SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
Email Signup | RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Waldhorn DR. Am. Behav. Sci. 2019; 63(8): 1080-1100.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0002764219830465

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Most animals live in the wild and a majority probably have lives of net suffering. An increasing number of ethicists argue that humans have a duty to help them. Nevertheless, people's attitudes and perceptions toward wild animal suffering have rarely been studied. Psychology has traditionally framed the analysis of human-wild animal relations within environmental psychology, conceptualizing wild animals as merely one further component of nature. Though this approach is suitable for environmental and conservation purposes, I argue that it fails to track our attitudes toward animals as individuals with a well-being of their own. I use Kellert's framework about factors affecting attitudes toward wildlife to review and integrate existing findings in social psychology. I also suggest how other factors merit further investigation. Finally, I defend that the study of human-wild animal relations is a suitable topic of psychosocial research independently of other anthropocentric or conservationist purposes.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print