Image and Slogan Message-Testing Research Report (Animal Think Tank)

This report contains a "Summary of findings" which is reproduced below as requested.

Summary of findings

This report investigates the impact of different advocacy posters, similar to those often used in the animal freedom movement. The primary aim was to explore how different imagery—ranging from scenes of thriving animal communities to distressing farm conditions—affects emotional engagement and the persuasiveness of messages. Additionally, the research assessed the effectiveness of slogans and various calls to action to determine which strategies most inspire support for systemic change or individual behaviour change.

Methodology

Four experiments were conducted with a total of over 7,000 participants recruited online. Each participant viewed one of several uniquely designed posters and rated their agreement with the messages, emotional responses, and motivation to support the cause. The first two experiments used the images of chickens, and the second two used images of pigs. A range of images and slogans was tested, including contrasting idyllic and distressing scenes, and calls to action like "Go Vegan" versus "Support a plant-based future."

Key Findings

Impact of Imagery
Posters depicting harsh conditions for animals generally elicited the strongest emotional reactions, being rated as clearer, more motivating, and more effective than positive imagery alone. Juxtaposing hopeful scenes with distressing imagery yielded mixed results, sometimes enhancing emotional impact, while in other cases diluting it. The driving factors appeared to be the narrative that could be created about the images, and the emotional responses to them (see below).

Slogan and Call-to-Action Effectiveness
Slogans which raised awareness of welfare washing ("The animal agriculture industry wants us to believe this is free-range...but this is the reality") were found most effective at prompting action. Calls to action favouring systemic change ("Support a plant-based future") were generally more motivating than individual-focused commands ("Go Vegan").

Emotional and Kinship Factors
We found that images which evoked empathy had the largest effect on persuasiveness, followed by feelings of similarity and family. Ratings of perceived intelligence and feeling sad in response to seeing the poster were also effective - to a lesser extent. Ratings of happiness, personality, and emotions seemed to have no effect on support for animal protection. Ratings of perceived manipulativeness had a counter-productive effect on effectiveness.

Implications

The findings underscore the importance of strategic imagery and narrative framing in animal advocacy. Campaigns should carefully balance emotional engagement with a sense of hope and kinship to maximise public support. Additionally, fostering a perception of shared values and community with our animal cousins can strengthen the movement's message and reduce backlash.