Content uploaded by Kristof Dhont
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristof Dhont on Feb 14, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
Anthrozoös
A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions between people and
other animals
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20
Addressing Behavior and Policy Around Meat:
Associating Factory Farming with Animal Cruelty
“Works” Better than Zoonotic Disease
Olivia E. Gunther, Cara C. MacInnis, Gordon Hodson & Kristof Dhont
To cite this article: Olivia E. Gunther, Cara C. MacInnis, Gordon Hodson & Kristof Dhont (2023):
Addressing Behavior and Policy Around Meat: Associating Factory Farming with Animal Cruelty
“Works” Better than Zoonotic Disease, Anthrozoös, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738
View supplementary material
Published online: 31 Aug 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Addressing Behavior and Policy Around Meat: Associating
Factory Farming with Animal Cruelty “Works” Better than
Zoonotic Disease
Olivia E. Gunther
a,b
, Cara C. MacInnis
a,c
, Gordon Hodson
d
, and Kristof Dhont
e
a
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
b
Department of Educational and
Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada;
c
Department of Psychology, Acadia University,
Nova Scotia, Canada;
d
Department of Psychology, Brock University, Ontario, Canada;
e
School of Psychology,
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
ABSTRACT
Research on shifting attitudes or behaviors surrounding the use of
animal products traditionally focuses on animal cruelty. How this
approach may dier from exposure on the zoonotic disease
transmission risk factory farms pose is unclear. The present study
sought to examine how information regarding zoonotic disease may
stimulate concern for animals/concern for human health, respectively,
and thus predict lower willingness to consume meat, when compared
with animal cruelty and a control condition. The extent to which such
information could shift support for changing conditions on factory
farms was also examined. In a preregistered experiment (n = 454),
participants were exposed to an informative paragraph on either (a)
zoonotic disease transmission risk from factory farming, (b) animal
cruelty on factory farms, or (c) a control paragraph. Those in the
animal-cruelty condition were significantly more likely to indicate
lower meat consumption willingness and higher support for
changing conditions on factory farms, when compared with the two
other conditions. Concern for animal health and welfare mediated the
relationship between the combined experimental conditions and
both dependent variables, when compared with the control
condition. Upon examining the moderating role of human supremacy
beliefs (HSB), a conditional eect was found across all conditions, with
higher HSB predicting higher meat consumption willingness and
lower support for changing conditions on factory farms. This study
oers evidence for the intervention potential of informative excerpts.
These findings also emphasize animal cruelty as a more eective way
to mobilize support for behaviors and policies aimed at reducing
animal-product consumption.
KEYWORDS
Animal cruelty; COVID-19;
factory farming; human–
animal interaction; meat
consumption; zoonotic
disease
The human use of other animals for food is problematic for multiple reasons. For example,
animals on factory farms may be kept in unhygienic conditions (Fiber-Ostrow & Lovell,
2016) where they often cannot move, stand, or breathe fresh air (Appleby et al., 2004).
© 2023 International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)
CONTACT Olivia E. Gunther olivia.gunther@mail.mcgill.ca Department of Educational and Counselling Psy-
chology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish St, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y2, Canada
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738.
ANTHROZOÖS
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2243738
Additionally, livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse
gases, along with major contributions to soil, air, and water pollution globally (Alvarado
et al., 2021; Anastasiadis, 2004; Gerber & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2013; Godfray et al., 2018; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Further, diseases borne on
factory farms pose public health risks (Bueno-Marí et al., 2015; Karesh et al., 2012),
meat can be damaging to the humans who consume it (Wolk, 2017; Zhong et al.,
2020), and humans who work in slaughterhouses often experience physical and psycho-
logical harm (Blanchette, 2019; Mitloehner & Calvo, 2008), with harm spilling over to the
general community in the form of increased crime (Fitzgerald et al., 2009). It is no surprise,
then, that calls have been made for human diets to transition toward plant-based options
(e.g., Humane Society International, 2023; Mbow et al., 2019).
Attempts to shift attitudes and behaviors about the use of animals for food tradition-
ally focus on drawing attention to animal cruelty on factory farms (Freeman, 2010; Mathur
et al., 2021). Although these have been eective in reducing the purchase or consumption
of meat (Mathur et al., 2021), multiple approaches are likely necessary to engage a
broader range of people, and research on the eectiveness of other approaches is
needed. One such approach, especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic, is drawing atten-
tion to the conditions on factory farms being harmful to humans. Zoonotic diseases –
such as COVID-19 – are those transmitted from animals to humans via human exposure
to animals or animal products. These will often emerge on factory farms before spreading
to humans (Karesh et al., 2012). Drawing attention to zoonotic disease transmission risk or
to animal cruelty on factory farms has the potential to impact willingness to consume
animal products and to support changing policies related to factory farming. It is currently
unclear, however, whether this approach is eective (e.g., Dhont et al., 2021).
Exploring Ways to Shift Attitudes
Many meat-eaters are motivated to continue meat consumption and may actively avoid
or disregard information that makes them feel uncomfortable with their consumption
habits (Dhont et al., 2021; Leach et al., 2022; Piazza, 2020; Rothgerber & Rosenfeld,
2021). However, when information about the harm on factory farms is unavoidable and
explicit, some people may change their attitudes. That is, some may be less willing to
eat meat or be more willing to support changing conditions on factory farms in light
of such information. Of course, there are dierent aspects of factory farming to focus
on in interventions. We sought to examine and compare the outcomes of explicitly pre-
senting information on two dierent aspects of factory farming: animal cruelty and zoo-
notic disease risk.
Animal Cruelty
Support for animal rights and opposition to animal cruelty are common reasons for
adopting and maintaining a plant-based diet (Kerschke-Risch, 2015; Rosenfeld &
Burrow, 2017). Gaining awareness of animal cruelty has a longstanding history as an
eective way to shift attitudes. A systematic review by Mathur et al. (2021) found that
animal-welfare interventions were eective in short-term studies where outcomes
2 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
involved self-report or intended future behavior; lower consumption was indicated.
Tonsor and Olynk (2011) found that long-term demand for pork and poultry is hindered
by increases in animal-welfare issues being addressed by the media. Experimental work
also shows that targeting moral disengagement through displaying distressing animal
agriculture scenes, followed by discussions on the feelings the video elicited, can lead
to more negative evaluations of meat and greater willingness to reduce meat consump-
tion (Buttlar et al., 2021).
When evaluating support for policy change, Harris et al. (2022) found that providing
information about animal-welfare reforms did not increase opposition to animal
farming, whereas providing information about the cruelty of current practice increased
opposition. Given this work, we expected that presenting information about animal
cruelty on factory farms would lead to lower willingness to eat meat and greater
support for changing conditions on factory farms. We were curious, however, how this
would compare with presenting information of zoonotic disease risk on factory farms
at a time when concern about zoonotic disease (COVID-19) was high.
Zoonotic Disease
Health concerns are an additional leading motive for adopting/maintaining a meat-free
diet (Fox & Ward, 2008; Hopwood et al., 2020). This typically reects concerns with opti-
mizing one’s personal health and fitness. Although it has yet to be examined, concerns
about avoiding zoonotic disease may tie into this. With no clear consensus on whether
animal or health motivations are more eective in shifting attitudes toward animal con-
sumption (De Backer & Hudders, 2014; de Boer et al., 2017; de Oliveira Padilha et al., 2022),
we opted to compare the eects of information about zoonotic disease risk on factory
farms with information about animal cruelty on factory farms.
The COVID-19 pandemic heightened public discourse around zoonotic disease. This
could inuence attitudes toward consuming meat. Research conducted following Hong
Kong’s SARS outbreak in 2003 indicated increased consumer concern with health (Lau
et al., 2005). Wen et al. (2019) examined intentions to purchase poultry during the
2013 avian inuenza: the more a person believed that purchasing chicken products
was a risk, the less likely they were to purchase chicken. A US poll gauged the public’s
recognition of disease risk from animal agriculture, and although 43.7% of participants
indicated support for restrictions on animal agriculture to help prevent pandemics,
only 15% agreed there is a direct link between disease outbreaks and livestock farming
(Beggs & Anderson, 2020). When considering dietary changes, results were split: 17.9%
indicated they were more likely to reduce meat intake, yet 17.0% reported they were
less likely than before to reduce meat intake. Recent work by Dhont et al. (2021) suggests
zoonotic disease information may not be as eective at shifting attitudes. Participants
blamed infectious diseases on factory farms and global meat consumption less than
the wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness. This was
particularly evident for those indicated as meat-committed persons.
Like information about animal cruelty on factory farms (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017;
Loughnan et al., 2014), the above evidence suggests that people may be similarly resistant
to information linking zoonotic disease with factory farms. Nonetheless, given that animal
ANTHROZOÖS 3
rights and health are primary motivations to forgo meat (De Backer & Hudders, 2014; de
Boer et al., 2017), we expected that information regarding animal cruelty/zoonotic disease
on factory farms could stimulate concern for animals/concern for human health, respect-
ively, and thus predict lower willingness to consume meat and/or greater support for
changing conditions on factory farms. Past studies have suggested that informative inter-
ventions can eectively induce concern, and this concern can subsequently shift attitudes
toward meat and factory farms (Cordts et al., 2014; Mathur et al., 2021). We expected that
both types of information would be eective in doing this, but considering the salience of
and concern about COVID-19 at the time the research was conducted, we expected that
the zoonotic disease (vs. animal cruelty) information would be particularly eective.
We also considered a potential moderator of these eects: human supremacy beliefs
(HSB) – the extent to which one believes that humans are superior to other animals.
Research shows that stronger endorsement of HSB is associated with higher meat con-
sumption and stronger support for animal exploitation (Dhont & Hodson, 2014),
making it likely that individuals higher in HSB would be particularly resistant to the
eects of animal cruelty information (and possibly information about the risks of
factory farming in general). Interestingly, a recent study revealed that among those
higher in HSB who consume less meat, health and environmental (vs. animal-related)
motives for doing so were cited (Weber & Kollmayer, 2022), suggesting that the zoonotic
disease information could be more eective for those higher in HSB. Prior awareness of
the connection between factory farming and zoonotic disease/animal cruelty was also
gauged to see where the sample stood on awareness of these issues.
Hypotheses
We predicted that, when comparing both experimental (zoonotic & animal cruelty) conditions
with the control condition, there would be lower meat consumption willingness and greater
support for changing the conditions on factory farms (Hypothesis 1). We also predicted that
there would be lower meat consumption willingness and greater support for improving farm
conditions in the zoonotic (vs. cruelty) condition (Hypothesis 2). Additionally, we predicted
that the eects predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2 would be weaker among those higher
(vs. lower) in HSB (Hypothesis 3). These hypotheses were pre-registered through AsPredicted
(56471) (https://aspredicted.org/NH9_G6P). For exploratory purposes, we also examined con-
cerns for animals and concerns for humans as potential mediators of the relationship
between the manipulation and meat consumption willingness.
Methods
Ethics approval was received from the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculty Research
Ethics Board (REB20-1621).
Participants
Undergraduate students (n = 454, M
age
= 20.00 years, SD = 3.07, range: 17–47 years) at a
Canadian (Alberta) University completed a 30-minute online survey for course credits.
4 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
Participants were excluded from the analyses if they failed both attention checks and the
manipulation check or if they did not provide consent for their data to be used. The orig-
inal sample had 469 participants; however, 10 participants failed the manipulation check
and both attention checks, and five did not reconsent to their survey data being used,
reducing the sample to 454 participants. This included 234 women, 215 men, three non-
binary participants, and two transgender men. The ethnicity of the participants included
Aboriginal/Indigenous/Inuit (1.1%), Black (3.8%), East Asian (17.2%), European/White
(39.3%), Hispanic or Latino (4.4%), Middle Eastern (including Northern African, West
Asian, Arabic, and others) (5.5%), Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian (0.4%), South Asian
(21.6%), and Southeast Asian (13.7%). In terms of diet, 89.8% indicated eating both
meat and fish, 0.9% self-identified as pescatarian, 5.7% self-identified as vegetarian, and
1.5% self-identified as vegan.
Procedure
After providing consent, participants completed Dhont and Hodson’s (2014) Human
Supremacy Beliefs Scale (e.g., “There is nothing unusual at all in the fact that humans
dominate other animal species”). The six items, rated on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly dis-
agree; 7 = Strongly Agree), were averaged after reverse-coding three items; higher scores
indicate higher HSB (α = 0.84). Participants reported their age, gender, ethnicity, and
dietary status. Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions.
Each condition included a brief paragraph that either highlighted the connections
between zoonotic diseases and factory farming, animal cruelty and factory farming, or
a description of the activity of geocaching (i.e., control condition). In the zoonotic-
disease experimental condition, an example statement was “Scientists have been
warning us for many years that factory farms are one of the most alarming causes of infec-
tious diseases.” In the animal-cruelty experimental condition, an example statement was
“Experts have been arguing for many years that factory farms are one of the most alarm-
ing causes of animal cruelty.” In the control condition, an example statement was “In
essence, geocaching is a GPS-enabled treasure hunt.” Participants then completed the fol-
lowing measures in the following order (unless otherwise noted). Full paragraphs used in
each condition and all measures can be found in the online supplemental material.
Concern for Human Health/Welfare and Animal Health/Welfare
Participants specified the extent to which they agreed with statements reecting concern
for human health/welfare and animal health/welfare (e.g., “How much do you care about
human health/welfare?”). The six items, created by the authors, were rated on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much). All items were averaged, with higher scores
indicating higher concern for human heath/welfare and animal health/welfare (α = 0.89).
Meat Consumption Willingness
The attitudes participants held toward their current consumption of meat (e.g., “To what
extent do you want to reduce your consumption of animal products from factory farms?”)
were measured by this scale (modified from Earle et al., 2019 (α = 0.93)). The three items
ANTHROZOÖS 5
were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much). All items were aver-
aged, with higher scores indicating a higher willingness to consume meat (α = 0.87).
Support for Changing Conditions on Factory Farms
The extent to which participants would endorse altering conditions on factory farms (e.g.,
“Improving hygiene on factory farms”) was measured using a 5-item scale. The items,
created by the authors, were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very
much). All items were averaged, with higher scores indicating stronger support for chan-
ging the conditions on factory farms (a = 0.87).
Manipulation Check
The manipulation check asked participants which topic their vignette addressed (i.e.,
animal cruelty, zoonotic disease, or geocaching).
Prior Awareness of Animal Cruelty, Zoonotic Diseases, and Factory Farming
Participants indicated their prior awareness of the connections between animal cruelty,
zoonotic diseases, and factory farming (e.g., “Before participating in this study, I was
aware of the connections between animal cruelty and factory farming”). The three
items, created by the authors, were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree;
7 = Strongly Agree). The items were averaged, with higher scores indicating higher pre-
vious awareness (a = 0.71).
Attention Checks
The first attention check was placed directly after the vignette and asked, “What is two
plus six?” The second was placed before the last prior awareness item and stated, “This
is an attention check question. Please choose disagree as your answer.”
All measures appear in the online supplemental material.
Preliminary Analysis
The data were checked for outliers (more than three standard deviations from the mean).
Three participants were deemed outliers and as per our pre-registration decision, these
scores were winsorized (i.e., converted to values at three standard deviations from the
mean). Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and correlations. Table 2 displays means
and standard deviations by condition.
Primary Analysis
Multiple regression analyses with the manipulation represented by orthogonal contrast
codes were used to examine our hypotheses. Orthogonal contrasts assign numerical
weights to compare conditions or groups of conditions with others (Cohen et al.,
2003). Contrast 1 compared the two experimental conditions (zoonotic disease and
6 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
animal cruelty) with the control condition (−2/3, 1/3, 1/3), and contrast 2 compared the
zoonotic condition with the cruelty condition (0, −1/2, ½).
1
First, meat consumption will-
ingness was regressed on the two experimental conditions versus the control, the zoono-
tic condition versus the cruelty condition, and mean-centered HSB, as well as the
interaction terms between mean-centered HSB and each of the two contrast variables.
All five variables were entered simultaneously. This same regression analysis was then
repeated separately with support for changing conditions on factory farms as the depen-
dent variable.
Results
For meat consumption willingness, the experimental conditions against the control con-
dition was a significant predictor (β = –0.13, SE = 0.14, p = 0.001), revealing that participants
in the control condition were significantly more willing to consume meat in comparison
with the experimental conditions combined, supporting H1. The contrast between the zoo-
notic and cruelty conditions was also significant (β = 0.10, SE = 0.17, p = 0.016). Those in the
zoonotic-disease condition were unexpectedly more willing to consume meat in compari-
son with the animal-cruelty condition (contrary to H2). HSB was also significant (β = 0.46, SE
= 0.05, p < 0.001), such that those higher in HSB had a significantly higher willingness to
consume meat. No interaction terms were significant (see Table 3).
For changing conditions on factory farms, the experimental conditions against the
control condition was a significant predictor (β = 0.13, SE = 0.11, p = 0.002). Participants
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between variables.
Measure Mean SD1 2 3 4 5 6
Human supremacy beliefs 3.80 1.24 –
Concern for human health/welfare 6.03 0.95 –0.08 –
Concern for animal health/welfare 5.18 1.30 –0.45** 0.49** –
Meat consumption willingness 3.80 1.64 0.47** –0.18** –0.55** –
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 5.73 1.21 –0.50** 0.33** 0.61** –0.62** –
Prior awareness 4.55 1.35 –0.14** 0.22** 0.25** –0.24** 0.12* –
Note: n = 454, scale ranges 1–7, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
Table 2. Means and standard deviations by condition.
Mean SD
Zoonotic-disease condition (n = 153)
Meat consumption willingness 3.89 1.59
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 5.63 1.22
Concern for animal health and welfare 5.15 1.30
Concern for human health and welfare 6.02 0.89
Animal-cruelty condition (n = 151)
Meat consumption willingness 3.36 1.59
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 6.04 1.10
Concern for animal health and welfare 5.43 1.22
Concern for human health and welfare 6.14 0.92
Control condition (n = 150)
Meat consumption willingness 4.14 1.66
Support for changing conditions on factory farms 5.52 1.24
Concern for animal health and welfare 4.95 1.32
Concern for human health and welfare 5.94 1.03
ANTHROZOÖS 7
in the experimental conditions combined were significantly more likely to support chan-
ging conditions on factory farms in comparison with the control condition (supporting
H1). The contrast between the zoonotic and cruelty conditions was also significant (β
= –0.12, SE = 0.120, p = 0.003), such that those in the animal-cruelty condition were signifi-
cantly more likely to support changing conditions on factory farms when compared with
the zoonotic-disease condition (contrary to H2). HSB was also significant (β = –0.51, SE =
0.04, p < 0.001). Those higher in HSB were significantly less likely to support changing con-
ditions on factory farms. However, no interaction terms were significant (see Table 3).
Mediation analyses using Hayes Process macro model 4 in SPSS (Hayes, 2013) were per-
formed to examine the mediating role of concern for animal health and welfare, or the
separate role of concern for human health and welfare, in the relationship between
manipulation and meat consumption willingness or support for changing conditions
on factory farms. There was a significant eect of condition on concern for animal
health and welfare when comparing the control condition with the experimental con-
ditions combined (IV on Mediator: b = 0.35, SE b = 0.13, p = 0.041) but not when compar-
ing the two experimental conditions. There was no eect of condition, among either of
the contrasts, when looking at concern for human health and welfare.
Concern for animal health and welfare mediated the relationship between the exper-
imental conditions against the control condition and meat consumption willingness
(indirect eect: –0.23, 95% CI [–0.40, –0.06]), as well as between the experimental con-
ditions against the control condition and support for changing conditions on factory
farms (indirect eect: 0.20, 95% CI [0.05, 0.35]). This suggests that, compared with the
control group, those in the experimental groups were less likely to endorse meat con-
sumption willingness and more likely to indicate support for changing conditions on
factory farms. This eect can be partially explained by the participants’ concern for
animal health and welfare.
However, concern for animal health and welfare did not mediate the relationship
between the zoonotic versus cruelty conditions and meat consumption willingness or
changing conditions on factory farms. Human health and welfare did not act as a
Table 3. Multiple regressions with orthogonal contrasts.
Model β (SE) 95% CI Standardized coefficients beta t p
Meat consumption willingness coefficients
Constant 3.80 (0.07) 3.67/3.94 56.55 < 0.001
OC1 –0.46 (0.14) –0.74/–0.18 –0.13 –3.24 0.001
OC2 0.40 (0.17) 0.07/0.72 0.10 2.41 0.016
HSB 0.61 (0.05) 0.50/0.72 0.46 11.23 < 0.001
OC1 × HSB 0.03 (0.12) –0.20/0.26 0.01 0.25 0.803
OC2 × HSB –0.19 (0.13) –0.45/0.07 –0.06 –1.47 0.143
Support for changing conditions on factory farms coefficients
Constant 5.50 (0.05) 5.40/5.60 109.18 < 0.0001
OC1 0.34 (0.11) 0.13/0.55 0.13 3.17 0.002
OC2 –0.37 (0.12) –0.61/–0.13 –0.12 –3.02 0.003
HSB –0.52(0.04) –0.60/–0.44 –0.51 –12.79 < 0.001
OC1 × HSB 0.01 (0.09) –0.17/0.18 0.00 0.07 0.947
OC2 × HSB 0.04 (0.10) –0.15/0.23 0.02 0.40 0.690
Note: Constant = control condition; OC1 = experimental contrast 1 (experimental compared with control); OC2 = exper-
imental contrast 2 (zoonotic compared with cruelty); HSB = Human Supremacy Beliefs; OC1 × HSB = Moderation of HSB
on OC1; OC2 × HSB = Moderation of HSB on OC2.
8 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
mediator in any of the analyses. It appears that the experimental conditions resulted in
heightened concern for animals, which in turn was associated with decreased meat con-
sumption willingness and increased support for changing conditions on factory farms (see
Table 4).
Discussion
We examined two possible strategies for inuencing meat consumption willingness and
support for changing factory farming conditions. Hypothesis 1 – that when comparing
both experimental conditions with the control condition there would be lower meat con-
sumption willingness and greater support for improving factory-farming conditions – was
supported. The animal-cruelty condition demonstrated eectiveness in shifting attitudes;
however, the zoonotic-disease condition did not dier significantly from the control.
2
Hypothesis 2 – that when comparing the zoonotic condition with the animal-cruelty con-
dition there would be lower meat consumption willingness and greater support for improv-
ing factory farming conditions – was not supported. Those in the animal-cruelty condition
had significantly lower meat consumption willingness and significantly higher support for
changing conditions on factory farms. Even at a time where human health fears may have
been heightened given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, animal cruelty (vs. zoonotic
disease) information still has a stronger impact. This is consistent with recent findings that
zoonotic concerns are relatively dismissible in contexts linked to meat (Dhont et al., 2021).
Contrary to predictions, HSB did not moderate either contrast.
This then raises the question, why did animal cruelty information impact outcomes sig-
nificantly more than information about the threat of zoonotic disease? This could poten-
tially be due to participants viewing animal cruelty as more emotionally arousing and
morally relevant (Feinberg et al., 2019; Herchenroeder et al., 2022). The zoonotic-
Table 4. Results of the mediation analyses.
Mediator
Dependent
variable Contrast
IV on
Mediator a
Mediator
on DV b
Direct
effect cʹ
Indirect effect
(ab) [95% CI]
b (SE b)
Concern for
animal
health and
welfare
Meat
consumption
willingness
Support for
changing
conditions on
factory farms
C1
C2
C1
C2
0.35*(0.13)
0.28(0.15)
0.35*(0.13)
0.28(0.15)
–0.67**(0.05)
–0.67**(0.05)
0.58**(0.04)
0.58**(0.04)
–0.28*(0.14)
–0.34*(0.16)
0.18(0.10)
0.31**(0.12)
–0.23(0.09) [–0.40; 0.06]
–0.19(0.10) [–0.38; 0.01]
0.20(0.08) [0.05; 0.35]
0.16(0.09) [–0.00; 0.33]
Concern for
human
health and
welfare
Meat
consumption
willingness
Support for
changing
conditions on
factory farms
C1
C2
C1
C2
0.13(0.09)
0.12(0.11)
0.13(0.09)
0.12(0.11)
–0.28**(0.08)
–0.28**(0.08)
0.36**(0.06)
0.36**(0.06)
–0.48(0.16)
–0.49(0.18)
0.33**(0.12)
0.43**(0.14)
–0.04(0.03) [–0.10; 0.01]
–0.03(0.03) [–0.10; 0.02]
0.05(0.04) [–0.02; 0.14]
0.04(0.04) [–0.03; 0.13]
Note: IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
ANTHROZOÖS 9
disease condition may not evoke the same visceral feelings that reading about animal
cruelty does. Pre-established associations of COVID-19 origins in Wuhan, China may
have also made the risk that factory farms pose resonate less with participants. Partici-
pants may have dismissed the potential for factory farms to generate zoonotic diseases
to the same direct extent that a wet market with wild animals could (Beggs & Anderson,
2020; Dhont et al., 2021). Research also suggests that the threat of zoonotic diseases may
resonate less within the age group we examined. A North American online survey, with a
sample average age close to that of the present study (28.6 years), found that, compared
with the general population, a significant number of individuals believed they were at less
risk of contracting COVID-19 (Beggs & Anderson, 2020). The possibilities are speculative at
this point but could be examined in future work.
The insignificance of the predicted interactions suggests that the experimental eects
were similar for both those lower and higher in HSB. These results demonstrate that the
intervention “works” regardless of variation in the extent to which one views humans as
hierarchically above other animals. Our results did show that HSB was correlated with
prior awareness of zoonotic disease risk and animal cruelty such that as HSB increased,
awareness decreased. This suggests that despite generally having lower awareness,
those high in HSB still were not dierentially inuenced by any of the manipulations.
Awareness was also associated with lower meat consumption willingness and greater
support for changing conditions on factory farms, consistent with previous work (Har-
guess et al., 2020).
Implications
Although we had expected that zoonotic disease information would inuence outcomes
more strongly given the life-changing and ever-salient COVID-19 pandemic, our results
fall in line with previous work (Buttlar et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2022; Mathur et al.,
2021) that demonstrates animal cruelty to be a more eective connection to underscore.
This further establishes the intervention potential of exposure to such informative
excerpts, coinciding with past research (Amiot et al., 2018). Companies seeking to per-
suade consumers to reconsider their dietary choices, such as plant-based alternatives,
can use this insight for marketing strategies.
There are also broader implications for both public health and policy making. It
appears to be dicult for people to comprehend the danger factory-farm conditions
will continue to pose if changes are not made. A lack of understanding of local risk,
such as the threat of zoonotic disease outbreaks on factory farms, will be a barrier in fos-
tering preventative action. The human–animal relations discourse surrounding the
COVID-19 pandemic has largely focused on exotic animal consumption; so, eorts to
educate the public on how their own behavior can minimize the risk of future outbreaks
will be critical. If preventative behavior (eating less meat, supporting changing factory
farming systems) is motivated more by a focus on animal cruelty than zoonotic
disease, then perhaps emphasizing the treatment of animals on factory farms may
prove to be a more eective way to mobilize public concern and to promote support
for policies seeking to prevent future outbreaks. Thus, although companies, policy
makers, or lobbyists may be tempted to employ zoonotic-disease arguments to reduce
10 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
meat consumption, our results demonstrate that this will not be as eective as infor-
mation on animal cruelty.
Limitations and Future Directions
First, our study is limited in that our manipulation involved reading informative para-
graphs. Although this is often how people acquire new information, participants may
have struggled to visualize the information (Law, 2009). Presenting the same information
through videos and/or virtual reality would likely be more eective, consistent with evi-
dence that these are successful advocacy tools (Anderson, 2017; Herchenroeder et al.,
2022; Herrewijn et al., 2021). Our study was also limited in our focus on self-reported atti-
tudinal measures rather than objective behavioral measures. As with all self-report data, it
may be subject to bias and in particular, social desirability. Our study also only reects atti-
tudes immediately after reading the manipulation paragraph; it is unclear if long-term
attitude shifts would occur. It is also worth acknowledging that internal validity may
have been reduced through minor phrasing dierences between the manipulation para-
graphs (e.g., “scientists have been warning” [zoonotic-disease condition] vs. “experts have
been arguing” [animal-cruelty condition]).
Timing is another limitation, as participants may have felt a sense of “COVID fatigue.”
Owing to the amount of time that the pandemic had already been going on for (11
months at data collection), stronger initial concern may have faded, leaving some potentially
more indierent (Zerbe, 2020). Given the sample was of undergraduate students who were
in a psychology course at the time, the generalizability is also worth considering. Links have
been identified between higher education and a lower likelihood of consuming beef or pork
(Guenther et al., 2005) and with an increased likelihood of following a vegetarian diet (Hoek
et al., 2004). With a mean age of 20 years among our sample, it is important to consider
potential age-related impacts. A Canadian survey showed that of those identifying as veg-
etarian or vegan, more than half are under the age of 35 (Charlebois et al., 2018). This
suggests that even though the vast majority of our participants did not identity as veg-
etarian, they are likely to know those who are or to potentially be more open to the concept.
Additionally, research indicates that political orientation, specifically a desire for more
economic equality and greater tolerance of outgroups, is related to concern for farm-
animal welfare (Deemer & Lobao, 2011; see also Dhont et al., 2016, Study 3). University
samples tend to reect these more liberal-leaning views, especially among social-
science students (Hastie, 2007). It is also critical to note the local culture of Alberta (the
location of the university our sample was drawn from). Despite the presence of the
Alberta beef industry and reports indicating that Alberta has the highest red meat
intake across all Canadian provinces (Statistics Canada, 2018), our study nonetheless
demonstrated the eectiveness of an animal-cruelty manipulation in shifting meat-
eating intentions. Future research should examine how attitudes on meat consumption
and factory farming may shift in diering cultural contexts.
Lastly, when discussing attitudes toward lowering meat consumption, environmental
considerations should not be overlooked. Recent work by Herchenroeder et al. (2022)
suggests that environmental video appeals may be the most eective way for increasing
intentions to change future meat intake. A recent meta-review also echoed these
ANTHROZOÖS 11
sentiments (Grundy et al., 2022). Diving further into why some motivational factors may
work better on a moral or personal level and who is most likely to be inuenced by such
factors would be a meaningful pursuit for future inquiries.
Conclusion
Research continues to stress the need to shift away from intensive farming practices and
animal-product consumption. In order to raise public concern and to catalyze action, we
must understand how apathy or disengagement from these issues can be targeted most
eectively. The present study contributes to a growing narrative suggesting zoonotic con-
cerns do not evoke a response strong enough to broadly shift attitudes surrounding
animal products and factory farming. Our findings instead oer support for the ability
of informative paragraphs on animal cruelty to establish a desire to consume less meat
and to support changes on factory farms. This research should inform future endeavors
seeking to spark support for behaviors and policies that address the profound harm of
factory farming and animal-product consumption.
Notes
1. Those who self-identified as pescatarian, vegetarian, or vegan (n = 37) were retained in the
analyses.
2. A multivariate analysis of variance indicated that there was no significant dierence between
the zoonotic condition and the control in predicting meat consumption willingness (M = –
0.25, SE = 0.19, p = 0.176) or in predicting support for changing conditions on factory farms
(M = 0.12, SE = 0.14, p = 0.384).
Disclosure Statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Alvarado, R., Ortiz, C., Jiménez, N., Ochoa-Jiménez, D., & Tillaguango, B. (2021). Ecological footprint,
air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international trade. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 288, 125589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125589
Amiot, C. E., El Hajj Boutros, G., Sukhanova, K., & Karelis, A. D. (2018). Testing a novel multicompo-
nent intervention to reduce meat consumption in young men. PLoS ONE, 13(10). https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0204590
Anastasiadis, P. (2004). Groundwater pollution from agricultural activities: An integrated approach.
Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska, 6, 19–30. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.
element.baztech-article-BPW7-0007-0002
Anderson, J. (2017). An experimental investigation of the impact of video media on pork consump-
tion. Technical report. Faunalytics. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/fapu8
Appleby, M. C., Mench, J. A., & Hughes, B. O. (2004). Poultry behavior and welfare. CABI.
Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2017). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally
troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 278–
299. http://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562
12 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
Beggs, T., & Anderson, J. (2020). Covid-19 & animals: What the public does and doesn’t know.
Faunalytics. https://osf.io/f6xck/
Blanchette, A. (2019). Living waste and the labor of toxic health on American factory farms. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, 33(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12491
Bueno-Marí, R., Almeida, A. P. G., & Navarro, J. C. (2015). Editorial: Emerging zoonoses: Eco-epide-
miology, involved mechanisms, and public health implications. Frontiers in Public Health, 3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00157
Buttlar, B., Rothe, A., Kleinert, S., Hahn, L., & Walther, E. (2021). Food for thought: Investigating com-
munication strategies to counteract moral disengagement regarding meat consumption.
Environmental Communication, 15(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1791207
Charlebois, S., Somogyi, S., & Music, J. (2018). Plant-based dieting and meat attachment: Protein
wars and the changing Canadian consumer. Dalhousie University. https://cdn.dal.ca/content/
dam/dalhousie/pdf/management/News/News%20%26%20Events/Charlebois%20Somogyi%
20Music%20EN%20Plant-Based%20Study.pdf
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed., p. 336). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). Consumer response to negative information on meat con-
sumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(24). https://
doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.164599
De Backer, C. J. S., & Hudders, L. (2014). From meatless Mondays to meatless Sundays: Motivations
for meat reduction among vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who mildly or significantly reduce
their meat intake. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53(6), 639–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03670244.2014.896797
de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2017). Towards a reduced meat diet: Mindset and motivation of
young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters. Appetite, 113, 387–397. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.007
Deemer, D. R., & Lobao, L. M. (2011). Public concern with farm-animal welfare: Religion, politics, and
human disadvantage in the food sector. Rural Sociology, 76(2), 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1549-0831.2010.00044.x
de Oliveira Padilha, L. G., Malek, L., & Umberger, W. J. (2022). Consumers’ attitudes towards lab-
grown meat, conventionally raised meat and plant-based protein alternatives. Food Quality
and Preference, 99, 104573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104573
Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation
and meat consumption? Personality and Individual Dierences, 64, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.02.002
Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Common ideological roots of speciesism and generalized
ethnic prejudice: The social dominance human–animal relations model (SD-HARM). European
Journal of Personality, 30(6), 507–522. http://doi.org/10.1002/per.2069
Dhont, K., Piazza, J., & Hodson, G. (2021). The role of meat appetite in willfully disregarding factory
farming as a pandemic catalyst risk. Appetite, 164, 105279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.
105279
Earle, M., Hodson, G., Dhont, K., & MacInnis, C. C. (2019). Eating with our eyes (closed): Eects of visually
associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 818–835. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219861848
Feinberg, M., Kovache, C., Teper, R., & Inbar, Y. (2019). Understanding the process of moralization:
How eating meat becomes a moral issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(1), 50–
72. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000149
Fiber-Ostrow, P., & Lovell, J. S. (2016). Behind a veil of secrecy: Animal abuse, factory farms, and Ag-
Gag legislation. Contemporary Justice Review, 19(2), 230–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.
2016.1168257
Fitzgerald, A. J., Kalof, L., & Dietz, T. (2009). Slaughterhouses and increased crime rates: An empirical
analysis of the spillover from “the jungle” into the surrounding community. Organization &
Environment, 22(2), 158–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609338164
ANTHROZOÖS 13
Fox, N., & Ward, K. (2008). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motiv-
ations. Appetite, 50(2–3), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.007
Freeman, C. P. (2010). Framing animal rights in the “go veg” campaigns of U.S. Animal rights organ-
izations. Society & Animals, 18(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853010X492015
Gerber, P. J., & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Eds.). (2013). Tackling
climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T.,
Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the
environment. Science, 361(6399). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324
Grundy, E. A. C., Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Watkins, K., Houlden, T., Farr, N., Askin, H., Lee, J., Mintoft-
Jones, A., Cyna, S., Dziegielewski, A., Gelber, R., Rowe, A., Mathur, M. B., Timmons, S., Zhao, K.,
Wilks, M., Peacock, J. R., Harris, J., … Zorker, M. (2022). Interventions that inuence animal-
product consumption: A meta-review. Future Foods, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100111
Guenther, P. M., Jensen, H. H., Batres-Marquez, P. S., & Chen, C. (2005). Sociodemographic, knowl-
edge, and attitudinal factors related to meat consumption in the United States. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 105(8), 1266–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.05.014
Harguess, J. M., Crespo, N. C., & Hong, M. Y. (2020). Strategies to reduce meat consumption: A sys-
tematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite, 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.
2019.104478
Harris, J., Ladak, A., & Mathur, M. B. (2022). The eects of exposure to information about animal
welfare reforms on animal farming opposition: A randomized experiment. Anthrozoös, 35(6),
773–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2022.2062868
Hastie, B. (2007). Higher education and sociopolitical orientation: The role of social inuence in the
liberalisation of students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(3), 259–274. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03173425
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach (pp. xvii, 507). Guilford Press.
Herchenroeder, L., Forestell, C. A., & Bravo, A. J. (2022). The eectiveness of animal welfare-, environ-
mental-, and health-focused video appeals on implicit and explicit wanting of meat and inten-
tions to reduce meat consumption. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163(3), 394–407. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2081529
Herrewijn, L., De Groeve, B., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2021). VR outreach and meat reduction
advocacy: The role of presence, empathic concern and speciesism in predicting meat reduction
intentions. Appetite, 166, 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105455
Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Staeu, A., & de Graaf, C. (2004). Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes
of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers.
Appetite, 42(3), 265–272. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2003.12.003
Hopwood, C. J., Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., & Chen, S. (2020). Health, environmental, and animal
rights motives for vegetarian eating. PLoS ONE, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0230609
Humane Society International. (2023, January 24). Plant-based eating. Humane Society International
Canada. https://www.hsi.org/issues/plant-based-eating/
Karesh, W. B., Dobson, A., Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Lubroth, J., Dixon, M. A., Bennett, M., & Heymann, D. I.
(2012). Ecology of zoonoses: Natural and unnatural histories. The Lancet, 380(9857), 1936–1945.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61678-X
Kerschke-Risch, P. (2015). Vegan diet: Motives, approach and duration. Initial results of a quantitative
sociological study. Ernahrungs Umsch, 62(6), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.4455/eu.2015.016
Lau, J. T. F., Yang, X., Phil, H. Y. T. M., & Kim, J. H. (2005). Impacts of SARS on health-seeking behaviors
in general population in Hong Kong. Preventive Medicine, 41(2), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ypmed.2004.11.023
Law, J. (2009). Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology, 3(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1749975509105533
14 O. E. GUNTHER ET AL.
Leach, S., Piazza, J., Loughnan, S., Sutton, R. M., Kapantai, I., Dhont, K., & Douglas, K. M. (2022).
Unpalatable truths: Commitment to eating meat is associated with strategic ignorance of
food-animal minds. Appetite, 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.105935
Loughnan, S., Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23(2), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414525781
Mathur, M. B., Peacock, J., Reichling, D. B., Nadler, J., Bain, P. A., Gardner, C. D., & Robinson, T. N.
(2021). Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis
and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite, 164, 105277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.
2021.105277
Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E.,
Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F. N., & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. In:
Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degra-
dation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas uxes in terrestrial ecosys-
tems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.007
Mitloehner, F. M., & Calvo, M. S. (2008). Worker health and safety in concentrated animal feeding
operations. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 14(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.13031/
2013.24349
Piazza, J. (2020). Why people love animals yet continue to eat them. In K. Dhont & G. Hodson (Eds.),
Why we love and exploit animals: Bridging insights from academia and advocacy (pp. 229–244).
Routledge.
Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017). Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the motivations of
plant-based dieters. Appetite, 116, 456–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.039
Rothgerber, H., & Rosenfeld, D. L. (2021). Meat-related cognitive dissonance: The social psychology
of eating animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/
spc3.12592
Statistics Canada. (2018). Food stats. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/32-26-0001/
322600012018001-eng.htm
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long
shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf
Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk, N. J. (2011). Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat demand.
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00266.x
Weber, M., & Kollmayer, M. (2022). Psychological processes underlying an omnivorous, vegetarian,
or vegan diet: Gender role self-concept, human supremacy beliefs, and moral disengagement
from meat. Sustainability, 14(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148276
Wen, X., Sun, S., Li, L., He, Q., & Tsai, F. (2019). Avian inuenza – Factors aecting consumers’ pur-
chase intentions toward poultry products. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(21), 4139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214139
Wolk, A. (2017). Potential health hazards of eating red meat. Journal of Internal Medicine, 281(2), 106–
122. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12543
Zerbe, K. J. (2020). Pandemic fatigue: Facing the body’s inexorable demands in the time of COVID-
19. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 68(3), 475–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0003065120938774
Zhong, V. W., Van Horn, L., Greenland, P., Carnethon, M. R., Ning, H., Wilkins, J. T., Lloyd-Jones, D. M.,
& Allen, N. B. (2020). Associations of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake
with incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. JAMA Internal Medicine, 180(4), 503–
512. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6969
ANTHROZOÖS 15