The proposition that sheer labels or categories are important in people\u27s reactions to the treatment of animals was supported by evidence from two sources. First, print archives showed that in the real world animals with a great deal in common such as (a) dolphins and tuna in the same nets; (b) cats and dogs, and pigs and goats in the same laboratories; and (c) native and feral species in the same parks are viewed or treated quite differently by humans. Second, original experiments were conducted wherein some hypothetical maltreatment of animals was held constant, but the animal label was varied over different respondents. Depending on the fictional maltreatment (hooking, shooting) and label (dog, cat, bird, fish, pig, goat) men and women respondents showed strong and systematic patterns of more or less tolerance for such treatment
