Human Behaviour Change Interventions in Animal Care and Interactive Settings: A Review and Framework for Design and Evaluation

Glanville, Carmen; Abraham, Charles; Coleman, Grahame J

doi:10.3390/ani10122333

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, other than what can be gleaned from voluntary community reports of mistreatment, little is known about the prevalence or nature of animal mistreatment in the community. Having a sound understanding of the problem and its drivers is key to prevention and intervention development, which is a growing field of applied scholarship within the animal welfare domain (3,4). This paper is the second from a large, representative telephone survey that aims to contribute to this knowledge gap by using principles of social psychology to better understand animal mistreatment in Victoria, Australia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Attitudes Reflect Reporting Rates and Prevalence of Animal Mistreatment

Glanville

Ford²,

Cook³

et al. 2021

Front. Vet. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community attitudes toward the treatment of animals are important to understand for the development of intervention programs to prevent mistreatment. We aimed to investigate whether previously identified differences between local government areas (LGAs) in the rates of animal mistreatment reporting and prevalence were reflected by differences in community attitudes. In addition, attitudinal differences based on target species (dogs, cats, horses) and participant gender were considered. A representative telephone survey (N = 1,801) was conducted across six LGAs. Attitudinal themes included affection toward animals, valuing of animals, attitudes toward caring for own animals, and concern for the mistreatment of other animals. Factorial ANOVA was used to identify differences between high and low reporting LGAs, region types (regional, interface, metropolitan), and target species (cat, dog, horse). Respondents from high reporting LGAs demonstrated slightly more affection for animals F(1,1679) = 19.401, p < 0.001, ωp2 = 0.011 and stronger subjective norms F(1,999) = 16.31, p < 0.001, ωp2 = 0.015 than those from low reporting LGAs, but did not differ on the other variables. Participants in areas of high prevalence (regional areas) did not display lower levels of affection or concern for the mistreatment of animals as a whole, nor did they value animals less. However, regional differences were found for several items regarding caring for one's own animals: two behavioral beliefs and two control beliefs. Additionally various differences were found between the regions regarding the level of concern for mistreatment when broken down into the different species. Gender effects were also common. While the attitudinal results do reflect animal mistreatment prevalence and reporting rates, they also highlight the complexity of community attitudes. As such, interventions to prevent mistreatment must have clear targets including the audience, behavior, and species. Targeting smaller regions and thoroughly investigating their unique perspectives, challenges, and strengths are likely to be more effective than generic campaigns.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Attitudes Reflect Reporting Rates and Prevalence of Animal Mistreatment

Glanville

Ford²,

Cook³

et al. 2021

Front. Vet. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These suggestions for future research are important because firstly, human behavior can significantly affect animal welfare (Hemsworth et al, 2018 ; Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019 ). Therefore, understanding the attitudes that may influence human behavior toward animals can help develop human behavior change interventions to continuously improve the lives of animals not only in zoos but across the different animal industries (Coleman, 2010 ; Hemsworth et al, 2018 ; Glanville et al, 2020 ). Secondly, the present study found ratings for penguin welfare, the enclosure and visitor experience were only moderately high and attitudes toward learning were fairly neutral at both zoos.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visitor Attitudes Toward Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) at Two Australian Zoos

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study identified and compared the attitudes of visitors toward zoo-housed little penguins, their enclosure and visitor experience that may influence the way visitors behave toward little penguins at two Australian zoos. Visitor attitudes were assessed using an anonymous questionnaire, targeting visitor beliefs, and experiences, where visitors were randomly approached at the penguin exhibit after they had finished viewing the penguins. Visitors were given two options to complete the questionnaire, on an iPad during their zoo visit or online (URL sent via email) after their zoo visit. A total of 638 participants (495 at Melbourne Zoo and 143 at Taronga Zoo) completed the questionnaire, 42% were completed onsite during their zoo visit and 58% were completed online after their zoo visit. Most participants were living in Australia, non-zoo members, female, previously or currently owned a pet, aged between 26 and 35 years and had a University degree. Results showed that the attitude dimensions of visitors were consistent between the two zoos which indicates that these measures of attitudes were stable over time and location. Overall, visitors at both zoos had positive attitudes toward little penguins, penguin welfare, the enclosure, and visitor experience. However, whether these positive attitudes and positive visitor experience influenced the way visitors behaved toward the penguins remains unclear. There were some differences in visitor attitudes toward the perceived “aggressiveness” and “timidness” of little penguins, “negative penguin welfare”, “experience with the penguins”, “learning”, “visual barriers” and the way visitors rated their overall experience at the penguin enclosure. While the reasons for the differences in visitor attitudes and visitor experience between the zoos were not clear, some factors such as penguin behavior and enclosure design, may have been attributable to these differences. Also, a relationship was found between visitor attitudes and how visitors rated the welfare of penguins, the enclosure and visitor experience at the enclosure; more positive visitor attitudes were associated with higher ratings of penguin welfare, the enclosure and visitor experience. The practical implications of these results for zoos is unclear because the differences in visitor attitudes were numerically small. This requires further comparisons between zoos or enclosures that are more markedly different than the penguin enclosures in the present study and further research on how visitors assess zoo animals, enclosures and visitor experience.

show abstract

“…Hemsworth and colleagues [ 30 ] showed that attitudes, and handling, can be improved by providing species-specific education on animal care. Glanville and co-workers [ 67 ] suggested that in efforts to achieve a change in attitudes, one important component must be to inform farmers about the consequences of their handling and about the impacts of a change in handling regime on the animals, but also on the farmer’s situation. It is possible that the issue of dirtiness in cattle can be prevented through suitable education and training.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cattle Cleanliness from the View of Swedish Farmers and Official Animal Welfare Inspectors

Hedman

Andersson

Kinch

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dirty cattle have been commonly recorded in official animal welfare inspections in Sweden for years. The relevant authorities have initiated work to better understand the causes of dirty cattle, in order to improve compliance and standardize the grounds for categorizing a farm as non-compliant with welfare legislation when dirty animals are present. This study investigated the occurrence of dirty cattle in official animal welfare controls, on Swedish cattle farms, and examined farmers’ views on the reasons for non-compliance and on key factors in keeping animals clean. The data used were collected by animal welfare inspectors at the county level during the regular official inspections of 371 dairy and beef cattle farms over two weeks in winter 2020. In addition to completing the usual inspection protocol, the inspectors asked farmers a set of questions relating to why their animals were clean or dirty. Dirty cattle were found on 49% of the farms inspected, but only 33% of the farms were categorized as being non-compliant with Swedish welfare legislation. According to inspectors and farmers, dirtiness in cattle depends mainly on management routines, which is a promising result since routines can be improved. The results also revealed a need for better guidance for inspectors and farmers on when dirtiness should be categorized as non-compliance with animal welfare legislation.

show abstract

Human Behaviour Change Interventions in Animal Care and Interactive Settings: A Review and Framework for Design and Evaluation

Cited by 26 publications

References 95 publications

Community Attitudes Reflect Reporting Rates and Prevalence of Animal Mistreatment

Community Attitudes Reflect Reporting Rates and Prevalence of Animal Mistreatment

Visitor Attitudes Toward Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) at Two Australian Zoos

Cattle Cleanliness from the View of Swedish Farmers and Official Animal Welfare Inspectors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About