|
Gender, Views of
Nature, and Support for Animal Rights
Corwin R. Kruse
University of Minnesota
The last 20 years have witnessed the
dramatic growth of the animal rights movement and the concurrent
increase in its social scientific scrutiny. One of the most
notable and consistent findings to emerge from this body of
research has been the central role of women in the movement.
This paper uses General Social Survey data to examine the
influence of views of the relationship of humanity to nature on
this gender difference. Holding a Romantic view of nature is
associated with higher levels of support for extending moral
rights to animals and lower levels of support for animal-based
testing. A Darwinian view is associated with greater support for
testing on animals but is unrelated to views on moral rights for
animals. In general, views of nature affect animal rights
advocacy to a greater extent among males than females.
In 1975, Peter Singer published Animal Liberation, in which he
suggested that nonhuman animals should be extended the same
moral consideration as humans. Although animal advocacy groups
had existed in various forms for well over a century, this
volume represented a turning point; it “infused the emerging
[animal rights] movement with a cohesive moral and philosophical
perspective” (Sperling, 1988, p. 1982).
The following year, Henry Spira mobilized New Yorkers, including
Congressman (and future New York City mayor) Ed Koch, in a
campaign against experimentation on cats at the American Museum
of Natural History. The research was eventually stopped as a
result of what Jasper and Nelkin (1992) refer to as the
“beginning of contemporary animal rights activism” (p. 26).
Since this event, popular support for animal rights has grown
dramatically. By the late 1980s, there were hundreds of animal
rights and thousands of animal welfare groups in the United
States (Jasper & Nelkin, 1992). Membership of People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the largest animal rights
organization, increased from less than 100 in 1980 (Plous, 1991)
to over 500,000 in 1995 (Kruse, 1998).
As the animal rights movement has grown, it has become the
subject of social scientific scrutiny. One of the most notable
and consistent findings has been the central role of women in
the movement. Scholars have noted that women are more likely
than men to express concern about the treatment of animals
(Driscoll, 1992; Gallup & Beckstead, 1988; Herzog, Betchart, &
Pittman, 1991; Kellert, 1996), to support animal rights (Peek,
Bell, & Dunham, 1996), to oppose animal-based research (Peek et
al., 1996; Pifer, 1994, 1996), and to become active in movement
organizations (Herzog, 1993; Jasper & Nelkin, 1992; Kellert,
1996; Plous, 1991; Sperling, 1988). Moreover, this gender
disparity is not new: in Victorian England “the majority of
those who joined the major [anti-vivisection] societies were
women” (Elston 1987: p. 267).
This paper primarily examines the influence of VON on this
gender difference. I investigate whether perspectives of the
relationship of humanity to nature affect the level of support
for animal rights. Do men and women have divergent perspectives
on their roles in the natural world and, if so, might this help
to explain the difference between them with respect to animal
rights advocacy?
In addition to gender differences in attitudes toward animal
rights, these differences may actually predict these attitudes.
Therefore, I will also address the issue of whether different
variables might be important indicators of support for animal
rights among men and women.
Views of Nature (VONs) And Support For Animal Rights
In their discussion of the Victorian origins of the humane
movement, Jasper and Nelkin (1992) point to the importance of
expanding urbanization. As an ever-larger proportion of the
population of Britain and the United States resided in cities,
the relationship of human society to the natural world began to
shift. “Nature in towns and cities had been domesticated,
reduced to a few tame symbolic replicas: household pets, the
garden and lawn of the suburban house, and the landscape
paintings that became a staple image of every bourgeois parlor”
(p. 17).
Concurrent with this reformed view of the natural world came a
reconsideration of the status of animals. Victorians no longer
viewed animals as commodities or tools, but as companions and
even members of the family. For many, animals became objects of
sentimentality rather than utility (Jasper & Nelkin, 1992).
Elston (1987) asserts that the industrialization that
accompanied urbanization played a major role in the rise of
animal advocacy as a “women’s” issue. The Industrial Revolution
enhanced the polarization of society into a public male sphere
and a private female sphere. Women became guardians of the home
and, in the case of the middle and upper classes, the benevolent
reformers of the less fortunate. Anti-vivisection became a
component of women’s civilizing role.
In discussing the American conservation movement, Franklin
(1996) identifies two broad-based and competing VON: the
Romantic and the Darwinian. The former fosters a picture of
nature as peaceful and idyllic and promotes human communion with
the natural world, the latter suggests that nature engenders a
continuous struggle for survival and promotes human mastery over
it. It is the clash of these two perspectives, he suggests, that
precipitates disagreement over issues such as hunting.
This division is echoed in the work of other scholars. Groves
(1997) refers to the tendency of animal rights supporters to
hold romanticist views of the world. At the same time, Sapontzis
(1987, p. 107) invokes a Darwinian legacy and suggests that an
important ideological element in the human use of nonhuman
animals is “defending the practice of the stronger routinely
sacrificing the interests of the weaker for their (the
stronger’s) benefit.” Similarly, Sperling (1988) suggests that
both supporters and opponents of animal rights hold conflicting
worldviews.
Of course, dichotomizing VON in this way is an
oversimplification. Humans have multiple and overlapping
perspectives on the natural world, and the meaning of “nature”
is often hotly contested and malleable. Individual viewpoints
may draw upon any number of contrasting views and may change as
time and circumstances warrant. Romanticism and Darwinianism
should not, therefore, be seen as mutually exclusive; in any
given individual, they may coexist and complement one another.
Nonetheless, I suggest that these two views often compete with
one another and embody rather divergent views of the place of
humans within nature. Thus, the level of adherence to either
outlook may affect a person’s concern for the welfare of
animals.
Research suggests substantial gender differences in beliefs
about nature. Men exhibit much more support than do women for
the exploitation and control of the natural world. Women, by
contrast, consistently express greater affection toward animals
and concern for ethical relations with nature (Kellert, 1996).
This difference in views may, therefore, explain at least a
portion of the observed gender difference in animal rights
advocacy. I expect that women will view nature with higher
levels of Romanticism than will men. Conversely, I anticipate
that men will hold a more Darwinian view of nature. In addition,
I suggest that a Romantic perspective will be associated with
higher levels of support for animal rights, a Darwinian outlook
with lower.
Methods
Data
The data for this analysis were taken from the 1994 General
Social Survey (GSS), a probability survey of individuals, age 18
and older, residing in English-speaking households in the United
States. A total of 2,992 people were surveyed, however, missing
values on one or more items and a split ballot procedure which
asked questions pertaining to animal rights of only a portion of
the sample lowered the number of usable responses considerably.
The final samples used here to analyze opinions on animal rights
and animal testing consist of 979 and 981 individuals
respectively.
Variables
Table 1 contains an overview of the variables used in this
study.
------------------------------------
Table 1 (not available online)
------------------------------------
Two items were used to measure animal rights advocacy. The first
was a relatively broad and general measure of support. Using a
5-point scale, respondents indicated how much they agreed with
the statement, “Animals should have the same moral rights that
human beings do” (ANRIGHTS). The second item assessed feelings
about animal-based experimentation. Respondents indicated on a
5-point scale their agreement with the statement, “It is right
to use animals for medical testing if it might save human lives”
(ANTESTS). As Peek et al. (1996) suggest, the first item
distinguishes animal rights advocates from nonadvocates, while
the second addresses an issue about which even activists
disagree.
VONs were assessed by two measures that corresponded roughly to
the Romantic and Darwinian perspectives respectively. The first
measure asked respondents to indicate, on a 5-point scale, their
level of agreement with the statement, “Nature would be at peace
if humans left it alone” (ATPEACE). This captures only part of
the Romantic perspective—that of nature as a halcyon world. It
does not address issues of human communion with nature. The
second asked respondents to indicate, also on a 5-point scale,
their level of agreement with the statement, “Nature is really a
fierce struggle for the survival of the fittest” (SURVFIT).
Again, this variable does not capture the breadth of the view.
It addresses the survivalist essence, but not the mastery
dimension.
These measures of animal advocacy and VON have important
limitations. Unfortunately, although the GSS provides a high
quality large sample of Americans, it asks only a limited number
of questions on the treatment of animals and conceptions of
nature. This, combined with the somewhat ambiguous nature of the
items, raises concerns both about reliability and construct
validity. Responses to these items may be subject to substantial
situational and temporal influences. In addition, they capture
only thin segments of broad issues. Readers are advised to treat
the findings cautiously. Despite this, I feel that these
admittedly rough proxies provide useful information.
As Jasper and Nelkin (1992) argue, urbanization very likely has
played a substantial role in reconstructing the cultural view of
nonhuman animals. Even within a society, where one lives may
have a great influence on one’s perspective. Research suggests
that animal rights advocates primarily are urban residents and
that those involved in agriculture tend to hold the most
traditional attitudes toward animals (Jasper & Nelkin, 1992). I
incorporate a measure of respondents’ residence at age 16
(RES16) to tap the potential importance of being raised in a
rural versus urban environment.
Previous research suggests that adherence to traditional
Judeo-Christian religious views is associated with lower levels
of support for animal rights (Groves, 1997; Jasper & Nelkin,
1992; Peek et al., 1996). As Klein (1984) points out, “Religion
plays a major role in shoring up traditional values in a time of
change”(p. 114). An animal rights perspective asks, at minimum,
that humans reconsider their relationship to and usage of
animals. At the extreme, it demands a major cosmological shift,
placing humans and nonhumans on relatively equal moral footing.
Religion, therefore, may react against animal rights philosophy
and shore up a countervailing anthropocentric ethical
perspective. Religiosity is measured by two different variables.
The first addresses the respondent’s level of religious
fundamentalism (FUND); the second is a measure of church
attendance (ATTEND).
Previous studies have shown that a conservative political
outlook may be contrary to animal rights advocacy (Groves, 1997;
Jasper & Nelkin, 1992; Peek et al., 1996; Pifer, 1996).
Therefore, I include a single-item measure of political views (POLVIEWS)
in this analysis.
Prior research suggests that both age and education may be
related to attitudes about animal rights (Driscoll, 1992;
Kellert, 1996; Peek et al., 1996; Pifer, 1996). In general, the
young and those with less education are more likely to endorse
animal rights. Because of this, I include measures of age (AGE)
and level of education (EDUC) in this analysis.
Both environmentalism (Peek et al., 1996; Pifer, Shimizu, &
Pifer, 1994) and attitudes toward science (Donovan, 1990; Pifer,
1996; Pifer et al., 1994) are potentially consequential elements
in support for animal rights. Multiple items to assess each are
available in the GSS. I ran principal components analyses (varimax
rotation) on four items measuring environmental activism and
four items measuring attitude toward science. The environmental
variables formed one factor (initial Eigenvalue, 1.814).
Responses to these items were summed to form one environmental
activism scale (ENVACTN). Analysis of the attitude toward
science variables suggested two factors (initial Eigenvalues,
1.732 and 1.021). The first factor is a scale (SCIBAD) composed
of the summed responses to three items that tap subjects’ views
of the potential harm caused by science. The second factor is a
single item (SCIGRN) that measures respondents’ opinions about
the likelihood that science will solve environmental problems.
Results
As in a number of previous studies, women display higher levels
of animal rights advocacy than do men. Both t-tests of
difference in means (see Table 1) and zero-order correlations
(see Table 2) show that women support the extension of moral
rights to animals and oppose the use of animals in medical
testing to a greater degree than do men.
------------------------------------
Table 2 (not available online)
------------------------------------
There seems to be some association between gender and VON. As
shown in Table 1, t-tests demonstrate that the mean score of
women on the measure of Darwinianism is significantly lower than
that of men. There is no statistically significant difference in
mean male-versus-female scores with respect to Romanticism.
Similar results emerge from the zero-order correlations between
gender and the two VONs variables. In sum, men hold more
Darwinian VON than do women, but there is no gender difference
in the level of Romanticism.
Other zero-order correlations in Table 2 suggest that VONs are
linked to attitudes regarding animal rights; however the results
are not unequivocal. Hypothesis 2 receives fairly strong
support. Romanticism is significantly and positively correlated
with both support for the extension of moral rights to nonhumans
and opposition to vivisection, indicating a link between holding
a Romantic view of nature and support for animal rights. The
relationship of a Darwinian view of nature and animal rights
advocacy is more complicated. Holding such a perspective is
associated with less opposition to animal-based medical testing,
but unrelated to attitude regarding moral rights for
animals.Table 3 presents several regression models for the
dependent variable ANRIGHTS. Table 4 presents the same
information for ANTESTS.
-------------------------------------
Table 3 (not available online)
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Table 4 (not available online)
--------------------------------------
Multiple regression suggests that VONs share an important
association to animal rights advocacy but are limited in their
ability to explain the role of gender in such advocacy. Before
any other variables are entered, GENDER exhibits unstandardized
regression coefficients (B) of .307 with ANRIGHTS (Table 3) and
.312 with ANTESTS (Table 4). When the view of nature variables
are entered into the multiple regression analysis, the fit of
the models improve, however the link between GENDER and ANRIGHTS
does not change appreciably. Adding these variables, however,
produces a modest reduction in the relationship between GENDER
and ANTESTS.
Despite their limited ability to explain the effect of gender,
VONs display strong links of their own to animal rights
advocacy. The standardized regression coefficients of the
Romanticism variable with both ANRIGHTS (ß = .212) and ANTESTS
(ß = .163) are the largest among all the variables. Multiple
regression analysis indicates that Darwinianism is not
significantly associated with ANRIGHTS. The standardized
regression coefficient of this perspective with ANTESTS,
however, is the second largest among all the variables (ß =
-.162).
The link between church attendance and the measures of animal
rights advocacy should also be noted. Although attendance has a
significant negative association with both variables, the
influence on willingness to extend moral rights to nonhuman
animals is especially strong (ß = -.198).
The full models in Tables 3 and 4 include multiplicative
interaction terms to test whether the effect of VON on support
for animal rights is the same for males and females. The results
show that the influence of both VON on extending rights to
animals is moderated by gender (Table 3). Holding a Romantic
view of the nature is associated with greater support for moral
rights for nonhuman animals among both males and females. This
relationship, however, is significantly stronger for males. The
influence of holding a Darwinian view also varies with gender,
having a significant negative association for males but a
slightly positive association for females.
Gender also is an important moderating variable with respect to
views on animal testing (Table 4). Once again, holding the
Romantic view of nature has a significantly greater effect for
males than for females. The association between opposition to
vivisection and Darwinianism, however, shows no difference based
on gender. Holding a Darwinian view of nature increases support
for animal testing to the same general degree whether one is
male of female. In general, it appears that VON affect male
support for animal rights to a greater extent than they do
female support.
--------------------------------------
Table 5 (not available online)
--------------------------------------
Similar results can be seen when attitudes regarding animal
rights are analyzed within gender. Once again, VONs appear to be
especially important in distinguishing men who are animal rights
supporters from those who are not. Zero-order correlations show
that men who express more Romantic and less Darwinian attitudes
toward nature score significantly higher on both measures of
animal rights support (see Table 2). These relationships
continue to be significant in the full regression model (Table
5). Standardized regression coefficients show Romanticism to
have especially strong links to ANRIGHTS and ANTESTS (ß = .308
and ß = .271, respectively).
Multiple regression analysis also reveals several other
relationships. Younger men and those who express more liberal
political views are more likely to assert opposition to medical
testing upon animals than are their older and more conservative
counterparts. These same relationships hold with respect to
support for the extension of moral rights to animals. In
addition, such rights are more likely to be promoted by men with
less education, those who grew up in more urban areas, and those
who attend church less often.
Church attendance seems to be the most important factor in
distinguishing women who endorse animal rights from those who do
not. Women who attend church infrequently are significantly more
likely to advocate moral rights for animals as well as
disapprove of medical testing upon animals. Standardized
regression coefficients of church attendance with both ANRIGHTS
and ANTESTS are the largest of any independent variable (ß =
-.263 and ß = -.182, respectively).
Each of the measures of VON demonstrates a significant influence
in only one of the models. Women who think that nature would be
at peace if humans left it alone are also more likely to believe
that animals deserve moral rights. Whether or not women hold
Darwinist views does not seem to matter. In contrast, such views
are important in the debate over vivisection. Women who see
nature as a battle for the survival of the fittest express less
opposition to animal-based testing. Viewing nature as inherently
peaceful, however, is not linked to attitudes regarding
experimentation.
The only other variable to display a significant link with
attitudes toward vivisection in the multiple regression model is
opinion about science. Women who harbor negative views of
science are more likely to oppose animal testing. This same
relationship occurs with respect to general animal rights
support. Negative views of science are linked to greater
endorsement of moral rights for animals. In addition, the
extension of such rights is more likely to be promoted by women
who are environmentally active than by those who are not.
Discussion And Conclusion
The results of this analysis replicate a finding from a number
of previous studies: Women display greater support for animal
rights than do men. VON’s ability to explain this difference is
limited. Women are less likely than men to see nature as a
struggle for the survival of the fittest, but there is no
significant gender difference in the tendency to see nature as
being at peace if humans would leave it alone. In addition,
entering variables representing the two VON into multiple
regression models has no effect on the link between gender and
willingness to place humans and nonhumans on the same moral
footing—and only a moderate effect on the connection between
gender and opposition to vivisection.
Multiple regression analysis suggests some interesting gender
differences. In general, the models fit better for males than
females. Substantially more of the variance in both measures of
animal rights advocacy is explained for men. In addition, the
VON variables display more consistent effects for men.
A Darwinian outlook bears a significant negative relationship to
both measures of animal rights support for males, but only to
vivisection for females. Although both are significant for men,
the second relationship is stronger. Possibly, survival of the
fittest relates more to medical testing as this variable invokes
the potential saving of human lives by using other creatures.
Humans occupy the top of an anthropocentric hierarchy. In
holding Darwinian views, we may see this position as
justification for using other species to enhance human survival.
Among men, Romanticism is significantly and positively related
to both measures of animal rights advocacy. In both cases it has
the strongest association of any independent variable. Among
women, holding such a perspective has a significant positive
association with extending moral rights to animals but is
unrelated to feelings about vivisection. In general, VON are
more predictive of level of animal rights advocacy among males
than females.
For women, the issue of religion seems to be especially
important. Those who attend church more often are less likely
both to promote the extension of moral rights to animals and to
oppose animal-based medical testing. Among men, greater church
attendance is associated with less support for moral rights for
animals but bears no relationship to attitudes regarding
vivisection. For women, the negative impact of church attendance
on opposition to animal testing is an interesting reversal,
given the importance of Christian beliefs in motivating women in
the early antivivisectionist movement (Buettinger, 1997). This
shift probably is grounded in the changing role of women since
the 1890s and the movement of front-line animal advocacy from a
compassion-based to a rights-based focus.
All told, animal rights advocacy seems more common and more
broad-based among women. For men, youth, liberal political
views, less education, and growing up in a more urban area are
important indicators of a greater willingness to grant moral
rights to animals. Youth and liberal political views are
correlates of greater opposition to animal testing. For women,
these variables become non-significant; women are more likely to
be animal advocates regardless of their age, educational level,
political views, or the size of the place where they grew up.
Viewing science more negatively is an indicator of pro-animal
rights positions among women but not men. This may result from a
female’s greater likelihood to harbor negative attitudes toward
science.
Peek et al. (1996) report that both men and women who took a
pro-environmental stance were more likely to endorse animal
rights, t suggesting that ecofeminist accounts of animal
advocacy need to address the environmental attitudes of men as
well as women. In this study, I use a measure of environmental
activism, rather than environmental position. Zero-order
correlations show that such activism has a significant positive
link to promotion of the moral rights of animals for both men
and women. For men, however, this relationship declines to
non-significance in the multiple regression model. The
association for women, in contrast, remains significant. This
provides some support for an ecofeminist perspective that seeks
to link the oppression of women, animals, and nature and to
promote both pro-environmental and pro-animal activism among
women (Donovan, 1990; Gruen, 1993; Kheel, 1993; Warren, 1987).
This study provides some insights into gender differences in
animal rights advocacy; however, it leaves much unanswered. The
models explain only a moderate amount of variance, especially in
the case of women and with respect to opposition to animal-based
medical testing. Inclusion of other variables might increase the
variance accounted for.
One such variable is “pet ownership.” Most of those involved in
the animal rights movement have one or more companion animals
(Jamison & Lunch, 1992). Jasper and Nelkin (1992) relate
increasing pet ownership in the Victorian era to an increasing
sentimentality toward animals. Peek et al. (1996) suggest that
women may be closer to their pets because of their greater
likelihood to be in the home. Possibly, persons who share their
homes with nonhuman animals come to see those animals in more
human terms: feeling pain the same way and expressing similar
emotions. This, in turn, may engender sympathy for pro-animal
rights views.
Another potentially important variable is occupation. Those
whose livelihoods involve the use of animals or who have an
economic interest in their commodification (e.g., farmers,
furriers, employees of pharmaceutical firms)may exhibit less
support for animals’ rights than those who are not so employed.
Of course, there may be some self-selection bias involved: an
animal rights supporter is probably unlikely to seek employment
at a meat-processing plant.
The dependent variables are general. Much is left to personal
interpretation. What is included in moral rights? Some may see
this as little more than the right not to be treated cruelly.
Others might assume that this includes all or almost all rights
currently enjoyed by humans. This difference in perception could
lead to marked differences in responses.
It is also possible that men and women have somewhat different
conceptions of the nature of morality. Gilligan (1997) suggests
that for women moral problems arise from conflicting
responsibilities, whereas for men such problems result from
competing rights. “[T]he morality of rights differs from the
morality of responsibility in its emphasis on separation rather
than connection” (p. 208) Thus, women who respond to the moral
rights query may concentrate on the first word of the pair while
men may focus on the last. As a result, an ethic of connection
may lead to women’s greater willingness to expand the circle of
responsibility in the form of granting other creatures moral
rights.
Medical testing on animals may also invoke vastly different
images for respondents. One person may envision the family dog’s
being forced to endure painful and invasive procedures. Another
may see an anonymous white rat undergoing a test involving
minimal pain. This may have a tangible impact. As Driscoll
(1992) and Eddy, Gallup, and Povinelli (1993) point out, the
type of animal used leads to significant differences in how
people judge the acceptability of research. Dogs or chimpanzees,
toward whom humans feel similarity or affection, are less likely
to be viewed favorably as research subjects and more likely to
incite opposition to vivisection.
Possibly, the variables used in this analysis do not adequately
represent those aspects of VON that are relevant to animal
advocacy. Neither of my VON variables addresses the issue of an
emotional attachment to the natural world. Women express such
attachment to a greater extent than do men (Kellert, 1996), and,
“[t]he emotional force of kinship or closeness to another is a
crucial element in thinking about moral deliberations” (Gruen,
1993, p. 79).
Gender, although significant, by itself explains a relatively
small amount of the variance in attitudes regarding animal
rights. Peek et al. (1996) report similar results in their
analysis of a national survey. Despite this, research suggests
that a substantial majority of animal rights activists are
female (Herzog, 1993; Jasper & Nelkin, 1992; Kellert, 1996;
Plous, 1991; Sperling, 1988). The reported gender difference in
activism is larger than might be expected, given the modest
differences in attitudes. This suggests that women may be more
likely than men to act in accordance with pro-animal rights
attitudes. There are two potential explanations for this gender
difference: one cultural and one structural.
On one hand, it may result from the gendered nature of the
question. Given a cultural history of linking animals, nature,
women, nurturing, and emotion, it is very possible that animal
rights are seen by many as a feminine issue. As Donovan (1990)
suggests, “dominance over nature, women, and animals.may be
rooted in the Western male maturation process that requires men
to establish their autonomous identity against the
maternal/feminine” (p. 367). Men may therefore view activism on
behalf of animals as unmasculine and be unwilling to incur the
potentially greater social costs of mobilization.
On the other hand, although possessing similar mobilization
potentials (Klandermans & Oegema, 1987) as indicated by the
relatively small mean attitudinal differences, women may be more
likely than men to be the target of mobilization attempts—a
result of greater embeddedness in recruitment networks. Local
humane societies, animal shelters, and other animal welfare
organizations are major recruiting grounds for the animal rights
movement (Groves, personal communication). In addition,
veterinarians often display literature and donation boxes for
these organizations. Women may be more likely to volunteer at
shelters or take a pet to the veterinarian, where they make a
donation. Both scenarios may provide recruitment and
mobilization possibilities, either through direct interpersonal
contact or placement on a mailing list.
This attitude/behavior disjunction is a line of research that
deserves attention. Both cultural and structural explanations of
the observed gender differences are plausible. Future work
should examine the relative impact of each.
References
Adams, C. J. (1995). Neither man nor beast: Feminism and the
defense of animals. New York: Continuum.
Buettinger, C. (1997). Women and antivivisection in late
nineteenth century America. Journal of Social History, 30,
857-872.
Callicott, J. B. (1993). The conceptual foundations of the land
ethic. In M. E Zimmerman. (Ed.),
Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology
(pp. 110-134). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Donovan, J. (1990). Animal rights and feminist theory. Signs,
15, 350-375.
Driscoll, J. W. (1992). Attitudes toward animal use. Anthrozoös,
5, 32-39.
Eddy, T. J., Gallup, G. G., & Povinelli, D. J. (1993).
Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in
comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 87-101.
Elston, M. A. (1987). Women and anti-vivisection in Victorian
England. In N. A. Rupke (Ed.), Vivisection in Historical
Perspective. (pp. 259-294) London: Routledge.
Franklin, A. (1996). Australian hunting and angling sports and
the changing nature of human-animal relations in Australia.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 32, 39-56.
Gallup, G. G. & Beckstead, J. W. (1988). Attitudes toward animal
research. American Psychologist, 43, 474-476.
Galvin, S. L. & Herzog, H. A. (1992). Ethical ideology, animal
rights activism, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals.
Ethics and Behavior, 2, 141-149.
Gilligan, C. (1997). Woman’s place in man’s life cycle. In L.
Nicholson (Ed.), The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory
(pp. 198-215) New York: Routledge.
Groves, J. M. (1997). Hearts and minds: The controversy over
laboratory animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gruen, L. (1993). Dismantling oppression: An analysis of the
connection between women and animals. In G. Gaard, (Ed.),
Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (pp. 60-90). Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Herzog, H. A. (1993). The movement is my life: The psychology of
animal rights activism. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 103-119.
Herzog, H. A., Betchart, N. S. & Pittman, R. B. (1991). Gender,
sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös,
4, 184-191.
Jamison, W. V. & Lunch, W. M. (1992). Rights of animals,
perceptions of science, and political activism: Profile of
American animal rights activists. Science, Technology, and Human
Values, 17, 438-458.
Jasper, J. M. & Nelkin, D. (1992). The animal rights crusade:
The growth of a moral protest. New York: The Free Press.
Kellert, S. F. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity
and human society. Washington: Island Press.
Kheel, M. (1993). From heroic to holistic ethics: The
ecofeminist challenge. In G. Gaard (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women,
animals, nature (pp. 243-271). Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Klandermans, B. & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks,
motivations, and barriers: Steps towards participation in social
movements. American Sociological Review, 52, 519-531.
Klein, E. (1984). Gender politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kruse, C. R. (1998). Who said that? Status presentation in media
accounts of the animal experimentation debate. Society and
Animals, 6, 235-243.
Mathews, S. & Herzog, H. A. (1997). Personality and attitudes
toward the
treatment of animals. Society and Animals, 5, 169-179.
Nickell, D & Herzog, H. A. (1996). Ethical ideology and moral
persuasion: Personal moral philosophy, gender, and judgments of
pro-and anti-animal research propaganda. Society and Animals, 4,
53-64.
Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J., & Dunham, C. C. (1996). Gender, gender
ideology, and animal rights advocacy. Gender and Society, 10,
464-478.
Peek, C. W., Konty, M. A., & Frazier, T. E. (1997). Religion and
ideological support for social movements: The case of animal
rights. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36,
429-439.
Pifer, L. K. (1996). Exploring the gender gap in young adults’
attitudes about animal research. Society and Animals, 4, 37-52.
Pifer, L. K., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes
toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Society
and Animals, 2, 95-113.
Plous, S. (1991). An attitude survey of animal rights activists.
Psychological Science, 2, 194-196.
Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of
animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11-52.
Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Sapontzis, S. F. (1987). Morals, reason, and animals.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.
Sperling, S. (1988). Animal liberators: Research and morality.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Warren, K. J. (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections.
Environmental Ethics, 9, 3-20.
Weston, A. (1992). Toward better problems: New perspectives on
abortion, animal rights, the environment, and justice.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click
Article
Abstracts
To order Society &
Animals Journal, go to our secure online
ordering page
You
can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well
as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA)
website,
for topics and keywords of your interest:
|
