Recruitment
Results were based on a nationally representative survey of 1,069 Canadian adults (18 and older), conducted by the survey firm Léger from February 1 to February 12, 2022. Based on Canada’s total population (38 million), this sample size involves a margin of error of 3% and a 95% confidence level. Given the topic of the study, quotas were imposed to recruit 619 pet owners and 449 non-pet owners and ensure that the percentage of pet owners in the sample aligns with the percentage observed in the Canadian population1; the final sample included 619 pet owners and 450 non-pet owners. Participants were invited to participate in the study via an email sent by Léger. All invitations were bilingual and participants could complete the questionnaire in either French or English, which are the two official languages in Canada. Respondents were drawn from Léger’s LEO internet panel, a widely used national probability-based online panel that includes over 420,000 active members in Canada. Within this panel, 65% of the profiles have been updated in the last six months, and 50% of the profiles are based on the Statistics Canada census. Most of Léger’s panel members have been randomly recruited by telephone over the past decade, making the panel highly representative of the Canadian population; another third of the panelists were recruited by third parties or through various partnership and advertising programs. The remainder chose to register via Léger’s social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). Léger panels have been used in other peer-reviewed academic research55,56,57,58.
Léger administered the Qualtrics-based online questionnaire. The following measures were taken to maximize participation and the representativity of the final sample: (1) the survey was open for two weeks, so as to leave sufficient time for participants to open the invitation email and complete the questionnaire; (2) the email invites were sent in waves over this 2-week data collection period; (3) participants could pause the survey and continue later, starting exactly where they left off before taking a break, without losing their data; (4) the survey was accessible 24 h a day, seven days a week, from any Internet-connected computer and handheld device (tablets and smartphones). Using a cross-platform approach ensures that highly mobile people, more often younger people, participate in greater numbers59,60; (5) in the event of any technical problems, respondents could email the technical support team or contact Leger directly by phone. Léger’s technical support team was available throughout the fieldwork to help address difficulties, if any; (6) reminder emails were sent to all individuals who were invited to participate but had not yet taken the survey.
A total of 8,501 email invitations were sent to panel members, of whom 1326 opened the invitation email. Among those, 32 refused to take part in the study, and 10 participants were considered non-eligible (i.e., 3 were non-eligible on the basis of their age; 7 failed one of the two attention check questions), 69 exceeded the quotas fixed, and 146 had incomplete data (i.e., they did not reach the end of the questionnaire). This resulted in 1069 qualified completes used for analysis. When considering the total number of email invitations sent to potential participants, the participation rate is 13%; when not considering the individuals who have not opened the invitation email in this calculation, the participation rate is 81%. Median response time among qualified completes was 19 min. Participants were paid the equivalent of CAN$3 directly by Léger for participating in this study. Participants’ compensation takes the form of points that can be redeemed from different merchants (e.g., Starbucks, Tim Hortons) and entry into a draw (full details available via: www.legeropinion.com/fr/recompenses/). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee involving Human Participants of the University of Québec in Montréal (certificate number 2012–372). We confirm that the research and all methods were performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy for the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans.
Poststratification weights
Two poststratification statistical weights were prepared by Léger and provided to the research team, and then used in the main statistical analyses to account for differences between our sample and the 2016 Canadian Census benchmarks. Based on data from Statistics Canada, the following benchmark distributions of Canadians who are 18 years and older from the general population were used to compute the two poststratification weights: gender, age, Province of residence, area lived in (rural, urban, countryside), mother tongue, education, presence of children in the household, marital status, type of dwelling, ethnicity, gross annual household income, employment status. These sociodemographic variables were chosen on the basis of their utility for adjusting the current sample to the general Canadian population, and of recommendations for conducting research comparing pet and non-pet owners44,61. Furthermore, the following sociodemographic factors have been associated with attitudes toward animals and animal-related behaviors: sex/gender35,62,63,64,65,66; age35,62,65,67; education65,68,69,70; area lived in65; income71,72.
The first poststratification statistical weight was used to adjust the current sample to the general Canadian population on these sociodemographic variables. This first poststratification weight variable was included in the analyses conducted on the entire sample. The second poststratification weight variable adjusts both the pet and non-pet owners subgroups to the general Canadian population on these same sociodemographic variables; doing so ensures that both subgroups are each adjusted idiosyncratically to the Canadian population and maximises these subgroups’ comparability. This second poststratification weight was included in the analyses that involved comparing pet and non-pet owners. Together, these methodological and statistical procedures allow for the improved generalization of findings, and ensure that comparisons of pet vs. non-pet owners are not confounded by sociodemographic differences.
Questionnaire and measuring instruments
The measuring instruments were translated from English to French using a back-to-back translation procedure or a committee approach. When conducting this translation, the research assistants were instructed by the lead researcher to give priority to loyalty of meaning and familiarity of the content instead of strict loyalty to the original language (i.e., a decentering approach73). All the measures used for this study have been selected on the basis of their validity and established psychometric properties. The measures reported for the current study were taken from a larger representative survey and dataset pertaining to perceptions of animals and humans, identification with animals, social attitudes, and current issues.
Sociodemographic and pet ownership information
The sociodemographic data included the following categories: language of questionnaire (English or French), gender (male, female, other), age (18–21, 22–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, 55–59, 60–64, 65–69, 70–74, > 75 years), education level (Primary school diploma, High school diploma, Diploma of Collegial studies (e.g., CEGEP), Certificates and Diplomas (University), Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, Doctoral degree, Other), dwelling type (apartment/condo, house, other), area lived in (city, suburb, countryside), gross annual household income (less than $20,000, $20,000–$39,999, $40,000–$59,999, $60,000–$79,999, $80,000–$99,999, $100 000–$119,999, $120,000–$139,999, $140,000–$159,999, $160,000–$179,999, $180,000–$199,999, over $200,000), employment (full-time, part-time, self-employed, student, homemaker, unemployed, retired), ethnicity (White, South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Arab, Latin American, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, Other), marital status (common-law union, married, separated, divorced, single, widowed, single parent, Other), number of children currently living at home, political orientation on social and economic issues (on a scale from 1 (Left/Liberal) to 7 (Right/Conservative)). To measure pet ownership, participants were asked: “Do you have one or more pet(s) currently?” (yes, no).
Attitudes toward and relations with animals
Social identification with animals was assessed using the Identification with Animal Measure (IWAM16). The 15-item measure is designed to assess how humans identify with animals as a group on three dimensions: human-animal similarity (e.g., ‘Animals, including human animals, are very similar to each other’; α = 0.86), solidarity with animals (e.g., ‘I feel solidarity with animals’; α = 0.90), and animal pride (e.g., ‘I am proud to be an animal’; α = 0.96). Responses were made on a 1 (not agree at all) to 7 (very strongly agree) scale.
Positive contact with pets was assessed using three items from Auger and Amiot20,41 (e.g., ‘You spend time with pets’; α = 0.96), and two additional items assessing time spent with pets and activities done with pets; this measure hence covers both quantitative (i.e., frequency) and qualitative (i.e., reciprocity and affective valence) aspects of contact with pets (see74,75,76). Items were rated on a scale from 1 (never) to 6 (always).
Positive attitudes toward non-pet animals were measured by asking participants to indicate to what extent they like or dislike animals from 12 different species; these species were selected given their relevance to the Canadian population20. Based on the instructions used in prior large-scale studies77,78, participants were asked to indicate their liking of each animal species on a scale from 1 (strongly dislike) to 7 (strongly like). These 12 animal species were then regrouped into the variable representing positive attitudes toward non-pet animals (i.e., composite score including wild animals, pests, and farm animals; α = 0.90).
Intergroup relations
To measure positive attitudes toward outgroups and positive attitudes toward ingroups, participants were presented with a list of different social groups; four represented outgroups (e.g., ‘People with different religious beliefs’; α = 0.84) and two represented ingroups (e.g., ‘Members of your family’; α = 0.67). Participants were asked to refer to a feeling thermometer ranging from 1 (negative or cold feelings) to 100 (positive feelings), and to rate their attitudes toward each group using a slider.
Social dominance orientation was assessed using the SDO7(s) scale79. The scale is designed to measure participants’ preferences for group-based hierarchy (e.g., ‘Group equality should not be our primary goal’; α = 0.83). Responses were made on a 1 (strongly oppose) to 7 (strongly favor) scale.
Environmental attitudes
Environmental concerns were evaluated with 15 items from Schultz30. This measure captures participants’ concerns toward different living entities as a result of environmental problems: biospheric environmental concerns (e.g., ‘Marine life’, ‘Plants’; α = 0.94), egoistic environmental concerns (e.g., ‘Me’, ‘My future’; α = 0.89), and altruistic environmental concerns (e.g., ‘Humanity’, ‘Future generations’; α = 0.88). Participants rated each item on a scale from 1 (not important) to 7 (supreme importance). The Inclusion of Nature in the Self (INS) scale assessed participants’ interconnection with nature80. Participants
were presented with a series of pictures representing two overlapping circles labelled ‘self’ and ‘nature’, and asked to circle the picture that best describes their relationship with the natural environment. Scores ranged from 1 (for circles that touched but did not overlap) to 7 (for circles that overlapped almost completely).
The five-item New Human Interdependence Paradigm (NHIP) scale was used to assess participants’ beliefs in human–environment interdependence (e.g., ‘Human beings can progress only by conserving nature’s resources’; α = 0.9029). Participants indicated their agreement with each item using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale.
Meat consumption
To assess average number of weekly meat portions, participants were asked: ‘How many portions of meat do you eat per week (on average)?’. Participants were also asked to indicate which diet best described their eating habits using the following scale: vegan (1); vegetarian (2); pescetarian (3); semi-vegetarian/flexitarian (4); omnivore trying to reduce meat consumption (5); meat eater/omnivore (6).
Rationalization of meat consumption was assessed using the 16-item 4N Scale38, which measures the endorsement of four types of justifications that legitimize meat consumption: meat consumption being natural (e.g., ‘Our human ancestors ate meat all the time’), necessary (e.g. ‘A healthy diet requires at least some meat’), normal (e.g., ‘It is normal to eat meat’), and nice (e.g., ‘Meat is delicious’). Participants rated each item on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Answers on the four subscales were combined to create a composite score, encompassing the four justifications for meat consumption (α = 0.91).
Statistical analyses
The independent-samples t-tests, descriptive statistics, correlations, and multiple regressions were performed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) The mediation analyses were conducted using the Mplus software (Version 8.8). Table 1 presents the results of the independent-samples t-tests conducted to compare pet and non-pet owners on the outcome measures; the data used for these analyses are weighted (using the second poststratification weight). Table 2 present the results of the correlational analyses; the data used for these analyses are also weighted (using the first poststratification weight). Table 3 presents the results from the multiple regressions; these analyses include the first poststratification weight. Table 4 and Supplementary Tables S2-S5 present the results from the mediation analyses; these analyses include the first poststratification weight.
Open practices statement
This study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/bqyp3/?view_only=25ae39dbd0e84df08769afc60c2baf26. The hypotheses pertaining to the associations between the three dimensions of identification with animals and the outcome variables were pre-registered, whereas the analyses involving the pet ownership and contact with pets variables were exploratory. The results of analyses conducted on additional dependent variables pertaining to the perceptions of animals and of humans that were assessed in this study are reported in the Supplementary Materials document (Supplementary Tables S6 to S10). The questionnaire measures used for the analyses reported in this paper are also available in the Supplementary Materials document.