Attitudes Toward Animals
Introduction
Architecture: A Balancing Act of Compromises
Architectural design is inherently a process of negotiation and compromise, where a designer must balance the often-conflicting needs, desires, and constraints of various stakeholders. These stakeholders can be grouped in many ways, but when designing a building they often include:
- The client, who is paying for the building, and typically wants everything beautiful and high quality, but also done as quickly and cheaply as possible to maximize profit.
- The end users, who will actually live in or use the building, and typically value functionality, comfort, safety, and ease-of-use.
- The community, which includes neighbors, local government, and the wider community, and are often concerned about the building’s impact on the surrounding environment.
- The contractors, who have to actually build everything, and usually prioritize efficiency, safety, and practicality during the construction process.
- The environment, which cannot advocate for itself, but is dependent on humans to limit their impact on natural resources, energy consumption, and carbon footprint.
The architect's role is to act as a mediator and problem-solver, facilitating communication between these groups and making informed decisions that find the “best” balance. In this industry, this process is called “trade-off analysis,” and it requires a deep understanding of each group’s priorities and a commitment to creating a design that, while not perfect for any single party, provides the most overall value and minimizes the critical sacrifices made.
A higher quality roofing material could benefit the contractor because it is easer to install, and benefit the community because it looks better to neighbors, and benefit both the end users and the environment because it has a higher insulation value. However, higher quality almost always means the client has to pay more. Sometimes the architect catches a break—a discount or tax rebate could make this better material cheaper as well and everyone wins—but this is rare.
Usually, every change comes with sacrifice. Making the building bigger could make it more comfortable for a single user, but at the same time make it less comfortable for all others while also making it more expensive for the client, harder to build for the contractor, and have a larger negative impact on the community and the environment.
In this last example, to perform the trade-off analysis, the architect would typically talk with all parties to see if the needs of that one end user outweigh the combined sacrifice of everyone else. But what if that one end user happens to be a dog?
Designing for Animals
Designing an animal-supportive home means adding yet another stakeholder to the already crowded mix.
However, animals are even more complicated, because although they live in and use the building, they cannot advocate for themselves or communicate the relative importance of various design options.
This means that architects either need to consult with animal experts or become experts themselves in order to have their needs accurately represented in the trade-off analysis.
Furthermore, they also need to consider a wide range of human attitudes toward animals, from the few who say they don’t like animals at all, which is fairly straightforward, to the many who say they love them, which is harder to evaluate because when one person says it, they mean they like looking at photos of kittens online, but when another person says they love animals, they mean they jumped off a bridge into a raging river to save a rabbit they thought was in trouble and, despite nearly drowning, would do it again with no hesitation.
To weigh the needs of animals against the sacrifices of humans, architects need to know how people really feel about animals, and they can’t necessarily rely on their words. Unfortunately, the gold standard of research in this area, Kellert’s typology of nine basic attitudes toward animals, is not useful in this instance, as the typologies overlap and cannot be easily ranked.
To make value judgments, what would be useful is a taxonomy, i.e., an empirically-derived, often hierarchical classification system, whereas a typology is a theoretically constructed system of grouping based on shared characteristics. A taxonomy of the attitudes humans most commonly exhibit toward animals, as measured through their observable actions, would help describe how people actually think and feel about them. This in turn would help foster understanding and organize discussion of the dynamics between individuals and groups with differing worldviews. Furthermore, since trade-off analyses depend on what different groups are willing to sacrifice for each other, it would be most useful to use, as an empirical measure, the amount humans typically sacrifice for animals in their daily lives as an accurate measure of their attitude toward them.
The Animal Attitudinal Behavior Spectrum
Since a nomenclature describing groups in this manner could not be located, the following taxonomy was created. While reductive compared to Kellert’s comprehensive work in this area, this spectrum could be seen as a measurement of how strongly people identify with Kellert’s Humanistic attitude, which is strongly associated with the level of empathy people feel toward animals. While such a taxonomy could contribute to anthrozoology and other social sciences, it could also benefit a variety of animal welfare causes. As most people who work for such causes do so outside of academia, the taxonomy was restricted to conventional terms so those terms could be more easily used in non-academic channels.
A spectrum of common human attitudes toward animals can be broadly arranged according to how frequently people make significant sacrifices to put the needs of animals ahead of their own needs. This measure can be seen as an observable and measurable expression of several attitudes which include the relative importance they put on their own needs, the needs of humans in general, the needs of their pets, and the needs of animals in general; it would be expected that the differential attitudinal values within these groups would be similar.
At either end of this spectrum are the extreme outliers: Animal Abusers and Animal Fanatics, who can be largely ignored by architects as their behavior toward animals is more indicative of mental disorders than environmental design is unlikely to change. Animal Avoiders must be considered when designing any space intended for general use; however, where it gets the most interesting is in the middle of the spectrum, including Tolerators and Advocates, but especially Enthusiasts and Altruists, as these make up the vast majority of the population who might seem similar on self-reported surveys, but whose behavior helps illustrate what they really mean when they say they like animals.
| Frequency of Sacrifice | Group Name | Short Group Name |
| Never | Animal Abusers | Abusers |
| Very Rarely | Animal Avoiders | Avoiders |
| Rarely | Animal Tolerators | Tolerators |
| Sometimes | Animal Enthusiasts | Enthusiasts |
| Often | Animal Altruists | Altruists |
| Very Often | Animal Advocates | Advocates |
| Constantly | Animal Fanatics | Fanatics |
| Sacrifice Frequency | Group Name | Characteristic Behavior |
| Never | Cat Abuser | Purposefully harms cats. |
| Very Rarely | Cat Avoider | Avoids cats when possible. |
| Rarely | Cat Tolerator | Has no strong feelings about cats. |
| Sometimes | Cat Enthusiast | Seeks and enjoys the company of cats. |
| Often | Cat Altruist | Treats cats like family/children. |
| Very Often | Cat Advocate | Regularly helps promote cat welfare. |
| Constantly | Cat Fanatic | Exhibits unhealthy obsession with cats. |
Graph: Distribution of Population on Animal Attitudinal Behavior Spectrum
Graph: Comparative Intensity of Attitudinal Behavior Between Groups
Graph: Passion
Graph: Proficiency
Graph: Potential Impact as a Function of Passion and Proficiency
Animal Abusers
Description
Frequency of significant sacrifice: Never.
Animal Abusers take advantage of the vulnerability of animals, causing intentional harm for their own gratification or profit.
In the absence of deep cultural differences, the lack of empathy required to intentionally harm an animal is so severe that it more often indicates a personality disorder or mental illness rather than specific attitudes toward animals.
Cruelty to animals is a sign of psychopathy, as those who abuse animals derive pleasure in causing pain, lack remorse, and often have little or no functional empathy for humans as well.
Animal Abusers are uncommon and their actions are so outside societal norms that these outliers don’t factor into many practical discussions of animal welfare except those involving curbing unethical or criminal behavior.
Examples
The various reasons why people abuse animals is diverse and beyond the scope of this paper, but some examples include:
- Poachers who kill for profit rather than survival.
- Dogfighting organizers and supporters.
- Puppy mill operators.
- Livestock farmers who do not follow ethical practices.
- Psychopaths who torture animals.
Animal Avoiders
Description
Frequency of significant sacrifice: Very Rarely.
As the name suggests, Animal Avoiders seek to avoid a type of animal whenever possible.
Whether this behavior is based on dislike, fear, or health concerns, their impact on animals is the same: They very rarely put the needs of animals over their own because they purposefully prevent contact, giving themselves few opportunities to do so.
However, not only do they try to avoid animals, they also try to avoid harming those animals.
Similarly, many people who dislike children avoid them whenever possible, but still recognize their vulnerability and treat them considerately when forced to interact with them.
Examples
- People who develop aversions to or fears of animals as the result of traumatic experiences.
- Germaphobes or others highly concerned with cleanliness. (Their attitudes are not specific to animals; they also dislike children and messy people.)
- People with severe allergies to animals or other medical conditions which make animals a threat to their health.
Animal Tolerators
Description
Frequency of significant sacrifice: Rarely.
Animal Tolerators neither seek out nor avoid animals. They may treat animals with kindness when they happen to encounter them, but do not think about them much outside of those interactions.
Attitude formation requires exposure to the species. For less common pet species, such as birds or horses, many people lack enough experience to form an opinion. For the most popular species, like dogs and cats, it’s hard to find people who haven’t interacted with these animals. However, some people can be regularly exposed to animals and still not care very much about them one way or the other. This happens frequently with people whose lives are so focused on something else that they have little energy to spare on holding strong opinions on animal welfare or countless other issues.
Examples
- Parents who get pets primarily because their children want them.
- Siblings or roommates of people with pets.
- People with severe health or financial problems.
- People with extremely demanding jobs.
- People who travel constantly.
- People with overwhelming family responsibilities.
Animal Enthusiasts and Animal Altruists
Description
Frequency of significant sacrifice: Sometimes (Enthusiasts) / Often (Altruists).
Friends vs. Family
Many Enthusiasts and practically all Altruists feel love for animals, at least for their own pets. However, the differences between the ways these two groups love animals can be observed in how their feelings manifest in behavior.
In general, Enthusiasts treat animals well, but not as well as they treat people. Altruists, on the other hand, exhibit a level of compassion toward animals similar to that more typically given to human children.
Enthusiasts view pets as friendly companions; Altruists view pets as family. Accordingly, Altruists make frequent and significant sacrifices for their pets, indicating the kind of selfless, unconditional love that in other groups is typically reserved for one’s own offspring.
Play
Enthusiasts play with animals when convenient primarily because they enjoy it, while Altruists play with animals even when they don’t feel like doing so because they know animals need it.
Petting
Enthusiasts enjoy petting animals, but don’t think too deeply about the animal while they’re doing it. Altruists watch for feedback and adjust their technique accordingly when petting animals, making a conscious effort to ensure the animals are enjoying it. In short, Enthusiasts pet animals primarily for their own benefit; Altruists pet animals for the animals’ benefit.
Relationships
When Enthusiasts have multiple pets, their feelings toward may become generalized and they may treat them as a unit/group—giving them attention/play only as a group, even punishing them as a group when one misbehaves. (As many middle children can attest to, this happens frequently with large families as well.)
Altruists have a conscious sense of having a separate relationship with each pet that they think about even when not interacting with them. Altruists regard animals as individuals and are concerned with making sure their unique needs are met.
The term "pet parent" is a good litmus test. Enthusiasts may think the term is ridiculous, because animals are not people, and those with actual human children may even be offended by the suggestion that animals could ever compare. However, most Altruists are not suggesting that when using the term.
In fact, many Altruists still might find the term cloying, but they understand it because that describes how they feel and act -- they have taken complete responsibility for the care of another vulnerable creature, one who will never leave the nest and become independent. This can be similar to taking care of a small child, albeit not as difficult, expensive, etc., and no honest "pet parent" would ever suggest that.
Pet Care
Both groups make an honest effort to take good care of their pets, but their perception of what constitutes good care is different.
For Enthusiasts, this means providing all the essentials—like adequate food, water, and shelter.
For Altruists, this list also includes making sure the animal is as comfortable as possible and has sufficient attention, exercise, and mental stimulation. For Altruists, providing good care also means becoming a bit of an expert in animal health by researching proper diet, activity requirements, and how to interpret animal behavior so they can better understand how their pets are feeling.
When Enthusiasts fall a little short of providing good care, they feel bad, but they do not dwell on it excessively long and it doesn’t affect their self-esteem. When Altruists discover they’ve accidentally left their animals without water for the day, they feel guilty long after the incident.
Enthusiasts will take their pets to a veterinarian when they are obviously sick. Many Altruists have the urge to take their pets to the vet every time they’re acting abnormal, even when the cost would be a hardship, and they agonize over whether doing so would be worthwhile or in the animal’s best interest.
Similarly, when an expensive treatment option would strain their finances, Altruists are more likely to make the sacrifices required to afford it, while Enthusiasts may prioritize other necessities for their households.
Still, some Enthusiasts will spare no expense keeping a pet alive because they are so attached to their animals. Altruists, on the other hand, will primarily do what they believe is in the best interests of the animal, including forgoing painful treatments or even euthanizing them, reluctantly breaking their own hearts in the process.
Examples
- Most people who choose to have pets fall into these two groups.
Animal Advocates
Description
Frequency of significant sacrifice: Very often.
Animal Advocates regularly make conscious efforts to promote the welfare of many animals, not just their own pets.
Advocates typically spend a significant amount of their time or money helping animals; in fact, practically all the work in the realm of animal welfare is done by Advocates.
As for Advocates’ place on the spectrum, it is important to note that while Altruists who dote on their pets may frequently prioritize the needs of their own animals, they are likely still sacrificing less overall than people who have no pets but volunteer at an animal rescue one weekend per month.
Examples
- People who volunteer for animal welfare charities.
- Many who work in the field of veterinary medicine.
- Ethical vegans.
Animal Fanatics
Description
Frequency of significant sacrifice: Constantly.
Fanatics are characterized by an unhealthy obsession with animals that drives them to exhibit radical, often dangerous behavior.
These outliers constantly sacrifice either through excessive habitual behavior or by bringing lifelong consequences upon themselves through extreme actions.
Fanatics hold an animal-centric worldview that is incompatible with almost everyone else’s and often militantly persecute those who don’t share their beliefs.
Fanatics tend to do more harm than good, ultimately hurting themselves, other people, the animals they try to help, or the causes they ostensibly support.
Examples
- Animal hoarders who take in more animals than they can care for properly.
- Extremist activists, such as those who commit terrorist acts against those they view as enemies of animals. militant
Future Development
Kellert, S.R. (1984). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp. 177-213). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States. -->