SOCIALBEHAVIORANDPERSONALITY, 2006, 34(8), 955-964 Society for PersonalityResearch (Inc.

Intention to Oppose Animal Research: The Role of Individual Differences in Nonconformity

Ronald E. Goldsmith Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Ronald A. Clark East Carolina University, NC, USA Barbara Lafferty University of South Florida, FL, USA
Using animals to test cosmetic products is controversial, but little research has explored its social and psychological influences. Relationships between two personality constructs related to nonconformity (independence and anticonformity) and attitudes toward animal testing were studied using data from a survey of 418 students. The Independence Orientation and Nonconformity Orientation Scales (Ringness, 1970) were used to measure independence and anticonformity. Results showed that behavioral intentions were unrelated to age, women were more likely to get involved in antitesting behavior than were men, holding antitesting attitudes predicted intended action, and higher levels of anticonformity were associated with opposition as well, even when the effects of the other variables were held constant. Keywords: animal rights, animal testing, anticonformity, independence, nonconformity, personality

Animal testing for research purposes is a controversial topic (e.g., Gluck & Kubacki, 1991; Hovey, 2004). Because ethical and moral implications are raised by this practice, some individuals are polarized in their attitudes about the justification for animal testing. This is particularly true when animal testing is used for consumer products, with less polarization but still controversy
Ronald E. Goldsmith, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA; Ronald A. Clark, Department of Marketing, College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA; Barbara Lafferty, Department of Marketing, College of Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers. Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Ronald E. Goldsmith, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1110, USA. Phone: 850-644-4401; Fax: 850-644-4098; Email: rgoldsm@cob.fsu.edu

955

956

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

when the testing is for medical research (Driscoll, 1995). Many researchers want to understand peoples views of animal use (Knight, Nunkoosing, Vrij, & Cherryman, 2003). An overview of most published public opinion studies shows that researchers have used many variables to describe and explain opposition to a range of animal research practices. Some common explanatory variables include age, sex, religion, and pet ownership (Hagelin, Carlsson, & Hau, 2003). While some research focuses on animal-testing attitudes (Hagelin et al.), the individual personality traits that predispose an individual to form antianimaltesting sentiments remain largely unstudied. Research can explain why some people oppose animal testing and suggest why some are more interested in social movements than are others. Although some studies have begun to profile this group of people, as a whole, they account for variance only with respect to attitudes toward animals and animal testing (Furnham, McManus, & Scott, 2003; Jerolmack, 2003). This suggests that more personality traits should be included to compile a more complete profile. We proposed two personality constructs, independence and anticonformity, that influence attitudes toward using animals in pharmaceutical and cosmetic product testing, particularly among Generation Y individuals. These constructs derive from the primary nonconformity elements of social response theory (Nail, MacDonald, & Levy, 2000). Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess the relationships between independence and anticonformity with subjects intentions to support an organization that opposes animal testing for cosmetic and pharmaceutical research. The intended contribution of the study was an improved understanding of the influence of social response tendencies (i.e., personality traits) on attitudes toward animal testing. Attitudes toward animal testing, along with various demographic and personality variables, have been studied to determine the nature of animal rights activists. In many attitudinal studies, gender played an important role. Galvin, Colleg, and Herzog (1998) evaluated participants in the 1996 March for Animals in Washington, D. C. They found that 74% of the demonstrators were female. The majority of other studies also indicated that females were more likely to oppose animal research in general and consumer product testing specifically (e.g., Broida, Tingley, Kimball, & Miele, 1993; Eldridge & Gluck, 1997; Furnham et al., 2003; Kruse, 1999; Matthews & Herzog, 1997; Peek, Bell, & Dunham, 1996; Pifer, Shimizu, & Pifer, 1994; Plous, 1996). Various personality traits also have been assessed to help explain the nature of animal rights activists. Individuals more likely to be pro-animal rights and oppose testing are characterized by dispositional optimism (Galvin et al., 1998), sensitivity and imaginativeness (Matthews & Herzog, 1999); they are extravertedsensate and extraverted-thinking versus extraverted-intuitive and extravertedfeeling (Broida et al., 1993), intuitive and feeling (Broida et al., 1993); and display

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

957

ethical idealism and misanthropy (Nickell & Herzog, 1999; Wuensch, Jenkins, & Poteat, 2002), and empathy (Furnham et al., 2003). Because active opposition to animal testing (e.g., protesting, demonstrating) is likely to be contrary to societal norms, it is logical that personality traits linked to a willingness to go against socially prescribed norms might influence an individuals intent to oppose animal research. Because of this, we chose two nonconformity-based personality traits, independence and anticonformity, as focal constructs. Social psychologists have long been interested in individual responses to social influence. Much of the early research in social influence was centered on conformity with the presumption that individuals either conform or do not conform (e.g., Asch, 1953). Subsequent conceptualizations of social response yielded models that depicted social response as a multidimensional construct that included both conforming and nonconforming behaviors (Willis, 1963). This conceptualization was later refined by Nail et al. (2000) to include 4 primary responses to social influence: congruence, conformity, independence, and anticonformity. Congruence and conformity are both conforming responses to social influence; whereas, independence and anticonformity are both nonconforming responses. Independence is defined as giving zero weight to social norms as a prescription for behavior (Willis). On the other hand, anticonformity is a more rebellious form of nonconformity in that the response to social influence is intentionally antithetical to the prescribed norm (Willis). Early studies of social influence often examined conforming behaviors under experimentally induced situations whereby normative pressure was applied (e.g., Asch, 1953). These studies highlighted the strong effect that situations involving social influence can have on individual behaviors. However, the extent to which social influence impacts individual behaviors is also affected by individual differences in personality (McGuire, 1968). Indeed, some individuals are predisposed by their personality to respond to social influence with conforming or nonconforming behaviors (Krech, Crutchfield, & Ballachey, 1962). Therefore, we examined independence and anticonformity as individual tendencies (traits). Individuals who tend to respond to social influence with independence are by definition unconcerned with social norms (Nail et al., 2000). In fact, they may not even be aware of what the social norm is for a given behavior. Therefore, when they choose not to conform to a given norm, they do so without strong feelings toward the norm. They are fundamentally indifferent to what others think and act merely on personal preference. These individuals are said to have an independence orientation. Since animal testing is a polarizing issue, we would not expect an independence orientation to be related to intent to oppose animal testing because some individuals are predisposed to react to social influence by actively opposing the norm (Krech et al., 1962). They are fully aware of the prescribed societal norm, but intentionally choose to oppose the norm, often

958

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

from strong convictions. These individuals are said to have an anticonformity orientation. Individuals who are willing to support an organization on a controversial issue are likely to be willing to go against societal norms for a cause in which they believe. Hence, it is hypothesized that an anticonformity orientation is positively related to opposition to animal testing. Method Participants Participants were 418 students in business classes at a large southeastern U.S. university who completed a questionnaire headed A Social Cause Research Survey for extra credit. Although this was a convenience sample, the topic is one of concern to many young people, particularly college students, so the sample is appropriate. There were 217 (52%) men and 201 (48%) women in the sample. Ages ranged from 19 to 55 years, with a mean of 22.3 years (SD = 4.0). There were 266 (63%) Whites, 44 (11%) African-Americans, 54 (13%) Hispanics, 26 (6%) Asian Americans, and 27 (7%) Others, with one missing value. A t-test revealed no statistically significant (p < .05) difference in mean age between men and women, nor was there a statistically significant difference in mean age across the ethnic groups. Crosstabulation showed no statistically significant relationship between gender and race. Procedure An initial 423 questionnaires were collected. To enhance data quality, two items were placed within the other measures to guard against bogus responding (Dollinger & DiLalla, 1996). One item read: I have tried to answer all of these questions honestly and accurately and used a Likert response format ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (of which an answer of less than 6 warranted removal of the respondent). The second item read, If you read this item, do not respond to it (for which any answer warranted removal). Of the original questionnaires returned, five were removed either because these quality check items caught bad respondents or because the questionnaire had data missing for the measures of interest, leaving 418 respondents for the study. Dependent Variable The dependent variable was behavioral intentions, conceptualized as a stated intention to support and become involved with a fictitious organization, the Movement Against Laboratory Testing of Animals (MALTA). A fictitious organization was described instead of a real one in order to avoid contaminating the results with participants prior beliefs about specific organizations. Also, some of the participants might have already belonged to an antitesting

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

959

organization, such as PETA, or have had attitudes toward existing groups that were confounded with attitudes unrelated to animal testing. The last page of the questionnaire described MALTA as focused exclusively on testing issues. After reading this description, the students responded to four statements describing potential behavioral reactions: (1) I plan to join MALTA as a Full Member, (2) I plan to join MALTA as an Associate Member, (3) I plan to donate money to MALTA to the extent I can spare the money, and (4) I plan to contact MALTA and express my support. A 7-point Likert response format was provided. Higher scores indicated greater support for the organization. Exploratory factor analysis using principal axis extraction yielded a single factor summarizing the intercorrelations among these items, so they were summed to form a single measure of behavioral intentions with higher scores indicating greater intent to participate in MALTA (alpha = .92). Control Variables Two control variables were included to control for the undoubted influence of attitudes on behavioral intentions that might obscure or confound the relationship with the personality variables. Attitudes toward, and knowledge of, animal testing were measured by four questions at the beginning of the questionnaire: (1) Do you favor or oppose animal testing on cosmetic products? (2) Do you believe the use of animals in testing cosmetic products is necessary? (3) Use of animals for testing cosmetic products is controversial. How familiar are you with these issues? (4) There are organizations which are trying to restrict, eliminate, or find alternatives to testing on animals. How much do you know about these groups? Five response options were given for each question. Factor analysis showed that the first two items formed one factor and the remaining two items formed a second factor so the responses to the first two items (r = .65, p < .001) were summed so that the higher the resulting scores, the more opposed the respondent was to animal testing. Responses to the second two items (r = .66, p < .001) were summed to measure knowledge of animal testing organizations, with higher scores representing greater knowledge. Independent Variables Independence and anticonformity were measured by eight items adapted from Ringnesss (1970) Independence Orientation and Nonconformity Orientation scales. Participants responded to 10-point rating scales with endpoints labeled Most Like Me and Least Like Me. Factor analysis suggested that two independence items and two anticonformity items best measured these constructs. The independence items were correlated (r = .59, p < .001) and the anticonformity items were correlated (r = .67, p < .001). They were summed so that higher scores indicated greater independence and greater anticonformity.

960

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

Analyses and Results Much of the data were not normally distributed. The estimates of skewness and kurtosis were more than twice their standard errors for most of the variables. The positive skew for behavior reflects the fact that many participants were unwilling to take any actions in support of MALTA, but the negative skew for attitude shows preponderance of opposition to the practice. The negative skew for knowledge reveals that most respondents reported little knowledge of similar organizations. These departures from normality might have influenced the analysis. The correlations appearing in Table 1 show that participant age was only weakly correlated (r = .09) with one of the independent variables, independence, but that there were several differences between men and women1. The biserial correlations reveal that women were more opposed to animal testing (r = .34, p < .01), felt themselves to be more knowledgeable about antitesting groups, and intended to support MALTA more than did men (r = .22, p < .01). This result is consistent with results from prior research (cf., Hagelin et al., 2003). Men described themselves as more likely to be anticonformists (r = -.15, p < .01), consistent with prior research (Goldsmith, Clark, & Lafferty, 2005).
Table 1 Intercorrelations of Variables Behavior Age Sex Attitude Knowledge Independence Anticonformity
a

Variables Behavior -- .06** .22** .42** .33** .02** .14**

Age -.02** -- .02** .08** .07** .09** -.05**

Sexa -- -- -- .34** .12** -.05** -.15**

Attitude .34** -.03** -- -- .16** -.01** -.04**

Know .21** .07** -- .17** -- .11** .15**

Independ .02** .01** -- .03** .09** -- .19**

Anticonf .09** -.05** -.01** .10** .15** --

Biserial correlation where 0 = men and 1 = women. Note: Pearson correlations below the diagonal and Kendalls tau-b correlations above diagonal.

The correlations also show that intention to support MALTA was positively related to holding antitesting attitudes (r = .42, p < .01), having knowledge of antitesting groups (r = .33, p < .01), and anticonformity (r = .14, p < .01), but was unrelated to independence (r = .02). In the light of the nonnormality of the data,
1

A one-way ANOVA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in mean behavior across the ethnic groups, so race was not included in subsequent analyses.

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

961

nonparametric correlations were also computed. These, however, are consistent with the Pearson correlations. To further analyze these relationships, multiple regression was used where behavior was the dependent variable regressed across the independent variables. Three models were sequentially tested (see Table 2).
Table 2 Regression Analyses Variable Beta T MODEL ONE Sig Partiala R2 .052 Adj R2 .048 F(2,415) 11.47 Sig < .001

Age -.056 -1.16 .245 -.057 Sex -.221 -4.62 < .000 .221 MODEL TWO Variable Beta T Sig Partiala Age Sex Attitude Knowledge Variable Age Sex Attitude Knowledge Independence Anticonformity
a

R2

Adj R2

F(4,413)

Sig < .000

-.049 .071 .347 .266 Beta -.039 .092 .344 .244 -.020 .133

-1.15 1.57 7.57 -6.12 T -.914 2.01 7.67 5.57 -.462 3.00

.253 .117 < .000 < .000

-.056 .250 .243 34.44 .077 .349 .288 R2 Adj R2 F(4,413)

MODEL THREE Sig Partiala .361 .045 < .000 < .000 .644 .003

Sig < .000

-.045 .266 .256 24.85 .099 .354 .265 -.023 .146

The partial correlation coefficient in multiple regression analysis is the value that measures the strength of the relationship between the criterion or dependent variable and a single independent variable when the effects of the other independent variables in the model are held constant. . . . This value is used in sequential variable selection methods of regression model estimation to identify the independent variable with the greatest incremental predictive power beyond the independent variables already in the regression model (Hair et al., 1998, p. 146).

In the first model, behavior was regressed across age and sex alone. This analysis replicated the findings that age was unrelated to the dependent variable and that women were more likely to support MALTA than men were. The second model added attitudes toward animal testing and knowledge of antitesting groups. This model also reflected the influence of attitudes and knowledge on behavioral intentions shown in the correlations. The third model introduced the personality constructs, independence and anticonformity. Even when the effects of gender, attitude, and knowledge are included, anticonformity was positively related to behavioral intentions.

962

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

Individuals who scored higher on the anticonformity scale indicating higher levels of anticonformity were more likely to support MALTA, an organization likely to be controversial and outside the mainstream. Discussion Our purpose was to assess the relationships between two personality dimensions, independence and anticonformity, with self-reported intention to support an organization dedicated to protesting against the testing of cosmetics and pharmaceuticals on animals. The goal was to further our understanding of the psychology of this social behavior. We hypothesized that these two personality dimensions might partially explain this behavior. The results showed that while anticonformity was positively related to behavioral intention, independence was not. The study has both strengths and weaknesses. The nonrandom sample prevents confident generalization of the findings to larger populations. However, the sample was relatively large, the measured variables represented variation in the constructs well, and the measures were reliable. The size of the relationship between anticonformity and behavioral intentions was not large in absolute terms (partial correlation = .146), but we also could not show that it was spuriously caused by another variable. The findings contribute to the growing body of research describing attitudes and personality factors associated with opposition to animal testing. It appears that some of those opposed might be motivated by their anticonformity tendencies. It could be that anticonformists seek out socially unpopular activities to align themselves with, or it is possible that among people who share antianimal testing opinions, it is the anticonformists who are most likely to participate in formal organizations to express these opinions. Future research certainly could shed light on this question. Moreover, the findings suggest that anticonformity might be a motivating factor across a variety of social movements. Future research should seek to determine whether anticonformists sympathize with or belong to, more than one socially disapproved organization. Knowledge of such a tendency could be used by leaders of social groups to attract new members by appealing to anticonformist feelings. Advertising and promotion could emphasize a lack of social approval, thereby making these groups more attractive to some individuals. REFERENCES
Asch, S. E. (1953). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In, D. Cartwright & A. Zander, (Eds.), Group dynamics. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

963

Broida, J., Tingley, L., Kimball, R., & Miele, J. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 1 (2), 129-144. Dollinger, S. J., & DiLalla, D. L. (1996). Cleaning up data and running preliminary analyses. In F. T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook (pp. 167-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Driscoll, J. W. (1995). Attitudes toward animals: Species ratings. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 3 (2), 139-150. Eldridge, J. J., & Gluck, J. P. (1997). Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics & Behavior, 6 (3), 239-256. Furnham, A., McManus, C., & Scott, D. (2003). Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoos, 16 (2), 135-146. Galvin, S., Colleg, M. H., & Herzog, H. A. Jr. (1998). Attitudes and dispositional optimism of animal rights demonstrators. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 6 (1), 1-11. Gluck, J. P., & Kubacki, S. R. (1991). Animals in biomedical research: The undermining effect of the rhetoric of the besieged. Ethics & Behavior, 1, 157-173. Goldsmith, R. E., Clark, R. A., & Lafferty, B. A. (2005). Tendency to conform: A new measure and its relationship to psychological reactance. Psychological Reports, 96, 591-594. Hagelin, J., Carlsson, H.-E., & Hau, J. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science, 12 (1), 67-81. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hovey, H. H. (2004, March 31). PETA pulls Pfizer-shareholder lever. Wall Street Journal, p. 1. Jerolmack C. (2003). Tracing the profile of animal rights supporters: A preliminary investigation. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 11 (3), 245-263. Knight, S., Nunkoosing, K., Vrij, A., & Cherryman, J. (2003). Using grounded theory to examine peoples attitudes toward how animals are used. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 11 (4), 307-327. Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1962). Individual in society. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Kruse, C. R. (1999). Gender, views of nature, and support for animal rights. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 7 (3), 179-198. Matthews, S., & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1999). Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 5 (2), 169-175. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (pp. 1130-1187). Chicago: Rand McNally. Nail, P. R., MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (2000). Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (3), 454-470. Nickell, D., & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1999). Ethical ideology and moral persuasion: Personal moral philosophy, gender, and judgements of pro- and anti-animal research propaganda. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 4 (1), 53-64. Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J., & Dunham, C. C. (1996). Gender, gender ideology, and animal rights advocacy. Gender & Society, 10 (4), 464-478. Pifer, L., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 2 (2), 95-113. Plous, S. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychological Science, 7 (6), 352-358.

964

INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH

Ringness, T. A. (1970). Identifying figures, their achievement values, and childrens values as related to actual and predicted achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (3), 174-185. Willis, R. H. (1963). Conformity, independence and anticonformity. Human Relations, 16 (2), 373388. Wuensch, K. L., Jenkins, K. W., & Poteat, G. M. (2002). Misanthropy, idealism and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos, 15 (2), 139-149.