Animal cruelty based messages are more effective than health or environmental ones

Taken mostly from this piece Chris did in 2022:

See also: Mathur et al., 2021

However, I'd argue that basically all these studies are barely valid


Study	Sample	Medium	Results
Humane League Labs (2015)	N=784, 42% under 25	Pamphlets	Those who saw a pamphlet about non-human animal cruelty were most likely to intend to change their eating habits (51%), more likely than those who saw a pamphlet about the environment (41%) or a purist abolition pamphlet (27%).
Faunalytics (2012)	Over 500 people aged 15-23	Short videos	Those who saw a video about non-human animal cruelty were the most likely to report intentions to reduce their non-human animal product consumption (36%), more likely than those who saw a video about the environment (31%), health (30%), or non-human animal individualisation (27%). In terms of intentions to eliminate non-human animal product consumption, the non-human animal cruelty video was again the most successful (12%) followed by the non-human animal individualisation video (10%).
Humane League Labs (2014)	N=798; 42% under 25	Leaflets	Those who saw leaflets focused on non-human animal cruelty were the most likely to give their email address to receive a veg starter guide (53%), more likely than those who saw leaflet about health (34%), those who saw a combined non-human animals+health message (41%), and those who saw a combined non-human animals+health+environment message (46%).
Palomo Velez, Tybur & van Vugt (2018)	309 US MTurkers + 383 US MTurkers	Persuasive essays	Those who read non-human animal cruelty essays (0.8) and disgust essays (0.8) reported the largest difference in appeal between a meat option and a vegetarian option, larger than those who read a health essay (0.7) or an environment essay (0.2).
Humane League Labs (2014)	3,233 young people	Leaflets	Those who received leaflets about non-human animal cruelty reported subsequent dietary decisions which saved more non-human animals (3.27) than those given a leaflet about health (2.94).
Carfora, Bertolotti & Catellani (2019)	180 Italian students	Text messages	Text messages focused on an emotional message caused a decrease in meat consumption, but text messages with an informative message did not.
Ye & Mattila (2021)	156 US MTurkers + 160 US MTurkers	Food photos with descriptions; articles	Those who saw a tagline highlighting the non-human animal and environmental benefits of the plant-based option reported the strongest preference for a plant-based option (4.64), stronger than those who saw a tagline about its taste similarity (3.24) or relative healthiness (3.79). Those who read an article about non-human animal and environmental benefits or health benefits were equally more likely to choose a plant-based option compared to a control.
Vainio & Hartikainen (2018)	1,279 adults in Finland	Information on screen	Health-based, environment-based, and combination messages were effective in reducing meat consumption intentions, but no difference between the three was observed.
Lai, Tirotto, Pagliaro & Fornara (2020)	198 + 218 Italian adults	Online simulated shop	Both health-based and environment-based messages increased selection of plant-based alternatives over meat, though no difference between the two was observed.
Bryant, Platt, Vultaggio & Dillard (2021) See also Testing Social Media Advertisements for Animal Advocacy	68,634 Facebook users	Social media ads	Advertisements depicting non-human animal suffering achieved a CTR (3%) more than twice as high as health- (1.4%), or environment- (1.2%), or social-related (1.2%) ads.