University of Glasgow MSc Project: Animal Life Attitudes Research

This project, undertaken by a student at the University of Glasgow for their MSc in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law, investigates public attitudes toward the quantity of animal life, particularly focusing on factors influencing these perceptions. The research employed a survey methodology, utilizing questionnaires to gather data from 335 participants. The study explores the meaning and concept of quantity of animal life, the factors influencing public attitudes toward it, and potential strategies for influencing these attitudes. The findings, presented in a detailed report with tables and charts, cover demographic information, attitudes toward animal sentience, and views on euthanasia. The project includes an introduction, materials and methods section detailing the research design and data analysis, results, a comprehensive literature review, and a discussion and conclusion section, offering recommendations for influencing public attitudes towards animal welfare and the quantity of animal life. The project aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of human-animal relationships and the ethical considerations surrounding animal welfare.

Running Head: MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT 2
Abstract
This study emphasizes on evaluating factors influencing public attitudes towards animal’s
quantity of life. In this section, many sections have been considered as it is imperative to
understand the study effectively named as an introduction, material and methods, results,
discussion, and conclusion and recommendation. The introduction section of this study is
effective to comprehend the background of the study. It is also effective to know the
significance of this study. In this, the research aim and objectives section demonstrate that
actual concern for which the study has completed. The literature review section is imperative
to increase conceptual understanding about the quantity of animal life. It also depicted that
social, cultural, and perceptual factor could also affect the perception of human towards the
quantity of animal life. In this study, the survey through questionnaire method has been
practiced by the researcher as it facilitates to collect direct responses of the research
candidates towards the research issue. For conducting this study, 335 participants have been
selected to conduct this study. For this study, the primary, as well as a secondary data
collection method, has been practiced by the researcher as it facilitates to make a positive
result. The conclusion section demonstrated that the animal was is essential for the current
era as it could be effective to make a connection between human and animals.
Keywords (3-6 items)
Survey through a questionnaire, quantity of animal life, data collection method

MANAGEMENT 3
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................5
Research background..............................................................................................................5
Research aim and objectives...................................................................................................6
Research questions..................................................................................................................6
Research significance.............................................................................................................6
Materials and Methods...............................................................................................................7
Philosophies............................................................................................................................9
Approaches.............................................................................................................................9
Research Strategy.................................................................................................................10
Research Design...................................................................................................................10
Data Collection Method........................................................................................................11
Data Analysis Method..........................................................................................................11
Ethical Consideration............................................................................................................12
Result........................................................................................................................................13
Conclusion................................................................................................................................45
References................................................................................................................................46
Appendix..................................................................................................................................49
Table 1: Gender........................................................................................................................13
Table 2: Age.............................................................................................................................14
Table 3: Please state your highest level of education..............................................................14
Table 4: Status level.................................................................................................................15
Table 5: Nationality..................................................................................................................16
Table 6: Do you consider yourself to be Vegetarian or Vegan................................................17
Table 7: Do you identify yourself as belonging to any religion?.............................................18
Table 8: Do you currently own a pet........................................................................................19
Table 9: Have you owned a pet in the past..............................................................................20
Table 10: What type of pets do you currently..........................................................................20
Table 11: Humans have a soul but animals do not...................................................................21
Table 12: Humans can think but animals cannot.....................................................................22
Table 13: People have a life after death but animals do not....................................................23
Table 14: People are animals...................................................................................................24
Table 15: Animals are afraid of death......................................................................................25
Table 16: People evolved from lower animals.........................................................................26
Table 17: People are superior to animals.................................................................................27
Table 18: Animals can fall in love...........................................................................................28
Table 19: People have a spiritual nature but animals do not....................................................29
Table 20: The needs of people should always come before the needs of animals...................30
Table 21: It’s ok to use animals to carry out tasks for humans................................................31
Table 22: It’s crazy to think of an animal as a member of your family...................................32
Table 23: Painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it prevents the rabbit from
having future positive experiences...........................................................................................33
Table 24: All that matters is that the rabbit had a good life, so painlessly ending its life is not
a problem..................................................................................................................................34
Table 25: Although the rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly without a good reason
might make us value animals less............................................................................................35
Table 26: The rabbit has a right to life.....................................................................................36
Table 27: Painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an older rabbit.........37

MANAGEMENT 4
Table 28: Rabbits do not have future plans and don’t fear death, so painlessly ending their life
is not a problem........................................................................................................................38
Table 29: Do you consider rabbits to be (tick all that apply)...................................................41
Chart 1: Gender........................................................................................................................13
Chart 2: Age.............................................................................................................................14
Chart 3: Please state your highest level of education...............................................................15
Chart 4: Status level.................................................................................................................15
Chart 5: Nationality..................................................................................................................16
Chart 6: Do you consider yourself to be Vegetarian or Vegan................................................17
Chart 7: Do you identify yourself as belonging to any religion?.............................................18
Chart 8: Do you currently own a pet........................................................................................19
Chart 9: Have you owned a pet in the past...............................................................................20
Chart 10: What type of pets do you currently..........................................................................21
Chart 11: Humans have a soul but animals do not...................................................................22
Chart 12: Humans can think but animals cannot.....................................................................22
Chart 13: People have a life after death but animals do not.....................................................23
Chart 14: People are animals....................................................................................................24
Chart 15: Animals are afraid of death......................................................................................25
Chart 16: People evolved from lower animals.........................................................................26
Chart 17: People are superior to animals.................................................................................27
Chart 18: Animals can fall in love...........................................................................................28
Chart 19: People have a spiritual nature but animals do not....................................................29
Chart 20: The needs of people should always come before the needs of animals...................30
Chart 21: It’s ok to use animals to carry out tasks for humans................................................31
Chart 22: It’s crazy to think of an animal as a member of your family...................................32
Chart 23: Painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it prevents the rabbit from
having future positive experiences...........................................................................................33
Chart 24: All that matters is that the rabbit had a good life, so painlessly ending its life is not
a problem..................................................................................................................................34
Chart 25: Although the rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly without a good reason
might make us value animals less............................................................................................36
Chart 26: The rabbit has a right to life.....................................................................................36
Chart 27: Painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an older rabbit.........37
Chart 28: Rabbits do not have future plans and don’t fear death, so painlessly ending their life
is not a problem........................................................................................................................39
Chart 29: In your opinion, national laws should make painlessly ending the life of young
rabbits.......................................................................................................................................40
Chart 30: Do you consider rabbits to be (tick all that apply)...................................................41

MANAGEMENT 5
Introduction
Research background
In the current era, it is imperative for people to increase their understanding of the factors that
influence their attitudes towards the animal’s quantity of life. The quantity of animal life is
essential for increasing the life years of animals (Wilkins, et al., 2015). Further, there are
certain factors that might affect the behavior of human towards the quantity of animal life
named as social, cultural, and personal aspect. It is stated that an individual who has their
personal belief towards the animals then they could be capable to comprehend illness reason
of people and supported to make a decision effectively (Schuppli, et al., 2015).
It is also illustrated that sometimes people want to some right act towards the animal but to
due to their culture they are failed to do this as it might affect the quantity of animal life. The
surrounding of an individual could imperative elements in the current era, the people of
society could also be affected by the quantity of animal life directly. Hence it is stated that a
government should make laws towards the quantity of animal life for securing their life and
increase the life experience positively (Mellor, 2016).
It is also founded that government should make the animal welfare programs by which people
could give their contribution to the health of animals. It is also founded that individual
awareness could be effective for the attainment of the organizational task. It is also illustrated
that the quantity of life is essential in getting a reliable outcome. It is also illustrated that the
quantity of animal life could be essential for animal life (Spannring, 2017). It is also founded
that the government could use social media and increase the awareness of people towards the
importance of animal life.
In the recent era, the social media is an effective source that is used by most of the people as
it offers an opportunity to directly meet with the people and comprehend what they think
about the quantity of animal life and increased their understanding accordingly (Cembalo, et

MANAGEMENT 6
al., 2016). In the current era, it is mandatory for all the individual who exists on the earth
could beware about the quantity of animal lives. The government should try to use the best
way to control the factors that might be affected by the behavior of individuals towards
animal life (Serpell, et al., 2017).
Research aim and objectives
The main purpose of this study is to examine factors influencing public attitudes towards
animal’s quantity of life. The following objectives will be met by the researcher to research at
a reliable aim:
 Comprehend the quantity of animal life
 Critically evaluates factors influencing public attitudes towards animal’s quantity of
life
 Recommended strategies for influencing public attitudes towards animal’s quantity of
life
Research questions
 What is the meaning and concept of quantity of animal life
 What are the factors influencing public attitudes towards animal’s quantity of life
 Which strategies are effective in influencing public attitudes towards animal’s
quantity of life
Research significance
This research is effective in comprehended many factors that might change the behavior of
people towards the animal’s quantity of life. This study will also support to comprehend how
much the quantity of life is imperative for a rabbit. This research also aids the researcher to
comprehend different methods that have been considered to collect the data in the context of
the research matter named as qualitative as well as a quantitative method.

MANAGEMENT 7
Materials and Methods
Animal quantity of life
As per the view of Caviola et al. (2019), the key step in dimension is to be comprehensible
regarding what is to be assessed. It is identified that in social science, quantity of life contains
the objective living circumstances as well as, subjective satisfaction with them. In a medical
manner, quantity of life describes the health-related subjective well-being of a person. Within
the dimension of animal welfare, the previous conceptualization could be effective for farm
animals, in which principle interest is in the impact of standard situations on the group.
In contrast to this, Ingold (2016) stated that the feasible strategy for companion animals is to
emphasize an individual whose conditions are likely to be distinctive. In the sector of human
health, quantity of life measures for people is related to the perception of an individual
towards their life position. It is also associated with the value system and culture where they
live as well as, in the context of standard, expectations, goals as well as, concerns.
According to Monamy (2017) quantity of life is a wide-ranging concept that can affect the
complex manner by physical health of an individual, individual beliefs, social associations,
psychological state as well as their association to essential characteristics of their
atmospheres. It is also influenced through psychological, physical as well as, social state i.e.
associated with the perception of an individual. It distinguishes the quantity of life from
health as well as, demonstrates the perception that QoL is subjective with complex.
Moreover, it could be adequately analyzed through the perspective of a person.
In opposed to this, De Backer and Hudders (2015) defined that welfare is practiced in the
context of both animal and human fields wherever an individual has the accountability related
to others. In addition, welfare is a complex construct that integrates both objectives as well
as, subjective aspect for a condition related to life for animals. For illustration, five freedoms
are described in farm animal welfare council. The significance of animal welfare is related to

MANAGEMENT 8
the factor that helps in understanding, and recognize animal feelings. Along with this,
practical welfare measurement is still highly concerned with making sure to provide a
minimum standard for care.
As per the view of Tuan, (2017) when a person adopts for an animal with conceptualization
then there is need to consider the quantity of life in a veterinary. In addition, animal science
provides the chance to create the explicit the significance of a person aspect. It also
effectively shift emphasize in animal welfare from the avoidance of poor quantity of life to
the achievement of a better quantity of life.
In oppose to this, Borgi and Cirulli, (2015) stated that some culture has given more value to
cow hence they do not do any bad act with them and tried to maintain the quantity of cow
life. Thus, there are many cultures they prefer to the consumer the animal in their daily meals
due to their society hence it can be stated that the culture is an imperative element that
affected to the quantity of animal life. It can be illustrated that the surroundings of an
individual could also affect the behavior towards the quantity of an animal’s life
On the other hand, Lee and Ro, (2016) illustrated that the societal factor could affect the
behavior of an individual to conduct the behavior with the animal. Thus, it is stated that
society is an imperative part as it affected the overall behavior. Hence, an individual should
have control over their self for conducting suitable behavior in the favor of animal for
improving their quantity of life.
Methods
The researcher has exercised onion research framework to perform the research study in an
appropriate way. A key aim of this research work is to assess the attitude of humanity
towards the quantity of animals life. Research methodology chapter entails different aspects
such as research philosophy, research strategies and evaluation of present attitude of human
regarding animal welfare. This research framework allows the research scholar to gain depth

MANAGEMENT 9
understanding with respect to different approaches before conducting the research study
which provides more accurate research result.
Philosophies:
Research scholar has practiced positivism research philosophy as a hypothesis is required to
perform the investigation. Positivism research philosophy delivers highly organized
methodology like developing a relevant hypothesis, proving, accepting or rejecting the
hypothesis and analyzing the research outcome as per generalization (Payne, et al., 2015). It
also assists in getting the authentic conclusion related to the attitude of humans towards the
quantity life of animals. In order to this, the survey through questionnaire has performed by
an investigator to analyze the satisfaction level of people who keep pets at their home.
Primary data has pooled through positivism philosophy by collecting opinion and perception
of pet lover towards their experience associated with their pet. In contrast to this,
interpretivism and realism research philosophies are not be practiced by the investigator as it
leads the researcher to get the views and beliefs of research candidates (Webber, et al. 2017).
Approaches:

MANAGEMENT 10
Research approach considers inductive and deductive research approach that could be utilized
for evaluating the research outcome and improves the authenticity of research result. Under
the inductive research approach, relevant data is pooled on the basis of developed theories
that assist in improving the lives of animals. Whereas, the hypothesis is generated under the
deductive research approach by the researcher as per the requirement of research work.
Survey method has executed by an investigator to comprehend knowledge related to the
attitude of humanity towards the quantity life of animals. After generating the hypothesis
quantity life of animals could be improved by enhancing the positive attitude of human
(Veevers, 2016).
Research Strategy:
Different types of research strategy are practiced in the research work to evaluate the attitude
of human with respect to the animal’s quantity life. Certain strategies are named as
ethnography, action research, archival research, grounded theory and survey method (Fine,
2019). In order to assess the human’s attitude towards the animal’s quantity life, a survey has
conducted by the investigator. It has performed on 335 people who belong from a different
country to get their perception and views related to the current research concern. 10 questions
are entailed in the survey through questionnaire and the primary aim of this research work is
to accumulate the responses of humans towards the quantity life of animals (Amiot and
Bastian, 2015).
Research Design
Mix research design has selected by the investigator to accomplish this research work in
minimum time duration as this design consist features of both quantitative and qualitative
research design (Hocquette, 2016). In such way, responses of research participants have
determined by quantitative research design whereas, qualitative research is profitable for

MANAGEMENT 11
analyzing the association between attitude of human and animal’s quantity life (Caracciolo, et
al., 2016).
Data Collection Method
Both data gathering tool primary as well as secondary has exercised by the researcher to
conduct the research work on assessing the attitude of humans towards the quantity life of
animals (Mancini, 2017). Primary data pooling method is advantageous in making effective
communication with the people and obtains their views related to the research concern.
Whereas secondary data assist in developing theoretical understanding towards the research
issues since, these data have pooled by several sources such as websites, books, journals and
articles (Miranda-De La Lama, et al., 2017).
Sampling
Probability sampling tool with simple random technique has practiced by the investigator to
select the research participants for conducting the survey. The main reason to choose the
simple random sampling tool is that it provides a delegate sample by eliminating biases from
the selection procedure of respondents (Weary, et al., 2016). In this way, 335 participants
have chosen who belong from the different nation because it is profitable for attaining the
numerous views and beliefs of candidates related to research issues.
Data Analysis Method
Statistical data analysis has practiced by the investigator to perform this research work as it is
profitable for interpreting the evaluated data in a methodological way (De Groot, 2018).
Along with this, it also facilitates the research scholar to illustrate the descriptive statistics of
data like cross-tabulation, correlation, and regression (Rapoport, 2016). MS-excel and SPSS
software program has exercised by the researcher to exhibit the pooled data in the tabular and
graphical manner. It is also advantageous for comprehending knowledge related to the
findings and responses of research dilemma (Borgi and Cirulli, 2016).

MANAGEMENT 12
Ethical Consideration
Ethical consideration leads the research scholar to maintain the reliability of gathered figures
and facts as well as also aids in accumulating the authentic data from the candidates in a
comprehensible manner (Broom, 2016). Certain policies have followed by the researcher to
protect the privacy of research participants and also make them assure that their personal
information would not be shared to anyone before or after accomplishing the research work.
Hence, the researcher has decreased various ethical issues from the research work associated
with the confidentiality of respondent’s data, plagiarism, research figures and facts (Meena,
et al., 2016).

MANAGEMENT 13
Result
The data analysis section is usually used to evaluate the research matter. It could also support
to make more trustworthiness research outcome (Clonan, et al., 2015). It is also examined
that the researcher has conducted this study on 335 participants who are interested in my
research and capable to answer the research questions. The result is discussed as below:
Demographic questions
The demographic question helps the researcher to make an effective relationship with their
research candidates and direct the research in one direction. It is effective for the researcher
to comprehend the importance of the relationship for taking the decision effectively.
Table 1: Gender
Gender
Male 210
Female 125
Chart 1: Gender
63%
37%
Gender
Male
Female
With respect to the above table and chart, it is stated that this study has considered both male
as well as female. In this, the researcher has selected 210 out of 335 were male while 125 out

MANAGEMENT 14
of 335 were female. The primary purpose of this study is to collect different opinion and view
of a different gender as it supports to get information towards the research matter.
Table 2: Age
Age
18-30 75
31-50 154
51-70 93
Over 71 13
Chart 2: Age
18-30 31-50 51-70 Over 71
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Age
The above data demonstrated that the researcher has selected mainly concerted on those
people who are coming in the age group of 31-50 while people who have more than 71 years
of old were not mostly preferred by the researcher.
Table 3: Please state your highest level of education
Please state
your highest
level of

MANAGEMENT 15
education
Primary 17
Secondary 19
College 82
University 130
Undergraduat
e 48
Postgraduate 39
Chart 3: Please state your highest level of education
Primary Secondary College University Undergraduate Postgraduate
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Please state your highest level of education
In this study, 130 out of 335 research candidates were having the highest level of university
education as they are more participate. There are different education level of people has been
considered by the researcher named as primary, secondary, college, university,
undergraduate, and postgraduate. The researcher has considered fewer people who have only
primary education.
Table 4: Status level
Status level
Employed 225

MANAGEMENT 16
Unemployed 53
Retired 18
Student 39
Chart 4: Status level
Employed Unemployed Retired Student
0
50
100
150
200
250
Status level
From the evaluation of the status level of research candidates, it is founded that there are four
kinds of status level are entailed named as employed, retired, unemployed, and student. For
collecting the data, 225 out of 335 participants were employed while 18 were retired. The
main reason for selecting different status level is that as it facilitates to get the diverse opinion
and views of the participants that could be effective in increasing the reliability of the study.
Table 5: Nationality
Nationality
Foreigners 235
Other 100
Chart 5: Nationality

MANAGEMENT 17
70%
30%
Nationality
Foreigners
Other
In this study, the researcher has mainly considered foreigner as well as other people. In this
study, it is stated that 235 out of 335 were foreigners while others belonged from different
nationality. It could be effective for getting the data from the different nation of people with
respect to the animals quantity of life.
Table 6: Do you consider yourself to be Vegetarian or Vegan
Do you
consider
yourself to be
Vegetarian or
Vegan
Yes 268
No 55
Others 12
Chart 6: Do you consider yourself to be Vegetarian or Vegan

MANAGEMENT 18
Yes No Others
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Do you consider yourself to be Vegetarian or Vegan
With respect to gathered information, it is stated that the 268 out of 335 people seeks that
they are Vegetarian or Vegan that is effective for getting a reliable outcome. It is stated that
55 out of 335 research candidates were not category of this statement.
Table 7: Do you identify yourself as belonging to any religion?
Do you
identify yourself
as belonging to
any religion?
Yes 189
No 96
Prefer not to say 50
Chart 7: Do you identify yourself as belonging to any religion?

MANAGEMENT 19
Yes No Prefer not to say
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Do you identify yourself as belonging to any religion?
With respect to the data, it is addressed that 189 out of 335 people seeks that they are
belonging from any region while 96 out of 335 did not feel that they are not belonging from
any region.
Table 8: Do you currently own a pet
Do you
currently own
a pet
Yes 275
No 60
Chart 8: Do you currently own a pet

MANAGEMENT 20
Yes
No
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Do you currently own a pet
From the data, it is funded that 275 out of 335 had their own pet while 60 out of 335 did not
have the same. Thus, it is addressed that most of the people like animals as it means this
study can be imperative to get the data towards the research matter.
Table 9: Have you owned a pet in the past
Have you
owned a pet
in the past
Yes 285
No 50
Chart 9: Have you owned a pet in the past

MANAGEMENT 21
85%
15%
Have you owned a pet in the past
Yes
No
With respect to the above, it is founded that 285 out of 335 candidates believed that yes they
have their owned a pet in the past. Apart from this, 50 out of 335 have not their own pet in
the past.
Table 10: What type of pets do you currently
What type of
pets do you
currently
Dog 22
Guinea pig 24
Hamster 28
Horse 18
Cat 28
Mice 8
Fish 74
Poultry 13
Rabbit 97
Rat 12
Reptile 11

MANAGEMENT 22
Chart 10: What type of pets do you currently
Dog
Guinea pig
Hamster
Horse
Cat
Mice
Fish
Poultry
Rabbit
Rat
Reptile
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
What type of pets do you currently
From the analysis of table and chart, it is stated that 97 out of 335 had a rabbit in their home.
It is stated that people have also selected different animals but due to some personal concern,
people are more prefer to have rabbit as a pet animal.
Table 11: Humans have a soul but animals do not
Humans have
a soul but
animals do
not
Strongly
disagree 21
Slightly
disagree 32
Disagree 17

MANAGEMENT 23
Neutral 9
Agree 133
Slightly
Agree 72
Strongly
Agree 51
Chart 11: Humans have a soul but animals do not
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Humans have a soul but animals do not
The above table and chart demonstrated that 70 out of 335 did not seek that Humans have a
soul but animals do not while 256 out of 335 agreed with the same statement. It is also
addressed that only 9 out of 335 were natural with this statement.
Table 12: Humans can think but animals cannot
Humans can
think but
animals
cannot

MANAGEMENT 24
Strongly
disagree 39
Slightly
disagree 15
Disagree 28
Neutral 4
Agree 58
Slightly
Agree 164
Strongly
Agree 27
Chart 12: Humans can think but animals cannot
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly
Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Humans can think but animals cannot
With respect to the above table and chart, it is stated that 82 out of 335 have totally disagreed
that Humans can think but animals cannot while 249 out of 335 agreed with the same
statement.
Table 13: People have a life after death but animals do not

MANAGEMENT 25
People have a life after
death but animals do not
Strongly disagree 97
Slightly disagree 84
Disagree 57
Neutral 13
Agree 21
Slightly Agree 37
Strongly Agree 26
Chart 13: People have a life after death but animals do not
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
People have a life after death but animals do not
With respect to the collected data, it is founded that most of the participants were totally
believe that this statement is totally wrong. It is stated that 238 out of 335 have disagreed
with this statement while 84 out of 335 were agreed with this statement.
Table 14: People are animals
People are
animals
Strongly 27

MANAGEMENT 26
disagree
Slightly
disagree 21
Disagree 22
Neutral 12
Agree 96
Slightly
Agree 99
Strongly
Agree 58
Chart 14: People are animals
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
People are animals
The above table and chart depicted that 70 out of 335 believe that people are animals while
others were totally disagreed with the same statement. It is addressed that this statement is
totally wrong but some have believed in this statement.
Table 15: Animals are afraid of death
Animals are

MANAGEMENT 27
afraid of
death
Strongly
disagree 35
Slightly
disagree 32
Disagree 29
Neutral 14
Agree 48
Slightly
Agree 100
Strongly
Agree 77
Chart 15: Animals are afraid of death
Strongly
disagree Slightly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly
Agree
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Animals are afraid of death
The above chart depicted that the 225 out of 335 candidates were believed that Animals are
afraid of death while 96 out of 335 have disagreed with the same statement. The people who

MANAGEMENT 28
believe in this statement share their personal expertise about how they understand that
animals were having the afraid of death.
Table 16: People evolved from lower animals
People
evolved from
lower animals
Strongly
disagree 28
Slightly
disagree 34
Disagree 32
Neutral 8
Agree 98
Slightly
Agree 96
Strongly
Agree 39
Chart 16: People evolved from lower animals

MANAGEMENT 29
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly
Agree
0
5
10
15
20
25
People evolved from lower animals
The above chart, it is stated that 94 out of 335 research candidates disagreed that People
evolved from lower animals while remaining were agreed with the same statement. But 8 out
of 335 were neutral with this statement.
Table 17: People are superior to animals
People are superior to
animals
Strongly disagree 125
Slightly disagree 127
Disagree 14
Neutral 7
Agree 25
Slightly Agree 24
Strongly Agree 13
Chart 17: People are superior to animals

MANAGEMENT 30
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
People are superior to animals
It is also stated that 62 out of 335 believes that People are superior to animals while 266 out
of 335 have disagreed with this statement. Thus, it is founded that a human can be more
superior as compared to any animal. It is also illustrated that the investigator has also
believed that People are superior to animals.
Table 18: Animals can fall in love
Animals can fall in love
Strongly disagree 112
Slightly disagree 57
Disagree 43
Neutral 13
Agree 28
Slightly Agree 43
Strongly Agree 39
Chart 18: Animals can fall in love

MANAGEMENT 31
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Animals can fall in love
From the collected data, it is stated that 110 out of 335 believe that Animals can fall in love.
But remaining 212 out of 335 were disagreed with this statement.
Table 19: People have a spiritual nature but animals do not
People have a
spiritual
nature but
animals do
not
Strongly
disagree 106
Slightly
disagree 55
Disagree 46
Neutral 34
Agree 17
Slightly
Agree 48

MANAGEMENT 32
Strongly
Agree 29
Chart 19: People have a spiritual nature but animals do not
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
People have a spiritual nature but animals do not
From the evaluation of collected data, it is illustrated that 94 out of 335 research candidates
believe that people have a spiritual nature but animals do not. Apart from this, it is stated that
207 out of 335 disagreed with this statement.
Table 20: The needs of people should always come before the needs of animals
The needs of people
should always come
before the needs of
animals
Strongly disagree 77
Slightly disagree 108
Disagree 40
Neutral 5
Agree 29

MANAGEMENT 33
Slightly Agree 48
Strongly Agree 28
Chart 20: The needs of people should always come before the needs of animals
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
77
108
40
5
29
48
28
The needs of people should always come
before the needs of animals
From the evaluation of the collected data, it is stated that 105 out of 335 believe that the
needs of people should always come before the needs of animals while others disagreed with
this statement.
Table 21: It’s ok to use animals to carry out tasks for humans
It’s ok to use
animals to
carry out
tasks for
humans
Strongly
disagree 168
Slightly
disagree 41

MANAGEMENT 34
Disagree 24
Neutral 18
Agree 27
Slightly
Agree 28
Strongly
Agree 29
Chart 21: It’s ok to use animals to carry out tasks for humans
Strongly
disagree Slightly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
It’s ok to use animals to carry out tasks for humans
The collected data demonstrated that 84 out of 335 were not agreed with the statement of
human can use the animal as their personal use while there are many respondents that seek
that animals could be carried out by the humans for their tasks.
Table 22: It’s crazy to think of an animal as a member of your family
It’s crazy to
think of an
animal as a
member of

MANAGEMENT 35
your family
Strongly
disagree 97
Slightly
disagree 67
Disagree 34
Neutral 33
Agree 29
Slightly
Agree 38
Strongly
Agree 37
Chart 22: It’s crazy to think of an animal as a member of your family
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
It’s crazy to think of an animal as a member of your family
The chart depicted that most of the participants believed that yes it is crazy to think of an
animal as a member of your family at the time of an animal enter into your family. It is also
founded that 198 out of 335 were total disagreed with the same statement.

MANAGEMENT 36
Table 23: Painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it prevents the rabbit from
having future positive experiences.
Painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is
wrong because it prevents the rabbit
from having future positive
experiences.
Strongly disagree 98
Slightly disagree 77
Disagree 38
Neutral 7
Agree 29
Slightly Agree 38
Strongly Agree 48
Chart 23: Painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it prevents the rabbit from
having future positive experiences.
Strongly
disagree Slightly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it
prevents the rabbit from having future positive experiences.

MANAGEMENT 37
With respect to the above table and chart, it is stated that most of the participants were agreed
that painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it prevents the rabbit from having
future positive experiences while 213 out of 335 have disagreed with this statement.
Table 24: All that matters is that the rabbit had a good life, so painlessly ending its life is not
a problem.
All that
matters is that
the rabbit had
a good life,
so painlessly
ending its life
is not a
problem.
Strongly
disagree 91
Slightly
disagree 61
Disagree 37
Neutral 4
Agree 35
Slightly
Agree 38
Strongly
Agree 69

MANAGEMENT 38
Chart 24: All that matters is that the rabbit had a good life, so painlessly ending its life is not
a problem.
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly
Agree
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All that matters is that the rabbit had a good life, so
painlessly ending its life is not a problem.
The above chart depicted that 189 out of 335 have disagreed that the rabbit had a good life, so
painlessly ending its life is not a problem while others were agreed with this statement. It is
also stated that 4 out of 335 were not agreed nor disagreed with this statement.
Table 25: Although the rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly without a good reason
might make us value animals less.
Although the
rabbit won’t
suffer, ending
its life
painlessly
without a
good reason
might make
us value
animals less.

MANAGEMENT 39
Strongly
disagree 69
Slightly
disagree 85
Disagree 21
Neutral 7
Agree 57
Slightly
Agree 67
Strongly
Agree 29
Chart 25: Although the rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly without a good reason
might make us value animals less.
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Although the rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly
without a good reason might make us value animals less.
With respect to the above table and chart, it is stated that 175 out of 335 disagreed that the
rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly without a good reason might make us value
animals less while 153 out of 335 were agreed with this statement.

MANAGEMENT 40
Table 26: The rabbit has a right to life.
The rabbit
has a right to
life.
Strongly
disagree 53
Slightly
disagree 17
Disagree 33
Neutral 12
Agree 39
Slightly
Agree 112
Strongly
Agree 69
Chart 26: The rabbit has a right to life.
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
The rabbit has a right to life.

MANAGEMENT 41
From the above chart and table, it is addressed that 103 out of 335 were agreed that the rabbit
has a right to life while 220 out of 335 have disagreed with the same statement. It is also
founded that 12 out of 335 came in the neutral.
Table 27: Painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an older rabbit.
Painlessly
ending the
life of a
young rabbit
is worse than
for an older
rabbit.
Strongly
disagree 15
Slightly
disagree 36
Disagree 7
Neutral 22
Agree 28
Slightly
Agree 115
Strongly
Agree 112
Chart 27: Painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an older rabbit.

MANAGEMENT 42
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly
Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an
older rabbit.
With respect to the above evaluation, it is illustrated that 255 of 335 research candidates
believes that painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an older rabbit
while 58 out of 335 have disagreed with this statement. From this, it is founded that 22 out of
335 were research candidates were not agreed nor disagreed with this statement.
Table 28: Rabbits do not have future plans and don’t fear death, so painlessly ending their
life is not a problem.
Rabbits do
not have
future plans
and don’t fear
death, so
painlessly
ending their
life is not a
problem.
Strongly
disagree 27

MANAGEMENT 43
Slightly
disagree 28
Disagree 39
Neutral 17
Agree 66
Slightly
Agree 61
Strongly
Agree 97
Chart 28: Rabbits do not have future plans and don’t fear death, so painlessly ending their
life is not a problem.
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rabbits do not have future plans and don’t fear death, so
painlessly ending their life is not a problem.
The above chart and table, it is stated that 224 out of 335 sought that rabbits do not have
future plans and don’t fear death, so painlessly ending their life is not a problem. Apart from
this, 94 out of 335 disagreed and 17 out of 335 were neutral with the same statement.
Table 28: It would be good to allow this rabbit to live, but it would be equally good to let
another rabbit live instead.

MANAGEMENT 44
It would be
good to allow
this rabbit to
live, but it
would be
equally good
to let another
rabbit live
instead.
Strongly
disagree 22
Slightly
disagree 61
Disagree 8
Neutral 24
Agree 62
Slightly
Agree 75
Strongly
Agree 83
Chart 28: It would be good to allow this rabbit to live, but it would be equally good to let
another rabbit live instead.

MANAGEMENT 45
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly Agree
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
It would be good to allow this rabbit to live, but it would be
equally good to let another rabbit live instead.
The above chart depicted that 220 out of 335 believes that it would be good to allow this
rabbit to live, but it would be equally good to let another rabbit live instead while 91 out of
335 have disagreed with this statement. Apart from this, it is also founded that 24 out of 335
were not agreed nor disagreed with the same statement.
Table 29: In your opinion, national laws should make painlessly ending the life of young
rabbits
In your opinion, national laws
should make painlessly ending the
life of young rabbits
Legal 247
Illegal 18
Unsure 70
Chart 29: In your opinion, national laws should make painlessly ending the life of young
rabbits

MANAGEMENT 46
Legal
Illegal
Unsure
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
In your opinion, national laws should make painlessly ending
the life of young rabbits
The above chart depicted that 247 out of 335 research candidates believed that national laws
should make painlessly ending the life of young rabbits while 18 out of 335 feel that it is
illegal. Apart from this, it is also addressed that 70 out of 335 were not sure with this
statement.
Table 29: Do you consider rabbits to be (tick all that apply)
Do you
consider
rabbits to be
(tick all that
apply)
Companions 244
Food 22
Lab animals 32
Pests 26
Wild
Animals 11

MANAGEMENT 47
Chart 30: Do you consider rabbits to be (tick all that apply)
Companions Food Lab animals Pests Wild Animals
0
50
100
150
200
250
Do you consider rabbits to be (tick all that apply)
From the evaluation of gather information, it is founded that 244 out of 335 research
candidates were considered rabbit as companions while only 22 out of 335 were believed that
they consider rabbit as food and have it in their meal.
Findings
From the questionnaire, it is founded that most of the participants believed that human can
think but the animal has not minded than human. Most of the research candidates also
believed that people have a life after death but animals do not. It is also founded that most of
the candidates agreed that people are not animals. A large number of people believed that
animals are afraid of death due to different elements. Most of the research candidates also
believed that humans are evolved from lower animals. It is also illustrated that most of the
research candidates believed that animals can also fall in love with another animal. Most of
the research candidates also agreed that the needs of people should always come before the
needs of animals. Most of the research participants believe that animals were not used for
completing the task of human.

MANAGEMENT 48
These findings were supported by the views of Caviola et al. (2019), as it was stated that
welfare is practiced in the context of both animal and human fields wherever an individual
has the accountability related to others. In addition, welfare is a complex construct that
integrates both objectives as well as, subjective aspect for a condition related to life for
animals. For illustration, five freedoms are described in farm animal welfare council. The
significance of animal welfare is related to the factor that helps in understanding, and
recognize animal feelings. Along with this, practical welfare measurement is still highly
concerned with making sure to provide a minimum standard for care. It is stated in social
science, quantity of life contains the objective living circumstances as well as, subjective
satisfaction with them. In a medical manner, quantity of life describes the health-related
subjective well-being of a person. Within the dimension of animal welfare, the previous
conceptualization could be effective for farm animals, in which principle interest is in the
impact of standard situations on the group.
From the survey through a questionnaire, it is addressed that a large number of people
believed that painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it prevents the rabbit from
having future positive experiences. Most of the research candidates were agreed that the
rabbit had a good life, so painlessly ending its life is not a problem. A large number of
research candidates believed that although the rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly
without a good reason might make us value animals less. Most of the research candidates
believed that the rabbit has a right to life. It can be stated that most of the research candidates
agreed that painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an older rabbit. A
large number of research candidates believed that rabbits do not have future plans and don’t
fear death, so painlessly ending their life is not a problem. Most of the research candidates
also believed that it would be good to allow this rabbit to live, but it would be equally good to
let another rabbit live instead. A large number of research candidates believed that national

MANAGEMENT 49
laws should make painlessly ending the life of young rabbits. From the findings, it is founded
that a large number of research candidates agreed that rabbits were considered as
companions, food, Pests, Wild Animals, and Lab animals. These fin dings were supported by
the view of Ingold (2016) as it was stated that quantity of life is wide ranging concept that
can affect the complex manner by physical health of an individual, individual beliefs, social
associations, psychological state as well as their association to essential characteristics of
their atmospheres. It is also influenced through psychological, physical as well as, social state
i.e. associated with the perception of an individual. It distinguishes the quantity of life from
health as well as, demonstrates the perception that QOL is subjective with complex.
Moreover, it could be adequately analyzed through the perspective of a person.

MANAGEMENT 50
Conclusion
With respect to the above discussion, it can be concluded that animal welfare is effective for
improving their quantity of life and increasing their life experience. It can also be
summarized that there are certain elements that might be affected by the overall quantity of
animal’s life named as personal aspect, social, cultural factors. It can be concluded that
rabbits are more preferred by people as a pet animal. It can be summarized that human has
soul hence they can be capable to comprehend the feeling of animals and conduct some
ethical acts in the context of the quantity of animals life. It can also be summarized that the
quantity of animal life could be imperative for the treatment of wild. It can be summarized
that people are more superiors as compared to an animal. It could be effective for improving
the quantity of animal life. It can be summarized that the quantity of life could be essential
for animals hence national laws should be made by the government. It would be effective for
getting positive responses. It can also be recommended that an individual should recognize
the sentiment animals and also give respect to all animals in order to improve the animal
welfare in our society. People should show their affection to animals for providing them an
improved quantity life. Advance animal welfare policies should be developed as well as
implemented by policy implementers and influencers. People should develop techniques and
follow best practice resources for the wellbeing of animals and protection community of
animals. We should assure that the basic needs of animals are easy to access, accurate and
well-maintained. In this way, people should maintain the directory of WAN and should also
develop this on knowledge portals which are geographical focused channels. An individual
should improve, develop and promote the collaboration, communication, and spirit of
cooperation amid different organizations of animal protection. Since it would assist in
avoiding the competition and duplication and it could be beneficial for focusing on
collaborative activities or work that is carried on certain animal protection issues.

MANAGEMENT 51
References
Amiot, C.E. and Bastian, B., 2015. Toward a psychology of human-animal
relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), p.6.
Borgi, M. and Cirulli, F., 2015. Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children:
species preferences. Anthrozoös, 28(1), pp.45-59.
Borgi, M. and Cirulli, F., 2016. Pet face: mechanisms underlying human-animal
relationships. Frontiers in psychology, 7, p.298.
Broom, D.M., 2016. Considering animals’ feelings: Précis of Sentience and animal welfare
(Broom 2014). Animal Sentience: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Animal Feeling, 1(5), p.1.
Caracciolo, F., Cicia, G., Del Giudice, T., Cembalo, L., Krystallis, A., Grunert, K.G. and
Lombardi, P., 2016. Human values and preferences for cleaner livestock production. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 112, pp.121-130.
Caviola, L., Everett, J.A. and Faber, N.S., 2019. The moral standing of animals: Towards a
psychology of speciesism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 116(6), p.1011.
Cembalo, L., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Del Giudice, T., Grunert, K.G. and Cicia, G.,
2016. Determinants of individual attitudes toward animal welfare-friendly food
products. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(2), pp.237-254.
Clonan, A., Wilson, P., Swift, J.A., Leibovici, D.G. and Holdsworth, M., 2015. Red and
processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviors and attitudes: impacts on human
health, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. Public health nutrition, 18(13),
pp.2446-2456.
De Backer, C.J., and Hudders, L., 2015. Meat morals: the relationship between meat
consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral
behavior. Meat science, 99, pp.68-74.
De Groot, J.I., 2018. Environmental psychology: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

MANAGEMENT 52
Fine, A.H. ed., 2019. Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Foundations and guidelines for
animal-assisted interventions. Academic Press.
Hocquette, J.F., 2016. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future?. Meat science, 120, pp.167-
176.
Ingold, T., 2016. What is an animal?. Routledge.
Lee, S. and Ro, H., 2016. The impact of online reviews on attitude changes the differential
effects of review attributes and consumer knowledge. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 56, pp.1-9.
Mancini, C., 2017. Towards an animal-centered ethics for Animal-Computer
Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, pp.221-233.
Meena, M.S., Kumar, A., Singh, K.M. and Meena, H.R., 2016. Farmers’ attitude towards
post-harvest issues of horticultural crops. Indian Research Journal of Extension
Education, 9(3), pp.15-19.
Mellor, D., 2016. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms”
towards “a Life Worth Living”. Animals, 6(3), p.21.
Miranda-De La Lama, G.C., Estévez-Moreno, L.X., Sepulveda, W.S., Estrada-Chavero,
M.C., Rayas-Amor, A.A., Villarroel, M. and María, G.A., 2017. Mexican consumers'
perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare
friendly meat products. Meat science, 125, pp.106-113.
Monamy, V., 2017. Animal experimentation: A guide to the issues. Cambridge University
Press.
Payne, E., Bennett, P.C. and McGreevy, P.D., 2015. Current perspectives on attachment and
bonding in the dog-human dyad. Psychology research and behavior management, 8, p.71.
Rapoport, A., 2016. Human aspects of urban form: towards a man—environment approach
to urban form and design. Elsevier.

MANAGEMENT 53
Schuppli, C.A., Molento, C.F. and Weary, D.M., 2015. Understanding attitudes towards the
use of animals in research using an online public engagement tool. Public Understanding of
Science, 24(3), pp.358-374.
Serpell, J., McCune, S., Gee, N. and Griffin, J.A., 2017. Current challenges to research on
animal-assisted interventions. Applied Developmental Science, 21(3), pp.223-233.
Spannring, R., 2017. Animals in environmental education research. Environmental Education
Research, 23(1), pp.63-74.
Tuan, Y.F., 2017. Humanistic geography. In Theory and Methods (pp. 127-138). Routledge.
Veevers, J.E., 2016. The social meanings of pets: Alternative roles for companion animals.
In Pets and the Family (pp. 11-30). Routledge.
Weary, D.M., Ventura, B.A. and Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2016. Societal views and animal
welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other
stories. Animal, 10(2), pp.309-317.
Webber, S., Carter, M., Smith, W. and Vetere, F., 2017. Interactive technology and human-
animal encounters at the zoo. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, pp.150-
168.
Wilkins, A.M., McCrae, L.S. and McBride, E.A., 2015. Factors affecting the human
attribution of emotions toward animals. Anthrozoös, 28(3), pp.357-369.

MANAGEMENT 54
Appendix
Attitudes to the quantity of life in animals
My name is Eithne Gallagher, I am currently undertaking Animal Welfare Science, Ethics
and Law at the University of Glasgow. I would like to invite you to take part in a research
study, the aims of which is to investigate the attitudes of members of the public to end the life
of animals painlessly. To do this we invite you to complete a short questionnaire. The
questionnaire should not take more than 15 minutes to complete. The first part of the
questionnaire will ask you basic demographic information, the second part employs a
validated animal-human continuity scale and the third part will ask questions about your
attitudes regarding painlessly ending an animal’s life. The results will be presented as my
dissertation and a paper and electronic copy will be kept at the University of Glasgow;
additionally, I aim to publish the research in an appropriate journal. It is up to you to decide
whether or not to take part in this research.
By filling out this questionnaire this is indicating your voluntary informed consent to
participating in the research and also granting consent for the data obtained from this to be
used and analyzed over the course of the research study. If you decide to take part you are
still free to withdraw without giving a reason. Please note that all information which is
collected about you during the course of the research will be kept securely with the
researcher. The survey is anonymous so you cannot be recognized from it. Data will be held
securely and not passed onto any third parties.
This study has been approved by the University of Glasgow College of Medical Veterinary
and Life Sciences Ethics Committee.

MANAGEMENT 55
Contact for further information:
Eithne Gallagher (MSc student) - [e-mail]
Dorothy McKeegan (Supervisor) - [e-mail]
Thank you for your participation.
PART 1

MANAGEMENT 56
Are you?
Male Female Transgender Prefer not to say
What is your age?
18-30 31-50 51-70  Over 71
Please state your highest level of education
 Primary  Secondary  College  University  Undergraduate  Postgraduate
Are you?
 Employed  Unemployed  Retired  Student
What is your nationality:
__________________________
Do you consider yourself to be Vegetarian or Vegan?
 YES NO Other (please specify)
Do you identify yourself as belonging to any religion?
YES NO  Prefer not to say
If yes, please state which religion
_____________________________
Do you currently own a pet
Yes  No
Have you owned a pet in the past
Yes  No
What type of pets do you currently (or in the past) own(ed) (tick all that apply)
 Dog  Guinea pig  Hamster  Horse Cat Mice  Fish Poultry 
Rabbit Rat  Reptile Other _________
Part 2: Animal-Human Continuity Scale questions (Templer & Planchon, 2006)

MANAGEMENT 57
On a scale of 1-7 rate (1=strongly disagree, 2=moderately disagree 3= slightly disagree,
4=unsure, 5=slightly agree, 6=moderately agree 7= strongly agree) how much you agree to
the following
1. Humans have a soul but animals do not Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
2. Humans can think but animals cannot Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree
Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
3. People have a life after death but animals do not Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
4. People are animals Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral
Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
5. Animals are afraid of death Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree
Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
6. People evolved from lower animals Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree
Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
7. People are superior to animals Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree
Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree

MANAGEMENT 58
8. Animals can fall in love Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral
Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
9. People have a spiritual nature but animals do not Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
10. The needs of people should always come before the needs of animals Strongly disagree
 Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
11. It’s ok to use animals to carry out tasks for humans Strongly disagree  Slightly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
12. It’s crazy to think of an animal as a member of your family Strongly disagree 
Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
PART 3:
Imagine a young and healthy rabbit which has a good life.
We would like to ask you about your attitudes towards painlessly ending the life of this
rabbit.
Please indicate to what extent you agree with each of the following statements:
1) Painlessly ending the rabbit’s life is wrong because it prevents the rabbit from having
future positive experiences.

MANAGEMENT 59
Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
2) All that matters is that the rabbit had a good life, so painlessly ending its life is not a
problem. Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
 Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
3) Although the rabbit won’t suffer, ending its life painlessly without a good reason
might make us value animals less.
Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
4) The rabbit has a right to life.
Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
5) Painlessly ending the life of a young rabbit is worse than for an older rabbit.
Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
6) Rabbits do not have future plans and don’t fear death, so painlessly ending their life is
not a problem. Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral
Agree  Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
7) It would be good to allow this rabbit to live, but it would be equally good to let
another rabbit live instead.
Strongly disagree  Slightly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 

MANAGEMENT 60
Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
8) In your opinion, national laws should make painlessly ending the life of young rabbits
Legal Illegal Unsure
9) Do you consider rabbits to be (tick all that apply)
 Companions  Food  Lab animals  Pests  Wild Animals
Please provide any further comments you wish to make: _____________
Thank you for your participation!