传统宠物主义：养宠人身份、宠物类型与宠物特质对宠物道德地位的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01662

心理学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (10): 1662-1676.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01662

传统宠物主义：养宠人身份、宠物类型与宠物特质对宠物道德地位的影响

徐科朋¹^,²^,³^,⁴, 欧倩倩⁵, 薛宏¹^,²^,³^,⁴, 罗冬丽¹^,³, 张姝玥¹^,²^,³^,⁴(), 许燕⁶()

¹广西师范大学教育学部心理学系, 桂林 541004
²广西高校认知神经与应用心理重点实验室, 桂林 541004
³广西高校人文社会科学重点研究基地广西民族教育发展研究中心, 桂林 541004
⁴广西师范大学中华民族共同体研究院, 桂林 541004
⁵深圳大学心理学院, 深圳 518060
⁶北京师范大学心理学部; 应用实验心理北京市重点实验室; 心理学国家级实验教学示范中心(北京师范大学), 北京 100875

收稿日期:2022-08-23 发布日期:2023-07-26 出版日期:2023-10-25
通讯作者: 张姝玥, E-mail: shuyuezh@126.com; 许燕, E-mail: xuyan@bnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
广西自然科学基金项目(2021JJA140666)

Traditional pettism: The influence of pet ownership status, pet type, and pet properties on pet moral standing

XU Kepeng¹^,²^,³^,⁴, OU Qianqian⁵, XUE Hong¹^,²^,³^,⁴, LUO Dongli¹^,³, ZHANG Shuyue¹^,²^,³^,⁴(), XU Yan⁶()

¹Department of psychology, Faculty of Education, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China
²Guangxi College and University Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Applied Psychology, Guilin 541004, China
³Ethnic Education Development Research Center of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guilin 541004, China
⁴Institute of Chinese National Community, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China
⁵School of Psychology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
⁶Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology; National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education (Beijing Normal University); Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

Received:2022-08-23 Online:2023-07-26 Published:2023-10-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

宠物与人类的关系日益紧密, 宠物的道德地位也在发生微妙的变化。本文通过预研究将宠物分类成传统宠物和非传统宠物, 并通过研究1~3探讨养宠人身份、宠物类型与宠物特质对宠物道德地位的影响及作用机制。结果发现：(1)传统宠物道德地位高于非传统宠物, 该差异由能动性、感受性、危害性中介; (2)比起非传统养宠人, 传统养宠人感知到的传统宠物道德地位更高; 两者感知到的非传统宠物道德地位无显著差异; (3)动物同理心在传统养宠人宠物依恋与传统宠物道德地位之间起中介作用。这些结果表明宠物内部存在道德地位差别, 表现为传统宠物主义, 养宠人与宠物之间的情感联系在其中起到重要的促进作用。

关键词: 道德地位, 养宠人, 宠物, 宠物依恋, 同理心

Abstract:

An increasing number of people treat pets as their family members. Although there is no specific indication, that people first think of traditional pets such as dogs or cats when referring to pets. In this study, traditional pets are defined as widely popular pets that are accompanied by human beings; Non-traditional pets are defined as unique and novel pets that are different from traditional cognition. The factors that lead to the difference in perception of pet moral standing are not only pet properties but also pet ownership status. Recently, psychologists have sought to explore the relationship between people and pets. Such research dilemmas are focused on traditional pet owners and their traditional pets, and few studies pay attention to the relationship between non-traditional pet owners and their non-traditional pets. Here, we aim to investigate whether pet properties, pet ownership status, and pet type can affect the perception of pet moral standing and its mechanism.

To define the traditional pets and non-traditional pets in our study, we first conducted a pre-study (N = 29). For three studies, we used the snowball sampling technique to recruit participants voluntarily online via Qualtrics in Baidu Post Bar through a questionnaire. Study 1 explored the impact of pet ownership status, pet type, and pet properties on the perception of pet moral standing, N = 146 (traditional pet owners: 41, non-traditional pet owners: 53; women: 77). In Study 2, based on controlling the basic moral orientation, the influence of pet ownership status and pet type on the perception of pet moral standing was reverified, N = 148 (traditional pet owners: 72; women: 74). Study 3 further explored the mechanism of this effect, the purpose is to investigate the empathy for animals in the relationship between pet attachment and the perception of traditional pet moral standing, N = 202 (women: 108).

The results showed that: (1) The perception of traditional pet moral standing is higher than that of non-traditional pets, agency, experience and harmfulness played a mediating role; (2) Compared to non-pet owners, pet owners perceived a higher pet moral standing; Compared to non-traditional pet owners, traditional pet owners perceived a higher traditional pet moral standing; There was no significant difference in the perception of non-traditional pets moral standing; (3) The empathy for animals played a mediating role between the traditional pet owners pet attachment and the perception of traditional pet moral standing.

Pet speciesism also exists in pets, traditional pets are higher in the hierarchy than non-traditional pets. Pet owners regard pets as psychological-kin and in-group members. The positive attitude towards pets in communication and interaction can be extended to all pets. When further subdividing the pet owners, this positive attitude is more obvious in the traditional pet owners. This may be because traditional pet owners are more idealistic, and the two-way emotional attachment between traditional pet owners and pets leads to stronger empathy for animals, which ultimately manifests as a more positive moral attitude towards traditional pets. There is no preference for non-traditional pets in non-traditional pet owners, it may be to gain social approval or a strong attachment with pets isn’t formed.

Key words: moral standing, pet owners, pet, pet attachment, empathy

中图分类号:

B849

徐科朋, 欧倩倩, 薛宏, 罗冬丽, 张姝玥, 许燕. (2023). 传统宠物主义：养宠人身份、宠物类型与宠物特质对宠物道德地位的影响. 心理学报, 55(10), 1662-1676.

XU Kepeng, OU Qianqian, XUE Hong, LUO Dongli, ZHANG Shuyue, XU Yan. (2023). Traditional pettism: The influence of pet ownership status, pet type, and pet properties on pet moral standing. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(10), 1662-1676.

图/表 11

参考文献 75

[1]	Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice (Vol. 52). Addison Wesley.
[2]	Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2017). Solidarity with animals: Assessing a relevant dimension of social identification with animals. Plos One, 12(1), e0168184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168184 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168184 URL
[3]	Araujo, D., Lima, C., Mesquita, J. R., Amorim, I., & Ochoa, C. (2021). Characterization of suspected crimes against companion animals in Portugal. Animals, 11(9), 2744-2757. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092744 doi: 10.3390/ani11092744 URL
[4]	Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2001). Self-expansion Model of Motivation and Cognition in Close Relationships and Beyond. Blackwell Publishers.
[5]	Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 URL
[6]	Auger, B., & Amiot, C. E. (2019). Testing the roles of intergroup anxiety and inclusion of animals in the self as mechanisms that underpin the "Pets as Ambassadors" effect. Anthrozoös, 32(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2019.1550277 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2019.1550277 URL
[7]	Bailey, K. G. (1988). Psychological kinship: Implications for the helping professions. Psychotherapy Theory Research Practice Training, 25(1), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085309 doi: 10.1037/h0085309 URL
[8]	Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. (2012). Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291 doi: 10.1177/0146167211424291 URL pmid: 21980158
[9]	Bentham, J. (1996). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University Press (Originally published in 1789).
[10]	Blouin, D. D. (2015). Are dogs children, companions, or just animals? Understanding variations in people's orientations toward animals. Anthrozoös, 26(2), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713x13636846944402 doi: 10.2752/175303713X13636846944402 URL
[11]	Bouma, E. M. C., Reijgwart, M. L., & Dijkstra, A. (2021). Family member, best friend, child or 'just' a pet, owners' relationship perceptions and consequences for their cats. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010193 doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010193 URL
[12]	Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-Group Bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A Cognitive-Motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307 URL
[13]	Bush, E. R., Baker, S. E., & Macdonald, D. W. (2014). Global trade in exotic pets 2006-2012. Conservation Biology, 28(3), 663-676. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12240 doi: 10.1111/cobi.12240 URL pmid: 24661260
[14]	Camilleri, L., Gill, P. R., & Jago, A. (2020). The role of moral disengagement and animal empathy in the meat paradox. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110103 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110103 URL
[15]	Carruthers, P. (1992). The animals issue. Cambridge University Press.
[16]	Caviola, L., & Capraro, V. (2020). Liking but devaluing animals: Emotional and deliberative paths to speciesism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1080-1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619893959 doi: 10.1177/1948550619893959 URL
[17]	Evans-Wilday, A. S., Hall, S. S., Hogue, T. E., & Mills, D. S. (2018). Self-disclosure with dogs: Dog owners’ and non-dog owners’ willingness to disclose emotional topics. Anthrozoös, 31(3), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1455467 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1455467 URL
[18]	Every, D., Due, C., Thompson, K., & Ryan, J. (2016). Conflicting perspectives on nonhuman animal rescues in natural disasters. Society and Animals, 24(4), 358-382. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341417 doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341417 URL
[19]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL pmid: 19897823
[20]	Finch, J. (2008). Naming names: Kinship, individuality and personal names. Sociology, 42(4), 709-725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508091624 doi: 10.1177/0038038508091624 URL
[21]	Gerhards, J., & Hans, S. (2009). From Hasan to Herbert: Name-Giving patterns of immigrant parents between acculturation and ethnic maintenance. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 1102-1128. https://doi.org/10.1086/595944 doi: 10.1086/595944 URL pmid: 19824302
[22]	Ghasemi, B., & Kyle, G. T. (2021). Toward moral pathways to motivate wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 259, 109170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109170 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109170 URL
[23]	Grajfoner, D., Ke, G. N., & Wong, R. M. M. (2021). The effect of pets on human mental health and wellbeing during COVID-19 lockdown in Malaysia. Animals, 11(9), 2689-2698. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092689 doi: 10.3390/ani11092689 URL
[24]	Gray, P. B., & Young, S. M. (2011). Human-pet dynamics in cross-cultural perspective. Anthrozoös, 24(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303711X12923300467285 doi: 10.2752/175303711X12923300467285 URL
[25]	Gruen, L. 2007. Empathy and vegetarian commitments. In J. Donovan, & C. J. Adams, (Eds.), The feminist care tradition in animal ethics. A reader (pp. 333-343). New York: Columbia University Press.
[26]	Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111 URL pmid: 18605855
[27]	Guo, S. P. (2010). Talk about "Pet Keeping Phenomenon". Chinese Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, (11), 4-5.
	[郭世平. (2010). 试说"养宠物现象". 畜牧兽医科技信息, (11), 4-5.]
[28]	Guo, Z., Ren, X., Zhao, J., Jiao, L., & Xu, Y. (2021). Can pets replace children? The interaction effect of pet attachment and subjective socioeconomic status on fertility intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8610-8621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168610 doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168610 URL
[29]	Harrington, L. A., Macdonald, D. W., & D’Cruze, N. (2019). Popularity of pet otters on YouTube: Evidence of an emerging trade threat. Nature Conservation, 36, 17-45. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.36.33842 doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.36.33842 URL
[30]	Hawkins, R. D., & Williams, J. M. (2016). Children's beliefs about animal minds (Child-BAM): Associations with positive and negative child-animal interactions. Anthrozoös, 29(3), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1189749 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1189749 URL
[31]	Heiss, S., & Hormes, J. M. (2018). Ethical concerns regarding animal use mediate the relationship between variety of pets owned in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood. Appetite, 123, 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.12.005 doi: S0195-6663(17)31290-4 URL pmid: 29225142
[32]	Herzog, H. A., Bentley, R. A., & Hahn, M. W. (2004). Random drift and large shifts in popularity of dog breeds. The Royal Society, 271(Suppl_5), 353-356. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0185 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2588 URL
[33]	Janssens, M., Janssens, E., Eshuis, J., Lataster, J., Simons, M., Reijnders, J., & Jacobs, N. (2021). Companion animals as buffer against the impact of stress on affect: An experience sampling study. Animals 11(8), 2171-2182. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082171
[34]	Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1992). Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS). Anthrozoös, 5(3), 160-175. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011395 doi: 10.2752/089279392787011395 URL
[35]	Kant, I. (1981). Lectures on ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Press.
[36]	Klaphake, E. A., & Smith, J. L. (2002). An initial assessment of exotic-animal pet owners in Utah: A survey with special emphasis on personal characteristics and expenditure tendencies. Journal of Avian Medicine & Surgery, 16(2), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1647/1082-6742(2002)016[0115:AIAOEA]2.0.CO;2
[37]	Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge University Press.
[38]	le Roux, M. C., & Wright, S. (2020). The relationship between pet attachment, life satisfaction, and perceived stress: Results from a South African online survey. Anthrozoös, 33(3), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1746525 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2020.1746525 URL
[39]	Leite, A. C., Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2018). Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetarianism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2497 doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2019.49.issue-1 URL
[40]	Liu-Pham, R., Patterson, L., & Keefer, L. A. (2022). You get what you give: Pet relationships in a communal orientation framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 192, 111590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111590 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111590 URL
[41]	Luo, X. Y., Wang, R. Y., & Xie, J. (2020). Research on the development of giant panda cultural industry from the perspective of deconstruction. Industrial Innovation, (12), 20-24.
	[罗小燕, 王若愚, 谢绝. (2020). 解构主义视域下的大熊猫文化产业发展研究. 产业创新研究, (12), 20-24.]
[42]	Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 URL
[43]	Meehan, M., Massavelli, B., & Pachana, N. (2017). Using attachment theory and social support theory to examine and measure pets as sources of social support and attachment figures. Anthrozoös, 30(2), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1311050 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2017.1311050 URL
[44]	Ng, V. C., Lit, A. C., Wong, O. F., Tse, M. L., & Fung, H. T. (2018). Injuries and envenomation by exotic pets in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 24(1), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj176984 doi: 10.12809/hkmj176984 URL pmid: 29302018
[45]	O'Boyle, E. H., & Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Individual differences in ethics positions: The EPQ-5. Plos One, 16(6), e0251989. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251989 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251989 URL
[46]	Pan, Y. J., Xie, R. D., & Liu, Y. (2022). Analysis of pet market problems and countermeasures -- A case study of pet market in Weiyang District of Xi'an. Chinese Market, (14), 117-120.
	[潘仪洁, 解润东, 刘叶. (2022). 宠物市场问题分析及其对策研究——以西安市未央区宠物市场为例. 中国市场, (14), 117-120.]
[47]	Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., Figueredo, A. J., Steklis, N. G., & Salmon, C. (2023). The role of cross-species relative brain size variation and time since domestication in explaining human empathy towards domesticated mammals. Personality and Individual Differences, 200, 111914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111914 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111914 URL
[48]	Piazza, J., Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.013 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.013 URL pmid: 24462925
[49]	Possidónio, C., Piazza, J., Graça, J., & Prada, M. (2021). From pets to pests: Testing the scope of the “Pets as Ambassadors” hypothesis. Anthrozoös, 34(5), 707-722. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1926708 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2021.1926708 URL
[50]	Potocka, A. (2021). The moral foundations of care and authority and the perception of animal mind in relation to violence against animals. Anthrozoös, 35(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1963547 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2021.1963547 URL
[51]	Rachel, G., Montrose, V., & Alison, W. (2017). ExNOTic: Should we be keeping exotic pets? Animals, 7(6), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7060047 doi: 10.3390/ani7060047 URL
[52]	Reaser, J. K., Clark, E. E., Jr., & Meyers, N. M. (2008). All creatures great and minute: A public policy primer for companion animal zoonoses. Zoonoses Public Health, 55(8-10), 385-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01123.x doi: 10.1111/jvb.2008.55.issue-8-10 URL
[53]	Rothgerber, H., & Mican, F. (2014). Childhood pet ownership, attachment to pets, and subsequent meat avoidance. The mediating role of empathy toward animals. Appetite, 79, 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.032 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.032 URL pmid: 24704704
[54]	Ruckert, J. H., & Arnold, R. (2018). Empathy-Related Reasoning is associated with children's moral concerns for the welfare and rights of animals. Ecopsychology, 10(4), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2018.0039 doi: 10.1089/eco.2018.0039 URL
[55]	Sani, F., & Bennett, M. (2009). Children's inclusion of the group in the self: Evidence from a self-ingroup confusion paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 503-510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014167 doi: 10.1037/a0014167 URL pmid: 19271834
[56]	Schönfeld, M. (1992). Who or what has moral standing? American Philosophical Quarterly, 29(4), 353-362.
[57]	Schuppli, C. A., Fraser, D., & Bacon, H. J. (2014). Welfare of non-traditional pets. Revue Scientifique et Technique, 33(1), 221-231. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2287
[58]	Serpell, J., & Paul, E. (1994). Pets and the development of positive attitudes to animals. In A Manning, J Serpell (Eds.), Animals and human society (pp. 165-182). London: Routledge Press.
[59]	Shukhova, S., & Macmillan, D. C. (2020). From tigers to axolotls: Why people keep exotic pets in Russia. People and Nature, 2(4), 940-949. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10125 doi: 10.1002/pan3.v2.4 URL
[60]	Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press.
[61]	Steinbock, B. (1978). Speciesism and the idea of equality. Philosophy, 53(204), 247-256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100016582 doi: 10.1017/S0031819100016582 URL
[62]	Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., & Swarna Nantha, H. (2006). Public choice of species for the ‘Ark’: Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14(2), 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2005.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2005.11.001 URL
[63]	Tsapelas, I., Aron, A., & Orbuch, T. (2009). Marital boredom now predicts less satisfaction 9 years later. Psychological Science, 20(5), 543-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02332.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02332.x URL pmid: 19389134
[64]	Tzivian, L., Friger, M., & Kushnir, T. (2014). Grief and bereavement of Israeli dog owners: Exploring short-term phases pre- and post-euthanization. Death Studies, 38(1-5), 109-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2012.738764 doi: 10.1080/07481187.2012.738764 URL pmid: 24517709
[65]	Venaglia, R. B., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2017). Hedonic benefits of close and distant interaction partners: The mediating roles of social approval and authenticity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(9), 1255-1267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217711917 doi: 10.1177/0146167217711917 URL pmid: 28903681
[66]	Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social- evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448-457. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027806
[67]	Wilkins, A. M., McCrae, L. S., & McBride, E. A. (2015). Factors affecting the human attribution of emotions toward animals. Anthrozoös, 28(3), 357-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1052270 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1052270 URL
[68]	Wilks, M., Caviola, L., Kahane, G., & Bloom, P. (2020). Children prioritize humans over animals less than adults do. Psychological Science, 32(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620960398 doi: 10.1177/0956797620960398 URL
[69]	Xin, X., Cheng, L., Li, S. F., Feng, L., Xin, Y. J., & Wang, S. S. (2021). Improvement to the subjective well-being of pet ownership may have positive psychological influence during COVID-19 epidemic. Animal Science Journal, 92(1), e13624. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13624 doi: 10.1111/asj.v92.1 URL
[70]	Xu, K., Ou, Q., Luo, D., Shi, X., Li, K., Xue, H., Huang, Y., Turel, O., Zhang, S., & He, Q. (2022). Moral decision- making in pettism: The influence of animal type, pet ownership status, and social distance. Psych Journal, 12(1), 54-72. http://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.594 doi: 10.1002/pchj.v12.1 URL
[71]	Yang, Z. (2016). Research on the pursuit of "New Pets" by Chinese college students. Heihe Journal, 224(2), 187-189.
	[杨珍. (2016). 我国大学生追捧"新型宠物"问题研究. 黑河学刊, 224(2), 187-189.]
[72]	Yu, F., & Xu, L. Y. (2018). Chinese moral structure:A moral differential circle. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Science Edition), (6), 65-74.
	[喻丰, 许丽颖. (2018). 中国人的道德结构: 道德差序圈. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), (6), 65-74.]
[73]	Yuan, X. J., & Guo, S. P. (2017). Differential mode of association in Chinese interpersonal relationship affection: Evidence from extrinsic affective Simon task (EAST). Journal of Psychological Science, 40(3), 651-656.
	[袁晓劲, 郭斯萍. (2017). 中国人人际情感的差序格局关系: 来自EAST的证据. 心理科学, 40(3), 651-656.]
[74]	Zen, A., Zen, R., Yaar, A., Armutak, A., & Eker, I. (2009). Attitudes of Turkish veterinary students and educators towards the moral status of animals and species rating. Kafkas Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 15(1), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2008.88-A
[75]	Zhu, X. H., & Lu, T. H. (2006). An empirical research on luxury consumption motives of Chinese consumers based on Self-construal. China Conference, 177(7), 1272-1284.
	[朱晓辉, 卢泰宏. (2006). 基于自我解构的中国奢华品消费动机的实证研究. 中国会议, 177(7), 1272-1284.]

宠物类型	养宠人身份	M	SD
传统宠物	传统养宠人	4.42	0.46
	非传统养宠人	4.05	0.84
	不养宠人	4.02	0.74
非传统宠物	传统养宠人	4.18	0.72
	非传统养宠人	4.08	0.81
	不养宠人	3.78	0.73

宠物类型	养宠人身份	M	SD
传统宠物	传统养宠人	4.42	0.46
	非传统养宠人	4.05	0.84
	不养宠人	4.02	0.74
非传统宠物	传统养宠人	4.18	0.72
	非传统养宠人	4.08	0.81
	不养宠人	3.78	0.73

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1 宠物类型	0.50	0.50	1
2 能动性	3.01	0.58	−0.18**	1
3 感受性	2.97	0.52	−0.16**	0.65**	1
4 危害性	2.21	0.51	0.21**	−0.40**	−0.29**	1
5 道德地位	4.07	0.75	−0.09	0.53**	0.43**	−0.35**	1

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1 宠物类型	0.50	0.50	1
2 能动性	3.01	0.58	−0.18**	1
3 感受性	2.97	0.52	−0.16**	0.65**	1
4 危害性	2.21	0.51	0.21**	−0.40**	−0.29**	1
5 道德地位	4.07	0.75	−0.09	0.53**	0.43**	−0.35**	1

效应	效应值	Boot 标准误	95% 下限	95% 上限	占总效应比率
总效应	−0.14	0.09	−0.31	−0.03
直接效应	0.05	0.08	−0.11	0.19
能动性间接效应	−0.10	0.04	−0.18	−0.03	70.87%
感受性间接效应	−0.03	0.02	−0.08	−0.00	23.60%
危害性间接效应	−0.05	0.02	−0.10	−0.02	37.07%

传统宠物主义：养宠人身份、宠物类型与宠物特质对宠物道德地位的影响

Traditional pettism: The influence of pet ownership status, pet type, and pet properties on pet moral standing

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

评审附件

可视化

English Version

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 75

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

宠物类型	养宠人身份	M	SD
传统宠物	传统养宠人	4.59	0.44
传统宠物	非传统养宠人	4.26	0.78
非传统宠物	传统养宠人	4.34	0.62
非传统宠物	非传统养宠人	4.23	0.75

人宠关系问题	选项	人数（百分比）
是否赞同把宠物视为儿子女儿、弟弟妹妹、或其他假想亲密伴侣	非常赞同	31 (43.1%)
	有点赞同	22 (30.6%)
	中立	10 (13.9%)
	有点不赞同	8 (11.1%)
	非常不赞同	1 (1.4%)
把宠物视作什么角色	家人	32 (44.4%)
	朋友	31 (43.1%)
	只是宠物	9 (12.5%)
是否给宠物起名字	有	69 (95.8%)
是否给宠物起名字	无	3 (4.2%)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3
1 宠物依恋	3.07	0.47	1
2 动物同理心	5.38	0.86	0.24**	1
3 道德地位	4.44	0.53	0.19**	0.25**	1

效应	效应值	Boot 标准误	95% 下限	95% 上限	占总效应比率
总效应	0.21	0.08	0.06	0.37
直接效应	0.16	0.08	0.00	0.31
间接效应	0.06	0.03	0.02	0.12	27.04%