There is ample research supporting White’s (1967) thesis, which postulates that religion and religious belief inhibit ecological concerns. This study thus seeks to explore the relationship between individuals’ acceptability for harming animals as one representation of ecological concern (measured using Animal Issue scale (AIS)) and their religious belief (measured using Religious Orientation Scale (ROS)) and ethical ideology (measured using Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ)). The study surveyed 929 Muslim teachers and school staff in East Java, Indonesia. We found that ROS correlates with EPQ whereby intrinsic personal (IP) relates with idealism while extrinsic social religious orientation (ES)—where religion is perceived as an instrument for social gain, membership and support—relates with relativism. However, using multiple regression analysis to examine both EPQ and ROS relation to acceptability for harming animals suggests mixed results. We found that, idealism and IP relate to a lower acceptability for harming animals, while relativism and ES correlate to a higher acceptability for harming animals. In another model where we calculate all the main variables with all the demographical and other determinants, we found that only ROS consistently relates to acceptability for harming animals. Additionally, we identify, explain and discuss significant demographic determinants along with this study’s limitations.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
The work by DP has been made possible by Government of Indonesia Ministry of Finance?s Endowment Fund for Education Institution?s (LPDP) (Grant no 201702221010339) scholarship and funding, https://www.lpdp.kemenkeu.go.id. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
© 2021 Pasaribu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.