A more detailed presentation of the results of this research can be found in the following article:

• Wuensch, K. L., Jenkins, K. W., & Poteat, G. M. (2002). Misanthropy, idealism, and attitudes towards animals. Anthrozoös, 15, 139-149.

Abstract

     When evaluating the ethical status of an action that harms a nonhuman animal, one might weigh the benefit to humankind against the cost of the harm done to the nonhuman. To the extent that one does not like humans (is misanthropic), one will not be likely to think that benefits to humans can justify doing harm to nonhumans. We hypothesized that misanthropy would be less strongly related to support for animal rights among idealists (who tend not to do cost-benefit analysis) than among nonidealists. College students (N = 154) completed a questionnaire which included questions designed to measure their ethical idealism (10 items), misanthropy (5 items), and attitude towards animal rights and animal research (28 items). Respondents were classified as being idealistic if their score on the idealism scale was greater than the median score. The regression lines for predicting attitude towards animals from misanthropy differed significantly between idealists and nonidealists. Among nonidealists there was a significant positive relationship between misanthropy and support for animal rights, but among idealists the regression line was flat.

     Idealists believe that ethical behavior will always lead only to good consequences, never to bad consequences, and never to a mixture of good and bad consequences. At earlier meetings of the ABS, Hal Herzog, Karl Wuensch, and their students reported research indicating that ethical idealism is associated with enhanced concern for the welfare of animals and with disapproval of research on animals.

     Both Hal and I have wondered about the relationship between misanthropy and attitudes towards animals. When evaluating the ethical status of an action that harms animals, one might weigh the benefit to humankind against the cost of harm done to nonhumans. To the extent that one does not like humans (is misanthropic), one will not be likely to think that benefits to humans can justify doing harm to nonhumans.

     Hal provided me with this quote, from well known antivivisectionist Anna Kingsford: "I do not love men and women. I dislike them too much to care to do them any good. .... It is not for them that I am taking up medicine and science, .... but for the animals and for knowledge generally. .... I can't love both animals and those who systematically mistreat them."

     The research reported here today investigated the relationship between attitudes towards animals and both idealism and misanthropy. Idealists tend not to do cost-benefit analysis, since any bad consequence (cost) renders an action unethical. Accordingly, we hypothesized that misanthropy would be less strongly related to support for animal rights among idealists than among nonidealists.

     College students (N = 154) completed a questionnaire which included items designed to measure their ethical idealism (10 items from D. R. Forsyth's Ethics Position Questionnaire), misanthropy (5 items), and attitude towards animal rights and animal research (28 items). All items were statements with a Likert-type five-point response scale of agreement. For each scale, the mean response across items was computed for each respondent. Reliability was estimated using maximized lambda4, which is a more accurate estimator of reliability than is Cronbach's alpha. Reliability was .83 for the idealism scale, .78 for the misanthropy scale, and .93 for the animal rights/animal research scale.

     Respondents were classified as being idealistic if their score on the idealism scale was greater than the median score.

     Here are a few example items:

     Idealism: "The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained."

     Misanthropy: "Both history and current events show that human beings are basically wicked."

     Animal Rights: "I have seriously considered becoming a vegetarian in an effort to save animal lives."

     Animal Research: "Most medical research done on animals is unnecessary and invalid."

     Ignoring idealism, there was a small but statistically significant correlation between misanthropy and support for animal rights, r = .22, p = .006. On the animal rights/animal research scale, idealists (M = 2.44, SD = .50) did not differ significantly from nonidealists (M = 2.34, SD = .56), t(152) = 1.14, p = .25. On the misanthropy scale, idealists (M = 2.38, SD = .67) did not differ significantly from nonidealists (M = 2.24, SD = .67), t(152) = 1.22, p = .22.

     Regression analysis was employed, using misanthropy scores to predict attitudes towards animals. A simultaneous test of slope and intercept indicated that the regression lines differed significantly between idealists and nonidealists, F(2, 150) = 3.62, p = .029.

     The interaction between idealism and misanthropy was significant, t(150) = 2.25, p = .026, indicating that the slopes of the two regression lines differed (steeper for nonidealists than for idealists). The regression lines' intercepts also differed significantly (higher for idealists), t(150) = 2.58, p = .01.

     Among nonidealists, support for animal rights was significantly related to misanthropy, r = .36, p < .001. Corrected for attenuation due to less than perfect reliability of the variables, this r = .42. Among idealists, the regression line was flat, r = .02, p = .87.

     As shown in the accompanying figure, in which misanthropy was trichotomized for ease of presentation, mean support for animal rights rose sharply with increasing misanthropy among nonidealists, but not among idealists.

     As predicted, misanthropy was associated with support for animal rights, but only among nonidealists.

     Nonidealists conduct ethical cost-benefit analysis. If they value humankind, they may decide that the costs of animal use and animal research are justified by the benefits to humankind. Accordingly, they are not strong supporters of animal rights.

     Misanthropic nonidealists discount the value of benefits to humankind (or maybe even consider them of negative value), and thus cannot justify animal use to benefit humankind. Accordingly, they are supporters of animal rights.

     Idealists believe that ethically correct behavior never leads to bad consequences, so they tend to be supporters of animal rights, since human use of nonhuman animals so often involves harming the animal, a bad consequence. But idealists do not do ethical cost-benefit analysis, so whether they are misanthropic or not is unrelated to their support of animal rights.

Karl L. Wuensch

Level of Misanthropy

Visit Karl's Index Page

Contact Information for the Webmaster,
Dr. Karl L. Wuensch

This page most recently revised on 16. April 2006.