8. STUDY 1: FREE-ASSOCIATION TASK
8.2 Representation of animal biotechnology
8.2.1.1 Methods and participants
The data collection method and the sample were the same as in the previous study (cf. previous paragraph). One participant did not provided any association for this prompt-word and for this reason it was eliminated from the analysis.
To recapitulate, the sample included 40 animal welfare and rights activists of an average age of 33,1 and standard deviation of 9,7. LAV members were 10 and CSA members were 11. Twelve out of 41 were ENPA members, while 7 participants were GZC members. The sample was composed mainly by women (60% vs 40% of males).
As emerged from cross-tabulation, ENPA and LAV members appeared to be the less religious ( 2 (6, N=40) = 16,6, p = .011).
Moreover, ENPA and LAV members reported being vegetarian more than members of the other groups ( 2 (6, N=40) = 26,3, p = .000) with all LAV members following a vegetarian diet.
At the end of a focus group discussion, they were asked to fill in a form where free-association tasks were presented. Participants were invited to report the first five words coming into their minds when
Free-association task 145 prompted with the stimulus word “genetically modified animal” (see APPENDIX 16 & 17 for the instrument).
8.2.1.2 Results
Participants produced a dictionary composed by 145 words (112 different words) with a mean of 2,8 words per participant. For the prompt-word
“genetically modified animals”, h was equal to 97 and T/O is equal to .78 showing a moderate instability of the chosen prompt-word. The initial dictionary was reduced by deleting the words with frequency <2.
Table 16. Characteristics of the original and modified dictionaries
Original dictionary Modified dictionary 145 words (114 different words) 27 words
85% frequency = 1 21 roots
The most frequent words referred to the against-nature discourse (against-nature=12; against=8; non-scientific=4; dangerous=3), to the field of disgust (disgust=4; aberration=4; loathing=4), to the ethical reasoning about GMA (immoral=4; non-respect-for-animals=2;
exploitation=2), to the economic reasons (profit=4; money=3) and to the discourse of animal pain (violence=2; suffering=2; pain=2).
Natural and Unnatural 146
Table 17. Most frequent words
The segments two factors, explaining 46,4% of the whole variance. To determine which words were significant, we considered those whose weight was 3,7. In the same vein, to determine which level of the illustrative variables was significant, we considered those whose weight was 5,2. The words
“laboratory”, “money”, “sheep” and the GZC group were significant on both factors.
Free-association task 147
Table 18. Words associated with “genetically modified animal” by animal welfare and rights activists
Note. Find in italics the significant illustrative variables.
The first factor “scientific discourse vs moral judgment” clearly opposed the sphere of scientific discourse to that of a moral judgment towards animal biotechnology. On the negative axis, words such as
“laboratory” and “sheep” referred to the semantic field of the scientific research involving animals. No evaluation was present. This view was associated with GZC members, religious people, between 21 and 30
Natural and Unnatural 148
years old. The positive axis pointed to a negative judgment of animal biotechnology, which was described as a non-scientific aberration driven by economic reasons. LAV members, vegetarian, between 31 and 40 years old, religious people but no-churchgoer were positioned on this axis.
The second factor “exploitation vs science” pointed to a negative view of animal biotechnology and of science in general. The negative axis described emotions related to the human exploitation of animals and called into question the effectiveness and the usefulness of this technology. This view was associated with older people, ENPA members, pet owners and female. On the other hand, the positive axis referred to a negative attitude towards science in general. Words such as
“laboratory”, “stupidity” and “money” contributed to this factor. In this view, science was depicted as blind and driven only by profit. GZC members, non pet owners, male and young were associated with this axis.
Free-association task 149 Figure 13. Correspondence analysis on free associations to the word “GMA”
Natural and Unnatural
150
Note: Words marked with a triangle are significant on the first factor, while words marked with a square are significant on the second one.
Cluster analysis was carried out in order to look for group of words forming similar representations. Words such as “money” and “stupidity”
and the variable “no animals at home”, weighted too much and were excluded from the analysis. Cluster analysis, as obtained by using the RECIP/SEMIS and PARTI-DECLA procedures, showed the presence of four groups of words, as shown in Figure 14.
The first cluster “animal biotechnology as non-scientific” referred to a negative attitude towards animal applications of biotechnology which was described as non-scientific and aberrant violence on animals. This cluster expressed a moral judgment on animal biotechnology as exemplified by words such as “aberration”, “non-scientific” (positive F1 axis). It was associated with vegetarian/vegan participants, LAV members (words=4).
The second cluster “animal biotechnology as disgust” referred to the semantic field of disgust about animal biotechnology, which was described as “immoral”, “disgust” and “against-nature” (words=11).
The third cluster “animal biotechnology as unavoidable” referred to an ambivalent attitude toward GMA. While concern for animal suffering was expressed, younger members (under 20) viewed animal biotechnology as inevitable advancement of scientific research (words=4).
The fourth cluster “animal biotechnology as scientific progress”
referred to the semantic field of scientific research (negative F1 axis, positive F2 axis). Representation of animal biotechnology was linked to a general positive attitude towards science, expressed by words such as
“progress”, “useful” and “laboratory” (words=6). This cluster was associated with GZC members, between 21 and 30 years old (see APPENDIX 8 for the list of the words in the clusters).
Free-association task 151 Figure 14. Cluster analysis of words associated with “GMA” by activists
Non-scientific Disgust
Unavoidable Scientific progress
Natural and Unnatural 152
8.2.2 University students
8.2.2.1 Method and participants
The data collection method was the same as in the previous chapter. The sample included 91 students (three students were excluded from the analysis since they did not provide any associations to the prompt-word) of an average age of 21,3 and standard deviation of 3,8.
Table 19. Description of the sample of student for the prompt-word “GMA”
Variables Group labels Frequency Percent
Men 39 42,9%
Gender
Women 52 57,1%
Yes 53 58,2%
Pet owner
No 38 41,8%
Under 20 55 60,4%
21/30 33 36,3%
31/40 2 2,2%
Age
41/50 1 1,1%
Religious person 67 72,8%
Non religious person 22 24,0 %
Religious believes
Missing 2 3,2%
Vegetarian/vegan 7 7,7%
Non-Vegetarian 83 91,2%
Diet
In the middle 1 1,1%
Participants were required to respond with up to 5 associations for the prompt-word “genetically modified animal”. The procedure and the questionnaire was the same used for the animal rights and welfare activists group (APPENDICES 16 & 17).
Free-association task 153 8.2.2.2 Results and interpretation
Participants associated 410 words in total (262 different words) with a mean of 4,4 words for person. For the prompt-word “genetically modified animals”, h was equal to 210 and T/O is equal to .65 showing a moderate instability of this prompt-word.
Table 20. Characteristics of the original and modified dictionaries
Original dictionary Modified dictionary 401 words (262 different words) 26 words
80,1% frequency = 1 23 roots
The most frequent word was “Dolly”, suggesting how the cloning of Dolly has been strictly linked to the imaginary of the animal biotechnology. The more frequent words referred to the semantic universe of the scientific progress (experiments=15; science=14;
laboratory=10; future=6; useful=7; research=6), of unnaturalness (unnatural=13; against-nature=11; strange=7), and to the discourse of cruelty and injustice towards animals (horrible=9; useless=8; injustice=8;
cruelty=7; dangerous=7).
Natural and Unnatural 154
Table 21. Most frequent words
The following words were from the analysis since all the students belonged to the same age group.
The variables “vegetarian” and “in the middle” as well as the words “to-cross-species” and “future” were excluded since too heavy.
Two factors were extracted, explaining 77,3% of the whole variance.
To determine which words were significant, we considered those whose weight was 2,2. In the same vein, to determine which level of the illustrative variables was significant, we considered those whose weight was 14,2. The words “bad”, “money”, “useless”, “research”, “sad” and the “non-vegetarians” variable were significant on both factors.
Word Frequency
Free-association task 155
Table 22. Words associated with “genetically modified animal” by animal welfare and rights activists
Note. Find the significant illustrative variables in italics.
On one hand, this factor “misleading progress vs lack of respect”
referred to a pessimistic view of scientific research and the progress in general, which appeared to be driven by the pursuing of economic profit.
The prevailing feeling was disgust and sadness and students seemed to be concerned about the risk related to animal biotechnology. This view was
Natural and Unnatural 156
associated with non religious, male students. On the other hand, this factor pointed to an openly negative judgment about animal biotechnology and the cloning of Dolly, which was viewed as a useless ill-treatment and lack of respect for animals. In this view, animal biotechnology was assimilated to the semantic field of the animal experimentation as words such as “guinea pig” could show. This view was associated with female students.
The second factor “unnaturalness vs sadness” contrasted the acknowledgement of the unnaturalness of the animal biotechnology with the semantic field of fear and death. On one hand, this factor referred to the strangeness and unnaturalness of biotechnological research involving animals, which was perceived as unjust and useless. On the other hand, feelings of sadness, fear and death were predominant. Animal biotechnology was described as useful and horrible at the same time.
This view was associated with non religious people.
Free-association task 157 Figure 15. Correspondence analysis on free associations to the word “GMA”
Natural and Unnatural 158
Note: Words marked with a triangle are significant on the first factor, while words marked with a square are significant on the second one.
Cluster analysis showed the presence of three groups of words, as shown in Figure 16.
The first cluster “AB as cruel cloning” referred to the cruelty and uselessness involved in the animal cloning. Dolly, the clone, was taken as a symbol of pain and cruelty related with the laboratory experimentation on animals as exemplified by words such as “pain”,
“cloning”, “experiments” (words=20). This cluster relied on an idea of lack of respect for animals (positive F1 axis).
The second cluster “AB as unnatural” pointed to animal biotechnology as unjust and unnatural. Advancements in scientific research were perceived as unfair since they were carried out at the expenses of animals. As for the axis, this cluster was built on the intersection of the perception of the misleading progress and an idea of unnaturalness (negative F1 axis, negative F2 axis). The prevalent feeling was disgust as illustrated by words such as “unnatural”, “inhuman”,
“disgust” (words=10). This cluster was associated with male students.
This cluster was positioned on the negative axis of the second factor.
The third cluster “AB as violation of animal nature” expressed concern for the violation of natural order. It pointed to animal biotechnology as useful but at the same time referred to the semantic field of wrongness and fear, as shown by words such as “cage”,
“horrible”, “wrong”, “fear” (words=14). Opposition to such technology was articulated in relation with the violation of animal nature due to human meanness. This view was associated with non religious people.
This cluster was located on the positive axis of the second factor.
Free-association task
159
Figure 16. Cluster analysis of words associated with “genetically modified animals” by students
Violation of animal nature
Cruel Unnatural
Natural and Unnatural 160
8.2.3 Comparison between the representational fields of the activists and the students about animal biotechnology
An index of the similarity was calculated by dividing the number of words mentioned by both groups (25) to the total number of words produced (79+149=228). The index was 0,10 showing that the two dictionaries are dissimilar.
Once again, both similarities and differences could be found between the representational fields of animal activists and students. First of all, when projecting the two categories, animal rights activists and students, on a factorial plan, CA showed that the activists were opposed to the students on the first dimension. This suggested that the dictionaries of associations produced by the two groups of people were different as well as the frequencies of occurrence of the words.
In particular, LAV members referred to animal biotechnology as non-scientific, clustering together words such as “non-scientific” and
“profit”. This cluster was absent in the students’ representational field.
Moreover, the dictionary preferred by activists was significantly different from the students’ one, in that activists mentioned more often words such as “money”, “aberrant”, “immoral”, “illusion” and “no”
when talking about animal biotechnology.
Feelings of disgust associated with the against-nature discourse were present in both representations. Animal biotechnology was associated by both groups to repulsion for the unnaturalness and dangerousness involved into the procedure.
In general, students´ representation of animal biotechnology seemed to be more critic than activists one, in that the former openly described the scientific progress as misleading and depicts such technology as violating animal nature. This result went against our hypotheses.
On the other hand, the graphical comparison of the two CA showed some similarities. Generally speaking, the first dimension of both representations consistently pointed on one hand to scientific discourse with words such as “progress” and “laboratory” and, on the other hand,
Free-association task 161 to the semantic field of moral judgment toward animal biotechnology with words such as “aberration” and “non-respect”.