REVIEWS & RESEARCH REPORTS

EMPATHY WITH ANIMALS AND WITH HUMANS:

ARE THEY LINKED?
Elizabeth S. Paul
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, UK

ABSTRACT
A sample of 514 adults completed a postal questionnaire measuring both their empathy with
humans (using the Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) Questionnaire for the Measurement of
Emotional Empathy) and their empathy with non-human animals (using the Animal Empathy
Scale, developed for this study). There was a significant, but modest correlation between the
two scales ( Kendalls tau=0.26, p<0.001), indicating that although the two types of empathy
measure are in some way linked, they are unlikely to tap a single, unitary construct. This conclusion is reinforced by the finding that human- and animal-oriented empathy exhibit different levels of association with different potential sources of variation. Animal-oriented
empathy was related to the current ownership of pets (U=19825.5, p<0.0001) and to the
ownership of pets during childhood (U=10271.0, p<0.01), while human-oriented empathy
was related to currently having a child or children at home (U=21020.5, p<0.05).
2000 International Society for Anthrozoology

INTRODUCTION
mpathy or emotional empathy is
defined by most social psychologists
today as a vicarious emotional
response to anothers emotions or
states, and is regarded as distinct from perspective taking, which involves the cognitive comprehension of anothers thoughts or feelings
(Eisenberg 1995). The idea that the capacity for
emotional empathy motivates or mediates altruistic and helping behavior (e.g. see Blum 1980;
Batson and Coke 1981; Hoffman 1981) has
led to considerable research attention being
focused on the origins and sources of variation
in peoples empathic responding (e.g. Koestner,
Franz and Weinberger 1990; Eisenberg et al.
1993; Fabes et al. 1994; Miller and opdeHaar
1997). Also, largely because of this research
focus, studies of the nature of empathy have for
some time attended almost exclusively to peoples tendencies to empathize with other human

Present address and address for correspondence

and requests for reprints: Dr E. Paul, Division of
Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of
Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol,
Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU,
UK Ph: (0117) 928 9355; fax: (0117) 928 9582;
e-mail: e.paul@bris.ac.uk

194

ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

beings, despite the fact that the notion of empathy originated within the non-human context of
being able to feel oneself into an object of art
such as a painting or sculpture (Wisp 1987).
Yet within this human-oriented tradition there
appears to have been a popular, implicit
assumption that emotional empathy is a broadly-based trait, with a persons capacity for empathy being expected to be generally stable (e.g.
see Rushton et al. 1986), regardless of the type
of target which elicits it (although for examples
of exceptions to this see Holzebeling and
Steinmetz 1994; Batson et al. 1996).
Emotional empathy has been regarded as so
broadly applicable, in fact, it has been considered to apply equivalently to human and animal
targets (Eisenberg 1988). Thus, measures of
emotional empathy such as those designed by
Bryant (1982) and Mehrabian and Epstein
(1972) have incorporated the assumption that
highly empathic individuals will be very empathic with animals as well as people, and unempathic individuals will likewise be unempathic
with animals and people (see also Eisenberg et
al. 1992). However, this idea has been subjected
to no empirical investigation, beyond basic internal reliability tests of the measures concerned.
Recent growing research interest in the
nature of peoples relationships with, and attiPaul

tudes towards, animals has led to the suggestion

that this presumed link between human-oriented
and animal-oriented empathy needs to be questioned and reconsidered (Arluke and Sax 1992).
There has been a long-standing belief amongst
moral philosophers that compassion for animals
and people are positively associated (see
Thomas 1983; Serpell and Paul 1994; Paul
2000). Likewise, the notion that people who
are cruel to animals might also be a danger to
humans, has a long historical pedigree (Serpell
1996). Much of public opinion seems to concur
with that of empathy researchers, that someone
who is empathic and caring in their views of animals is likely to have similar sentiments towards
people (Lockwood 1983; Messent 1983;
Rossbach and Wilson 1992). But despite this,
animal rights and welfare supporters are not
infrequently criticized for caring too much about
animals and not enough about people (Paul
1995). Extreme counter examples of the supposed link between empathy with animals and
empathy with people also call these popular
assumptions regarding the generalizability of
empathy into question. For example, there are
the militant animal rights activists who have
threatened and injured people in pursuit of their
cause (Paton 1993), and Hitler and some of his
fellow Nazis, who clearly had little regard for
human rights and dignity, but were vegetarians,
purported pet lovers and proponents of animal
welfare legislation (Arluke and Sax 1992; Arluke
and Sanders 1996). Such apparent anomalies
have prompted the need for psychologists to
reconsider the accuracy of the presumed broad
nature of the empathy construct. Perhaps the
examples, cited above, of Nazis and militant animal rights activists represent instances of specific
emotional pathologies, of people whose
empathic mechanisms are simply not functioning in a way that is contiguous with those of the
broader population (e.g. see Blair et al. 1996;
Blair et al. 1997; Intrator et al. 1997). If so,
these cases could be simply regarded as anomalous, and not to be extrapolated to make conclusions about the broader nature of normal
empathy. On the other hand, if they are in fact
extreme examples of a wider discontinuity
between human- and animal-oriented empathy,
fresh conclusions may have to be drawn, not
only concerning the nature of peoples attitudes
towards animals, but also regarding the presumed broad applicability and universality of the
empathic mechanism itself.
The aim of the present study was to test
the assumption that human-oriented and animal-oriented empathy are linked; that they repPaul

resent facets of the same, broadly continuous

construct. The first question to be asked concerns whether or not levels of human-oriented
and animal-oriented empathy are correlated. If
they are highly correlated, measures of each
may well be tapping the same basic mechanism
or device. If they are not, we must conclude
that they represent wholly or partly independent psychological processes. The second question to be asked concerns whether or not
human- and animal-oriented empathy have the
same likely sources of variation. If they operate
via a single mechanism, higher and lower levels
of empathic responding to both human and
animal targets should be expected to be predicted by the same demographic and developmental factors. But if they function
independently, each is likely to have its own,
perhaps very different sources of variation.
A postal survey was used to investigate
these two sets of questions. A questionnaire
was designed to obtain self-report measures of
both human-oriented emotional empathy (using
a modified version of the Mehrabian and
Epstein (1972 ) Questionnaire for the
Measurement of Emotional Empathy) and animal-oriented emotional empathy (using the
Animal Empathy Scale, developed for this
study), as well as demographic and background
developmental details which might represent
sources of variation in empathic responding.
Methods were employed which would yield a
sample of respondents as representative as
possible of the general local population.

METHODS
Questionnaire
The first page of the questionnaire was used to
ascertain background information about the
participants, which could be relevant in determining their levels of empathy with either animals or humans. Past and present ownership
of pets is known to be associated with greater
concerns about the treatment and welfare of
animals (Paul and Serpell 1993), so it might
also be associated with higher levels of empathy with animals. Similarly, human-oriented
empathy could be hypothesized to be related to
experiences of marriage and child-rearing, as it
is thought to play an important role in such
relationships (Wiesenfeld, Whitman and
Malatesta 1984; Levenson and Ruef 1992).
Therefore, in addition to basic demographic
information, questions concerning both childhood and present ownership of pets, current
marital status, and present child-rearing status
ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

195

were asked. The second and third pages of the

questionnaire contained the Animal Empathy
Scale (designed for the purposes of this study see below) and the Questionnaire for the
Measurement of Emotional Empathy
(Mehrabian and Epstein 1972), with the order
of these two scales being assigned randomly
across the sample. Participants responses to
both empathy measures were recorded using
9-point Likert -type response scales, ranging
from Agree very strongly to Disagree very
strongly. Higher scores represented higher levels of self-reported empathy.
Questionnaire for the Measurement
of Emotional Empathy
The Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) scale was
originally developed to measure variation in
peoples capacities for vicarious emotional
responsiveness to witnessing the emotion of
another, and thereby probably measures a variety of closely related responses including sympathy, personal distress and emotional
contagion. As such it represents a broadly
defined, self-report measure of emotional
empathy. Although predominantly designed to
gauge human-oriented empathy, two of the
statements within the scale concern animal targets of empathy. For the purposes of the present study, these two items were excluded from
the questionnaire, leaving a total of 31 remaining items. In addition, the wording of some of
the statements were anglicized in order to make
them more applicable to a British sample of
respondents (e.g. movies changed to films).
The Animal Empathy Scale
The initial design of the animal empathy scale
was based on the Mehrabian and Epstein
(1972) Questionnaire Measure of Emotional
Empathy. Two of the items in that scale already
concerned empathy with animals, so these
were included unaltered. Wherever possible,
the other items from Mehrabian and Epstein
(1972) scale were restructured and reworded in
order to pertain to familiar animals (e.g. pets,
wild birds) instead of the original human empathy targets. In addition, further, original items
were developed, based on statements that had
arisen during a series of informal interviews
with students and members of the public concerning their feelings about animals and their
treatment. By these means, a total of 22 items
were produced (see Appendix 1 for full scale).
Of these, 11 represented unempathic sentiments and 11 represented empathic sentiments. As in the original Mehrabian and
Epstein (1972) scale, the majority of items
196

ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

emphasized negative events and emotions (e.g.

Seeing animals in pain upsets me).
Responses to each item were requested using a
nine-point Likert-type scale, and a scoring system was used which allocated higher scores for
more empathic responses.
The scale was piloted using a sample of
75 (53 female, 22 male) third-year undergraduate psychology students. They completed a
questionnaire incorporating the scale during a
comparative psychology course in the winter of
1995. Their ages ranged between 19 and 27
years, with a mean age of 21 years. All participants fully completed the scale. Cronbach
alpha analyses revealed that the scale had good
levels of internal reliability (=0.78).

Participants and Procedure

The names and addresses of the residents of six
polling districts of the administrative region of
Lothian, Scotland, were obtained from Lothian
Regional Council. Four of the districts were
within the city of Edinburgh, and two were from
the surrounding countryside. In total, the six districts were chosen to be broadly representative
of the socio-economic distribution of urban, suburban and rural Lothian. By randomly selecting
a name from every fourth household (alternately
male and female where more than one person
was registered at a single residence), a sample of
907 names were selected to be sent a questionnaire. To achieve a maximum response rate,
potential participants who had not returned
their questionnaire two weeks after the initial
mailing were sent a reminder and a duplicate
questionnaire. Two weeks later again, continuing non-respondents were sent a second
reminder. Because of the potentially sensitive
nature of the subject matter, the questionnaire
was designed to be completed entirely confidentially, with code numbering being used to identify people who had and had not responded to
the initial mailings (names and addresses were
never added to questionnaires nor data files).

RESULTS
Participants
Of the 526 questionnaires returned, 497 were
complete and usable in analyses, representing a
final response level of 55%. However, given that
at the time of questionnaire distribution, the
polling lists were due to be updated, Lothian
Regional Council estimated that at least
1520% of the selected names would in fact
have no longer been resident (due to relocation
or death). Thus, the actual response level was
probably closer to 6468%.
Paul

For the entire sample, non-parametric, Kendall

correlation analyses revealed that animal-oriented and human-oriented empathy scores
were significantly positively correlated, albeit at
a relatively low level (Kendalls tau=0.26,
p<0.001 (n=497), see Figure 1). Because previous studies have found that females tend to
score higher than males on measures of
human-oriented empathy (Eisenberg and
Lennon 1983; Lennon and Eisenberg 1987)
and animal-oriented empathy (Hills 1993),
these analyses were repeated separately for
male and female respondents. The correlation
was maintained in both males (Kendalls
tau=0.25, p<0.001 (n=216)) and females
(Kendalls tau=0.21, p<0.001 (n=280)).

Relations between human-oriented

and animal-oriented empathy and
other factors
Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that the female
participants scored significantly higher than the
males in both human-oriented empathy
(U=19063.5, p<0.0001, see Figure 2) and
animal-oriented empathy (U=23733.5,
p<0.0001, see Figure 3). There were also
slight but significant negative correlations
between age and both human-oriented empathy (Kendalls tau=-0.12, p<0.001; females
only Kendalls tau=-0.11, p<0.01; males only
Kendalls tau=-0.10, p<0.05) and animal-oriented empathy (Kendalls tau=-0.09,
p<0.005; females only Kendalls tau=-0.10,
p<0.05; males only Kendalls tau=-0.06, ns),
with older participants showing lower levels of
levels of both types of empathy.
Current ownership of a pet was significantly associated with higher animal-oriented
empathy scores (U=19825.5, p<0.0001, see
Figure 4; females only U=6731.0, p<0.001;
males only U=3587.5, p<0.001), but not with
higher human-oriented empathy scores
(U=25817.5, ns, see Figure 5; females only
U=8265.5, ns; males only U=4580.0, ns).
Paul

ANIMAL EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

Correlations between animal-oriented

empathy and human-oriented empathy

200

150

100

MALE
FEMALE

50
100

150

200

250

300

HUMAN EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

Figure 1. Scattergram showing male and female

participants human empathy and animal empathy
scale scores (measured by the Questionnaire
Measure of Emotional Empathy and the Animal
Empathy Scale, respectively).
240
230
220
HUMAN EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

Fifty-six per cent of the respondents

were female and 44% were male. Their ages
ranged from 18 years to 99 years (mean age
49.5 years). Comparison with census figures
for demographic distributions within Lothian
(General Register Office for Scotland 1991)
indicated that the sample was acceptably representative of the region for age, sex, employment status and socio-economic status.

210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
FEMALE

MALE

Figure 2. Box and whisker plots showing male and

female participants human empathy scale scores
(measured by the Questionnaire Measure of
Emotional Empathy) (showing medians, upper and
lower quartiles, and maximum and minimum scores).

Likewise, respondents who had owned pets in

childhood had significantly higher animal-oriented empathy scores than those who had not
owned pets in childhood (U=10271.0,
p<0.01; females only U=2646.0, p<0.05;
males only U=2510.0, ns), but their humanoriented empathy scores did not differ significantly (U=11233.5, ns; females only
U=2905.0, ns; males only U=2801.5, ns).
Married and single respondents did not
differ from one another in their human-oriented empathy (U=14920.5, ns; females only
U=2579.5, ns; males only U=2418.0, ns),
ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

197

240

170

230

160

220
HUMAN EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

ANIMAL EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

180

150

140

130

120

200

190

180

110

170

100

160

90

150
FEMALE

MALE

Figure 3. Box and whisker plots showing male and

female participants animal empathy scale scores
(measured by the Animal Empathy Scale) (showing
medians, upper and lower quartiles, and maximum and minimum scores).

NON-PET OWNERS

PET OWNERS

Figure 5. Box and whisker plots showing the human

empathy scale scores (measured by the Questionnaire
Measure of Emotional Empathy) of pet owners and
non-pet owners (showing medians, upper and lower
quartiles, and maximum and minimum scores).

180

240

170

230

220
HUMAN EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

160
ANIMAL EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

210

150

140

130

120

210

200

190

180

170
110

160

100

150
NON-PET OWNERS

PET OWNERS

Figure 4. Box and whisker plots showing the animal empathy scale scores (measured by the
Animal Empathy Scale) of pet owners and non-pet
owners (showing medians, upper and lower quartiles, and maximum and minimum scores).

nor in their animal-oriented empathy

(U=14765.5, ns; females only U=4842.5, ns;
males only U=2510.0, ns). Similarly, socioeconomic status (a,b,c1 vs. c2,d,e) had no discernible
association
with
either
human-oriented empathy (U=14920.5, ns;
females only U=2786.0, ns; males only
U=2595.0, ns) or animal-oriented empathy
(U=11635.0, ns; females only U=2865.5, ns;
males only U=2471.5, ns.). Respondents who
currently had a child or children living at home
198

ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

CHILD AT HOME

NO CHILD AT HOME

Figure 6. Box and whisker plots showing the human

empathy scale scores (measured by the
Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy) of
participants who did and did not have a child living at
home with them (showing medians, upper and lower
quartiles, and maximum and minimum scores).

with them scored significantly higher on the

human-oriented empathy scale than those
who did not (U=21020.5, p<0.05, see Figure
6; females only U=7497.0, ns; males only
U=3589.5, ns), although these two groups did
not differ from one another in their animal-oriented empathy scale scores (U=24409.0, ns,
see Figure 7; females only U=7616.0, ns;
males only U=4285.0, ns).
Paul

180

170

ANIMAL EMPATHY SCALE SCORE

160

150

140

130

120

110

100
CHILD AT HOME

NO CHILD AT HOME

Figure 7. Box and whisker plots showing the animal empathy scale scores (measured by the Animal
Empathy Scale) of participants who did and did not
have a child living at home with them (showing
medians, upper and lower quartiles, and maximum
and minimum scores)

DISCUSSION
The popular belief that empathy or emotional
concern for people and animals are strongly
linked dates back considerably further than 20th
century empathy research (see Thomas 1983;
Serpell and Paul 1994, for historical reviews).
But the findings of this study do not offer
unequivocal support for the notion that humanand animal-oriented empathy represent facets
of a single, broadly continuous construct.
The first question addressed by this
research was whether or not levels of humanoriented and animal-oriented emotional empathy are correlated. It was found that there was
a small but significant degree of linkage
between participants self-reported scores on
human-oriented and animal-oriented emotional empathy. Moreover, this link remained
when male and female respondents scores
were assessed independently, so the finding
did not simply represent a confound based on
systematic malefemale differences in responses to each type of scale.
The second question that was addressed
was whether or not human-oriented and animal-oriented empathy have the same potential
sources of variation. Demographic and developmental factors which could be hypothesized to
influence levels of either or both types of empathy were assessed for their degree of association
with each. The analyses indicated that while the
factors of age and sex were similarly related to
Paul

both human-oriented and animal-oriented

empathy (females and younger participants
showing significantly higher levels of each),
childhood and current pet ownership, and the
current presence of children in the home, were
independently related to the two types of empathy. Past and present pet owning was associated
with higher levels of animal-oriented but not
human-oriented empathy, while child rearing
was associated with higher levels of human-oriented but not animal-oriented empathy.
Taken together, the findings that humanoriented and animal-oriented empathy show
small yet significant correlations, and that some
factors correlate differentially with the two types
of empathy while others correlate equivalently,
suggest that human- and animal-oriented emotional empathy may best be viewed as consisting
of both shared and non-shared components.
Further research, using a variety of methods for
measuring empathy and assessing the possible
links between empathic responding to human
and animal targets, will be needed to confirm or
refute this possibility. Nevertheless, at the very
least, these findings cast doubts on the appropriateness of using animal targets in measures of
human-oriented empathy (Mehrabian and
Epstein 1972; Bryant 1982; Eisenberg et al.
1992). They also raise the question of whether
empathy towards different human targets, such
as those of different ages, nationalities or races,
and even empathy towards different kinds of
animal targets, might also show shared and
non-shared components.
Regarding our understanding of the
nature of the empathic mechanism itself, the
present findings cast doubt on the simple
notion that empathy results from a single, universal device which, (while operating at different levels of intensity in different individuals)
responds similarly, within an individual, to different types of target. One could speculate that
both human-oriented and animal-oriented emotional empathy may be tapping some underlying, dispositional trait for emotional empathy
(Eisenberg et al. 1994; Strayer and Roberts
1997), which perhaps has its origins in a persons early developmental environment
(Koestner, Franz and Weinberger 1990;
Eisenberg et al. 1992) or in their genetic makeup (Rushton et al. 1986; Davis, Luce and
Kraus 1994). The actual level of empathy
evoked by a given target in a particular situation
may then be determined by some kind of moderator mechanism which acts to either diminish
(Hills 1995) or enhance the basic empathic
response. Alternatively, the present findings are
ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

199

also consistent with a simpler, modular explanation of empathic mechanisms: that empathy
with different targets occurs independently,
based on separately functioning devices or
modules. The level of the empathic responses
shown to different types of target may thereby
have quite different developmental and evolutionary histories, while the shared components
of empathic responsiveness to different targets
might simply represent underlying, individual
variation in emotionality or autonomic reactivity. In both of these two scenarios, factors such
as developmental experience of the target (e.g.
pet animals - see Paul and Serpell 1993) or
ones perceived similarity to the target (Batson
et al. 1996) are likely to have as much or more
influence over the degree of empathic reaction
experienced in a given situation than any
broader, trait-like tendency to show higher or
lower levels of empathy overall.
In the context of peoples attitudes
towards animals, the present findings lend only
partial support to the popular belief that people who are friendly or compassionate towards
animals are also likely to have similar, benign
sentiments towards human beings (for review,
see Paul 2000). They are also difficult to fully
reconcile with the possibility that people who

develop empathy or compassion towards companion animals in childhood can generalize

this into enhanced empathy or compassion
towards humans in later life (Finch 1989;
Ascione 1992; Paul and Serpell 1993). On
the other hand, the proposed possibilities that
empathy is either modular, or that a moderator
mechanism determines the actual level of emotional empathy elicited by a particular target,
are both potentially useful models for developing a better understanding of those apparently
incongruous individuals who appear to have
great compassion for animals, yet little concern for the well-being of people (Arluke and
Sax 1992), or, indeed, those who appear to be
very empathic with people, but who show little
or no concern for animals.

REFERENCES

Blair, J., Sellars, C., Strickland, I., Clark, F.,

Williams, A., Smith, M. and Jones, L. 1996.
Theory of mind in the psychopath. Journal
of Forensic Psychiatry 7: 1525.
Blum, L. A. 1980. Friendship, Altruism and
Morality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bryant, B. K. 1982. An index of empathy for
children and adolescents. Child Development
53: 413425.
Davis, M. H., Luce, C. and Kraus, S. J. 1994.
The heritability of characteristics associated
with dispositional empathy. Journal of
Personality 62: 369391.
Eisenberg, N. 1988. Empathy and sympathy.
Anthrozos 2: 1517.
Eisenberg, N. 1995. Empathy. In The
Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Social
Psychology, 203208, ed. A. R. Manstead
and M. Hewstone. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Speer, A.
L., Switzer, G., Karbon, M. and Troyer, D.
1993. The relations of empathy-related emotions and maternal practices to childrens comforting behaviour. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology 55: 131150.

Arluke, A. and Sanders, C. R. 1996. Regarding

Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Arluke, A. and Sax, B. 1992. Understanding
Nazi animal protection and the holocaust.
Anthrozos 5: 631.
Ascione, F. R. 1992. Enhancing childrens attitudes about the humane treatment of animals: generalisation to human directed
empathy. Anthrozos 5: 176191.
Batson, C. D. and Coke, J. S. 1981. Empathy:
A source of altruistic motivation for helping? In
Altruism and Helping Behaviour: Social,
Personality and Developmental
Perspectives, 167187, ed. J. P. Rushton and
R. M. Sorrentino. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Batson, C. D., Sympson, S. C., Hindman, J.
L., Decruz, P., Todd, R. M., Weeks, J. L.,
Jennings, G. and Burris, C. T. 1996. Ive
been there too - effect on empathy of prior
experience with a need. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 22: 474482.
Blair, R. J. R., Jones, L., Clark, F. and Smith,
M. 1997. The psychopathic individual: A
lack of responsiveness to distress cues?
Psychophysiology 34: 192198.

200

ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research for this paper was supported by
a grant from the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Many
thanks go to the participants in the study, who
gave their time so willingly, and to Adelma
Hills for her comments on the nature of animal-oriented empathy. My thanks also go to
the two anonymous reviewers of this paper,
for their valuable and constructive comments.

Paul

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G. Troyer,

D., Speer, A. L., Karbon, M. and Switzer, G.
1992. The relations of maternal practices
and characteristics to childrens vicarious
emotional responsiveness. Child
Development 63: 583602.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B.,
Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., Oboyle,
C. and Suh, K. 1994. The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and
situational empathy-related responding.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 66: 776797.
Eisenberg, N. and Lennon, R. 1983. Sex differences in empathy and related capacities.
Psychological Bulletin 94: 100131.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Troyer,
D. and Switzer, G. 1994. The relations of
childrens emotion regulation to their vicarious
emotional responses and comforting behaviours. Child Development 65: 16781693.
Finch, P. 1989. Learning from the past. In The
Status of Animals: Ethics, Education and
Welfare, 6472, ed. D. Paterson and P.
Palmer. Wallingford: CAB International.
General Register Office for Scotland 1991.
Census 1991 Scotland: Report for Scotland.
Edinburgh: HMSO.
Hills, A. M. 1993. The motivational bases of
attitudes toward animals. Society and
Animals 1:111128.
Hills, A. M. 1995. Empathy and belief in the
mental experience of animals. Anthrozos 8:
132142.
Hoffman, M. L. 1981. Is altruism part of
human nature? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 40: 121137.
Holzebeling, F. and Steinmetz, M. 1994.
Construction of a situation-oriented questionnaire by an experimental procedure. Zeitschrift
fur Sozialpsychologie 25: 155169.
Intrator, J., Hare, R., Stritzke, P., Brichtswein,
K., Dorfman, D., Harpur, T., Bernstein, D.,
Handelsman, L., Schaefer, C. Keilp, J.,
Rosen, J., and Machac, J. 1997. A brain
imaging (single photon emission computerised tomography) study of semantic and
affective processing in psychopaths.
Biological Psychiatry 42: 96103.
Koestner, R., Franz, C. and Weinberger, J. 1990.
The family origins of empathic concern: A 26
year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 58: 709717.
Lennon, R. and Eisenberg, N. 1987. Gender
and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In Empathy and its Development,
195217, ed. N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paul

Levenson, R. W. and Ruef, A. M. 1992.

Empathy: a physiological substrate. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 63:
234246.
Lockwood, R. 1983. The influence of animals
on social perception. In New Perspectives on
Our Lives with Companion Animals,
6471, ed. A. H. Katcher and A. M. Beck.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Mehrabian, A. and Epstein, N. 1972. A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of
Personality 4: 525543.
Messent, P. R. 1983. Facilitation of social interaction by companion animals. In New
Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion
Animals, 3746. ed. A. H. Katcher and A.
M. Beck. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Miller, P .A. and opdeHaar, M. A. J. 1997.
Emotional, cognitive, behavioral and temperament characteristics of high-empathy
children. Motivation and Emotion 21:
109125.
Paton, W. 1993. Man and Mouse: Animals in
Medical Research. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Paul, E. S. 1995. Us and them: scientists and
animal rights campaigners views of the animal experimentation debate. Society and
Animals 3: 122.
Paul, E. S. 2000. Love of pets and love of people. In Companion Animals and Us:
Exploring the Relationships Between
People and Pets, 168186, ed. A. L.
Podberscek, E. S. Paul and J. A. Serpell.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paul, E. S. and Serpell, J. A. 1993. Childhood
pet keeping and humane attitudes in young
adulthood. Animal Welfare 2: 321337.
Rossbach, K. A. and Wilson, J. P. 1992. Does
a dogs presence make a person more likeable? Two studies. Anthrozos 5: 4051.
Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C.,
Nias, D. K. B. and Eysenck, H. J. 1986.
Altruism and aggression: the heritability of
individual differences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 50: 11921198.
Serpell, J. A. 1996. In the Company of
Animals: A Study of Human-Animal
Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Serpell, J. A. and Paul, E. S. 1994. Pets and
the development of positive attitudes to animals. In Animals and Human Society:
Changing Perspectives, 127144. ed. A.
Manning and J. Serpell. London: Routledge.

ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

201

Strayer, J. and Roberts, W. 1997. Childrens

personal distance and their empathy: indices
of interpersonal closeness. International
Journal of Behavioural Development 20:
385403.
Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the Natural
World: Changing Attitudes in England
15001800. London: Allen Lane.

Wiesenfeld, A. R., Whitman, P. B. and

Malatesta, C. Z. 1984. Individual differences
among adult women in sensitivity to infants:
evidence in support of an empathy concept.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 46: 118124.
Wisp, L. 1987. History of the concept of
empathy. In Empathy and its Development,
1737. ed. N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix 1. The Animal Empathy Scale

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements, by drawing a circle around
the appropriate number on the agreement disagreement scale. For example, if you think you agree with a
statement fairly strongly, you might circle the 2 on the left hand side of the scale:
Agree very strongly

Disagree very strongly

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
1. So long as theyre warm and well fed, I dont think zoo animals mind
being kept in cages.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

2. Often cats will meow and pester for food even when they are not really hungry. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
3. It upsets me to see animals being chased and killed by lions
in wildlife programs on TV.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

4. I get annoyed by dogs that howl and bark when they are left alone.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

5. Sad films about animals often leave me with a lump in my throat.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

6. Animals deserve to be told off when theyre not behaving properly.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

7. It makes me sad to see an animal on its own in a cage.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

8. People who cuddle and kiss their pets in public annoy me.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

9. A friendly purring cat almost always cheers me up.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

10. It upsets me when I see helpless old animals.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

11. Dogs sometimes whine and whimper for no real reason.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

12. Many people are over-affectionate towards their pets.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

13. I get very angry when I see animals being ill treated.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

14. It is silly to become too attached to ones pets.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

15. Pets have a great influence on my moods.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

16. Sometimes I am amazed how upset people get when an old pets dies.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

17. I enjoy feeding scraps of food to the birds.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

18. Seeing animals in pain upsets me.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

19. People often make too much of the feelings and sensitivities of animals.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

20. I find it irritating when dogs try to greet me by jumping up and licking me.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

21. I would always try to help if I saw a dog or puppy that seemed to be lost.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

22. I hate to see birds in cages where there is no room for them to fly about.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

202

ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000

Paul