DOI: 10.14704/nq.2018.16.6.1605

Effects of Life Background on Chinese College Students' Cognition about Animal Welfare

Guoan Yin, Langchao Yu, Dongsheng Quan, Yan Zhang, Wei Ding, Yuanbo Liu, Liwei Guan


In recent years, with animal welfare in China gaining more clout, people are paying more attention to animal welfare. In order to know the level of cognition about animal welfare in Chinese college students and whether their life backgrounds affect the cognition, a nationwide random survey was conducted to evaluate and analyze the status of animal welfare cognition through means of WeChat questionnaires. The results show that college students have a certain degree of awareness of animal welfare, but there were significant differences among students with different life backgrounds. There were different valuations for laboratory animals, companion animals, farm animals, wild animals, and animals used for entertainment. Overall, the college students from or studying in China's developed regions had a more accurate cognition about animal welfare than those from developing regions or underdeveloped regions. The valuation of college students from urban areas was higher than that from rural areas, and the valuation of college students who had experience keeping a pet was higher than that of those who had never had a pet. Interaction was only shown between the growth environment and the growth regions on opinions towards stray dogs. More students from urban areas support killing stray dogs, but a significant difference was only shown in developed regions (P<0.05). In conclusion, socioeconomic background affects Chinese college students' cognition about animal welfare.


Animal Welfare, College Students, Questionnaire Survey, Cognitive Status

Full Text:



Balls M. The replacement of animal testing: ethical issues and practical realities. International Journal of Cosmetic Science 1991; 13(1): 23-28.

Bayne K, Ramachandra GS, Rivera EA, Wang JF. the evolution of animal welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 2015; 54(2): 181-91.

Bayne K, Wang J. Chapter 9 - Oversight of Animal Research in China. Laboratory Animals. Elsevier Inc. 2014; 243-66.

Cheng SJ. The three Rs and the humanity criterion. Laboratory Animal Science 2014; 31(02): 24.

Deng FQ, Mao HX, Feng ZM, Gao FX, Yin YL. Status quo and prospect of farm animal welfare in China. Journal of Domestic Animal Ecology 2016; 37(11): 6-10.

Frasch PD. Gaps in US animal welfare law for laboratory animals: Perspectives From an animal law attorney. ILAR Journal 2016; 57(3): 285-92.

Goodman JR, Borch CA, Cherry E. Mounting opposition to vivisection. Contexts 2012; 11(2): 68-69.

Gu XH. Views on animal welfare and animal healthy feeding. Journal of Domestic Animal Ecology 2011; 32(06): 1-5.

Harper GC, Makatouni A. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal 2002; 104(3/4/5), 287-99.

Li L, Wang KC, Song HZ. The concept of animal welfare and its influence. China Animal Health Inspection 2014; 9(31): 42-43.

Mcglone JJ. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science 2001; 72(1–2): 75-81.

North-Root H, Yackovich F, Demetrulias J, Jr GM, Heinze JE. Prediction of the eye irritation potential of shampoos using the in vitro sirc cell toxicity test. Food & Chemical Toxicology 1985; 23(2): 271-73.

Qu XT, Cheng SJ. Progress of global regulations on cosmetic non-animal testing and domestic status. Detergent & Cosmetics 2017; 40(12): 1-9.

Roten FCV. European attitudes toward animal research: overview and consequences for science. Science Technology & Society 2009; 14(2): 349-64.

Schwabenbauer K. Laying hen maintenance in the future-the proposal of the commission for a council directive setting minimum standards for the protection of laying hens under various rearing systems. Dtw Deutsche Tierrztliche Wochenschrift 1999; 106(4): 157-60.

Singh DM. Animal experiments and pharmacology teaching at medical schools in India: A student's eye view. Alternatives to Animal Testing & Experimentation 2012; 11: 185-191.

Sun J. Introduction to animal protection law. Beijing: Law publish China, 2009.

Sun ZC. Evaluation system of farm animal welfare in foreign countries. Proceeding of the 1st Summit Forum on health and welfare of large-scale swine production. Taian, 2015: 6.

Sun ZC. Study on Animal Welfare Assessment System. Inner Mongolia agricultural university, 2013.

Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, Poucke EV, Tuyttens FAM. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 2008; 116(1): 126-36.

Xiang LN. China’s anti-cruelty to animal legislation. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Low, 2009.

Yan HQ, Li YB. Rou XL, Zhang M, Liu ZP, Ge Y. A survey on the China’s public attitudes toward “Animal welfare”. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition) 2013; 13(3): 99-105.

Yan QY, Wang GP. The status, causes and countermeasures of Farm Animal Welfare in China. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences 2013; 241(11): 4863-64, 69.

Zhang J. Legal protection of companion animals in our country. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2014.

Zhang JY. Legislation of China companion animal’s welfare. Legal System and Society 2016; (20): 15-16.

Zhao XB. Animal protection science. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2011.

Supporting Agencies

| NeuroScience + QuantumPhysics> NeuroQuantology :: Copyright 2001-2019