Cat owners’ perceptions towards feline microchipping

Compulsory feline microchipping has become a legal requirement in 2021 for domestic cats (Felis catus) in the UK, following the introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in 2016. The concept of compulsory feline microchipping attracts a combination of perceptions from the public, both positive and negative. An online survey was designed to obtain cat owners’ perception toward feline microchipping, evaluating attitudes and knowledge, and offering an opportunity for participants to provide insights into their reasoning for, or against, microchipping. Findings suggested that demographics are key predictors for influencing cat owners’ perception toward feline microchipping. In particular, men are less likely to formulate opinions regarding feline welfare and microchipping, and concern for feline welfare and empathy toward cats increases with age across both men and women. When asked to provide more details about their decision to microchip, or not microchip, the survey responses revealed 66% agent-centred reasoning compared to 24% welfare, suggesting that regardless of a person’s decision, reasoning was respectively agent-centred. This suggests that potential human benefits may influence cat owners’ perception toward feline microchipping. 75% of participants support compulsory microchipping. Of those who would not support the legislation, feline welfare concerns, and a negative outlook surrounding the current database and scanning processes that support microchipping, was revealed. A focus on addressing negative perceptions toward feline microchipping could highlight approaches to change cat owners’ perceptions toward the technique positively. The results herein are useful for feline welfare organisations to promote understanding about feline microchipping. Cite as: Page, T., Lewis, T.R. and Read, L. (2021). Cat owners’ perceptions towards feline microchipping. Kingston Maurward College, Specialist Research Project. 45pp. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4gbhe