Sociological Animal Studies Courses Are More Effective Than Human-Centered Sociology Courses in Enhancing Empathy

Abstract

Sociology plays a key role in empathy development, which is central to addressing complex social problems. However, little is known about what types of courses work best to enhance empathy. In parallel, sociological animal studies (SAS) has evolved as a relatively new subfield focused on assessing human and animal relationships. SAS research suggests that our interactions with animals enhance empathy development. Combining these literatures, we assess if SAS compared to non-SAS courses impact affective and cognitive empathy for humans and animals differently. Findings reveal that students who take SAS courses demonstrate greater postcourse human and animal empathy even when controlling for precourse levels of empathy and other factors that drive empathy development. Although SAS remains on the periphery of the discipline, this study suggests that it should be a central component of the sociological curriculum.

Keywords

empathy sociological animal studies cognitive empathy affective empathy teaching sociology animal studies

Students’ postgraduation success includes acquiring both hard skills and sociopsychological developments (Brunner, Zarkin, and Yates 2018). Of the latter, one of the most critical is empathy (Zaki 2020). Empathy is key to addressing social and global issues, including political polarization, racism, anti-immigrant resentment, homophobia, transgender phobia, and even climate change (Dolamore et al. 2021; Whitley 2015; Whitley and Bowers 2023). It is the “superglue” that connects people, promotes kindness, and creates a more cohesive social life.

Sociologists have placed limited attention on how our classrooms can be sites for individual sociopsychological advancement and behavior (Mayhew and Fernandez 2007; Messineo 2018), yet the discipline is well positioned to promote empathy development (Wynn et al. 2023). Many students enter sociology because they want to learn about social inequalities and pursue helping professions, and sociology, compared to other disciplines, appears better able to increase empathy (Rockwell et al. 2019). In turn, empathy enhances students’ sociological imaginations by allowing them to understand better how social relationships and institutions shape and are shaped by individual actions; the structure, functioning, and advancement of human society; and how social structures impact individuals, communities, states, and nations (Ruiz-Junco 2017). Given this, sociologists should consider optimizing empathy development within our classrooms (Adkins 2021; Ghidina 2019; MacNamara, Glann, and Durlak 2017).

One avenue to enhance student empathy that has been overlooked within sociology is the inclusion of sociological animal studies (SAS) courses and content into the curriculum. SAS courses prioritize nonhuman animals in research and scholarship to understand sociological concepts in a more holistic way (DeMello 2021). This study explores whether SAS courses enhance college students’ empathy. Findings reveal that SAS courses have a greater impact on empathy development compared to human-centered sociology courses, which speaks to the importance of SAS, SAS courses, and the inclusion of animals in non-SAS courses.

Sociological Animal Studies

Since the 2000s, there has been growing interest in SAS, incorporation of SAS courses into sociology programs, and interdisciplinary animal studies certificates and degree programs (Animals & Society Institute [ASI] 2023a; Grauerholz et al. 2020; Irvine 2009b; Koop-Monteiro 2023; Peggs 2012). SAS scholars are interested in how humans impact and are impacted by animals and have enhanced our understanding of the importance of human-animal relationships to a wide variety of social systems, including disaster planning (Irvine 2009a), domestic and interpersonal violence (Fitzgerald et al. 2021), conservation efforts (Whitley and Kalof 2014), dietary choices (Greenebaum 2017; Whitley 2015), grief and loss (Eckerd, Barnett, and Jett-Dias 2016), pandemic planning (Hoy-Gerlach, Rauktis, and Newhill 2020), race/gender (Mayorga-Gallo 2018), and more. Environmental sociologists have been especially vocal about how our dependence on animals for survival and the abuse of animals in food systems has potentially cataclysmic effects for humanity (e.g., declines or losses of pollinator species will impact food systems, setting off cascading effects in the agriculture, transportation, and financial sectors; Kalof and Whitley 2021; Whitley and Cherry 2023). Arguably, all sociology courses would be wise to centralize biodiversity loss as a critical social issue impacting human life (Besek and York 2019).

SAS and SAS courses center animals to address these connections, to understand the impact animals have on our physical and mental health, and to educate the public about the importance of human-animal relationships in addressing pressing social problems (Brooks et al. 2018; Dietz, Shwom, and Whitley 2020). Furthermore, they fill a critical need for people to connect with and understand their interconnectedness with animals in ways they would not otherwise be able to do. To date, however, there are no empirical studies documenting if and how these courses contribute to disciplinary goals. Findings from our study help fill this gap.

The Sociology of Empathy

Empathy is an awareness and/or ability to feel the emotions of another, develops over time, and is reinforced through our experiences and interactions with others (Cuff et al. 2016). Empathy consists of two main components: cognitive and affective (or emotional) empathy (Barrett, Lewis, and Haviland-Jones 2016; Shamay-Tsoory, Aharon-Peretz, and Perry 2009). Cognitive empathy is the capacity to recognize and comprehend the emotions of another (Hogan 1969), and affective (or emotional) empathy is the ability to relate or feel the emotions of another (Bryant 1982). Affective empathy is often considered the most important component because it is the feeling factor, yet studies show that cognitive empathy is better at predicting behavior associated with addressing inequalities (Decety and Cowell 2014; Einolf 2012).

Although most empathy research assesses empathy for humans only (Cuff et al. 2016), for our purposes, we employ Young, Khalil, and Wharton’s (2018:329) more inclusive definition of empathy as “a stimulated emotional state that relies on the ability to perceive, understand and care about the experiences or perspectives of another person or animal.” Empathy for humans and empathy for animals are somewhat distinct constructs (Paul 2000), however. Individuals who show greater empathy for humans may or may not show greater empathy for animals (Hopwood, Stahlmann, and Bleidorn 2022; Phillips 2009), but people who engage with animals show more empathy toward other humans, suggesting that the ability to empathize may transfer from animals to humans (Cloutier and Peetz 2016; Daly and Morton 2006, 2009). For that reason, animals have been integrated into prisons, K–12 classrooms, and households to enhance empathy (Ascione 1992; Daly and Morton 2009; Daly and Suggs 2010; Dueñas et al. 2021; Khalid and Naqvi 2016; Villafaina-Domínguez et al. 2020). Although empathy for humans is different from empathy for animals, both are needed to promote social and environmental justice (Young et al. 2018).

There is a long history of empathy research in sociology. Considered the pioneer of the sociology of empathy, Cooley (1902:136) writes of experiencing an “understanding or communion” with another to gain “common ground and partake of his ideas and sentiments” and “sharing of any mental state” without the “implication of pity.” Other classical sociologists, such as Harriet Martineau, Jane Addams, George Herbert Mead, and Herbert Blumer, engaged in empathy-related work and have influenced contemporary theorists such as Arlie Hochschild (Ruiz-Junco 2021). More recently, studies have revealed how the teaching of sociology offers a unique platform on which empathy can be enhanced (Wynn et al. 2023). For example, Ghidina (2019) and Latshaw (2015) introduce teaching strategies to enhance empathy and reduce victim blaming among students. Poetic transcription has also been used to help students develop empathy around “racial subjugation, immigration, living in the borderlands, gender, the American working-class, substance abuse, and suicide” (Romero 2020:213). Beyond developing empathy for those outside the classroom, MacNamara et al. (2017) highlight activities that can be used to support classroom cohesion and respect for pronouns.

Such studies within the emerging “sociology of empathy” area demonstrate that sociology courses are ripe with content to enhance empathy (McCaffree 2020; Ruiz-Junco 2017). The broader questions remain, however: Do certain sociology courses enhance empathy more effectively than others? Can simply learning about animals (rather than interacting with them directly) enhance empathy? In this article, we look specifically at the impact SAS courses have on empathy development among students.

Data and Methods

Data for this project come from 756 undergraduate students at three universities that offer SAS courses with professors committed to teaching and studying human-animal relationships. The three universities included vary in size, location, and demographics. The first university (referred to here as “SE”) is a large, research-intensive public institution in the Southeast with an enrollment of approximately 72,000. It is also a Hispanic Serving Institution, with roughly 55 percent of the student body identifying as a racial or ethnic minority. The second university is a regional public institution in the Pacific Northwest with an enrollment of approximately 16,000 students (referred to here as “PNW”), where about 30 percent of students identify as a racial or ethnic minority. The third university is a small private university on the East Coast (referred to here as “EC”) with an enrollment of approximately 1,500 students. At EC, about 41 percent of the student body identifies as a racial or ethnic minority.

Data were collected in the spring and summer of 2021 during the height of COVID-19, which meant that almost all courses (86 %) were taught online and asynchronously. Across the three institutions, we conducted pre- and postcourse surveys in 21 different sociology courses, 5 of which were SAS courses. The study was approved by Institutional Review Boards, and explicit permission to use data was obtained from students during the posttest phase.

The majority of courses (and sample) come from SE, which has a significantly larger student population. At SE, data were collected from 14 sociology classes taught by 10 different instructors, one of which was an SAS course (Animals & Health). The non-SAS courses at SE mostly included upper-level courses open to majors and nonmajors in the areas of crime and deviance (N = 4) and sex, gender, and sexuality (N = 3); two sections of Introductory Sociology; two sections of Social Theory; and two upper-level courses (Sociology of Happiness and Social Inequalities). Of the non-SAS courses taught at SE, two instructors identified as SAS scholars and included animal-related materials in their non-SAS courses (Introductory Sociology and Sociology of Happiness). Five courses, all taught by the same instructor, were included in the sample from PNW. These included three sections of an upper-level course titled Animals, People, and Nature and two sections of Research Methods. At EC, students were recruited from one section of a lower-level Animals & Society course and one section of Applied Sociology, taught by the same instructor.

For context, the three SAS instructors have similar teaching philosophies (e.g., strongly student-centered) and learning objectives. The learning objectives correspond with those presented by DeMello (2010) for the development of animal studies courses, such as explaining links between human-animal relationships and social problems (e.g., sexism, slavery, environmental degradation, etc.). In the courses, the instructors sought to help students understand the paradoxical relationship humans and animals have, how attitudes and actions toward nonhuman animals are socially constructed, how humans and animals mutually impact each other in positive and negative ways and clarify their own beliefs regarding the role animals play in society and in their own lives (for additional information about learning objectives and teaching styles for SAS courses, see Grauerholz et al. forthcoming). Thus, pedagogical approaches and broad learning objectives across SAS courses were similar (it should be noted that none of the SAS courses was specifically designed to teach or intentionally taught empathy skills). Course objectives across non-SAS courses differed, obviously, but all introductory and topical courses shared learning goals central to sociological instruction, namely, to help students understand how social forces shape institutions and individuals.

Dependent Variables

Empathy for humans

To measure empathy for humans, we employ the 20-item Basic Empathy Scale (BES; Jolliffe and Farrington 2006), which has been shown to be extremely reliable and valid in deciphering the two dimensions of empathy: cognitive and affective. Confirmatory factor analysis identified the standard two dimensions. Thus, we created two scales that range from 1 to 5: human-centered affective empathy (precourse Cronbach’s α = .828, postcourse Cronbach’s α = .838) and human-centered cognitive empathy (precourse Cronbach’s α = .792, postcourse Cronbach’s α = .807). Table 1 details the items used from the BES.

Table 1.

Basic Empathy Scale and Modified Basic Empathy for Animals Scale with Future Suggestions.

	Basic Empathy Scale Items	Affective Empathy	Cognitive Empathy	Basic Empathy for Animals Scale Items
1	I can understand my friend’s happiness when they do well at something.		x
2	My friend’s emotions don’t affect me much.	x		The emotions of animals don’t affect me much.
3	I get frightened when I watch characters in a good scary movie.	x
4	I am not usually aware of my friend’s feelings.		x	I am not usually aware of the feelings of animals.
5	I get caught up in other people’s feelings.	x		I get caught up in the feelings of animals.
6	I tend to feel scared when I am with friends who are afraid.	x
7	Other people’s feelings don’t bother me at all.	x		The feelings of animals don’t bother me at all.
8	When someone is feeling down I can usually understand how they feel.		x	When I see an animal feeling down I can usually understand how they feel.
9	I find it hard to know when my friends are frightened.		x	I find it hard to know when animals are frightened.
10	I can usually work out when my friends are scared.		x	I can usually work out when an animal is scared.
11	I often become sad when watching sad things on TV or in films.	x		I often feel hurt when watching animals hurt on TV or in film.
12	I often become sad when I see other people crying.	x		I don’t become sad when I see animals crying.
13	I can often understand how people are feeling even before they tell me.		x	I can often understand how animals are feeling even though they can’t tell me.
14	Seeing a person who has been angered has no effect on my feelings.	x
15	I can usually work out when people are cheerful.		x
16	I can usually realize quickly when a friend is angry.		x
17	My friends’ happiness doesn’t make me feel anything.	x
18	I often get swept up in my friends’ feelings.	x
19	I have trouble figuring out when my friends are happy.		x
20	After being with a friend who is sad about something, I usually feel sad.	x

Note: Suggested inclusions of modified items for future research are in italics.

Empathy for animals

We modified six items from the BES to include empathy for animals. Factor analysis placed these items in two factors that are consistent with affective and cognitive empathy in humans. We constructed two scales: animal-centered affective empathy (precourse Cronbach’s α = .640, postcourse Cronbach’s α = 0.752) and animal-centered cognitive empathy (precourse Cronbach’s α = .638, postcourse Cronbach’s α = .614). The alpha levels are reasonable but would likely be stronger if we had modified additional items for inclusion. Table 1 details the items modified from the BES to create the Basic Empathy Animal Scale (BEAS) with suggested inclusions of modified items for future research in italics. In pilot studies online, these additional items have been shown to be effective and perform as expected.

Independent and Control Variables

Taken SAS course

The key independent variable measures whether an individual has taken an SAS course. Individuals who were currently finishing an SAS course or had previously taken one were coded as 1, and all others were coded as 0. About 33 percent of students surveyed had taken an SAS course. The percentage distribution across universities ranged from 25 percent to 69 percent, with PNW (an environmentally focused university) having the highest percentage of students having taken an SAS course.

Control variables

We include 13 variables to control for other factors that may influence empathy scores. These include race (0 = not White, 1 = White), gender (0 = woman, 1 = man), LGBTQ+ identity (0 = straight, 1 = LGBTQ+ identified), political ideology (1 = very liberal to 7 = very conservative), political orientation (1 = extreme Democrat to 7 = extreme Republican), and religiosity (0 = not religious, 1 = not Christian, 2 = Christian). We also include environmental values (humanistic altruism, biospheric altruism, animal altruism, traditionalism, and willingness to change, all using a scale from 0 to 5, with larger numbers indicating greater adherence to that value). Environmental values come from a robust literature within environmental sociology asserting that environmental values are relatively stable core principles in our lives that dictate how we think about and engage with nature and animals (Dietz 2015; Dietz, Kalof, and Stern 2002). Although relatively stable, these values can be enhanced during key transformative periods of life, such as during college or after experiencing a traumatic event (Colby and Whitley 2022; Whitley and Yoder 2015). See Table 2 for descriptive statistics for all variables across the three universities.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for All Variables across Institutions (Mean Scores for Continuous Variables and Percentages for Binary Variables).

	Combined	SE	PNW	EC
	N = 756	n = 617	n = 113	n = 26
Dependent variables
Postcourse cognitive human empathy	4.240	4.230	4.340	4.120
Postcourse affective human empathy	3.870	3.836	4.138	3.748
Postcourse cognitive animal empathy	4.180	4.154	4.396	3.877
Postcourse affective animal empathy	4.335	4.518	3.923	4.349
Key independent variable
Taken SAS course	32.804%	25.040%	69.020%	57.690%
Control variables
Precourse cognitive human empathy	4.285	4.280	4.348	4.128
Precourse affective human empathy	3.852	3.821	4.050	3.745
Precourse cognitive animal empathy	4.030	4.013	4.168	3.846
Precourse affective animal empathy	4.425	4.417	4.509	4.231
White	61.050%	56.870%	82.160%	65.380%
Hispanic	27.270%	30.580%	12.170%	15.380%
Man	15.020%	14.720%	14.780%	23.080%
LGBTQ+	35.440%	32.360%	53.040%	30.770%
Very liberal to very conservative	2.753	2.874	1.896	3.654
Extreme Democrat to extreme Republican	2.909	3.008	2.270	3.385
Not religious	45.130%	42.160%	66.090%	23.080%
Not Christian	6.450%	5.980%	87.000%	7.690%
Christian	48.200%	51.860%	25.220%	69.230%
University	100.000	81.450%	15.130%	3.420%
Values
Humanistic altruism	4.645	4.641	4.730	4.346
Biospheric altruism	4.380	4.393	4.412	3.936
Animal altruism	4.403	4.435	4.328	3.974
Egoism	3.361	3.451	2.861	3.423
Traditionalism	4.357	4.409	4.064	4.423
Willingness to change	4.407	4.433	4.319	4.154

Note: SE = university in Southeast; PNW = university in Pacific Northwest; EC = university on the East Coast; SAS = sociological animal studies.

Analysis

To evaluate the degree to which SAS courses influence empathy, we first use t tests to compare mean empathy scores between those who have and have not taken an SAS course; we then use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with clustering on university to further evaluate SAS significance. There is currently debate among methodologists about how to best measure change and predictors of change from interventions (Farmus, Arpin-Cribbie, and Cribbie 2019). This debate focuses on two distinct approaches, both of which use regression analysis but vary in the way they measure the dependent variable. The first uses a gain score, also known as a difference of scores or change score model (Van Breukelen 2006, 2013), where the dependent variable is the measure of change in a pre- and postevent score. The second method uses only the postevent score as the dependent variable and treats the prescore as a predictor (the change model also controls for preevent scores) of the postevent score. Methodologists suggest that the most robust approach is to assess both models and determine whether the same variables remain significant across approaches. Given this, we model both dependent variables. To further determine causal inference, we use the “KonFound-it” program (Frank et al. 2013), which assesses the percentage of data that would need to be replaced to invalidate inference. This approach has been published in a variety of statistics journals and used primarily in business management and education research (Busenbark et al. 2021, 2022; Frank and Xu 2020; Xu et al. 2019).

Results

When examining precourse empathy, we found significant differences in precourse mean cognitive empathy (3.948 vs. 4.200, p < .001) and affective empathy (4.382 vs. 4.512, p < .05) for animal scores, with those enrolled in SAS courses scoring higher on both measures. This likely reflects selection bias in those who enroll in SAS courses. We did not find a significant difference in precourse cognitive or affective empathy for humans between those enrolled in SAS and non-SAS courses. Postcourse surveys revealed differences for both animal and human empathy between SAS students and non-SAS students. Postcourse cognitive (3.947 vs. 4.317, p < .001) and affective (4.266 vs. 4.518, p < .001) animal empathy scores are significantly different, as are the scores for cognitive (4.216 vs. 4.302, p < .05) and affective (3.827 vs. 3.983, p < .01) empathy for humans, with those enrolled in SAS courses showing higher postcourse mean empathy scores across all measures. In fact, according to pairwise comparisons of mean change scores, there is no non-SAS course in our sample that shows a greater change score across the four empathy scales compared to SAS courses (results not shown). These findings provide initial evidence that SAS courses contribute to empathy development in significant ways.

Next, we used OLS regression to predict empathy scores using SAS course enrollment as the key independent variable and controlling for a variety of characteristics that impact empathy development. As discussed previously, we used two distinct modeling approaches: postcourse empathy scores (see Table 3) and change modeling (see Table 4). Coefficients and standard errors for SAS course enrollment are identical across models, which is consistent with literature suggesting that the coefficients of the prescores should be the only things that change between the two. The results indicate that compared to those who do not take an SAS course, students taking an SAS course report higher postclass empathy. On average, SAS course enrollment increased cognitive empathy for humans by .068 points, affective empathy for humans by .071 points, and cognitive empathy for animals by .186 points. SAS courses do not appear to influence affective empathy for animals. Although t tests indicate a significant difference in postcourse affective animal empathy, this finding did not hold in the regression models with added controls. This likely reflects the fact that high starting empathy scores left little room for improvement (mean precourse affective animal empathy scores for students taking SAS courses was 4.512 on a 5-point scale).

Table 3.

Regression-Based Ordinary Least Squares Regression with Clustered Standard Errors on University Assessing Impact of Taking an Animal Studies Course on Empathy for Humans and Animals (N = 756).

	Cognitive Empathy for Humans		Affective Empathy for Humans		Cognitive Empathy for Animals		Affective Empathy for Animals
Variables	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE
Key independent variable
Taken SAS course	.068*	.016	.071*	.012	.186**	.013	.139	.075
Independent controls
Precourse empathy
Precourse cognitive empathy for humans	.694***	.019	—	—	—	—	—	—
Precourse affective empathy for humans	—	—	.797***	.005	—	—	—	—
Precourse cognitive empathy for animals	—	—	—	—	.565***	.017	—	—
Precourse affective empathy for animals	—	—	—	—	—	—	.470***	.012
Demographics
White	.059	.017	.068*	.016	.192	.049	.151*	.017
Hispanic	.017**	.001	.066*	.009	.050	.027	.098	.026
Man	−.101	.038	−.093**	.008	−.090	.054	−.230	.074
LGBTQ+	.002	.002	.009	.006	.035	.035	−.007	.092
Extreme Democrat to extreme Republican	.003	.006	.009	.008	.011	.014	.028	.008
Very liberal to very conservative	−.011	.006	−.008	.013	−.017	.013	−.023	.022
Religious, not Christian	.024	.017	.056	.043	.004	.015	.071	.021
Christian	−.031	.018	.000	.009	−.032	.026	−.143	.035
Values
Humanistic altruism	.028	.013	.036	.018	.001	.034	.079	.022
Biospheric altruism	−.024	.027	.010	.023	.044	.051	.040	.028
Egoism	−.039	.019	−.025	.008	−.016	.010	−.092	.025
Traditionalism	.038	.016	.007	.004	.007	.035	.073**	.004
Willingness to change	.038*	.007	.044	.033	−.011	.016	.031	.043
Constant	1.027*	.111	.373*	.066	1.508*	.167	1.500**	.075
R²	.499		.696		.434		.306

Note: SAS = sociological animal studies.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Change Model Ordinary Least Squares Regression with Clustered Standard Errors on University Assessing How Taking a Sociological Animal Studies Influences Human and Animal Empathy (N = 756).

	Cognitive Empathy for Humans		Affective Empathy for Humans		Cognitive Empathy for Animals		Affective Empathy for Animals
Variables	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE
Key independent variable
Taken SAS course	.068*	.016	.071*	.012	.186**	.013	.139	.075
Independent controls
Precourse empathy
Precourse cognitive empathy for humans	−.306**	.019	—	—	—	—	—	—
Precourse affective empathy for humans	—	—	−.203***	.005	—	—	—	—
Precourse cognitive empathy for animals	—	—	—	—	−.435**	.017	—	—
Precourse affective empathy for animals	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.530***	.012
Demographics
White	.059	.017	.068*	.016	.192	.049	.151*	.017
Hispanic	.017**	.001	.066*	.009	.050	.027	.098	.026
Man	−.101	.038	−.093**	.008	−.090	.054	−.230	.074
LGBTQ+	.002	.002	.009	.006	.035	.035	−.007	.092
Extreme Democrat to extreme Republican	.003	.006	.009	.008	.011	.014	.028	.008
Very liberal to very conservative	−.011	.006	−.008	.013	−.017	.013	−.023	.022
Religious, not Christ	.024	.017	.056	.043	.004	.015	.071	.021
Christian	−.031	.018	.000	.009	−.032	.026	−.143	.035
Values
Humanistic altruism	.028	.013	.036	.018	.001	.034	.079	.022
Biospheric altruism	−.024	.027	.010	.023	.044	.051	.040	.028
Egoism	−.039	.019	−.025	.008	−.016	.010	−.092	.025
Traditionalism	.038	.016	.007	.004	.007	.035	.073**	.004
Willingness to change	.038*	.007	.044	.033	−.011	.016	.031	.043
Constant	1.027*	.111	.373*	.066	1.508*	.167	1.499**	.075
R²	.146		.122		.224		.241

Note: SAS = sociological animal studies.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In the postcourse model, we found that higher precourse empathy scores for cognitive and affective human empathy and cognitive animal empathy are significantly correlated with higher postcourse empathy scores. The change model provides nuance to this result; students reporting higher precourse empathy scores across these measures have smaller change in their postcourse empathy scores. This outcome reflects the fact that students with higher starting scores have less room for change on a finite empathy scale. The variance explained for the postcourse approach ranges from 30 percent to 70 percent, and the variance explained with the change model ranges from 12 percent to 24 percent.

Few control variables were consistently significant. Importantly, these variables may still influence empathy development; in fact, additional analysis (not presented) shows that many demographic and value variables were significant predictors of precourse empathy scores. Given that precourse empathy scores were included as a control variable, many of the other variables had an indirect influence on postcourse empathy scores and were not independently significant.

Given that some courses in the group were taught by SAS instructors who include animal-related content in all their courses, we wanted to assess if any of these courses led to greater change in empathy compared to other non-SAS courses that did not include animal-related content. Using pairwise comparisons of means to compare mean change scores, we found that although all non-SAS courses taught by SAS instructors who included animal-related content did show increases in empathy across the board compared to non-SAS courses not taught by non-SAS instructors, these differences were not significant. This may be a product of small sample sizes among the various courses and not an actual lack of significance.

To assess causal inference, we used KonFound-it (Frank et al. 2013) to analyze the percentage of data that would need to be replaced to invalidate inference. Although there is not a defined replacement level within the literature, many point to 50 percent of data needing to be replaced as a robust indicator of inferential strength. In our case, for the results to be spurious, the percentage of cases that would need to be replaced with ones where the effect size is zero are as follows. For cognitive human empathy to be considered spurious, 54 percent of data, or 407 of 756 cases would need to be replaced; for affective human empathy, 67 percent or 505 of 756 cases would need to be replaced with cases that have zero effect size; and for cognitive animal empathy, 86 percent or 652 of 756 cases would need to be replaced to assert that there is no effect. All these significant indicators are well above the identified 50 percent ratio, suggesting that the results are robust and potentially causal in nature.

Discussion

Based on an evolving literature showing that our interactions and relationships with animals enhance our empathetic capacities, we sought to assess the overall impact of SAS courses on empathy development among college students and to determine if there is something special about SAS courses that enhance general concern for animals and humans. Specifically, we explored whether taking an SAS course influenced students’ affective and cognitive empathy for humans and animals. Findings reveal that SAS courses are more effective than human-centered sociology courses in enhancing cognitive and affective empathy toward humans and cognitive empathy toward other animals. These findings hold even when comparing empathy levels at the beginning of the course and a variety of factors known to shape empathy development. In addition, our findings suggest that simply learning about animals in the abstract, rather than interacting with them, can enhance empathy.

Why might SAS courses enhance empathy more so than human-centered sociological courses, and why might such courses also enhance empathy toward humans? One explanation is that animals provide unconditional love and forgiveness in the face of our greatest faults and give us permission to fail them and practice kindness and compassion (Bekoff 2004). This finding is also consistent with previous literature that shows that persons who show greater empathy for animals also have greater empathy for humans (but not vice versa; Cloutier and Peetz 2016; Daly and Morton 2006, 2009). This insight helps us to understand how interacting with animals may enhance empathy, but our findings show that simply learning about animals can increase empathy. We posit that SAS courses may enhance students’ ability to take the role of the other—both in the classic sense (Mead 1934) and in the sense of the “Other” as outsider, incidental, and nonnormative (de Beauvoir 1953). For humans, animals are indeed the “Other,” representing a truly alien species, given that most students have never been challenged to think about other animal species as deserving serious consideration. Although most students come into SAS classes believing that animals can feel pain and that at least certain animals (e.g., dogs) feel emotions like humans, few have been challenged to consider how other animals (including nonmammals) possess intelligence, social bonds, emotions, and perhaps moral status (see e.g., Bekoff, Allen, and Burghardt 2002; Regan 2004). “Humanizing” nonhuman animals, so to speak, may increase empathy similar to how humanizing any out-group enhances empathy (Ghidina 2019; Hein et al. 2015; MacNamara et al. 2017). In short, learning to take the role of other animals may translate into greater empathy for all. From the perspective of brain science, SAS courses may be especially able to transmit this knowledge because such courses present novel information for most students (Lemon and Manahan-Vaughan 2006). Messineo (2018) also notes how seeing others (in this case, nonhuman animals) experience joy or suffering activates centers of the brain that allow individuals to experience similar emotions, and these emotions and thoughts enhance learning.

Further research is needed to determine whether SAS courses are unique or whether any course that exposes conditions of groups who heretofore were considered othered, invisible, or too far outside the norm to have given them serious thought may have similar effects (e.g., perpetrators learning about violence from the victims’ perspective, able-bodied students taking their first course on disabilities). These findings have important implications for sociology broadly and particularly for teaching sociology. Empathy is recognized as a core sociological value that is important yet challenging to teach (Latshaw 2015; Rockwell et al. 2019). This study offers evidence that teaching SAS courses is an effective way to enhance students’ empathy beyond what non-SAS courses might do. Empathy also motivates individuals to take action to help reduce the pain and suffering of others. Interestingly, research shows that enhancing cognitive empathy (which showed greater change in this study) is more important than affective empathy in getting people to engage in humanitarian and environmental issues (Einolf 2012), suggesting that SAS courses may be helpful in furthering social and environmental justice efforts among students.

SAS remains a neglected yet important piece of the sociological puzzle (Arluke 2002; Bryant 1979; Grauerholz et al. 2020; Irvine 2008). If we hope to enhance students’ understanding of the social world and empathy, SAS courses should be more widely taught within sociology (syllabi for SAS courses are available on the ASI [2023b] and the American Sociological Association [ASA] TRAILS websites). For instance, ASA TRAILS has syllabi to help in teaching a general sociological animals studies course, such as Animals and Society (Flynn 2010), and more specific courses, such as a Violence against Animals course (Vollum 2010). Given that many sociology programs may not have the resources to offer SAS-specific courses, inviting animal studies specialists into the classroom or incorporating material on human-animal connections and biodiversity into existing courses are ways to move toward this goal. Grauerholz et al. (2020) found that simply using examples regarding animals to illustrate core sociological concepts results in greater student learning, engagement, and interest. Classroom activities such as analyzing language concerning animal-human boundaries (e.g., Markowski 2016) or incorporating animal readings or film (Smith-Harris 2010) into non-SAS courses are other ways to enrich human-centered courses with SAS material.

Although our findings are robust, there are limitations. First, the sample is composed of students from just three (albeit diverse) institutions. Second, we were not able to use data from students who either did not complete both the pre- and postsurveys or grant permission to use their responses or whose data could not be matched. Hence, we do not have information on students who dropped the class or did not complete both surveys. Third, we were not able to account for different teaching styles among professors. For instance, SAS instructors may be more empathetic because of their human-animal relationship focus, which may lead to a different course environment that engages students differently. If this were the case, students in these courses would likely come away with more empathy (Wynn et al. 2023). However, the fact that all the SAS courses (and virtually all non-SAS courses) were taught online due to COVID-19, the “teacher effect” was minimized and suggests that the content, not the teacher, makes the difference. Fourth, we are not able to determine why taking SAS courses enhance students’ empathy, whether effects are long-term, if it enhances empathy for underrepresented groups, or if it results in social action.

Such limitations provide opportunities for future research. As SAS and SAS courses grow, it would be helpful to replicate this study including more instructors, classes, and universities to determine if the findings hold up to different learning environments and whether there are specific elements of SAS courses that have a greater impact on empathy development. Future research should assess if increases in empathy among SAS students are short- or long-term, if they are correlated with social engagement and activism, and in what communities empathy enhancement is most pronounced. Exposure differences also need to be assessed. Here, we examined the impact of taking at least one SAS course, but future research should assess if there is an impact of taking a course that includes an SAS module and if taking multiple SAS courses has a greater impact compared to taking one. Future research should explore what draws students to take SAS courses and whether students who already possess the potential for empathy development are more inclined to select SAS courses. Finally, future research should include more statements from the Basic Empathy for Animals Scale that we developed. Additional suggestions for inclusion are featured in Table 1.

Conclusion

Although SAS remains a peripheral and undervalued subfield within sociology (Bryant 1979; Whitley and Cherry 2023), as seasoned SAS professors, we collectively hold years of anecdotal evidence that SAS courses are unique in inspiring students to think differently about the world and its inhabitants—human and nonhuman. In SAS courses, we have seen students become more critical consumers of animal products, reject carnism, become involved in organizations supporting animals, recognize the importance of animals in their everyday lives, assess their purchasing and products for animal cruelty, and make connections between social and environmental issues and the ways we treat animals. As a discipline, we strive to stake our relevance, to show how our courses translate to student success. This research shows that SAS courses positively impact human- and animal-centered empathy, even when controlling for other factors known to contribute to empathy development among college students. The findings support the routine anecdotal evidence of changes in student empathetic engagement that SAS scholars have been discussing for decades. Perhaps most importantly, they are a signal to the broader sociological community of the importance of SAS and SAS courses for the sociology curriculum to enhance empathy needed to address global social problems.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Kathy Stolley for her assistance with data collection and to the students who participated in the study.

Editor’s Note

Reviewers for this manuscript were, in alphabetical order, Marcia Ghidina, Melinda Messineo, and Colleen Wynn.

ORCID iDs

Cameron T. Whitley

Liz Grauerholz

Author Biographies

Cameron T. Whitley (he/his or they/them) is an associate professor of sociology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington. His primary research agenda explores how our relationships with others—human and nonhuman—influence how we make decisions related to the environment, with a particular focus on altruism and empathy. He is a 2023 NSF Early CAREER grant recipient.

Erin N. Kidder (she/her/hers) is an assistant professor of animal studies at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida. Her research and teaching focus on the deeply connected human-nonhuman animal relationship. In particular, she explores the patterns of behavior associated with how we commodify and consume other animals and the impact those behaviors have on humans, nonhuman animals, and the environment.

Kelley J. Ortiz (she/her/hers) is a PhD student of sociology at the University of Central Florida. Her current research interests in medical sociology and inequality center on exploring the impacts of human-nonhuman animal relationships on human and nonhuman animal health. She is also interested in questions around how medical organizations and institutions engage social identities and inequalities.

Liz Grauerholz (she/her/hers) is retired professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida. Her teaching and research focus on animals and society, inequalities, scholarship of teaching and learning, and consumption. Her current research focuses on the toxic ingredients contained in personal care products.

References

Adkins

Angela M.

2021. “Values, Compassion, and the Role of Active Learning in an Introduction to Sociology Class.” Teaching Sociology 49(4):319–34.

Animals & Society Institute. 2023a. “Degree Programs.” https://www.animalsandsociety.org/resources/resources-for-students/degree-programs/.

Animals & Society Institute. 2023b. “HASResource.” https://www.animalsandsociety.org/resources/resources-for-faculty/hasresource/.

Arluke

Arnold

. 2002. “A Sociology of Sociological Animal Studies.” Society and Animals 10(4):369–74.

Ascione

Frank R.

1992. “Enhancing Children’s Attitudes about the Humane Treatment of Animals: Generalization to Human-Directed Empathy.” Anthrozoös 5(3):176–91.

Lisa Feldman

Barrett

Lewis

Michael

Haviland-Jones

Jeannette M.

, eds. 2016. Handbook of Emotions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bekoff

Marc

. 2004. “Wild Justice and Fair Play: Cooperation, Forgiveness, and Morality in Animals.” Biology and Philosophy 19(4):489–520.

Bekoff

Marc

Allen

Collin

Burghardt

Gordon M.

2002. The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Besek

Jordan F.

York

Richard

. 2019. “Toward a Sociology of Biodiversity Loss.” Social Currents 6(3):239–54.

10.

Brooks

Helen Louise

Rushton

Kelly

Lovell

Karina

Bee

Penny

Walker

Lauren

Grant

Laura

Rogers

Anne

. 2018. “The Power of Support from Companion Animals for People Living with Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of the Evidence.” BMC Psychiatry 18(1):31. doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1613-2.

11.

Brunner

Brigitta R.

Zarkin

Kim

Yates

Bradford L.

2018. “What Do Employers Want? What Should Faculty Teach? A Content Analysis of Entry-Level Employment Ads in Public Relations.” Journal of Public Relations Education 4(2):21–50.

12.

Bryant

Brenda K.

1982. “An Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents.” Child Development 53(2):413–25.

13.

Bryant

Clifton D.

1979. “The Zoological Connection: Animal-Related Human Behavior.” Social Forces 58(2):399–421.

14.

Busenbark

John R.

Frank

Kenneth A.

Maroulis

Spiro J.

Ran

Lin

Qinyun

. 2021. “Quantifying the Robustness of Empirical Inferences in Strategic Management: The Impact Threshold of a Confounding Variable and Robustness of Inference to Replacement.” Pp. 123–50 in Research in Times of Crisis. Vol. 13, edited by Hill

A. D.

Lê

J. K.

McKenney

A. F.

O’Kane

Paroutis

Smith

A. D.

Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

15.

Busenbark

John R.

Yoon

Hyunjung

Gamache

Daniel L.

Withers

Michael C.

2022. “Omitted Variable Bias: Examining Management Research with the Impact Threshold of a Confounding Variable (ITCV).” Journal of Management 48(1):17–48.

16.

Cloutier

Anika

Peetz

Johanna

. 2016. “Relationships’ Best Friend: Links between Pet Ownership, Empathy, and Romantic Relationship Outcomes.” Anthrozoös 29(3):395–408.

17.

Colby

Ashley

Whitley

Cameron T.

2022. “Crisis to Adaptation: Assessing the Drivers of Participation in Sustainable Off-Grid Construction.” Human Ecology Review 27(2):51–71.

18.

Cooley

Charles Horton

. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

19.

Cuff

Benjamin M. P.

Brown

Sarah J.

Taylor

Laura

Howat

Douglas J.

2016. “Empathy: A Review of the Concept.” Emotion Review 8(2):144–53.

20.

Daly

Beth

Morton

L. L.

2006. “An Investigation of Human-Animal Interactions and Empathy as Related to Pet Preference, Ownership, Attachment, and Attitudes in Children.” Anthrozoös 19(2):113–27.

21.

Daly

Beth

Morton

L. L.

2009. “Empathic Differences in Adults as a Function of Childhood and Adult Pet Ownership and Pet Type.” Anthrozoös 22(4):371–82.

22.

Daly

Beth

Suggs

Suzanne

. 2010. “Teachers’ Experiences with Humane Education and Animals in the Elementary Classroom: Implications for Empathy Development.” Journal of Moral Education 39(1):101–12.

23.

de Beauvoir

Simone

. 1953. The Second Sex. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

24.

Decety

Jean

Cowell

Jason M.

2014. “The Complex Relation between Morality and Empathy.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(7):337–39.

25.

Margo

DeMello

, ed. 2010. Teaching the Animal: The Humanities. New York, NY: Lentern Books.

26.

DeMello

Margo

. 2021. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

27.

Dietz

Thomas

. 2015. “Environmental Values.” Pp. 329–49 in Oxford Handbook of Values, edited by Brosch

Sander

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

28.

Dietz

Thomas

Kalof

Linda

Stern

Paul C.

2002. “Gender, Values, and Environmentalism.” Social Science Quarterly 83(1):353–64. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00088.

29.

Dietz

Thomas

Shwom

Rachael L.

Whitley

Cameron T.

2020. “Climate Change and Society.” Annual Review of Sociology 46:135–58.

30.

Dolamore

Stephanie

Lovell

Darrell

Collins

Haley

Kline

Angela

. 2021. “The Role of Empathy in Organizational Communication during Times of Crisis.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 43(3):366–75.

31.

Dueñas

Jorge-Manuel

Gonzàlez

Laia

Forcada

Raquel

Duran-Bonavila

Silvia

Ferre-Rey

Gisela

. 2021. “The Relationship between Living with Dogs and Social and Emotional Development in Childhood.” Anthrozoös 34(1):33–46.

32.

Eckerd

Lizabeth M.

Barnett

James E.

Jett-Dias

Latishia

. 2016. “Grief Following Pet and Human Loss: Closeness Is Key.” Death Studies 40(5):275–82.

33.

Einolf

Christopher J.

2012. “Is Cognitive Empathy More Important than Affective Empathy? A Response to ‘Who Helps Natural-Disaster Victims?’” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 12(1):268–71.

34.

Farmus

Linda

Arpin-Cribbie

Chantal A.

Cribbie

Robert A.

2019. “Continuous Predictors of Pretest-Posttest Change: Highlighting the Impact of the Regression Artifact.” Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 4:64. doi:10.3389/fams.2018.00064.

35.

Fitzgerald

Amy J.

Barrett

Betty Jo

Stevenson

Rochelle

Fritz

Patti A. Timmons

. 2021. “Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse.” Pp. 325–39 in The Routledge International Handbook of Domestic Violence and Abuse, edited by Devaney

Bradbury-Jones

Macy

R. J.

Overlien

Holt

New York, NY: Routledge.

36.

Flynn

Clifton P.

2010. “Animals and Society.” TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. http://trails.asanet.org.

37.

Frank

Kenneth A.

Maroulis

Spiro J.

Duong

Minh Q.

Kelcey

Benjamin M.

2013. “What Would It Take to Change an Inference? Using Rubin’s Causal Model to Interpret the Robustness of Causal Inferences.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 35(4):437–60.

38.

Frank

Kenneth A.

Ran

. 2020. “Causal Inference for Social Network Analysis.” Pp. 288–310 in The Oxford Handbook of Social Networks, edited by Light

Moody

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

39.

Ghidina

Marcia

. 2019. “Deconstructing Victim-Blaming, Dehumanization, and Othering.” Teaching Sociology 47(3):231–42.

40.

Grauerholz

Liz

Weinzimmer

Julianne

Kidder

Erin N.

Duffy

Nicole Owens

. 2020. “Teaching about Animals: Incorporating Nonhuman Animals into Sociology Classrooms.” Teaching Sociology 48(2):120–39.

41.

Grauerholz

Liz

Whitley

Cameron T.

Kidder

Erin N.

Ortiz

Kelley J.

Stolley

Kathy Shepherd

. Forthcoming. “Teaching Human Animal Studies Courses: Exploring Student Characteristics Across Three Universities.” Society & Animals.

42.

Greenebaum

Jessica Beth

. 2017. “Questioning the Concept of Vegan Privilege: A Commentary.” Humanity & Society 41(3):355–72.

43.

Hein

Grit

Engelmann

Jan B.

Vollberg

Marius C.

Tobler

Philippe N.

2015. “How Learning Shapes the Empathic Brain.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(1):80–85.

44.

Hogan

Robert

. 1969. “Development of an Empathy Scale.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33(3):307–16.

45.

Hopwood

Christopher J.

Stahlmann

Alexander G.

Bleidorn

Wiebke

. 2022. “Personality and Compassion for Animals.” Anthrozoös 36(1):69–81.

46.

Hoy-Gerlach

Janet

Rauktis

Mary

Newhill

Christina

. 2020. “(Non-human) Animal Companionship: A Crucial Support for People during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Society Register 4(2):109–20.

47.

Irvine

Leslie

. 2008. “Animals and Sociology.” Sociology Compass 2(6):1954–71.

48.

Irvine

Leslie

. 2009a. Filling the Ark: Animal Welfare in Disasters. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

49.

Irvine

Leslie

. 2009b. “Teaching and Learning Guide for: Animals and Sociology.” Sociology Compass 3(2):372–80.

50.

Jolliffe

Darrick

Farrington

David P.

2006. “Development and Validation of the Basic Empathy Scale.” Journal of Adolescence 29(4):589–611.

51.

Kalof

Linda

Whitley

Cameron T.

2021. “Animals in Environmental Sociology.” Pp. 289–313 in Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by Caniglia

B. Schaefer

Jorgenson

Malin

S. A.

Peek

Pellow

D. N.

Huang

New York, NY: Springer.

52.

Khalid

Aliya

Naqvi

Irum

. 2016. “Relationship between Pet Attachment and Empathy among Young Adults.” Journal of Behavioural Sciences 26(1):66–81.

53.

Koop-Monteiro

Yasmin

. 2023. “Including Animals in Sociology.” Current Sociology 71(6):1141–58. doi:10.1177/00113921211065492.

54.

Latshaw

Beth A.

2015. “Examining the Impact of a Domestic Violence Simulation on the Development of Empathy in Sociology Classes.” Teaching Sociology 43(4):277–89.

55.

Lemon

Neal

Manahan-Vaughan

Denise

. 2006. “Dopamine D1/D5 Receptors Gate the Acquisition of Novel Information through Hippocampal Long-Term Potentiation and Long-Term Depression.” Journal of Neuroscience 26(29):7723–29.

56.

MacNamara

Jessica

Glann

Sarah

Durlak

Paul

. 2017. “Experiencing Misgendered Pronouns: A Classroom Activity to Encourage Empathy.” Teaching Sociology 45(3):269–78.

57.

Markowski

Kelly L.

2016. “Human/Nonhuman Animal Boundary Maintenance through Language.” TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. http://trails.asanet.org.

58.

Mayhew

Matthew J.

Fernandez

Sonia Deluca

. 2007. “Pedagogical Practices That Contribute to Social Justice Outcomes.” The Review of Higher Education 31(1):55–80.

59.

Mayorga-Gallo

Sarah

. 2018. “Whose Best Friend? Dogs and Racial Boundary Maintenance in a Multiracial Neighborhood.” Sociological Forum 33(2):505–28.

60.

McCaffree

Kevin

. 2020. “Towards an Integrative Sociological Theory of Empathy.” European Journal of Social Theory 23(4):550–70.

61.

Mead

George Herbert

. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

62.

Messineo

Melinda

. 2018. “2017 Hans O. Mauksch Address: Using the Science of Learning to Improve Student Learning in Sociology Classes.” Teaching Sociology 46(1):1–11.

63.

Paul

Elizabeth S.

2000. “Empathy with Animals and with Humans: Are They Linked?” Anthrozoös 13(4):194–202.

64.

Peggs

Kay

. 2012. Animals and Sociology. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

65.

Phillips

Clive

. 2009. “Empathy towards Animals.” Pp. 47–54 in The Welfare of Animals, edited by Phillips

New York, NY: Springer.

66.

Regan

Tom

. 2004. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkley: University of California Press.

67.

Rockwell

Ashley

Vidmar

Chris M.

Harvey

Penny

Greenwood

Leanna

. 2019. “Do Sociology Courses Make More Empathetic Students? A Mixed-Methods Study of Empathy Change in Undergraduates.” Teaching Sociology 47(4):284–302.

68.

Romero

Rachel

. 2020. “Poetic Transcription in the Sociology Classroom: Developing Empathy, Analytical Skills, Creativity, and Engagement.” Teaching Sociology 48(3):211–19.

69.

Ruiz-Junco

Natalia

. 2017. “Advancing the Sociology of Empathy: A Proposal.” Symbolic Interaction 40(3):414–35.

70.

Ruiz-Junco

Natalia

. 2021. “Empathy, Intersubjectivity, and the Self.” Pp. 543–57 in Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by S

Abrutyn

Lizardo

Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.

71.

Shamay-Tsoory

Simone G.

Aharon-Peretz

Judith

Perry

Daniella

. 2009. “Two Systems for Empathy: A Double Dissociation between Emotional and Cognitive Empathy in Inferior Frontal Gyrus versus Ventromedial Prefrontal Lesions.” Brain 132(3):617–27.

72.

Smith-Harris

Tracey

. 2010. “Animals and People.” TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. http://trails.asanet.org.

73.

Van Breukelen

. 2006. “ANCOVA versus Change from Baseline: More Power in Randomized Studies, More Bias in Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59(9):920–25.

74.

Van Breukelen

Gerard J. P.

2013. “ANCOVA versus CHANGE from Baseline in Nonrandomized Studies: The Difference.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 48(6):895–922.

75.

Villafaina-Domínguez

Beatriz

Collado-Mateo

Daniel

Merellano-Navarro

Eugenio

Villafaina

Santos

. 2020. “Effects of Dog-Based Animal-Assisted Interventions in Prison Population: A Systematic Review.” Animals 10(11):2129. doi:10.3390/ani10112129.

76.

Vollum

Scott

. 2010. “Sociolgy/Criminal Justice 395 Violence against Animals.” TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. http://trails.asanet.org.

77.

Whitley

Cameron T.

2015. “Trans*-subjectivity: Exploring Research Positionality in the Field.” Qualitative Sociology Review 11(4):67–80.

78.

Whitley

Cameron T.

Bowers

Melanie M.

2023. “Queering Climate Change: Exploring the Influence of LGBTQ Plus Identity on Climate Change Belief and Risk Perceptions.” Sociological Inquiry 93(3):413–39.

79.

Whitley

Cameron T.

Cherry

Elizabeth

. 2023. “Environmental Sociology and Sociological Animal Studies.” Pp. 245–58 in Handbook of Sociology, edited by Cabrera

S. A.

Sweet

New York, NY: Elgar Publishing.

80.

Whitley

Cameron T.

Kalof

Linda

. 2014. “Animal Imagery in the Discourse of Climate Change.” International Journal of Sociology 44(1):10–33.

81.

Whitley

Cameron T.

Yoder

Scot D.

2015. “Developing Social Responsibility and Political Engagement: Assessing the Aggregate Impacts of University Civic Engagement on Associated Attitudes and Behaviors.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10(3):217–33.

82.

Wynn

Colleen E.

Ziff

Elizabeth

Snyder

Allison H.

Schmidt

Kamryn T.

Hill

Lauryn L.

2023. “The Sociological Role of Empathy in the Classroom.” Teaching Sociology 51(2):181–92. doi:10.1177/0092055X221123338.

83.

Ran

Frank

Kenneth A.

Maroulis

Spiro J.

Rosenberg

Joshua M.

2019. “Konfound: Command to Quantify Robustness of Causal Inferences.” The Stata Journal 19(3):523–50.

84.

Young

Ashley

Khalil

Kathayoon A.

Wharton

Jim

. 2018. “Empathy for Animals: A Review of the Existing Literature.” Curator: The Museum Journal 61(2):327–43.

85.

Zaki

Jamil

. 2020. The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World. New York, NY: Broadway Books.