The Phyloempathic Hierarchy: Differential Human Empathy for Different Animal Species

*Delroy L. Paulhus*

### **Abstract**

Empathy for animal suffering can be powerful, but it varies across animal species. In fact, some people empathize as much (or more) with the suffering of certain animals than they do with human suffering. Beginning with Paulhus and Dean, we review research comparing empathic reactions to a diverse array of animal species, as well as to selected humans. Those authors coined the term *phyloempathic hierarchy* to describe the differential empathy that humans feel toward different species. Sophisticated scaling techniques were applied to determine the unique drivers of empathic responses. Overall, four animal characteristics (the "Big Four") appeared to drive empathic responses: (1) Perceived intelligence, (2) size, (3) esthetic appeal, and (3) lack of harmfulness. Ranking high were monkeys, elephants, dogs, and cats. Younger versions of the same species (e.g., kittens vs. cats) elicited even more empathy. Sharks, cockroaches, and snakes drew the least empathy. Those results have been replicated across 40 years of research from many laboratories and many countries. This hierarchy presents a challenge to relying on empathy in decisions regarding the treatment of animals. Bottom line: The phyloempathic hierarchy resembles but deviates from the phylogenetic hierarchy.

**Keywords:** empathy, research ethics, anthropomorphism

### **1. Introduction: Love, hate, and indifference**

The human tendency to affiliate with nonhuman animals1 was explored in Edward O. Wilson's landmark book *Biophilia* [1]. His term "biophilia" was coined to capture the intricate ways in which human and animal life are intertwined. At the time, he noted that 98% of the American population hold global positive views of animals. This chapter focuses on empathy, a specific aspect of that human positivity toward animals.

Standard-bearers of that sentiment include a number of powerful activist organizations (e.g. the Humane Society, ASPCA, PETA, PHAIR): All are devoted to investigating and ameliorating lapses in the humane treatment of animals. Such lapses are usually a matter of indifferent care practices, but they trigger serious

<sup>1</sup> Henceforth, I will refer to "nonhuman animals" simply as "animals."

protests nonetheless. On the other hand, blatant human fear of animals (biophobia) is also a widespread phenomenon [2]. Such hatred for certain animals (e.g. snakes & spiders) can be explained by hard-wired responses traceable to evolutionary dangers [3]. Disgust toward certain animals may have a parallel etiology [4]. Whether positive or negative, culture-specific tendencies are typically established by collecting large samples of raters and assuming a consensus. Such estimates, however, are rather subjective and ephemeral.

### **2. Individual differences in perceivers**

From love to hate to indifference, people vary in their attitudes toward animals. That diversity of attitudes among various demographic groups was investigated at length by Kellert and colleagues [5, 6]. Education, for example, had a clear impact. More educated respondents were more protective, emotionally attached, and factually informed about animals and the natural environment. Among the collegeeducated, there was little difference in attitudes among science, liberal arts, social science, and education majors. SES differences were evident but far smaller. More recently, Taylor and Signal [7]confirmed that occupation and income did provide a substantial benefit for attitudes to animals.

Women generally tend to score higher on both animal empathy [8, 9] and human empathy measures [10]. Supporting the sex difference. Sueur et al. [11] reported a survey aimed at clarifying how humans project anthropomorphism toward animals. Results showed that men and older participants were less likely to attribute humanlike mental states to animals. Overall, gender is one of the most reliable demographic predictors of empathy.

Not surprisingly, the largest group difference was observed when Paul [12] compared the views of animal activists with those of animal researchers. The former group believed that animals suffered more than the researchers believed and that the benefits of animal research were minimal. Because both "expert" groups have a vested interest in their views, the average citizen may find it difficult to draw conclusions.

### **3. Species differences**

The central issue in this chapter is the degree to which people empathize with different animal species. For centuries, zoologists have used the term *phylogenetic hierarchy* to refer to the systematic variation in species complexity. Hence, a key question is whether empathy for animals tracks the phylogenetic hierarchy. If so, we may care about animals to the extent that they are similar to us on that hierarchy.

Unfortunately, most empirical research on human reactions to animals has been limited to people's likes and dislikes of a few scattered species. Hence, generalizations about human-animal empathy have been rather speculative and presumptuous. I will focus on studies that compared empathy for a diverse set of animals.2

The first attempt to systematize empathic reactions across the spectrum was reported by Paulhus and Dean [8]. Using a sample of 175 Columbia University students, the authors compared mean reactions across 24 animals. The criterion questions included "Which animals should not be used in medical experiments," and

<sup>2</sup> Methods that ask for "favorite animals" yield slightly different results (e.g., [13]).

"Which animals could be exterminated in an ecological emergency?" The two criteria yielded similar results, which were reported at the 1977 meeting of the American Psychological Association.

The species nominations were as diverse as possible, representing seven classes (mammals, amphibians, birds, fish, insects, reptiles, worms, and snails). Using multidimensional preference scaling (MDPREF; [14]), the authors found that the most significant drivers of people's protective feelings toward animals were the (1) perceived intelligence, (2) size, and (3) esthetic appeal of the animal. Perceived harmfulness tended to diminish empathy. For short, they were dubbed the "Big Four."

As well as the 24 animal species, the authors included several human target groups: experiment volunteers, children, and convicted criminals. Although many animal species drew strong empathy, none exceeded the mean empathy awarded to any of the human groups. However, a significant number of respondents (20%) were exceptions to this rule. That is, they ranked at least one animal species higher than one human group. Typically, that choice was a puppy vs. a convicted criminal. As an analogy to the phylogenetic hierarchy, the authors proposed a novel label for differential empathy based on animal species, namely, *the phyloempathic hierarchy.*

Shortly thereafter, a broader study was undertaken by Steven Kellert [5]. Support for this research included funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency. The study included a wider breadth of species (k = 33), a larger sample, and a more representative sample of Americans. However, the ordering of animal attitudes was virtually identical to that reported by Paulhus and Dean [8].3 Followup studies from our lab revealed similar empathy rankings in other North American student samples, namely, the University of Georgia and the University of British Columbia [16].

The latter program of research covered the widest range of animals (k = 44). In combined results from that three-sample study, the 20 animals receiving the highest empathy ratings were as follows: Monkeys, dogs/cats, gorillas, whales, elephants, horses, bears, kangaroos, porpoises, deer, wolves/coyotes, penguins, rabbits, lions/ tigers, cows, raccoons, parrots, pigs, squirrels, and seals. The 20 animals drawing the lowest empathy ratings (starting at the bottom) were as follows: Cockroaches, slugs, alligators/crocodiles, houseflies, eels, spiders, octopus, caterpillars, snakes, sharks, frogs/toads, rats, bats, and fish. Based on the 24 animals in common, we correlated those rankings with the Paulhus and Dean rankings. The rank order correlation was .98.

Between 1978 and 2014, however, some cohort changes were reported by George, Slagle, Wilson, Moeller, and Bruskotter [17]. The greatest mean differences were for traditionally maligned species (e.g. bats, sharks, vultures, wolves, and coyotes), especially wolves and coyotes. The two latter animals may have had increasing contact with humans during that interval. Nonetheless, the overall correlation for the 26 species in common with those ranked by Kellert was .95 [17].

Not every moderator uncovered by Paulhus and Dean [8] has been followed up. But there is good reason to believe that several others are likely to replicate. One is the age of the animal. When the authors added younger animals to the list, the blanket advantage for humans was compromised. Preference for younger patterns extended to (a) cats vs. kittens, and (b) deer vs. fawns. Empathic preference for younger versions is consistent with the pronounced sympathy for the suffering of human children over adults [18]. The youth effect is so strong that some raters felt more empathy for

<sup>3</sup> Our earlier study was acknowledged by Kellert [6]. An even earlier study by Bart [15] was less than systematic.

puppies than for adult humans [19]. It is not clear whether all younger-older comparisons would show the same pattern. Finally, direct comparisons of empathy for human groups with animal species are few and unclear in the outcome. Some writers feel that such comparisons are logically incoherent [20].

Nonetheless, it is evident that empathy for other human beings is not unlimited. Consider the widespread support for corporal and capital punishment in many countries. And mass warfare against international enemies certainly supports the likelihood that empathy for other human animals can easily be nullified by ingroupoutgroup animosity. In fact, blatant cruelty toward other humans is a strong motivator for some individuals [21, 22]. Even more perplexing is the human capability of being empathic to some and cruel to others.

### **4. Unpacking the drivers**

As noted earlier, Paulhus and Dean [8] uncovered several characteristics contributing independently to human empathy for animals. Statistical independence of the 'Big Four' (intelligence, size, esthetic appeal, and harmfulness) was ensured by the authors' choice of scaling method (MDPREF). Here, I draw on the subsequent literature to confirm the impact of each of these four drivers.


<sup>4</sup> Although this driver is sometimes simplified to "beauty," it appears to cover tactile appeal, including softness and fuzziness [8].

*The Phyloempathic Hierarchy: Differential Human Empathy for Different Animal Species DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107832*

### **5. Implications**

Empathy for the distress inflicted by animal abuse is a powerful emotion and virtually universal. Wilson [1] captured this sentiment under the label "biophilia." Subsequent empirical investigations, however, have revealed more complexity. For example, the confirmation of a phyloempathic hierarchy, highlighted in this chapter, has raised a number of challenges to a simplistic view. The fact that different animal species draw different levels of empathy requires a compromise to moral absolutism. Even the most extreme animal activists hesitate to argue that stepping on ants should be condemned as harshly as bovine slaughterhouses.

But can there be a practicable cutoff somewhere on the hierarchy—a way of deciding which animals merit enough empathy to "do no harm?" Note that three of the "Big Four" drivers of our empathy (beauty, size, and harmfulness) have dubious connections with experienced pain. Only one, perceived intelligence, has some legitimacy. Why? because it is commonly assumed that our empathy for animals should track the animal's awareness of pain (sentience).

But how to objectively determine their suffering? In some animals, we can hear cries and see other signs of pain. But with others, pain signals are undetectable, or at least, ambiguous. Does the wriggling of fish indicate their suffering? The counterargument is that reflexive behaviors (cockroaches scampering to avoid sudden light) are not foolproof pain indicators [29]. In fact, the nervous systems of some animals are not sophisticated enough to carry pain information.

Our evolutionary roots undoubtedly play a role in our distinctive reactions to different animals [3]. But so do unique personal experiences: Traumatic encounters may have lifelong effects [30, 31]. A further complication is that individual differences within species may be larger than previously thought [32]. Hence, easy generalizations about species may be specious. The pit bull that you encountered may be more aggressive than the one that I encountered.

### **6. Limitations and future directions**

The assumption underlying this chapter is that clarification of our empathy processes can help us decide on how animals should be treated. However, not all commentators agree that empathic reactions should be paramount in such decisionmaking (e.g., [25, 33]). This view is consistent with a new wave of skepticism about using empathy as the ultimate arbiter of any decision-making (e.g. [34]). Instead, the alternatives favor more objective and utilitarian approaches.5

This alternative perspective opens up other contentious issues. Does suffering inflicted by other animals affect us as much as suffering inflicted by humans? In fact, the correlation between human and animal empathy is modest at the trait level. Shocking to some viewers is increased media coverage of animal-on-animal predation and aggression. When viewed objectively, it appears that the latter behavior is more horrifying (e.g. animals being eaten alive; dogfighting). Do those who experience distress at animal abuse show the same concern for animals that are victims of other animals?

Of course, none of these complexities excuse overt animal abuse by humans [36], even if such abuse is limited to the most malevolent human personalities [37]. Nonetheless, it is unclear how cultural, gender, and educational differences are to

<sup>5</sup> Currently, the recent edited book by Sueur et al. [35] is the best source for these diverse perspectives.

be integrated into animal rights guidelines when cultural norms continue to evolve. Consider that American legislation was only recently extended to vertebrates in general, including birds, anurans, fish, and cephalopods [38]. And the U.K. government only recently declared that octopuses, crabs, and lobsters are sentient beings [39]. Nonetheless, these ethical challenges demand vigorous exploration.

## **Author details**

Delroy L. Paulhus Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Canada

\*Address all correspondence to: dpaulhus@psych.ubc.ca

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*The Phyloempathic Hierarchy: Differential Human Empathy for Different Animal Species DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107832*

### **References**

[1] Wilson EO. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1984

[2] Staňková H, Janovcová M, Peléšková Š, Sedláčková K, Landová E, Frynta D. The ultimate list of the most frightening and disgusting animals: Negative emotions elicited by animals in central European respondents. Animals. 2021;**11**(3):747

[3] Bennett-Levy J, Marteau T. Fear of animals: What is prepared? British Journal of Psychology. 1984;**75**(1):37-42

[4] Davey GC. The "disgusting" spider: The role of disease and illness in the perpetuation of fear of spiders. Society & Animals. 1994;**2**(1):17-25

[5] Kellert SR. American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. International Journal for Studies in Animal Problems. 1980;**1**(2):87-119

[6] Kellert SR. Affective, cognitive, and evaluative perceptions of animals. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF, editors. Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum; 1983. pp. 241-268

[7] Taylor N, Signal T. Attitudes to animals: Demographics within a community sample. Society & Animals. 2006;**14**(2):147-157

[8] Paulhus DL, Dean R. Scaling the Ethical Acceptability of Animal Research in Semantic Space. San Francisco: American Psychological Association; 1977

[9] Signal TD, Taylor N. Attitude to animals and empathy: Comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoös. 2007;**20**(2):125-130

[10] Lennon R, Eisenberg N. Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In: Eisenberg N, Strayer J, editors. Empathy and Its Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1987. pp. 195-217

[11] Sueur C, Forin-Wiart M-A, Pelé M. Are they really trying to save their buddy? The anthropomorphism of animal epimeletic behaviours. Animals. 2020;**10**:2323

[12] Paul ES. Us and them: Scientists' and animal rights campaigners' views of the animal experimentation debate. Society & Animals. 1995;**3**(1):1-21

[13] Woods B. Beauty and the beast: Preferences for animals in Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies. 2000;**11**(2):25-35

[14] Shepard RN. A taxonomy of some principal types of data and of multidimensional methods for their analysis. In: Shepard RN, Romney RK, Nerlove SB, editors. Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Seminar Press; 1972

[15] Bart WM. A hierarchy among attitudes toward animals. Journal of Environmental Education. 1972;**3**(4):4-6

[16] Paulhus DL. Animal Ethics across North America. Vancouver: Canadian Psychological Association; 1992

[17] George KA, Slagle KM, Wilson RS, Moeller SJ, Bruskotter JT. Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation. 2016;**201**:237-242

[18] de Waal F. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996

[19] Angantyr M, Eklund J, Hansen HM. A comparison of empathy for humans and empathy for animals. Anthrozoös. 2011;**24**(4):369-377

[20] Cameron CD, Lengieza ML, Hadjiandreou E, Swim JK, Chiles RM. Empathic choices for animals versus humans: The role of choice context and perceived cost. Journal of Social Psychology. 2022;**162**(1):161-177

[21] Paulhus DL, Dutton DG. Everyday sadism. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Marcus DK, editors. The Dark Side of Personality: Science and Practice in Social, Personality, and Clinical Psychology. Washington, D.C., USA: American Psychological Association; 2016. pp. 109-120

[22] Taylor KE. Cruelty: Human Evil and the Human Brain. USA: Oxford University Press; 2009

[23] Horowitz AC, Bekoff M. Naturalizing anthropomorphism: Behavioral prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoös. 2007;**20**:23-35

[24] Frynta D, Šimková O, Lišková S, Landová E. Mammalian collection on Noah's ark: The effects of beauty, brain and body size. PLoS One. 2013;**8**:e63110

[25] Griffin AS, Callen A, Klop-Toker K, Scanlon RJ, Hayward MW. Compassionate conservation clashes with conservation biology: Should empathy, compassion, and deontological moral principles drive conservation practice? Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;**11**:17-27

[26] Forgas JP, Laham SM. Halo effects. In: Pohl R, editor. Cognitive illusions.

New York: Psychology Press; 2016. pp. 286-300

[27] Knight A. "Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!" how aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2008;**28**:94-103

[28] Landová E, Poláková P, Rádlová S, Janovcová M, Bobek M, Frynta D. Beauty ranking of mammalian species kept in the Prague zoo: Does beauty of animals increase the respondents' willingness to protect them? Science of Nature. 2018;**105**(11):1-14

[29] Sneddon LU, Elwood RW, Adamo SA, Leach MC. Defining and assessing animal pain. Animal Behaviour. 2014;**97**:201-212

[30] Rachman S. Neo-conditioning and the classical theory of fear acquisition. Clinical Psychology Review. 1991;**11**(2):155-173

[31] Webb K, Davey GC. Disgust sensitivity and fear of animals: Effect of exposure to violent or revulsive material. Anxiety, Stress and Coping. 1992;**5**(4):329-335

[32] Gosling SD. Personality in nonhuman animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2008;**2**(2):985-1001

[33] Paul ES, Harding EJ,

Mendl M. Measuring emotional processes in animals: The utility of a cognitive approach. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2005;**29**(3):469-491

[34] Bloom P. Empathy and its discontents. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2017;**21**(1):24-31

[35] Sueur C, Pelé M, Matsuzawa T, Georges J-Y, editors. Perceptions of *The Phyloempathic Hierarchy: Differential Human Empathy for Different Animal Species DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107832*

Human-Animal Relationships and their Impacts on Animal Ethics, Law and Research. Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers Media; 2021

[36] Dunlap JJ. Moral reasoning about animal treatment. Anthrozoös. 1989;**2**(4):245-258

[37] Kavanagh PS, Signal TD, Taylor N. The dark triad and animal cruelty: Dark personalities, dark attitudes, and dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences. 2013;**55**(6):666-670

[38] Hartung T. Comparative analysis of the revised directive 2010/6106/EU for the protection of laboratory animals with its predecessor 86/609/EEEEC–a t4 report. ALTEX Alternatives To Animal Experimentation. 2010;**27**:285-303

[39] Stelling T. Do lobsters and other invertabrates feel pain: New research has some answers. Washington Post. 2014

## **Chapter 7**
