Goldsmith-Clark-Lafferty - Intention to Oppose Animal Research the Role of Individual Differences in Nonconformity

7/28/2019 Goldsmith-Clark-Lafferty - Intention to Oppose Animal Research the Role of Individual Differences in Nonconformity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/goldsmith-clark-lafferty-intention-to-oppose-animal-research-the-role-of 1/11

IntentIon to oppose AnImAl ReseARch: the Role ofIndIvIduAl dIffeRences In nonconfoRmIty

Ronald E. Goldsmith

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Ronald a. ClaRk

East Carolina University, NC, USA

BaRBaRa laffERty

University of South Florida, FL, USA

Using animals to test cosmetic products is controversial, but little research has explored its

social and psychological influences. Relationships between two personality constructs related

to nonconformity (independence and anticonformity) and attitudes toward animal testing

were studied using data from a survey of 418 students. The Independence Orientation and

Nonconformity Orientation Scales (Ringness, 1970) were used to measure independence and

anticonformity. Results showed that behavioral intentions were unrelated to age, women were

more likely to get involved in antitesting behavior than were men, holding antitesting attitudes

predicted intended action, and higher levels of anticonformity were associated with oppositionas well, even when the effects of the other variables were held constant.

Keywords: animal rights, animal testing, anticonformity, independence, nonconformity,

personality

Animal testing for research purposes is a controversial topic (e.g., Gluck

& Kubacki, 1991; Hovey, 2004). Because ethical and moral implications are

raised by this practice, some individuals are polarized in their attitudes about

the justification for animal testing. This is particularly true when animal testing

is used for consumer products, with less polarization – but still controversy

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2006, 34(8), 955-964

© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)

Ronald E. Goldsmith, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University,

Tallahassee, FL, USA; Ronald A. Clark, Department of Marketing, College of Business, East

Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA; Barbara Lafferty, Department of Marketing, College of

Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.

Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.

Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Ronald E. Goldsmith, Department of

Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1110, USA.

Phone: 850-644-4401; Fax: 850-644-4098; Email: [email protected]



INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH956

– when the testing is for medical research (Driscoll, 1995). Many researchers

want to understand people’s views of animal use (Knight, Nunkoosing, Vrij, &

Cherryman, 2003). An overview of most published public opinion studies shows

that researchers have used many variables to describe and explain opposition

to a range of animal research practices. Some common explanatory variables

include age, sex, religion, and pet ownership (Hagelin, Carlsson, & Hau, 2003).

While some research focuses on animal-testing attitudes (Hagelin et al.), the

individual personality traits that predispose an individual to form antianimal-

testing sentiments remain largely unstudied. Research can explain why some

people oppose animal testing and suggest why some are more interested in social

movements than are others.

Although some studies have begun to profile this group of people, as a whole,

they account for variance only with respect to attitudes toward animals andanimal testing (Furnham, McManus, & Scott, 2003; Jerolmack, 2003). This

suggests that more personality traits should be included to compile a more

complete profile. We proposed two personality constructs, independence and

anticonformity, that influence attitudes toward using animals in pharmaceutical

and cosmetic product testing, particularly among Generation Y individuals.

These constructs derive from the primary nonconformity elements of social

response theory (Nail, MacDonald, & Levy, 2000). Thus, the purpose of this

study was to assess the relationships between independence and anticonformity

with subjects’ intentions to support an organization that opposes animal testingfor cosmetic and pharmaceutical research. The intended contribution of the study

was an improved understanding of the influence of social response tendencies

(i.e., personality traits) on attitudes toward animal testing.

Attitudes toward animal testing, along with various demographic and personality

variables, have been studied to determine the nature of animal rights activists.

In many attitudinal studies, gender played an important role. Galvin, Colleg,

and Herzog (1998) evaluated participants in the 1996 March for Animals in

Washington, D. C. They found that 74% of the demonstrators were female. The

majority of other studies also indicated that females were more likely to opposeanimal research in general and consumer product testing specifically (e.g.,

Broida, Tingley, Kimball, & Miele, 1993; Eldridge & Gluck, 1997; Furnham et

al., 2003; Kruse, 1999; Matthews & Herzog, 1997; Peek, Bell, & Dunham, 1996;

Pifer, Shimizu, & Pifer, 1994; Plous, 1996).

Various personality traits also have been assessed to help explain the nature

of animal rights activists. Individuals more likely to be pro-animal rights and

oppose testing are characterized by dispositional optimism (Galvin et al., 1998),

sensitivity and imaginativeness (Matthews & Herzog, 1999); they are extraverted-

sensate and extraverted-thinking versus extraverted-intuitive and extraverted-

feeling (Broida et al 1993) intuitive and feeling (Broida et al 1993); and display



INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH 957

ethical idealism and misanthropy (Nickell & Herzog, 1999; Wuensch, Jenkins, &

Poteat, 2002), and empathy (Furnham et al., 2003). Because active opposition to

animal testing (e.g., protesting, demonstrating) is likely to be contrary to societal

norms, it is logical that personality traits linked to a willingness to go against

socially prescribed norms might influence an individual’s intent to oppose animal

research. Because of this, we chose two nonconformity-based personality traits,

independence and anticonformity, as focal constructs.

Social psychologists have long been interested in individual responses to

social influence. Much of the early research in social influence was centered

on conformity with the presumption that individuals either conform or do not

conform (e.g., Asch, 1953). Subsequent conceptualizations of social response

yielded models that depicted social response as a multidimensional construct that

included both conforming and nonconforming behaviors (Willis, 1963). This con-ceptualization was later refined by Nail et al. (2000) to include 4 primary responses

to social influence: congruence, conformity, independence, and anticonformity.

Congruence and conformity are both conforming responses to social influence;

whereas, independence and anticonformity are both nonconforming responses.

Independence is defined as giving zero weight to social norms as a prescription

for behavior (Willis). On the other hand, anticonformity is a more rebellious

form of nonconformity in that the response to social influence is intentionally

antithetical to the prescribed norm (Willis).

Early studies of social influence often examined conforming behaviors under experimentally induced situations whereby normative pressure was applied (e.g.,

Asch, 1953). These studies highlighted the strong effect that situations involving

social influence can have on individual behaviors. However, the extent to which

social influence impacts individual behaviors is also affected by individual

differences in personality (McGuire, 1968). Indeed, some individuals are

predisposed by their personality to respond to social influence with conforming

or nonconforming behaviors (Krech, Crutchfield, & Ballachey, 1962). Therefore,

we examined independence and anticonformity as individual tendencies (traits).

Individuals who tend to respond to social influence with independence are bydefinition unconcerned with social norms (Nail et al., 2000). In fact, they may

not even be aware of what the social norm is for a given behavior. Therefore,

when they choose not to conform to a given norm, they do so without strong

feelings toward the norm. They are fundamentally indifferent to what others

think and act merely on personal preference. These individuals are said to have

an independence orientation. Since animal testing is a polarizing issue, we would

not expect an independence orientation to be related to intent to oppose animal

testing because some individuals are predisposed to react to social influence by

actively opposing the norm (Krech et al., 1962). They are fully aware of the

prescribed societal norm but intentionally choose to oppose the norm often




from strong convictions. These individuals are said to have an anticonformity

orientation. Individuals who are willing to support an organization on a

controversial issue are likely to be willing to go against societal norms for a

cause in which they believe. Hence, it is hypothesized that an anticonformity

orientation is positively related to opposition to animal testing.

method

ParticiPants

Participants were 418 students in business classes at a large southeastern U.S.

university who completed a questionnaire headed “A Social Cause Research

Survey” for extra credit. Although this was a convenience sample, the topic is

one of concern to many young people, particularly college students, so the sampleis appropriate. There were 217 (52%) men and 201 (48%) women in the sample.

Ages ranged from 19 to 55 years, with a mean of 22.3 years (SD = 4.0). There

were 266 (63%) Whites, 44 (11%) African-Americans, 54 (13%) Hispanics, 26

(6%) Asian Americans, and 27 (7%) Others, with one missing value. A t -test

revealed no statistically significant ( p < .05) difference in mean age between men

and women, nor was there a statistically significant difference in mean age across

the ethnic groups. Crosstabulation showed no statistically significant relationship

between gender and race.

Procedure

An initial 423 questionnaires were collected. To enhance data quality, two

items were placed within the other measures to guard against bogus responding

(Dollinger & DiLalla, 1996). One item read: “I have tried to answer all of these

questions honestly and accurately” and used a Likert response format ranging

from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (of which an answer of less

than 6 warranted removal of the respondent). The second item read, “If you

read this item, do not respond to it” (for which any answer warranted removal).

Of the original questionnaires returned, five were removed either because thesequality check items caught bad respondents or because the questionnaire had data

missing for the measures of interest, leaving 418 respondents for the study.

dePendent Variable

The dependent variable was “behavioral intentions,” conceptualized as a

stated intention to support and become involved with a fictitious organization,

the Movement Against Laboratory Testing of Animals (MALTA). A fictitious

organization was described instead of a real one in order to avoid contaminating

the results with participants’ prior beliefs about specific organizations. Also,

some of the participants might have already belonged to an antitesting




organization, such as PETA, or have had attitudes toward existing groups that

were confounded with attitudes unrelated to animal testing. The last page of the

questionnaire described MALTA as focused exclusively on testing issues. After

reading this description, the students responded to four statements describing

potential behavioral reactions: (1) I plan to join MALTA as a Full Member, (2)

I plan to join MALTA as an Associate Member, (3) I plan to donate money to

MALTA to the extent I can spare the money, and (4) I plan to contact MALTA

and express my support. A 7-point Likert response format was provided. Higher

scores indicated greater support for the organization. Exploratory factor analysis

using principal axis extraction yielded a single factor summarizing the intercor-

relations among these items, so they were summed to form a single measure of

behavioral intentions with higher scores indicating greater intent to participate in

MALTA (alpha = .92).

control Variables

Two control variables were included to control for the undoubted influence of

attitudes on behavioral intentions that might obscure or confound the relationship

with the personality variables. Attitudes toward, and knowledge of, animal

testing were measured by four questions at the beginning of the questionnaire: (1)

Do you favor or oppose animal testing on cosmetic products? (2) Do you believe

the use of animals in testing cosmetic products is necessary? (3) Use of animals

for testing cosmetic products is controversial. How familiar are you with theseissues? (4) There are organizations which are trying to restrict, eliminate, or find

alternatives to testing on animals. How much do you know about these groups?

Five response options were given for each question. Factor analysis showed

that the first two items formed one factor and the remaining two items formed

a second factor so the responses to the first two items (r = .65, p < .001) were

summed so that the higher the resulting scores, the more opposed the respondent

was to animal testing. Responses to the second two items (r = .66, p < .001)

were summed to measure knowledge of animal testing organizations, with higher

scores representing greater knowledge.

indePendent Variables

Independence and anticonformity were measured by eight items adapted from

Ringness’s (1970) Independence Orientation and Nonconformity Orientation

scales. Participants responded to 10-point rating scales with endpoints labeled

Most Like Me and Least Like Me. Factor analysis suggested that two independence

items and two anticonformity items best measured these constructs. The

independence items were correlated (r = .59, p < .001) and the anticonformity

items were correlated (r = .67, p < .001). They were summed so that higher scores

indicated greater independence and greater anticonformity




AnAlyses And Results

Much of the data were not normally distributed. The estimates of skewness

and kurtosis were more than twice their standard errors for most of the variables.

The positive skew for behavior reflects the fact that many participants were

unwilling to take any actions in support of MALTA, but the negative skew

for attitude shows preponderance of opposition to the practice. The negative

skew for knowledge reveals that most respondents reported little knowledge of

similar organizations. These departures from normality might have influenced

the analysis.

The correlations appearing in Table 1 show that participant age was only

weakly correlated (r = .09) with one of the independent variables, independence,

but that there were several differences between men and women1

. The biserialcorrelations reveal that women were more opposed to animal testing (r = .34, p

< .01), felt themselves to be more knowledgeable about antitesting groups, and

intended to support MALTA more than did men (r = .22, p < .01). This result

is consistent with results from prior research (cf., Hagelin et al., 2003). Men

described themselves as more likely to be anticonformists (r = -.15, p < .01),

consistent with prior research (Goldsmith, Clark, & Lafferty, 2005).

Table 1

intercorrelations of Variables

Variables

Behavior Age Sexa Attitude Know Independ Anticonf

Behavior -- -.02** -- .34** .21** .02** .09**

Age .06** -- -- -.03** .07** .01** -.05**

Sex .22** .02** -- -- -- -- --

Attitude .42** .08** .34** -- .17** .03** .01**

Knowledge .33** .07** .12** .16** -- .09** .10**

Independence .02** .09** -.05** -.01** .11** -- .15**

Anticonformity .14** -.05** -.15** -.04** .15** .19** --

a Biserial correlation where 0 = men and 1 = women.

Note: Pearson correlations below the diagonal and Kendall’s tau-b correlations above diagonal.

The correlations also show that intention to support MALTA was positively

related to holding antitesting attitudes (r = .42, p < .01), having knowledge of

antitesting groups (r = .33, p < .01), and anticonformity (r = .14, p < .01), but was

unrelated to independence (r = .02). In the light of the nonnormality of the data,

1 A one-way ANOVA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in mean




nonparametric correlations were also computed. These, however, are consistent

with the Pearson correlations. To further analyze these relationships, multiple

regression was used where behavior was the dependent variable regressed across

the independent variables. Three models were sequentially tested (see Table 2).

Table 2

regressionanalyses

MODEL ONE

Variable Beta T Sig Partiala R2 Adj R2 F(2,415) Sig

Age -.056 -1.16 .245 -.057 .052 .048 11.47 < .001

Sex -.221 -4.62 < .000 .221

MODEL TWO


Age -.049 -1.15 .253 -.056 .250 .243 34.44 < .000

Sex .071 1.57 .117 .077

Attitude .347 7.57 < .000 .349

Knowledge .266 -6.12 < .000 .288

MODEL THREE


Age -.039 -.914 .361 -.045 .266 .256 24.85 < .000

Sex .092 2.01 .045 .099

Attitude .344 7.67 < .000 .354

Knowledge .244 5.57 < .000 .265

Independence -.020 -.462 .644 -.023

Anticonformity .133 3.00 .003 .146

a The partial correlation coefficient in multiple regression analysis is the value “that measures the

strength of the relationship between the criterion or dependent variable and a single independent

variable when the effects of the other independent variables in the model are held constant. . . . This

value is used in sequential variable selection methods of regression model estimation to identify

the independent variable with the greatest incremental predictive power beyond the independent

variables already in the regression model” (Hair et al., 1998, p. 146).

In the first model, behavior was regressed across age and sex alone. This

analysis replicated the findings that age was unrelated to the dependent variable

and that women were more likely to support MALTA than men were. The second

model added attitudes toward animal testing and knowledge of antitesting

groups. This model also reflected the influence of attitudes and knowledge on

behavioral intentions shown in the correlations.

The third model introduced the personality constructs, independence and

anticonformity. Even when the effects of gender, attitude, and knowledge

are included anticonformity was positively related to behavioral intentions




Individuals who scored higher on the anticonformity scale – indicating higher

levels of anticonformity – were more likely to support MALTA, an organization

likely to be controversial and outside the mainstream.

dIscussIon

Our purpose was to assess the relationships between two personality

dimensions, independence and anticonformity, with self-reported intention to

support an organization dedicated to protesting against the testing of cosmetics

and pharmaceuticals on animals. The goal was to further our understanding of the

psychology of this social behavior. We hypothesized that these two personality

dimensions might partially explain this behavior. The results showed that while

anticonformity was positively related to behavioral intention, independence wasnot.

The study has both strengths and weaknesses. The nonrandom sample prevents

confident generalization of the findings to larger populations. However, the

sample was relatively large, the measured variables represented variation in

the constructs well, and the measures were reliable. The size of the relationship

between anticonformity and behavioral intentions was not large in absolute terms

(partial correlation = .146), but we also could not show that it was spuriously

caused by another variable.

The findings contribute to the growing body of research describing attitudes andpersonality factors associated with opposition to animal testing. It appears that

some of those opposed might be motivated by their anticonformity tendencies.

It could be that anticonformists seek out socially unpopular activities to align

themselves with, or it is possible that among people who share antianimal testing

opinions, it is the anticonformists who are most likely to participate in formal

organizations to express these opinions. Future research certainly could shed

light on this question. Moreover, the findings suggest that anticonformity might

be a motivating factor across a variety of social movements. Future research

should seek to determine whether anticonformists sympathize with or belong to,

more than one socially disapproved organization. Knowledge of such a tendency

could be used by leaders of social groups to attract new members by appealing

to anticonformist feelings. Advertising and promotion could emphasize a

lack of social approval, thereby making these groups more attractive to some

individuals.

RefeRences

Asch, S. E. (1953). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In,

D. Cartwright & A. Zander, (Eds.), Group dynamics. New York, NY: Harper & Row.




Broida, J., Tingley, L., Kimball, R., & Miele, J. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and

anti-vivisectionists. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 1 (2), 129-144.

Dollinger, S. J., & DiLalla, D. L. (1996). Cleaning up data and running preliminary analyses. In F.

T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook (pp. 167-176). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Driscoll, J. W. (1995). Attitudes toward animals: Species ratings. Society & Animals: Journal of

Human-Animal Studies, 3 (2), 139-150.

Eldridge, J. J., & Gluck, J. P. (1997). Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics

& Behavior , 6 (3), 239-256.

Furnham, A., McManus, C., & Scott, D. (2003). Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal

welfare. Anthrozoos, 16 (2), 135-146.

Galvin, S., Colleg, M. H., & Herzog, H. A. Jr. (1998). Attitudes and dispositional optimism of animal

rights demonstrators. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 6 (1), 1-11.

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.

Goldsmith, R. E., Clark, R. A., & Lafferty, B. A. (2005). Tendency to conform: A new measure andits relationship to psychological reactance. Psychological Reports, 96, 591-594.

Hagelin, J., Carlsson, H.-E., & Hau, J. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal

experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of

Science, 12 (1), 67-81.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hovey, H. H. (2004, March 31). PETA pulls Pfizer-shareholder lever. Wall Street Journal, p. 1.

Jerolmack C. (2003). Tracing the profile of animal rights supporters: A preliminary investigation.

Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 11 (3), 245-263.

Knight, S., Nunkoosing, K., Vrij, A., & Cherryman, J. (2003). Using grounded theory to examinepeople’s attitudes toward how animals are used. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal

Studies, 11 (4), 307-327.

Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1962). Individual in society. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Kruse, C. R. (1999). Gender, views of nature, and support for animal rights. Society & Animals:

Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 7 (3), 179-198.

Matthews, S., & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1999). Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals.

Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 5 (2), 169-175.

McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W.

Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (pp. 1130-1187). Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Nail, P. R., MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (2000). Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social

response. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (3), 454-470.

Nickell, D., & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1999). Ethical ideology and moral persuasion: Personal moral

philosophy, gender, and judgements of pro- and anti-animal research propaganda. Society &

Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 4 (1), 53-64.

Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J., & Dunham, C. C. (1996). Gender, gender ideology, and animal rights

advocacy. Gender & Society, 10 (4), 464-478.

Pifer, L., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international

comparisons. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 2 (2), 95-113.

Plous, S. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education:Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychological Science, 7 (6), 352-358.




Ringness, T. A. (1970). Identifying figures, their achievement values, and children’s values as related

to actual and predicted achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (3), 174-185.

Willis, R. H. (1963). Conformity, independence and anticonformity. Human Relations, 16 (2), 373-

388.

Wuensch, K. L., Jenkins, K. W., & Poteat, G. M. (2002). Misanthropy, idealism and attitudes towardanimals. Anthrozoos, 15 (2), 139-149.



Documents

Goldsmith-Clark-Lafferty - Intention to Oppose Animal Research the Role of Individual Differences in Nonconformity