Compassion questionnaire for animals: Scale development and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No measure of compassion for animals exists. Previous scales measured empathy or attitudes towards animals. In line with previous compassion questionnaires for self (CQS) and others (CQO), the proposed Compassion Questionnaire for Animals (CQA) aims to operationalize compassion for animals by grounding it in affective, cognitive, behavioral, and interrelatedness dimensions, each representing a set of skills that can be cultivated through training and practice. Based on the proposed theoretical approach, the CQA items were developed through consultations with a panel of eight graduate students. A large study was conducted to validate the CQA, investigate the relationship between empathy/compassion for other human beings and compassion for animals, and test the role of gender and age in compassion for animals. Results suggested the presence of three dimensions along with a global latent variable. Psychometric characteristics of the CQA and its subscales were robust. These findings were additionally supported by convergent and discriminate evidence; as such, the CQA presented strong associations with measures of empathy for animals and nature relatedness. In addition, empathy and compassion for other human beings and for animals were found to be moderately associated. Gender and age were found to be related to compassion for animals, with women and older individuals displaying higher levels of compassion. The CQA is the first scale that operationalizes compassion for animals as a set of affective, cognitive, behavioral, and interrelatedness skills/abilities with important theoretical and practical implications. Limitations as well as theoretical and practical implications of the CQA are thoroughly discussed. • The CQA is the first scale to measure compassion for animals across emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. • A large study confirmed CQA’s strong psychometric reliability and validity using convergent and discriminant evidence. • CQA revealed three compassion dimensions for animals, plus a global factor representing overall compassion. • Moderate links between empathy and compassion for animals and humans suggest emotional overlap in responses. • Gender and age impact compassion, with women and older people showing more, informing education/training efforts.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".