Impact of Ethical Ideologies on Students’ Attitude toward Animals—A Pakistani Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idealism and relativism are components of ethical ideologies which have been explored in relation to animal welfare and attitudes, and potential cultural differences. The present study investigated how ethical ideologies influenced attitude toward animals among undergraduate students. With the help of stratified random sampling, 450 participants were selected from both private and public sector universities in Pakistan. Research instruments consisted of a demographic sheet, the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ), the Animal Attitude Scale-10-Item Version (AAS-10), and Animal Issue Scale (AIS). The study hypotheses were explored by employing various statistical analyses like Pearson Product Moment Correlation, independent sample t-test, ANOVA, and linear regression. Results revealed that there was a significant positive relationship between ethical ideologies (idealism and relativism) and attitude toward animals in students. Results further showed that students who consumed meat less frequently scored higher on relativism as compared to those who consumed meat more frequently (however, the effect size was small). It was also found that senior students held more idealistic ideologies as compared to freshman students. Finally, idealism positively predicted concern for animal welfare among students. The current study shed light on how ethical ideologies can shape and influence animal welfare. It further highlighted the potential cultural differences for the study variables by allowing for comparison with other published studies. By understanding these dynamics better, researchers will be better equipped to help students become informed citizens that may also influence future decision-making processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".