Classification of Animals as Pet, Pest, or Profit: Consistency and Associated Variables Among Spanish University Students

The present study analyzes the effectiveness (exhaustivity and mutual exclusivity) of a taxonomy for classifying animals into the categories of pet, pest, and profit (PPP), as well as variables that affect the classification assigned to the different species. A total of 463 university students (Mean age = 21.07 years; SD = 4.15), mainly female (87%), classified 14 animal species into the PPP categories and answered questionnaire assessments of personality, anthropomorphism, and attitudes toward the wellbeing of animals. On average, the different species were classified into a single PPP category in 71% of the cases (maximum 95% for dogs, and minimum 27% for chimpanzees), with 8% having multiple classifications (15% for horses and pigs, 21% for rabbits), and 21% being unclassified. Women used the profit category less than men (p < 0.05; g = 0.33). Attitudes toward animals, anthropomorphism, and conscientiousness presented significant correlations (p < 0.05) with the use of PPP categories. Finally, logistic regression analyses showed that these variables had a limited yet significative effect in predicting the classification of horses as either pet or profit (explained variance = 8%) and the classification of snakes as pet or pest (explained variance = 9%), but no effect on the classification of bees as pest or profit. The fact that 29% of the cases received multiple or null classifications indicates the need for caution when considering conclusions drawn from studies based on the PPP taxonomy. Personality, anthropomorphism, sex, and attitudes toward animals' wellbeing had only a small effect on the classification of animals, but they revealed possible mechanisms for developing interventions to raise awareness about the treatment of animals.