OUR UNCONSCIOUS BRIDGE TO NATURE: THE ROLE OF PETS AND ANIMAL VIEWS

IN A PERSON’S ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, CONSERVATION HABITS, AND

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

Florida Gulf Coast University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirement of the Degree of

Master of Science

By

Ariel Chomey

2014

APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

____________________________

Ariel Chomey

Approved: April 2014

____________________________

Charles W. Gunnels, Ph.D.

Committee Co-Chair / Advisor

____________________________

Edwin Everham, Ph.D.

Committee Co-Chair

____________________________

David Green, M.S.

____________________________

Kristine De Welde, Ph.D.

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form

meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Charles Gunnels for his invaluable guidance in developing my

thoughts, my writing, and my character. I would like to thank Dr. Edwin Everham and Professor

David Green for their help in formulating my survey and advancing my thinking about this

research. Thank you to Dr. Kristine De Welde, without whom the analysis and interpretation of

my qualitative data would not have occurred. I would also like to thank the Office of Research

and Graduate Studies for financial support that made this research possible. Also, thank you to

the Department of Biological Sciences and the Department of Marine and Ecological Sciences

for financial support in making it possible to attend graduate school as well as the intellectual

support to guide me through this process. I would also like to thank the many anonymous

Mechanical Turk survey respondents who made this research possible. Additionally, thanks to

the Mechanical Turk platform, which allowed me to conduct this survey nationwide and across a

broad spectrum of individuals. I would like to thank Barry and Cynthia Chomey for their support

and encouragement. In addition, thank you to Kyle Martins for his emotional support and

reassurance. Finally, I want to thank pets. I was driven to conduct this research because of my

experiences and interactions with pets, and for that, I am grateful.

iv

ABSTRACT

Humans and domestic animals have co-evolved for thousands of years, developing a close

relationship. These animals were used as workers, but shifted to companions as the concept of

the “pet” became commonplace. By interacting with pets, humans may gain social information

about the environment because pets retain wild characteristics. A nationwide survey was

conducted to determine if association with pets related to a person’s environmental attitudes,

conservation habits, and knowledge. Pet owners favored better animal treatment, were more

concerned about animal welfare issues, and showed higher conservation habits compared to non-

pet owners. In addition, individuals that owned mixed breed animals were more concerned about

human impacts on the environment, ecological issues, and showed greater knowledge about their

pets compared to owners of purebred animals. It appears that mixed breed pets may act as a

bridge between humans and the natural environment.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS …………………………………………………………………….. iii

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………….. v

CHAPTER 1 …………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 13

CHAPTER 2

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Methods ………………………………………………………………………………… 21

Results ………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………… 33

Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 37

Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………………... 40

CHAPTER 3

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 48

Methods ………………………………………………………………………………… 51

Results ………………………………………………………………………………….. 59

Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………… 63

Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 68

Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………………... 70

CHAPTER 4

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 78

Methods ………………………………………………………………………………… 82

vi

Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………… 85

Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………….. 96

Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………… 98

Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………………. 100

CHAPTER 5 ………………………………………………………………………………….. 102

APPENDIX A

Copy of Survey ……………………………………………………………………….. 107

1

CHAPTER 1

THE EFFECT OF HUMAN-PET INTERACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES,

CONSERVATION HABITS, AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Social learning, where one animal gains and retains information from another individual,

can occur within or between species (Nicol 1995). Social learning differs from other types of

learning because it involves one organism acquiring information that is already known from

another organism. Because the information acquired is already known, it allows the learner to

gain information more efficiently than through individual trial and error. For example, brown

bats were trained to catch mealworms on a string. Many bats that observed the demonstrator bats

attacking the mealworm subsequently showed the same behavior, while bats that did not observe

the demonstrator did not attack the mealworms (Wright et al.,, 2011). The efficiency of

information transfer through social learning is evident because non-observer bats (individual

learning) did not show the behavior compared to observer bats (social learning). In addition,

social learning increases the likelihood that an individual will gain the information. By

interacting with others, individuals have more opportunities to come into contact with

information that they might not experience on their own. Also, individuals can new gain

information through social learning that may only be relevant for a specific population rather

than the species as a whole.

Despite the efficient acquisition of information, using social information includes both

benefits and costs. Social information can benefit the organism by providing information about

food sources or predators without the need for individual discovery (Kaminski et al.,, 2005). The

learner saves time looking for food and predators that can then be spent acquiring more resources

2

for survival. However, using social information can also be costly as the information gained can

be incorrect, inefficient, or outdated (Rieucau and Giraldeau 2011). The information may not

necessarily provide the best means of accomplishing a task; rather, it is only a method that has

been proven effective and successful by other individuals. For example, guppies were trained to

take either a short or long route to a feeding station. Guppies that interacted with conspecifics

trained for the long route continued to use that route even after the original guppies were

removed, although this decreased with time. Those guppies that interacted with conspecifics

trained for the long route also learned to take the short route slower than guppies that had not

interacted with trained conspecifics from either group (Laland and Williams 1998). This study

shows that incorrect and costly information can be transmitted socially. Gaining poor quality

information can cause the learner additional cost as they must then re-learn the information

through individual trial and error. Trial and error learning takes time away from other important

activities, such as looking for food, predators, or mates. Therefore, individuals that engage in

social learning cannot be living under highly sub-optimal conditions due to the high risk of

gaining poor quality information and then spending additional resources to correct the

information. Finally, engaging in lots of social learning can distract from trial and error learning.

Because social learning can occur between species, it increases the likelihood that humans will

gain new information from their pets.

In mammals, social learning occurs in a variety of situations and among many different

types of organisms. Mammalian social learning, through vision, olfaction, or audition, is applied

in many contexts, such as foraging, predator interactions, and group relations, and has been

observed in members of the same species (Nicol 1995). For example, adults in a population of

wild mongoose utilized one of two (or both) foraging techniques (biting or smashing) to open

3

food items in the natural environment. Young mongoose observed an adult demonstrator

performing one of the behaviors on an artificial food item. Young were later presented with the

artificial food item and tested to determine their preferred foraging technique. Those that had

observed the biting technique showed the same behavior while those that had observed the

smashing technique showed the smashing behavior (Muller and Cant 2010). This study shows

that young can learn foraging techniques from adults and that more than one technique to

accomplish the same goal can exist within a population. Social learning can also be induced in

mammals through training. For example, female golden hamsters were trained to retrieve food

hanging on a chain by pulling up the chain. The females were subsequently bred and then

interacted with untrained pups. Pups that interacted with a trained mother showed the food

retrieval behavior more than pups that did not interact with a trained mother (Previde and Poli

1996). By utilizing the information about obtaining food previously acquired by the mother, the

hamster pups benefit from social learning. Social learning also occurs among wild mammals. For

example, marmosets observed demonstrators that opened a canister holding food using either

their mouth or their hands. Marmosets that watched the demonstrator open the canister with their

mouth were more likely to use their mouth to open the canisters. Marmosets that had not seen a

mouth opening demonstration rarely used their mouth to open a canister. The increased use of

mouth opening by marmosets that had observed this behavior indicates that observation was

important in the subsequent use of the behavior (Voelkl and Huber 2000). Because marmosets

that had observed mouth opening used this method, they learned socially by utilizing information

known by the demonstrator.

Social learning in mammals can also occur between members of different species. For

example, two species of tamarins, the Avila-Pires saddle-back tamarin and the red-cap

4

moustached tamarin, form mixed-species groups to aid in preventing predation. One species

generally watches for terrestrial predators while the other watches for aerial predators (Peres

1993). This example shows that social learning occurs between species because information

about a predator gained by one individual can then be learned by other members of the group to

reduce predation. Additionally, woodchucks can recognize alarm calls of the eastern chipmunk

and use this information to increase their vigilance for predators (Aschemeier and Maher 2011).

Because the woodchucks are using information that is already known by the chipmunks

(presence of a predator), this example illustrates social learning between different species of

mammals.

Social learning can also occur between mammals and humans. For example, African fur

seals were tested for use of human cues using an object choice task, which has been used to test a

wide variety of animals. In an object choice task, two or more objects are presented to the subject

(the objects may be containers hiding food or not). A human then gives some communicative

signal to indicate the correct object, such as pointing at, gazing at, tapping on, touching, or

placing a marker on the object. African fur seals used some human cues correctly to choose the

object such as pointing or gazing, but not other cues such as pointing with the hand and not the

arm (Scheumann and Call 2004). In a similar experiment, bottlenose dolphins used human

pointing and gazing to perform a predetermined action on the specified object (Pack and Herman

2004). Evidence of social learning between members of different species and especially between

humans and other species raises the question of social learning between humans and companion

animals.

An animal’s ability to engage in social learning is critical to the success of its

domestication (e.g. Call et al.,, 2003, Topal et al.,, 2009, Hauser et al.,, 2011). Social learning is

5

critical to domestication because animals must be able to respond to the human environment.

Social learning within a species has been shown in a variety of situations in many domestic

animals. For example, the likelihood that calves suckle successfully from a teat connected to a

mechanical apparatus increases when they observe another calf also suckling (Broom 1999).

This example illustrates social learning in that a calf that sees another suckling utilizes the

information provided by the demonstrating calf (that the teat is a food source) and begins to

suckle. In addition, domestic goats will follow the orientation and gaze of another goat that is

looking at a person with food (Kaminski et al.,, 2005). The ability of the observing goat to orient

in the same direction as the demonstrating goat is social learning because the observing goat

gains information about the person and food. Social learning allows domestic animals to navigate

an ever-changing human environment associated with new technologies and cultural norms.

Domestic animals can also gain from social learning with humans. Social learning from

humans to domestic animals can be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional learning

occurs when humans train animals in different ways for a variety of outcomes (e.g., McCall

1990, Hiby et al.,, 2004). For example, domestic pigs can be trained to respond to an individually

specific call produced by an electronic feeder signaling access to food. Each sow has a specific

call that indicates it can access the electronic feeder, while other pigs will not receive food upon

another’s call. Sows are allowed an initial period of unrestricted access to food where their sound

is played prior to the release of food. Later, the sow must respond to its call to receive food

(Manteuffel et al.,, 2011). This training method can be used to reduce aggression between

animals trying to access the feeder at the same time. Training is also found in domestic animals

other than livestock. For example, dogs can be trained to detect whether or not a cow is in

estrous by smelling a sample of vaginal fluid. Dogs can also detect estrous in samples of cow

6

urine or milk (Fischer-Tenhagen et al.,, 2011). The ability of dogs to detect estrous can aid in the

breeding of livestock. While training dominates how we view social learning in pets,

unintentional social learning appears to be very important.

Recent evidence indicates that unintentional social learning is critical for domestic

animals to navigate human environments (Call et al.,, 2003, Topal et al.,, 2009, Hauser et al.,,

2011). For example, domestic goats used touching and pointing cues (Kaminski et al.,, 2005) and

horses used marker placement cues and pointing (Proops et al., 2010) given by humans in object

choice tests to choose correct objects. These examples illustrate unintentional social learning

because goats and horses used information already known and demonstrated by humans to select

correct containers, without being trained. In addition, goats and horses used different cues from

humans; these examples show that different domestic animals have different abilities for social

learning, which may have led to their relative levels of domestication by humans. For example,

both domestic cats and dogs use human pointing to select the correct object during an object

choice task (Miklosi et al., 2005), illustrating their ability to learn unintentionally from humans.

In addition, domestic dogs have also been shown to learn unintentionally from humans in a

variety of different situations. For example, dogs observed two experimenters with food – one

that was willing to share food (generous) and one that was not (selfish). A human beggar

approached each experimenter seeking food and was either turned away or given food.

Following the observations, dogs approached the generous experimenter more than the selfish

experimenter (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2011). This study shows that dogs are able to gain

information from humans unintentionally in a variety of situations. Because information can be

exchanged through social learning from humans to domestic animals, information may also

travel in the opposite direction, from domestic animals to humans through social learning.

7

Humans also gain information through social learning on a daily basis. Notions about

social learning in humans have been greatly influenced by the idea of the “meme.” The concept

of a meme was first introduce by Richard Dawkins in 1976 and was then defined as a unit of

cultural transmission passed on through imitation (Blackmore 1998). Although alternate

definitions have been proposed, Dawkin’s definition is useful in helping to classify all the ways

humans learn socially. For example, learning a language or acquiring skills in mathematics are

both ways in which humans learn socially (Herrmann et al., 2007). These acts can also be

considered as memes, because learning new words or mathematic symbols requires imitation of

information that is already known by another. Much knowledge that humans gain is acquired

through social learning. Learning material in a classroom or learning to play a musical

instrument are examples of human social learning as humans are acquiring previously known

knowledge from other individuals. The vast ability of humans to learn from other humans opens

up the possibility that we can also learn from other species.

We clearly gain information from members of our own species, but we may also gain

information from other species, specifically our pets. Humans and domestic animals have a

unique co-evolutionary history, which may have created the conditions for social learning from

domestic animals to humans. Early in the domestication process, interactions between humans

and early cats or dogs likely resulted from attraction to and sharing of food resources (Miklosi et

al., 2005). Eventually, domestic animals were utilized by humans as workers for a variety of

tasks, such as controlling pests, hunting, and herding (Moody et al., 2006, Faure and Kitchener

2009). During this same period, the interaction between humans and working domestic animals

allowed for the development of a close relationship. For example, a fossil of a human buried with

a dog (12,000 BCE) suggests the initial development of human-animal bonds (Davis 1978).

8

Additional archaeological evidence of a human buried in association with a cat has been dated to

about 9,500 years ago (Vigne et al., 2004) and depictions of cats in Ancient Egyptian art also

suggest the development of a close relationship between humans and cats (Faure and Kitchener

2009). These examples illustrate the development of a human-animal bond beyond dogs. The

unique history and interactions between humans and dogs and cats may have created an

environment that allows for the unintentional exchange of social information.

The Industrial Revolution in the west created conditions that changed the relationship

between humans and domestic animals. Domestic animals shifted to companion animals and

moved from outside into our homes. Humans were also able to breed dogs and cats to achieve a

certain appearance, regardless of its utility for working tasks. The Victorian fascination with

breed purity led to the development of many new breeds during this period through artificial

selection (Sampson and Binns 2006). The change in the role of domestic animals allowed for

new and different interactions to occur between humans and companion animals.

Despite physical and behavioral alteration by humans, pets still retain many

characteristics of their wild ancestors. Early domestic animals were likely selected by humans for

their tameness. However, other characteristics along with tameness have carried over to the

present day. For example, domestic cats, like their ancestors, still have the ability to hunt prey.

Domestic dogs, on the other hand, mainly scavenge for food and do not show the same hunting

abilities as their ancestors (Bradshaw 2006). The hunting abilities of cats and dogs may be a

result of their relative levels of domestication, because dogs have been domesticated for a longer

period of time than cats and therefore, may have lost more characteristics of their wild ancestors.

However, other behaviors continue to be retained by domestic dogs. For example, wolves can

point with their muzzles to communicate with other wolves about a specific object or area

9

(Kubinyi et al., 2007). Some domestic dogs still retain this behavior, especially “pointers.” In

addition, both domestic cats and other wild cats rub objects for various reasons, such as marking

them with a scent (Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont 2000). Domestic dogs, along with other

wild canids, scratch the ground after elimination to leave a territorial mark (Fox 1971). Because

domesticated dogs and cats retain many of the characteristics of their wild ancestors, observing

them may allow humans to gain insight into natural processes.

Similar to the way that pets gain information from humans, humans may also gain

information from pets through social learning. There is no evidence that pets intentionally teach

humans (Kaminski et al., 2011), but pets may unintentionally give information to people. For

example, people may learn about biological processes just by observing their pets. Pets, because

of their retention of wild characteristics, have information about natural processes that humans

stand to gain. The close interactions between humans and pets may allow people to gather this

information through unintentional social learning. People can then apply the knowledge gained

from interactions with pets to larger ecological concepts (i.e. transfer) (Beach 1999). This

increased awareness of ecological concepts would affect a person’s environmental attitudes: their

knowledge and concern about environmental issues.

To determine whether humans acquire information and can learn from their pets, we will

use a survey that collects quantitative and qualitative data to compare pet and non-pet owners’

science knowledge and ethical positions. We will first determine how pet ownership affects a

person’s understanding and appreciation of nature (i.e. environmental attitudes). We will then

measure the effects of pet ownership on a person’s scientific literacy (e.g. ecological,

evolutionary, and behavioral understanding). We expect pet ownership to influence what a

person learns based on the interaction between three factors (1 = exposure to animals, 2 = degree

10

to which the pet has been modified from its ancestral form, and 3 = empathy with animals). For

example, pet ownership increases opportunities to observe and interact with animals. We expect

that this increased exposure to animals will positively influence a person’s knowledge about the

biology of companion animals (Table 1). Pet ownership should also affect a person’s ecological

and behavioral knowledge. People with pets are expected to know more about these biological

disciplines because they have the chance to observe their animals extensively. However, we also

expect that the type of pet that a person owns will also affect their overall knowledge. The degree

that a pet has been modified from its ancestral form has varied greatly. Some pets have been

tamed, such as snakes, or bred minimally, such as cats or mixed breed dogs, from their ancestor,

while other animals, such as purebred dogs, have been greatly altered from their ancestors

through intense breeding and selection. We expect people who own pets that retain wild

characteristics to show more biological literacy than owners of purebred animals. In addition,

owning a pet allows people to develop empathy towards animals. We expect that pet owners will

show increased empathy towards animals and therefore different ethical positions than non-pet

owners. We expect pet owners to be more conservation minded (e.g. in favor of species and land

protection) because they empathize with the needs of animals when considering questions about

environmental issues and habits. Non-pet owners likely have less opportunity to develop

empathy towards animals and are expected to be less conservation minded (e.g. in favor of

development, control of nature, etc.) when considering questions about environmental issues and

habits. We also expect that modification from ancestral form will influence a person’s feelings

about their pets. Pet owners are expected to show higher levels of anthropomorphism, the

application of human emotions or terms to describe non-human animals (Serpell 2002), than

non-pet owners. We expect non-pet owners to show higher levels of human exceptionalism, the

11

belief that animals do not possess any thoughts or feelings similar to humans (Shannon 2009),

because of their limited exposure to and empathy with animals. Those who own pets that have

been less modified are expected to show a more balanced view between anthropomorphism and

human exceptionalism because the animal they are observing still retains many characteristics of

its wild ancestor. This will give these pet owners a more objective view of the animal than

owners of highly modified animals or non-pet owners. The influence of these factors on a

person’s knowledge and opinions is expected to affect their responses to questions about various

topics, including their knowledge and overall perspective.

12

Category Purebred Owner Mixed Breed Owner Non-pet Owner

General science knowledge Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate

Ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge Intermediate Higher Lower

Environmental attitudes Conservation Conservation Development

Conservation habits Higher Higher Lower

Anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism Anthropomorphic Balanced Human Exceptionalist

Table 1: Predicted responses in each survey category for purebred owners, mixed breed owners, and those who do not own a pet.

13

LITERATURE CITED

Aschemeier, L. M. and C. R. Maher. 2011. Eavesdropping of woodchucks (Marmota monax) and

eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) on heterospecific alarm calls. Journal of

Mammalogy 92, 493-499.

Beach, K. 1999. Consequential transition: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in

education. Review of Research in Education 24, 101-139.

Blackmore, S. 1998. Imitation and the definition of a meme. Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary

Models of Information Transmission 2, 159-170.

Bradshaw, J. and C. Cameron-Beaumont. 2000. The signalling repertoire of the domestic cat and

its undomesticated relatives. Pages 67-93 in D. C. Turner and P. Bateson, editors. The

domestic cat: The biology of its behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bradshaw, J. W. S. 2006. The evolutionary basis for the feeding behavior of domestic dogs

(Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus). Journal of Nutrition 136, 1927S-1931S.

Broom, D. M. 1999. Social transfer of information in domestic animals. Pages158-168 in H. O.

Box and K. R. Gibson, editors. Mammalian social learning: Comparative and ecological

perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Call, J., J. Brauer, J. Kaminski, and M. Tomasello. 2003. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are

sensitive to the attentional state of humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 117, 257-

263.

Davis, S. J. M. 1978. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of

Israel. Nature 276, 608-610.

Faure, E. and A. C. Kitchener. 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships

between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.

Fischer-Tenhagen, C., L. Wetterholm, B. A. Tenhagen, and W. Heuwieser. 2011. Training dogs

on a scent platform for oestrus detection in cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science

131, 63-70.

Fox, M. W. 1971. Behavior of wolves, dogs and related canids. Harper and Row, New York,

New York, USA.

Hauser, M. D., J. A. Comins, L. M. Pytka, D. P. Cahill, and S. Velez-Calderon. 2011. What

experimental experience affects dogs' comprehension of human communicative actions?

Behavioural Processes 86, 7-20.

Herrmann, E., J. Call, M. V. Hernandez-Lloreda, B. Hare, and M. Tomasello. 2007. Humans

have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis.

Science 317, 1360-1366.

Hiby, E. F., N. J. Rooney, and J. W. S. Bradshaw. 2004. Dog training methods: their use,

effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare 13, 63-69.

Kaminski, J., M. Neumann, J. Bräuer, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2011. Dogs, Canis familiaris,

communicate with humans to request but not to inform. Animal Behaviour 82, 651-658.

Kaminski, J., J. Riedel, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2005. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow

gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69, 11-18.

Kubinyi, E., Z. Virányi, and Á. Miklósi. 2007. Comparative social cognition: From wolf and dog

to humans. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews 2, 26-46.

Laland, K. N. and K. Williams. 1998. Social transmission of maladaptive information in the

guppy. Behavioral Ecology 9, 493-499.

14

Manteuffel, C., P. C. Schon, and G. Manteuffel. 2011. Beyond electronic feeding: The

implementation of call feeding for pregnant sows. Computers and Electronics in

Agriculture 79, 36-41.

Marshall-Pescini, S., C. Passalacqua, A. Ferrario, P. Valsecchi, and E. Prato-Previde. 2011.

Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour 81, 1177-1183.

McCall, C. A. 1990. A review of learning behavior in horses and its application in horse training.

Journal of Animal Science 68, 75-81.

Miklosi, A., N. Pongracz, G. Lakatos, J. Topal, and V. Csanyi. 2005. A comparative study of the

use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and

humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119, 179-

186.

Moody, J. A., L. A. Clark, and K. E. Murphy. 2006. Working dogs: History and applications.

Pages 1-18 in E. A. Ostrander, U. Giger, and K. Lindblad-Toh, editors. The dog and its

genome. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, USA.

Muller, C. A. and M. A. Cant. 2010. Imitation and traditions in wild banded mongooses. Current

Biology 20, 1171-1175.

Nicol, C. 1995. The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal

Behaviour Science 44, 79-98.

Pack, A. A. and L. M. Herman. 2004. Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) comprehend the

referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task.

Journal of Comparative Psychology 118, 160-171.

Peres, C. A. 1993. Anti-predation benefits in a mixed-species group of Amazonian tamarins.

Folia Primatologica 61, 61-76.

Previde, E. P. and M. D. Poli. 1996. Social learning in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus

auratus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 110, 203-208.

Proops, L., M. Walton, and K. McComb. 2010. The use of human-given cues by domestic

horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 79, 1205-1209.

Rieucau, G. and L. A. Giraldeau. 2011. Exploring the costs and benefits of social information

use: An appraisal of current experimental evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366, 949-957.

Sampson, J. and M. M. Binns. 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and

breed clubs. Pages 19-30 in E. A. Ostrander, U. Giger, and K. Lindblad-Toh, editors. The

dog and its genome. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New

York, USA.

Scheumann, M. and J. Call. 2004. The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals

(Arctocephalus pusillus). Animal Cognition 7, 224-230.

Serpell, J. A. 2002. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection--beyond the "cute

response". Society and Animals 10, 437-454.

Shannon, L. 2009. Invisible parts: Animals and the renaissance anatomies of human

exceptionalism. Pages 137-158 in T. Tyler and M. Rossini, editors. Animal Encounters.

BRILL, Leiden, Netherlands.

Topal, J., G. Gergely, A. Erdohegyi, G. Csibra, and A. Miklosi. 2009. Differential sensitivity to

human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325, 1269-1272.

Vigne, J. D., J. Guilaine, K. Debue, L. Haye, and P. Gérard. 2004. Early taming of the cat in

Cyprus. Science 304, 259.

Voelkl, B. and L. Huber. 2000. True imitation in marmosets. Animal Behaviour 60, 195-202.

15

Wright, G. S., G. S. Wilkinson, and C. F. Moss. 2011. Social learning of a novel foraging task by

big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Animal Behaviour 82, 1075-1083.

16

CHAPTER 2

“MUTTS” ENCOURAGE HIGHER ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, CONSERVATION

HABITS, AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

INTRODUCTION

Social learning, where one animal gains and retains information from another individual,

can occur within or between species (Nicol 1995) and differs from other types of learning

because it involves acquiring information that is already known. Social learning can benefit both

signaling and/ or receiving individuals because it allows for efficient transfer of information (e.g.

Wright et al., 2011), increased likelihood of encountering information, and the ability to gain

information that is relevant to a specific population (e.g. Boesch et al., 1994). For example,

social information can provide knowledge about food sources or predators without the need for

individual discovery (Kaminski et al., 2005). Exchange of information among individuals of the

same species via social information is so critical that it is potentially ubiquitous for social

animals (e.g. stingrays, Thonhauser et al., 2013; whooping cranes, Mueller et al., 2013; ants,

Möglich et al., 1974; common octopus, Fiorito and Scotto 1992).

Social learning can occur within species in wild mammals (e.g. marmosets, Voelkl and

Huber 2000) or through teaching, where one individual changes their behavior in the presence of

another individual (e.g. meerkats, Thornton and McAuliffe 2006). Social learning in mammals

can also occur between members of different species (e.g. Avila-Pires saddle-back tamarins learn

from red-cap moustached tamarins, Peres 1993, woodchucks learn from eastern chipmunks,

Aschemeier and Maher 2011). For example, mule deer can recognize alarm calls from yellow-

17

bellied marmots and use this information to increase their vigilance for predators (Carrasco and

Blumstein 2012).

The ability of an animal to engage in social learning is critical to the successful

domestication of horses, cats, and dogs among others because animals must be able to respond to

a human environment. Domestic animals can gain information from humans through social

learning, regardless of whether the communication is intentional (e.g. training) or unintentional.

While training dominates our view of interspecies social learning between humans and

companion animals, unintentional social learning also appears important. Recent evidence

indicates that unintentional social learning is critical for domestic animals to navigate human

environments and gain disproportionate access to resources (e.g. domestic goats - Kaminski et

al., 2005; horses - Proops et al., 2010; and dogs and cats - Miklosi et al., 2005). For example,

dogs more often approached a person that they had previously observed sharing food with

another human rather than approaching a person they had observed not sharing food with another

human (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2011).

If information can pass from humans to domestic animals, information may also travel in

the opposite direction. For example, humans may be able to gain information from their pets,

because of our unique co-evolutionary history. Early interactions between humans and cats or

dogs likely resulted from sharing of food resources (Miklosi et al., 2005). Humans also used

domestic animals as workers for various tasks (e.g. pest control, hunting, herding) (Moody et al.,

2006; Faure and Kitchener 2009). These interactions between humans and working domestic

animals also allowed for the development of a close relationship, as evidenced by the fossil and

historical record (e.g. Davis 1978; Vigne et al., 2004; Faure and Kitchener 2009). The unique

18

history between humans and dogs and cats may have created an environment that allowed for the

unintentional exchange of social information.

The Industrial Revolution in the west created conditions that changed the relationship

between humans and domestic animals. Some domestic animals, like dogs and cats, shifted from

work to companion animals and moved from the outside into our homes. Humans also bred dogs

and cats to achieve a certain appearance, regardless of its utility for working tasks, leading to the

development of many new breeds during this period (Sampson and Binns 2006). Many of these

newly created breeds included animals that were highly modified from their wild, ancestral

forms, such as English bulldogs, toy poodles, Scottish folds, and Peterbalds. The change in the

role of domestic animals allowed for new and different interactions to occur between humans

and companion animals.

As our interactions with domestic animals changed, so too did our interactions with the

environment. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, people relied upon the natural environment for

living space, food production, and other resources. At the same time that people started to

develop the modern domestic breeds, people also began to move from rural locations to cities

with the advent of factories (Hirschman and Mogford 2009). This relocation may have

disconnected people from their reliance on the natural world, which meant that many humans no

longer had the opportunity to develop an intimate relationship with the environment.

Pets retain many characteristics of their wild ancestors despite physical and behavioral

alteration by humans. For example, domestic cats, like their ancestors, still have the ability to

hunt prey (Bradshaw 2006). In addition, domesticated dogs, similar to wolves, point to identify a

specific object or area (Kubinyi et al., 2007). Domestic cats and other wild cats also rub objects

for various reasons, such as scent marking (Bradshaw and Cameron-Beaumont 2000) and both

19

domestic dogs and gray wolves scratch the ground after elimination to leave a territorial mark

(Fox 1971). Because domesticated dogs and cats retain many of the characteristics of their wild

ancestors, observing them may allow humans to gain insight about the behavior, ecology, and

evolution of wild animals.

Pets may serve as a bridge for people in developed and/ or urbanized societies to the

natural world if people can use companion animals as a source of social information. People may

learn about biological processes unintentionally by observing their pets. People could then apply

the knowledge gained from interactions with pets to larger ecological concepts (Beach 1999).

Interaction with pets could affect a person’s scientific literacy and ecological attitudes (opinions

and feelings about the environment). If companion animals could serve as a bridge to the natural

world, then pet owners would be expected to show increased scientific literacy and heightened

environmental attitudes compared to non-pet owners.

This research will examine the effects of human-pet interactions on a person’s

environmental attitudes, conservation habits, and scientific knowledge. I expect pet owners to

show more conservation-oriented environmental attitudes than non-pet owners if pets can serve

as a bridge to the natural world. I also expect pet owners to show improved conservation habits if

their pets influence their behaviors toward the natural world. In addition, I expect pet owners to

show increased ecological and behavioral scientific knowledge if they can learn from their pets.

If pets do not serve as a bridge to the natural world, I expect to see no differences between pet

owners and non-pet owners.

The degree of modification of the pet (i.e. mixed breed pets versus purebred pets) is also

expected to influence pet owners’ environmental attitudes, conservation habits and scientific

knowledge. Differences in pet modification may be expected to invoke differing levels of

20

empathy in the person and therefore influence their thoughts and feelings about the environment.

I expect participants with less modified pets (i.e. mixed breed) to show improved environmental

attitudes compared to participants with more modified pets (i.e. purebred) if improved empathy

towards animals can extend to larger environmental issues. Participants with less modified pets

are also expected to show greater conservation habits compared to participants with more

modified pets if their environmental attitudes can influence their behaviors toward the

environment. Finally, participants with less modified pets are expected to demonstrate greater

scientific knowledge of ecology and behavior (compared to participants with more modified

pets) if their pets can provide greater information about these topics.

21

METHODS

1. Sample

A nationwide survey was conducted in the United States to determine how pet ownership

affects their environmental attitudes, conservation habits, and knowledge (Table 1). Responses

were checked for quality and attentiveness in several ways. We eliminated participants who did

not complete the survey, failed to indicate their location, or failed to answer the open-ended

question. Participants were also eliminated if they skipped a section of the survey. In addition,

surveys were eliminated if there was a logical inconsistency in responses (e.g. stated they had a

pet, but then listed 0 pets for any category). A total of 2899 responses were analyzed in this

study.

All survey participants were from the United States. Table 2 shows the demographic

information for survey participants that were used in analysis. I received slightly more responses

from white participants than I expected. I also received a large number of responses from

younger individuals, although this was not surprising since the survey was distributed online.

Overall, the sample population was proportional to the demographics of the United States as a

whole (United States Census Bureau 2014; United States Census Bureau 2011), with slight

exceptions described above.

2. Distribution

Participants of the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk)

crowdsourcing website. On mTurk, requestors put up small tasks to be completed (e.g. surveys,

audio transcription) and people could then complete the tasks for a small amount of pay (i.e.

incentive). mTurk has been determined to be a viable platform for delivering surveys in several

22

studies (e.g. Mason and Suri 2011; Rand 2012; Buhrmester et al., 2011). In this study,

participants were paid $0.70 to complete the survey. All survey responses were collected

between October 25, 2012 and January 31, 2013. Survey results were collected in two “batches”

to ensure that the mTurk platform would provide reliable results; the first batch took place

between October 25 – 26, 2012, and the second batch took place between January 28 – January

30, 2013. The survey listing on mTurk was tagged with several keywords, i.e. “survey”, “pets”,

“ecology”, “science”, “environment”, and “animals”.

Participants accessed the survey through a link on Amazon’s mTurk site that took them to

the survey, which was created in Checkbox Survey Software version 6. Participants could take

the survey only once: one response was collected per IP address. On the first page of the survey,

respondents consented to taking the survey in order to access questions, which was approved by

the Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University (IRB Protocol #S2012-32).

3. Measures

The survey consisted of multiple sections: pet information, environmental attitudes,

conservation habits, ecological and scientific knowledge, an open-ended question, and

demographic information. Participants were allowed to move backwards and forwards in the

survey to view and make changes to previously answered questions. Participants were not

allowed to save their survey to return to it later; the survey had to be completed in one session.

3.1 – Pet information

The pet information questions made up the first four questions of the survey and were created by

the researcher to gather information about pet ownership. The first question asked participants if

they owned pets. If the participant answered yes, they were taken to the next three questions.

23

These asked participants to describe what types of pets (dogs, cats, or other) and how many of

each type. The participants then described breed information for each dog and cat (pure bred,

mixed, or unknown). Participants answered these questions using radio buttons to select their

answer or category. Non-pet owning participants moved directly to the next section of the

survey.

3.2 – Environmental attitudes

The environmental attitudes questions were modified from the New Ecological Paradigm

Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) to ask participants about their environmental attitudes. These

questions were further separated into three categories: treatment of animals, environmental

perspective, and environmental assessment. The treatment of animals question asked participants

how they thought animals should be treated relative to human rights. Environmental perspective

questions were philosophical in nature, addressing how participants felt humans should treat the

environment. Environmental assessment questions asked participants how they felt people

currently treated the environment, describing how the participant viewed the generalized actions

of humans in the environment. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each

statement on a scale from 1-100, using a slider bar to place their response along the scale.

The final question in the environmental attitude category gave participants a list of

current ecological issues and asked them to choose which issues had a direct impact on their life

(see Table 1). Each current issue had an environmental connection, with some addressing global

issues, animal/ wildlife concerns, human health concerns, etc. The researcher created this

question.

24

3.3 – Conservation habits

The conservation habit questions were adapted from the Ecological Footprint Quiz

(Center for Sustainable Economy) and asked participants about their behaviors related to the

environment. Questions included water and energy conserving behaviors and overall recycling

habits. Participants indicated the number of water and energy conserving behaviors they engaged

in using checkboxes. Participants also indicated the percentage of items recycled using a slider

scale from 1-100.

3.4 – Ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge

The ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge questions assessed participants’

knowledge about these topics as it relates to their pets. These questions were created by the

researcher because no similar vetted questions were available. Several questions asked about

behaviors shown by dogs and cats, but in the context of wild animals, while others asked about

general animal and ecological knowledge. Participants were expected to have increased

knowledge of these topics if they learned from their pets. The first question in this category was

true/ false and all others were multiple choice. Participants used radio buttons to select their

answer to each question.

3.5 – General science knowledge

The general science knowledge questions were taken from a 2009 nationwide survey

conducted by the Pew Research Center, which addressed participant’s knowledge about general

science topics (Kohut et al., 2009). These questions measured participants’ knowledge about a

variety of non-animal related science topics, including basic chemistry, physics, geology, and

medicine. These questions were used as a control for knowledge, as a participant’s knowledge

about these topics would not be expected to be influenced by their pet ownership. Three of these

25

questions were multiple choice and three were true/ false. Participants used radio buttons to

select their answer to each question.

3.6 – Open-ended question

The open-ended question was designed by the researcher to give participants the

opportunity to describe their interaction with the natural world. This question was not analyzed

in this study, but used to confirm the quality of the survey, which is a common procedure to

ensure quality survey responses (e.g. Kittur et al., 2008). These data were evaluated in Chapter 4

of the thesis.

3.7 – Demographic information

The demographic information questions were voluntary and were created by the

researcher to gather general demographic data on participants. Questions included age and race/

ethnicity. Participants answered these questions by selecting from the options provided.

4. Survey vetting

Survey questions were vetted with students and faculty members in several classes at

Florida Gulf Coast University. Twenty-one students in a Conservation Strategies course and

twenty-one students in Latin American Environments and Natural Selection in Ecuador and the

Galapagos Islands took the survey in 2012. Feedback from the vetting process was incorporated

into the final survey and used to improve questions. Survey questions were also selected and

modified with the help of Florida Gulf Coast University faculty members.

5. Data analysis

A participant’s environmental perspective was calculated as:

26

, equation 1

A high score for environmental perspective indicated that the participant believed humans should

try to minimize their impacts on the environment (Table 1). A participant’s view on animal

treatment was the participant’s response to AR (Table 1). A participant’s environmental

assessment score was calculated as:

, equation 2

A high score for environmental assessment indicated that the participant believed humans were

currently harming the environment (Table 1).

A participant’s concern about ecological issues was calculated by taking the average

number of concerns a participant selected out of the 22 EC options (Table 1). This average was

then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of issues that

concerned the participant. A higher percentage for ecological concerns indicated that the

participant showed concern about a greater number of ecological issues.

A participant’s concern about animal-related ecological issues was calculated by taking

the average number of concerns a participant selected out of the five animal-related concerns

(see table 1). The five animal related concerns were (1) habitat loss, (2) loss of biological

processes, such as pollination and migration, (3) loss of species to extinction, (4) spread of exotic

species, (5) use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/ religious uses. This average was

then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of animal

related issues that concerned a participant. A higher score for animal-related concerns indicated

that a participant was highly concerned about animal-related ecological issues.

A participant’s response to energy and water conservation habits was counted as either

engaged or not engaged (Table 1). I then took the average number of energy and water

27

conservation habits a participant engaged in, respectively. A participant’s water and energy

conservation habits scores were rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score for water and

energy conservation habits indicated that a participant reported engaging in more conservation

habits.

A participant’s overall recycling score was calculated by taking the average of a

participant’s response to all five recycling categories: (1) paper, (2) aluminum, (3) glass, (4)

plastic, and (5) electronic waste. A higher overall recycling score indicated that the participant

recycled more materials.

A participant’s response to each ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge question

was counted as either correct or incorrect (Table 1). I then took the average number of questions

a participant answered correctly. This score was rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score on

ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge indicated that a participant answered more

questions correctly.

A participant’s response to each general science knowledge question was counted as

either correct or incorrect (Table 1). I then took the average of all questions a participant

answered correctly. This score was rounded to 2 decimal places. A higher score on general

science knowledge indicated that a participant answered more questions correctly.

All data showed a slight skew, and normalcy was not improved through transformations:

Characterization of environmental attitudes was slightly biased towards higher environmental

attitudes; characterization of conservation habits was slightly biased towards greater participation

in conservation activities; characterization of knowledge was slightly biased toward higher levels

of overall knowledge. As a result, all variables were compared to participants’ pet ownership and

breed category using non-parametric one-way permutation tests with Monte Carlo resampling.

28

Tests were completed using the coin package in R (Hothorn et al., 2006), and graphs were

created using the g-plots package in R. Significance was described for α-values < 0.05.

29

RESULTS

Overall, 80.4% of respondents (n = 2331) were pet owners and 19.6%

(n = 568) were non-pet owners. 1269 respondents owned a cat and 1560 respondents owned a

dog. The number of pets owned ranged from 0 to 18, with a mean of 1.99 pets. In terms of breed

categories among pet owners, 22.5% of participants owned only purebred animals, 18% of

participants owned both pure and mixed breed animals, and 54% owned only mixed breed

animals.

Environmental attitudes

Pet owners showed 3% higher environmental perspective scores than non-pet owners. Pet

owners were more likely to think that people should minimize their impact on the environment

and less likely to think that humans should rule over nature when compared to non-pet owners

(Figure 1a; Z = 3.60, p < 0.001). In addition, participants that owned all mixed breed animals

showed the highest environmental perspective scores (Figure 1b; maxT = 4.91, p < 0.001).

Participants that owned only purebred animals or no animals showed the lowest scores (4%

lower), while participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals showed intermediate

scores.

Pet owners and non-pet owners showed similar environmental assessment scores (Figure

1c; Z = 0.42, p = 0.686). However, when separated by breed category, participants that owned at

least one mixed breed animal showed the highest environmental assessment score (Figure 1d;

maxT = 4.81, p < 0.001). These participants were more likely to think that humans were severely

abusing the environment and less likely to think that Americans used a responsible amount of

natural resources. Participants that owned only purebred animals showed the lowest

30

environmental assessment scores (4% lower), while those that did not own pets showed

intermediate scores.

Pet owners and non-pet owners also showed a similar amount of concern about

ecological issues (Figure 1e; Z = 1.71, p = 0.090). Similar to environmental assessment,

participants that owned at least one mixed breed animal were more likely to be concerned about

a variety of ecological issues, such as acid rain and global climate change (Figure 1f; maxT =

3.09, p = 0.008). Participants that owned only purebred animals showed the least concern about

these issues (4% lower), while those that did not own pets showed intermediate scores.

Animal related issues

Pet owners favored better treatment for non-human animals (8% higher) when compared

to non-pet owners (Figure 2a; Z = 8.15, p < 0.001). In addition, participants that owned any type

of pet favored better treatment for animals when compared to participants that did not own pets

(Figure 2b; maxT = 8.20, p < 0.001).

Pet owners also showed greater concern (5% higher) about ecological issues that directly

affected animals, such as habitat loss and extinction (Figure 2c; Z = 3.15, p = 0.002). Participants

that owned at least one mixed breed animal showed the greatest level of concern about these

issues (Figure 2d; maxT = 4.06, p < 0.001). Participants that owned only purebred animals or did

not own any animals showed the lowest levels of concern (7% lower).

Conservation habits

Pet owners showed 6% more water conservation habits when compared to non-pet

owners (Figure 3a; Z = 4.96, p < 0.001). Pet owners were more likely to participate in water

31

saving activities such as minimizing shower time and toilet flushing. In addition, participants that

owned at least one mixed breed animal were more likely to engage in water saving activities,

while participants that owned purebred animals or no animals were less likely to do so (Figure

3b; maxT = 5.04, p < 0.001).

Pet owners also showed 3% higher rates of energy conservation habits when compared to

non-pet owners (Figure 3c; Z = 3.31, p < 0.001). Pet owners were more likely to participate in

energy saving activities such as turning off lights when leaving rooms and drying clothes outside

when possible. Participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals showed the highest

rates of energy saving habits, while those that did not own pets showed the lowest. Participants

that owned only purebred or only mixed breed animals showed intermediate levels of energy

saving habits (Figure 3d; maxT = 3.45, p = 0.002).

Pet owners showed slightly more recycling than non-pet owners (Figure 3e; Z = 1.99, p =

0.049). When separated by breed category, pet owners of all types and non-pet owners showed

no differences in their rates of recycling (Figure 3f; maxT = 2.06, p = 0.134).

Knowledge

Pet owners and non-pet owners showed similar understanding of ecology, evolution, and

behavior knowledge (Figure 4a; Z = 1.33, p = 0.184). However, when separated by breed

category, participants that owned at least one mixed breed animal showed significantly greater

understanding of ecology, evolution, and behavior than non-pet owners, who showed

intermediate scores, and purebred owners who showed the lowest levels of understanding (8%

lower) (Figure 4b; maxT = 6.55, p < 0.001).

32

Pet owners and non-pet owners showed no differences in their general science

knowledge (Figure 4c; Z = 0.92, p = 0.349). When separated by breed category, owners of only

mixed breed animals showed 2.5% higher scores than owners of only purebred animals (Figure

4d; maxT = 2.93, p = 0.015). Participants that owned both pure and mixed breed animals or no

animals showed intermediate scores. Owners of only mixed breed animals were slightly more

likely to know information about science topics such as geology, chemistry, and physics.

33

DISCUSSION

Pet owners favored better treatment of animals and were more concerned about issues

that directly impacted animals. This is not surprising, as one would expect anyone that lives and

interacts with a pet on a daily basis to develop a relationship with that animal that may lead them

to become more empathetic towards the treatment of all animals. In addition, a person’s empathy

towards animals may promote empathy towards the environment in general. Pet owners did seem

to be more empathetic toward the environment, viewing it as important and worthy of protection.

One would expect these results if a person’s pet does indeed serve as a bridge to the natural

environment. Finally, pet owners are more likely to engage in activities that promote protection

of the environment, such as water and energy conservation. These actions may also be related to

animal empathy, as conserving water and energy resources lessens a person’s individual impacts

on the environment (e.g. fewer greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels) and saves limited

natural resources (e.g. water, fossil fuels for energy, etc.), which may indirectly benefit animals.

If pets served as a bridge, one would expect to see a difference in environmental

assessment; concern about ecological issues; as well as knowledge about ecology, evolution, and

behavior between pet and non-pet owners. One would expect pet owners to believe humans

negatively impacted the environment; to be more concerned about ecological issues; and to show

greater knowledge of ecology, evolution and behavior. These differences were not apparent

when comparing pet owners and non-pet owners, but did become clear when comparing breed

categories. However, these differences appeared to be related to the pet’s breed type rather than a

simple issue of whether the participant lived with an animal or not. The breed status of an animal

appeared to be very important in influencing a person’s feelings about these issues. Individuals

that interacted with mixed breed (less modified) animals did show differences in their

34

environmental attitudes and knowledge when compared to individuals that interacted with

purebred animals (more modified). Participants that interacted with at least one mixed breed

animal believed humans were having a negative impact on the environment, were more

concerned about a variety of ecological issues, and showed much greater understanding of

ecology, evolution, and behavioral knowledge.

We might expect individuals that live with pets to know more about animals in general

(i.e. their ecology, evolution, and behavior) because they are animal lovers. However, this is not

what I found. Greater biological knowledge among people living with mixed breed animals

supports the idea that the type of animal provides the person with different opportunities to

benefit from social information. Mixed breed animals differ from purebred animals because they

have been less modified through the process of artificial selection. Purebred dogs are known to

have a variety of physical problems as a result of the breeding process, such as respiratory

problems, deformation of the skull, hip dysplasia, skin conditions, deafness, and cardiovascular

problems (Asher et al., 2009). Purebred animals also show different behavioral patterns and

personality traits (e.g. Starling et al., 2013, boldness; Svartberg 2006). These differences may be

related to the degree to which the person’s pet has been modified, with lesser degrees of

modification providing the person a better connection to environment. Pets that have been highly

modified (i.e. purebred animals) may retain fewer characteristics of their wild ancestors. People

who live with these highly modified animals may be less able to gain information from their

pets, especially in terms of animal behavior and ecology. Pets that have been less modified (i.e.

mixed breed animals) may retain more characteristics from their wild ancestors and participants

that live with these animals may be better able to gain information about animal behavior and

ecology through their interactions with their pets. Purebred animals appear to be a poorer bridge

35

between people and the natural environment. Conversely, mixed breed animals appear to be a

better bridge between people and the natural environment.

The concept of animal modification relates closely to concepts about environmental

modification. Individuals that own purebred animals may support the modification of an animal

for many reasons, such as size, fur color, or other preferred morphological or behavioral

characteristics, regardless of possible negative physical and behavioral impacts to the animal.

Individuals with purebred animals showed lower environmental perspective scores, indicating

that they believed humans were meant to rule over nature and that humans did not need to

minimize their impacts on the environment. The idea that humans can modify the environment in

any way to suit their needs and desires mirrors the idea that humans may also modify animals for

their own needs and desires.

In contrast, participants with different breeds of pets showed minimal difference in their

recycling habits. This result is somewhat surprising, as one would expect a participant’s

environmental attitudes to influence their recycling behaviors similar to the differences seen in

water and energy conservation among different participants. However, minimal differences

among participants may be related to the availability of recycling programs in their local

community. Some participants may not have access to any recycling while others may only have

access to certain types of recycling (e.g. paper only), which would have affected their ability to

recycle regardless of pet ownership.

Participants that owned only mixed breed animals also showed the greatest general

science knowledge, while participants that owned only purebred animals showed the lowest

scores. This result was unexpected and it is unclear how a person’s pets may contribute to their

knowledge about these non-animal related science topics. Perhaps participants with less modified

36

animals, who appear to show greater interest in the environment, have a greater interest in

science in general, leading them to be better informed about a variety of science disciplines.

Results of this study encourage a reconsideration of what may influence how a person

feels about and interacts with the environment, as well as what they know about the

environment. Current beliefs often suggest that a person’s education and outdoor experiences

form their environmental attitudes, both of which are clearly important factors (e.g. Tikka et al.,

2000; Palmberg and Kuru 2000). We may be overlooking other important contributing factors,

failing to recognize the significant role of pets. Something as simple as the type of pets a person

lives and interacts with could influence how they feel about and act toward the environment.

People who own less modified pets appear to be more inclined towards viewing the environment

as worthy of protection and engaging in activities that promote environmental protection. These

people also appear to be better informed about their pets, ecology, and science in general. It is

important that we consider other factors, such as pet ownership, that may influence a person’s

environmental attitudes and behaviors, so that we may explore how to encourage positive

attitudes and behaviors towards the environment among a greater number of people.

37

LITERATURE CITED

Aschemeier, L.M., Maher, C.R., 2011. Eavesdropping of woodchucks (Marmota monax) and

eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) on heterospecific alarm calls. Journal of

Mammalogy 92, 493-499.

Asher, L., Diesel, G., Summers, J.F., McGreevy, P.D., Collins, L.M., 2009. Inherited defects in

pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182,

402-411.

Beach, K., 1999. Consequential transition: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in

education. Review of Research in Education 24, 101-139.

Boesch, C., Marchesi, P., Marchesi, N., Fruth, B., Joulian, F., 1994. Is nut cracking in wild

chimpanzees a cultural behaviour? Journal of Human Evolution 26, 325-338.

Bradshaw, J., Cameron-Beaumont, C., 2000. The signalling repertoire of the domestic cat and its

undomesticated relatives, in: Turner, D.C., Bateson, P. (Eds.), The domestic cat: The

biology of its behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 67-93.

Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2006. The evolutionary basis for the feeding behavior of domestic dogs

(Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus). Journal of Nutrition 136, 1927S-1931S.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of

inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 3-5.

Carrasco, M.F., Blumstein, D.T., 2012. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) respond to yellow-

bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris) alarm calls. Ethology 118, 243-250.

Center for Sustainable Economy. n.d. Ecological Footprint Quiz. Center for Sustainable

Economy, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. http://myfootprint.org/en/.

Davis, S.J.M., 1978. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of

Israel. Nature 276, 608-610.

Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of

the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425-442.

Faure, E., Kitchener, A.C., 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships

between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.

Fiorito, G., Scotto, P., 1992. Observational learning in Octopus vulgaris. Science 256, 545-547.

Fox, M.W., 1971. Behavior of wolves, dogs and related canids. Harper and Row, New York.

Hirschman, C., Mogford, E., 2009. Immigration and the American industrial revolution from

1880 to 1920. Social Science Research 38, 897-920.

Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M.A., Zeileis, A., 2006. A Lego System for Conditional

Inference. The American Statistician 60, 257-263.

Kaminski, J., Riedel, J., Call, J., Tomasello, M., 2005. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow

gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 69, 11-18.

Kittur, A., Chi, E.H., Suh, B., 2008. Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk,

Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM,

pp. 453-456.

Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., 2009. Scientific achievements less prominent

than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Washington, DC:

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Kubinyi, E., Virányi, Z., Miklósi, Á., 2007. Comparative Social Cognition: From wolf and dog

to humans. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews 2, 26-46.

38

Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Ferrario, A., Valsecchi, P., Prato-Previde, E., 2011. Social

eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour 81, 1177-1183.

Mason, W., Suri, S., 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

Behavior Research Methods 44, 1-23.

Miklosi, A., Pongracz, N., Lakatos, G., Topal, J., Csanyi, V., 2005. A comparative study of the

use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and

humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology 119, 179-

186.

Möglich, M., Maschwitz, U., Hölldobler, B., 1974. Tandem calling: a new kind of signal in ant

communication. Science 186, 1046-1047.

Moody, J.A., Clark, L.A., Murphy, K.E., 2006. Working dogs: History and applications, in:

Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome, Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 1-18.

Mueller, T., O'Hara, R.B., Converse, S.J., Urbanek, R.P., Fagan, W.F., 2013. Social Learning of

Migratory Performance. Science 341, 999-1002.

Nicol, C., 1995. The social transmission of information and behaviour. Applied Animal

Behaviour Science 44, 79-98.

Palmberg, I.E., Kuru, J., 2000. Outdoor Activities as a Basis for Environmental Responsibility.

Journal of Environmental Education 31, 32-36.

Peres, C.A., 1993. Anti-Predation Benefits in a Mixed-Species Group of Amazonian Tamarins.

Folia Primatologica 61, 61-76.

Proops, L., Walton, M., McComb, K., 2010. The use of human-given cues by domestic horses,

Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour 79, 1205-1209.

Rand, D.G., 2012. The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists

run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299, 172-179.

Sampson, J., Binns, M.M., 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and breed

clubs, in: Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome,

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 19-30.

Starling, M.J., Branson, N., Thomson, P.C., McGreevy, P.D., 2013. "Boldness" in the domestic

dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behavioural Processes 97, 53-62.

Svartberg, K., 2006. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs?

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 293-313.

Thonhauser, K.E., Gutnick, T., Byrne, R.A., Kral, K., Burghardt, G.M., Kuba, M.J., 2013. Social

learning in Cartilaginous fish (stingrays Potamotrygon falkneri). Animal Cognition 16,

927-932.

Thornton, A., McAuliffe, K., 2006. Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313, 227-229.

Tikka, P.M., Kuitunen, M.T., Tynys, S.M., 2000. Effects of educational background on students'

attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of

Environmental Education 31, 12-19.

United States Census Bureau. 2014. USA QuickFacts. U.S. Department of Commerce.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

United States Census Bureau. 2011. Age and Sex Composition: 2010. U.S. Department of

Commerce. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf.

Vigne, J.D., Guilaine, J., Debue, K., Haye, L., Gérard, P., 2004. Early taming of the cat in

Cyprus. Science 304, 259.

Voelkl, B., Huber, L., 2000. True imitation in marmosets. Animal Behaviour 60, 195-202.

39

Wright, G.S., Wilkinson, G.S., Moss, C.F., 2011. Social learning of a novel foraging task by big

brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Animal Behaviour 82, 1075-1083.

40

TABLES AND FIGURES

Environmental Attitudes

Question

Number

Prompt Score Indicator

EP1 Humans should pursue choices and decisions that minimize any

negative impact on the natural environment.

High score =

higher

environmental

perspective

EP2 Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature. Low score =

higher

environmental

perspective

AR How should animals be treated relative to basic human rights? High score =

higher animal

concern

EA1 The average American uses a responsible amount of natural

resources to meet their daily needs.

Low score =

higher

environmental

assessment

EA2 Humans are severely abusing the environment. High score =

higher

environmental

assessment

Ecological Concerns

EC Acid rain More concerns

selected = greater

concern about

ecological issues

Air pollution

Destructive removal of natural resources

Disease resistance to antibiotics and other medicines

Emergence of new diseases, such as HIV, H1N1, and

SARS

Free trade/ globalization

Genetically modified foods

Global climate change

Habitat loss*

Human population growth

Industrialization

Limited resources, such as oil and gasoline

Loss of biological processes, such as pollination and

migration*

Loss of ecological services, such as water purification and

the removal of CO2 from the air by plants

Loss of species to extinction*

Off-shore oil drilling

41

Soil erosion

Spread of exotic species*

Urban sprawl and suburban development

Use of pesticides and herbicides

Use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/

religious uses*

Water pollution

Energy Conservation Habits

EC1 Turn off lights when leaving rooms More activities

selected = greater

energy conservation

habits

EC2 Use power strips to turn off stand-by lights

EC3 Turn off computers and monitors when not in use

EC4 Dry clothes outside whenever possible

EC5 Keep thermostat relatively high in summer

EC6 Unplug small appliances when not in use

EC7 Minimal use of power equipment when landscaping

EC8 Compost rather than use garbage disposal

Water Conservation Habits

WC1 Minimize shower time More activities

selected = greater

energy conservation

habits

WC2 Minimize toilet flushing

WC3 Run clothes and dish washers only when full

WC4 Wash cars rarely

WC5 Look for and fix leaks regularly

WC6 Avoid hosing down decks, walkways, driveways

Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Knowledge

EEB1 Animals can digest anything that they eat in their

environment

More questions

correctly answered

= greater

understanding of

ecology, evolution,

and behavior

EEB2 Based on your knowledge of dogs, how does a wolf

demonstrate submission within a pack?

EEB3 Catfish barbels, which are similar to cat and dog whiskers

in both shape and location, serve which of the following

purposes:

EEB4 What caused the variety of farm animal breeds seen today?

EEB5 Besides urination, how does a tiger indicate that an object,

such as a tree, is part of its territory based on your

knowledge of cat behavior?

EEB6 What effect does spaying and neutering have on the rate of

population growth in domestic animals?

General Science Knowledge

S1 Which over-the-counter drug do doctors recommend that

people take to help prevent heart attacks?

More questions

correctly answered

42

S2 Which of the following may cause a tsunami? = greater

understanding of

general science

topics

S3 The continents on which we live have been moving their

location for millions of years and will continue to move in

the future:

S4 Lasers work by focusing sound waves:

S5 What have scientists recently discovered on Mars?

S6 Electrons are smaller than atoms:

Table 1: Description of survey questions used in analysis. Note: Asterisks (*) indicate that

animal-related ecological concerns.

43

Variable N %

Age (N = 2898)

18-25 1028 35.5

26-35 1127 38.9

36-45 374 12.9

46-55 213 7.3

56-65 130 4.5

66-75 26 0.9

Race (N = 2855)

African American 171 6.0

Asian American 192 6.7

Hispanic 119 4.2

Multiethnic 117 4.1

Native American 17 0.6

Pacific Islander 5 0.2

White 2234 78.2

Table 2: Demographic information for survey respondents. Some

participants did not respond to questions about age or race.

44

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

Figure 1: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on environmental attitudes: a) difference in

environmental perspective between pet and non-pet owners; b) difference in environmental

perspective between breed categories; c) difference in environmental assessment between pet

and non-pet owners; d) difference in environmental assessment between breed categories; e)

difference in concern about ecological issues between pet and non-pet owners; f) difference in

concern about ecological issues between breed categories.

45

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 2: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on animal-related issues: a) difference in

views about animal treatment between pet owners and non-pet owners; b) differences in views

about animal treatment between breed categories; c) differences in concern about animal related

ecological issues between pet owners and non-pet owners; d) differences in concern about

animal related ecological issues between breed categories.

46

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

Figure 3: Effect of pet ownership and breed categories on conservation habits: a) differences in

water conservation habits between pet owners and non-pet owners; b) differences in water

conservation habit between breed categories; c) differences in energy conservation habits

between pet and non-pet owners; d) differences in energy conservation habits between breed

categories; e) differences in recycling between pet and non-pet owners; f) differences in

recycling between breed categories.

47

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 4: Effect of pet ownership and breed category on scientific knowledge: a) difference in

ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge between pet owners and non-pet owners; b)

difference in ecology, evolution, and behavior knowledge between breed categories; c)

differences in general science knowledge between pet owners and non-pet owners; d) differences

in general science knowledge between breed categories.

48

CHAPTER 3

ANTHROPOMORPHISM PROMOTES STRONGER ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND

CONSERVATION HABITS RELATIVE TO HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM

INTRODUCTION

The history of ethology has been intertwined with issues regarding anthropomorphism,

the application of human characteristics to animals, and human exceptionalism, the belief that

humans possess distinct characteristics that are not found in other animals (Cezilly 2008). Early

in the exploration of animal behavior, Darwin’s writings proposed an evolutionary continuity

between humans and animals and argued that some form of intelligence was present in both

(Wasserman 1997). This argument was used to support pervasive uses of anthropomorphism in

Victorian popular and scientific communities. Development of such anthropomorphic arguments

was eventually criticized and rejected by behaviorists, such as Morgan and Skinner, because of a

lack of scientific rigor and evidence. Behaviorists adopted a human exceptionalist animal view

based on the Cartesian model of thinking, which described animals as machine like and distinct

from humans (Kennedy 1992). In the 1930’s, the first generation of modern ethologists, such as

Tinbergen and Lorenz, embraced this Cartesian human exceptionalist animal view, using

technical language and theoretical descriptions that removed any connection to a human

experience in an effort to improve their objective and detached examination of animal behavior

(Crist 1999).

The way that people view and feel about the environment (i.e. environmental attitude)

has evolved in a manner that was similar to the development of ethology. Early

environmentalists divided into two camps that paralleled the division between

49

anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism. Some, such as Pinchot, advocated for an

environment that integrated human interests within a managed landscape (Pak 2011). This

environmental perspective mirrored anthropomorphic views because both recognized shared

experiences between humans and animals. Others, such as John Muir, argued for an environment

where humans were separate from the natural landscape in order to preserve pristine

wildernesses (Pak 2011). This environmental perspective mirrored human exceptionalist views

because both believed that the human and animal experiences were and should be separated.

Modern environmentalism is challenged by this dichotomy between integrating and separating

humans from nature. Environmental campaigns often appeal to a connection between people and

the environment, such as a cute animal (Huddy and Gunnthorsdottir 2000.), while environmental

stewardship often advocates separation (e.g. Senda-Cook 2013). For example, environmental

stewards encourage people to stay on trails while “taking nothing but pictures and leaving

nothing but footprints”.

A person’s views about animals as well as the environment appear to be related to how

they think about the natural environment as a whole. For example, Berenguer (2007) assigned

participants to either high or low empathy conditions and then showed them a picture of either a

bird or tree being harmed. Participants in the high-empathy condition showed stronger

empathetic attitudes towards nature as a whole and were more likely to allocate money to a

hypothetical environmental organization. A person’s environmental attitudes can also be

influenced by their feelings toward nature. In Tam et al., (2013), participants that created or

viewed anthropomorphic content about nature showed a greater connection to nature, increased

willingness to use green products, and increased willingness to adopt a national indicator of

50

environmental impact. In both cases, people that were first encouraged to empathize and/ or

anthropomorphize nature showed higher environmental attitudes.

The current study will determine if an individual’s underlying animal views (i.e.

anthropomorphic to human exceptionalist views about animals) influence their environmental

attitudes and conservation habits. A person’s animal views may relate to their level of empathy,

where anthropomorphic individuals would be expected to show more empathy than human

exceptionalists. As a result, animal views should relate to a person’s concern about

environmental issues and their behavior toward nature. Examination of this issue will be

determined using a nation-wide survey of participants from the United States. Previous studies

were experimental in nature, where a participant’s feelings were first manipulated in order to

measure the effects on environmental feelings and behaviors. In this study, I will compare a

participant’s animal views (based on a person’s existing, unmanipulated opinion about animals)

to their environmental attitudes and conservation habits. I expect that individuals with more

anthropomorphic animal views will have greater concerns about animal issues, higher

environmental attitudes, and increased conservation habits.

51

METHODS

1. Sample

To determine how a person’s animal views relate to their environmental attitudes and

conservation habits, a nationwide survey was conducted in the United States (Table 1).

Responses were checked for quality and attentiveness in several ways. I eliminated participants

who did not complete the survey, failed to indicate their location, or failed to answer the open-

ended question. Participants were also eliminated if they skipped a section of the survey. In

addition, surveys were eliminated if there was a logical inconsistency in responses (e.g. stated

they had a pet, but then listed 0 pets for any category). A total of 2898 responses were analyzed

in this study.

All survey participants were from the United States. Table 2 shows the demographic

information for survey participants that were used in analysis. I received slightly more responses

from white participants than was expected. I also received a large number of responses from

younger individuals, although this is not surprising due to the online survey distribution. Overall,

the sample population was proportional to the demographics of the United States as a whole.

2. Distribution

Participants of the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk)

crowdsourcing website. On mTurk, requestors put up small tasks to be completed (e.g. surveys,

audio transcription) and workers can then complete the tasks for a small amount of pay (i.e.

incentive). mTurk has been determined to be a viable platform for delivering surveys in several

studies (e.g. Mason and Suri 2012; Rand 2011; Buhrmester et al., 2011). In this study,

participants were paid $0.70 to complete the survey. All survey responses were collected

52

between October 25, 2012 and January 31, 2013. Survey results were collected in two “batches”

to ensure that the mTurk platform would provide reliable results; the first batch took place

between October 25 – 26, 2012, and the second batch took place between January 28 – January

30, 2013. The survey listing on mTurk was tagged with several keywords, i.e. “survey”, “pets”,

“ecology”, “science”, “environment”, and “animals”.

Participants accessed the survey through a link on Amazon’s mTurk site. The survey was

created in Checkbox Survey Software version 6. Participants could take the survey only once:

one response was collected per IP address. On the first page of the survey, respondents consented

to taking the survey in order to access the questions. The survey was approved by the

Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University.

3. Measures

The survey consisted of multiple sections: environmental attitudes, conservation habits,

animal views, an open-ended question, and demographic information. Participants were allowed

to move backwards and forwards in the survey to view and make changes to previously

answered questions. Participants were not allowed to save their survey to return to it later; the

survey had to be completed in one session.

3.1 – Environmental attitudes

The first five questions of the survey were modified from the New Ecological Paradigm

Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) to ask participants about their environmental attitudes. These

questions were further separated into three categories: treatment of non-human animals,

environmental perspective, and environmental assessment. The treatment of non-human animals

question asked participants to state the degree of rights that non-human animals should receive

53

relative to human rights. Environmental perspective questions were philosophical in nature,

addressing how participants felt humans should treat the environment in general. Environmental

assessment questions asked participants how they felt people currently treated the environment

and described how the participant viewed the generalized actions of humans in the environment.

Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1-100, using a

slider bar to place the marker along the scale.

The final question in the environmental attitude category gave participants a list of

current ecological issues and asked them to choose which issues had a direct impact on their life

(Table 1). Each current issue had an environmental connection, with some addressing global

issues, animal/ wildlife concerns, human health concerns, etc. The researcher created this

question.

3.2 – Conservation habits

These questions were adapted from the Ecological Footprint Quiz (Center for Sustainable

Economy) and asked participants about a wide range of their behaviors related to the

environment. Questions included water and energy conserving behaviors, overall recycling

habits, and dietary choices. Participants indicated the number of water and energy conserving

behaviors they engaged in using checkboxes. Participants also indicated the percentage of items

recycled or included in their diet using a slider scale from 1-100.

3.3 – Animal views

The researcher designed these questions because no vetted questions on

anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism were available. Questions in this category

assessed the participant’s beliefs about animals. Participants were given three anthropomorphic

statements (e.g. a mother dog loves her pups) and three human exceptionalist statements (e.g.

54

humans are the only animals that use language). Participants were then asked to indicate their

level of agreement with each of the six statements. Participants with anthropomorphic views

were more likely to agree with statements that described humans and animals as having similar

experiences. Human exceptionalist participants were more likely to agree with statements that

described humans and animals as having distinct and different experiences. Participants indicated

their level of agreement with each statement on a slider scale from 0-100, using the marker to

indicate their response on the scale.

3.4 – Open-ended questions

This question was designed by the researcher because of its specificity to the study. This

question was used to gather qualitative information from participants about how they interacted

with the natural world and how these interactions impacted their quality of life. Participants were

provided with a text box to type in their response. There was no limit to the participant’s

response; they could enter as much text as desired. This question required an answer from the

participant to ensure thoughtful and active participation in the survey; participants were not

considered to have completed the survey until this question was answered. This question was

used to confirm that participants completed the survey in a thoughtful and attentive manner and

was not analyzed here.

3.5 – Demographic information

These voluntary questions were created by the researcher and were used to gather general

demographic data on participants. Questions included age, race/ ethnicity, and education level.

Participants answered these questions by selecting from the options provided, which were based

off of race, age, and education categories used by the United States Census.

55

4. Survey vetting

Survey questions were vetted with students and faculty members in several classes at

Florida Gulf Coast University. Twenty-one students in a Conservation Strategies course and

twenty-one students in Latin American Environments and Natural Selection in Ecuador and the

Galapagos Islands took the survey. Feedback and student comments from the vetting process

were incorporated into the final survey and used to improve questions. Survey questions were

also selected and modified with the help of Florida Gulf Coast University faculty members.

5. Data analysis

I used a factor analysis to determine the relationship among the six animal views

questions. Three different techniques (principal component analysis, unweighted least square,

and maximum likelihood) produced similar results. I describe the results of the maximum

likelihood analysis. Individual factors and associated loadings were described for each case

where the initial eigenvalue exceeded one. I then regressed the loading of the first factor

extraction for each participant to give each participant an “animal views” value along a gradient

between anthropomorphic and human exceptionalist. In this process, anthropomorphic

participants received a negative score while human exceptionalist participants received a positive

score. I then compared participants’ animal views relative to their environmental attitudes and

conservation habits.

A participant’s environmental perspective was calculated as:

, equation 1

A high score for environmental perspective indicated that the participant believes humans should

try to minimize their impacts on the environment (Table 1). A participant’s view on non-human

56

animal treatment was the participant’s response to AR (Table 1). A participant’s environmental

assessment score was calculated as:

, equation 2

A high score for environmental assessment indicated that the participant believes humans are

currently harming the environment (Table 1).

A participant’s concern about ecological issues was calculated by taking the average

number of concerns a participant selected out of the 22 EC options (Table 1). This average was

then multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of issues a

participant selected as concerning. A higher percentage for ecological concerns indicated that the

participant showed concern about a greater number of ecological issues.

A participant’s concern about animal-related ecological issues was calculated by taking

the average number of concerns a participant selected out of the five animal-related concerns

(Table 1). The five animal related concerns were (1) habitat loss, (2) loss of biological processes,

such as pollination and migration, (3) loss of species to extinction, (4) spread of exotic species,

(5) use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/ religious uses. This average was then

multiplied by 100 and rounded to 2 decimal places to calculate the percentage of animal related

issues a participant selected as concerning. A higher score for animal-related concerns indicated

that a participant was more concerned about animal-related ecological issues.

A participant’s responses to energy and water conservation habits were counted as either

engaged in or not engaged in (Table 1). I then calculated the average number of water or energy

habits that a participant engaged in, respectively. These averages were rounded to 2 decimal

places. A higher score for water and energy conservation habits indicated that a participant

reported engaging in more conservation habits.

57

A participant’s overall recycling score was calculated by taking the average of a

participant’s response to all five recycling categories: (1) paper, (2) aluminum, (3) glass, (4)

plastic, and (5) electronic waste. A higher overall recycling score indicated that the participant

recycled more materials.

A participant’s diet type was calculated by determining the percentage of their overall

diet that was made up of five different types of food: (1) seafood, (2) other meats, (3) dairy, (4)

fruits and vegetables, and (5) grain and nuts. Because a participant could answer between 0 – 100

percent for each food category, their total response generally did not add up to 100 percent. I,

therefore, standardized each participant’s response by taking the response for each category

divided by the total response for all categories. This provided the proportion of the diet made up

by each individual category. The vegan percentage of diet was calculated by totaling the

percentage of (1) fruits and vegetables and (2) grain and nuts a participant ate relative to the

percentage of each food item in his or her diet.

A participant’s education level was determined by categorizing a participant’s response

to their level of education. Participants that responded (1) some high school, (2) high school

degree, or (3) some college were categorized as Non-Graduates. Participants that responded (1)

undergraduate degree or (2) graduate degree were categorized as College Graduates. In addition,

I selected participants with an animal view that was at least one standard deviation below or

above the mean (i.e. extreme anthropomorphism or extreme human exceptionalism,

respectively).

Treatment of non-human animals, environmental perspective, environmental assessment,

recycling, and non-animal product percentage of diet were all compared to animal views using

linear regression models All data showed a slight right skew, and normalcy was not improved

58

through transformations. I conducted a non-parametric robust linear model for these tests and

found results to be nearly identical to parametric linear models. I, therefore, report results of the

parametric linear models so that I could describe properties of the model equation in each case.

Ecological issues, animal-related ecological issues, water conservation habits, and energy

conservation habits resulted in ordinal data (e.g. participants either selected an option or did not

select an option). I ,therefore, compared animal views to these variables using an ordinal logistic

regression. Education levels were compared to animal views using a one-way permutation test as

these data were categorical.

The maximum likelihood factor analysis to determine animal views was completed in

SPSS. Linear regression models were completed using the R base package. Ordinal logistic

regressions were completed in R using the MASS package (MASS, Venables and Ripley 2002).

One-way permutations were completed in R using the coin package (Hothorn et al., 2006). The

g-plots package in R was used to create figures for one-way permutation results. Other figures

were created with the base package in R. Significance was described for α-values < 0.05.

59

RESULTS

Two factors explained 55.24% of the total variation among the six statements about

anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism (Table 3). Participant’s response to the animal

views questions tended to follow a dichotomy between anthropomorphism and human

exceptionalism, which is observed in Factor 1. Factor one, which I called “Animal View”,

explained 34.6% of the variation among the six animal views questions, receiving positive

loadings for the three human exceptionalist questions and negative loadings for the three

anthropomorphic questions. Within the framework of this analysis, anthropomorphic individuals

received a negative score on Factor 1, while human exceptionalists received a positive score on

Factor 1. Factor 2 explained an additional 20.62 % of the variation, describing a weak positive

association between all 6 statements anthropomorphism and human exceptionalism. Factor 2 was

not considered further because of my desire to evaluate a participant’s overall animal view

relative to their environmental attitudes and conservation habits. Overall, the study population

showed a slight bias in animal views towards anthropomorphism, as noted by the right-skewed

distribution of animal views.

Animal issues

Anthropomorphic participants favored increased rights for non-human animals when

compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 1a; F = 634.2, df = 1, 2897,

r2 = 0.179, p < 0.001). This opinion decreased by 10.68% for every one-unit change in her or his

animal view. Concern about animal-related ecological issues was also negatively associated with

a participant’s animal view. For each unit increase in animal view towards human

60

exceptionalism, individuals were approximately 60% more likely to decrease the number of

animal concerns by one (Figure 1b; p < 0.001, odd ratio = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.38]).

Environmental attitudes

Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to think that people should minimize

their impact on the environment and were less likely to think humans should rule over nature

compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 1c; F = 421,

df = 1, 2897, r2 = 0.127, p < 0.001). A participant’s feelings about these environmental

statements decreased by 8.87% for every one-unit change in his or her animal view. A

participant’s animal views also influenced their beliefs about how humans affect the environment

currently. Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to think that humans were severely

abusing the environment and less likely to think that Americans were using a responsible amount

of resources to meet their needs, when compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 1d;

F = 169.8, df = 1, 2897, r2 = 0.055, p < 0.001). A participant’s feelings about our impacts on the

environment decreased by 4.92% for every one-unit change in his or her animal view.

Anthropomorphic participants also showed greater concern about a range of ecological issues,

such as acid rain, global climate change, and soil erosion, when compared to human

exceptionalist participants. For each unit increase in animal views, individuals were 66% more

likely to decrease the number of ecological concerns by one (Figure 2; p < 0.001, odds ratio =

0.60, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.44]).

61

Conservation habits

Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to engage in energy saving behaviors

such as turning off lights when leaving rooms, keeping thermostats high in the summer, and

drying clothes outside than human exceptionalist participants. The likelihood that an individual

would decrease the number of energy conserving habits by one for each unit increase in animal

view toward human exceptionalism was 43% (Figure 3a; p < 0.001, odds ratio = 0.70, 95% CI [-

0.43, -0.28]). Anthropomorphic participants also engaged in more water saving behaviors;

including minimizing shower time, minimizing toilet flushing, and washing cars rarely; when

compared to human exceptionalist participants. Individuals were approximately 52% more likely

to decrease the number of water conserving habits by one for each unit increase in animal view

towards human exceptionalism (Figure 3b; p < 0.001, odds ratio = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.34]).

In addition, anthropomorphic participants showed slightly more recycling in all categories, such

as paper, plastic, and glass, compared to human exceptionalist participants (Figure 3c; F = 18.9,

df = 1, 2897, r2 = 0.006, p < 0.001). A participant’s recycling habits decreased by 2.64% for

every one-unit change in animal view towards human exceptionalism. Finally, anthropomorphic

participants were slightly more likely to avoid eating meat and other animal-based food products

(e.g. cheese, eggs) than were human exceptionalist participants (Figure 3d; F = 29.81, df = 1,

2897, r2 = 0.010, p < 0.001). The percentage of a participant’s diet consisting of vegan foods

decreased by 1.74% for every one-unit change in a participant’s animal view towards human

exceptionalism.

62

Education

Participants with lower levels of education shower higher levels of anthropomorphism,

while participants with higher levels of education showed higher levels of human exceptionalism

(Figure 4a; Z = 3.90, p < 0.001). Non-graduates and college graduates showed a difference of

approximately 0.1 along the gradient of anthropomorphism to human exceptionalism. This

pattern was more striking when comparing participants with extreme animal views (i.e.

participants that were more than one standard deviation below or above the mean). With a

difference of greater than 0.3 along the gradient of animal views, non-graduates of college

showed greater levels of anthropomorphism than graduates (Figure 4b; Z = 3.24, p < 0.001).

63

DISCUSSION

Animal issues

Anthropomorphism appears to be related to increased concerns about animal welfare;

anthropomorphic participants favored increased animal rights and showed greater levels of

concern about environmental issues that were directly related to animals, such as mass extinction

and habitat lose. Anthropomorphic participants may feel more connected and empathetic towards

animals because they believe that these organisms have experiences similar to humans. In

contrast, human exceptionalist participants showed less concerns about animal welfare, which

could be explained if human exceptionalists felt more disconnected and separated from animals

because of their views about human-animal differences.

Environmental attitudes

Although one would expect a participant’s animal views to affect their feelings about

animal rights relative to human rights, a participant’s animal view also influenced their feelings

about broader environmental topics. Anthropomorphic participants showed more concern for

how humans should interact with the environment as well as how humans are impacting the

environment. Anthropomorphic participants were more likely to believe that humans should

minimize their impacts on the natural environment and more likely to believe that humans are

having negative impact on the environment currently. In addition to influencing their concern for

animals, a participant’s animal view appears to extend to their feelings about the environment in

general. Anthropomorphic participants may understand that the environment is important for

animal well-being, even if it is indirectly affecting animals. For example, human population

growth does not directly impact animals, but it does result in habitat losses, which can lead to

64

declines in animal populations and even extinctions (e.g. Brooks et al., 2002). In addition,

anthropomorphic participants may understand that the environment is crucial for sustaining both

their personal well-being as well as the well-being of non-human animals, as anthropomorphic

participants believe that humans and animals are very similar. In contrast, human exceptionalist

participants appear to feel a sense of disconnect between the environment and themselves.

Human exceptionalist participants may not make a connection to the environment and its

relationship to the survival and well-being of humans and animals, because these participants

feel that humans and animals have very different experiences.

Conservation habits

A participant’s animal view also influenced their behaviors towards the environment.

Participants with more anthropomorphic views showed better conservation habits, such as

increased water and energy conservation, while participants with human exceptionalist views

showed fewer conservation habits. Anthropomorphic participants also showed slightly higher

rates of recycling and avoiding animal food products. Increased empathy toward animals may

lead a person to view the environment as more important and worthy of protection and

conservation.

Berenguer (2007) showed that inducing empathy towards a bird or tree increased

participants’ attitudes toward nature as a whole. In this study, we found consistent responses

based on a person’s underlying animal views. I have therefore shown that the existing animal

views a person has can promote improved environmental attitudes and conservation habits. This

is critical because these results suggest that we do not need to push people towards a certain

animal view, as many pro-environmental ads try to do. On the contrary, the animal views a

65

person already holds appear to be sufficient to relate to their feelings about the environment. In

addition, a person’s animal views appear to relate to their behaviors toward the environment (e.g.

conservation habits). In addition, participants that saw the environment as important tended to

show better conservation habits that limited their impacts on the environment. This suggests a

close relationship between how a person feels about animals, how they view the environment,

and, in turn, how they treat the environment.

Education

Animal views appear to be associated with educational level. Participants with lower

levels of education tended to be more anthropomorphic, while participants with higher levels of

education tended to be more human exceptionalist, which became even clearer when examining

participants with extreme animal views. This pattern is somewhat surprising in that participants

could have come from many different educational backgrounds and fields. Although one might

expect anthropomorphism to be discouraged in science related classes, based on the history of

comparative psychology and ethology (Cezilly 2008), anthropomorphism was negatively related

to education level, even though participant’s educational experience included both scientific and

non-scientific backgrounds. The increase in human exceptionalism with higher education

appears to be pervasive regardless of the person’s field. Students in higher education are often

told that anthropomorphic hypotheses are inappropriate as a scientific description, because these

hypotheses lack “objectivity” (Kennedy 1992). In addition, higher education programs focus

primarily on the human experience. Programs, such as Language and Literature, Business,

Education, and Arts, all illustrate the height of human achievements, efforts, and interests. This

focus on humans, coupled with any discouragement of anthropomorphism, appears to influence

66

all people who have had higher education, regardless of whether they are science or non-science

students.

Intentional or unintentional efforts to minimize anthropomorphism in higher education

may be inappropriate given our present understanding of human and non-human animal

behavior. Many scientific studies have shown that the anthropomorphic hypothesis can be the

most likely hypothesis. For example, chimpanzees and orangutans showed the ability to recall

events that had happened three years prior in a manner that was similar to the way that humans

recall information (Martin-Ordas et al., 2013). In addition, rats appear to show empathetic

behavior towards conspecifics that is similar to human empathy. Rats will free unrelated

conspecifics from containers and even share food with trapped individuals after release (Bartal et

al., 2011). In each of these situations, non-human animals show behavioral patterns that are

similar in form and function to humans. This is not to say that human and non-humans animals

share the same experience in all cases. Many cases are best explained by human exceptionalist

hypotheses. For example, humans show concealed ovulation (Benshoof and Thornhill 1979)

while most other non-human primates show prominent sexual signals related to ovulation (e.g.

Domb and Pagel 2001).In addition, humans demonstrate the ability to compose and comprehend

written language. Although there is some evidence for language in bees (e.g. Rosin 1978),

written language remains a uniquely human characteristic. Understanding non-human animal

behavior requires rigorous examination of all hypotheses, including both anthropomorphic and

human exceptionalist predictions. It is only by a complete evaluation of alternative hypotheses

that we can expect to fully understand why and how animals perform observed behavioral

patterns.

67

Animal views appear to be far more important than a simple intellectual exercise.

Because anthropomorphism is associated with increased environmental attitudes and better

conservation habits, we may be doing a disservice to conservation when we discourage people

from anthropomorphic views. For example, Chan (2012) argued that anthropomorphism could be

used responsibly to increase public empathy with animals and promote their conservation. This

can be accomplished by highlighting scientific studies where the anthropomorphic hypothesis is

the most accurate and likely hypothesis (e.g. grandmother hypothesis in whales, Foster et al.,

2012; grandmother hypothesis in humans, Lahdenperä et al., 2004; reward inequality in dogs,

Range et al., 2009; reward inequity in humans, Blake and McAuliffe 2011). A more thoughtful

presentation of animals that includes those cases of uniqueness, where the differences between

humans and non-human animals expands the breadth of life, coupled with those instances of

similarity, which highlight the commonality between humans and non-human animals, provides

both a more accurate representation of the natural world while promoting empathy. Fostering

high environmental attitudes and conservation habits via empathy can occur by highlighting

cases of scientifically justifiable anthropomorphism. The blind rejection of anthropomorphisms

appears to not only limit our understanding of nature but also limit our appreciation and

interaction with nature.

68

LITERATURE CITED

Bartal, I.B.A., Decety, J., Mason, P., 2011. Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science

334, 1427-1430.

Benshoof, L., Thornhill, R., 1979. The evolution of monogamy and concealed ovulation in

humans. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 2, 95-106.

Berenguer, J., 2007. The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behaviors.

Environment and Behavior 39, 269-283.

Blake, P.R., McAuliffe, K., 2011. "I had so much it didn't seem fair": Eight-year-olds reject two

forms of inequity. Cognition 120, 215-224.

Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Rylands, A.B.,

Konstant, W.R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, S., Magin, G., Hilton-Taylor, C., 2002.

Habitat Loss and Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16,

909-923.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of

inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3-5.

Center for Sustainable Economy. n.d. Ecological Footprint Quiz. Center for Sustainable

Economy, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. http://myfootprint.org/en/.

Cezilly, F., 2008. A History of Behavioural Ecology, in: Danchin, E., Giraldeau, L.A., Cezilly, F.

(Eds.), Behavioural Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Chan, A., 2012. Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool. Biodiversity and Conservation 21,

1889-1892.

Crist, E., 1999. Images of Animals: Anthropomorphism and Animal Mind. Temple University

Press, Philadelphia.

Domb, L.G., Pagel, M., 2001. Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature

410, 204-206.

Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of

the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425-442.

Foster, E.A., Franks, D.W., Mazzi, S., Darden, S.K., Balcomb, K.C., Ford, J.K., Croft, D.P.,

2012. Adaptive prolonged postreproductive life span in killer whales. Science 337, 1313-

1313.

Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., van de Wiel, M.A., Zeileis, A., 2006. A Lego System for Conditional

Inference. The American Statistician 60, 257-263.

Huddy, L., Gunnthorsdottir, A.H., 2000. The Persuasive Effects of Emotive Visual Imagery:

Superficial Manipulation or the Product of Passionate Reason? Political Psychology 21,

745-778.

Kennedy, J.S., 1992. The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lahdenperä, M., Lummaa, V., Russell, A., 2004. Menopause: why does fertility end before life?

Climacteric 7, 327-331.

Martin-Ordas, G., Berntsen, D., Call, J., 2013. Memory for distant past events in chimpanzees

and orangutans. Current Biology 23, 1438-1441.

Mason, W., Suri, S., 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

Behavior Research Methods 44, 1-23.

Pak, M.S., 2011. Environmentalism Then and Now: From Fears to Opportunities, 1970-2010.

Environmental Science & Technology 45, 5-9.

69

Rand, D.G., 2012. The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists

run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299, 172-179.

Range, F., Horn, L., Viranyi, Z., Huber, L., 2009. The absence of reward induces inequity

aversion in dogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 340-345.

Rosin, R., 1978. The honey bee “language” controversy. Journal of Theoretical Biology 72, 589-

602.

Senda-Cook, S., 2013. Materializing Tensions: How Maps and Trails Mediate Nature.

Environmental Communication- A Journal of Nature and Culture 7, 355-371.

Tam, K.P., Lee, S.L., Chao, M.M., 2013. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances

connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 49, 514-521.

Venables, W. N., Ripley, B. D., 2002 Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth Edition.

Springer, New York.

Wasserman, E.A., 1997. The science of animal cognition: Past, present, and future. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 23, 123-135.

70

TABLES AND FIGURES

Environmental Attitudes

Question

Number

Prompt Score Indicator

EP1 Humans should pursue choices and decisions that minimize

any negative impact on the natural environment.

High score = higher

environmental

perspective

EP2 Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature. Low score = higher

environmental

perspective

AR How should animals be treated relative to basic human

rights?

High score = higher

animal concern

EA1 The average American uses a responsible amount of

natural resources to meet their daily needs.

Low score = higher

environmental

assessment

EA2 Humans are severely abusing the environment. High score = higher

environmental

assessment

Ecological Concerns

EC Acid rain More concerns

selected = greater

concern about

ecological issues

Air pollution

Destructive removal of natural resources

Disease resistance to antibiotics and other medicines

Emergence of new diseases, such as HIV, H1N1, and

SARS

Free trade/ globalization

Genetically modified foods

Global climate change

Habitat loss*

Human population growth

Industrialization

Limited resources, such as oil and gasoline

Loss of biological processes, such as pollination and

migration*

Loss of ecological services, such as water purification and

the removal of CO2 from the air by plants

Loss of species to extinction*

Off-shore oil drilling

Soil erosion

Spread of exotic species*

Urban sprawl and suburban development

Use of pesticides and herbicides

Use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/

71

religious uses*

Water pollution

Energy Conservation Habits

EC1 Turn off lights when leaving rooms More activities

selected = greater

energy conservation

habits

EC2 Use power strips to turn off stand-by lights

EC3 Turn off computers and monitors when not in use

EC4 Dry clothes outside whenever possible

EC5 Keep thermostat relatively high in summer

EC6 Unplug small appliances when not in use

EC7 Minimal use of power equipment when landscaping

EC8 Compost rather than use garbage disposal

Water Conservation Habits

WC1 Minimize shower time More activities

selected = greater

energy conservation

habits

WC2 Minimize toilet flushing

WC3 Run clothes and dish washers only when full

WC4 Wash cars rarely

WC5 Look for and fix leaks regularly

WC6 Avoid hosing down decks, walkways, driveways

Table 1: Description of survey questions used in analysis. Note: Asterisks (*) indicate that

animal-related ecological concerns.

72

Variable N %

Age (N = 2898)

18-25 1028 35.5

26-35 1127 38.9

36-45 374 12.9

46-55 213 7.3

56-65 130 4.5

66-75 26 0.9

Race (N = 2855)

African American 171 6.0

Asian American 192 6.7

Hispanic 119 4.2

Multiethnic 117 4.1

Native American 17 0.6

Pacific Islander 5 0.2

White 2234 78.2

Table 2: Demographic information for survey respondents. Some participants

did not respond to questions about age or race.

73

Anthropomorphic and Human Exceptionalist Factors

1 2

View About Animals

Anthropomorphism 1 -.547 .583

Anthropomorphism 2 -.666 .212

Anthropomorphism 3 -.480 .541

Human Exceptionalism 1 .425 .506

Human Exceptionalism 2 .616 .462

Human Exceptionalism 3 .738 .299

Eigenvalue 2.08 1.24

Percent of Variance 34.62 20.62

Table 3: Factor analysis of six animal views statements. I did not evaluate Factor 2 further

because I only wanted to describe a participant’s animal view relative to their environmental

attitudes, conservation habits, and educational level.

74

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 1: Relationship between a participant’s animal view and her or his environmental attitude:

a) anthropomorphic participants favored increased rights for non-human animals compared to

human exceptionalist participants (y = 69.35 + x *-10.68); b) anthropomorphic participants were

more concerned about ecological issues that directly impacted animals compared to human

exceptionalist participants; a) anthropomorphic participants showed higher environmental

perspective scores than human exceptionalist participants, indicating differences in beliefs about

how humans should interact with the environment (y= 66.86 + x*-8.87), and b) anthropomorphic

participants showed higher environmental assessment scores than human exceptionalist

participants, indicating differences in beliefs about how humans are interacting with the

environment (y = 70.07 + x * -4.92).

75

Figure 2: Anthropomorphic participants were more concerned about a range of ecological issues

when compared to human exceptionalist participants.

76

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 3: Relationship between a participant’s animal and conservation habits: a)

anthropomorphic participants engaged in more energy saving habits, such as turning off lights

and drying clothes outside, when compared to human exceptionalist participants; b)

anthropomorphic participants engaged in more water conserving habits, such as washing cars

rarely and minimizing shower time, when compared to human exceptionalist participants; c)

anthropomorphic showed slightly more recycling in all categories, such as paper, plastic, and

glass, when compared to human exceptionalist participants (y = 60.11 + x*-2.64); d)

anthropomorphic participants were more likely to avoid eating meat and other animal-based food

products (e.g. cheese, eggs) compared to human exceptionalist participants (y = 48.18 + x*-

1.74).

77

a)

b)

Figure 4: Relationship between a participant’s education level and animal view: a) participants

with lower levels of education showed higher rates of anthropomorphism, while participants with

higher levels of education showed higher rates of human exceptionalism, and b) participants with

extreme animal views (more than one standard deviation above or below the mean) showed even

greater levels of anthropomorphism for non-graduates and greater levels of human

exceptionalism for college graduates.

78

CHAPTER 4

HUMAN-NATURE INTERACTIONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO A PERSON”S

QUALITY OF LIFE

INTRODUCTION

Many people are less connected to the natural environment today than they were in the

past (Miller 2005). This diminished connection may be in part a result of our society shifting

from dependence on the natural environment to greater levels of industrialization and

urbanization. Prior to the industrial revolution, many humans interacted directly with nature,

harvesting food and other natural resources for survival (Fuller and Irvine 2010). Around the

time of the Industrial Revolution, many people began to move into cities and urban areas,

especially with the advent of factories (Hirschman and Mogford 2009). Our direct connection to

nature was lost in many cases as people no longer depended on nature for their day-to-day

existence and became more concentrated in urban areas. As of 2010, more than 83% of the

United States population was living in metropolitan areas (defined as areas with a core urban

population of 50,000 or more) (Mackun and Wilson 2011). In addition, people spend the

majority of their time inside, perhaps even 90% or more (Evans and McCoy 1998). This increase

in urbanization may in part contribute to our continued disconnection from nature.

The term “Nature Deficit Disorder” has been used to describe disconnect from the natural

environment, especially in children (Louv 2008). Louv argued that children are spending more

time indoors, especially with electronic devices, and less unstructured time outside. He also

argued that this lack of interaction with nature may be connected to a host of other problems,

such as attention-deficit disorders. While Louv wrote about children, this disconnect from nature

79

is present in many adults as well. Urban areas often lack a diversity of wildlife, especially

species that are native to the area (Turner et al., 2004). This geographic separation between

people and biodiversity may contribute to the disconnect between adults and nature. In addition,

the exceedingly busy lives of many adults may further contribute to their lack of connection with

nature (Miller 2005). Adults spend large portions of their lives commuting, working, and taking

care of other responsibilities. Only minimal amounts of leisure time remain for adults to spend as

they choose. Although some adults might choose to spend this time interacting with nature, the

overall lack of leisure time may mean that other activities take priority over interactions with the

environment.

Our diminished connection with the natural environment could have serious

consequences, as contact with nature seems to benefit us in a variety of ways. Physiologically,

contact with nature may improve concentration, lower blood pressure, reduce childhood obesity,

and improve impulse control for children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

(see Kuo 2013 for a review). Increased connection to the environment may also be related to

improved environmental behaviors, such as recycling and conserving energy (Davis et al., 2009).

Most importantly, our connection to nature is important psychologically. For example,

interaction with nature may increase self-esteem (Maller 2009), reduce mental fatigue and

aggression (Kuo and Sullivan 2001), decrease anxiety (Chang and Chen 2005), and reduce stress

levels (Catanzaro and Ekanem 2002). In addition, our connection to nature appears to relate to

our level of happiness. Zelenski and Nisbet (2014) assessed participants’ connection of nature,

their connections with other entities (e.g., friends, family, country), and their level of happiness.

Greater connections with nature appear to relate to a participant’s overall level of happiness,

independent of a person’s connection with other factors such as friends and family, suggesting

80

that our connection to nature relates to our overall well-being. In addition, the availability of

green spaces in urban areas may improve community relations and social skills (see Lee and

Maheswaran 2011 for a review). Unfortunately, people tend to underestimate the benefits of

contact with nature (Nisbet and Zelenski 2011). Because people underestimate the benefits they

may experience from interacting with nature, they may not always recognize a lack of interaction

as potentially problematic.

We need to increase our connection with nature in order to alleviate negative disorders

while also promoting the many physiological and psychological benefits to individuals. One way

to cultivate a closer connection to the environment may be through interactions between people

and nature. Human-nature interactions include instances where there is an impact on both parties

(e.g. the person and the environment) (Fuller and Irvine 2010). These interactions can take many

forms, from those that are more passive to those that are more active (Irvine and Warber 2002).

Passive interactions can include simply knowing that a nearby green space exists to having

pictures of nature in one’s home, while active interactions can include gardening, feeding

wildlife, or walking outside (Fuller and Irvine 2010). Other interactions that could serve to

connect individuals to nature include active recreational outdoor activities, such as camping,

hiking, fishing, watching wildlife, or hunting. For example, Teisl and O’Brien (2003) found that

participation in recreational activities in nature was associated with increased concern about and

behaviors towards the environment; people that participated in recreational activities were more

likely to belong to or donate money to an environmental group and purchase an environmentally

friendly product.

Another human-nature interaction that may help connect people to the environment is the

bond between humans and pets. Historically, humans depended on animals for working tasks,

81

such as controlling pests or herding livestock (Moody et al., 2006; Faure and Kitchener 2009).

However, some domesticated animals, such as dogs and cats, shifted from workers to

companions as our association with “pets” became more commonplace. Accelerating with the

advent of the Victorian era, new breeds of animals were created (Sampson and Binns 2006);

animals were selected for certain morphological appearances that were desired for

companionship and not for working related traits. Our association with pets may help us connect

to the natural environment because they retain ancestral characteristics found in wildlife (despite

generations of selection) and their intimate role as companions. For example, people who

interact with pets, especially mixed breed animals, show greater concern about the environment

and improved behaviors towards the environment (see Chapter 2).

In this chapter, I will explore in depth how respondents interact with the natural world

and how these interactions impact their quality of life through an analysis of qualitative data.

This qualititaive analysis will examine the relationship between people and the natural

environment in addition to the relationship between pet ownership and the environment

addressed in earlier chapters.

82

METHODS

The qualitative data analyzed in this chapter were collected as part of a larger quantitative

online survey. Participants for the survey were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

(mTurk), an online crowdsourcing website where workers are paid a small monetary reward for

completing tasks. Participants were paid $0.70 if they completed the entire survey. Participants

took the survey in Checkbox Survey Software (Version 6); a link to the survey was provided

through mTurk. The survey was tagged with six keywords: “survey”, “pets”, “ecology”,

“science”, “environment”, and “animals”. Only one response was collected per IP address to help

ensure that participants could only take the survey once.

All participants for this survey were self-selected, which may have resulted in some

biases in the data (e.g., participants that were already interested in animals, pets, and the

environment). I did receive more white participants than I expected, although the proportion was

still comparable to overall United States demographics on race/ethnicity (see Chapters 2 and 3).

Additionally, I received more young participants than would be expected. However, one might

have expected more young and “tech savvy” individuals to participate, since the survey was

distributed online.

Participants consented to participate in the study on the first page of the survey; the

survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Florida Gulf Coast University (IRB

Protocol #S2012-32). Survey data were collected in two “batches” to ensure that the mTurk

program would provide reliable results. The first batch of data was collected between October 25

– 26, 2012 and the second batch was collected between January 28 – 30, 2013. In both cases,

respondents completed a 41 - 45 question quantitative survey (some questions were only

displayed if the participant answered “yes” to a previous question) before answering an open-

83

ended question near the end of the survey. After answering the qualitative question, participants

were asked demographic questions (e.g., gender, age, race/ ethnicity). All qualitative data

analyzed from the open-ended question were collected from the first batch, which included 1004

total open-ended responses. Results from the first batch of data were selected for qualitative data

analysis because respondents were not required to answer the open-ended question in this batch.

Therefore, these responses were assumed to be of higher quality and more likely to reflect the

participants true feelings on the topic. Participants in the second batch were required to provide a

response to the prompt if they wanted to be rewarded with the $0.70 payment. A comparison

between the two batches was not conducted in this study.

The open-ended question consisted of a single prompt that had two parts: “1) Describe

your interactions with the natural world and 2) If you interact with the natural world, how do

these interactions impact your quality of life?” This question was designed by the researcher

because of its specificity to the study. Overall, the survey sought to assess if interacting with pets

could be a way for participants to connect with nature. The open-ended question was designed to

gather data on other types of interactions that might help participants connect to nature and how

these interactions might affect the individual. These interactions may or may not have included

interactions with pets. Participants were provided with a text box to type in their response. There

was no limit to the participant’s response; they could enter as much or as little text as desired.

Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including the techniques of

grounded theory as originally described by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Throughout the analysis, I

allowed patterns and themes to emerge from the data itself rather than beginning with set

hypotheses. The overall patterns were grouped into several larger themes that were then analyzed

against the study research questions.

84

The two study questions were used to sort the data initially (i.e. interactions and impacts).

I first read all responses and open-coded by noting any patterns which I saw in the data. At this

stage, I was not actively looking for any specific items, but rather trying to see what information

was present in the responses. During this phase, I identified approximately 200 unique codes in

the data. After thoroughly reading and coding all responses, 14 larger themes emerged as

common and important. These themes then became the focused codes I used to categorize the

responses (Table 1). Within some of the focused codes, there were subthemes that I explore in

the following results section. If a response fit into more than one major theme, it was included in

each appropriate category. Each level of coding was more inclusive than the level below (i.e.

open codes > major themes/focused codes > subthemes).

First, I describe the variation in responses from this study. Then, I address the many ways

participants interacted (or did not interact) with nature, including lack of interactions, desires to

increase interactions, interactions in urban areas, and the types of activities in which participants

engaged. . I describe interactions that build in intensity, from individuals that had no interactions

to individuals that engaged in high-level activities. I then discuss the ways these interactions

impacted the lives of participants, including a lack of impacts, negative impact, positive impacts,

increased appreciation for the environment, and the undertaking of conservation behaviors. Then,

I address how participants described pets as a way to connect to nature as it relates to previous

chapters of the thesis. Finally, I discuss the overall conclusions from this study and relate these

conclusions to broader topics addressed within my thesis.

85

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Variation among responses

Many respondents described the interactions they had with nature and/ or positive

impacts resulting from these interactions. However, I also tested for negative cases throughout

the analysis, where a participant described an experience that did not match the overall patterns. I

did find examples of negative cases for both interactions and impacts. Approximately 17% of

participants (N = 173) described a lack of interaction with the natural world. In addition,

approximately 5% of respondents (N = 48) stated that their interactions had no impact or a

negative impact on their lives. These negative cases show that the data included a variety of

responses, some of which were unexpected and did not conform to the overall findings of this

study. In contrast, a majority of participants (~57%, n = 569) described the various types of

interactions they had with the natural world and about 47% of participants (n = 476) described a

range of positive impacts they felt from these interactions.

Interactions

Lack of interactions and desire for more interaction

About 12% of participants (n = 125) described a lack of interaction with nature and for

selected individuals, avoiding the natural world seemed to be an intentional choice. One

respondent stated, “I don't like to interact with the natural world. I try to stay inside temperature

controlled buildings and vehicles as much as possible.” Another added, “I don't spend much time

in the natural world. I prefer to stay inside.” However, others expressed a desire to increase their

interactions with nature from their current levels. In one instance, a participant described how

time constraints limited their interactions: “I rarely have time to interact with the natural world

86

these days but I always look forward to whatever time I get [the chance].” Another participant

added: “I don’t have much interaction with the natural world. I spend most of my time in the

man-made world and interact mostly with things that are man-made… I wish I could have more

interaction with the natural world, but it is just not practical in my daily life these days.” The

desire of these participants to enhance their interaction and connection to the natural world may

be related to the concept of “biophilia.” E.O. Wilson (1984) first described this concept as

humans’ inherent attraction to other forms of life and the natural world. Our desire to connect

with nature may have deeply rooted origins in our evolutionary history that carry over to the

present day, which could explain these participants’ desire to interact with the natural world.

Perhaps these participants also desire a connection to the natural world for the benefits it can

provide (e.g., stress relief, happiness). I address these potential benefits below.

Urban disconnect and intentional interactions

Another common theme was disconnection from the natural world related to living in

urban areas. Approximately 5% of respondents (n = 48) noted that they did not get to interact

much with the natural world because they lived in a city or suburban area. Despite this apparent

disconnect, some participants intentionally sought out experiences to help connect them to the

natural world: “I live in a dense urban area so I must seek out natural settings intentionally. I

don't get the opportunity to interact with nature as often as I'd like.” Another participant noted:

“[I] live in a very urban area. My natural world interactions are more of a vacation feel; I have to

go out of my way to go to parks, see non-pet animals[,] to feel like I'm ‘in nature’.” Although

many participants described a lack of opportunity for interaction with nature in urban areas, this

may not always be the case. Urban areas often include parks and green spaces where people can

connect with nature. In addition, research suggests that people may still experience many of the

87

benefits of interacting with nature from “doses” that are not necessarily in pristine areas, such as

in soccer fields or even having a view of trees and grass from one’s home (Kuo 2013). For

example, one participant noted his use of urban parks: “I live in an urban area and I walk my

dogs in a local park that has a small lake. These are the times I relax and get some exercise, both

are crucial to my well-being.”

In addition, many individuals exclude themselves from being a part of nature as well as

urban environments. For example, some people describe nature as a place “out there”, away from

home, and only in areas that are undisturbed by human activity (Haluza-Delay 2001). This was

apparent in the comments by respondents who stated that they live in urban areas and therefore

had minimal interactions with nature. However, large numbers of plants and animals do exist in

urban areas, although in many cases they may not be species we favor (e.g., pigeons, rats,

cockroaches). In addition, prior research has shown that even minimal interactions with nature,

such as a view from a window or a plant in one’s home, can provide important benefits (e.g.

Chang Chen 2005). We seem to recognize certain species and locations as nature and seem to

disregard other species and locations as “not” nature.

Types of interactions

Most respondents described some type of interaction with the natural world (~57%, n =

569). These interactions fell along a continuum of activity levels (ranging from minimal-,

moderate-, to high-level activities) that reflect the amount of energy exerted during the activity. I

explore each of these types of interactions in the following sections. It is important to note that

the different levels of activity do not necessarily reflect the engagement of a person in nature.

For example, some individuals could be engaged highly in and connected to nature through an

interaction that only requires minimal levels of energy expenditure. Other individuals may be

88

engaged minimally in and connected to nature through interactions that require high levels of

energy expenditure.

Minimal-level activities

Minimal-level activities were described by about 19% of participants (n = 188) and

included those activities that did not require lots of physical energy expenditure. Additionally,

these activities were typically observational in nature. Minimal-level activities ranged from one

participant who had “small plants in [his] apartment” to another who would “sit out on [her] deck

and get some sun, observe nature.” Other respondents described observing nature while using

transportation: “When driving I do enjoy looking at the crops in the fields, the trees, and other

scenery.” Many of the respondents described observations that involved wildlife, animals, and

plants. For example, “I love to hear the birds singing and I spend time observing them. I also

enjoy seeing other wildlife like squirrels, opossum, raccoons, snakes and we even have wild

turkeys. I also take a lot of pictures of the scenery and wildlife.” Finally, many of these

interactions were observational but not manipulative as illustrated by one response: “I interact

mostly by sitting outside and observing nature. I try not to bother the animals just sit and watch

them.” Such minimal-level activities can be important to a person’s happiness and psychological

self-perception. For example, in Kaplan (2001) people that had a view of nature from their

apartment window reported high levels of well-being and satisfaction with their neighborhoods.

Moderate-level activities

About 26% of participant (n = 265) described moderate-level activities, which included

interactions where the participant was engaged in an intermediate level of physical energy

expenditure. These types of interactions included leisurely activities, such as taking walks, doing

yard work, visiting parks, and feeding wildlife. For example, one participant said: “I sometimes

89

go walking in the park where I see ducks and assorted squirrels, and fish in the pond. I also

interact with a local guinea hen that wants to be constantly fed bread as well as a squirrel who

has developed a taste for bread.” Another participant added: “I like to take my kids for walks on

nature trails at the park and walks on the beach. It is nice to be away from technology and out in

the fresh air.” Finally, one participant said, “I also take my dog for a walk outside and clean up

leaves around the yard.”

High-level activities

Finally, high-level activities were described by 29% of participants (n = 288) and

included those interactions where the participant was engaged in a high level of physical energy

expenditure, which often included specific recreational outdoor activities. For instance, one

participant stated: “I regularly try to get out into nature for hiking, camping or biking

expeditions. In the past I've also enjoyed the pastimes of white-water rafting and rock climbing.”

Another noted: “I'm a pretty avid outdoorswoman; I love hiking, camping, swimming,

fishing...really, I just enjoy spending time in nature.” Although these interactions differ

significantly from both the minimal and moderate activity level interactions, all three appear to

be very important in benefitting the individual. For example, Kuo (2013) noted that all types of

encounters with nature can benefit the individual, even those that lasted only a few minutes or

were in “less pristine” areas, such as around one’s home or in a neighborhood park. In short,

some participants intentionally avoided interacting with nature, although many of these

individuals expressed a desire to increase their interactions with nature. Most participants

described the myriad of ways they interacted with nature and many intentionally sought out these

experiences.

90

Impacts

None or negative impact

In addition to a variety of interactions with nature, participants described many types of

impacts that their encounters with nature had on them. Some participants said that their

interactions with nature did not impact them or their quality of life. For example, on person

wrote: “I don't think the interactions impact my quality of life one way or another.” Others

described negative impacts resulting from the type of interactions or lack of interactions. For

example, “I think the greatest way my life is impacted by the natural world is through air quality

- the more pollution and contaminates I breathe in the more my health is in danger.” Others

described how a lack of interaction has impacted them negatively. One participant gave a very

nice description: “I live in NYC [New York City] so there isn't much nature. I grew up in NJ

[New Jersey] where we would spend hours walking through the woods, go to farms and buy

fresh produce, swim in the ocean. Being without nature has really taken a toll on my physical

and mental health.” The lack of impact and/or negative impacts were described by a minority of

participants, approximately 5% (n = 48).

Positive impacts

In contrast, about 47% of participants (n = 476) described a range of positive impacts

they felt from interacting with nature. These positive impacts included happiness, relaxation,

peacefulness, stress relief, tranquility, reduced anxiety and depression, and improved quality of

life. One participant offered this description:

I take walks from time to time on the trails in the mountains. It really clears my head and

gives me some peace of mind when times are bad. The fresh air, the beauty of the trees,

plants and other things I come across make me feel free. I love the sky and stars,

rainbows, rivers and wild life. I cannot imagine not having the opportunity to see them. I

am also very fortunate to live close to the ocean[;] just to look at the endless water on the

horizon is a gift like no other.

91

Another participant noted: “I like to ride my bicycle regularly. I also go hiking near a local lake

and nature reserve at times. I think that these interactions help me to relax and enjoy life more.

They are also a good way to relieve stress.” These findings are illustrative of the many benefits

that interacting with nature can provide (see also e.g., Keniger et al.,, 2013; Lee and Maheswaran

2011).

In addition, about 21% of participants (n = 215) also discussed how their interactions

with nature made them more appreciative of the environment in general. One participant said: “I

frequently sit outside at night and just look at the stars and listen to the sounds of nature… it

gives me a better appreciation of the natural world.”

Environmental behaviors

Some participants described how their increased appreciation related to their concern

about protecting the environment. For example, one participant stated:

The interactions impact the quality of my life because hiking and admir[ing] the natural

world makes me realize how precious it is and how we, as humans, must do everything to

attempt to retain what we have as well as repair the damage we have done. It makes me

feel like humans have a purpose.

In fact, researchers have had similar observations noting that increased concern about the

environment relates to improved environmental behaviors, such as reducing water usage,

purchasing environmentally friendly products, and reducing energy usage (Mobley et al.,, 2010).

About 20% of participants in this study (n = 202) described their behaviors towards the

environment and their interest in preserving nature. Some of these behaviors were more

generalized and passive, such as, “I try to help as much as I can to preserve the Earth's beauty” or

“When I interact with the natural world, I try not to disturb it or pollute it.” Other respondents

described specific actions they took to help protect the environment, such as recycling,

92

conserving water and electricity, composting, or picking up litter. For example, one participant

wrote:

I try very hard to recycle when I can, to use resources intelligently and to leave as small

of a mark on the natural world as I can. I drive a car that gets 40 mpg, but try very hard

to limit my driving anyway. I grow a small amount of the food I eat.

Another added:

also turning down the heat, turning up the thermostat when possible, running fans also

to preserve resources. Also allowing the sun in during the day in the cold months and

keeping as much of the sun out during the hot months. While this might not be

camping or living on the land and composting I continue to look for ways to preserve,

reuse, recycle…

These examples clearly illustrate the wide variety of behaviors that individuals engaged in to

minimize their impacts on the environment. And, although many participants detailed the

behaviors they undertook, some lamented their inability to do more:

I try to be a greener person than most, but can't really afford to be as green as I'd like to

be. Organic food is expensive. I don't have room to compost. My recycling capabilities

are limited by my apartment complex's recycle bins. I'd like to be able to do more.

The monetary cost of improved conservation habits was echoed by another participant who

stated: “I try to recycle and be green, though money is a big issue with why I can't do as much as

I would like to [do] to be green.” The willingness of so many participants to engage in behaviors

related to environmental protection is encouraging, despite the limitations some respondents

have. The collective effort of so many individuals is important in conserving natural resources

and may contribute to the reduction of some environmental problems, such as fossil fuel

emissions and global climate change.

93

Pets as a bridge to the environment

In addition to the many interactions already discussed, surprisingly few (~10%, n = 99)

participants described their relationships with their pets as a way to connect to nature. Out of the

individuals who did, many described walking a dog in parks or interacting with cats, dogs,

horses, or other pets. For example, one participant said: “I don't interact much with my natural

world. Most of it would be through my dog which is a great increase to my quality of life.”

Another participant noted: “I play with, feed and exercise my dog daily, usually on long walks

around my neighborhood. On these walks I pay special attention to the natural world. I find it

interesting to be able to identify native plants.” These interactions with a pet could help a person

relate to the environment. One participant in particular described how her pets enhanced her

connection to nature: “I feel connected to the natural world not separate from it and not superior

to it. Living with my dogs and cats acts as a kind of bridge in my awareness to that which is still

wild.” These examples illustrate how, for some participants, their interactions with pets helped

them relate to nature.

An unrecognized bridge

Although some individuals did describe pets as an interaction with nature, we might have

expected a larger number of individuals to express this connection. In the 45-question survey

leading up to the open-ended response, participants were asked about pets they lived with, pet

behavior, how they felt about the environment, and their behaviors relating to conservation. It

would seem that the preceding questions would have “baited” participants to talk about their pets

in terms of connection to the environment. The fact that so few respondents explicitly related

their pets to their environmental connection was intriguing. Even though some participants

recognized that their pet could help get them out in nature (e.g. through dog walking). Most

94

participants did not recognize their pets as part of nature or how their pets might relate to their

overall feeling and perception about nature

Further, there is clear evidence that our association with pets relates to the level of value

we place on the environment and how we interact with the environment in terms of conservation

habits (see Chapter 2). Although some participants described how their pets helped them

physically interact with nature (e.g., while walking dogs), a more psychological bridge between a

person’s pets and their valuation of and feelings about nature seems to be unrecognized by a vast

majority of people. Some researchers have discussed the possibility that our relationship with

pets may be related to our connection with nature (e.g., Vining 2003). The findings presented in

Chapter 2 seem to support the idea that pets can serve as a bridge to nature, although it may be

an unrecognized bridge as this data suggests.

There are several reasons why we might be ignoring pets as an important link between

humans and nature. First, modern pets have been created by humans through many generations

of artificial selection. Because pets are a human product, we may not recognize them as “nature”.

We tend to consider nature to include only those items or places that are not disturbed by humans

and are not human-made (e.g., Haluza-Delay 2001). Second, pets live with humans, and we may

not consider ourselves part of nature. We often describe places where humans live as “not

nature.” This was clearly illustrated by the participants in this study of who described living in

urban areas (i.e., with lots of people) and therefore not having the opportunity to interact with

nature where they lived. Third, intense artificial selection over the past ~200 years created many

new “breeds” that resulted in many new characteristics (including deleterious traits) in modern

pets that differ from their wild ancestors as well as the ancient breeds. For example, many

purebred animals have serious physiological deformities and problems as a result of the breeding

95

process (Asher 2009). These animals may show certain behavioral and personality traits based on

their breed (Svartberg 2006). Despite the many reasons we may overlook pets as nature,

association with pets is related to how we think about, value, and interact with the environment.

Pets are an underappreciated, unrecognized, and unconscious bridge connecting people to nature.

Further exploration of how our association with pets relates to our connection with nature could

be useful in helping to foster a connection to nature in more individuals.

96

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this qualitative analysis have revealed that people interact with nature in a

variety of ways. Some interactions involve merely observing nature while others are more

intense immersions in recreational activities. Despite this variation, all types of interactions

appear to provide many benefits to the person. Many participants reported feelings of relaxation,

improved mood, reduction in stress levels, and increased appreciation for nature.

In addition, a person’s connection to nature may relate to their behaviors toward the

environment. Wide ranges of environmental behaviors were described, including recycling,

reduced water usage, use of alternative transportation, and using environmentally friendly

products. Encouraging a greater connection between people and the environment (as a means of

combating Nature Deficit Disorder, for example) may also help with environmental preservation.

Human activity contributes to many environmental problems, such as global climate change and

species extinctions. We can help combat these issues by promoting environmentally responsible

behaviors by individuals.

Finally, one way to help people connect to environment may be through their pets. Many

people interact with pets on a daily basis, yet we have limited knowledge about how these

interactions influence our attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge. Although more research is needed

on this issue, the results discussed earlier (Chapter 2) suggest that our relationship with certain

types of pets may enhance our connection to the environment. Clearly, promoting a connection

between people and nature is important. Further exploration of how individuals may interact with

and understand nature can help determine how to enhance that connection.

97

Broader implications

The results of this study suggest that there are many ways in which people connect and

engage with nature. This engagement is important in terms of how a person responds and relates

to the environment. Enhanced connections to nature may relate to our well-being, our

conservation habits, and overall valuation and appreciation of the environment. Although people

clearly respond to a wide range of connections to nature, some of these connections appear to be

largely unrecognized. Chapter 2 provides evidence that our association with certain types of pets

relates to our feelings about and interactions with the environment. Although this qualitative

chapter provided some further evidence of this connection, most respondents did not address this

issue in their responses. In addition, Chapter 3 provides evidence that our empathy towards

animals relates to our feelings about the environment. This connection was not addressed by

participants in their qualitative responses. Participants did not speak about shared experiences

with animals or the environment and how this might help them connect to nature. It seems that

people are very aware of some types of connections to nature. Many participants talked about

their interactions (e.g., observing nature, taking walks, camping) and how these interactions

enhanced a connection to nature. However, interactions with pets and feelings about animals are

connections that were only recognized by a very limited few or were not recognized at all. The

results of the current chapter (along with Chapters 2 and 3) suggest that a broad range of factors

can help individuals connect to nature. Some of these factors may not be obvious, but they are

clearly important. Broadening our horizons on how people connect to nature will help paint a

fuller and more complete picture of the relationship humans have to the natural environment.

98

LITERATURE CITED

Asher, L., Diesel, G., Summers, J.F., McGreevy, P.D., Collins, L.M., 2009. Inherited defects in

pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal 182,

402-411.

Catanzaro, C., Ekanem, E., 2002. Home gardeners value stress reduction and interaction with

nature, XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Expanding Roles for Horticulture in

Improving Human Well-Being and Life Quality 639, pp. 269-275.

Chang, C.-Y., Chen, P.-K., 2005. Human response to window views and indoor plants in the

workplace. HortScience 40, 1354-1359.

Davis, J.L., Green, J.D., Reed, A., 2009. Interdependence with the environment: Commitment,

interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology

29, 173-180.

Dunlap, R.E., Heffernan, R.B., 1975. Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Concern: An

Empirical Examination. Rural Sociology 40, 18-30.

Evans, G.W., McCoy, J.M., 1998. When buildings don't work: The role of architecture in human

health. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 85-94.

Faure, E., Kitchener, A.C., 2009. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships

between felids and people. Anthrozoos 22, 221-238.

Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., 2010. Interactions between people and nature in urban environments,

in: Gaston, K.J. (Ed.), Urban Ecology, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 134-

171.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldin, New York.

Haluza-Delay, R., 2001. Nothing here to care about: Participant constructions of nature

following a 12-day wilderness program. The Journal of Environmental Education 32, 43-

48.

Hirschman, C., Mogford, E., 2009. Immigration and the American industrial revolution from

1880 to 1920. Social Science Research 38, 897-920.

Irvine, K.N., Warber, S.L., 2002. Greening healthcare: practicing as if the natural environment

really mattered. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 8, 76-83.

Kaplan, R., 2001. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environment and

Behavior 33, 507-542.

Keniger, L.E., Gaston, K.J., Irvine, K.N., Fuller, R.A., 2013. What are the Benefits of Interacting

with Nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10, 913-

935.

Kuo, F.E.M., 2013. Nature-deficit disorder: evidence, dosage, and treatment. Journal of Policy

Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 5, 172-186.

Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Aggression and violence in the inner city effects of

environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33, 543-571.

Lee, A.C.K., Maheswaran, R., 2011. The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the

evidence. Journal of Public Health 33, 212-222.

Louv, R., 2008. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.

Algonquin Books.

Mackun, P., Wilson, S., 2011. Population Distribution and Change: 2000-2010. United States

Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/

briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

99

Maller, C.J., 2009. Promoting children's mental, emotional and social health through contact

with nature: a model. Health Education 109, 522-543.

Miller, J.R., 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology

& Evolution 20, 430-434.

Mobley, C., Vagias, W.M., Deward, S.L., 2010. Exploring Additional Determinants of

Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Influence of Environmental Literature and

Environmental Attitudes. Environment and Behavior 42, 420-447.

Moody, J.A., Clark, L.A., Murphy, K.E., 2006. Working dogs: History and applications, in:

Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome, Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 1-18.

Sampson, J., Binns, M.M., 2006. The kennel club and the early history of dog shows and breed

clubs, in: Ostrander, E.A., Giger, U., Lindblad-Toh, K. (Eds.), The dog and its genome,

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., pp. 19-30.

Svartberg, K., 2006. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs?

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 293-313.

Teisl, M.F., O' Brien, K., 2003. Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationists exhibit different

levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior 35, 506-522.

Turner, W.R., Nakamura, T., Dinetti, M., 2004. Global urbanization and the separation of

humans from nature. Bioscience 54, 585.

Vining, J., 2003. The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review

10, 87-99.

Zelenski, J.M., Nisbet, E.K., 2014. Happiness and Feeling Connected: The Distinct Role of

Nature Relatedness. Environment and Behavior 46, 3-23.

100

TABLES AND FIGURES

Code/Category Description Approximate

Percentage

N

Relaxing Participant described relaxing effect (e.g., tranquil,

peaceful, stress relief, peace of mind, good for

emotional health)

33% 330

Appreciation

for nature

Participant described an appreciation for nature or the

outdoors (e.g., beauty of nature, enjoy being outdoors,

appreciate God’s creation, inspiring, humbling)

21% 215

Conservation

habits

Participant described desire to protect environment,

specific behaviors they engaged in, minimizing

impacts on nature (e.g., pick up trash, don’t abuse

resources, do best to protect, recycling, don’t litter,

conserve water)

20% 202

Pets Participant talked about their pets (e.g., have cats,

walking dog, interact with pets)

10% 99

Constant

interaction/part

of nature

Participant stated that they were part of nature, could

not be separated (e.g., part of natural world, interact

daily, interactions necessary for survival, every minute

is contact with nature)

9% 95

Minimal-level

activity

Participant described activities with minimal energy

expenditure (e.g., observe nature, watch animals, see

wildlife in yard, see plants)

19% 188

Moderate-level

activity

Participant described activities with moderate energy

expenditure (e.g., taking walks, visit parks, feed

wildlife, play outside)

26% 265

High-level

activity

Participant described activities with high energy

expenditure, many are recreational (e.g., camping,

hiking, fishing, gardening, rock climbing, rafting,

biking, running)

29% 288

Minimal

interaction

Participant said they did not interact with nature or

had very minimal interactions (e.g., don’t interact,

don’t interact much)

12% 125

Minimal

interaction –

City

Participant described minimal interactions with nature

specifically because they lived in a city/urban area

5% 48

Respect Participant described respect and/or compassion

towards nature and the environment (e.g., respect

nature, respect plants and animals, live in harmony

with nature)

5% 54

Improved

quality of life

Participant described a positive impact on quality of

life (e.g., increased quality of life, better mood, good

for mental health, feel happy)

22% 224

No/ negative

impact on

Participant described no impact or a negative impact

on quality of life (e.g., no impact on life, air pollution

5% 48

101

quality of life impacts health, pollution in water, upset when seeing

destruction)

Other Participants response was not able to be categorized or

was unclear

12% 124

Table 1: Larger themes which emerged from the open coding process and a description of

what was included in each theme. These themes were used as focused codes to categorize

responses. Smaller, subthemes existed within some of these larger themes.

102

CHAPTER 5

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

In this study, people who lived with pets showed a preference for better treatment of non-

human animals and were also more concerned about animal related issues. Additionally, pet

owners placed higher value on the environment and showed more habits to protect it (i.e. water

and energy conservation) (see Chapter 2). These patterns may relate to the level of empathy a

person feels towards their own pets and other animals, which could extend to the environment at

large. Other issues became more apparent when I compared the different types of pets that an

individual owned. For example, those individuals that owned mixed breed animals thought that

humans were damaging the environment, were more concerned about a range of ecological

issues, and knew more about ecology, evolution, and behavior as it related to their pets. These

differences may be related to the amount of modification a pet shows: less modified (i.e. mixed

breed) animals appear to be a better bridge between individuals and the environment, while more

modified (i.e. purebred animals) appear to be a poorer bridge. Individuals that owned highly

modified animals also supported the notion that humans could modify the environment to

support their own needs. Overall, our interactions with pets (and certain types of pets in

particular) appear to relate to our views about and behaviors towards the environment in general.

In terms of a person’s view about animals, findings demonstrate clear distinctions

between individuals that were more anthropomorphic and those that were more human

exceptionalist (see Chapter 3). Higher levels of anthropomorphism seem to relate to increased

concern about animal treatment and animal issues, which is expected as these individuals see

humans and non-human animals as having shared experiences. In addition, anthropomorphic

103

individuals placed more value on the environment and showed better conservation habits when

compared to human exceptionalist individuals. Because anthropomorphic individuals recognize

common experiences between humans and non-human animals, they may understand that a

functioning, healthy environment is necessary for the survival of themselves and other animals.

Human exceptionalist individuals tend to perceive a separation between themselves and other

animals, and therefore may not see a functioning environment as valuable for humans and other

animals. Related to education, human exceptionalist individuals showed higher levels of

education while anthropomorphic individuals showed lower levels of education. One might

expect this result of individuals with exposure to science, as science courses often discourage

anthropomorphism that is considered “not objective”. However, participants in this study could

have come from any educational background (i.e. they were not all scientists). In many other

disciplines, human achievements are emphasized and celebrated, which may help contribute to

the distinction educated individuals make between themselves and other animals.

A person’s animal views clearly relate to their feelings about the environment, their

behaviors related to conservation, and their education levels. It is important to note that

individuals in this study reported their existing animal views; there was no experimental

manipulation to direct individuals towards anthropomorphism or human exceptionalism. If the

goal is to promote improved respect for and treatment of the environment, we should take care in

discouraging anthropomorphic views in education and elsewhere, as we may actually be pushing

individuals towards lesser levels of respect and care for the environment. Anthropomorphic

hypotheses may sometimes be inaccurate, but this is clearly not always the case. In some

instances, anthropomorphic hypotheses provide the best and most clear explanation for an

observed behavior, as explained in Chapter 3. In other cases, a human exceptionalist hypothesis

104

may be the best explanation. Carefully highlighting both the similarities and the differences

between humans and non-human animals in scientific studies may help to encourage more

balanced and realistic animal views while also promoting increased respect and care for our

environment.

Participants in this study also described their interactions with nature and how these

interactions impacted their lives in the open-ended question. Some participants described a lack

of interaction with nature, especially individuals that lived in cities. Some of these individuals

also described a desire to interact more with nature, but that access was limited due to their

locations. This may relate to the idea that people tend to consider urban areas to be “not nature”

and that nature is only in places that are untouched by humans. In addition, participants

described interactions with nature that ranged from low-activity levels to high-activity levels

with moderate activity levels in between. Some of the common interactions described were

observing plants and animals, going for walks, feeding animals, and pursuing specific

recreational activities (e.g. camping, hiking, fishing). Although these interactions differed

dramatically, all can be important in helping a person connect with the natural environment.

Participants also described the impacts these interactions had on their lives. A few individuals

described negative impacts (e.g. allergies, poor air quality), but most described a range of

positive impacts (e.g. relaxation, tranquility, reduced stress, exercise). Some also described their

habits related to the environment, such as recycling, composting, and conserving water. It was

surprising that few individuals described their pet as a way to connect with the environment

given the nature of the preceding survey questions. It appears that, although our pets do relate to

our connection with nature, they are not often recognized as serving this purpose. All of the data

presented in this study show that interacting with pets relates to improved valuation of the

105

environment, better conservation habits, and greater knowledge about animals. This disconnect

may relate to the assumption that humans and human created products (e.g. domestic animals)

are not a part of nature. How we think about animals also relates to our valuation of the

environment and interactions with nature. Although we may not always recognize the value of

pets and animals in this pursuit, the preceding study has shown that these interactions deserve to

be taken into serious consideration and examined more closely to further explore how pets may

act as a bridge between humans and the environment.

Reflection on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Instrument

The use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a means for delivering surveys clearly includes

both benefits and costs. First, the use of mTurk is beneficial because it allows the researcher to

gather large amounts of data very quickly and at relatively low cost. Second, the range of data

gathered can be very broad, including data that is nationwide or even international if the

researcher chooses to accept responses from individuals outside the United States. Third, by

collecting data in this way, the researcher automatically receives other useful information about

the participants. For instance, the researcher can record the IP address for each participant and

use this information to get an idea of the general location of participants.

However, the use of mTurk also includes costs. First, mTurk is difficult to scale down to

a local level. Researchers really cannot collect data for specific states or counties, which might

be problematic if the study is looking to address a local issue. Second, it is necessary to have a

way to ensure the quality of the data being collected. In this study, data was checked in several

ways to ensure that participants were providing thoughtful responses to questions. Researchers

must be very conscious of how they will ensure data quality.

106

Future research

The results of this study raise many additional questions for future research. First,

addressing a person’s lifelong experiences with pets may be important. Early experiences

interacting with pets may help shape a person’s views about the environment, in addition to a

person’s current interactions with pets. Second, further demographic information about the

participant may be related to their environmental attitudes. For example, collecting data on

whether the participant lives in an urban or rural area as well as their socioeconomic status may

further explain their views. Third, collecting additional information about the pet appears to be

important. Exploring how the pet was acquired (e.g. pet store, purchased, adopted from a shelter)

and the lifestyle of the pet (e.g. is the pet strictly kept indoors, indoor/outdoor, or is the pet a

working animal?) are good areas for further exploration. Fourth, comparing pet ownership and

animal views across participants from different counties would be an intriguing direction to

explore. Finally, to better determine causality, a before and after study is needed. Future

researchers could survey/interview people both before and after acquiring a pet to determine if

the person’s views about the environment change because of pet ownership, if people who have

certain beliefs are more attracted to certain types of pets, or if a combination of both factors is at

work.

107

APPENDIX A

COPY OF SURVEY

Online Survey Consent Form

Study Title: The effect of pet ownership on ecological perspective and scientific knowledge

Principal Researchers: Ariel Chomey, Dr. Charles Gunnels

Introduction

You are being asked to participate in an online survey for a research project conducted through

Florida Gulf Coast University. This study is being conducted in partial completion of Ariel

Chomeys Masters of Sciences in Environmental Sciences. The University requires that you give

your approval to participate in this project. You must also be at least 18 years old to take this

survey.

Your participation in the study is completely voluntary. If you decide to participate now you may

change your mind and stop at any time, for any reason, without penalty or loss of any future

services you may be eligible to receive from the University. You can choose to not answer an

individual question or you may skip any section of the survey by clicking Next at the bottom of

the survey page to move to the next question.

Nature and Purpose of Study

We are conducting the study to determine the effects of pet ownership on a person’s ecological

perspective and scientific knowledge.

We are asking you to take part in the study because you volunteered to complete this Human

Intelligence Task (HIT) on Amazons Mechanical Turk (mTurk). If you agree to be part of the

research study, you will be asked to complete an online survey about the effect of pet ownership

on a persons ecological perspective and scientific knowledge. We expect the survey will take

between 10 to 20 minutes to complete. The survey cannot be completed in more than one session.

In addition, we will accept only one survey from each respondent.

Risk of Participating

Your participation will be kept anonymous. However, working with email or the internet has the

risk of compromising privacy, confidentiality, and/or anonymity. Despite this possibility, the

risks to your physical, emotional, social, professional, or financial well-being are considered to

be 'less than minimal by completing the survey.

Benefit of Participating

Test participants will be paid a $0.70 reward. Results of your survey will be verified to ensure

that you are both attentive and thoughtful in your responses. Payment will be paid on your

answer to an open-ended question at the end of the survey. We will tell you the question when

you reach that point of the survey. We will then reward verified surveys with the monetary award

for your participation. Participants will also contribute to the information known about the

effects of pet ownership on ecological perspective and scientific knowledge.

108

Payment/Cost to Participate

Test participants will be paid a $0.70 reward for verified completed surveys (see above).

Respondents will only be paid for one completed survey.

Confidentiality of Information

If you join the study, we will make every effort keep your information confidential and secure by

stripping all data of identifiable information. Despite these safeguards, there is the possibility of

hacking or other security breaches that could compromise the confidentiality of the information

you provide. Thus, it is important to remember that you are free to decline to answer any

question that makes you uncomfortable for any reason.

We will not release information about you unless you authorize us to do so or unless we are

required to do so by law. If results of this study are published or presented at a professional

meeting, no information will be included that would make it possible to identify you as a study

participant. Any reports or publications based on this research will use only group data and will

not include any information that would identify you or any individual as being affiliated with this

project.

Contact Information

If you have any questions about this study, you may contact Dr. Charles Gunnels at 239-590-

7210.

If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you

feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects' Institutional

Review Board through Sandra Terranova, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, at 239-

590-7522.

Statement

I have read the preceding information describing this study. All of my questions have been

answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to participate in

the study. My decision to participate or to decline participating in this study is completely

voluntary. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time. I am aware of my

option to not answer to any questions I choose.

I understand that it is not possible to identify all potential risks I believe that reasonable steps

have been taken to minimize both the known and potential but unknown risks. The submission of

the completed survey is my informed consent to participate in the study.

Print a copy before continuing if you would like a copy of the consent form.

By answering "yes" below you are consenting to participate in this research survey.

Thank you for your time.

Ariel Chomey, Dr. Charles Gunnels

Yes, I consent to participate in this study.

No, I do not wish to participate in this study.

109

Section 1

The following questions will ask about any pets you currently have.

1. *Do you have a pet currently?

Yes

No

110

Section 2

The following questions will ask about any pets you currently have.

1. What types of pets do you have and how many of each type do you have?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more

Cat(s)

Dog(s)

Other(s)

2. If you own a dog, please specify if the pet is a pure-bred, mix-bred, or unknown-bred animal.

Describe one pet per line. Skip additional dogs that do not apply to your situation.

Pure Bred Mix Bred Unknown Bred

Dog 1

Dog 2

Dog 3

Dog 4

Dog 5

Remaining Dogs

111

Section 2 (cont.)

3. If you own a cat, please specify if the pet is a pure-bred, mix-bred, or unknown-bred animal.

Describe one pet per line. Skip additional cats that do not apply to your situation.

Pure Bred Mix Bred Unknown Bred

Cat 1

Cat 2

Cat 3

Cat 4

Cat 5

Remaining Cats

4. If you have cats and dogs, are they spayed and/ or neutered?

Select:

No, my pets are not spayed and/ or neutered.

Some of my pets are spayed and/ or neutered.

Yes, all of my pets are spayed and/ or neutered.

Not Applicable

112

Section 3

The following questions will ask about your environmental perspective. Please indicate

your level of agreement with each statement.

1. Humans should pursue choices and decisions that minimize any negative impact on the natural

environment.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

2. The average American uses a responsible amount of natural resources to meet their daily

needs.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

3. How should animals be treated relative to basic human rights?

No Rights

Some Rights

Same Rights

0 100

4. Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

5. Humans are severely abusing the environment.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

113

Section 3 (cont.)

The following questions will ask about your environmental perspective.

6. The following lists topics that have been described as ecological catastrophes resulting from

human activity. Please check any of the following that you believe are real catastrophes that have

a negative impact on your life.

There are no ecological catastrophes that have a negative impact on my life.

Acid rain

Air pollution

Destructive removal of natural resources

Disease resistance to antibiotics and other medicines

Emergence of new diseases, such as HIV, H1N1, and SARS

Free trade/ globalization

Genetically modified foods

Global climate change

Habitat loss

Human population growth

Industrialization

Limited resources, such as oil and gasoline

Loss of biological processes, such as pollination and migration

Loss of ecological services, such as water purification and the removal of CO2 from

the air by plants

Loss of species to extinction

Off-shore oil drilling

114

Soil erosion

Spread of exotic species

Urban sprawl and suburban development

Use of pesticides and herbicides

Use of threatened or endangered species for cultural/ religious uses

Water pollution

115

Section 4

The following questions will ask about your habits related to the environment.

1. Please select all of the following that best describe your usual mode of transportation.

A hybrid

A small or compact car (2 door)

A mid size car (4 door sedan)

A large car (including vans and minivans)

A pickup truck or Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV)

Bicycling

Walking

Mass transportation

2. Below is a list of energy saving habits. Please check all that apply to your usage.

Energy saving habits I USE/UTILIZE:

Turn off lights when leaving rooms

Use power strips to turn off stand-by lights

Turn off computers and monitors when not in use

Dry clothes outside whenever possible

Keep thermostat relatively high in summer

Unplug small appliances when not in use

Minimal use of power equipment when landscaping

Compost rather than use garbage disposal

116

Section 4 (cont.)

3. Below is a list of water saving habits. Please check all that apply to your usage.

Water saving habits I USE/UTILIZE:

Minimize shower time

Minimize toilet flushing

Run clothes and dish washers only when full

Wash cars rarely

Look for and fix leaks regularly

Avoid hosing down decks, walkways, driveways

117

Section 5

The following questions will ask about your habits related to the environment.

What percentage of your diet is made up of the following?

1. Seafood

0 100

2. Other Meats

0 100

3. Dairy

0 100

4. Fruits and Vegetables

0 100

5. Grain and Nuts

0 100

118

Section 6

The following questions will ask about your habits related to the environment.

1. What percentage of your food is organic, locally grown, or sustainably produced?

0 100

What percentage of the following wastes do you recycle?

2. Paper

0 100

3. Aluminum

0 100

4. Glass

0 100

5. Plastic

0 100

6. Electronic waste, such as cell phones, computers, etc.

0 100

119

Section 7

The following questions will ask about ecology, evolution, and animal behavior. Please

select the best answer for each question.

1. Animals can digest anything that they eat in their environment.

True

False

2. Based on your knowledge of dogs, how does a wolf demonstrate submission within a pack?

Lays on back and exposes belly

Bares teeth

Flattens ears and barks

Lowers front legs and raises hind legs and tail in air

Sticks tongue out of mouth and pants

3. Catfish barbels, which are similar to cat and dog whiskers in both shape and location, serve

which of the following purposes:

None, they are decorative

They aid the sense of taste

They aid the sense of smell

They aid the sense of touch

120

Section 7 (cont.)

4. What caused the variety of farm animal breeds seen today?

Hormones

Disease

Diet

Artificial selection

Mutation

5. Besides urination, how does a tiger indicate that an object, such as a tree, is part of its territory

based on your knowledge of cat behavior?

Pounce on the object

Sleep by the object

Rub on the object

Chew the object

6. What effect does spaying and neutering have on the rate of population growth in domestic

animals?

Decreases the rate of population growth

Increases the rate of population growth

Keeps the rate of population growth the same

Spaying and neutering has no effect on the rate of population growth

121

Section 8

The following questions will ask about scientific concepts. Please select the best answer for

each question.

1. Which over-the-counter drug do doctors recommend that people take to help prevent heart

attacks?

Antacids

Cortisone

Aspirin

2. Which of the following may cause a tsunami?

A very warm ocean current

A large school of fish

A melting glacier

An earthquake under the ocean

3. The continents on which we live have been moving their location for millions of years and

will continue to move in the future:

True

False

4. Lasers work by focusing sound waves:

True

False

122

Section 8 (cont.)

5. What have scientists recently discovered on Mars?

Platinum

Plants

Mold

Water

6. Electrons are smaller than atoms:

True

False

123

Section 9

The following questions will ask your opinions about animals and humans. Please indicate

your level of agreement with each statement.

1. A female dog loves her pups in the same way that a mother loves her child.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

2. Cats and dogs can feel anxious and depressed when a person leaves the house.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

3. Cats can feel guilty when they do the wrong thing.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

4. Pets are controlled exclusively by their genes and instinct.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

5. Humans are the only animals that use language.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

6. Only humans are self-aware, unlike animals.

Completely

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Moderately

Agree

Completely

Agree

0 100

124

Section 10

1. *Describe your interactions with the natural world. If you interact with the natural world, how

do these interactions impact your quality of life?

You must respond to this question in a thoughtful manner to receive payment for a

completed survey.

125

Section 11

The following questions will ask about your basic demographic information.

1. Gender:

Man

Woman

Other:

2. Age:

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

66-75

76+

3. What is your race/ ethnicity? (optional)

White

Black or African American

Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish

American Indian or Alaska First American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

126

Asian or Asian American

Section 11 (cont.)

4. What is your level of education?

Some high school

High school degree

Some college

Undergraduate degree

Graduate degree

5. How many people live in your place of residence?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 or more

127

6. *What country were you in when you completed this survey?

Select:

India

United States of America

Section 12

1. Please type the code into the box below. In addition, write this code into Mturk. We will

match these codes if you have any questions about the survey, including issues with payment.

Captcha Code

Select:

128

Thank you for your time.