Attitudes towards animal use significantly impact the success of conservation and welfare initiatives. A discrepancy exists between professed love for animals and actions towards them, exemplified by the condemnation of dog abuse while readily consuming meat. This phenomenon, termed 'speciesism,' involves assigning different moral worth based solely on species membership. Speciesism is comparable to other forms of discrimination like racism and sexism. Research has identified multiple factors influencing attitudes towards animal use, including species type and purpose, species likeability (attractiveness, cuteness, familiarity), and participant characteristics such as gender and age. Non-meat eaters often attribute higher mental capacities to animals, showing reduced dementalization. Existing literature highlights the influence of 'type of animal', 'purpose of animal use', and 'knowledge of animal use' on attitudes, with acceptance varying depending on human benefit and alternative availability. The Animal Purpose Questionnaire (APQ) systematically compares attitudes across species and purposes. The Speciesism Scale measures prejudicial judgments of species value independent of cognitive capacity and sentience. Species' likeability, influenced by cultural role and emotional appeal, also impacts acceptance towards animal use. Moral virtues and regulations are key, with Haidt and Joseph's moral foundations theory suggesting individualizing morality (care/harm and fairness/reciprocity) significantly affects attitudes toward animal use. This study aims to combine measures of speciesism, attitudes to animal use (using the APQ across various species and purposes), animal likeability, individualizing morality, and demographic/lifestyle variables to comprehensively understand the factors shaping these attitudes. The study predicts that higher individualizing morality, likeability, and lower speciesism would correlate with less agreement toward animal use, reflecting greater concern for animal welfare.

Several studies have explored the factors influencing attitudes towards animal use. Knight and Barnett (2008) identified 'type of animal', 'purpose of animal use', and 'knowledge of animal use' as key themes. Caviola et al. (2019) demonstrated the influence of species and perceived mental capacity, as well as familiarity and attractiveness. Acceptance of animal use increased when it benefited humans and alternatives were lacking. Caviola et al. (2019) also developed the Speciesism Scale, measuring prejudicial judgments unrelated to cognitive capacity. Species' likeability, encompassing attractiveness, familiarity, and similarity to humans, significantly influences attitudes, as shown by Tisdell et al. (2005) and Sevillano and Fiske (2016). Companion animals elicit more moral concern than other categories. Haidt and Joseph's (2004) moral foundations theory suggests that individualizing morality (care/harm and fairness/reciprocity) influences attitudes. Goddard et al. (2019) linked individualizing morality to attitudes towards livestock production and consumption, demonstrating that individuals with higher scores were more likely to support sustainable practices and stricter welfare standards. This study builds upon these findings by combining various scales to examine the interplay of speciesism, individualizing morality, and likeability in shaping attitudes towards animal use across diverse species and purposes.

This study employed an online survey using Qualtrics, with a target sample size of 300 participants. A total of 320 participants were included after excluding incomplete responses. Participants were recruited through various channels including social media, online survey platforms, and a university research participation scheme. The sample was predominantly female (77.81%) with a mean age of 26.18 years. The survey comprised several measures: (1) The Animal Purpose Questionnaire (APQ): Participants rated their agreement (1-5 Likert scale) with the use of 12 species (categorized as pet/companion, pest, or profit) for five purposes (medical research, sport, food production, culling, fashion/ornamentation). (2) The Likeability Scale: Participants rated their feelings towards each species (-2 to 2 Likert scale). (3) Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ): Individualizing subscales (care/harm and fairness/reciprocity) were assessed using 12 questions (6-point Likert scales). (4) Speciesism Scale: Participants rated agreement/disagreement (7-point Likert scale) with six statements regarding animal moral treatment. (5) Demographics: Participants provided information on gender, age, education level, eating orientation, work experience with animals, pet ownership, and scientific training. Statistical analyses included repeated measures ANOVAs to assess the influence of species and purpose on likeability and APQ attitudes. Pearson's correlations examined relationships between APQ, likeability, speciesism, and individualizing morality. Independent samples t-tests compared groups based on gender and eating orientation. Finally, a hierarchical linear regression analyzed the predictive value of demographic variables, likeability, speciesism, and individualizing morality on APQ scores.

Analysis of likeability ratings revealed significant differences between species, with dogs being the most liked and pest species the least. Species category also significantly affected likeability, with pets preferred over profit and pest species. APQ attitudes showed significant main effects for species and purpose, and a significant interaction. Participants were least agreeable to pet species use and more neutral towards profit and pest species use. Agreement varied across purposes, with medical research showing the most acceptance and fashion/ornamentation the least. Correlations indicated a strong negative association between APQ scores and speciesism, reflecting that stronger speciesist attitudes were associated with more agreement with animal use. A small negative association existed between likeability and APQ scores. Individualizing morality showed a moderate negative correlation with APQ and a moderate positive correlation with speciesism. T-tests revealed males scored higher on the APQ and lower on individualizing morality and speciesism compared to females. Meat-eaters scored higher on the APQ and lower on speciesism and likeability compared to non-meat-eaters. Age showed a weak positive correlation with APQ scores and a weak negative correlation with speciesism scores. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that, after controlling for demographic variables, speciesism was the strongest predictor of APQ scores, explaining a substantial amount of variance. Individualizing morality also contributed significantly to the prediction of APQ scores. Likeability did not add additional predictive power. A single-step regression analysis confirmed the significant roles of speciesism and individualizing morality in predicting APQ scores. The effects of gender and scientific training were not significant in this model.

The findings highlight the significant role of speciesism in shaping attitudes towards animal use, emphasizing the importance of both the human versus non-human animal distinction and the pet versus non-pet distinction. The relatively low correlation between APQ scores and likeability may reflect the averaging of species with varying likeability in the APQ total scores. Species' cultural roles influence likeability and may override the influence of likeable traits on attitudes towards use. The results underscore the importance of dementalization in morally justifying meat consumption. The strong negative relationship between speciesism and APQ scores demonstrates that individuals with less speciesist bias show greater concern for animal welfare. Individualizing morality predicted reduced agreement with animal use and fewer speciesist attitudes, indicating that a focus on fairness and harm reduces speciesist bias. The gender differences in attitudes align with previous research suggesting that women demonstrate greater concern for animal welfare and score higher on care and harm-related moral foundations. The differences in attitudes based on eating orientation are consistent with existing findings, suggesting that non-meat-eaters show less speciesism and greater concern for animal welfare. The unexpected finding that attitudes towards cows did not differ from those towards pest animals suggests the cultural role of cows as food may override their mammalian status and likeability. The lack of significant age effect may be due to the young age range of participants.

This study shows that speciesism is a key predictor of attitudes toward animal use, alongside individualizing morality and demographic factors like gender and diet. Individualizing morality positively predicts respect for animal rights, suggesting a link between human-human and human-animal relations. Future research should explore cultural influences on morality's role in shaping attitudes to animal use, employing broader scales like the AAS-10 and adapting species selection for cross-cultural comparisons. The APQ's use of named species introduces variability but provides a valuable, detailed perspective.

The predominantly young, female, pet-owning, omnivorous, and highly educated participant sample limits the generalizability of the findings. The APQ’s selection of species and purposes may not reflect attitudes towards all animals and uses. The ambiguous categorization of some species into pet, profit, and pest categories reduces internal validity. Future studies should aim for more diverse samples and consider cultural nuances in interpreting results. The reliance on self-reported data might also introduce bias.