OUR UNCONSCIOUS BRIDGE TO NATURE: THE ROLE OF PETS AND ANIMAL VIEWS
IN A PERSON’S ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, CONSERVATION HABITS, AND
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
A Thesis
Presented to
Florida Gulf Coast University
Master of Science
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Kristine De Welde, Ph.D.
The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form
meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Charles Gunnels for his invaluable guidance in developing my
thoughts, my writing, and my character. I would like to thank Dr. Edwin Everham and Professor
David Green for their help in formulating my survey and advancing my thinking about this
research. Thank you to Dr. Kristine De Welde, without whom the analysis and interpretation of
my qualitative data would not have occurred. I would also like to thank the Office of Research
and Graduate Studies for financial support that made this research possible. Also, thank you to
the Department of Biological Sciences and the Department of Marine and Ecological Sciences
for financial support in making it possible to attend graduate school as well as the intellectual
support to guide me through this process. I would also like to thank the many anonymous
Mechanical Turk survey respondents who made this research possible. Additionally, thanks to
the Mechanical Turk platform, which allowed me to conduct this survey nationwide and across a
broad spectrum of individuals. I would like to thank Barry and Cynthia Chomey for their support
and encouragement. In addition, thank you to Kyle Martins for his emotional support and
reassurance. Finally, I want to thank pets. I was driven to conduct this research because of my
experiences and interactions with pets, and for that, I am grateful.
iv
ABSTRACT
Humans and domestic animals have co-evolved for thousands of years, developing a close
relationship. These animals were used as workers, but shifted to companions as the concept of
the “pet” became commonplace. By interacting with pets, humans may gain social information
about the environment because pets retain wild characteristics. A nationwide survey was
conducted to determine if association with pets related to a person’s environmental attitudes,
conservation habits, and knowledge. Pet owners favored better animal treatment, were more
concerned about animal welfare issues, and showed higher conservation habits compared to non-
pet owners. In addition, individuals that owned mixed breed animals were more concerned about
human impacts on the environment, ecological issues, and showed greater knowledge about their
pets compared to owners of purebred animals. It appears that mixed breed pets may act as a
bridge between humans and the natural environment.
v
CONSERVATION HABITS, AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Social learning, where one animal gains and retains information from another individual,
can occur within or between species (Nicol 1995). Social learning differs from other types of
learning because it involves one organism acquiring information that is already known from
another organism. Because the information acquired is already known, it allows the learner to
gain information more efficiently than through individual trial and error. For example, brown
bats were trained to catch mealworms on a string. Many bats that observed the demonstrator bats
attacking the mealworm subsequently showed the same behavior, while bats that did not observe
the demonstrator did not attack the mealworms (Wright et al.,, 2011). The efficiency of
information transfer through social learning is evident because non-observer bats (individual
learning) did not show the behavior compared to observer bats (social learning). In addition,
social learning increases the likelihood that an individual will gain the information. By
interacting with others, individuals have more opportunities to come into contact with
information that they might not experience on their own. Also, individuals can new gain
information through social learning that may only be relevant for a specific population rather
than the species as a whole.
Despite the efficient acquisition of information, using social information includes both
benefits and costs. Social information can benefit the organism by providing information about
food sources or predators without the need for individual discovery (Kaminski et al.,, 2005). The
learner saves time looking for food and predators that can then be spent acquiring more resources
2
for survival. However, using social information can also be costly as the information gained can
be incorrect, inefficient, or outdated (Rieucau and Giraldeau 2011). The information may not
necessarily provide the best means of accomplishing a task; rather, it is only a method that has
been proven effective and successful by other individuals. For example, guppies were trained to
take either a short or long route to a feeding station. Guppies that interacted with conspecifics
trained for the long route continued to use that route even after the original guppies were
removed, although this decreased with time. Those guppies that interacted with conspecifics
trained for the long route also learned to take the short route slower than guppies that had not
interacted with trained conspecifics from either group (Laland and Williams 1998). This study
shows that incorrect and costly information can be transmitted socially. Gaining poor quality
information can cause the learner additional cost as they must then re-learn the information
through individual trial and error. Trial and error learning takes time away from other important
activities, such as looking for food, predators, or mates. Therefore, individuals that engage in
social learning cannot be living under highly sub-optimal conditions due to the high risk of
gaining poor quality information and then spending additional resources to correct the
information. Finally, engaging in lots of social learning can distract from trial and error learning.
Because social learning can occur between species, it increases the likelihood that humans will
gain new information from their pets.
In mammals, social learning occurs in a variety of situations and among many different
types of organisms. Mammalian social learning, through vision, olfaction, or audition, is applied
in many contexts, such as foraging, predator interactions, and group relations, and has been
observed in members of the same species (Nicol 1995). For example, adults in a population of
wild mongoose utilized one of two (or both) foraging techniques (biting or smashing) to open
3
food items in the natural environment. Young mongoose observed an adult demonstrator
performing one of the behaviors on an artificial food item. Young were later presented with the
artificial food item and tested to determine their preferred foraging technique. Those that had
observed the biting technique showed the same behavior while those that had observed the
smashing technique showed the smashing behavior (Muller and Cant 2010). This study shows
that young can learn foraging techniques from adults and that more than one technique to
accomplish the same goal can exist within a population. Social learning can also be induced in
mammals through training. For example, female golden hamsters were trained to retrieve food
hanging on a chain by pulling up the chain. The females were subsequently bred and then
interacted with untrained pups. Pups that interacted with a trained mother showed the food
retrieval behavior more than pups that did not interact with a trained mother (Previde and Poli
1996). By utilizing the information about obtaining food previously acquired by the mother, the
hamster pups benefit from social learning. Social learning also occurs among wild mammals. For
example, marmosets observed demonstrators that opened a canister holding food using either
their mouth or their hands. Marmosets that watched the demonstrator open the canister with their
mouth were more likely to use their mouth to open the canisters. Marmosets that had not seen a
mouth opening demonstration rarely used their mouth to open a canister. The increased use of
mouth opening by marmosets that had observed this behavior indicates that observation was
important in the subsequent use of the behavior (Voelkl and Huber 2000). Because marmosets
that had observed mouth opening used this method, they learned socially by utilizing information
known by the demonstrator.
Social learning in mammals can also occur between members of different species. For
example, two species of tamarins, the Avila-Pires saddle-back tamarin and the red-cap
4
moustached tamarin, form mixed-species groups to aid in preventing predation. One species
generally watches for terrestrial predators while the other watches for aerial predators (Peres
1993). This example shows that social learning occurs between species because information
about a predator gained by one individual can then be learned by other members of the group to
reduce predation. Additionally, woodchucks can recognize alarm calls of the eastern chipmunk
and use this information to increase their vigilance for predators (Aschemeier and Maher 2011).
Because the woodchucks are using information that is already known by the chipmunks
(presence of a predator), this example illustrates social learning between different species of
mammals.
Social learning can also occur between mammals and humans. For example, African fur
seals were tested for use of human cues using an object choice task, which has been used to test a
wide variety of animals. In an object choice task, two or more objects are presented to the subject
(the objects may be containers hiding food or not). A human then gives some communicative
signal to indicate the correct object, such as pointing at, gazing at, tapping on, touching, or
placing a marker on the object. African fur seals used some human cues correctly to choose the
object such as pointing or gazing, but not other cues such as pointing with the hand and not the
arm (Scheumann and Call 2004). In a similar experiment, bottlenose dolphins used human
pointing and gazing to perform a predetermined action on the specified object (Pack and Herman
2004). Evidence of social learning between members of different species and especially between
humans and other species raises the question of social learning between humans and companion
animals.
An animal’s ability to engage in social learning is critical to the success of its
domestication (e.g. Call et al.,, 2003, Topal et al.,, 2009, Hauser et al.,, 2011). Social learning is
5
critical to domestication because animals must be able to respond to the human environment.
Social learning within a species has been shown in a variety of situations in many domestic
animals. For example, the likelihood that calves suckle successfully from a teat connected to a
mechanical apparatus increases when they observe another calf also suckling (Broom 1999).
This example illustrates social learning in that a calf that sees another suckling utilizes the
information provided by the demonstrating calf (that the teat is a food source) and begins to
suckle. In addition, domestic goats will follow the orientation and gaze of another goat that is
looking at a person with food (Kaminski et al.,, 2005). The ability of the observing goat to orient
in the same direction as the demonstrating goat is social learning because the observing goat
gains information about the person and food. Social learning allows domestic animals to navigate
an ever-changing human environment associated with new technologies and cultural norms.
Domestic animals can also gain from social learning with humans. Social learning from
humans to domestic animals can be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional learning
occurs when humans train animals in different ways for a variety of outcomes (e.g., McCall
1990, Hiby et al.,, 2004). For example, domestic pigs can be trained to respond to an individually
specific call produced by an electronic feeder signaling access to food. Each sow has a specific
call that indicates it can access the electronic feeder, while other pigs will not receive food upon
another’s call. Sows are allowed an initial period of unrestricted access to food where their sound
is played prior to the release of food. Later, the sow must respond to its call to receive food
(Manteuffel et al.,, 2011). This training method can be used to reduce aggression between
animals trying to access the feeder at the same time. Training is also found in domestic animals
other than livestock. For example, dogs can be trained to detect whether or not a cow is in
estrous by smelling a sample of vaginal fluid. Dogs can also detect estrous in samples of cow
6
urine or milk (Fischer-Tenhagen et al.,, 2011). The ability of dogs to detect estrous can aid in the
breeding of livestock. While training dominates how we view social learning in pets,
unintentional social learning appears to be very important.
Recent evidence indicates that unintentional social learning is critical for domestic
animals to navigate human environments (Call et al.,, 2003, Topal et al.,, 2009, Hauser et al.,,
2011). For example, domestic goats used touching and pointing cues (Kaminski et al.,, 2005) and
horses used marker placement cues and pointing (Proops et al., 2010) given by humans in object
choice tests to choose correct objects. These examples illustrate unintentional social learning
because goats and horses used information already known and demonstrated by humans to select
correct containers, without being trained. In addition, goats and horses used different cues from
humans; these examples show that different domestic animals have different abilities for social
learning, which may have led to their relative levels of domestication by humans. For example,
both domestic cats and dogs use human pointing to select the correct object during an object
choice task (Miklosi et al., 2005), illustrating their ability to learn unintentionally from humans.
In addition, domestic dogs have also been shown to learn unintentionally from humans in a
variety of different situations. For example, dogs observed two experimenters with food – one
that was willing to share food (generous) and one that was not (selfish). A human beggar
approached each experimenter seeking food and was either turned away or given food.
Following the observations, dogs approached the generous experimenter more than the selfish
experimenter (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2011). This study shows that dogs are able to gain
information from humans unintentionally in a variety of situations. Because information can be
exchanged through social learning from humans to domestic animals, information may also
travel in the opposite direction, from domestic animals to humans through social learning.
7
Humans also gain information through social learning on a daily basis. Notions about
social learning in humans have been greatly influenced by the idea of the “meme.” The concept
of a meme was first introduce by Richard Dawkins in 1976 and was then defined as a unit of
cultural transmission passed on through imitation (Blackmore 1998). Although alternate
definitions have been proposed, Dawkin’s definition is useful in helping to classify all the ways
humans learn socially. For example, learning a language or acquiring skills in mathematics are
both ways in which humans learn socially (Herrmann et al., 2007). These acts can also be
considered as memes, because learning new words or mathematic symbols requires imitation of
information that is already known by another. Much knowledge that humans gain is acquired
through social learning. Learning material in a classroom or learning to play a musical
instrument are examples of human social learning as humans are acquiring previously known
knowledge from other individuals. The vast ability of humans to learn from other humans opens
up the possibility that we can also learn from other species.
We clearly gain information from members of our own species, but we may also gain
information from other species, specifically our pets. Humans and domestic animals have a
unique co-evolutionary history, which may have created the conditions for social learning from
domestic animals to humans. Early in the domestication process, interactions between humans
and early cats or dogs likely resulted from attraction to and sharing of food resources (Miklosi et
al., 2005). Eventually, domestic animals were utilized by humans as workers for a variety of
tasks, such as controlling pests, hunting, and herding (Moody et al., 2006, Faure and Kitchener
2009). During this same period, the interaction between humans and working domestic animals
allowed for the development of a close relationship. For example, a fossil of a human buried with
a dog (12,000 BCE) suggests the initial development of human-animal bonds (Davis 1978).
8
Additional archaeological evidence of a human buried in association with a cat has been dated to
about 9,500 years ago (Vigne et al., 2004) and depictions of cats in Ancient Egyptian art also
suggest the development of a close relationship between humans and cats (Faure and Kitchener
2009). These examples illustrate the development of a human-animal bond beyond dogs. The
unique history and interactions between humans and dogs and cats may have created an
environment that allows for the unintentional exchange of social information.
The Industrial Revolution in the west created conditions that changed the relationship
between humans and domestic animals. Domestic animals shifted to companion animals and
moved from outside into our homes. Humans were also able to breed dogs and cats to achieve a
certain appearance, regardless of its utility for working tasks. The Victorian fascination with
breed purity led to the development of many new breeds during this period through artificial
selection (Sampson and Binns 2006). The change in the role of domestic animals allowed for
new and different interactions to occur between humans and companion animals.
Despite physical and behavioral alteration by humans, pets still retain many
characteristics of their wild ancestors. Early domestic animals were likely selected by humans for
their tameness. However, other characteristics along with tameness have carried over to the
present day. For example, domestic cats, like their ancestors, still have the ability to hunt prey.
Domestic dogs, on the other hand, mainly scavenge for food and do not show the same hunting
abilities as their ancestors (Bradshaw 2006). The hunting abilities of cats and dogs may be a
result of their relative levels of domestication, because dogs have been domesticated for a longer
period of time than cats and therefore, may have lost more characteristics of their wild ancestors.
However, other behaviors continue to be retained by domestic dogs. For example, wolves can
point with their muzzles to communicate with other wolves about a specific object or area
9
(Kubinyi et al., 2007). Some domestic dogs still retain this behavior, especially “pointers.” In
addition, both domestic cats and other wild cats rub objects for various reasons, such as marking
them with a scent (Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont 2000). Domestic dogs, along with other
wild canids, scratch the ground after elimination to leave a territorial mark (Fox 1971). Because
domesticated dogs and cats retain many of the characteristics of their wild ancestors, observing
them may allow humans to gain insight into natural processes.
Similar to the way that pets gain information from humans, humans may also gain
information from pets through social learning. There is no evidence that pets intentionally teach
humans (Kaminski et al., 2011), but pets may unintentionally give information to people. For
example, people may learn about biological processes just by observing their pets. Pets, because
of their retention of wild characteristics, have information about natural processes that humans
stand to gain. The close interactions between humans and pets may allow people to gather this
information through unintentional social learning. People can then apply the knowledge gained
from interactions with pets to larger ecological concepts (i.e. transfer) (Beach 1999). This
increased awareness of ecological concepts would affect a person’s environmental attitudes: their
knowledge and concern about environmental issues.
To determine whether humans acquire information and can learn from their pets, we will
use a survey that collects quantitative and qualitative data to compare pet and non-pet owners’
science knowledge and ethical positions. We will first determine how pet ownership affects a
person’s understanding and appreciation of nature (i.e. environmental attitudes). We will then
measure the effects of pet ownership on a person’s scientific literacy (e.g. ecological,
evolutionary, and behavioral understanding). We expect pet ownership to influence what a
person learns based on the interaction between three factors (1 = exposure to animals, 2 = degree
10
to which the pet has been modified from its ancestral form, and 3 = empathy with animals). For
example, pet ownership increases opportunities to observe and interact with animals. We expect
that this increased exposure to animals will positively influence a person’s knowledge about the
biology of companion animals (Table 1). Pet ownership should also affect a person’s ecological
and behavioral knowledge. People with pets are expected to know more about these biological
disciplines because they have the chance to observe their animals extensively. However, we also
expect that the type of pet that a person owns will also affect their overall knowledge. The degree
that a pet has been modified from its ancestral form has varied greatly. Some pets have been
tamed, such as snakes, or bred minimally, such as cats or mixed breed dogs, from their ancestor,
while other animals, such as purebred dogs, have been greatly altered from their ancestors
through intense breeding and selection. We expect people who own pets that retain wild
characteristics to show more biological literacy than owners of purebred animals. In addition,
owning a pet allows people to develop empathy towards animals. We expect that pet owners will
show increased empathy towards animals and therefore different ethical positions than non-pet
owners. We expect pet owners to be more conservation minded (e.g. in favor of species and land
protection) because they empathize with the needs of animals when considering questions about
environmental issues and habits. Non-pet owners likely have less opportunity to develop
empathy towards animals and are expected to be less conservation minded (e.g. in favor of
development, control of nature, etc.) when considering questions about environmental issues and
habits. We also expect that modification from ancestral form will influence a person’s feelings
about their pets. Pet owners are expected to show higher levels of anthropomorphism, the
application of human emotions or terms to describe non-human animals (Serpell 2002), than
non-pet owners. We expect non-pet owners to show higher levels of human exceptionalism, the
11
belief that animals do not possess any thoughts or feelings similar to humans (Shannon 2009),
because of their limited exposure to and empathy with animals. Those who own pets that have
been less modified are expected to show a more balanced view between anthropomorphism and
human exceptionalism because the animal they are observing still retains many characteristics of
its wild ancestor. This will give these pet owners a more objective view of the animal than
owners of highly modified animals or non-pet owners. The influence of these factors on a
person’s knowledge and opinions is expected to affect their responses to questions about various
topics, including their knowledge and overall perspective.
12
General science knowledge Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate
Ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge Intermediate Higher Lower
Environmental attitudes Conservation Conservation Development
Conservation habits Higher Higher Lower
Anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism Anthropomorphic Balanced Human Exceptionalist
Table 1: Predicted responses in each survey category for purebred owners, mixed breed owners, and those who do not own a pet.
13
LITERATURE CITED
Aschemeier, L. M. and C. R. Maher. 2011. Eavesdropping of woodchucks (Marmota monax) and
eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) on heterospecific alarm calls. Journal of
Mammalogy 92, 493-499.
education. Review of Research in Education 24, 101-139.
Blackmore, S. 1998. Imitation and the definition of a meme. Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary
Models of Information Transmission 2, 159-170.
Bradshaw, J. and C. Cameron-Beaumont. 2000. The signalling repertoire of the domestic cat and
its undomesticated relatives. Pages 67-93 in D. C. Turner and P. Bateson, editors. The
domestic cat: The biology of its behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bradshaw, J. W. S. 2006. The evolutionary basis for the feeding behavior of domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus). Journal of Nutrition 136, 1927S-1931S.
Broom, D. M. 1999. Social transfer of information in domestic animals. Pages158-168 in H. O.
Box and K. R. Gibson, editors. Mammalian social learning: Comparative and ecological
perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Call, J., J. Brauer, J. Kaminski, and M. Tomasello. 2003. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are
sensitive to the attentional state of humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 117, 257-
263.
Davis, S. J. M. 1978. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of
Israel. Nature 276, 608-610.
Faure, E. and A. C. Kitchener. 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships
between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.
Fischer-Tenhagen, C., L. Wetterholm, B. A. Tenhagen, and W. Heuwieser. 2011. Training dogs
on a scent platform for oestrus detection in cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
131, 63-70.
Fox, M. W. 1971. Behavior of wolves, dogs and related canids. Harper and Row, New York,
New York, USA.
Hauser, M. D., J. A. Comins, L. M. Pytka, D. P. Cahill, and S. Velez-Calderon. 2011. What
experimental experience affects dogs' comprehension of human communicative actions?
Behavioural Processes 86, 7-20.
Herrmann, E., J. Call, M. V. Hernandez-Lloreda, B. Hare, and M. Tomasello. 2007. Humans
have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis.
Science 317, 1360-1366.
Hiby, E. F., N. J. Rooney, and J. W. S. Bradshaw. 2004. Dog training methods: their use,
effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare 13, 63-69.
Kaminski, J., M. Neumann, J. Bräuer, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2011. Dogs, Canis familiaris,
communicate with humans to request but not to inform. Animal Behaviour 82, 651-658.
Kaminski, J., J. Riedel, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2005. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow
gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69, 11-18.
Kubinyi, E., Z. Virányi, and Á. Miklósi. 2007. Comparative social cognition: From wolf and dog
to humans. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews 2, 26-46.
Laland, K. N. and K. Williams. 1998. Social transmission of maladaptive information in the
guppy. Behavioral Ecology 9, 493-499.
14
Manteuffel, C., P. C. Schon, and G. Manteuffel. 2011. Beyond electronic feeding: The
implementation of call feeding for pregnant sows. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 79, 36-41.
Marshall-Pescini, S., C. Passalacqua, A. Ferrario, P. Valsecchi, and E. Prato-Previde. 2011.
Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour 81, 1177-1183.
McCall, C. A. 1990. A review of learning behavior in horses and its application in horse training.
Journal of Animal Science 68, 75-81.
Miklosi, A., N. Pongracz, G. Lakatos, J. Topal, and V. Csanyi. 2005. A comparative study of the
use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and
humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119, 179-
186.
Moody, J. A., L. A. Clark, and K. E. Murphy. 2006. Working dogs: History and applications.
Pages 1-18 in E. A. Ostrander, U. Giger, and K. Lindblad-Toh, editors. The dog and its
genome. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, USA.
Muller, C. A. and M. A. Cant. 2010. Imitation and traditions in wild banded mongooses. Current
Biology 20, 1171-1175.
Nicol, C. 1995. The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 44, 79-98.
Pack, A. A. and L. M. Herman. 2004. Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) comprehend the
referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task.
Journal of Comparative Psychology 118, 160-171.
Peres, C. A. 1993. Anti-predation benefits in a mixed-species group of Amazonian tamarins.
Folia Primatologica 61, 61-76.
Previde, E. P. and M. D. Poli. 1996. Social learning in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus
auratus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 110, 203-208.
Proops, L., M. Walton, and K. McComb. 2010. The use of human-given cues by domestic
horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 79, 1205-1209.
Rieucau, G. and L. A. Giraldeau. 2011. Exploring the costs and benefits of social information
use: An appraisal of current experimental evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366, 949-957.
Sampson, J. and M. M. Binns. 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and
breed clubs. Pages 19-30 in E. A. Ostrander, U. Giger, and K. Lindblad-Toh, editors. The
dog and its genome. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New
York, USA.
Scheumann, M. and J. Call. 2004. The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals
(Arctocephalus pusillus). Animal Cognition 7, 224-230.
Serpell, J. A. 2002. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection--beyond the "cute
response". Society and Animals 10, 437-454.
Shannon, L. 2009. Invisible parts: Animals and the renaissance anatomies of human
exceptionalism. Pages 137-158 in T. Tyler and M. Rossini, editors. Animal Encounters.
BRILL, Leiden, Netherlands.
Topal, J., G. Gergely, A. Erdohegyi, G. Csibra, and A. Miklosi. 2009. Differential sensitivity to
human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325, 1269-1272.
Vigne, J. D., J. Guilaine, K. Debue, L. Haye, and P. Gérard. 2004. Early taming of the cat in
Cyprus. Science 304, 259.
Voelkl, B. and L. Huber. 2000. True imitation in marmosets. Animal Behaviour 60, 195-202.
15
Wright, G. S., G. S. Wilkinson, and C. F. Moss. 2011. Social learning of a novel foraging task by
big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Animal Behaviour 82, 1075-1083.
16
HABITS, AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
INTRODUCTION
Social learning, where one animal gains and retains information from another individual,
can occur within or between species (Nicol 1995) and differs from other types of learning
because it involves acquiring information that is already known. Social learning can benefit both
signaling and/ or receiving individuals because it allows for efficient transfer of information (e.g.
Wright et al., 2011), increased likelihood of encountering information, and the ability to gain
information that is relevant to a specific population (e.g. Boesch et al., 1994). For example,
social information can provide knowledge about food sources or predators without the need for
individual discovery (Kaminski et al., 2005). Exchange of information among individuals of the
same species via social information is so critical that it is potentially ubiquitous for social
animals (e.g. stingrays, Thonhauser et al., 2013; whooping cranes, Mueller et al., 2013; ants,
Möglich et al., 1974; common octopus, Fiorito and Scotto 1992).
Social learning can occur within species in wild mammals (e.g. marmosets, Voelkl and
Huber 2000) or through teaching, where one individual changes their behavior in the presence of
another individual (e.g. meerkats, Thornton and McAuliffe 2006). Social learning in mammals
can also occur between members of different species (e.g. Avila-Pires saddle-back tamarins learn
from red-cap moustached tamarins, Peres 1993, woodchucks learn from eastern chipmunks,
Aschemeier and Maher 2011). For example, mule deer can recognize alarm calls from yellow-
17
bellied marmots and use this information to increase their vigilance for predators (Carrasco and
Blumstein 2012).
The ability of an animal to engage in social learning is critical to the successful
domestication of horses, cats, and dogs among others because animals must be able to respond to
a human environment. Domestic animals can gain information from humans through social
learning, regardless of whether the communication is intentional (e.g. training) or unintentional.
While training dominates our view of interspecies social learning between humans and
companion animals, unintentional social learning also appears important. Recent evidence
indicates that unintentional social learning is critical for domestic animals to navigate human
environments and gain disproportionate access to resources (e.g. domestic goats - Kaminski et
al., 2005; horses - Proops et al., 2010; and dogs and cats - Miklosi et al., 2005). For example,
dogs more often approached a person that they had previously observed sharing food with
another human rather than approaching a person they had observed not sharing food with another
human (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2011).
If information can pass from humans to domestic animals, information may also travel in
the opposite direction. For example, humans may be able to gain information from their pets,
because of our unique co-evolutionary history. Early interactions between humans and cats or
dogs likely resulted from sharing of food resources (Miklosi et al., 2005). Humans also used
domestic animals as workers for various tasks (e.g. pest control, hunting, herding) (Moody et al.,
2006; Faure and Kitchener 2009). These interactions between humans and working domestic
animals also allowed for the development of a close relationship, as evidenced by the fossil and
historical record (e.g. Davis 1978; Vigne et al., 2004; Faure and Kitchener 2009). The unique
18
history between humans and dogs and cats may have created an environment that allowed for the
unintentional exchange of social information.
The Industrial Revolution in the west created conditions that changed the relationship
between humans and domestic animals. Some domestic animals, like dogs and cats, shifted from
work to companion animals and moved from the outside into our homes. Humans also bred dogs
and cats to achieve a certain appearance, regardless of its utility for working tasks, leading to the
development of many new breeds during this period (Sampson and Binns 2006). Many of these
newly created breeds included animals that were highly modified from their wild, ancestral
forms, such as English bulldogs, toy poodles, Scottish folds, and Peterbalds. The change in the
role of domestic animals allowed for new and different interactions to occur between humans
and companion animals.
As our interactions with domestic animals changed, so too did our interactions with the
environment. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, people relied upon the natural environment for
living space, food production, and other resources. At the same time that people started to
develop the modern domestic breeds, people also began to move from rural locations to cities
with the advent of factories (Hirschman and Mogford 2009). This relocation may have
disconnected people from their reliance on the natural world, which meant that many humans no
longer had the opportunity to develop an intimate relationship with the environment.
Pets retain many characteristics of their wild ancestors despite physical and behavioral
alteration by humans. For example, domestic cats, like their ancestors, still have the ability to
hunt prey (Bradshaw 2006). In addition, domesticated dogs, similar to wolves, point to identify a
specific object or area (Kubinyi et al., 2007). Domestic cats and other wild cats also rub objects
for various reasons, such as scent marking (Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont 2000) and both
19
domestic dogs and gray wolves scratch the ground after elimination to leave a territorial mark
(Fox 1971). Because domesticated dogs and cats retain many of the characteristics of their wild
ancestors, observing them may allow humans to gain insight about the behavior, ecology, and
evolution of wild animals.
Pets may serve as a bridge for people in developed and/ or urbanized societies to the
natural world if people can use companion animals as a source of social information. People may
learn about biological processes unintentionally by observing their pets. People could then apply
the knowledge gained from interactions with pets to larger ecological concepts (Beach 1999).
Interaction with pets could affect a person’s scientific literacy and ecological attitudes (opinions
and feelings about the environment). If companion animals could serve as a bridge to the natural
world, then pet owners would be expected to show increased scientific literacy and heightened
environmental attitudes compared to non-pet owners.
This research will examine the effects of human-pet interactions on a person’s
environmental attitudes, conservation habits, and scientific knowledge. I expect pet owners to
show more conservation-oriented environmental attitudes than non-pet owners if pets can serve
as a bridge to the natural world. I also expect pet owners to show improved conservation habits if
their pets influence their behaviors toward the natural world. In addition, I expect pet owners to
show increased ecological and behavioral scientific knowledge if they can learn from their pets.
If pets do not serve as a bridge to the natural world, I expect to see no differences between pet
owners and non-pet owners.
The degree of modification of the pet (i.e. mixed breed pets versus purebred pets) is also
expected to influence pet owners’ environmental attitudes, conservation habits and scientific
knowledge. Differences in pet modification may be expected to invoke differing levels of
20
empathy in the person and therefore influence their thoughts and feelings about the environment.
I expect participants with less modified pets (i.e. mixed breed) to show improved environmental
attitudes compared to participants with more modified pets (i.e. purebred) if improved empathy
towards animals can extend to larger environmental issues. Participants with less modified pets
are also expected to show greater conservation habits compared to participants with more
modified pets if their environmental attitudes can influence their behaviors toward the
environment. Finally, participants with less modified pets are expected to demonstrate greater
scientific knowledge of ecology and behavior (compared to participants with more modified
pets) if their pets can provide greater information about these topics.
21
METHODS
1. Sample
A nationwide survey was conducted in the United States to determine how pet ownership
affects their environmental attitudes, conservation habits, and knowledge (Table 1). Responses
were checked for quality and attentiveness in several ways. We eliminated participants who did
not complete the survey, failed to indicate their location, or failed to answer the open-ended
question. Participants were also eliminated if they skipped a section of the survey. In addition,
surveys were eliminated if there was a logical inconsistency in responses (e.g. stated they had a
pet, but then listed 0 pets for any category). A total of 2899 responses were analyzed in this
study.
All survey participants were from the United States. Table 2 shows the demographic
information for survey participants that were used in analysis. I received slightly more responses
from white participants than I expected. I also received a large number of responses from
younger individuals, although this was not surprising since the survey was distributed online.
Overall, the sample population was proportional to the demographics of the United States as a
whole (United States Census Bureau 2014; United States Census Bureau 2011), with slight
exceptions described above.
2. Distribution
Participants of the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk)
crowdsourcing website. On mTurk, requestors put up small tasks to be completed (e.g. surveys,
audio transcription) and people could then complete the tasks for a small amount of pay (i.e.
incentive). mTurk has been determined to be a viable platform for delivering surveys in several
22
studies (e.g. Mason and Suri 2011; Rand 2012; Buhrmester et al., 2011). In this study,
participants were paid $0.70 to complete the survey. All survey responses were collected
between October 25, 2012 and January 31, 2013. Survey results were collected in two “batches”
to ensure that the mTurk platform would provide reliable results; the first batch took place
between October 25 – 26, 2012, and the second batch took place between January 28 – January
30, 2013. The survey listing on mTurk was tagged with several keywords, i.e. “survey”, “pets”,
“ecology”, “science”, “environment”, and “animals”.
Participants accessed the survey through a link on Amazon’s mTurk site that took them to
the survey, which was created in Checkbox Survey Software version 6. Participants could take
the survey only once: one response was collected per IP address. On the first page of the survey,
respondents consented to taking the survey in order to access questions, which was approved by
the Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University (IRB Protocol #S2012-32).
3. Measures
conservation habits, ecological and scientific knowledge, an open-ended question, and
demographic information. Participants were allowed to move backwards and forwards in the
survey to view and make changes to previously answered questions. Participants were not
allowed to save their survey to return to it later; the survey had to be completed in one session.
3.1 – Pet information
The pet information questions made up the first four questions of the survey and were created by
the researcher to gather information about pet ownership. The first question asked participants if
they owned pets. If the participant answered yes, they were taken to the next three questions.
23
These asked participants to describe what types of pets (dogs, cats, or other) and how many of
each type. The participants then described breed information for each dog and cat (pure bred,
mixed, or unknown). Participants answered these questions using radio buttons to select their
answer or category. Non-pet owning participants moved directly to the next section of the
survey.
The environmental attitudes questions were modified from the New Ecological Paradigm
Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) to ask participants about their environmental attitudes. These
questions were further separated into three categories: treatment of animals, environmental
perspective, and environmental assessment. The treatment of animals question asked participants
how they thought animals should be treated relative to human rights. Environmental perspective
questions were philosophical in nature, addressing how participants felt humans should treat the
environment. Environmental assessment questions asked participants how they felt people
currently treated the environment, describing how the participant viewed the generalized actions
of humans in the environment. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each
statement on a scale from 1-100, using a slider bar to place their response along the scale.
The final question in the environmental attitude category gave participants a list of
current ecological issues and asked them to choose which issues had a direct impact on their life
(see Table 1). Each current issue had an environmental connection, with some addressing global
issues, animal/ wildlife concerns, human health concerns, etc. The researcher created this
question.
24
3.3 – Conservation habits
The conservation habit questions were adapted from the Ecological Footprint Quiz
(Center for Sustainable Economy) and asked participants about their behaviors related to the
environment. Questions included water and energy conserving behaviors and overall recycling
habits. Participants indicated the number of water and energy conserving behaviors they engaged
in using checkboxes. Participants also indicated the percentage of items recycled using a slider
scale from 1-100.
The ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge questions assessed participants’
knowledge about these topics as it relates to their pets. These questions were created by the
researcher because no similar vetted questions were available. Several questions asked about
behaviors shown by dogs and cats, but in the context of wild animals, while others asked about
general animal and ecological knowledge. Participants were expected to have increased
knowledge of these topics if they learned from their pets. The first question in this category was
true/ false and all others were multiple choice. Participants used radio buttons to select their
answer to each question.
3.5 – General science knowledge
The general science knowledge questions were taken from a 2009 nationwide survey
conducted by the Pew Research Center, which addressed participant’s knowledge about general
science topics (Kohut et al., 2009). These questions measured participants’ knowledge about a
variety of non-animal related science topics, including basic chemistry, physics, geology, and
medicine. These questions were used as a control for knowledge, as a participant’s knowledge
about these topics would not be expected to be influenced by their pet ownership. Three of these
25
questions were multiple choice and three were true/ false. Participants used radio buttons to
select their answer to each question.
3.6 – Open-ended question
The open-ended question was designed by the researcher to give participants the
opportunity to describe their interaction with the natural world. This question was not analyzed
in this study, but used to confirm the quality of the survey, which is a common procedure to
ensure quality survey responses (e.g. Kittur et al., 2008). These data were evaluated in Chapter 4
of the thesis.
3.7 – Demographic information
The demographic information questions were voluntary and were created by the
researcher to gather general demographic data on participants. Questions included age and race/
ethnicity. Participants answered these questions by selecting from the options provided.
4. Survey vetting
Survey questions were vetted with students and faculty members in several classes at
Florida Gulf Coast University. Twenty-one students in a Conservation Strategies course and
twenty-one students in Latin American Environments and Natural Selection in Ecuador and the
Galapagos Islands took the survey in 2012. Feedback from the vetting process was incorporated
into the final survey and used to improve questions. Survey questions were also selected and
modified with the help of Florida Gulf Coast University faculty members.
5. Data analysis
26
A high score for environmental perspective indicated that the participant believed humans should
try to minimize their impacts on the environment (Table 1). A participant’s view on animal
treatment was the participant’s response to AR (Table 1). A participant’s environmental
assessment score was calculated as:
, equation 2
A high score for environmental assessment indicated that the participant believed humans were
currently harming the environment (Table 1).
A participant’s concern about ecological issues was calculated by taking the average
number of concerns a participant selected out of the 22 EC options (Table 1). This average was
then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of issues that
concerned the participant. A higher percentage for ecological concerns indicated that the
participant showed concern about a greater number of ecological issues.
A participant’s concern about animal-related ecological issues was calculated by taking
the average number of concerns a participant selected out of the five animal-related concerns
(see table 1). The five animal related concerns were (1) habitat loss, (2) loss of biological
processes, such as pollination and migration, (3) loss of species to extinction, (4) spread of exotic
species, (5) use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/ religious uses. This average was
then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of animal
related issues that concerned a participant. A higher score for animal-related concerns indicated
that a participant was highly concerned about animal-related ecological issues.
A participant’s response to energy and water conservation habits was counted as either
engaged or not engaged (Table 1). I then took the average number of energy and water
27
conservation habits a participant engaged in, respectively. A participant’s water and energy
conservation habits scores were rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score for water and
energy conservation habits indicated that a participant reported engaging in more conservation
habits.
A participant’s overall recycling score was calculated by taking the average of a
participant’s response to all five recycling categories: (1) paper, (2) aluminum, (3) glass, (4)
plastic, and (5) electronic waste. A higher overall recycling score indicated that the participant
recycled more materials.
A participant’s response to each ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge question
was counted as either correct or incorrect (Table 1). I then took the average number of questions
a participant answered correctly. This score was rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score on
ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge indicated that a participant answered more
questions correctly.
A participant’s response to each general science knowledge question was counted as
either correct or incorrect (Table 1). I then took the average of all questions a participant
answered correctly. This score was rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score on general
science knowledge indicated that a participant answered more questions correctly.
All data showed a slight skew, and normalcy was not improved through transformations:
Characterization of environmental attitudes was slightly biased towards higher environmental
attitudes; characterization of conservation habits was slightly biased towards greater participation
in conservation activities; characterization of knowledge was slightly biased toward higher levels
of overall knowledge. As a result, all variables were compared to participants’ pet ownership and
breed category using non-parametric one-way permutation tests with Monte Carlo resampling.
28
Tests were completed using the coin package in R (Hothorn et al., 2006), and graphs were
created using the g-plots package in R. Significance was described for α-values < 0.05.
29
RESULTS
Overall, 80.4% of respondents (n = 2331) were pet owners and 19.6%
(n = 568) were non-pet owners. 1269 respondents owned a cat and 1560 respondents owned a
dog. The number of pets owned ranged from 0 to 18, with a mean of 1.99 pets. In terms of breed
categories among pet owners, 22.5% of participants owned only purebred animals, 18% of
participants owned both pure and mixed breed animals, and 54% owned only mixed breed
animals.
Environmental attitudes
Pet owners showed 3% higher environmental perspective scores than non-pet owners. Pet
owners were more likely to think that people should minimize their impact on the environment
and less likely to think that humans should rule over nature when compared to non-pet owners
(Figure 1a; Z = 3.60, p < 0.001). In addition, participants that owned all mixed breed animals
showed the highest environmental perspective scores (Figure 1b; maxT = 4.91, p < 0.001).
Participants that owned only purebred animals or no animals showed the lowest scores (4%
lower), while participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals showed intermediate
scores.
Pet owners and non-pet owners showed similar environmental assessment scores (Figure
1c; Z = 0.42, p = 0.686). However, when separated by breed category, participants that owned at
least one mixed breed animal showed the highest environmental assessment score (Figure 1d;
maxT = 4.81, p < 0.001). These participants were more likely to think that humans were severely
abusing the environment and less likely to think that Americans used a responsible amount of
natural resources. Participants that owned only purebred animals showed the lowest
30
environmental assessment scores (4% lower), while those that did not own pets showed
intermediate scores.
Pet owners and non-pet owners also showed a similar amount of concern about
ecological issues (Figure 1e; Z = 1.71, p = 0.090). Similar to environmental assessment,
participants that owned at least one mixed breed animal were more likely to be concerned about
a variety of ecological issues, such as acid rain and global climate change (Figure 1f; maxT =
3.09, p = 0.008). Participants that owned only purebred animals showed the least concern about
these issues (4% lower), while those that did not own pets showed intermediate scores.
Animal related issues
Pet owners favored better treatment for non-human animals (8% higher) when compared
to non-pet owners (Figure 2a; Z = 8.15, p < 0.001). In addition, participants that owned any type
of pet favored better treatment for animals when compared to participants that did not own pets
(Figure 2b; maxT = 8.20, p < 0.001).
Pet owners also showed greater concern (5% higher) about ecological issues that directly
affected animals, such as habitat loss and extinction (Figure 2c; Z = 3.15, p = 0.002). Participants
that owned at least one mixed breed animal showed the greatest level of concern about these
issues (Figure 2d; maxT = 4.06, p < 0.001). Participants that owned only purebred animals or did
not own any animals showed the lowest levels of concern (7% lower).
Conservation habits
Pet owners showed 6% more water conservation habits when compared to non-pet
owners (Figure 3a; Z = 4.96, p < 0.001). Pet owners were more likely to participate in water
31
saving activities such as minimizing shower time and toilet flushing. In addition, participants that
owned at least one mixed breed animal were more likely to engage in water saving activities,
while participants that owned purebred animals or no animals were less likely to do so (Figure
3b; maxT = 5.04, p < 0.001).
Pet owners also showed 3% higher rates of energy conservation habits when compared to
non-pet owners (Figure 3c; Z = 3.31, p < 0.001). Pet owners were more likely to participate in
energy saving activities such as turning off lights when leaving rooms and drying clothes outside
when possible. Participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals showed the highest
rates of energy saving habits, while those that did not own pets showed the lowest. Participants
that owned only purebred or only mixed breed animals showed intermediate levels of energy
saving habits (Figure 3d; maxT = 3.45, p = 0.002).
Pet owners showed slightly more recycling than non-pet owners (Figure 3e; Z = 1.99, p =
0.049). When separated by breed category, pet owners of all types and non-pet owners showed
no differences in their rates of recycling (Figure 3f; maxT = 2.06, p = 0.134).
Knowledge
Pet owners and non-pet owners showed similar understanding of ecology, evolution, and
behavior knowledge (Figure 4a; Z = 1.33, p = 0.184). However, when separated by breed
category, participants that owned at least one mixed breed animal showed significantly greater
understanding of ecology, evolution, and behavior than non-pet owners, who showed
intermediate scores, and purebred owners who showed the lowest levels of understanding (8%
lower) (Figure 4b; maxT = 6.55, p < 0.001).
32
Pet owners and non-pet owners showed no differences in their general science
knowledge (Figure 4c; Z = 0.92, p = 0.349). When separated by breed category, owners of only
mixed breed animals showed 2.5% higher scores than owners of only purebred animals (Figure
4d; maxT = 2.93, p = 0.015). Participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals or no
animals showed intermediate scores. Owners of only mixed breed animals were slightly more
likely to know information about science topics such as geology, chemistry, and physics.
33
DISCUSSION
Pet owners favored better treatment of animals and were more concerned about issues
that directly impacted animals. This is not surprising, as one would expect anyone that lives and
interacts with a pet on a daily basis to develop a relationship with that animal that may lead them
to become more empathetic towards the treatment of all animals. In addition, a person’s empathy
towards animals may promote empathy towards the environment in general. Pet owners did seem
to be more empathetic toward the environment, viewing it as important and worthy of protection.
One would expect these results if a person’s pet does indeed serve as a bridge to the natural
environment. Finally, pet owners are more likely to engage in activities that promote protection
of the environment, such as water and energy conservation. These actions may also be related to
animal empathy, as conserving water and energy resources lessens a person’s individual impacts
on the environment (e.g. fewer greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels) and saves limited
natural resources (e.g. water, fossil fuels for energy, etc.), which may indirectly benefit animals.
If pets served as a bridge, one would expect to see a difference in environmental
assessment; concern about ecological issues; as well as knowledge about ecology, evolution, and
behavior between pet and non-pet owners. One would expect pet owners to believe humans
negatively impacted the environment; to be more concerned about ecological issues; and to show
greater knowledge of ecology, evolution and behavior. These differences were not apparent
when comparing pet owners and non-pet owners, but did become clear when comparing breed
categories. However, these differences appeared to be related to the pet’s breed type rather than a
simple issue of whether the participant lived with an animal or not. The breed status of an animal
appeared to be very important in influencing a person’s feelings about these issues. Individuals
that interacted with mixed breed (less modified) animals did show differences in their
34
environmental attitudes and knowledge when compared to individuals that interacted with
purebred animals (more modified). Participants that interacted with at least one mixed breed
animal believed humans were having a negative impact on the environment, were more
concerned about a variety of ecological issues, and showed much greater understanding of
ecology, evolution, and behavioral knowledge.
We might expect individuals that live with pets to know more about animals in general
(i.e. their ecology, evolution, and behavior) because they are animal lovers. However, this is not
what I found. Greater biological knowledge among people living with mixed breed animals
supports the idea that the type of animal provides the person with different opportunities to
benefit from social information. Mixed breed animals differ from purebred animals because they
have been less modified through the process of artificial selection. Purebred dogs are known to
have a variety of physical problems as a result of the breeding process, such as respiratory
problems, deformation of the skull, hip dysplasia, skin conditions, deafness, and cardiovascular
problems (Asher et al., 2009). Purebred animals also show different behavioral patterns and
personality traits (e.g. Starling et al., 2013, boldness; Svartberg 2006). These differences may be
related to the degree to which the person’s pet has been modified, with lesser degrees of
modification providing the person a better connection to environment. Pets that have been highly
modified (i.e. purebred animals) may retain fewer characteristics of their wild ancestors. People
who live with these highly modified animals may be less able to gain information from their
pets, especially in terms of animal behavior and ecology. Pets that have been less modified (i.e.
mixed breed animals) may retain more characteristics from their wild ancestors and participants
that live with these animals may be better able to gain information about animal behavior and
ecology through their interactions with their pets. Purebred animals appear to be a poorer bridge
35
between people and the natural environment. Conversely, mixed breed animals appear to be a
better bridge between people and the natural environment.
The concept of animal modification relates closely to concepts about environmental
modification. Individuals that own purebred animals may support the modification of an animal
for many reasons, such as size, fur color, or other preferred morphological or behavioral
characteristics, regardless of possible negative physical and behavioral impacts to the animal.
Individuals with purebred animals showed lower environmental perspective scores, indicating
that they believed humans were meant to rule over nature and that humans did not need to
minimize their impacts on the environment. The idea that humans can modify the environment in
any way to suit their needs and desires mirrors the idea that humans may also modify animals for
their own needs and desires.
In contrast, participants with different breeds of pets showed minimal difference in their
recycling habits. This result is somewhat surprising, as one would expect a participant’s
environmental attitudes to influence their recycling behaviors similar to the differences seen in
water and energy conservation among different participants. However, minimal differences
among participants may be related to the availability of recycling programs in their local
community. Some participants may not have access to any recycling while others may only have
access to certain types of recycling (e.g. paper only), which would have affected their ability to
recycle regardless of pet ownership.
Participants that owned only mixed breed animals also showed the greatest general
science knowledge, while participants that owned only purebred animals showed the lowest
scores. This result was unexpected and it is unclear how a person’s pets may contribute to their
knowledge about these non-animal related science topics. Perhaps participants with less modified
36
animals, who appear to show greater interest in the environment, have a greater interest in
science in general, leading them to be better informed about a variety of science disciplines.
Results of this study encourage a reconsideration of what may influence how a person
feels about and interacts with the environment, as well as what they know about the
environment. Current beliefs often suggest that a person’s education and outdoor experiences
form their environmental attitudes, both of which are clearly important factors (e.g. Tikka et al.,
2000; Palmberg and Kuru 2000). We may be overlooking other important contributing factors,
failing to recognize the significant role of pets. Something as simple as the type of pets a person
lives and interacts with could influence how they feel about and act toward the environment.
People who own less modified pets appear to be more inclined towards viewing the environment
as worthy of protection and engaging in activities that promote environmental protection. These
people also appear to be better informed about their pets, ecology, and science in general. It is
important that we consider other factors, such as pet ownership, that may influence a person’s
environmental attitudes and behaviors, so that we may explore how to encourage positive
attitudes and behaviors towards the environment among a greater number of people.
37
Aschemeier, L.M., Maher, C.R., 2011. Eavesdropping of woodchucks (Marmota monax) and
eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) on heterospecific alarm calls. Journal of
Mammalogy 92, 493-499.
Asher, L., Diesel, G., Summers, J.F., McGreevy, P.D., Collins, L.M., 2009. Inherited defects in
pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182,
402-411.
education. Review of Research in Education 24, 101-139.
Boesch, C., Marchesi, P., Marchesi, N., Fruth, B., Joulian, F., 1994. Is nut cracking in wild
chimpanzees a cultural behaviour? Journal of Human Evolution 26, 325-338.
Bradshaw, J., Cameron-Beaumont, C., 2000. The signalling repertoire of the domestic cat and its
undomesticated relatives, in: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The domestic cat: The
biology of its behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 67-93.
Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2006. The evolutionary basis for the feeding behavior of domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus). Journal of Nutrition 136, 1927S-1931S.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of
inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 3-5.
Carrasco, M.F., Blumstein, D.T., 2012. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) respond to yellow-
bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris) alarm calls. Ethology 118, 243-250.
Center for Sustainable Economy. n.d. Ecological Footprint Quiz. Center for Sustainable
Economy, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. http://myfootprint.org/en/.
Davis, S.J.M., 1978. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of
Israel. Nature 276, 608-610.
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of
the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425-442.
Faure, E., Kitchener, A.C., 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships
between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.
Fiorito, G., Scotto, P., 1992. Observational learning in Octopus vulgaris. Science 256, 545-547.
Fox, M.W., 1971. Behavior of wolves, dogs and related canids. Harper and Row, New York.
Hirschman, C., Mogford, E., 2009. Immigration and the American industrial revolution from
1880 to 1920. Social Science Research 38, 897-920.
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M.A., Zeileis, A., 2006. A Lego System for Conditional
Inference. The American Statistician 60, 257-263.
Kaminski, J., Riedel, J., Call, J., Tomasello, M., 2005. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow
gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69, 11-18.
Kittur, A., Chi, E.H., Suh, B., 2008. Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk,
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM,
pp. 453-456.
Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., 2009. Scientific achievements less prominent
than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Washington, DC:
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Kubinyi, E., Virányi, Z., Miklósi, Á., 2007. Comparative Social Cognition: From wolf and dog
to humans. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews 2, 26-46.
eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour 81, 1177-1183.
Mason, W., Suri, S., 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
Behavior Research Methods 44, 1-23.
Miklosi, A., Pongracz, N., Lakatos, G., Topal, J., Csanyi, V., 2005. A comparative study of the
use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and
humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119, 179-
186.
Möglich, M., Maschwitz, U., Hölldobler, B., 1974. Tandem calling: a new kind of signal in ant
communication. Science 186, 1046-1047.
Moody, J.A., Clark, L.A., Murphy, K.E., 2006. Working dogs: History and applications, in:
Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome, Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 1-18.
Mueller, T., O'Hara, R.B., Converse, S.J., Urbanek, R.P., Fagan, W.F., 2013. Social Learning of
Migratory Performance. Science 341, 999-1002.
Nicol, C., 1995. The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 44, 79-98.
Palmberg, I.E., Kuru, J., 2000. Outdoor Activities as a Basis for Environmental Responsibility.
Journal of Environmental Education 31, 32-36.
Peres, C.A., 1993. Anti-Predation Benefits in a Mixed-Species Group of Amazonian Tamarins.
Folia Primatologica 61, 61-76.
Proops, L., Walton, M., McComb, K., 2010. The use of human-given cues by domestic horses,
Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 79, 1205-1209.
Rand, D.G., 2012. The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists
run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299, 172-179.
Sampson, J., Binns, M.M., 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and breed
clubs, in: Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome,
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 19-30.
Starling, M.J., Branson, N., Thomson, P.C., McGreevy, P.D., 2013. "Boldness" in the domestic
dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behavioural Processes 97, 53-62.
Svartberg, K., 2006. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs?
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 293-313.
Thonhauser, K.E., Gutnick, T., Byrne, R.A., Kral, K., Burghardt, G.M., Kuba, M.J., 2013. Social
learning in Cartilaginous fish (stingrays Potamotrygon falkneri). Animal Cognition 16,
927-932.
Thornton, A., McAuliffe, K., 2006. Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313, 227-229.
Tikka, P.M., Kuitunen, M.T., Tynys, S.M., 2000. Effects of educational background on students'
attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of
Environmental Education 31, 12-19.
United States Census Bureau. 2014. USA QuickFacts. U.S. Department of Commerce.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.
United States Census Bureau. 2011. Age and Sex Composition: 2010. U.S. Department of
Commerce. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf.
Vigne, J.D., Guilaine, J., Debue, K., Haye, L., Gérard, P., 2004. Early taming of the cat in
Cyprus. Science 304, 259.
Voelkl, B., Huber, L., 2000. True imitation in marmosets. Animal Behaviour 60, 195-202.
39
Wright, G.S., Wilkinson, G.S., Moss, C.F., 2011. Social learning of a novel foraging task by big
brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Animal Behaviour 82, 1075-1083.
40
EP1 Humans should pursue choices and decisions that minimize any
negative impact on the natural environment.
High score =
higher
environmental
perspective
EP2 Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature. Low score =
higher
environmental
perspective
AR How should animals be treated relative to basic human rights? High score =
higher animal
EA1 The average American uses a responsible amount of natural
resources to meet their daily needs.
Low score =
higher
environmental
assessment
selected = greater
concern about
ecological issues
Air pollution
Disease resistance to antibiotics and other medicines
Emergence of new diseases, such as HIV, H1N1, and
SARS
Loss of biological processes, such as pollination and
migration*
Loss of species to extinction*
Off-shore oil drilling
Use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/
religious uses*
Water pollution
selected = greater
energy conservation
EC3 Turn off computers and monitors when not in use
EC4 Dry clothes outside whenever possible
EC5 Keep thermostat relatively high in summer
EC6 Unplug small appliances when not in use
EC7 Minimal use of power equipment when landscaping
EC8 Compost rather than use garbage disposal
Water Conservation Habits
selected = greater
energy conservation
WC4 Wash cars rarely
Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Knowledge
EEB1 Animals can digest anything that they eat in their
environment
understanding of
ecology, evolution,
and behavior
EEB2 Based on your knowledge of dogs, how does a wolf
demonstrate submission within a pack?
EEB3 Catfish barbels, which are similar to cat and dog whiskers
in both shape and location, serve which of the following
purposes:
EEB4 What caused the variety of farm animal breeds seen today?
EEB5 Besides urination, how does a tiger indicate that an object,
such as a tree, is part of its territory based on your
knowledge of cat behavior?
EEB6 What effect does spaying and neutering have on the rate of
population growth in domestic animals?
General Science Knowledge
people take to help prevent heart attacks?
More questions
correctly answered
S2 Which of the following may cause a tsunami? = greater
understanding of
general science
topics
S3 The continents on which we live have been moving their
location for millions of years and will continue to move in
the future:
S5 What have scientists recently discovered on Mars?
S6 Electrons are smaller than atoms:
Table 1: Description of survey questions used in analysis. Note: Asterisks (*) indicate that
animal-related ecological concerns.
participants did not respond to questions about age or race.
44
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Figure 1: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on environmental attitudes: a) difference in
environmental perspective between pet and non-pet owners; b) difference in environmental
perspective between breed categories; c) difference in environmental assessment between pet
and non-pet owners; d) difference in environmental assessment between breed categories; e)
difference in concern about ecological issues between pet and non-pet owners; f) difference in
concern about ecological issues between breed categories.
45
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 2: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on animal-related issues: a) difference in
views about animal treatment between pet owners and non-pet owners; b) differences in views
about animal treatment between breed categories; c) differences in concern about animal related
ecological issues between pet owners and non-pet owners; d) differences in concern about
animal related ecological issues between breed categories.
46
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Figure 3: Effect of pet ownership and breed categories on conservation habits: a) differences in
water conservation habits between pet owners and non-pet owners; b) differences in water
conservation habit between breed categories; c) differences in energy conservation habits
between pet and non-pet owners; d) differences in energy conservation habits between breed
categories; e) differences in recycling between pet and non-pet owners; f) differences in
recycling between breed categories.
47
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 4: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on scientific knowledge: a) difference in
ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge between pet owners and non-pet owners; b)
difference in ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge between breed categories; c)
differences in general science knowledge between pet owners and non-pet owners; d) differences
in general science knowledge between breed categories.
48
INTRODUCTION
The history of ethology has been intertwined with issues regarding anthropomorphism,
the application of human characteristics to animals, and human exceptionalism, the belief that
humans possess distinct characteristics that are not found in other animals (Cezilly 2008). Early
in the exploration of animal behavior, Darwin’s writings proposed an evolutionary continuity
between humans and animals and argued that some form of intelligence was present in both
(Wasserman 1997). This argument was used to support pervasive uses of anthropomorphism in
Victorian popular and scientific communities. Development of such anthropomorphic arguments
was eventually criticized and rejected by behaviorists, such as Morgan and Skinner, because of a
lack of scientific rigor and evidence. Behaviorists adopted a human exceptionalist animal view
based on the Cartesian model of thinking, which described animals as machine like and distinct
from humans (Kennedy 1992). In the 1930’s, the first generation of modern ethologists, such as
Tinbergen and Lorenz, embraced this Cartesian human exceptionalist animal view, using
technical language and theoretical descriptions that removed any connection to a human
experience in an effort to improve their objective and detached examination of animal behavior
(Crist 1999).
The way that people view and feel about the environment (i.e. environmental attitude)
has evolved in a manner that was similar to the development of ethology. Early
environmentalists divided into two camps that paralleled the division between
49
anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism. Some, such as Pinchot, advocated for an
environment that integrated human interests within a managed landscape (Pak 2011). This
environmental perspective mirrored anthropomorphic views because both recognized shared
experiences between humans and animals. Others, such as John Muir, argued for an environment
where humans were separate from the natural landscape in order to preserve pristine
wildernesses (Pak 2011). This environmental perspective mirrored human exceptionalist views
because both believed that the human and animal experiences were and should be separated.
Modern environmentalism is challenged by this dichotomy between integrating and separating
humans from nature. Environmental campaigns often appeal to a connection between people and
the environment, such as a cute animal (Huddy and Gunnthorsdottir 2000.), while environmental
stewardship often advocates separation (e.g. Senda-Cook 2013). For example, environmental
stewards encourage people to stay on trails while “taking nothing but pictures and leaving
nothing but footprints”.
A person’s views about animals as well as the environment appear to be related to how
they think about the natural environment as a whole. For example, Berenguer (2007) assigned
participants to either high or low empathy conditions and then showed them a picture of either a
bird or tree being harmed. Participants in the high-empathy condition showed stronger
empathetic attitudes towards nature as a whole and were more likely to allocate money to a
hypothetical environmental organization. A person’s environmental attitudes can also be
influenced by their feelings toward nature. In Tam et al., (2013), participants that created or
viewed anthropomorphic content about nature showed a greater connection to nature, increased
willingness to use green products, and increased willingness to adopt a national indicator of
50
environmental impact. In both cases, people that were first encouraged to empathize and/ or
anthropomorphize nature showed higher environmental attitudes.
The current study will determine if an individual’s underlying animal views (i.e.
anthropomorphic to human exceptionalist views about animals) influence their environmental
attitudes and conservation habits. A person’s animal views may relate to their level of empathy,
where anthropomorphic individuals would be expected to show more empathy than human
exceptionalists. As a result, animal views should relate to a person’s concern about
environmental issues and their behavior toward nature. Examination of this issue will be
determined using a nation-wide survey of participants from the United States. Previous studies
were experimental in nature, where a participant’s feelings were first manipulated in order to
measure the effects on environmental feelings and behaviors. In this study, I will compare a
participant’s animal views (based on a person’s existing, unmanipulated opinion about animals)
to their environmental attitudes and conservation habits. I expect that individuals with more
anthropomorphic animal views will have greater concerns about animal issues, higher
environmental attitudes, and increased conservation habits.
51
METHODS
1. Sample
To determine how a person’s animal views relate to their environmental attitudes and
conservation habits, a nationwide survey was conducted in the United States (Table 1).
Responses were checked for quality and attentiveness in several ways. I eliminated participants
who did not complete the survey, failed to indicate their location, or failed to answer the open-
ended question. Participants were also eliminated if they skipped a section of the survey. In
addition, surveys were eliminated if there was a logical inconsistency in responses (e.g. stated
they had a pet, but then listed 0 pets for any category). A total of 2898 responses were analyzed
in this study.
All survey participants were from the United States. Table 2 shows the demographic
information for survey participants that were used in analysis. I received slightly more responses
from white participants than was expected. I also received a large number of responses from
younger individuals, although this is not surprising due to the online survey distribution. Overall,
the sample population was proportional to the demographics of the United States as a whole.
2. Distribution
Participants of the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk)
crowdsourcing website. On mTurk, requestors put up small tasks to be completed (e.g. surveys,
audio transcription) and workers can then complete the tasks for a small amount of pay (i.e.
incentive). mTurk has been determined to be a viable platform for delivering surveys in several
studies (e.g. Mason and Suri 2012; Rand 2011; Buhrmester et al., 2011). In this study,
participants were paid $0.70 to complete the survey. All survey responses were collected
52
between October 25, 2012 and January 31, 2013. Survey results were collected in two “batches”
to ensure that the mTurk platform would provide reliable results; the first batch took place
between October 25 – 26, 2012, and the second batch took place between January 28 – January
30, 2013. The survey listing on mTurk was tagged with several keywords, i.e. “survey”, “pets”,
“ecology”, “science”, “environment”, and “animals”.
Participants accessed the survey through a link on Amazon’s mTurk site. The survey was
created in Checkbox Survey Software version 6. Participants could take the survey only once:
one response was collected per IP address. On the first page of the survey, respondents consented
to taking the survey in order to access the questions. The survey was approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University.
3. Measures
The survey consisted of multiple sections: environmental attitudes, conservation habits,
animal views, an open-ended question, and demographic information. Participants were allowed
to move backwards and forwards in the survey to view and make changes to previously
answered questions. Participants were not allowed to save their survey to return to it later; the
survey had to