How We Frame the Problem Affects Public Support for Animal Freedom (Animal Think Tank)

This report contains an executive summary.

Here is the executive summary reproduced exactly as it appears in the document:

Executive summary

Abstract

This report examines 22 different ways of framing the issue of animal use and harm, testing which approaches most effectively increase public support for animal freedom. Drawing on data from over 2,000 participants, it analyses framings such as care, fairness, authority, and shared wellbeing, and their influence on attitudes towards abolishing animal farming. The results show that messages appealing to shared values and inviting reflection, rather than blame, are most effective. The findings provide practical guidance for advocates, highlighting which narratives foster support and which risk provoking defensiveness or backlash.

Method

This study tested the effectiveness of 22 different framings of animal freedom messages on public attitudes. A total of 2,290 participants were recruited online, with 2,117 included in the final analysis after excluding those who failed attention checks.

Participants first completed baseline measures of attitudes towards the abolition of farming animals, speciesism, viewing animal freedom as social progress, concern about the negative impacts of abolition, and their preference for keeping the status quo. They were then shown a short message, followed by questions about the message's clarity, persuasiveness, emotional tone, and impact. Afterwards, they completed the same attitude measures again, alongside questions assessing beliefs about animal use. Message impact was evaluated by comparing pre- and post-exposure scores and analysing post-message responses.

Results

Messages varied widely in their impact. Four framings were most effective in increasing support for abolishing the farming of animals:

• Authority vs Subversion: Challenges harmful traditions by appealing to our moral responsibility to question outdated norms.
• Harmful Status Quo: Highlights how normalised practices often contradict our shared values and cause widespread harm.
• One Health: Emphasises our interconnected wellbeing with other animals and the planet.
• Care: Appeals to our natural compassion and the disconnect between how we feel and how animals are treated.

We speculate that this is because these messages tended to reduce defensiveness and align with participants' existing values. While most framings had small effects, some led to meaningful positive shifts, including increased motivation and willingness to learn more.