Pro-animal messaging

Don't tell people what to think

There is a large body of psychological literature that suggests that imperative language can often be ineffective and counterproductive — resulting in increased anger, perceived threats to freedom, as well as alienation, message rejection, and derogation of the messenger. Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as reactance.
Rather than issuing directives, Animal Think Tank has found that posing questions can often be more effective. For example, in conversations or during outreach, instead of telling people why they should "Go vegan", we might ask: "What if we treated all animals with the same love and respect as animal companions?".

For many people, adopting the label "vegan" does not only signify a dietary change but marks a profound shift in identity. This can feel alien or even unappealing, as the word "vegan" has been burdened with cultural baggage.
The fear of becoming part of a vilified out-group is a real barrier to change.
Asking a non-vegan to "Go vegan" is like asking a lifelong Liverpool supporter to cheer for Manchester United — it’s not just a decision, it’s a challenge to their sense of self and belonging.

Animal Think Tank conducted research analysing online conversations from 2019 to 2021 to explore how the terms "vegan" and "veganism" were discussed in public discourse. The findings revealed a clear distinction: "vegan" was predominantly associated with diet, lifestyle and food preparation, often framed as a personal choice or social trend, similar to being 'gluten-free' or 'Paleo'.

People are much more open to the idea of change when it’s framed as a societal shift rather than an individual one.