Gender, Gender Ideology, and Animal Rights Advocacy

Author(s): Charles W. Peek, Nancy J. Bell, Charlotte C. Dunham

Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Aug., 1996), pp. 464-478
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189682 .
Accessed: 11/03/2011 01:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and
Society.

http://www.jstor.org
 Research Report

GENDER, GENDER IDEOLOGY,

AND ANIMALRIGHTSADVOCACY

CHARLESW.PEEK
NANCYJ. BELL
CHARLOTTE C. DUNHAM
TexasTechUniversity

Researchon women'spreponderanceamonganimalrightsadvocatesexplainsit exclusivelyas a product

of women'ssocialization, emphasizinga relational orientationof care and nurturingthat extends to
animals. The authorspropose a more structural explanation: Women'sexperiences with structural
oppressionmakethemmoredisposed to egalitarian ideology,whichcreates concernfor animal rights.
Using datafrom a 1993 national sample, the authorsfind that an egalitariangender ideology is a key
differencein women'sand men'sroutesto animal rightsadvocacy:It differentiatesthose more likely to
endorse animal rights among womenbut not among men. Neitherthis ideology nor other variables in
the analysis, however,accountfor women'sgreater overall supportof animal rights in the combined
sample. Reasonsfor this latterfindingare explored.

Since the publicationof Singer's Animal Liberationin 1975, the animal rights
movement has become a visible and influentialforce. It has spawned 600 or so
organizationstypically subscribingto similarrightsfor animalsand humans,'the
largestof which (People for the EthicalTreatmentof Animals [PETA])has more
than 300,000 members(Myers 1990). Movement activitieshave included widely
publicizedattackson animalresearchers(Baldwin 1993; Johnson 1990), the 1990
Marchfor the Animals in Washington,D.C., and massive, successful lobbying to
protectanimalsthroughfederallaws (Jamisonand Lunch 1992). This movement
has garneredthe attentionnot only of animalresearchers,one of its main targets,
but also of social scientistsintriguedwith the natureof the movement(e.g., Jagger
1992; Jasperand Poulsen 1993) and the characteristicsof the participants(Galvin
and Herzog 1992a;Herzog 1993; Jamisonand Lunch 1992; Pious 1991; Richards
and Krannich1991).
The most strikingfinding to emerge from this researchis the preponderanceof
women in the animalrightsmovement,notedby qualitativeresearchers(Jasperand

REPRINTREQUESTS:Charles W.Peek, Departmentof Sociology,TexasTechUniversity,Lubbock,TX

79409.

GENDER& SOCIETY, Vol.10No.4, August1996 464-478

? 1996Sociologists
forWomenin Society
464
 Peek et al. / GENDER AND ANIMAL RIGHTS 465

Nelkin 1992; Sperling 1988) and estimatedat about 68 to 80 percent by various

surveys of activists (JamisonandLunch 1992; Pious 1991; Richardsand Krannich
1991). Women also exhibit more concern about the moral treatmentof animals
(Gallup and Beckstead 1988; Galvin and Herzog 1992b; Herzog, Betchart,and
Pittman 1991; Kellert and Berry 1987), display greaterhumanisticand less utili-
tarianviews toward animals (Kellert and Berry 1987), and report they are more
likely than men to take action to promoteanimal welfare (Herzog, Betchart,and
Pittman1991). Only threeof these studiesoffer explanationsof genderdifferences
in animal rights advocacy (Galvin and Herzog 1992a; Herzog, Betchart, and
Pittman1991; Kellertand Berry 1987). All focus exclusively on gendervariations
in socialization, linking more emphasis on caring, nurturing,and expressiveness
among women to their greaterconcernwith animalrights. What we know to date
aboutanimalrightsadvocacycomes exclusively fromsamplesof studentsoranimal
rights activists. With the exception of a 1978 nationalsurvey conductedwhen the
animalrightsmovement was in its infancy (Kellert 1980; Kellertand Berry 1987),
none of this researchuses a nationallyrepresentativesample.
In this article,we apply feminist theoryto the questionof why women aremore
likely to advocate animal rights. After groundingthe socialization explanationin
one branchof feminist thought,we draw from other feminist theory to propose a
more structuralanswer that researchhas ignored:An egalitariangender ideology
arising from women's structuralexperiences with oppression and domination
generatesmore concernfor animalrights.We use datafrom a 1993 nationalsample
to examine of this explanation.

FEMINIST EXPLANATIONS OF GENDER DIFFERENCES

IN ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY

Socialization
The essentialist position of some aspects of culturalfeminist theory points to
socialization and personality as the key source of variationbetween women and
men. Differences in socialization producemany and deep-rootedessential gender
differencesin personality,some of which may encouragesupportfor animalrights.
Both Chodorow (1978) and Gilligan (1982) argue that women acquire a more
relationalorientationtoward the world (Chodorowsees this orientationresulting
from women's mothering and maturinggirls' identification with their mothers;
Gilligan traces it to women acquiringa moralorientationbased on relationsrather
than on a hierarchyof universal and absolute standardsof rights and wrongs).
Donovan (1990) and Adams (1994) note that such relationalthinking may make
women feel more connectedto natureandotherliving beings, which, in turn,could
generatemore supportfor animalrights.Embeddedin this relationalorientationis
maternalthinking-an emphasison caringandempathyfor others,which Ruddick
(1980) contends promotes a concern for persons whose well-being is at risk.
466 GENDER & SOCIETY / August 1996

Extension of such a concern to animalscould also producegreateranimal rights

advocacy among women.2
One studyhas directlyexaminedthe impactof a caringandempatheticorienta-
tion on genderdifferencesin animalrightsadvocacy.Herzog,Betchart,andPittman
(1991) found that among a limited sample of college students, stereotypical
feminineempathetic/expressiveattitudeson the Bem Sex Role Inventorycorrelated
positively and stereotypicalmasculineinstrumentalviews negativelywith concern
for animal welfare. Gender,however, accountedfor nearlyas much variancein a
multipleregressionanalysis as did students'sex-role attitudes,indicatingthe need
to look beyond gender differences in relationalorientationas an explanationof
women's greateraffinityfor animalrights.

SocialStructure

Beyond socialization lies social structure,posited by nonessentialistcultural

feminists and socialist feminists as the basic source of genderdifferences.These
perspectives recognize variationsbetween men and women. Rather than being
indicative of deeply rooted differences in individual tendencies, however, such
variationsare tracedto men's and women's differentstructurallocations. Nones-
sentialistculturalfeminist theoryfocuses on patriarchalarrangementsas the well-
spring of genderdifferences;socialist feminist theory locates these differencesin
patriarchalas well as economic hierarchicalstructures(Gerson 1985; Wharton
1991).
These structuralperspectiveslocate women's elevatedsupportfor animalrights
in their greaterexperiences with hierarchicaldomination.One response to such
experiences is an egalitariangender ideology cutting across all feminist thought
that opposes this and othertypes of domination.This ideology plays a key role in
Tolleson Rinehart's(1992) recent work attemptingto explain the gender gap in
politics. She shows thatthis ideology,when combinedwith genderidentityto form
gender consciousness, produces greatergender variationsin political views and
actions than the surprisinglysmall differences uncovered thus far (see Epstein
1988). Womenwho have a genderegalitarianideology and identify strongly with
women exhibit political attitudesand behaviorsconsiderablydifferentfrom men.
The usefulnessof this ideology in accountingfor othergendervariationsin politics
suggests that it may also help to understandgender differences in animal rights
advocacy.
This themeemergesin severalfeministtheoriesas well. Donovan(1990) shows
thatparallelsbetween women's and animals'dominationappearin the writingsof
earlierfeminists (e.g., Fuller[1845] 1971; Gilman 1912, 1913), a largenumberof
whom supportedanimal welfare reformor vegetarianism.Ecofeministsalso sug-
gest that awareness of women's patriarchaldomination may alter orientations
towardnatureandanimals.They rejecthierarchicalideologies thatareheld respon-
sible for the subjugationof both women and nature,advocatinginsteadnonhierar-
chical andegalitarianrelationsbetweengenders,as well as with natureandanimals
(Adams 1994; Alaimo 1994; Griffin 1978; Salleh 1992; Warrenand Cady 1994).
 Peeket al. / GENDERANDANIMALRIGHTS 467

Qualitativeresearchof small numbersof animalrightsactivistsfinds a link between

an egalitariangender orientationand animal rights advocacy (Jasperand Nelkin
1992; Sperling 1988); however, broaderquantitativestudies have not addressed
this question.
Ourpurposeis to examine the extent to which an egalitariangender ideology is
relatedto genderdifferencesin animalrightssupport.Using ordinaryleast squares
regression,we first assess whetherwomen endorseanimalrightsmorethando men
and whethercontrolsfor this ideology affectany genderdifferencein endorsement.
Because dissimilarities in men's and women's structurallocations, culture, and
consciousness (Gerson and Peiss 1985; Stacey and Thore 1985) may produce
different routes to animal rights advocacy, we then explore how an egalitarian
genderideology andothervariablesaffectanimalrightssupportwithineach gender.

METHODS

Data
The 1993 GeneralSocial Survey,a probabilitysurvey of persons 18 years and
olderliving in English-speakinghouseholdsin the continentalUnited States(Davis
and Smith 1993a, 1993b), providesthe data for our analyses. Sample sizes for our
analyses are substantiallysmaller than the total numberof individuals surveyed
(1,606). A split-ballot procedurethat asked gender-orientationitems of only a
portion of the sample eliminated526 respondents.Most of the other omissions-
slightly more than 200-were because of missing values on one or more items in
the EnvironmentModule of this survey, which contained the two animal rights
items and measures of attitudes toward science and the environment that we
describe below.3 Failure to give usable responses on one or more of the other
attitudinalor demographicvariablesaccounts for the final set of omissions. The
final sample we use for our analysis thus consists of 819 and 807 respondents,
respectively,for the two measuresof animalrights supportwe discuss below.

Measures
Table 1 contains detailed informationon the measurementof all variables.
Below, we discuss our selection of these variables and generally describe their
measurement.

Animal rights support. In 1993, the GeneralSocial Survey for the first time
included two animal rights items. On a 5-point scale, respondentsindicatedtheir
agreementwith these statements:"Animalsshould have the same moralrightsthat
humanbeings do" (AMRIGHTS)and "Itis rightto use animalsfor medical testing
if it might save humanlives" (AMTESTS).These are centralissues in the animal
00
TABLE
..
1: Variable
. -. . ^ Descriptions
Meana SD
Variable Content Women Men Women Men

AMRIGHTS Moralrightsof animals 2.91 2.47c 1.15 1.11

AMTESTS Medicaltestingof animals 2.71 2.26c 1.14 1.01
GENDER Male/female 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
EGALFEM Egalitarian genderideology 0.16 0.05 0.95 0.91
EDUC Educationcompleted 13.20 13.44 2.67 3.35
INCOME Yearlyfamilyincome 14.05 15.11c 5.16 4.69
OCCPRES Occupationalprestige(NORC1980 scale)b 42.22 44.170 12.65 13.39
AGE Age in years 43.71 44.32 16.61 15.85
MARRIED Currentlymarried 0.53 0.60 0.50 0.49
CHILDREN Has children 0.77 0.69c 0.42 0.46
RACE Not Black/Black 0.12 0.07C 0.32 0.26
ATTEND Churchattendance 4.16 3.46c 2.70 2.76
NOMEAT Refuses to eat meat 1.46 1.32c 0.75 0.61
CONSPOL Politicalviews 4.08 4.21 1.28 1.34
PROENV Environmental attitudes -0.02 0.05 0.95 1.00
SCIHARM Science does harmversus good overall 2.52 2.31c 0.96 1.02
SCIWORSE Scientificchange makes natureworse 2.94 2.73c 1.02 1.02
a. Allmeans and standarddeviationsare based on the 427 womenand 380 men who had no missing
respondentswe use in analyses of the AMTESTSmeasureof animalrightssupport.Meansand stan
and the 385 men involvedin analyses of the AMRIGHTS measureare almostidentical;they are the r
in this table,plus 12 otherswho gave a usable response to the AMRIGHTS measure.
b. Housewives-married women who replied that they were "keeping house," who were not currentl
had never worked outside the home for pay for a least a year-were assigned an occupational presti
Lowe, and Williams (1991), based on previous work by Bose and Rossi (1983).
c. t test of difference in means is statistically significant at or beyond the .05 level. We discuss these d
with Table 2, which presents correlation coefficients that assess the magnitude of these differences.
 Peek et al. / GENDER AND ANIMAL RIGHTS 469

rights movement.The first statementtaps a core belief of animalrights advocates,

distinguishing them from nonadvocates (including less radical animal welfare
proponents);the second concerns a matteron which there is disagreementeven
among activists (Plous 1991). The items did not correlatestrongly enough to be
combinedinto a single measure(r = .45 for women and .42 for men) and aretreated
separatelyin the analyses.

Egalitarian gender ideology. We assembled a scale of egalitarian gender

ideology from three questions that directly assessed respondents' positions on
genderequality.Two askedaboutequalityoutsidethe family ("Womenshould take
care of runningtheirhomes and leave runningthe countryup to men";"Itis much
betterfor everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the
womantakescare of the home and family"),andone inquiredaboutequalityinside
families ("Itis more importantfor a wife to help her husband'scareerthanto have
one herself').4 Separateprincipal component analyses among men and women
producedone factorfor each genderthatcaptured65 and68 percentof the variance
for men and women, respectively,with loadingsrangingfrom .74 to .85 and alpha
coefficients of .72 (men) and .74 (women). Scores on this factor-EGALFEM-
comprise our index of egalitariangenderideology.

Other variables. Because previousresearch(Galvin and Herzog 1992a; Jami-

son and Lunch 1992; Kellert 1980; Richardsand Krannich1991) has indicated
other demographicand attitudinal/behavioralvariables may be associated with
animal rights advocacy, we include them in our analysis. Besides gender (GEN-
DER), the demographic variables are age (AGE), level of education (EDUC),
yearly family income (INCOME), occupationalprestige (OCCPRES), whether
respondentsare currentlymarried(MARRIED),whetherthey have any children
(CHILDREN),and respondents'race (RACE). Single-item attitudinaland behav-
ioral variablesare involvement in traditionalWesternreligions measuredby fre-
quencyof churchattendance(ATTEND),how oftenrespondents"refuseto eat meat
for moralor environmentalreasons"(NOMEAT),and self-identificationof politi-
cal views from liberalto conservative(CONSPOL).
Since multiple items were available to measure environmentalconcern (18
items) andattitudestowardscience (4 items),we ranprincipalcomponentsanalyses
(varimax rotation) on each set of items separatelyfor men and women. These
analyses produceda numberof environmentalconcern factors, many with unac-
ceptably low alpha coefficients. Takinginto account alpha levels, consistency of
factorsfor women and men, anddistributionalpropertiesof the resultingscales, we
selected one environmentalconcern scale (3 items) to include in our analyses
(PROENV).Analyses of the 4 items aboutattitudestowardscience also resultedin
unscalablefactors, so we retainedthe two items with the highest loading on each
of the two factors-SCIHARM and SCIWORSE-tapping, respectively, the
strengthof respondents'views of the harm posed by science and their opinions
about whetherscientific change makes things worse for nature.5
470 GENDER & SOCIETY / August 1996

FINDINGS

GenderIdeologyand Women'sGreaterAnimalRightsSupport
Like resultsfrom researchon genderand animalrightsactivism,women in this
national sample exhibit more supportfor animal rights than do men. Zero-order
correlationcoefficients in Table2 show thatwomen favor equalrightsfor animals
(AMRIGHTS)and oppose medicaltesting of animals(AMTESTS)more strongly
than do men. The associationof genderwith the AMRIGHTSmeasureis among
the largest displayed by any variable and is the largest of any variable with
AMTESTS.
Otherzero-ordercorrelationcoefficientsin Table2, however,show little poten-
tial of an egalitariangender ideology to account for women's greaterbacking of
animal rights. Coefficients in the second column of Table 2 indicate that the
associationof EGALFEMto GENDERis slightly below the .05 level of statistical
significance(p = .058). Connectionsof this orientationto the animalrightssupport
measuresare also weak. The correlationcoefficientof EGALFEMto AMRIGHTS
barely attains statistical significance, and its coefficient with AMTESTS is not
significant.
Results from multipleregressionanalyses in Table 2 concur.Before any other
variablesenter the regressionanalyses,GENDERexhibits unstandardizedregres-
sion coefficients (B) of .44 with AMRIGHTSand .45 with AMTESTS(not shown
in the table). Controls for egalitariangender ideology (model 1) only negligibly
reduce these coefficients. In fact, entryof all variablesinto the analysis (model 2)
fails to erode appreciablythe link of GENDER to animal rights support:B only
slightly decreases, and the standardizedregressioncoefficients (b) of GENDER
with both measures remain the largest (AMTESTS) or second largest (AM-
RIGHTS) among all 15 variables. The influence of gender on animal rights
advocacy,therefore,seems essentially independentof an egalitariangenderideol-
ogy as well as the other 13 variables.

AnimalRightsSupportwithinEachGender

Gender ideology and animal rights support While an egalitariangenderideol-

ogy could not accountfor women's greateranimalrightsadvocacyin the combined
sample,it does distinguishamongwomen who do anddo not supportanimalrights.
Zero-ordercorrelationcoefficients in Table 3 show that more egalitarianwomen
are significantly higher on both measuresof animal rights support.EGALFEM
remains associated at the .05 level with AMRIGHTSafter controls for all other
variables, and its relationshipwith AMTESTS continues to be significant at this
level (B = .125, b = .102, p = .048; not shown in the table)until the last step of this
regression analysis, when controls for age reduce it below an acceptablelevel of
statisticalsignificance.Among men (see Table4), neitherthe zero-ordercorrelation
coefficients nor the regressioncoefficients-both negatively connectedto animal
TABLE2: Gender,Gender Ideology, and AnimalRights Support
AMRIGHTS (n = 819)
Model1 Model2
Variable r withGENDER r B b B b r

GENDER - .190*** .430*** .182 .366*** .159 .202**

EGALFEM .067 .068* .064 .052 .012 .009 .058
EDUC -.040 -.166*** -.093* -.103 -. 116*
INCOME -.107** -.198*** -.019* -.084 -.181**
OCCPRES -.075* -.193*** -.005 -.053 -.154**
AGE -.019 -.150*** -.010*** -.134 -.152**
MARRIED -.066 -.120*** .004 .002 -.108**
CHILDREN .083* -.097** -.106 -.040 -.068
RACE .073* .067 .028 .007 .103**
ATTEND .128*** -.146*** -.060*** -.143 -.071*
CONSPOL -.051 -.168*** -.030 -.034 -.131**
NOMEAT .103** .191*** .224*** .136 .115**
PROENV -.037 .188*** .193*** .162 .154**
SCIHARM .103** .167*** .081* .070 .127**
SCIWORSE .103** .239*** .152*** .135 .173**
R 39*** R2 = .223***

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

472 GENDER & SOCIETY / August 1996

TABLE3: Gender Ideology and Animal Rights Support among Women

AMRIGHTS(n = 434) AMTESTS (n = 427)
Variable r B b r B b

EGALFEM .162*** .137' .111 .098* .056 .046

EDUC -.122** -.051* -.119 -.114* -.031 -.074
INCOME -.132** -.011 -.050 -.157** -.020 -.091
OCCPRES -.120** -.001 -.015 -.141** -.003 -.032
AGE -.153** -.006 -.084 -.181 ** -.011 ** -.160
MARRIED -.092 -.060 -.026 -.073 -.040 -.017
CHILDREN -.116* -.184 -.068 -.063 -.024 -.009
RACE .036 -.124 -.034 .093 .075 .021
ATTEND -.219*** -.067*** -.158 -.101* -.016 -.037
CONSPOL -.168*** -.035 -.039 -.143** -.049 -.055
NOMEAT .159*** .174* .115 .084 .042 .028
PROENV .170*** .177** .147 .123** .150* .126
SCIHARM .152** .121* .100 .136** .084 .070
SCIWORSE .209*** .172** .152 .181*** .148** .132
R2 = .194** R2 = .128***
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***ps .001.

TABLE4: Gender Ideology and Animal Rights Support among Men

AMRIGHTS(n = 385) AMTESTS (n = 380)
Variable r B b r B b

EGALFEM -.081 -.111 -.093 -.023 -.050 -.047

EDUC -. 197*** -.029 -.087 -.110* -.016 -.052
INCOME -.244*** -.035** -.147 -.172*** -.024 -.110
OCCPRES -.250*** -.007 -.090 -.145** -.003 -.037
AGE -.148** -.014** -.197 -.113* -.01 1* -.124
MARRIED -.128** -.104 -.046 -. 128* -.004 -.002
CHILDREN -.118* -.029 -.012 -.114* -.063 -.029
RACE .084 .203 .047 .086 .262 .068
ATTEND -.126** -.051* -.158 -.100* -.033 -.089
CONSPOL -.154** -.025 -.030 -.100** .007 .010
NOMEAT .200*** .304*** .169 .117* .156 .095
PROENV .229*** .223*** .197 .216*** .204*** .198
SCIHARM .149** .042 .039 .079 .024 .025
SCIWORSE .241** .118' .107 .125* .038 .038
R2=.243** R2= .123***
*p .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

rights support-demonstrate any relationshipof an egalitariangenderideology to

either index of animalrights advocacy;thus, an egalitariangenderorientationis a
route to endorsementof animalrightsamong women but not men.

Other variables and animal rights support. Connectionsof othervariablesto

women's andmen's animalrightssupportexhibitmore similaritiesthandifferences
 Peek et al. / GENDER AND ANIMAL RIGHTS 473

in Tables3 and4. Afterall variableshave enteredthe regressionequation,bothmen

and women who attend church less, who do not eat meat, and who have a
proenvironmentalstancesubscribemore to equalrightsfor animals.As well, more
negative attitudestowardscience (SCIWORSE)mean greaterendorsementof the
AMRIGHTS item among both genders, although perhaps a little more so for
women, in that SCIHARM is also related to their but not to men's approvalof
AMRIGHTS.Finally,women and men with lower socioeconomic status-women
with less educationand men with less income-display greaterbacking of equal
rightsfor animals.The lone differenceis thatyoungermen, butnot youngerwomen,
are more likely to favor equal rights for animals.
This pattern of between-gendersimilarity in routes to animal rights support
continues with the AMTESTS item. Younger women join younger men here in
opposing the use of animals in medical testing, even if such testing would save
human lives, while both women and men who are proenvironmentmore strongly
oppose medical testing of animals. Again, there is a lone difference:Women but
not men who are more negative toward science (SCIWORSE) display greater
disagreementwith the use of animalsin medical testing. Among both genders,all
variables capture less of the variance in the more radical AMTESTS than AM-
RIGHTS measure.

DISCUSSION

Ourfindingsconfirmon a nationallevel resultsfromresearchon limitedsamples

of animalrights activists and college students:Womensupportanimalrightsmore
than men do. Although an egalitariangender ideology distinguishes women (but
not men) who endorseanimalrightsfrom those who do not, this ideology does not
account for women's greater overall support of animal rights in the combined
sample.
Why? One reason is that not enough women are sufficiently strong on this
ideology for it to make much difference in their overall level of animal rights
support. Recall from Table 2 that women's mean score on this ideology is just
slightly above that of men (.16 to .05, respectively-a nonsignificantdifference).
A more importantreason is that women's overall greaterlevel of animal rights
advocacy likely results from a combination of forces, only one of which-an
egalitariangender ideology-we could satisfactorilymeasure.One such possible
force is gender consciousness. As discussed earlier, Tolleson Rinehart's(1992)
researchon the gendergap in politics shows thatgenderideology, when combined
with genderidentificationinto a measureof genderconsciousness,producesgreater
differences in women's and men's political attitudes and behavior. We had no
measure of gender identificationin this data set and thus could not examine the
effects of gender ideology jointly with gender identification on animal rights
support.
A second force is identity with companion/petanimals, likely greateramong
women than men due to women's structurallocation within the household. Such
474 GENDER & SOCIETY / August 1996

identity could increase women's concern for animals and forge a link between
gender and animal rights support. A strong connection exists between having
animal pets or companions and animal rights activism; the vast majority (about
90 percent) of participantsin the animal rights movements (Jamison and Lunch
1992; Richards and Krannich 1991) have pets, typically several (Richards and
Krannich1991). Furthermore,88 percentof personswho have pet animals(located
in 58 percent of U.S. households) say they consider their pets to be membersof
their families (Gallup 1990). This tendency to see animals as similar to human
family members,combinedwith the pressurethatwomen's structurallocationsput
on them to provide care for family members(Gersteland Gallagher 1994), could
generatemore contactand identitywith animalsamong women than men.
Finally, other reactions of women to the experience of patriarchaloppression
may increasetheir supportfor animalrights. One such reactionmay be empathy
with beings perceived as undergoingsimilar oppression.If one has experienced
oppression, it does not necessarily take egalitarianideology to heighten both
awarenessof andconcernfor othersencounteringsimilarordeals.Ourfindingsthat
both men and women lower in socioeconomicand age structuresare more likely to
affirmanimalrightson one or bothmeasuresareconsistentwith this interpretation.
Althoughan egalitariangenderideology may be unableto accountfor women's
overall greater animal rights advocacy in the combined sample, it is useful in
understandingdifferencesin animalrightssupportamong women. Its association
with both measuresof this support(with AMRIGHTSafter all controls and with
AMTESTSafterall controlsbut age) suggeststhatwomen's structuralexperiences
providea routeto endorsementof animalrightsthroughthisideology.Animalrights
supportamong men is not relatedto an egalitariangenderideology.
The overridingsimilaritiesthatexist in relationshipsof othervariablesto men's
andwomen's endorsementof animalrightshighlightgenderideology as a different
route to animal rights advocacy.As researchon limited samples of animal rights
activistssuggests, both women and men who supportanimalrightsin this national
sample are younger, are less likely to eat meat, participateless in mainstream
religion,andevaluatescience morenegatively(women slightly more so thanmen).
Two other similaritiesin women's and men's routes to animal rights supportare
more notable,because they challengeeithercertaintheoryor researchconcerning
animalrights.Men andwomen who takea proenvironmentalstancearemorelikely
to endorseanimalrights,suggestingthatecofeministexplanationsof animalrights
advocacy need to consider the connectionof proenvironmentalattitudesto men's
as well as women's animal rights support. Unlike findings from research on
restrictedsamples of activists, men and women who supportanimal rights in this
nationalsample are from lower ratherthanhighersocioeconomic locations.

CONCLUSION

Althougha structurallyrelatedegalitariangenderideology does not accountfor

why women exhibit more animalrightssupportthanmen, it does provide the key
 Peek et al. / GENDER AND ANIMAL RIGHTS 475

difference in women's and men's routesto animalrights advocacy in this national

sample: Egalitarianwomen but not egalitarianmen are more likely to endorse
animal rights. Several factors,however, temperthis conclusion. First, the amount
of variance capturedin animal rights support,although greaterfor AMRIGHTS
than AMTESTS, is not large for either item. Inclusion of other variables,such as
gender identitywith which egalitarianideology may interactin influencinganimal
rights supportor respondents'involvement with animal companions/pets,might
increase the varianceaccountedfor and alter our results. Second, a shift of focus
from attitudestowardanimalrightsto participationin the movement-the focus of
much previous research-could change these results.Third,our analyses provide
no clues about the directionof effects between an egalitariangenderideology and
the adoptionof an animalrightsviewpoint or otherattitudinal/behavioral variables
related to this viewpoint, such as attitudestoward science and the environment,
church attendance,and consumptionof meat.
Finally, the variablesin this study fail to capturethe complexity and interplay
of forces thatproduceanimalrights advocacy.For example, our findings have not
tappedsocializationforces-such as a relationalorientationemphasizingcare and
empathy-that may produce animal rights support,much less any interplaybe-
tween social structureand socialization responsible for this support. Different
structurallocations and the experiences they produce certainly affect ongoing
socialization, while previous socialization channels interpretationand thus the
impact of these structuralexperiences. Animal rights advocacy is more likely a
resultof such interplaythana singlecreationof eithersocialstructureor socialization.
Equally important,adequateexplanationsof genderdifferencesin animalrights
advocacy-whether using structuralor some combinationof structuralandsociali-
zation forces-must consider agency. Wharton(1991, 383) argues that structural
explanations "mustrecognize the processes throughwhich individualswho share
an experience of domination constitute themselves as actors with interest and
political goals."While agency is affectedby structurallyprovidedopportunitiesfor
action, it also affects structure;the same would also hold for agency and socializa-
tion. Subsequentresearchon gender must attend to the interplayof agency with
structureand socializationas well as the interplaybetween structureand socializa-
tion. Such attentionnot only will producebetterunderstandingof the link between
gender and animal rights supportbut also will yield more complete explanations
of other gender differences.

NOTES

1. Jasperand Nelkin (1992) point out that some animalrights advocatescontend thatanimalshave
rightsequal to those of humansandthusshouldbe able to live theirlives withoutany humaninterference.
These advocates denounce specieism, a term coined to reflect a hierarchicalsystem with humans on
top. Others argue that animals have some but not totally equal rights comparedwith humansand thus
deserve moralconsideration.They feel a balancemustbe obtainedbetweenanimalandhumaninterests,
such that whenever possible, use of animalsby humansshould be eliminated.
476 GENDER & SOCIETY / August 1996

2. From the perspective of liberal feminist theory, social structurealso influences this gender
orientation.Because elements of this orientationare located in genderroles attachedto the different
structuralpositions men and women occupy, social structurereinforces what socialization started.
Research on women's connection to the environmentalmovementand their environmentalattitudes
frequentlytakes this position (Mohai 1991; Stem, Dietz, and Kalof 1993).
3. This ratherhigh numberof unusableresponsesto one or moreof these items is mainly due to the
largerthanusualnumberof respondentsselecting eitherthe "Can'tchoose"or "No answer"categories
for one or more items. As well, 34 respondentsin the subsamplewith which we began (49 in the entire
sample) were apparentlynot given the EnvironmentModule, since these respondentshave blank/sys-
tem-missingvalues on every item in this module.
4. Five otheritems thattappeddifferentaspectsof gender-roleideology were available.We omitted
four from our index of egalitariangenderideology because they did not as directlyassess respondents'
views on genderequality as did the items in our measure(threeconcernedbeliefs frequentlyused to
justify women's locations in patriarchalsocial structureand one was about voting preferences).One
item-whether marriedwomen should work outside the home for pay if their husbandscould support
them-did moredirectlyassess views aboutgenderequality.Weexcludedthis item because it was only
slightly correlatedwith the threeitems in the index anddid not emergein the same factoras these items
(likely because so manywomen work outside the home for pay thatattitudestowardthis action are not
sensitive to issues of genderequality).
5. We also initially considered incorporatingtwo other General Social Survey items into our
analyses:whetherrespondentshad huntedor fished in the last 12 monthsandwhetherthey belonged to
an environmentalpreservationgroup. Because neither item had a significant correlationwith either
animal rights measure(within the entire sample or separatelyamong men and women), we trimmed
them from our analyses.

REFERENCES

Adams, C. J. 1994. Bringingpeace home: A feministphilosophicalperspectiveon the abuse of women,

childrenand pet animals.Hypatia9:63-84.
Alaimo, S. 1994. Cyborg and ecofeminist interventions:Challenges for an environmentalfeminism.
FeministStudies20:133-52.
Baldwin, E. 1993. The case for animalresearchin psychology.Journalof Social Issues 49:121-31.
Bose, C. E., and P. H. Rossi. 1983. Genderandjobs: Prestigestandingsof occupationsas affected by
gender.AmericanSociological Review48:316-30.
Chodorow,N. 1978. The reproductionof mothering.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Davis, J. A., and T. W. Smith. 1993a. General social surveys, 1972-1993. Machine-readabledata file.
Chicago: NationalOpinionResearchCenter.
. 1993b. Generalsocial surveys, 1972-1993, cumulativecodebook.Chicago:National Opinion
ResearchCenter.
Donovan,J. 1990. Animal rightsand feminist theory.Signs 15:350-75.
Epstein,C. 1988. Deceptive distinctions:Sex, gender and the social order.New York:Russell Sage.
Fuller,M. [1845] 1971. Womanin the nineteenthcentury.Reprint,New York:Norton.
Gallup, A. M. 1990. Gallup "pet census" finds 170 million pets in America. Gallup Poll Monthly,
Number300 (September):55-63.
Gallup,G. G., Jr.,andJ. W. Beckstead. 1988. Attitudestowardanimalresearch.AmericanPsychologist
43:474-6.
Galvin, S. L., andH. A. Herzog,Jr.1992a.Ethicalideology, animalrightsactivism,andattitudestoward
the treatmentof animals.Ethics & Behavior2:141-9.
- . 1992b. The ethicaljudgmentof animalresearch.Ethics & Behavior2:263-86.
Gerson,J. W., and K. Peiss. 1985. Boundaries,negotiation,consciousness:Reconceptualizinggender
relations.Social Problems32:317-31.
 Peek et al. / GENDER AND ANIMAL RIGHTS 477

Gerson, K. 1985. Hard choices: How women decide about work, career,and motherhood.Berkeley:
University of CaliforniaPress.
Gerstel,N., and S. Gallagher.1994. Caringfor kithand kin: Gender,employment,and the privatization
of care. Social Problems41:519-39.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a differentvoice: Psychological theory and women'sdevelopment.Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Gilman,C. P. 1912. The beast prison. Forerunner3:128-30.
. 1913. Birds, bugs and women. Forerunner4:131-2.
Griffin, S. 1978. Womenand nature: The roaringinside of her. New York:Harper& Row.
Herzog, H. A., Jr.1993. "Themovementis my life":The psychology of animalrightsactivism.Journal
of Social Issues 49:103-9.
Herzog, H. A., Jr.,N. S. Betchart,and R. B. Pittman.1991. Gender,sex role orientation,and attitudes
towardanimals.Anthrozoos4:184-91.
Jagger,L.J.S. 1992. Collective identityat an animalrightssanctuary.Paperpresentedat annualmeeting
of the AmericanSociological Association, August,Pittsburgh.
Jamison,W.V., andW. M. Lunch. 1992. Rightsof animals,perceptionsof science, andpoliticalactivism:
Profile of Americananimal rights activists. Science, Technology,& Human Values17:438-58.
Jasper,J. M., and D. Nelkin. 1992. The animal rightscrusade:Thegrowthof a moralprotest.New York:
Free Press.
Jasper,J. M., andJ. Poulsen. 1993. Fightingback:Vulnerabilities,blundersand countermobilizationby
the targetsin three animal rights campaigns.Sociological Forum8:639-57.
Johnson,D. 1990. Animalrightsandhumanlives: Timefor scientiststo rightthe balance.Psychological
Science 1:213-4.
Kellert, S. R. 1980. American attitudestoward and knowledge of animals:An update. International
Journal of Studies on AnimalProblems 1:87-119.
Kellert, S. R., and J. K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes,knowledge, and behaviorstowardwildlife as affected
by gender.WildlifeSociety Bulletin 15:363-71.
Mohai, P. 1991. Men, women and the environment:An examinationof the gendergap in environmental
concern and activism. Society and NaturalResources5:1-19.
Myers, C. 1990. A life affirmingethic: People for the Ethical Treatmentof Animals, 325,000 strong,
assume influential,controversialrole in fierce nationalbattle. Chronicleof Higher Education37:
A21-A28.
Peek, C. W., G. D. Lowe, and L. S. Williams. 1991. Genderand god's word: Anotherlook at religious
fundamentalismand sexism. Social Forces 69:1205-21.
Plous, S. 1991. An attitudesurvey of animalrightsactivists.Psychological Science 2:194-6.
Richards,R. T., and R. S. Krannich.1991. The ideology of the animalrights movement and activists'
attitudestowardwildlife. Transactionsof the Fifty-SixthNorthAmericanWildlifeNaturalResources
Conference,Edmonton,Alberta:363-71.
Ruddick,S. 1980. Maternalthinking.FeministStudies6:342-67.
Salleh, A. 1992. Class, race and gender discourse in the ecofeminism/deepecology debate. Environ-
mental Ethics 15:225-44.
Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation.New York:Avon.
Sperling,S. 1988. Animal liberators:Researchand morality.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Stacey, J., and B. Thorne. 1985. The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems
32:301-16.
Stem, P. C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. Value orientations,gender, and environmentalconcern.
Environmentand Behavior.25:322-48.
Tolleson Rinehart,S. 1992. Genderconsciousness and politics. New York:Routledge.
Warren,K. J., and D. L. Cady. 1994. Feminismand peace: Seeing connections. Hypatia 9:4-20.
Wharton,A. S. 1991. Structureand agency in socialist-feministtheory.Gender & Society 5:373-89.
478 GENDER & SOCIETY / August 1996

Charles W.Peek is on the Women'sStudiesCounciland is Professorof Sociology and of Human

Developmentand Family Studiesat TexasTech University.His recent researchexamines how
religion and genderjointly affect sexist attitudes.His currentworkexploresgender influences
on sexual behaviorover the life course.

Nancy J. Bell is Professorof HumanDevelopmentand FamilyStudiesat TexasTechUniversity.

Her currentresearchexamines connections between gender and risk-takingbehavior among
youth.

CharlotteC. Dunham,AssociateProfessorof Sociology,teacheswomen'sstudies,family studies,

and gerontologyat TexasTechUniversity.Her researchhasfocused on activismand intergen-
erational relationships,withattentionto genderdifferencesin the experienceof activismwithin
thefamily.