Faunalytics tested whether referring to meat by the animal it came from (e.g., “cow” vs. “beef”) would have an immediate effect on attitudes or reported consumption.

In two randomized controlled trials, researchers found no significant differences between using standard euphemistic language (“pork,” “beef”) and explicit language (“pig,” “cow”).

• Participants' reported meat consumption (both whether they had eaten it and the frequency) did not change based on the wording.
• Participants' agreement with pro-animal welfare statements also did not differ between the two conditions.

These findings suggest that word choice in many advocacy contexts may be more symbolically important than strongly influential on its own. While previous research showed that explicit language can influence a food choice at the moment it is made, these studies suggest it may not have much influence on general attitudes outside of that context. For researchers, the results are reassuring that these differences in terminology on surveys are unlikely to introduce bias.

AI suggested related articles

• Citations/What To Call Plant-Based Meat Alternatives- A Labeling Study (Faunalytics) (0.74)
• Citations/How Does Video Outreach Impact Pork Consumption (Faunalytics) (0.72)
• Citations/The Role Of Humanewashing In Grocery Stores - How Welfare Labels Affect Purchasing Behavior (Faunalytics) (0.71)