Ethnic Variations in Pet Attachment among Students at an American School of Veterinary Medicine

Sue-Ellen Brown *
Tuskegee University

ABSTRACT
This study explores ethnic variations in animal companion (“pet”) attachment among 133 students enrolled in a school of veterinary medicine. The 57 White and 76 African American participants completed surveys that included background information, several questions about their animal companions, and a pet attachment questionnaire (PAQ). White students had significantly higher PAQ scores than did African American students (p<.001). White students also had significantly more pets (M=4.05 vs. 2.18, p<.001) and more kinds of pets (M=2.30 vs. 1.57, p<.001) and were more likely to allow pets to sleep on their beds (70% vs. 53%, p<.05). Although keeping pets is a universal cultural phenomenon, how that attachment is expressed may vary from culture-to-culture. This study explores possible explanations and implications for these variations.

The United States is a culturally diverse country with correspondingly diverse attitudes toward the treatment of animals other than human (Wolch, Brownlow & Lassiter, 2001). However, very little research has been devoted to understanding the variations in attitudes toward animals within its diverse ethnic and racial groups. This is especially true for attitudes toward animal companions ("pets") versus wildlife or food animals. If cultural variations in attitudes do exist, they could have far-reaching implications for animal welfare and human health. The purpose of this preliminary study was to begin to understand such differences without drawing any definitive conclusions. Many factors social, cultural, and environmental conditions affect people's attitudes about animals (Lawrence, 1995). Scientists, philosophers, and religious leaders (Lawrence) influence cultural norms regarding treatment of animals. To define and measure all the diverse aspects of attitudes toward animals was beyond the scope of this paper. This research measured pet attachment, which is but one, small aspect of attitudes toward animals.

There always is the danger that exploring such racial or ethnic "differences" can be used as a basis for discrimination against minority populations (King, 2000). Often, some can misconstrue research exploring "racial differences" and use it to erroneously prove superiority of one race over another (King). He explains that this type of information often burdens rather than helps African Americans. It is important to remember that no ethnic or racial group is a monolith where all individuals think and feel the same way (Gibbs, 1999). For all ethnic populations, variety and diversity are the rule and not the exception (Gibbs). If, as the ever-increasing body of literature suggests, it is true that relationships with animal companions have health-enhancing effects and if cultures relate differently to companion animals, then it is essential that health-care providers and educators understand the differences among cultures that either enhance or inhibit such effects.

Research Studies

During the 1970s, Kellert did some of the first research studies to measure racial differences in attitudes toward animals (Kellert, 1996). He interviewed almost 4,000 Americans about their attitudes and beliefs about animals and nature. He was able to delineate nine values of nature and animals based on his interview data.

These values covered a range of attitudes toward nature and animals from humanistic or sentimental, to utilitarian, to negativistic and domininistic attitudes. Kellert found that African Americans generally showed less appreciation for, less recreational interest in, and less willingness to support the protection of nature and wildlife than did European Americans. African Americans also were more likely to endorse views of practical exploitation and control of the natural world. These racial differences increased when Kellert looked at the African American individuals in the higher socio-economic levels. Also, college-educated African Americans had little interest in the understanding of living diversity and its conservation. Urban and rural African Americans did not vary in their attitudes. African Americans scored higher than Whites on the scales of utilitarian, dominionistic, and negativistic views of animals.

The utilitarian view saw animals as valuable to the extent that they have a use or purpose. White Americans tended to see animals in a more sentimental, humanistic way (Kellert, 1996). Kellert's research shows that attitudes toward animals can vary greatly according to racial group, region of the country, gender, socioeconomic level, urban versus rural background, or educational level. However, his research was not focused specifically on animal companions.

Focus Groups
More recently, Wolch, et al. (2001) conducted focus groups that explored cultural/ethnic attitudes toward animals. One focus group consisted of 11 low-income African American women living in inner-city Los Angeles. Other focus groups had Latino/Chicano and Filipino participants. The African American participants were asked questions about traditional forms of human-animal interactions and attitudes toward animals as well as other animal-related topics. The purpose of the research was to clarify relationships between cultural background (linked to race/ethnicity) and attitudes toward human-animal relationships, including wildlife, food animals and pets. Wolch et al. concluded that different cultures have widely differing relationships to animals. These relationships often have a basis in the cultural history of the racial/ethnic group. For example, eating "trash animals" such as opossum or squirrel was historically a common practice in the rural South for some groups of impoverished African Americans. Such cultural histories can determine the types of animals eaten, treatment of wildlife, and attitudes toward pets.

Structured Interviews

Siegel (1995) measured the importance of pets and pet ownership by conducting structured interviews in a random sample of adolescents. Her sample included 477 Latinos, 171 Whites, 101 African Americans, and 97 Asians. Siegel found that after taking income and type of household into account, the White adolescents still were more likely to have pets. Also, White adolescents rated themselves as more attached to their pets than did other racial groups. African American adolescents were more likely to be the pet’s sole caregiver. Although a limitation of this study was that a single item measured pet attachment, Siegel concluded that the presence and importance of a pet were affected by cultural norms. He stated,
The considerable variability as a function of race/ethnicity in the likelihood of owning a pet, and the nature of the adolescent's relationship to his/her pet, indicates that future research would benefit by utilizing diverse samples and by attempting to determine why the role of pets in the family is a culturally bound phenomenon. (p. 217)

In a review article, Katcher (1982), noted that the health benefits of pet ownership for coronary disease patients demonstrated by Friedmann, Katcher, Lynch and Thomas (1980) did not extend to the African American patients in the study. Friedmann, Katcher and Meislich (1982) further explored findings when they looked at the relationship between hospitalized patients and their animal companions. In this study, they found that the degree of attachment (as measured by a 10-question pet attachment scale) between the African American patients (n = 8) and their pets was significantly lower than the White patients (n = 28) and their pets. The individual items that were significantly different were two questions asking about keeping photos or paintings of their pets and having the photos on display in their wallets or in albums. There were no significant differences between sexes and ages on this pet attachment scale. Friedmann et al. (1982) concluded that African Americans tend to own fewer pets and either are less attached to their pets or express their attachment differently than do Whites. Finally, they stated that pets may have different roles within the two cultures in the United States. However, the small sample sizes used in this study make the validity and generalizability of the results questionable. One important issue raised by this research is whether the health benefits of pet ownership demonstrated in White pet owners can be generalized to African American pet owners.

Limited Health Benefits

In a review of the literature on animal companions and health, Katcher (1982) noted that health benefits from companion animals may be limited to certain populations such as Whites, urban dwellers, and people of higher socio-economic levels. Because of these differences, Katcher stated,
I am not suggesting that pet placement programs be restricted to any single group. Instead, I am suggesting that the kind of attachment an individual person develops with a pet has a strong bearing on the effect of that pet on his health or morale. (p. 3)
The above research suggests that Whites may tend to be more attached to their companion animals or may simply express their attachment in different ways, viewing them in a sentimental, anthropomorphic way. African Americans may tend to view animals in an instrumental, utilitarian way (Kellert, 1996). Jasper & Nelkin (1992) have pointed out that these two views toward animals, that is, anthropomorphic and instrumental, have co-existed peacefully throughout history in both societies and individuals.
Suggested reasons for these differences were value differences, socio-economic disparities, and cultural norms. Katcher (1982) suggested that in order to derive health benefits from animal companions, people might need to have an adequate income and an attachment to the animal. This could have implications in determining the health benefits various ethnic groups derive from animal companionship.

Improved Research

Research concerning human relationships with animal companions has focused almost exclusively on White, middle-class adults or on children and their relationships with their pets. A few studies (Friedman, Katcher, & Meislich, 1982; Katcher, 1982; Siegel, 1995) have noted racial differences in pet attachment and pet ownership. The findings generally show Whites to have more pets and to be more attached to them. However, the previous studies measuring race and pet attachment had serious methodological problems (such as very small sample size and inadequate measurement of pet attachment), making it hard to generalize the findings to the population at large. Other researchers have examined racial differences toward wildlife or the environment in general, but not specifically toward companion animals (Caron, 1989; Caron-Sheppard, 1995; Dolin, 1988; Kellert, 1996; Taylor, 1989).
The purpose of this study was to improve upon the previous companion animal research and measure pet attachment in a population of White and African American students of veterinary medicine. It was hypothesized that the White students would have higher scores on a pet attachment scale than African American students. Also, it was expected that Whites would own more pets and more varieties of pets. It also was hypothesized that White students would allow pets to sleep in their bedrooms and on their beds more often than would African American students.

Method
Participants

Students enrolled in a private, Southern school of veterinary medicine were asked to participate in a voluntary study. Surveys were given to all students attending class during Spring Semester 2000 and to first-year students attending orientation during Fall Semester 2000. Students were asked either to complete the surveys during class time or to return them to the experimenter later. One hundred and seventy two students enrolled in the veterinary medical program both completed and returned questionnaires. The sample of 172 students represents about 57% of the total student population of 300 (including 5 classes of about 60 students each). The return rate is inexact because roll was not taken on the days the students were asked to fill out the surveys.
The final sample consisted of 104 females and 29 males. The racial make up of the final sample consisted of 76 African Americans and 57 Whites. The other racial groups (22 Puerto Ricans, 8 West Indian Islanders, 3 Africans, 3 Asian / Pacific Islanders, and 3 Others) were removed from the final sample because of small sample sizes. All participants were over 18, and the mean age was 25.90. None of the demographic variables marital status, number of children, gender, or number born in the United States differed significantly except for age, with African American students averaging 25.3 and Whites averaging 26.7. The participants were 78% female, 99% born in the United States, 81% single, and 90% childless.

Materials

All participants were given a packet of questionnaires. They were asked to read and sign an informed consent form. The questionnaires included a background information questionnaire, questions about their pets, the pet attachment questionnaire (PAQ) of Stallones, Johnson, Garrity & Marx (1990), and one other survey used for another study.
The PAQ (Stallones, Johnson, Garrity, & Marx, 1990) is an eight-question self-report questionnaire frequently used in the animal companion literature. The content includes feeling a pet has helped your health, seeing a pet as part of your family, taking your pet with you to visit people, and keeping a picture of your pet with you. It also includes your feeling a pet is more loyal than people are, viewing a pet as having the same privileges as a family member, and being affected by the way others react to your pet. The various options for answering are given various numerical values (never = 0, seldom = 1, occasionally = 2, often =3, always = 4). The sum of individual values is the total score, ranging from 0 to a possible high of 23. All participants were asked to fill out this questionnaire regardless of pet ownership status. The instructions for the PAQ read, "If you do not currently own a pet (or never owned one in the past) fill this in as you would if you did own a pet."
Stallones et al. reported the Chronbach’s alpha was .75 for reliability and that using a principal component analysis all questions loaded on one single factor, suggesting that the questions were cohesive and depicted a single component of pet attachment. Similarly, all questions in the current study inter-correlated well with each other, and the Chronbach’s alpha for the total scale was .87.

Results

Whites scored significantly higher on almost all of the pet related questions (see Table 1). Significance was found using SPSS version 10.0 with a series of ANOVA and Chi-Square tests. Significantly, more White students owned pets than did African American students (100% vs. 86%). White students owned significantly more pets (an average of four pets vs. two pets) as well as significantly more kinds of pets (2.3 kinds vs. 1.58 kinds). More White students had pets sleeping in their bedrooms (86% Whites vs. 78% of African Americans with pets), however, this difference was not statistically significant. Significantly more White students had pets sleeping on their beds (70% Whites vs. 53% of African Americans with pets). The 14% of African Americans who did not own a pet were excluded from the analysis of the last two pet questions.
------------------------
Table 1.

PAQ Means and Pet Questions by Race

____________________________________________________________________________

Question                                               African                  White                                     ANOVA                                                             American
_____________________________________________________________________________

                                                                M            SD           M            SD           df             F

1) PAQ Means                                      14.01       3.51         17.00       4.39         1              18.985***

2) Total number of pets.                      2.18         1.45         4.05         2.05         1              35.388***

3) Kinds of pets.                                   1.57         .72           2.30         1.21         1              17.256***

                                                                %                           %                      Chi-square

4) Do you own a pet?                          86% Yes 100% Yes               1              8.871** (1-sided)

5) Pet sleeps in bedroom                     78% Yes 86% Yes 1              1.422

6) Pet sleeps in bed.                             53% Yes 70% Yes 1              3.864* (1-sided)

______________________________________________________________________________

p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

-------------------------
The hypothesis that White students would score higher on the pet attachment survey was confirmed. The White students' average PAQ score was 17, while African American students averaged 14.01. As can be seen in Table 1, an ANOVA was significant at the p< .001 level. Because this study was exploratory in nature, the eight individual PAQ items also were analyzed separately. Although the chances of a Type 1 error (finding a significance when there really isn't one) are increased, it was considered worth while to run this analysis. Table 2 lists the individual PAQ items and statistical significance by ANOVA. Significant differences were found on four of the eight questionnaire items. These items included questions about agreeing that no family is complete without a pet, having feelings affected by how people react to your pet, taking pets to visit friends and relatives, and keeping a picture of your pet in your wallet or on display in your home or office.
------------------------
 

Table 2

Individual PAQ Questions by Race

*Categories have been collapsed for clarity

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

------------------------
Finally, because previous research has shown gender to have a significant effect on attitudes toward animals (Herzog, Betchart, & Pittman, 1991), the data were analyzed with gender as an independent variable. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis on the pet questions and the PAQ. A 2 X 2 ANOVA revealed that gender also had a significant effect on pet attachment in this sample. Both main effects for gender, F(1, 133) = 17.12, p< .001. and race, F(1, 133) = 7.74, p<.006 were significant, while the interaction was not significant, F(1, 133) = 1.89, p<.171 (effect size = .230). Females scored significantly higher than males on their mean pet attachment score (16 vs.12.76, respectively, p<.001). As can be seen in Table 3, females had pets sleeping in their bedrooms and on their beds significantly more often than did males. It is also interesting to note that African American females had a higher PAQ score than White males. Figure 1 shows PAQ averages by race and gender.

------------------------
Table 3 PAQ Means by Race and Gender

___________________________________________________________________________________

Variable                                   Male, N = 29               Female, N = 104                                     ___________________________________________________________________________________

                                                M         SD                   M         SD       df         F

1) PAQ Means                                    12.76    4.71                  16         3.73      1          15.171***

2) Number of pets                   2.73      1.78                  3.12      2.03      1          .805

3) Number of kinds of pets     2.00      1.02                  1.88      1.05      1          .284

                                                %                                %                                Chi-Square

4) Do you have a pet?             90% Yes                      92% Yes          1          .224

5) Pets in Bedroom                65% Yes                      86% Yes          1          5.621*

6) Pets in the bed                   41% Yes                      66% Yes          1          5.814*

______________________________________________________________________________________

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < . 001

-------------------------
-------------------------

Figure 1. PAQ Means by Race and Gender.

N = 18, N = 58 N = 11, N = 46

--------------------------
Discussion

All but one of the original hypotheses was supported. White students scored significantly higher than African Americans on the pet attachment scale. They had significantly more pets and more kinds of pets than did African Americans. White students were significantly more likely to have pets sleeping on their beds than were African American students. Also, more White students allowed pets to sleep in their bedrooms; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance as was originally expected. Although not part of the original purpose of this study, significant differences in pet attachment by gender also emerged. Females, regardless of race, scored higher on pet attachment than did males and allowed pets to sleep both in the bedroom and on their beds more often than did the male students.

The population of participants in this study appears to be biased in favor of pets. Veterinary medical students would be expected to have higher levels of pet attachment than the average population regardless of race or gender. They would be expected to have some interest in animals because of their choice of occupation. All groups of veterinary medical students, (including African Americans, Whites, males, and females) had higher group means than did the average population. It would be interesting to replicate this study in a racially diverse group of participants who were not biased in favor of animals, such as in other, non-animal related fields of study. Greater variation in responses probably would be found.

Although African American students scored significantly lower than White students, both groups from this study had higher than average scores than did the general population. A PAQ score of 10 was the average for one study (Stallones et al., 1990), and students in non-animal related fields of study also scored 10.47 (Brown & Katcher, 1997). Also, the White female veterinary technician students scored slightly higher than did White veterinary medical students (17.91 vs. 17.00) on the PAQ (Brown & Katcher, 2001). However, when the White veterinary medical females are compared to the female veterinary technician students, the scores were nearly identical, 17.85, SD 3.39 vs. 17.91, SD 3.35, respectively (Brown & Katcher, 2001). White females seem to have the highest level of pet attachment, which is consistent with previous studies (Herzog, Betchart, & Pittman, 1991). With the percentage of female students entering veterinary medicine increasing each year (Smith, 2002), it should be interesting to see how attitudes toward animals will change within veterinary medicine in the future.

Support of the Hypothesis

The results of this study support the hypothesis that different racial or ethnic cultures within the United States have their own, unique views of animals. Whites may tend to have a sentimental, anthropomorphic view of animals while African Americans may have a more instrumental or utilitarian view of animals. The survey items with the largest differences were questions implying an anthropomorphic view. These items included having your pet sleep on the bed, having your feelings affected by how people react to your pet, taking the pet with you to visit friends or relatives, and keeping a photo of your pet in your wallet or on display in your home or office. These items imply a view of the pet as child or person instead of an animal with a job, such as guarding the house.

This view probably is due partially to economics because keeping a pet as a companion requires money above and beyond resources for survival. However, it is possible that these differences are cultural customs passed down from one generation to the next. As Lawrence (1995) said, the world-view of a particular culture determines the perceived amount of separation between humans and animals, which then determines the treatment of each species. Whites may see less separation between themselves and their pets. More research that controls for socio-economic variations and urban or rural background and measures anthropomorphic versus instrumental views of various racial/ethnic groups would help to answer these questions.

Pet Attachment

Reviews of the animal companion literature show that pet attachment is not well-defined (Triebenbacher, 1999; Zasloff, 1996). Although pet attachment instruments are widely used, universal consensus of what constitutes pet attachment is lacking except that it is a multi-dimensional construct (Triebenbacher). Without further research that would define the concept of pet attachment, definitive conclusions about any individual or group cannot be made. Pet attachment instruments have not been widely used with minority groups. The expressions of pet attachment measured by any instrument may be biased toward White, middle class populations. Minority populations may have feelings, beliefs or expressions of attachments toward pets not measured by any standard pet attachment scale. Further research is necessary to determine the nature of cultural expressions of, and beliefs about, pet attachment and how these expressions and beliefs could be measured. Therefore, generalizations of these findings to African Americans as a whole would be erroneous. This would be especially true for any policies or laws that could discriminate against African Americans: for example, making decisions about the suitability of African Americans to adopt a pet from an animal shelter.

Reasons for the ethnic or racial differences in pet attachment are purely speculative at this time. However, it would seem that some of the hypothesized reasons for the racial differences in views about the environment might hold true for the issue of animals. In her review of the literature and thorough summary of possible explanations for why African Americans have not been actively involved in environmental issues, Taylor (1989) outlines many possible reasons. Some of her reasons may help to explain why African Americans might have less interest in animals:
1. African Americans have more pressing priorities such as personal survival and racial discrimination;
2. More African Americans than Whites have limited economic means and therefore may have to prioritize advocating for basic social needs;
3. African American human-animal relations have been influenced by folktales passed down through the generations that stressed ferocious and threatening animals living in the forests of Africa;
4. There has been pervasive discrimination against African Americans seeking recreation in parks and other natural facilities, which limited their contact with wildlife; and
5. African Americans have been fighting for basic civil rights while White environmentalists (already having these basic needs met) were seeking to satisfy aesthetic or luxury needs. Whether or not these reasons contribute to less interest in, or attachment to, animals has yet to be determined.

That African Americans and Whites showed no significant differences on the PAQ question stating that pets should have the same rights and privileges as family members is an interesting one. In spite of very few minorities having been involved in animal rights demonstrations (Galvin & Herzog, 1992; Plous, 1991), it may be that African Americans are concerned about animal rights and well being. Taylor (1989) noted there are many complex reasons why a gap between concern about an issue and action for an issue exists for African Americans in relation to environmental issues. It may be that African Americans have concern for animal rights but, for other reasons, do not take action on these issues. Some supporting evidence for African Americans' concern for animal rights can be found in the data from the General Social Survey (GSS) recommended by Herzog & Dorr (2000). According to H. A. Herzog (personal communication, May 11, 2001) African Americans and Whites showed little difference in their responses to the following question from the GSS: "Animals should have the same moral rights that humans do." Also, Wolch et al. (2001) noted that 6 out of 11 African American women in a focus group concerning animal issues expressed some views that were consistent with pro-animal rights views. Wolch et al. speculated that having a pro-animal rights perspective might be "a projection of anti-racist attitudes into a normative guideline for human-animal relations (p. 87)." Further research into the views of African Americans on animal rights would help to explain these tentative findings.

Attitudes toward Pets

It is interesting to note how African American and White veterinary medical students were similar in their attitudes toward pets. Scores on four of the eight questions on the PAQ had no significant differences. The majority of both African American and White students felt that owning a pet had helped their health, that pets are more loyal than people, that their pets are part of the family, and that pets should have the same rights and privileges as family members. Perhaps one reason for this similarity is that a few of these questions are very general and broad, such as "helped your health" and "part of the family."

Caron (1989) found that African Americans were more likely to support broad environmental orientations than specific environmental problems. As suggested by Caron, future research should consider assessing attitudes toward both types of issues, that is, specific ones and broad, general ones. It may be helpful in the future to break these questions down into questions that are more specific and would get at the meaning of things like being "part of the family." On the other hand, the question about pets being more loyal than people seems to be a little more specific. Being loyal may be one outstanding attribute of pets that cuts across racial and cultural differences.

Conclusion

One significant limitation of this study is that socio-economic status, housing differences, or urban versus rural background were not measured. Because of the inequalities in these demographic variables between African Americans and Whites in the United States (U. S. Census Bureau, 2001) and their relevance to pet attachment, how much they affected these results is not known. In general, African American veterinary medical students at a private university may be more secure financially than the average African American young adult in America. However, future research should include socio-economic status, housing arrangements, and urban versus rural background in an effort to control these variables.

It seems as though many attitudes toward animals could have some cultural basis (Wolch et al., 2001). However, it is important to remember that individuals with many diverse attitudes make up ethnic or racial groups, and any large generalizations about attitudes would be erroneous (Gibbs, 1999). If, as the ever-increasing body of literature tends to demonstrate, relationships with animal companions have health-enhancing effects for people, then an understanding of the differences among cultures that either enhance or inhibit such effects would be essential. This would be a vital step toward empowering all cultures to receive the simple, yet powerful, benefits of relationships with animals. Furthermore, understanding more about each one’s own cultural views, attitudes, and values of animals would help create a more compassionate world for all living beings, that is, people and animal alike.



Note
[1] Correspondence should be addressed to Sue-Ellen Brown, Tuskegee University, Center for the Study of Human-Animal Interdependent Relationships, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health Department of Clinical Sciences, Tuskegee, AL 36088. E-mail: brownse@tusk.edu. This study was funded in part by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Health and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions under Tuskegee University’s Center of Excellence Grant.

References

Brown, S. E., & Katcher, A. H. (1997). The contribution of attachment to pets and attachment to nature to dissociation and absorption. DISSOCIATION, 10 (2), 125-129.

Brown, S. E., & Katcher, A. H. (2001). Pet attachment and dissociation. Society & Animals, 9 (1), 25-41.

Caron, J. A. (1989). Environmental perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of the "new environmental paradigm." Journal of Environmental Education, 26 (3), 21-26.

Caron-Sheppard, J. A. (1995). The Black-White environmental concern gap: An examination of environmental paradigms. Journal of Environmental Education, 26 (2), 24-35.

Dolin, E. J. (1988). Black Americans' attitudes toward wildlife. Journal of Environmental Education, 20 (1), 17-21.

Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Lynch, J. J., & Thomas, S. A., (1980). Animal companions and one year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95, 307-312.

Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., & Meislich, D. (1982). When pet owners are hospitalized: Significance of companion animals during hospitalization. In A. H. Katcher & A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with companion animals (pp. 346-350).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Galvin, S. L., & Herzog, H. A. (1992). Ethical ideology, animal rights activism, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Ethics & Behavior, 2 (3), 141-149.

Gibbs, T. (1999). Diversity among Black Americans: Part of America's hidden diversity. In L. L. Naylor (Ed.), Problems and issues of diversity in the United States (pp. 97-110). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Herzog, H. A., Betchart, N. S., Pittman, R. B. (1991). Gender, sex role orientation on and attitudes towards animals. Anthrozoös, 4 (3), 184-191.

Herzog, H. A., Dorr, L. B. (2000). Electronically available surveys of attitudes toward animals. Society & Animals, 8 (2), 183-190.

Jasper, J. M., Nelkin, D. (1992). Moral sentiments. In The animal rights crusade: The growth of a moral protest (pp. 11-25). New York: The Free Press.

Katcher, A. H. (1982, Sept/Oct). Are companion animals good for your health? A review of the evidence. Aging, 2-8.

Kellert, S. R. (1996). The Value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington DC: Island Press.

King, P. A. (2000). The dangers of difference. In S. M. Reverby (Ed.), Tuskegee's truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee syphilis study (pp. 424-430). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Lawrence, E. A. (1995). Cultural perceptions of differences between people and animals: A key to understanding human-animal relationships. Journal of American Culture, 18 (3), 75-82.

Plous, S. (1991). An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psychological Science, 2, 194-196.

Siegel, J. M. (1995). Pet ownership and the importance of pets among adolescents. Anthrozoös, 8 (4), 217-223.

Smith, C. A. (2002). Gender and work: What veterinarians can learn from research about women, men, and work. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 220 (9), 1304-1311.

Stallones, L., Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Marx, M. B. (1990). Quality of attachment to companion animals among U. S adults 21 to 64 years of age. Anthrozoös, 3, 171-176.

Taylor, D. E. (1989). Blacks and the environment: Toward an explanation of the concern and action gap between Blacks and
Whites. Environment and Behavior, 21 (2), 175-205.

Triebenbacher, S. (1999). Re-evaluation of the companion animal bonding scale. Anthrozoös, 12 (3), 169-173.
U. S. Census Bureau (February 22, 2001). Census bureau releases update on country's African American population. Retrieved August 27, 2001 from the U. S Census Bureau's Web Site: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-34.html

Wolch, J., Brownlow, A., Lassiter, U. (2001). Constructing the animal worlds of inner-city Los Angeles. In C. Philo & C. Wilbert (Eds.), Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human-animal relations (pp. 71-97). London: Routledge.

Zasloff, R. L. (1996). Measuring attachment to companion animals: A dog is not a cat is not a bird. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 47, 43-48.
 

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: