A reanalysis of a study examining the effect of different messages on intended future animal product consumption.
A reanalysis of a study examining the effect of different messages on intended future animal product consumption.
This document presents a reanalysis of the data and conclusions reported on September 20, 2015, by Humane League Labs in the blog post titled Is animal cruelty or abolitionist messaging more effective? and the accompanying report titled Report: Is Animal Cruelty, Environmental or Purity (“Abolitionist”) Messaging More Effective At Inspiring People To Change Their Diet? The study compared the effect of three animal advocacy messages on participants' self-reported intention to change their animal product consumption. Our reanalysis supports the original report's conclusion that a message focussing on the cruelty animals endure in factory farming systems is more effective than a message focussing on animal rights and moral consistency. In contrast to the original report, our reanalysis did not find significant differences between the message focussing on cruelty and a message focussing on the environmental impact of meat consumption. Results for the comparison of the environmental message with the animal rights messages were mixed. Overall, we recommend interpreting the findings with caution as there are several serious flaws in the design of the study. Read more in the full report.
Janosch Linkersdörfer
Jacob R. Peacock
