From Pets to Pests: Testing the Scope of the “Pets as Ambassadors” Hypothesis

Abstract

Positive relationships with pets can sometimes foster more positive judgments of other animals. The present study sought to examine the scope of this "pets as ambassadors" effect in relation to four meaningful animal categories (companion, farmed, predator, and pest) derived from the Animal Images Database (Animal.ID). The Animal.ID contains ratings from 376 Portuguese individuals on pet attachment and several dimensions related to animal attributes and moral concern for 120 different animals, which offered insights into the scope and nature of the "pets as ambassadors" effect. Pet attachment was related positively to ethical concern for animals and lower levels of speciesism. The relationship between pet attachment and animal attributions were expressed, beyond companion animals, most consistently for predators and farmed animals, and least of all pests. The benefits of pet attachment centered mostly on aesthetic judgments and benevolent feelings toward predators and farmed animals, sentience attributions for pests, and concerns about the killing of all animal groups for human consumption. Pet attachment did not reliably relate to the attributions individuals made about the intelligence or dangerousness of animals, or their similarity to humans. The findings help clarify how pets might serve as ambassadors for other animals. KEYWORDSAttitudes; human-animal interaction; pet attachment; pets as ambassadors Several lines of research have converged on the finding that prolonged contact with an animal in one's care has the potential to engender and expand concern for other animals more generally (Auger & Amiot, 2017;Paul & Serpell, 1992, 1993. This is sometimes referred to as the "pets as ambassadors" hypothesis (Serpell & Paul, 1994). Studies into this phenomenon have yielded mixed findings. Some studies have demonstrated positive benefits of owning a pet on, for example, attributions of sentience and emotion to animals (Hawkins & Williams, 2016;Morris et al., 2012) or concern for their treatment (Prokop & Tunnicliffe, 2010). However, other studies have observed little to no effects of owning a pet on such measures (Knight et al., 2004;Taylor & Signal, 2005).

Support for the ‘Pets as Ambassadors’ hypothesis in men: Higher animal empathy in Australian pet-owners vs non-owners and farmers

“…pet) ownership group when compared to both the limited experience and agricultural experience groups (with large and medium-large effects, respectively). These findings are consistent with previous studies concerning the effect caring for a pet has on empathic development towards animals (Paul 2000 ; Daly & Morton 2009 ; Auger & Amiot 2017 ; Martens et al 2019 ; Possidónio et al 2021 ; Vandersen & Hötzel 2021 ). Qualitative insights from the current study do suggest that first-hand pet ownership experiences may be an important factor explaining why this group possessed significantly higher empathy levels than the other two groups (see Table 3 ), providing support for the ‘Pets as Ambassadors’ hypothesis (Serpell & Paul 1994 ), but only if the pet owner is not also a farmer.…”

“…However, Daly and Morton ( 2009 ) demonstrated that while pet ownership during childhood has a positive impact on AE, pet ownership during adulthood resulted in greater empathic gains, particularly for those who owned both cats and dogs. In adults, both pet contact and pet attachment have been associated with greater moral concern for a variety of animals, as well as decreased speciesism (Auger & Amiot 2017 ; Possidónio et al 2021 ). Pet ownership has also been associated with greater concern for pig welfare (particularly if the pet was viewed as “a child” or member of the family; Vandersen & Hötzel 2021 ), and a predictor of positive attitudes towards animals and greater concern for animal welfare (Martens et al 2019 ).…”

Attitudes to animal use of named species for different purposes: effects of speciesism, individualising morality, likeability and demographic factors

“…Similarly, relationships between APQ, speciesism and likeability (Tisdell et al, 2005) ratings have yet to examined. The earlier study of positive evaluations (as measured by the animal images database) in relation to purpose of use did not extend beyond the 'acceptability to kill for human consumption' (and the moderating effect of pet ownership) assessed by Possidónio et al (2019Possidónio et al ( , 2021, and the categories related to purpose of use (Sevillano and Fiske, 2016;Leite et al, 2019).…”

“…Speciesism has been compared to other forms of discrimination, such as racism and sexism, given that animals are treated differently based on simple biological differences between each other and humans (Lafollette and Shanks, 1996). Previous research has identified multiple factors which influence our attitudes to animal use, including the type of species and purpose of use (Bradley et al, 2020;Higgs et al, 2020), species likeability (perceptions of species' attractiveness, 'cuteness' and familiarity; Tisdell et al, 2005;Sevillano and Fiske, 2016;Possidónio et al, 2019Possidónio et al, , 2021, and participant characteristics such as gender (Caviola et al, 2019;Possidónio et al, 2019Possidónio et al, , 2021Bradley et al, 2020;Higgs et al, 2020) and age (Driscoll, 1992;Ormandy and Schuppli, 2014;Clemence and Leaman, 2016). Non-meat eaters attribute higher mental capacities to animals (Knight et al, 2009;Higgs et al, 2020), suggesting they show reduced tendency to dementalize certain species (Knight et al, 2004;Bilewicz et al, 2011;Morris et al, 2012;Hawkins and Williams, 2016;Higgs et al, 2020).…”

Revised environmental identity scale: Adaptation and preliminary examination on a sample of Italian pet owners

“…This connection is possibly explained by the biophilia hypothesis, which asserts that the human dependence on nature “extends far beyond the simple issues of material and physical sustenance to encompass as well the human craving for aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive, and even spiritual meaning and satisfaction” ( Kellert, 1993 , p. 21), and therefore, the self-knowledge the environment provides, satisfies basic psychological needs ( Clayton, 2003 ). Identification with nature is also relevant to the pets as ambassadors hypothesis, initially proposed by Serpell and Paul (1994) , which states that owning pets during childhood may lead to positive attitudes toward animals in general, later in life, and to related behaviors, such as becoming members of animal welfare charities, and sometimes, by spill-over effects, even environmental and conservation organizations ( Serpell and Paul, 1994 ; Miura et al, 2002 ; Auger and Amiot, 2017 ; Possidónio et al, 2021 ). Concretely, our connection with nature is in part built on our interactions with animals and the natural world ( Clayton, 2003 ), and animals, in this view, can be considered as a bridge to the consideration and care of the natural world.…”