Select a result to preview

Which Message Frames Improve Attitudes Towards Animal Treatment (Animal Think Tank)

This report contains a "Summary of findings" section which functions as an executive summary. As requested, it has been reproduced exactly below.

Summary of findings

The way that information is framed can have a huge influence on the way that it is received, and in turn, influences people's attitudes and behaviours. One challenge that the Animal Freedom movement faces is having a unified narrative that appeals to people's values and shift public support towards Animal Freedom. In this study, we conducted two experiments that tested different ways of framing the topic of why we should give rights or freedom to other animals, and measured their effect on reported attitudes.

In experiment 1, we tested the effect of 24 different message frames on seven measures of attitudes towards animals on a sample of 7,462 UK participants. Each message was framed in terms of rights or freedoms, and gains or losses. Each participant saw one of the messages and then rated how much they agreed with each of the attitude scales. We found no difference in whether the messages were framed in terms of gains or losses, but there was a small effect of framing messages in terms of rights on the extent to which people agreed with the message. Analysing individual messages, we found that some messages were statistically significantly more persuasive than others. In particular, framing messages in terms of social progress, morality, and immorality were the most persuasive at influencing people's attitudes towards animals.

In experiment 2, we tested the effect of ten different message frames on six measures of attitudes towards animals, and support for four potential laws which would give animals greater freedom on a sample of 4,026 UK participants. We also tested the effect of reminding participants how they would be personally impacted if these laws were passed. Each participant viewed one message and then rated their attitudes and support for the laws. The message frames we tested were as follows: We included two control messages. Control 1 contained neutral information (a scientific description of what animals are), whereas control 2 matched the wording of the most influential message from experiment 1, but discussed a different social justice context (LGBT+ rights). We also included the three most influential messages from experiment 1 verbatim (Social progress, moral framing, and immoral framing). We also included four new modifications which constituted modifications of those three most influential messages. One of which was a composite of features from all three messages. Finally, we tested four new exploratory message frames: animal's subjective experiences and their capabilities, animal intelligence, oppression, and specieism.

Our key findings were as follows:

  1. Some message frames were productive, while others were counterproductive. Specifically, focusing on animal capabilities, social progress, and morality increased agreement with pro-animal attitudes by up to 11%. We also replicated the finding that framing in terms of social progress and morality/immorality seemed to resonate well with people.

  2. The control condition was another effective message. This message had the same wording as the most effective message from experiment 1, but changed the context to that of LGBT+ rights. Compared to the more neutral control, which did not focus on social justice, a message about LGBT+ rights improved animal-related attitudes by 7%. This represents a spill-over effect, whereby priming values in one context activates the same values in another context. This spillover effect may be useful in campaigns that make reference to other social justice issues, and suggests greater collaboration between movements could be effective.

  3. We found two message frames in particular were counter-productive, in which support for pro-animal attitudes was lower than that of the neutral baseline condition. Specifically, messages which were framed in terms of speciesism and oppression led to lower attitudes than baseline.

  4. Support for laws were sensitive to one manipulation: reminders of how animal freedom laws will have personal consequences for ourselves led to significantly lower support for those laws. E.g. support for banning factory farming went from 49% (a near majority) to 35% when reminded that this would affect the cost of certain products.

  5. None of our message framing manipulations influenced support for changing specific laws to protect animals, despite up to 74% agreeing that the government should impose laws to protect animals.

  6. The general population seems to hold a contradiction between their reported values, and actions. For example, 57% support all animals having the same rights as humans in not being exploited or harmed, yet only 49% are in support of a ban on factory farms, an industry which is highly harmful and exploitative towards animals.