The Public_s Mental Models About Farming Animals (Animal Think Tank)

This report contains a summary of findings which is reproduced here exactly.

Summary of findings

This report presents two studies examining public perceptions of the treatment of farmed animals in the UK. It focuses on aspects such as welfare standards, 'deservingness' of rights, ethical treatment, and the necessity of common farming practices.

Public perception of high animal welfare

The majority of respondents view the UK as a nation of animal lovers with a good relationship with animals. However, opinions are divided regarding the treatment of farmed animals, with approximately half of the participants believing that farmed animals are treated well and that the relationship between farmers and animals is mutually beneficial.

Perceived 'deservingness' of rights for farmed animals

A significant portion of participants believe that farmed animals deserve to live free and have rights. This indicates a disconnect between the perceived deservingness of freedom and rights for animals and the recognition of their current state. The study revealed a notable gap in understanding among the public regarding what rights farmed animals entail.

Trust in bodies for animal welfare

Veterinary professionals, animal welfare charities, and animal rights groups are trusted by the majority to prioritise the welfare of farmed animals. In contrast, trust is notably lower for farmers and particularly large farming corporations, politicians, and the UK government, especially regarding the enforcement of animal welfare laws.

Cognitive framing effect between 'exploitation' and 'slavery'

Thematic analysis of responses to statements about the exploitation and enslavement of farmed animals reveals significant reliance on narratives that justify current farming practices. The most widely used were: A) They are well cared for and leave good happy lives, B) The term slavery or exploitation are terms that should only apply to humans, and that C) They were bred for the specific purpose of being used for food.

Narrative shifts

We also observed a shift in narratives based on the topic. Specifically, when thinking about animals as being enslaved, participants were much more likely to view farmed animals as being free to roam within the farm. In contrast, when thinking about animals as being exploited, participants were more likely to use the narrative that the animals would not exist if they were not farmed. This indicates a cognitive framing effect in which the way an issue is framed significantly influence how individuals conceptualise and respond to it.

Correlation between perceived harm and necessity

We found a significant correlation between the perceived necessity of a practice and its perceived harm, suggesting a cognitive dissonance resolution strategy whereby practices viewed as being higher in necessity are viewed as less harmful.

The effect of perceived necessity on perceived harm

The necessity framing of certain practices - specifically the use of farrowing crates, teeth trimming, and tail docking -influenced perceptions by suggesting these practices are protective measures for the animals. This change in perceived necessity also had a spill-over effect:lower perceived harm and lower support for a ban of the practice. Frames highlighting the unnecessary nature of practices did not significantly alter perceptions, possibly indicating an anti-vegan bias or resolution of cognitive dissonance.