American society uses millions of animals each day for food, recreation, and a variety of other purposes, yet psychologists-in contrast to other social scientists-have devoted very little attention to studying how people think about their use of animals. In this article, I propose that many factors supporting the use of animals are psychological in nature and are therefore legitimate topics for psychological research. After a brief review of research on attitudes toward the use of animals, I discuss several psychological factors that enable people to harm animals for human benefit: ( 1 ) structural variables that dissociate consumptive practices from the infliction of harm, ( 2 ) mechanisms that reduce personal conflict when dissociation is threatened, (3) ingroup-outgroup biases, and (4) factors relating to the perceived similarity of animals and humans. Throughout, the emphasis is on opportunities for empirical research rather than ideological or philosophical arguments concerning animal rights.More has been written on human-animal relations and animal welfare in the last two decades than in the preceding three millennia (Rollin, 1989). One I wish to thank

Field surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest that supporters and opponents of a given technology tend to draw opposite conclusions from noncatastrophic breakdowns. Three studies confirmed this tendency by presenting supporters and opponents of a particular technology with identical descriptions of various tech nological breakdowns. As predicted, the results indicated that (a) supporters focused on the fact that the safeguards worked, while opponents focused on the fact that the breakdown occurred in the first place; and (b) after reading about the breakdown, supporters reported feeling that the chances of a catastrophic accident were less than previously assumed, whereas opponents reported feeling that the chances of an accident were greater than previously assumed. The recommenda tion by Lord, Lepper, and Preston (1984) for partisans to consider opposite out comes-such as a serious failure in safeguards or the absence of major breakdowns-was discussed as a way of preventing biased assimilation and at titude polarization.

“Anchoring” results from insufficient adjustment up or down from an original— often arbitrary—starting value. Six sets of surveys were designed to assess the effects of anchoring on subjective likelihood estimates of a nuclear war. Based on responses from 1600 students, results indicated that: (a) likelihood estimates were strongly susceptible to anchoring; (b) neither likelihood estimates nor the effects of anchoring were significantly influenced by the ease with which respondents could imagine a nuclear war (outcome availability), by instructions to list the most likely path to nuclear war (path availability), or by casting the problem in terms of the avoidance, rather than the occurrence, of nuclear war; (c) the effects of anchoring extended to estimates concerning the efficacy of strategic defenses; and (d) likelihood estimates were affected by anchoring even after correcting for social demand biases. In estimating the likelihood of nuclear war and otherwise attempting to “think the unthinkable”, many students responded in a manner consistent with denial; the paper concludes with a discussion of these individuals.

Recent evidence suggests that racial and gender biases in magazine advertisements may be increasing. To explore this possibility, a content analysis was performed on 10 years of fashion advertisements drawn from magazines geared toward White women, Black women, or White men (N= 1,800 advertisements from 1985–1994). The results indicated that (a) except for Black females in White women's magazines, African Americans were underrepresented in White magazines; (b) female body exposure was greater than male body exposure, and White female body exposure rose significantly during the 10 years; (c) White women were shown in low‐status positions nearly twice as often as were other models; and (d) Black women wore the majority of animal prints, most of which were patterned after a predatory animal. These findings suggest that racial and gender biases in magazine advertising persisted, and in some cases increased, between the mid‐1980s and mid‐1990s.

Animal research has played a central role in psychology, yet its clinical value and ethical propriety have recently come under attack. In an effort to assess current thinking on this controversial subject, a mail survey was sent to 5,000 randomly selected members of the American Psychological Association. Responses were received from 3,982 individuals, and the results showed (a) majority support for animal studies involving observation or confinement, but disapproval of studies involving pain or death; (b) majority support for mandatory pain assessments and the federal protection of rats, mice, pigeons, and reptiles; and (c) majority support for the use of animals in teaching, but opposition to an animal laboratory requirement for the psychology major. Additional findings and policy implications are discussed.The use of animals has been and continues to be essential... in applied research with direct clinical applications in humans and animals.