Previous research has demonstrated that in households where the male partner is more dominant, there is convergence in male and female attitudes towards animals, whereas if the female partner is empowered they exhibit greater empathy towards animals than the male partner. We tested this theory of ‘female empowered empathy’ internationally in a survey of female and male students’ attitudes towards use of animals, conducted in 11 Eurasian countries: China, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Iran, Ireland, South Korea, Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Spain and Sweden. Gender empowerment was estimated for each country using the Gender Empowerment Measure designed by the United Nations. The survey was administered via the internet in universities within countries, and 1,902 female and 1,530 male student responses from 102 universities were received. Respondents rated the acceptability of 43 major concerns about human use of animals, and the importance of 13 world social issues, including animal protection, environmental protection and sustainable development. Females had greater concern for animal welfare and rights than males. There was a positive correlation between the Gender Empowerment Measure and the ratio of female to male concern for animal welfare and rights, but not for other world issues. Thus in countries where females were more empowered, principally Sweden, Norway and Great Britain, females had much greater concern than males for animal issues, whereas in other countries the responses of males and females were more similar. Across countries female students were more likely to avoid meat and less likely to avoid eggs, milk and seafood than male students, and were more likely to have kept pets than males. Females rated cats as more sentient than males did. The results demonstrate that females have greater concern for animal welfare and rights than males, and that this is more likely to be expressed in countries where females are relatively empowered, suggesting that ‘emancipated female empathy’ operates across countries as well as at a local level.

The attitudes of veterinary faculty toward animal welfare were surveyed in four Australian and three Turkish veterinary schools. The former were considered to be typical of modern Western schools, with a faculty of more than 40% women and a primary focus on companion animals, whereas the latter were considered to represent more traditional veterinary teaching establishments, with a faculty of 88% men and a primary focus on livestock. A total of 116 faculty responded to the survey (42 Australian and 74 Turkish faculty members), for response rates of 30% and 33%, respectively. This survey included demographic questions as well as questions about attitudes toward animal-welfare issues. Women were more concerned than men about animal-welfare issues, especially the use of animals in experiments, zoos, entertainment, and sports and for food and clothing. Total scores demonstrated different concerns among Turkish and Australian faculty. The study demonstrates that the veterinary faculty of these two countries have different concerns for animal welfare, concerns that should be acknowledged in considering the welfare attitudes that students may adopt.

Veterinarians regularly face animal ethics conflicts, and research has identified the moral reasoning methods that they utilize to solve these. It is unclear whether students’ sensitivity to animal ethics conflicts influences their reasoning methods, and the recent development of appropriate tests allows this to be assessed. We compared the moral reasoning methods, intended action and sensitivity of 112 first-year veterinary students in two contrasting veterinary schools, in Australia and Turkey. Students were presented with two animal ethics issues: breeding blind hens to address welfare concerns in intensive housing, for moral reasoning evaluation; and a video of a lame dairy cow walking, for sensitivity assessment. The sensitivity score was not related to the principal moral reasoning methods, which are Personal Interest (PI), Maintaining Norms (MN), and Universal Principles (UP). However, less sensitive students were more concerned about professional criticism of emotional reactions when addressing the hen scenario. Turkish students, mostly males, used more MN reasoning when deciding the hen dilemma. Australian, mostly female, students did not. Overall, female students were more likely to consider the universal moral principles in moral reasoning than male students and were more likely to recommend against breeding blind hens. This suggests that females are more likely to consider the ethical implications of their actions than males. This study demonstrates relationships between ethical sensitivity (ES) and moral reasoning, and cultural and gender effects on moral action choices. Students placing greater importance on professional criticism about having an emotional reaction are more likely to be those who have less ES.