An Assessment of Knowledge and Attitude Regarding Animal Suffering and Rights among University Students in Punjab, Pakistan
Abstract
In the social sciences, assessment of societal attitudes toward animals’ rights is very important to understand the relationship between science and the normative pattern of society. In the present study, a survey was carried out to determine the knowledge and attitude of Pakistani university students toward animal suffering and rights. By reviewing existing literature, limited studies were carried out in Pakistan. A random sampling technique was used in which an online cross-sectional study was conducted, and 200 respondent students participated in the survey from different public-sector universities in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. The data was collected through a web-based questionnaire. The questions were designed to explain the respondents' views toward animals' suffering and rights while keeping in view the cultural and religious perspectives. Study results demonstrated that a surprising majority of students, including ladies and men (55% p 0.05), were not well aware of animal rights. About 49.4% of respondents did not consider it an injustice, while 51.8% considered it right to kill the animals to achieve trophies. Furthermore, it has been observed that about 84% (p 0.05) were in favor of the adoption of pets. The level of attitudes toward animal care varies concerning age, education, and residency in rural or urban areas; however, the trend remains equal in each gender. In short, students do not know about animal rights. Considering how important animal rights are, this study showed that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan needs to hold workshops and awareness campaigns in universities to teach students about animal rights and how to protect them.
References
Belkhir, S. (2019). Animal-related concepts across languages and cultures from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(2), 295-324.
Berglund, J. (2014). Princely companion or object of offense? The dog’s ambiguous status in Islam. Society & Animals, 22(6), 545-559.
Bergmann, Iris. (2019a). He loves to race–or does he? Equine Cultures in Transition: Ethical Questions. New York, NY: Routledge
Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., ... & Aubert, A. (2007). Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & behavior, 92(3), 375-397.
Broom, Donald M. (2014). Sentience and animal welfare. Wallingford, UK: Cabi.
Buddle, Emily A, Bray, Heather J, & Ankeny, Rachel A. (2021). Of course we care!: A qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues. Journal of Rural Studies, 83, 50-59.
Buller, Henry, Blokhuis, Harry, Jensen, Per, & Keeling, Linda. (2018). Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals, 8(6), 81.
Carnovale, Francesca, Jin, Xiao, Arney, David, Descovich, Kris, Guo, Wenliang, Shi, Binlin, & Phillips, Clive JC. (2021). Chinese Public Attitudes towards, and Knowledge of, Animal Welfare. Animals, 11(3), 855.
Daly, Martin. (2017). Killing the competition: Economic inequality and homicide. New York, NY: Routledge.
Driscoll, Carlos A, Clutton-Brock, Juliet, Kitchener, Andrew C, & O’Brien, Stephen J. (2009). The taming of the cat. Scientific American, 300(6), 68.
Dunn, R. A. (2020). The sooner the better: The arguments for the use of extended welfare assessment grids in animal welfare cases. Liverpool Law Review, 41(2), 107-127.
Esposito, J. L. (2011). What everyone needs to know about Islam. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Estévez-Moreno, L. X., Marı́a, G. A., Sepú lveda, W. S., Villarroel, M., & Miranda-de la Lama, G. C. (2021). Attitudes of meat consumers in Mexico and Spain about farm animal welfare: A cross-cultural study. Meat Science, 173, 108377.
Flynn, C. P. (2011). Examining the links between animal abuse and human violence. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(5), 453-468.
George, K. A., Slagle, K. M., Wilson, R. S., Moeller, S. J., & Bruskotter, J. T. (2016). Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation, 201, 237-242.
Gustafsson, E., Alawi, N., & Andersen, P. N. (2019). Attitudes Toward Animal Rights in Palestine: A Quantitative Study. Society & Animals, 28(2), 133-150.
Hariohay, K. M., Fyumagwa, R. D., Kideghesho, J. R., & Røskaft, E. (2018). Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(6), 503-514.
He, J., Evans, N. M., Liu, H., & Shao, S. (2020). A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19(5), 2639-2656.
Head, L., Klocker, N., & Aguirre-Bielschowsky, I. (2019). Environmental values, knowledge and behaviour: Contributions of an emergent literature on the role of ethnicity and migration. Progress in Human Geography, 43(3), 397-415.
Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: An examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 157-186.
Levin, J., Arluke, A., & Irvine, L. (2017). Are people more disturbed by dog or human suffering? Influence of victim’s species and age. Society & Animals, 25(1), 1-16.
Lin-Schilstra, L., & Fischer, A. R. (2020). Consumer moral dilemma in the choice of animal-friendly meat products. Sustainability, 12(12), 4844.
Linch, A., & Holland, B. (2017). Cultural Killing and Human–Animal Capability Conflict. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(3), 322-336.
Mather, J. A. (2019). Ethics and care: For animals, not just mammals. Animals, 9(12), 1018.
Modlinska, K., Adamczyk, D., Maison, D., & Pisula, W. (2020). Gender differences in attitudes to vegans/vegetarians and their food preferences, and their implications for promoting sustainable dietary patterns–a systematic review. Sustainability, 12(16), 6292.
Ngo, K. M., Hosaka, T., & Numata, S. (2019). The influence of childhood nature experience on attitudes and tolerance towards problemcausing animals in Singapore. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41, 150-157.
Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviors: Bringing back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 181-208.
Onyskiw, J. E. (2007). The link between family violence and cruelty to family pets. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7(3), 7-30.
Pervin, S., Ranchhod, A., & Wilman, M. (2014). Trends in cosmetics purchase: Ethical perceptions of consumers in different cultures. A cross country comparative study between South Asian and Western consumers. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 13(1), 57-72.
Phillips, C. (2008). The welfare of animals: The silent majority. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Pifer, R., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, L. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Society & Animals, 2(2), 95-113.
Pinheiro, L. T., Rodrigues, J. F. M., & Borges-Nojosa, D. M. (2016). Formal education, previous interaction and perception influence the attitudes of people toward the conservation of snakes in a large urban center of northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12(1), 1-8.
Pirrone, Federica, Mariti, Chiara, Gazzano, Angelo, Albertini, Mariangela, Sighieri, Claudio, & Diverio, Silvana. (2019). Attitudes toward animals and their welfare among Italian veterinary students. Veterinary Sciences, 6(1), 19.
Qazilbash, Ilyas, A. & Mahrukh. (2021). Apathy towards animal rights in Pakistan: What needs to be done(Research report). Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI). Islamabad, Pakistan.
Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(1), 145-151.
Shipman, P. (2010). The animal connection and human evolution. Current Anthropology, 51(4), 519-538.
Wagner, K., Owen, S., & Burke, T. W. (2019). Not wild about wildlife protection? The perceived harmfulness, wrongfulness, and seriousness of wildlife crimes. Society & Animals, 27(4), 383-402.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.