Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T13:16:25.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between the stockperson’s personality and attitudes and the productivity of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

D. Hanna ,
I. A. Sneddon  and
V. E. Beattie
D. Hanna*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
I. A. Sneddon
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
V. E. Beattie
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
*
E-mail: donncha.hanna@qub.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

This study investigated the relationships amongst personality traits and attitudes of 311 dairy stockpeople and the milk yield they obtained. A questionnaire pack consisting of a big-five measure of personality (which includes the traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellect), a four-factor attitude questionnaire and associated demographic and production questions was posted out to Northern Ireland dairy farmers. Pearson correlations were used to assess the relationship between personality and attitudes and partial correlations were calculated between milk yield and these psychometric measures. The personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness were most strongly correlated to positive attitudes towards working with dairy cows. None of the stockpeople’s personality traits were significantly correlated with the milk yield they obtained. Three of the attitude scales, however, were significantly correlated with milk yield; milk yield was related to higher levels of empathy and job satisfaction and lower levels of negative beliefs. These findings, along with previous research, suggest stockperson attitudes may be important in relation to dairy cow welfare and production.

Keywords

stockpersonhuman–animal relationshipattitudepersonalitydairy cow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 5 , May 2009 , pp. 737 - 743
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, I, Fishbein, M 1977. Attitude–behaviour relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84, 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, P, Kline, P 1982. An item and radial parcel factor analysis of the 16PF questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences 1, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrick, MR, Mount, MK 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, DA, Clare-Stewart, A, Roy, EJ, Srull, TK, Wickens, CD 1994. Psychology, 3rd edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Beveridge, LM 1996. Studies on the influence of human characteristics and training on stockperson work performance and farm animal behaviour. PhD, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Beynon, NM 1991. Pig–primate interface. Analysis of stockmanship. Pig Veterinary Journal 26, 67–77.Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR, Coleman, GJ 2000. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 66, 273–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cattell, RB 1950. Personality: a systematic, theoretical and factual study. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Applied Cognitive Studies (CentACS) 2002. The Big Five Quickstart: an introduction to the five-factor model of personality for human resource professionals. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.centacs.com/quickstart.htmGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH, Hay, M 1998. Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, C 1998. Individual differences. Arnold, London, UK.Google Scholar
Costa, PT, McCrae, RR 1976. Age differences in personality structure: a cluster-analytic approach. Journal of Gerontology 31, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Digman, JM 1990. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41, 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endresen, IM, Olweus, D 2001. Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: sex differences, age trends and relationship to bullying. In Constructive & destructive behavior: implications for family, school & society (ed. AC Bohart and DJ Stipek), pp. 147–165. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, PR 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behaviour. Pig Veterinary Journal 26, 56–66.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M, Ajzen, I 1974. Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review 81, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodstein, LD, Lanyon, RI 1999. Applications of personality assessment to the workplace: a review. Journal of Business and Psychology 13, 291–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, JP 1959. Personality. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ 1998. Human–Livestock interactions. CAB International, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Coleman, GJ, Hansen, C 1989. A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 23, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S 2000. Relationships between human–animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2821–2831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S, Dowling, S 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockperson and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstee, WKB, deRaad, B, Goldberg, LR 1992. Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 146–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Personality Item Pool 2001. A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. Retrieved January 12, 2008 from http://ipip.ori.org/Google Scholar
Katzell, RA, Thompson, DE 1990. An integrative model of work attitudes, motivation and performance. Human Performance 3, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, P 1986. A handbook of test construction. Methuen, London, UK.Google Scholar
Kline, P 2000. Handbook of psychological testing, 2nd edition. Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
Lensink, J, Boissy, A, Veisser, I 2000. The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W 1986. Introduction to personality. CBS College Publishing, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Norman, GR, Streiner, DL 2000. Biostatistics, 2nd edition. B.C. Decker, Hamilton, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Nunnally, JC 1978. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Pagani, C 2001. The cross-cultural significance of empathy as an instrument to prevent aggression. In Cross-cultural approaches to research on aggression and reconciliation (ed. JM Ramirez and DS Richardson), pp. 191–201. Nova Science, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Panamá Arias, JL, Spinka, A 2005. Associations of stockpersons’ personalities and attitudes with performance of dairy cattle herds. Czech Journal of Animal Science 50, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pervin, LA 1989. Personality: theory and research. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Ravel, A, D’Allaire, S, Bigras-Poulin, M 1996. Influence of management, housing and personality of the stockperson on preweaning performances on independent and integrated swine farms in Québec. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 29, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, MF 1972. A study to determine the influence of the herdsman’s personality on milk yield. Journal of Agriculture Labor Science 1, 45–49.Google Scholar
Seabrook, MF 1984. The psychological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. Veterinary Record 115, 84–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M, Gregg, M, Andrews, D 1989. Selection and assessment: a new appraisal. Pitman Publishing, London, UK.Google Scholar
Stevens, J 1986. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Tett, RP, Jackson, DN, Rothstein, M 1991. Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology 44, 703–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokar, DM, Fischer, AR, Subich, LM 1998. Personality and vocational behavior: a selective review of the literature, 1993–1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior 53, 115–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C, Coleman, G 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar