All is not equal: Public perception of cognitive abilities, suffering and emotional attachment in different pet species

Abstract

In the longstanding relationship that humans have shared with animals, differences have consistently existed in the way that humans perceive and interact with different species. It has been hypothesised that there is a link between our perception of animal intelligence and emotions and subsequent care in captivity. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate public perception of the cognitive and emotional capabilities of pets belonging to different animal classes and investigate if there is a link between public perception of an animal’s cognition and their perception of its ability to suffer and create a bond with its owners. The results revealed that the public perception of an animal’s cognitive abilities and emotional attachment to their owners followed the phylogenetic scale. Mammals received the highest scores compared to other animal classes and, generally, there was a significant difference between the scores assigned to all animal classes across all cognitive questions. Our findings also indicate that suffering is universally recognized across animal classes, though higher scores were assigned to Mammals and Birds than the other classes. Moreover, we found that when participants rated an animal's cognitive abilities highly, they also believed that animal had a greater capacity to both suffer and to form strong emotional attachments to their owner. The results of this study reveal that the general public do not consider different pet species to be cognitively or emotionally equivalent across classes, and that those species of animal judged to be more cognitively capable are considered more susceptible to suffering. As a result, pet animals which are more phylogenetically distinct from humans may have poorer welfare than those more closely related.