When asked to identify and describe a particular model, the sham feeding model of bulimia, 87% could not. When asked their view of whether animal models of eating disorders influenced their treatment approach to these disorders, 87% replied in the negative. Finally, the clinicians were asked to indicate the journals that they found most helpful in their work. When the list of journals indicated as "most helpful for clinicians that specialize in or work with eating disorders" was compared to the of list of journals in which the studies of nine investigators involved in research related to animal models of eating disorders were cited (in Science Citation Index), there was no overlap.

      In his most striking result, Plous found that only 5.7% of psychologists currently doing clinical work felt that a ban on animal research would seriously hamper their work, while 47.8% indicated that a ban would have no serious effect whatsoever. This is the first such evaluation and discussion of the possibility of a ban on psychological research to appear in a mainstream psychology publication.

      Plous and others provide various other findings that indicate that institutional support is eroding. Three studies in the U.S. and one in the United Kingdom all show declining animal use in psychology as measured by number of departments maintaining animal facilities, percentage of faculty conducting animal research, as well as number of animals used. Less than half of psychology departments offer courses using animals, and, of those that do, only 37% of students take such courses.

      Finally, these trends in psychology are consistent with evidence of declining support for animal research in the general public. In a series of opinion polls, it was found that agreement with a statement allowing painful animal research fell from 63% to 53% between 1985 and 1993 (Pifer, Shimuzi, and Pifer, Society and Animals, 2, 2, 1994).