Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2008, 49, 269276

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00636.x

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Personality and Social Sciences

Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States
VIREN SWAMI,1 ADRIAN FURNHAM2 and ANDREW N. CHRISTOPHER3
1 2

Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, UK Department of Psychology, University College London, UK 3 Department of Psychology, Albion College, Michigan, USA

Swami, V., Furnham, A. & Christopher, A. N. (2008). Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 269276. In this study, 185 British and 143 American undergraduates completed a battery of tests that measured attitudes toward animal testing and various individual difference variables. Attitudes toward animal testing factored into two interpretable factors: general attitudes toward animal testing, and animal welfare and conditions of testing. Overall, there was support for animal testing under the right conditions, although there was also concern for the welfare of animals and the conditions under which testing takes place. There were small but signicant national difference on both factors (with Americans more positive about testing and less positive about animal welfare), and a signicant sex difference on the rst factor (women were more negative about testing). Correlation and regression analyses showed that there were few signicant individual difference predictors of both factors. These results are discussed in relation to past and future work on attitudes toward animal testing. Key words: Animal testing, animal welfare, lay attitudes. Dr Viren Swami, Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW. E-mail: virenswami@hotmail.com

INTRODUCTION Animal testing, or animal research, refers to the use of animals in experiments within academic, research, or commercial establishments. In Britain alone, it is estimated that some 3 million animals from fruit ies to mice to nonhuman primates are used annually in experiments, and may either be killed or subsequently euthanized (Jha, 2005). Although many scientists support the use of animals in research, particularly where it may lead to scientic breakthroughs, the topic remains controversial, particularly among the general public (e.g., Croce, 2000; Gluck & Kubacki, 1991; Newkirk, 2000; Reusch, 1989). It is not surprising, therefore, to nd that there has been a dramatic rise in the number of empirical studies examining lay attitudes towards animal testing and welfare, beginning in the early 1980s (e.g. Archer, 1986; Armstrong & Hutchins, 1996; Coilee & Miller, 1984; Feeney, 1987; Furnham & Heyes, 1993; Furnham, McManus & Scott, 2003; Gallup & Suarez, 1985; Goldsmith, Clark & Laferty, 2006; Gray, 1987; Hagelin, Carlsson & Hau, 2003; Hills, 1993, 1995; Jerolmack, 2003; Knight, Nunkoosing, Vrij & Cherryman, 2003; Miller, 1985; Plous, 1991, 1996; Vigorito, 1996). To date, however, only a relatively small number of these studies have examined the psychological correlates of attitudes towards animal testing. This is important because understanding the manner in which attitudes towards animal testing are formed and disseminated will likely have an impact on wider public policy on animal welfare and animal rights activism.

In an early study, Furnham and Pinder (1990) found that British undergraduates were strongly opposed to animal testing and in favor of stricter controls on laboratories engaged in animal experimentation. Moreover, this study found that women more than men, left-wing more than right-wing individuals, and vegetarians more than nonvegetarians were more strongly against animal testing. An extension by Furnham and Heyes (1993) also found similar results in relation to sex, political orientation and vegetarianism. In addition, less religious individuals, and cat- and dog-lovers were more anti-animal testing (see also Galvin, Colleg & Herzog, 1998). More recent studies have suggested that attitudes towards animal testing may vary as a function of education or eld of study. For instance, Vigorito (1996) found that junior psychology students had more negative views about animal rights issues than senior undergraduates. On the other hand, Martasian and Goldstein (1997) found that students beliefs about animal welfare varied with their eld of study, with more negative attitudes towards animal testing among undergraduates involved in animal research. Yet other studies have shown that specic factors like empathy and beliefs about the mental experience of animals are related to attitudes about animal testing (e.g., Furnham et al., 2003; Hills, 1993, 1995; Hills & Lalich, 1998). A small number of studies have also examined personality correlates of attitudes toward animal testing. One study reported that those in favour of animal testing tended to be extraverted, thinking types who were also masculine, conservative

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.

270

V. Swami et al.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008) 68 women (age M = 20.15, SD = 4.89), all of whom were undergraduates from different university disciplines, but enrolled in an introductory open course in psychology. On a nine-point scale (1 = Not at all, 9 = Very religious), this sample reported a mean religiosity rating of 4.15 (SD = 2.69) and mean political activism rating of 4.28 (SD = 2.05). The American sample comprised 40 women and 103 men, with a mean age of 18.79 (SD = 0.99), recruited from a university in the American Midwest. This group also consisted of undergraduates from introductory psychology courses. The American sample reported a mean religiosity rating of 5.40 (SD = 2.59) and a mean political activism rating of 4.07 (SD = 2.23). Participants in both the British and American groups were native or uent speakers of English.

and less emphatic (Broida, Tingley, Kimball & Miele, 1993). Mathews and Herzog (1997), on the other hand, found only weak associations between personality variables and attitudes toward animal testing: in general, tender-minded and imaginative individuals were more sympathetic of animal welfare. More recently, Furnham et al. (2003) found that the Big Five personality facet of Agreeableness associated with compassion, altruism and tender-mindedness was a good predictor of negative attitudes towards animal testing. On a different note, Goldsmith et al. (2006) reported that higher levels of anticonformity were associated with opposition to animal testing. This brief review of the empirical literature on attitudes toward animal testing suggests that there are a number of demographic and psychological correlates of such attitudes. However, it is possible to further extend earlier studies with the inclusion of scales measuring psychological variables not previously examined. To this end, the present study sought to examine both demographic (sex, age, religiosity, and political activism) and personality (as measured by the Big Five personality facets) correlates of attitudes toward animal testing. In addition, the present study tested whether additional variables were correlated with such attitudes, including typical intellectual engagement, just world beliefs, authoritarianism, political alienation, and self-control. To our knowledge, the association of these psychological variables with attitudes toward animal testing have not been previously investigated. It should be pointed out that the selection of a number of these measures was exploratory, although it is based on both intuitive and empirical sense (cf. Goldsmith et al., 2006). The present study also extends previous work by examining attitudes toward animal testing in two nations. Previous studies of this kind are characterized by a focus on a single-nation, which limits the extent to which results can be generalized. In the present study, therefore, we examined attitudes toward animal testing among British and American undergraduates, thus introducing a novel cross-nation element to this investigation. Although it may be supposed that British and American participants would be relatively homogenous in their attitudes, this is not necessarily the case. Some anecdotal evidence would suggest that animal rights activism and animal welfare is more highly developed in North America than in Britain (Newkirk, 2000), which might lead to the prediction that attitudes toward animal testing would be more negative in the former site. In short, the aim of the present study was to examine the association of various demographic and psychological variables with attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States.

Materials
Typical Intellectual Engagement scale (TIE; Goff & Ackerman, 1992). This is a 59-item, self-report inventory that requires participants to respond on a six-point scale to a variety of items assessing the extent to which they seek, engage in, and enjoy intellectual activities, such as reading philosophy and solving difcult mental problems (example item: Almost every section of the newspaper has something in it which interests me). Some items are reverse-coded prior to scoring, so that a higher score on the TIE indicates higher motivation and tendency to engage in intellectual activities. Most studies compute a single, overall factor score of TIE (e.g., Ackerman, 2000; Ackerman, Kanfer & Goff, 1995; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham & Ackerman, 2006). Internal consistency of the TIE in the present study was higher than what has generally been reported in the literature (British = 0.91, US = 0.91). Belief in a Just World Scale (BJWS; Rubin & Peplau, 1975). The BJWS is a 20-item scale that measures, on a six-point scale, participants belief that they live in a world where they get what they deserve and deserve what they get (example item: Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own). Just World subscale scores were calculated by summing scores on 11 just world items (British = 0.58, US = 0.56) and Unjust World subscale scores were calculated by summing scores on nine unjust world items after reversing the direction of responses (British = 0.69, US = 0.69). Attitudes to Experimentation on Animals scale (AEA; Furnham & Heyes, 1993). This is a 60-item questionnaire on beliefs and attitudes toward animal testing and welfare. All items were rated on a nine-point scale (1 = Disagree, 9 = Agree; example item: Under certain circumstances, experiments involving insects are justiable). Previous use of this questionnaire supported a one-dimensional, rather than multi-dimensional, factor of attitudes (Furnham & Heyes, 1993). However, previous studies have not reported alpha coefcients associated with the factors derived from this scale. Right-wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA). Altemeyers (1981, 1988, 1996) 30-item RWA assesses three major constructs: authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission, and conventionality (example item: It is wonderful that young people can protest against anything they dont like, and act however they wish nowadays). The RWA is rated on a nine-point scale, ranging from very strong agreement (+4) to very strong disagreement ( 4), with neutral dened as 0. The scale has been designed to be one-dimensional (Altemeyer, 1996), and an overall RWA score is calculated by summing all items after reverse-coding several items. The internal consistency of the RWA in the present study was good (British = 0.89, US = 0.93). Political Alienation Scale (PAS; Malik, 1982). This is a ve-item scale, rated on a dichotomous agree-disagree format, measuring respondents sense of political efcacy and attitudes toward the

METHODS Participants
Two groups of participants were recruited from Britain and the United States (n = 328). The British group consisted of 117 men and

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008) political system (example item: Sometimes governmental and political affairs look so complex that I am unable to understand them). One item is reverse-coded, and higher scores on this scale indicate greater political alienation (British = 0.77, US = 0.73). Self-Control Scale (SCS; Tangney, Baumeister & Boone, 2004). The SCS is a 36-item scale measuring the capacity to change and adapt so as to produce a more optimal t between the self and the world (example item: I have a hard time breaking bad habits). The SCS is rated on a ve-point scale, and following the reverse-coding of some items, a total SCS score is arrived at by summing responses to all items. Higher scores are indicative of greater self-control, and internal consistency coefcients in the present study matched those reported in earlier studies (British = 0.86, US = 0.84). Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Personality traits were assessed with this 60-item self-report scale, which measures the ve major dimensions of personality, namely Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism (example item: I rarely feel fearful of anxious). Responses are computed on a ve-point scale ranging from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree). There is agreement that these ve personality factors are representative of individual differences in normal behavior (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). Alpha coefcients were as follows: Openness (British = 0.59, US = 0.61), Conscientiousness (British = 0.57, US = 0.62), Extraversion (British = 0.67, US = 0.65), Agreeableness (British = 0.55, US = 0.55), and Neuroticism (British = 0.69, US = 0.65). Demographics. All participants provided their demographic details, including sex, age, religiosity and political activism.

Animal testing 271 was computed; subsequent principal axis factor analyses with direct oblimin (oblique) rotation yielded similar results. Here, we report the results of the varimax rotation to highlight the independent nature of the factors. For each group, the number of factors extracted was determined by examination of the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) and based on maximum criteria for the ratio of differences of successive eigenvalues (Roznowski, Tucker & Humphreys, 1991). Scale items were generally grouped by factor of the highest loading (see Table 1). For the total sample, two factors emerged and accounted for 24.3% of the variance. Factor 1 contained 23 items that referred to general attitudes toward animal testing (General attitudes). Higher scores on this factor indicated greater agreement with animal testing under some circumstances, and items loading onto this factor were generally quite positive (see Table 2). Factor 2 contained items concerning the welfare and conditions of animal testing (Animal welfare and conditions of testing). Higher scores on this factor indicated greater concern for animal welfare. Items on this factor scored relatively positively, suggesting concern for animal welfare and the conditions under which animal testing takes place. Internal consistency for the two extracted factors was very good (Factor 1 = 0.96; Factor 2 = 0.83). It should be noted that, although we used a varimax rotation, the two factors are not orthogonal. This was likely due to high cross-loadings on some items, reecting the fact that in the real world general agreement with animal testing and concern with animal welfare are likely to be (negatively) related. That is, people who are concerned with animal welfare and conditions are likely to be opposed to testing (indeed, it was notable that the only time an independent variable political alienation was signicantly correlated with both factors, the correlation was in opposite directions; see Table 3). We also ran separate factor analyses for the British and American participants separately. In general, within-group factor structures were similar to the overall model, with the same factors emerging from the analysis. The only exceptions were that, in general, fewer items loaded onto each factor for the British and American participants, respectively. Given the relatively small sample sizes, and the overall correspondence between within-group factor structures and the total-sample model, we use the results of the totalsample model for all subsequent analyses.

Procedure
All participants were administered the questionnaire in large lecture theatres in the presence of experimenters who ensured that participants did not share their answers and completed the questionnaire on their own. All participants were requested to be as honest as possible in their responses and were debriefed following the experiment.

RESULTS Participant descriptives The results of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) showed signicant differences between British and American participants in age [F(1, 327) = 10.50, p < 0.05; 2 p = 0.03] and religiosity [F(1, 327) = 18.05, p < 0.001; 2 = 0.05], but p not in political activism [F(1, 327) = 0.75, p > 0.05]. For this reason, participant age and religiosity were included as covariates in all subsequent analyses.

Sex and national comparisons Factor analysis To examine the factor structure of the AEA, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis. We included both British and American participants in the initial analysis to ensure a s factor structure, although we also conducted separate analyses within groups (see below). To begin with, a principal components analysis using varimax (orthogonal) rotation We computed two factor scores for each participant by taking the average of responses to scale items associated with each factor, based on the overall factor structure. Items that loaded negatively onto Factor 1 (items 42 and 27) were reverse-scored prior to computing factor scores. The mean scores and SDs for both groups are reported in Table 2. The two factor scores were signicantly negatively correlated

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

272

V. Swami et al.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Table 1. Principal components and loadings for the total sample Component Item General beliefs (eigenvalue = 11.84, 17.9% of variance accounted for) 48. Under certain circumstances, experiments involving rodents (e.g. rats and mice) are justiable. 51. Under certain circumstances, experiments involving primates (monkeys, apes) are justiable. 54. Under certain circumstances, experiments involving cats are justiable. 58. Under certain circumstances, experiments involving birds are justiable. 63. Under certain circumstances, experiments involving insects are justiable. 46. Under certain circumstances, experiments involving dogs are justiable. 52. We need to continue animal laboratory experiments. 37. I approve of animal experimentation that leads to the development of effective treatments for physical diseases aficting humans. 47. I approve of animal experimentation that contributes to the education and training of people. 30. I approve of animal experimentation that reveals basic facts about biological processes (e.g. respiration and digestion). 31. I approve of animal experimentation that leads to the development of effective treatments for mental diseases aficting humans. 43. I approve of animal experiments that help to ensure that food is safe for people to eat. 29. I approve of animal experimentation that reveals basic facts about psychological processes (e.g. learning and thinking). 57. The short life span of animals allows hereditary and long-term individual effects to become visible very quickly; this is a valid reason to allow animal testing. 1. As long as they are qualied and legally registered, scientists should be allowed to do research on animals. 56. Painful experiments on animals should not be prevented because they can provide knowledge about, and relief from, human suffering. 45. Stray animals that have to be put down might as well be used in experiments that could provide valuable information. 39. I approve of animal experimentation that helps to ensure that household cleaners are safe for people to use. 61. Some experiments cannot be done without animals. 19. I would have no objections to working in an animal lab. 34. I approve of animal experimentation that helps to ensure that cosmetics are safe for people to use. 42. I believe in total abolition of animal experiments. 27. Although animal experimentation provides scientic information, it is not worth the suffering the animals must endure. Animal welfare and conditions of testing (eigenvalue = 4.19, 6.4% of variance accounted for) 28. Animals are invariably unhappy when they are living under unnatural conditions. 23. Every animal that is used in an experiment suffers in one way or another. 38. It is wrong to schedule animal feeding; animals should have continuous access to food. 36. It is wrong to keep animals in unnatural conditions. 24. All methods of killing animals make them suffer. 50. All animal experimentation is morally incorrect. 14. Like people, animals need to live in light, airy conditions in order to thrive. 22. It is wrong to kill animals, even if the method is painless. 1 2

0.83 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.72 0.70 0.67

0.14 0.22 0.30 0.24 0.11 0.25 0.27 0.04

0.66 0.12 0.66 0.11 0.65 0.06 0.63 0.09 0.61 0.06 0.57 0.06 0.57 0.14 0.56 0.04 0.54 0.05 0.51 0.09 0.51 0.01 0.50 0.13 0.47 0.11 0.45 0.36 0.44 0.42 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.25 0.14 0.43 0.09 0.25 0.71 0.66 0.55 0.54 0.51 0.45 0.42 0.42

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and alpha coefcients for each of the factor scores derived from the AEA British participants Item Factor 1 Factor 2 M 5.37 5.54 SD 1.40 1.36 0.91 0.80 American participants M 5.65 4.87 SD 1.67 1.63 0.93 0.85

with each other (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). To test for sex and national differences on factor scores, we computed a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), controlling for participants age and religiosity. The results showed an overall signicant effect of nationality [F(2, 321) = 8.39, p < 0.001; 2 p = 0.05] and sex [ F (2, 321) = 5.60, p < 0.05;

2 p = 003], but no signicant nationality sex interaction [F(2, 321) = 0.51, p > 0.05]. An examination of the ANCOVA results showed that American participants gave signicantly higher ratings for Factor 1 [F(1, 327) = 11.99, p < 0.05; 2 p = 0.02], but lower scores for Factor 2 [F(1, 327) = 16.80, p < 0.05; 2 p = 0.05], than their British counterparts. That is, Americans appeared to hold more positive attitudes toward animal testing, and were less concerned about animal welfare. In addition, women (M = 5.70, SD = 1.44) provided lower ratings than men (M = 5.30, SD = 1.59) for Factor 1 [F(1, 327) = 10.90, p < 0.05; 2 p = 0.03], indicating that they held more negative attitudes about animal testing. It should be pointed out, however, that the effect sizes for these results were generally very low (cf. Cohen, 1992), although they are generally in line with previous ndings.

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Table 3. Correlations between factor scores and participants demographic and psychological variables Political activism 0.08 0.11* 0.02 0.14* Just World 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.13* Unjust World 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02

Fac 1 Fac 1 Fac 2 Age Religiosity Political activism TIE Just World Unjust World RWA PA SC Neur Extr Open Agre M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Fac 2 0.60**

Age 0.03 0.07

Religiosity 0.13* 0.05 0.02

TIE 0.09 0.07 0.13* 0.05 0.29**

RWA 0.16** 0.02 0.05 0.45** 0.05 0.33* 0.32* 0.14**

PA 0.14* 0.22* 0.01 0.01 0.23** 0.13* 0.08 0.16** 0.00

SC 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.11* 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.12* 0.03

Neur 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.21** 0.14* 0.01 0.11* 0.03

Extr 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.20** 0.01 0.12* 0.17** 0.09 0.28**

Open 0.14* 0.05 0.02 0.15* 0.02 0.40** 0.23** 0.15* 0.34* 0.00 0.04 0.16** 0.04 37.93 5.51 0.76 0.44

Agre 0.12* 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.21** 0.22** 0.12** 31.59 5.58 0.16 0.27

Cons 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.17** 0.09 0.08 0.26** 0.09 0.30* 0.16** 0.16* 0.21** 0.20** 0.11** 0.29** 42.60 5.27 0.16 0.60

5.49 1.53 0.16 0.08

5.25 1.52 0.07 0.02

19.55 3.79 4.88 26.25

4.69 2.72 0.08 1.39

4.19 2.13 0.11 0.93

230.11 31.09 0.10 0.33

58.05 10.98 0.54 1.08

49.79 8.57 0.06 0.24

15.76 3.46 0.15 0.50

2.39 1.23 0.38 0.58

112.83 7.07 0.21 0.61

35.28 6.58 0.50 0.72

41.56 5.80 0.16 0.34

Notes: Fac 1 = AEA Factor 1; Fac 2 = AEA Factor 2; TIE = Typical Intellectual Engagement; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarianism; PA = Political Alienation; SC = Self-Control; Neur = Neuroticism; Extr = Extraversion; Open = Openness; Agre = Agreeableness; Cons = Conscientiousness. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Animal testing 273

274

V. Swami et al.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Predictors of attitudes To investigate the predictors of attitudes toward animal testing and welfare, the two overall factor scores were initially univariately correlated with the various predictor variables (see Table 3). Factor 1 was signicantly positively correlated with religiosity and RWA, and negatively correlated with political alienation, openness, and agreeableness. These items were, therefore, offered as candidate variables to a multivariate forward stepwise regression model. This regression method selects the fewest number of variables offered to the model that best describe the occurrence of the outcome (attitudes toward animal testing). Of the items entered into the model, RWA explained the greatest proportion of variance in Factor 1 [F(1, 324) = 8.65, p < 0.05; R2 = 0.02]. Further steps in the regression were also signicant with the addition of political alienation [F(2, 324) = 7.82, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.02] and agreeableness [F(3, 324) = 7.30, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.02]. Factor 2 was only signicantly negatively correlated with political activism and positively correlated with political alienation. When these items were offered to the same regression model as before, we found political alienation explained 4% of the variance [F(1, 327) = 15.89, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.04]. Political activism did not meet the signicance criteria for entry into the model after political alienation had been added.

DISCUSSION In the present study, we showed that attitudes toward animal testing, as measured by Furnham and Heyes (1993) AEA, could meaningfully be reduced to a two-factor structure. Based on factor scores derived from the factor analysis, we found a number of small (but signicant) cross-national and sex differences. Finally, the present results showed that there were few individual difference predictors of attitudes toward animal testing and welfare. In general, these ndings are consistent with what has previously been reported by studies of attitudes toward animal welfare (e.g. Broida et al., 1993; Furnham & Heyes, 1993; Furnham & Pinder, 1990; Furnham et al., 2003; Matthews & Herzog, 1997; Vigorito, 1996). However, the present results also extend earlier reports in a number of different ways, which we turn to below. The structure of attitudes toward animal testing appears to be both multi-faceted and stable. This is indicated by the high internal consistency of factor scores derived from the AEA. It should be noted, however, that using the same scale, Furnham and Heyes (1993) extracted ve factors. Although it is possible that this discrepancy may be due to differences in sampling, it is also possible that the earlier study over-estimated the number of stable factors, particularly as alpha coefcients were not reported and extraction criteria were not fully dened. We, therefore, suggest that attitudes toward animal testing as measured by the AEA can

meaningfully be reduced to two factors relating to general attitudes and attitudes toward animal welfare and conditions of testing. Overall, the participants of this study appear to be somewhat supportive of animal testing and welfare, as indicated by the relatively positive scores on Factors 1 and 2. It should be pointed out that this is somewhat different from the results of earlier studies, which generally nd that attitudes toward animal testing are negative. It may be that debates about the benets of animal testing, particularly for the advancement of the medical sciences, have ltered down to the general public. Moreover, university undergraduates are likely to encounter such debates within academic settings. In general, then, the present results suggest that attitudes toward animal testing may be more positive than previous studies have found. When factor scores derived from the factor analysis were compared across samples and sexes, we found signicant national differences on both factors, as well as signicant sex differences on Factor 1. The latter nding is consistent with the available literature (Furnham & Pinder, 1990; Furnham & Heyes, 1993; Galvin et al., 1996; Goldsmith et al., 2006) showing that women tend to be more anti-animal testing than men. It has been suggested that this difference in attitudes may be associated with women being more tender-minded than men (e.g., Broida et al., 1993), which leads them to being more concerned about issues involving pain or death. By contrast, men who are socialized to be masculine and emotionally restricted (Traue, 1998) may be less sensitive to the use of animals in experimentation. The signicant cross-national differences are more difcult to explain. Specically, we found that American undergraduates were more positive than their British counterparts in their attitudes toward animal testing, and were also less concerned about animal welfare and conditions of testing. It is possible that recent high prole campaigns for animal welfare and animal rights in Britain has put animal testing high on the agenda, resulting in more negative attitudes toward such testing (cf. Jha, 2005). An alternative explanation is that these ndings are a statistical artifact as a result of sample representativeness (see below). This explanation is corroborated by the small effect sizes of these differences. Future studies should, therefore, attempt to replicate these ndings across cultures while using larger and more representative samples. Finally, our results showed only weak associations between various individual difference variables and attitudes toward animal testing and welfare. In the rst instance, we found that a number of included variables were not signicant predictors of factor scores, particularly TIE, just and unjust world beliefs, self-control, and the Big Five personality facets of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness. On the other hand, negative general attitudes toward animal testing were predicted by lower RWA, higher political alienation and higher agreeableness. By contrast, negative

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Animal testing 275

Armstrong, J. & Hutchins, L. (1996). Development of an attitude scale to measure attitudes toward humans use of non-human animals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1003 1010. Broida, L., Tingley, L., Kimball, R. & Miele, R. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society and Animals, 1, 129 144. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivarate Behavioral Research, 1, 245 276. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A. & Ackerman, P. L. (2006). Incremental validity of the Typical Intellectual Engagement Scale as predictor of different academic performance measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 261 268. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155 159. Coilee, D. & Miller, N. (1984). How radical animal activists try to mislead humane people. American Psychologist, 39, 700 701. Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Croce, P. (2000). Vivisection or science? An investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health. New York: Zed Books. Feeney, D. (1987). Human rights and animal welfare. American Psychologist, 42, 593 599. Furnham, A. & Heyes, C. (1993). Psychology students beliefs about animals and animal experimentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 110. Furnham, A. & Pinder, A. (1990). Young peoples attitudes to experimentation of animals. Psychologist, 10, 444 446. Furnham, A., McManus, C. & Scott, D. (2003). Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozos, 16, 135 146. Gallup, G. & Suarez, S. (1985). Alternatives to the use of animals in psychological research. American Psychologist, 40, 1104 1111. Galvin, S., Colleg, M. H. & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1998). Attitudes and dispositional optimism of animal rights demonstrators. Society and Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 6, 111. Gluck, J. P. & Kubacki, S. R. (1991). Animals in biomedical research: The undermining effect of the rhetoric of the besieged. Ethics & Behavior, 1, 157 173. Goff, M. & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537 553. Goldsmith, R. E., Clark, R. A. & Laferty, B. (2006). Intention to oppose animal research: The role of individual differences in nonconformity. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 955 964. Gray, J. (1987). The ethics and politics of animal experimentation. In H. Beloff & A. Colman (Eds.), Psychology survey (pp. 241 260). Leicester: British Psychological Society. Hagelin, J., Carlsson, H.-E. & Hau, J. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may inuence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 67 81. Hills, A. (1993). The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Society and Animals, 1, 111128. Hills, A. (1995). Empathy and belief in the mental experience of animals. Anthrozos, 8, 132 142. Hills, A. & Lalich, N. (1998). Judgements of cruelty towards animals: Sex differences and effect of awareness of suffering. Anthrozos, 11, 142 147. Jerolmack, C. (2003). Tracing the prole of animal rights supporters: A preliminary investigation. Society and Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 11, 245 263. Jha, A. (2005). RSPCA outrage as experiments on animals rise to 2.85m. The Guardian, 9 December, p. 12.

attitudes towards animal welfare were only predicted by higher political alienation. In general, however, these individual difference variables were poor predictors of attitudes toward animal testing, never accounting for more than 10% of the variance in the data. In general, this is consistent with the ndings of previous studies, which also report that individual difference variables such as agreeableness generally do not account for more than 10 15% of variance in attitudes toward animal testing (e.g., Furnham et al., 2003). In terms of limitations, it should be pointed out that our participants were college undergraduates who may not have been representative of their national populations. This necessarily impedes generalization of the present ndings, and future work would do well to sample more representative populations. In addition, some of the scales used in the present study showed low internal consistency, which necessarily limited our ability to nd signicant relationships in the data. This limitation might be overcome by using larger, more representative samples in future work. There are a number of other ways in which future studies could further build on the present research. For instance, it is notable that all studies on animal testing to date have been conducted in Western societies, often with university undergraduates as samples. To further extend our knowledge of such attitudes, it will be useful for future work to examine these attitudes in disparate cultures, particularly where there may be different attitudes toward animals. In conclusion, this study showed that the AEA could be reduced to a two-factor structure and that there were significant, albeit small, differences by nationality and sex. In addition, the individual difference variables included in the present study were found to be weak predictors of attitudes to animal testing and welfare, which is consistent with the extant literature. Furthering this research will be of importance for public policy practitioners, particularly in the face of public debate over animal testing.
We are grateful for the helpful comments of Kati Heinonen and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this manuscript.

REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L. (2000). Domain-specic knowledge as the dark matter of adult intelligence: gf/gc, personality, and interest correlates. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55, 6984. Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R. & Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 270304. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarian . Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Archer, J. (1986). Ethical issues in psychobiological research on animals. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, 361 364.

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

276

V. Swami et al.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008) logical research and education. American Psychologist, 51, 1169 1180. Reusch, H. (1989). 1000 doctors (and many more) against vivisection. London: Civis. Roznowski, M., Tucker, L. R. & Humphreys, L. G. (1991). Three approaches to determining the dimensionality of binary items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 109 127. Rubin, Z. & Peplau, A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65 89. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F. & Boone, A. L. (2004). High selfcontrol predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271324. Traue, H. C. (1998). Emotion und Gesundheit: Die psychobiologische Regulation durch Hemmungen. Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Vigorito, M. (1996). An animal rights attitudes survey of undergraduate psychology students. Psychological Reports, 79, 131147. Received 13 May 2007, accepted 3 September 2007

Knight, S., Nunkoosing, K., Vrij, A. & Cherryman, J. (2003). Using grounded theory to examine peoples attitudes toward how animals are used. Society and Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 11, 307 327. Malik, Y. K. (1982). Attitudinal and political implications of diffusion of technology: The case of north Indian youth. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 17, 45 73. Martasian, P. & Goldstein, S. (1997). Students beliefs about animal researchers as a function of researchers sex. Psychological Reports, 81, 803 811. Mathews, S. & Herzog, H. (1997). Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society and Animals, 5, 169 175. Miller, N. (1985). The value of behavioural research on animals. American Psychologist, 40, 423 440. Newkirk, I. (2000). Free the animals: The story of the Animal Liberation Front. Los Angeles: Lantern Books. Plous, S. (1991). An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psychological Science, 2, 194 199. Plous, S. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psycho-

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.