food products started with milk, now taking on meat, what’s next? Forbes, June 18. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernhardschroeder/2019/06/18/plant-based-food-products-started-with-milk-now-taking-on-meat-whats-next/#3431cca421da. Accessed 1 Aug 2019.

  • Schwartz, S. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H. 2012. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H., G.V. Capara, M. Vecchione, P. Bain, G. Bianchi, M.G. Capara, J. Cieciuch, H. Kirmanoglu, C. Baslevent, J.E. Lönnqvist, C. Mamali, J. Manzi, V. Pavlopoulous, T. Posnova, H. Schoen, J. Silvester, C. Tabernero, C. Torres, M. Verkasalo, E. Vondráková, C. Welzel, and Z. Zaleski. 2014. Basic personal values underlie and give coherence to political values: A cross national study in 15 countries. Political Behavior 36 (4): 899–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, S., P. Shapiro, and A. Rowan. 2017. A decade of progress toward ending the intensive confinement of farm animals in the United States. Animals 7 (5): 40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. 2015. STATA SE 14.2. College Station: StataCorp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steg, L. 2016. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 41: 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, and G.A. Guagnano. 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior 30 (4): 450–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storstad, O., and H. Bjørkhaug. 2003. Foundations of production and consumption of organic food in Norway: Common attitudes among farmers and consumers? Agriculture and Human Values 20: 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szücs, E., R. Geers, T. Jezierski, E.N. Sossidou, and D.M. Broom. 2012. Animal welfare in different human cultures, traditions, and religious faiths. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animals Sciences 25 (11): 1499–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N., and T.D. Signal. 2005. Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoös 18 (1): 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G.T., and C.A. Wolf. 2011. On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes. Food Policy 36 (3): 430–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G.T., N. Olynk, and C. Wolf. 2009. Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: The case of gestation crates. Agricultural and Applied Economics 41 (3): 713–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/POP010210. Accessed 6 Aug 2019.

  • Uyeki, E.S., and L.J. Holland. 2000. Diffusion of pro-environmental attitudes? American Behavioral Scientist 43 (4): 646–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Mey, B.J., C. Mobley, and J.E. Hawdon. 1998. Adult South Carolinians’ opinions about animal agriculture. In Animal agriculture in South Carolina: a fact book, ed. M. L. Warner, H. Harris, B. J. Vander Mey, J. Allen, C. M. Sieverdes, C. Mobley, and P. Skewes, 10–25. Clemson, SC: Public Service and Agriculture, Clemson University. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/112913/files/eer172.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2019.

  • Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E.V. Poucke, and F.A.M. Tuyttens. 2007. Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15 (3): 84–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., and M.J. Hötzel. 2015. The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachenheim, C.J., and W.C. Lesch. 2002. Public views on family and corporate farms. Agricultural & Food Information 2: 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S.A., and A. Bonnano. 2014. The neoliberal regime in the agri-food sector: Crisis, resilience, and restructuring. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my colleagues Christina Azodi, Sophia Tanner, Min Gon Chung, and Patricia “Paty” Jaimes for helping to design the survey instrument and providing valuable feedback on my analysis. I am appreciative of Tom Dietz for his mentorship and encouragement in developing this paper, as well as Linda Kalof, Jennifer Lai, Sandra Marquart-Pyatt, Alaina Bur, and Yan Zhang for taking the time to review this paper and their helpful comments.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by Michigan State University’s Environmental Science and Policy Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, 509 E. Circle Drive, 317 Berkey Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1111, USA

    Mark Suchyta

Authors
  1. Mark Suchyta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Suchyta.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suchyta, M. Environmental values and Americans’ beliefs about farm animal well-being. Agric Hum Values 38, 987–1001 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10206-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10206-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation