Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015) 111e117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Veterinary Behavior

journal homepage: www.journalvetbehavior.com

Research

A new questionnaire examining general attitudes toward animals in

Cyprus and the United Kingdom
Alexia Zalaf a, *, Vincent Egan b
a
Forensic Section, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
b
Forensic Section, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A review of the animal welfare literature indicates that all the current measures used to evaluate it have
Received 14 November 2013 limitations in how they assess attitudes toward animals and their care. Few studies have examined
Received in revised form animal welfare outside non-Western nations, although attitudes toward animals and their welfare is an
28 July 2014
important issue in these countries also. The present study examines attitudes toward animal welfare in
Accepted 15 September 2014
Available online 28 September 2014
Cyprus as compared with the United Kingdom, and describes the development of a new measure to
integrate the ostensibly disparate dimensions underlying attitudes toward animals and their abuse. Pilot
items sampling a variety of attitudes toward animal welfare were administered to 523 people in the
Keywords:
attitudes towards animals
United Kingdom and Cyprus. Exploratory factor analyses indicated that many of the subdimensions
animal welfare proposed could not be empirically identified, and a general animal welfare dimension was sufficient to
scale development capture most of the variance. This scaledthe Animal Welfare Scaledhad a good reliability. The Animal
Cyprus Welfare Scale is brief and simple to score, extending the potential for research in the field of animal
UK welfare alongside other psychological constructs and does not need any specialist administration to
deliver; hence, it is potentially applicable to any animal welfare issues.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Research examining animal welfare outside of the English-
speaking nations is uncommon, although human-animal relation-
ships, whether based on farming, companionship, or as part of a
shared environment, are universal (Serpell, 1999). There are a va-
riety of methods used to measure welfare. We developed a new
questionnaire measuring attitudes toward animals, which was then
used to compare responses from 2 culturally different European
cultures, Cyprus and the United Kingdom (UK), to test the gener-
ality of application.
Present address of Alexia Zalaf: School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, European University Cyprus, 6
Diogenes Street Engomi, P.O. Box 22006, 1516 Nicosia, Cyprus.
Present address of Vincent Egan: Associate Professor in Forensic Psychology Practice,
Centre for Family and Forensic Psychology, University of Nottingham, YANG Fujia
Building, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, United Kingdom.
* Address for reprint requests and correspondence: Alexia Zalaf, MD, School of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences,
European University Cyprus, 6 Diogenes Street Engomi, P.O. Box 22006, 1516
Nicosia, Cyprus. Tel: þ357 99883682.
E-mail address: alexiaz@gmail.com (A. Zalaf).
Cyprus has cultural elements that reflect attitudes from South-
eastern Europe and Western Asia, as well as a long-shared history
with the UK; yet, the UK and Cyprus have disparate attitudes to-
ward animals, making the comparison a strong test of the validity of
the instrument (Phillips et al, 2012). Research into animal welfare in
Cyrus is uncommon. A national study carried out by the Cyprus
Voice for Animals (a local charity) gathered data from just over
1000 members. Approximately 86% of the sample reported owning
an animal, with 69% of these individuals owning dogs and 32%
owning cats (Cyprus Voice for Animals, 2011). These figures indi-
cate high levels of animal ownership within the Greek Cypriot so-
ciety, but the local media reports a high incidence of animal abuse.
Abuse ranges from the inhumane methods of slaughter used by
local slaughterhouses (Nicolaou, 2013) to the case of a puppy which
was shot after straying from its owner’s land (Djani, 2012). Mem-
bers of the Cypriot public have requested action regarding the lack
of appropriate legislation and action concerning the growing
number of stray dogs and absence of sterilization and licensing laws
for the nation (Kombos, 2013). The publicity surrounding animal
abuse incidents and the lack of governmental infrastructure
regarding animal ownership highlights the growing interest and
desire of people in Cyprus to advance this field and more signifi-
cantly, a need for systematic scientific research into this topic.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.09.003
1558-7878/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
112 A. Zalaf, V. Egan / Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015) 111e117
Measures of attitudes toward animals
A number of measures examining attitudes toward animal
welfare have been developed. An early development was the Pet
Attitude Scale (Templer et al., 1981), which was developed to
measure peoples’ perceptions of their childhood companion ani-
mal. The Animal Attitude Scale (Herzog et al., 1991) was used to
assess individual differences in attitudes toward animals. This
measure included attitudes toward animals used in research in
farming and wildlife within their habitat. Henry (2004) developed
two measures, one of which assesses Experiences with Animals,
and is a modification of Flynn’s (1999a, 1999b) adaptation of Boat’s
(1999) Inventory on Animal-Related Experiences. The first part of
the scale inquires about the participants’ ownership of animals
during their childhood and whether they own animals currently.
The second part of the scale explores the participants’ experiences
with animal cruelty (if they had been witnesses or willing/unwill-
ing agents in the abuse of animals). If the participant responded
“Yes” to any of these questions, they were then requested to provide
additional information on these incidents of abuse. The second
measure developed by Henry (2004), the Attitudes Toward the
Treatment of Animals Scale (ATTAS), was tested as a pilot using 104
psychology students and examined the extent to which participants
would feel bothered by thinking about the maltreatment toward
animals. Both scales are reported as valid and reliable for use. Henry
(2004) argues that further research is needed to clarify what the
cognitive and affective constructs the scores of the Attitudes To-
ward the Treatment of Animals Scale assess reflect more generally.
Although these scales are appropriate in addressing animal-related
experiences and abusive behaviors, they do not incorporate atti-
tudes toward animals in general.
A number of measures of animal abuse in children have also
been developed. These include a parent-report questionnaire to
examine cruelty to animals that could act as a tool for poor prog-
nosis among conduct-disordered children, which was tested in
children and their parents (Guymer et al., 2001). Dadds et al. (2004)
created a parent-informant or child report measure based on
Ascione’s (1993) cruelty parameters, the Children and Animals In-
ventory, which sought to assess a child’s cruelty to animals as an
indicator of the child’s potentially problematic development.
Finally, Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) created an assessment using
retrospective reports of animal abuse committed by incarcerated
men. Difficulties have been identified with the use of all of these
assessment measures. Parents may not be aware of their child’s
behavior (particularly not antisocial acts), therefore unable to
accurately report on their child’s actions. No measure is able to
assess every aspect of animal abuse, which potentially encompasses
the physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect of animals and
the severity and frequency of such events. Retrospective reports
may not be reliable, particularly if a significant amount of time has
passed since the abuse took place (Ascione & Shapiro, 2009).
Measures investigating animal abuse tend to examine children as
opposed to adults, and although Merz-Perez and Heide (2004)
considered incarcerated men, this cohort is inherently problem-
atic because of their concurrent antisocial behavior, potentially
skewing such measurement.
The development of a quick, reliable, and brief screening in-
strument would benefit the various animal shelters and organiza-
tions working for the protection of animals by providing a more
concrete basis for their work. A brief screening instrument would
also be useful for researchers interested in animal welfare, as well
as issues of cruelty, empathy, and antisocial behavior in relation to
animals generally (e.g., Ascione, 1997; Egan & McKenzie, 2012).
No animal welfareerelated questionnaire has been used or
validated in Cyprus. Our first and primary aim was thus to create
and validate a new questionnaire in Cyprus, which could be used
concurrently in the UK to assess effects of cultural differences. The
second aim of the study was to identify attitudes toward animals
and how these attitudes relate to abusive behaviors while taking
into account the changing nature of society in Cyprus. None of the
reported measures have incorporated the assessment of general
and abusive attitudes toward animals. Furthermore, all previous
measures are >10 years old. Consistent with the increased sensi-
tivity expressed by the media and society regarding the environ-
ment and animal welfare, we chose to create a questionnaire that
would possibly reflect newer ideologies and perceptions. This study
documents the results of a new questionnaire developed to
compare facets of attitudes toward animals in Cyprus and the
United Kingdom.
Method
Participants
The total sample from Cyprus comprised 332 persons
(male:female ¼ 71:261). The age range was 14-62 years (mean ¼
27.4 years; standard deviation ¼ 7.63 years). The total UK sample
comprised 191 participants (male:female ¼ 41:150). The age range
was 12-76 years (mean ¼ 31.16 years; standard deviation ¼
12.89 years). An independent samples t test indicated that UK resi-
dents (mean ¼ 31.16; standard error of mean [SE] ¼ 0.93) were
significantly older than Cypriot residents (mean ¼ 27.35; SE ¼ .42;
t(267.99) ¼ 3.72; P < 0.01). Chi-square tests indicated no associations
between country of residence and gender [c(1) ¼ 0.000; P > 0.05].
Measures
Following a review of the current literature into scales
measuring animal abuse and welfare, items were generated that
addressed general attitudes toward animal welfare, types of abuse,
the function of abuse, and responsibility for actions. Fifty-seven
items were designed to be brief, use natural language, and be
comprehensible by the broadest population possible.
The majority of the items developed examined the participants’
attitudes toward animals in general, though 21 of the original 57
items included specific questions on dogs, cats, horses, and don-
keys. These specific animals were chosen as cats and dogs, 2 of the
most common companion animals in the UK and Cyprus (Cyprus
Voice for Animals, 2011; Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association,
2011); horses remain common in the UK (Pet Food
Manufacturers’ Association, 2011), and there is a large presence of
donkeys in Cyprus. By including items referring to companion and
working animals along with items referring to domestic companion
animals, participants’ responses sampled a more complete outlook
on their attitudes toward general animal care.
The 57-item pilot questionnaire, along with demographic items,
was given to a native Greek speaker to translate, which was in turn
back-translated to English by a native Greek speaker. There were no
major differences between the 2 versions of the pilot instrument. If
there were no exact matches in Greek for words or phrases,
wording was used that conveyed the same meaning as in the En-
glish version. The draft pilot Greek and English questionnaires led
to one question being removed as participants from both countries
reported difficulties with understanding the question, and another
9 items were modified in both versions of the scale to facilitate
comprehension.
The final version of the pilot questionnaire consisted of 57 items
rated on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (completely
disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The scale comprised 4 sections.
These a priori sections were conceptualized as “Attitudes to
 A. Zalaf, V. Egan / Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015) 111e117 113

Animals,” “Active, Passive, or Ambiguous Abuse,” “the Function of
Abuse,” and “Responsibility for Actions” (item example: “Dogs
behave well only when they fear their owner”). Items were
randomly ordered in the final version of the questionnaire. The list
of items in the pilot questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.
Ethical issues
Participants were being asked to admit to unkind and unethical
behavior, and as such, the study was ethically sensitive. Hence, data
were gathered electronically and anonymously, and the intent was
transparent. Participants were told that their participation was
voluntary and that they were free to remove their data at any point
either in person or electronically, and a mechanism was provided
for doing so, although this was not obligatory. Participants provided
a unique name, the name of their current pet and their primary
school so that if they participated in future studies their data could
be compared across sessions. On the debriefing screen, participants
were reminded that their data was anonymous, and contact infor-
mation for the researchers and animal welfare organizations both
in the UK and Cyprus was provided.
Procedure
English and Greek versions of the pilot questionnaire were made
available online using a questionnaire tool hosted by Survey-
monkey.com. Both Web sites were identical in their content and
formatting, the only difference being whether they were written in
English or Greek. To maximize sampling, we encouraged forward-
ing the link for the survey to friends and family and using social
media. Participants were initially presented with a brief description
of the survey along with a reminder that their data would remain
relationships between the variables were significant. Rotation
produced 13 factors with eigenvalues >1. After parallel analysis,
only eigenvalues >1.72 were considered to not be because of
chance. Five factors met this criterion. Examination of the scree plot
revealed a slight inflexion between the second and third factor, and
1 inflexion between the fourth and fifth factor. The last 3 factors
accounted for <5% of the variance each; therefore, the analysis was
continued with a 2-factor solution. This meant there were 41 items
that did not load >0.40 on any factor. The exclusion of the 41 factors
with loadings <0.4 enabled a shortening of the scale because >70%
of the items could be excluded from further analysis.
The remaining items were reanalyzed. This analysis indentified
2 items with loadings <0.4 and 1 item (“Hunting is acceptable if you
eat the animals you have killed”), which significantly lowered the
reliability of the second factor. These were all removed. The final
analysis showed that the final factors accounted for 34% of the total
variance, and all 13 items had factor loadings 0.42. Four of the
items clustered on the second component and were representing
the “Attitudes to animals” category. Three items from across the 2
components were from the “Active, passive, ambiguous abuse”
category, and the remaining items comprised the “Function of
abuse” category.
The items that cluster on the first component represent negative
attitudes toward animals (Table 1), whereas the items that cluster
on the second component represent positive attitudes toward an-
imals. The negative attitudes factor comprised 8 items relating to
Table 1
Factor loadings for an exploratory factor analysis of the attitudes to animal welfare
scale using different measures of extraction and rotation
Rotation method Varimax rotation Oblimin rotation

anonymous and could be withdrawn at any time. Once participants Extraction method Maximum Principal
consented to taking part, they were directed to the survey. At no likelihood components

point were inclusion or exclusion criteria offered. Because the Iterations to converge 3 4
survey was being forwarded through British and Cypriot mediums, Attitude Negative Positive Negative positive
it was deemed unnecessary to specify restrictions in country of
1) The bigger an animal is the 0.81 0.12 0.82 0.04
residence, nationality, or language. harsher you should treat it
2) The bigger an animal is the 0.72 0.09 0.76 0.07
Analysis more vicious it is
3) Releasing your anger on a 0.57 0.18 0.66 0.01
pet is helpful
The combined UK and Cyprus sample was used for the explor-
4) The owners of an animal can 0.55 0.16 0.66 0.01
atory factor analysis (EFA). The initial EFA had a ratio of 9 partici- do whatever they like with it
pants per item, which is an appropriate ratio given a large sample 5) A dog will learn more from 0.47 0.28 0.55 0.18
(>300; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). EFA was conducted with parallel being hit than instructed
analysis to reduce overfactoring (Horn, 1965). A maximum likeli- 6) What people call animal abuse 0.43 0.17 0.52 0.06
is actually playing
hood method was used for the EFA. Maximum likelihood was 7) Dogs cannot show their 0.42 0.09 0.57 0.09
chosen over other methods as it allows for generalizations to be affection for their owners
made from the sample to the general population. Varimax rotation 8) Dogs behave only when they 0.42 0.19 0.53 0.06
was chosen for rotation of the factors to minimize the complexity of fear their owner
9) Pets should be treated as part 0.33 0.66 0.25 0.64
the components. To test whether the same factor solution emerged
of the family
with different extraction and rotation methods, the varimax rota- 10) Animals have feelings just 0.11 0.55 0.02 0.67
tion was followed by an oblique rotation using principal compo- like people
nents analysis on factors expected to be correlated. After the final 11) Animals need to be kept 0.28 0.51 0.23 0.55
extraction, a reliability analysis was carried out on the factors of the in comfortable conditions, just
like people
scale. Scores for the UK and Cyprus were compared using an 12) A pet’s living area needs 0.09 0.48 0.05 0.68
analysis of covariance. to be cleaned daily
13) There is no need to hunt 0.06 0.44 0.11 0.66
Results since meat can be bought from
the supermarket
Eigen values 2.77 1.65 4.12a 1.56a
Exploratory factor analysis Variance (%) 21.27 12.70 31.72a 11.99a
a Reliability of items as a scale 0.79 0.66 0.79 0.66
The data had a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of 0.87, suggesting The bold indicate the values of the questionnaire items.
sampling adequacy (0.6; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The Bartlett’s a
Based on extraction sums of squared loadings seeing as rotation sums of squared
test of sphericity [c2 (1596) ¼ 8270.223; P < 0.001] showed that loadings cannot be produced when components are correlated.
114 A. Zalaf, V. Egan / Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015) 111e117
the harsh ways animals can be treated and negative beliefs about
animals, whereas the positive attitudes factor had 5 items relating
to positive beliefs about animals. The negative and positive atti-
tudes subscales were essentially reciprocals of each other, and
measuring opposite poles of the same spectrum; hence, the nega-
tive items were reverse-scored, generating a single final score
measuring only positive attitudes toward animals, thus simplifying
and clarifying subsequent analyses using this scale. This brief 13-
item scale, the “Animal Welfare Scale” (AWS), had an alpha reli-
ability of 0.78.
Having developed a useable metric, scores from the UK and
Cyprus on the AWS were compared at the scale level. There is a
debate within the methodologic literature regarding the appro-
priate use of ordinal data at an item level (Norman, 2010). Aggre-
gated ordinal data are acceptable for parametric group comparison
data, but case-by-case mean comparison (as compared to correla-
tion (Norman, 2007)) of ordinal data is discouraged (Carifio & Perla,
2007). Given the differences in age and gender between the pop-
ulations of the UK and Cyprus, we calculated the difference in total
AWS score for the 2 countries, controlling for these 2 variables. An
analysis of covariance indicated that Cypriot residents (mean ¼
61.67; SE ¼ 0.26) held significantly more positive attitudes toward
animal welfare than UK residents [mean ¼ 57.78; SE ¼ 0.34; F(1,
519) ¼ 80.59; P < 0.001]. Age and gender were included as cova-
riates, and the analysis indicated that age was not related to atti-
tudes toward animal welfare, [F(1, 519) ¼ 1.04, P > 0.05]. Gender
was significantly related to attitudes towards animal welfare [F(1,
519) ¼ 52.03]. Gender was significantly related to attitudes towards
animal welfare [F(1, 519) ¼ 52.03, P < 0.001]. Coded 1 for male and 2
for female, the analysis indicated females had more positive atti-
tudes toward animal welfare [B¼ 3.63, t(519) ¼ 7.21; P < 0.001].
Discussion
The aim of this study was to develop a new questionnaire
measuring aspects of animal welfare, comprising general attitudes
to animals, active, passive, and ambiguous abuse, the functions of
such abuse, and the individual’s responsibility for their actions. The
primary reason for developing a new measure was the current lack
of a brief omnibus instrument which could be used to examine
animal welfare. A secondary focus was to see whether attitudes
differed between 2 societies with close affinities to animals, one of
which is rather further away from their rural heritage (the UK) than
the other (Cyprus). Our data indicate that, despite the variety of
concepts discussed as germane to a comprehensive scale assessing
attitudes to animals, only 2 broad factors emerged: positive and
negative attitudes toward animals. These factors were correlated
with each other and reciprocal, permitting the production of a
univariate assessment scale.
People living in Cyprus have more positive attitudes toward
animals, possibly owing to the fact that Cyprus is a smaller country
than the UK, more rural, and developed far later than the UK. It may
be that people in Cyprus generally have had more contact with
animals and so have better attitudes. Specific differences between
Cyprus and the UK in terms of attitudes toward animals are an
interesting area to focus on for future research. In terms of age, it
may be simply be that there are no age differences in attitudes
toward animals in this sample, perhaps because of the breadth of
sampling compared with other studies of this kind. Reasons for the
gender differences are beyond the scope of this study but may be
due to differences in willingness to participate in studies.
The rationale for developing this new measure was to integrate a
broader variety of a priori aspects of animal abuse as no specific
scale had the necessary breadth sought. However, our analysis
produced 2 factors that reduced to 1 scale. Items referring to dogs
were retained in the final measure as these items indicated re-
sponses that were more coherent. Dogs are the most common pets
owned by individuals in both the UK and Cyprus. Even for non-
owners of animals, it would be reasonable to assume a greater level
of contact (or at least familiarity) with dogs and cats than working
animals such as horses and donkeys. We do not doubt that there are
more specific constructs involved in animal welfare, yet in our
study they reduced to a general level.
This study was limited by the opportunistic sampling in data
collection. The advantage of this method is that a large number of
people can be recruited in a relatively short time. Internet recruit-
ment allows for a large number of participants and may be useful
when time and money are limited. By discounting quota sampling,
some groups (e.g., people of lower socioeconomic status) may not
be fully represented. A scale like the final one here could be prac-
ticable for research conducted using mobile and smart phones,
which are common even in poorer demographic groups (Miller,
2012).
To fully validate the AWS in measuring differences in attitudes
between Cypriot and UK participants, cross-validation studies are
needed. The AWS is short and lends itself to with an already
established measure of animal abuse in a validation study to
determine whether attitudes toward animals are able to predict
whether animals are abused or not. One test of the reliability of the
AWS will be whether an animal-assisted intervention in schools
alters the AWS and other measures of behaviors toward and
knowledge of animals. Accurately predicting positive or negative
behaviors toward animals would be useful. Such research can aid in
understanding the universal and culture-specific underpinnings of
various constructs. In this case, such research increases our un-
derstanding about whether the treatment of animals follows a
universal pattern or is specific to the culture under question.
Acknowledgments
The idea for the study was conceived by and the study was
designed by A. Zalaf and V. Egan. The study was performed, the data
analyzed, and the article written by A. Zalaf and V. Egan.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Ascione, F.R., 1993. Children who are cruel to animals: a review of research and
implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoös 6, 226e247.
Ascione, F.R., 1997. Battered women’s reports of their partners’ and their children’s
cruelty to animals. J. Emot. Abuse 1, 119e133.
Ascione, F.R., Shapiro, K., 2009. People and animals, kindness and cruelty: research
directions and policy implications. J. Soc. Iss. 65, 569e587.
Boat, B.W., 1999. Abuse of children and animals. Using the links to inform
child assessment and protection. In: Ascione, F.R., Arkow, P. (Eds.), Child
Abuse, Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of
Compassion for Prevention and Intervention. Purdue University Press,
West Lafayette, IN.
Carifio, J., Perla, R.J., 2007. Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions,
persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response
formats and their antidotes. J. Soc. Sci. 3, 106e116.
Cyprus Voice for Animals (2011). November Newsletter 2011.
Dadds, M.R., Whiting, C., Bunn, P., Fraser, J.A., Charlson, J.H., Pirola-Merlo, A., 2004.
Measurement of cruelty in children: the Cruelty to Animals Inventory. J. Abnor.
Child Psych. 32, 321e334.
Djani, C., 2012. Skotonoun ta zoa gia plaka (Skosώnoyn ϊa zϋa gia plάka). Phil-
eleftheros, p. 34. August 9, 2012.
Egan, V., MacKenzie, J., 2012. Does personality, delinquency, or mating effort
necessarily dictate a preference for an aggressive dog? Anthrozoös 25, 161e170.
Flynn, C.P., 1999a. Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal
violence in families. Soc. Anim. 7, 161e172.
 A. Zalaf, V. Egan / Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015) 111e117
Flynn, C.P., 1999b. Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children’s
cruelty to animals. J. Marr. Fam. 61, 971e981.
Guymer, E.C., Mellor, D., Luk, E.S.L., Pearse, V., 2001. The development of a screening
questionnaire for childhood cruelty to animals. J. Child Psych. Psychiatry 42,
1057e1063.
Henry, B.C., 2004. The relationship between animal cruelty, delinquency, and atti-
tudes toward the treatment of animals. J. Hum. Anim. Stud. 12, 185e207.
Herzog, H.A., Betchart, N.S., Pittman, R.B., 1991. Gender, sex role orientation, and
attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös 4, 184e191.
Horn, J.L., 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika 32, 179e185.
Kombos, A., 2013. Skuloi, ti tha ginei epitelous! (Skyloi, si qa ginεi εpisaloyz!)
Phileleftheros. May 25, 2013.
Merz-Perez, L., Heide, K.M., 2004. Animal Cruelty: Pathway to Violence Against
People. Altamira Press, Oxford.
Miller, G., 2012. The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 7,
221e237.
115
Nicolaou, A., 2013. Apanthropi Sfagi Zoon (Apanqruph S4agh Zuun). Phil-
eleftheros, p. 1. May 25, 2013.
Norman, G., 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics.
Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15, 625e632.
Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association, 2011. Pet ownership trends. Retrieved June
2012, from http://www.pfma.org.uk/statistics/index.cfm?id¼83&cat_id¼60.
Phillips, C.J.C., Izmirli, S., Aldavood, S.J., Alonso, M., Choe, B.I., Hanlon, A., Rehn, T.,
2012. Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia. Anim.
Welf. 21, 87e100.
Serpell, J.A., 1999. Animal companions and human well-being: an historical explo-
ration of the value of human-animal relationships. In: Fine, A.H. (Ed.), Hand-
book on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for
Practice. Academic Press, New York.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Allyn and
Bacon, Boston.
Templer, D.I., Salter, C.A., Dickey, S., Baldwin, R., Veleber, D.M., 1981. The construc-
tion of a pet attitude scale. Psych. Rec. 31, 343e348.
116 A. Zalaf, V. Egan / Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015) 111e117

Appendix

Appendix A. Pilot study for attitudes towards animal welfare questionnaire

Please choose one answer from 1 to 5, where 1 is “Completely disagree” and 5 is “Completely agree”
Note: Questions that ask about pets, refer to mammals (e.g., cats, dogs) and NOT fish, reptiles etc.

Completely Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Completely

disagree disagree nor disagree agree agree

A Friendly dog is the result of a good owner. 1 2 3 4 5

Animal abuse is exaggerated. 1 2 3 4 5

Animals do not feel fear like people do. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals have feelings just like people. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals would not get hurt if they didn’t provoke people. 1 2 3 4 5
Cats are smart animals and will run away if they don’t like how they are being treated. 1 2 3 4 5
Dogs behave only when they fear their owner. 1 2 3 4 5
Dogs bite people only when they feel threatened. 1 2 3 4 5
Dogs cannot show their affection for their owners. 1 2 3 4 5
Horses and donkeys do not feel as much pain as smaller animals. 1 2 3 4 5
Hunting is acceptable if you eat the animals you have killed. 1 2 3 4 5
Hunting makes people feel very powerful over animals. 1 2 3 4 5
If you want your dog to be brave, you need to toughen it up. 1 2 3 4 5
If you want your dog to behave, you have to show it who is in charge. 1 2 3 4 5
It is not the owner’s fault when a dog attacks another person. 1 2 3 4 5
It is okay to use a whip on a horse or donkey when you think it is doing something wrong. 1 2 3 4 5
It is up to the pet’s owner to make sure the animal is healthy and happy. 1 2 3 4 5
One of the reasons dogs bark is because they are frightened. 1 2 3 4 5
People should treat the animals in their care with kindness. 1 2 3 4 5
People who hurt animals on purpose should be punished. 1 2 3 4 5
The owners of an animal can do whatever they like with it. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets can clean themselves and do not need people to clean them. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets can find ways to feed themselves when their owner is away. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets can find ways to keep themselves busy. 1 2 3 4 5
A pet should not be left alone for more than a few hours. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets should be treated as part of the family. 1 2 3 4 5
Releasing your anger on a pet is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5
The bigger an animal is the harsher you should treat it. 1 2 3 4 5
The bigger an animal is the more vicious it is. 1 2 3 4 5
There is no need to hunt since meat can be bought from the supermarket. 1 2 3 4 5
When I hear my neighbors shouting at their dog I know it’s because the 1 2 3 4 5
dog has done something wrong.
A dog will learn more from being hit than instructed. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals can learn to do what people want by being given treats and praise. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals should be punished when they do something wrong to teach them not to do it again. 1 2 3 4 5
Cats belong in the streets and not in peoples’ homes. 1 2 3 4 5
Dogs are by their nature vicious animals and need to be under our control at all times. 1 2 3 4 5
Sometimes dogs bark to annoy you. 1 2 3 4 5
Horses and donkeys are good only for manual labour. 1 2 3 4 5
Most of the time, animals attack people for no reason. 1 2 3 4 5
It is no one’s business what I do with my pet. 1 2 3 4 5
People should not make time in their daily routine to care for their pets. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets can take care of themselves and do not need humans to provide constant care. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets can take care of themselves when their owners are too busy. 1 2 3 4 5
Punishing a cat after it has scratched the carpet will teach it to not do it again. 1 2 3 4 5
Using a whip for horses and donkeys is the only way to make them do what people want. 1 2 3 4 5
A pet’s living area needs to be cleaned daily. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals can only learn to do what people want through punishment of wrong actions. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals should not be hunted for sport. 1 2 3 4 5
Cats should be given as much attention as they seek. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals need to be kept in comfortable conditions, just like people. 1 2 3 4 5
I get upset when I hear of cases of animal abuse. 1 2 3 4 5
If an animal attacks someone, it is because that person probably provoked the animal. 1 2 3 4 5
It is a waste to hunt and kill animals which you do not use. 1 2 3 4 5
Kicking horses and donkeys with the heel of a shoe does not cause them any pain. 1 2 3 4 5
People can be comforted by animals. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets do not need exercise on a regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5
What people call animal abuse is actually playing. 1 2 3 4 5
 A. Zalaf, V. Egan / Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015) 111e117 117

Appendix B. Animal welfare scale

Please choose one answer from 1 to 5, where 1 is “Completely disagree” and 5 is “Completely agree”
Note: Questions that ask about pets, refer to mammals (e.g., cats, dogs) and NOT fish, reptiles etc.

Completely Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Completely

disagree disagree nor disagree agree agree

Animals have feelings just like people. 1 2 3 4 5

Dogs behave only when they fear their owner. 1 2 3 4 5

Dogs cannot show their affection for their owners. 1 2 3 4 5
The owners of an animal can do whatever they like with it. 1 2 3 4 5
Pets should be treated as part of the family. 1 2 3 4 5
Releasing your anger on a pet is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5
The bigger an animal is the harsher you should treat it. 1 2 3 4 5
The bigger an animal is the more vicious it is. 1 2 3 4 5
There is no need to hunt since meat can be bought from the supermarket. 1 2 3 4 5
A dog will learn more from being hit than instructed. 1 2 3 4 5
A pet’s living area needs to be cleaned daily. 1 2 3 4 5
Animals need to be kept in comfortable conditions, just like people. 1 2 3 4 5
What people call animal abuse is actually playing. 1 2 3 4 5