A study of 28 people from one locality seems a bit of a shaky basis for firm conclusions. Still, I guess it’s a starting point that could help explain why people’s attitudes to dogs seem to vary so much:
Blouin conducted 28 in-depth interviews with dog owners from a Midwestern county. Dog ownership attitudes fell into three categories: Humanist, where dogs were highly valued and considered close companions, like pseudo people; protectionists might be vegetarians and they greatly valued animals in general, not just as pets; dominionists saw animals as separate and less important than people, often using the dogs for hunting and pest control and requiring them to live outdoors.
[Via : A Dog's Life: Relationships Between Dogs, Owners Fall Into Three Categories.]
It would be good to see this kind of research extended to other geographical areas, other countries, other cultures.
